babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
The cultural and historical analysis of conflict among white folk to is not weakened by the legitimate demands of POC and FN people to have analytical space and language to identify their unique opressions that have ocurred in the past five centuries that continue to inform and shape their current lives.
First, you persist in describing exploitation and oppression as "conflict among white folk" or as "internecine conflict".
Secondly, you appear to have misunderstood my position. I was not talking about "sometimes racial, sometimes ethnic, sometimes cultural, sometimes religious, sometimes moral, sometimes genetic and sometimes class exploitation and oppression..."
Rather, I was talking about the supremacist ideology that always accompanies exploitation and oppression. I said, of that ideology, that "sometimes it's racial, sometimes it's ethnic, sometimes cultural, sometimes it's religious, sometimes it's an ideology of the moral or genetic inferiority of the poor and exploited, etc."
Thirdly, I think CMOT Dibbler's question was sincere and people tried to answer it. If you think it's out of place in this forum, I can't imagine that anyone would object if you moved it.
[ 03 May 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]
That wasn't what I meant. But to avoid further misinterpretation, willful or genuine, I'll remove that remark.
[ 03 May 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]
RoasL:
Both of these quotes reflect an [unintentional] blurring of what is distinct about racism. Racism in the service of colonialism actually does the opposite- it is built around trumping conflict between different degrees of marginalization and poverty, ie class distinctions.
So the colonized are all the inferior race, whatever their position. Conversely, a working class person who comes as a colonizer is accorded rights and privileges simply as a function of his race; which is another trumping of the class distinctions.
The colonial power often does also maintain or elevate a 'native elite' to a privileged status and uses the subsequent conflict among the colonized inferior race. And this native elite may well have more rights and privileges than the working class white colonizer... but those bifurcations are distinct and cannot be generalized together.
The quote at the top does not capture that distinction. And whatever the intention, it removes the distinct character of racism and treats it as a form of generalized class-based oppression.
RosaL:
You are right that it is all systematic exploitation and oppression. And racism does share features in common with other forms that are essentially class-based systematic exploitation and oppression. There is a lot in common about the 'mechanics' of the social pscychology.
They are nonetheless not the same, they aren't different forms of the same thing. Racism and its pervasiveness are distinct.
And better or worse 'form of supremacist ideology' is an irrelevant red herring. And whether people appear to think, or even if they say, that racism IS the worst form... racism is a distinct form of oppression, period. The problem with blurring it is not that this implies it is not worse. The problem is that it removes what is distint about racism, and about the experience of all peoples to its effects.
Its legitimate to think that the label "internecine conflict" trivializes brutal aand systematic class and ethinic based conflict. But you didn't say just that. You and others consistently have said they are different forms of the same thing.
While the Russian serfs suffered from systematic and cruel oppression- they were most definitely NOT slaves. They had rights and privileges no slave had... within which they could aspire to a privileged life and one where they had a great deal of effective ownership rights [and even the poorest serfs had some effective ownership rights]. They could even command the labour of other serfs.
Nor were serfs put on small reservations where they could not sustain their economy and way of life.
Calling serfs slaves was a metaphor from the 19th century [still in use]. Leaving aside the question of whether it appropriates the experience of FN or POC, it simply IS a metaphor, period.
[ 03 May 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]
Some context: A couple of days ago I was talking to my dad, and mentioned a scene in Charlie Wilson's war(great movie, terrible politics) in which Gust Avrakotos yells at the head of the CIA for not allowing him to be Helsiki station chief, and then breaks the bastard's window. I said that there was probably a bit of racism involved in the director's discision and my dad told me that it was ethnic bias rather then racism.
So that lead me to wonder wheather the various hatreds held by European ethnic groups for other Europeans could in fact be described as racism. I guess they can't. I should have worded my opening post differently.
[ 04 May 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
But when it's white Europeans oppressing other white Europeans, what do you call it?
Though at the same time, I wonder how much hair-splitting over terminology is necessary.
The idea of there being a singular European race is itself relatively new. That the word racism might not apply now doesn't mean that it didn't in the past.
(Leaving out the matter of Japan, of course)...
Reminds me of another idiotic debate about "Zionism", where everyone decides what it means individually and then either praises or trashes it.
Wikipedia has a long overview article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
But the Nazis didn't like black people either...
I think that captures it quite well.
This guy disagrees. I imagine he could put up quite a good argument.
This is from a book review in the Journal of Social History:
I don't think we should start debating this. I only want to make the point that your ex cathedra pronouncements may not be completely beyond dispute.
[ 04 May 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]
I'm not too sure Makwa, the Nazis referred to the 'Jewish race'. We can ignore the ideology as they went straight for extinction.
It is true, that my definition rests on the social heirarchies developed during the colonialist period, and thus specific forms of opression such as practiced by the German government during WWII are not to be considered 'racism' per se, but are better understood as antisemetism and ethnic cleansing, as informed and patterned after colonialist history and ideologies. While it may have been equally brutal in some instances, it lacks the historical institutionalization which led to the deliberate destruction of civilizations across entire continents and the enslavement and slaughter of tens of millions. I refuse to accept definitions which are so universal that they encompass any ethnic conflict, pogram or military excercise because that only serves to provide a wedge for white supremacist apologists.
So what do we call discrimination against poles in the UK for example?
Look, I think debates based on different definitions are idiotic. You can say you love salamanders and I can say why I hate them, but let's compare photos to make sure we're talking about the same reptile first. That's all I meant.
If you choose a definition of "racism" that doesn't include the Nazi theory and practice of Jews as subhuman, then I repeat, it's time to dump the word. I repeat, I prefer the United Nations concept.
Ok, that's comforting.
It's not because they didn't try.
Makwa, I get your point in that there's a danger of more white people saying "oh my grandparents suffered such and such too" to diminish the reality that systemic and ideologically motivated racism is still a serious problem, or that nonwhites still face a lot of barriers and hurdles etc that few of us can still claim. On the other hand, I don't think we should ever even try and normalize what Nazism was, and how it was primarily based on the same kind of racist notions, or that this racism wasn't one of the major motivations/excuses for their brutality.
Would a fair way of looking at it be that over time and place ideas of race can and do change -at least a ways- (and sometimes for the worse again) -as do common notions of who is or isn't included/excluded as part of the dominant society? At least for those able and willing to blend into the crowd? "Race" for example once being something that was commonly applied even to various national or ethnic groups in Europe (British race, German race etc) but that after long periods of similar discrimination and repression, some groups like the Irish and Scots became accepted into the common "Canadian" and "American" identity. (not long ago as kind of fellow "British" colonists, a particularly Canuckian myth that would never be accepted by any of them in Britain) Something that Aboriginal and black people are still largely excluded from, even if some might prefer it(?)
That too may be debatable on some levels I suppose, but to me it's at least a way of resolving this without denying either historical grievance, one of which is now more "history" than the other. So, Scots and Irish settlers may have been driven off their land because of similar bigotry and greed (exploited most by upperclass English) and those "back home" may still feel some of it, but over here the story was different and many of us now take as active a role in the ongoing colonial project as our onetime overlords. Does that look like a fair discription to others here?
[ 04 May 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]
[ 04 May 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
[ 04 May 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
Complication again is that something like our ancestors "conquest" of the "New" World may have been even worse in the bigger picture and the longer run, in that it's still the overwhelming reality for most of the First people here, but the particular methods and plans of the Hitler gang were arguably more off-the-wall vicious. At least towards the Jews, gays, Gypseys and if they won probably the "Slavs".
I think it began with purging of Jews from public service jobs in the early throught to the late 1930's. They wanted Jews to leave Germany voluntarily for other countries. Many Germans thought Hitler was a joke(like we're led to believe sometimes about herr Bushler and "friendly" fascism. But now they're all the same bad joke today) and that leaders of other countries wouldn't take him seriously. It would all be over in a few years, after the next election, after the western democratizers came to liberate them. They would have to wait for the Russians. Many young Jews did leave. And older ones, and poorer Jews too ill to travel stayed behind to wait it out. Hitler was an aberration and wouldn't last. And many younger Jews chose to stay with family.
[ 04 May 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
[ 04 May 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
The Nazi project was an attempt to duplicate the colonial project in the largely intra-racial European context, which lasted six years, while the white supremacist colonial powers' devastation over Africa, Asia and North America lasted five hundred years in some places and left a widespread legecy of institutionalized international and intranational inequality.
PS: It has become clear to me that some white babblers are not willing to consider the dominant anti-racist viewpoint in anti-racist matters, but must maintain eurocentric discourse. This has been apparent before, and will probably occur again, but for the time being, I tire of being the only FN/POC analyst speaking out (particularly as my ability to cite and source others who are so much more eloquent than I is so weak), so I think I shall retire for the time being and leave the floor to the white folk.
[ 04 May 2008: Message edited by: Makwa ]
Nobody is minimizing anything. The discussion had to do with racism.
The amount of years it took had to do with the times. Nowadays we can wipe out all human beings probably within a couple of days.
I agree that it fees racism and white supremacy when claims are made that "all our ancestors were oppressed at some time, why can't 'YOU PEOPLE' just get over.
Equally it is ridiculous and offensive for me as someone of Irish decent to claim that I am an oppressed person, that I have ever or ever will experience racism or that I have any genuine connection to the traumatic legacy of colonization in Ireland.
It is also equally ridiculous and offensive for me to deny my white privilege and the economic and social benefit that ongoing colonialism has had on this content.
However I would also argue that Ireland was colonized, their land was taken from them and their people enslaved( for a period of 800years, some would say continuing today in the North). The irish language was outlawed as were cultural practices. The Irish were also routinely slaughtered and sold into slavery
Irish Slavery in the 17th century
Also despite common skin colour the Irish were racialized as different and they were racialized as inferiour to the English(and other europeans. The Irish were considered sub human and their lives were therefore expendable as further demonstrated by the forced starvation of millions in the 19th century.
I would argue that the Irish experience was the same as other colonized persons up to a point in history.With the continuation of Imperial expansion there was a transformation in the manner in which Irish identity was constructed.
There is an interesting book called How the Irish Became White The book outlines how the Irish shifted from a colonized and oppressed group to one that embraced white privilege and became it's most brutal defenders. To me the Irish experience is not only instructive in terms of early colonial behaviour but also in the manner that the construction of whiteness, race and access to privilege has changed over time.
Personally I don't think the historical realities of the Irish experience dismiss or denigrate the experiences of those who continue to experience racism nor is it true that all experiences of colonization are the same, nor should it be silencing of the voices of racialized and colonized groups. Anyone that would utilize Irish history to justify racism and white supremacy has a piss poor understanding of that history.