"Neo-racism" and institutional racism

Maysie wrote:

But I agree with you that "Islamophobia" is an inaccurate and unhelpful term. So how's about this: Muslims (or those who are perceived as Muslims) in Canada have experienced a certain form of racism. That form of racism has always been institutionalized, but after 9/11 said racism had "public permission" to be ratcheted up several notches, to the point that violation of human rights is not seen as a problem. Yeah, maybe we do need a new term for that. I just think that neo-racism isn't it.

Maybe a way to look at this idea from a different perspective would be to say that prior to 9-11, a persons Muslimness was not as relevant to their racialization as it was afterward. It was a persons "Tamilness" or "Pakistaniness", generally contained within the fact of their non-European skin colour, which was the key element that defined the manner of their racialization. In the post 9/11 world there was a shift in the manner in which racialization was expressed so that there was a greater focus on the ideological and cultural inferiority of racialized persons that was identified with Islamic belief. Not that there had not been Judeao-Christian prejudice against Muslim people in the past, for there was, but a persons "Islamicness" became a central focus of the way that racism was expressed, against a very large swath of non-white people, but also including some ethnicities that were clearly white, some slavs from the Balkans, Chechyn Muslims, and indeed Pasthtun Muslims.

At some point it becomes difficult to assess these multilayered themes, but I don't usually use the term Islamophobia these days, but I think it bears noting that the term does come into existance precisely because Islam has become a central theme in prejudice, and the people who use it, mostly Muslims from what I can see, use it partly because it functions across the boundaries of race in order to directly express the fact that not all Muslims are non-white, and that Islam is a religious and cultural and political construct.

In considering racism in our spare time, when awareness and analysis is undertaken during moments of convenience, distinctive applications that we haven't recognized before may very well be understood as new or "neo."  Others who are forced to deal with it everyday may see it as part of the same systemic construct, regardless of where it is applied or to what opportunistic degree it is being inflicted.  Quite conceivably for racialized people, there is nothing new to it at all, except for variations in directional intensity that are controlled by institutionalized supremacy.  Compartmentalizing racism though seems to be a patriarchal approach that our society has designed as a way to deflect attention from where it still exists in full effect, while we're busy watching the bouncing ball set in motion by the structural apparatus.

Is that what you're doing Slumberjack? Considering racism in your spare time? How noble of you. For some, you know, racism isn't always simply a matter of color. It is an expression that can transcend color as it seeks to dehumanize and cheapen the existence of those to whom it is directed. Certainly Gypsies would understand racism. As would Jews. The Irish. Armenians. And any number of peoples who have faced persecution throughout the years, and still do, just because of their ancestry, their name, language, the school they attended as a child, or the inconvenient place on earth where they happen to inhabit.

I thought I made a perfectly good argument that there is a racism that I would call new since 9/11 in the sense that it is entirely socially acceptable unlike some of the more traditional forms of racism.

If you disagree with that, as does Maysie, you can certainly do so. But maybe from a less smug space. In my spare time I dream. I consider racism as part of the everday fabric of the materialistic and destructive world we have built for ourselves. But thanks for caring.

The "spare time" comment suggested smugness to me and you are correct that Roma is preferred. I apologize.

It is indeed as old as the hills. I submit it will remain with us until such time as we stop pillaging the Earth because only when we are capable of reassessing our relationship to the planet will we be capable of reassessing our relationship to each other. I know that sounds esoteric, but I believe it to be true.

The reason I called it that, Rexdale, if it wasn't already clear, is because while racism toward people of color and other minorities is widely institutionalized, it is, for the most part, not officially tolerated. For example, bringing openly racist trash into a workplace will get you a stern warning if not fired.

However, the newly, socially acceptable racism, what is commonly referred to as Islamophobia, is officially tolerated, even practiced, and the hate literature can be found in the main stream media. The muslims are trying to take over our country and force all women to wear burqhas, don't you know?

In fact, if you review the language and arguments of socially accepted anti-semitism in the last century, you will find many of the same old canards and stereotypes being tossed around. What was once the global Jewish conspiracy is now the global Islamic conspiracy.

That is what I meant. I understand that many see it as a continuation of the every day racism and I don't disagree with that. My only point is that unlike the every day racism, one can openly preach and practice what is alternatively called Islamophobia and even find themselves being paid big bucks for the talking circuit.

Are you absolutely sure that racism, as an ideology, as we know it today existed prior to the European colonialist era?

For example, did the Romans have a comprehensive ideological world view that justified their expansionism on the basis of their inate genetic, moral and cultural superiority?

LordOfShadows wrote:

As an example of this, the word slave, according to some, has its roots in the slavic nations, who were often raided for slaves by the more civilized nations. 

I'd probably substitute the description 'civilized' for economically militarized.  When you think about it, the times haven't changed all that much over the ages.  We're still abroad raiding other lands in search of opportunities to dominate others, through outright slavery or serfdom, whichever is more cost effective.

Slumberjack wrote:

LordOfShadows wrote:

As an example of this, the word slave, according to some, has its roots in the slavic nations, who were often raided for slaves by the more civilized nations. 

I'd probably substitute the description 'civilized' for economically militarized.  When you think about it, the times haven't changed all that much over the ages.  We're still abroad raiding other lands in search of opportunities to dominate others, through outright slavery or serfdom, whichever is more cost effective.

I am sorry, but I must disagree with your first statement. The thing is, is that civilization in a historical sense is variable, that is what is considered civilizatition in the bronze age would be sheer barbarism in, say, the late medieval era, and what happened in that era would be barbarism nowadays. In each era comes new ways of communication, and communication is one of the main bases of civilization. The second and main point I only halfway agree with, but I am having trouble putting my thoughts into words, so I will have to get back to this thread after thinking for a while.

Big edit: I just reread what I had written here and it was drivel, the only excuse I can offer whas that it was past midnight where I am when I wrote it, and I had missed some of my meds, so I wrote garbage.

Here we go. A civilized society usually is defined as a society that has a monetary system, a code of laws and an authority charged with applying those laws. That is the base. Some say that an institutionalized military is also one of the marks of a civilization, as it means that there is a division of roles within society rather that simply "adult male = hunter/warrior, female = gatherer/caretaker."

What are your opinions?

In order to combat something, to  my mind you have to know the causes. The very basic cause is the monkey brain, which tries to insist "my family good, everybody else bad". However as we become more civilized this can't work or else the civilization falls apart, so it the monkey brain starts identifying with that particular city-state, and everybody else was sub-human. Then, as communications improve the scope of the state/empire expands, and the same process happens again, except this time "my nation good, everybody else sub-human", and so on. Nowadays we have reached the point where we can communicate instananeously from any two places on the globe, and the monkey brain is still trying to catch up. That's my theory, pulled together from all my reading. The civilization thing was off-topic, just defining terms.

I wasn't trying to provoke anything with the hunter/gatherer thing, it's just the first simple example that sprang to mind. I know a fair bit about them, but I can always learn more.

Having said all that I now would like to answer/debate your questions.

Who defines what is civilization?Those who consider themselves civilized, yes?

The historians, long after we're all dead, anything else is arrogance. Hopefully they'll say something nice.

Those who place themselves at the top of the "who's the grooviest people of all time" list, yes?

Those who have the power to write and enact laws/religions/etc and impose them on others, yes?

I'm gonna assume these were rhetorical questions.

Since the rest of the folks are too barbaric to articulate abstract thought? See anything wrong with what I just said?

Abstract thought to me does not equal civilization. The ancient hellenes were wonderful philosophers, and highly civilized but quite barbaric (in the modern sense of the word) and self centred. Civilized does not equal good, only civilized. However having said that the civilized person has more capacity for good work, because civilization means that the people can afford to support non-productive persons, and give charity and so forth, something that a people that are living hand to mouth can't afford, because they would be giving away their own food.

Having a monetary system is civilized is it?

A monetary system is simply a means of transferring value from one person to another. The uses it is put to, and the way it is set up variable.Without a monetary system civilization wouldn't work.

Have you noticed that whatever the "current top dog" does is always considered part of the epitome of civilization?

Of course, the same way the coolest kid in the class defines what is cool. Whether it is or not is something else entirely. Right now one set of criteria for "civilization" is in vogue, and some of the things we do nowadays will probably be considered barbaric in the future.

Why are we arguing the basics here?

The fact that 'LordOfShadows' chose (as his first act) to jump right into the anti-racism forum with both feet indicates to me what he is going to contribute here - and that it will be anywhere and everywhere, as he is unlikely to be paper-trained.