In a message dated 3/15/1999 10:34:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< She did not say that the Portuguese were therefore the 'best', or 'least
bad' of the group: it is Nicole who assumes that least racist = least bad. >>
Least Racist, the portuguese?
The "racial harmony" myth of brasil is founded on the idea that the
portuguese, having a full preoccupation with portuguese men/indigenous/black
women in the places they conquered, were often very "involved" colonizers.
They believed that they could "breed out" the offending non-white ethnicities,
and each generation advanced an improved society. For the unwary, this will be
interpreted as "least racist". Just because you will have sex with someone
doesn't mean that you respect their race or culture (or even that you don't
hate it) any more than
just because a man has sex with women, doesn't mean that he is not violent,
abusive, chauvinistic and hateful towards women. (i.e. rapist, paedophiles,
pimps, larry flint)
You wrote " In fact my friend disliked the Portuguese record most of all:
her stories of how they were given to tossing babies of people who refused to
convert to Roman Catholicism in the air and catching them on their bayonets
was just one aspect of what she disliked. She just didn't ascribe this to
racism. If Nicole differs, she needs to take it up with my friend, not me. "
You not only included her comment when you said " the Portuguese were the
least racist of all [presumably, at least in part, because the concept of race
was not available to them at that time, although my friend did not mention
that] ,"
Well in this comment, she didn't say that racism was not a factor did she? YOU
presumed that it was because they had no concept of race. You even note that
your friend did not say that to you.
My reply in that email was focused upon how you took what she said, and
applied your own lack of understanding. You presumed why the Portuguese were
least racist based upon your knowledge and experience (or lack thereof). Your
perspective on such things.
Historical fact reveals that they did have a concept of race. How could you
possibly believe that they encountered African, Sri Lankan people and did not
see race? They didn't know they were portuguese and european, and the rest
were not? Such a statement does not reflect knowledge on the circumstances nor
experience. It doesn't even reflect a foot in reality. It is your world
perspective, your mental paradigm, but I do not see why you feel so strong to
argue it, when it is not based on either knowlege (fact) or experience?
Not only do you argue it, but you attempt to correct me with it. Perhaps you
just feel (for whatever reason, hmm what could that be?) that you don't have
to have either, just the desire to "prove" that I am wrong about my
perspective is good enough to expect me to feel challenged? To feel
submissive? Are you used to that "air" of authority around your words, humble
immigrants subserviant and grateful to your emotionally sensitive kindness to
hear of the birds in their land, and wax poetic about how your heart bleeds
for their plight?
The most successful people of your mindset are the ones who manipulate facts,
alter reality, refused to see/acknowledge facts - to hold onto their world
views - such as chris. He will take statements about sudan (1) ignore any
facts to the contrary, even if they are the majority and (2) elevate single
facts to represent all and (3) warp whatever possible - all to support his
jesus complex (I figure he has the robes and all) and has pondered nailing
himself to a cross to make the natives obey him and "understand" how he loves
them. Worship Me! See how I bleed for you! How can you forsake me? I am dying
for you and only through me will you get to heaven - to jannah - to
liberation.
Bizarrely, Susan, in your most recent statement added " She just didn't
ascribe this to racism". Her statement doesn't reveal that she disregarded
racism. Perhaps if you asked her if the portuguese attempted to enforce their
culture, visage, governmental views, etc. on her people and promoted
themselves as higher, to be obeyed- this too is a manifestation of racism. If
you knew more of Sri Lankan history, you would find that they did - as did the
others
However, you are the one who also (as you said) toured the parliament
buildings in Kotte, yet still felt really wise in arguing that what I wrote
was wrong and quite proudly proclaiming "Colombo is the capital of Sri Lanka".
Wouldn't your experience have clicked a bit in your head to take more
accurately what I wrote - or did your perspective block you?
But oh right, I am not supposed to disagree with you. You are too
knowledgeable and prestigious to be wrong, where I could be right.
However, I suspect a lot of Sri Lankan school children could have told you
that I was not wrong in what I wrote. Go figure!
A fundamental aspect of colonialism is that the colonizers (especially as
later neo-colonials) try to minimize the negativity of colonialism - one major
tactic is impressing upon the population the views that they were "civilized",
"elevated", "developed" by the colonizers and therefore colonialization was
more a positive than a negative. This of course negates the reality of
cultural and physical damage, years of submission in one's own land.
Acceptance of this santized view of colonialization is a significant mentality
among various colonized people.
If you read Fanon as you say you did, you would understand this fact. However,
perhaps you could not understand beyond your own paradigms of the experience -
while conversely masses of especially African enslaved, colonialized people
see exactly what he means. It isn't just knowledge (what you read, your level
of education), your professional achievements, but also perspective and
experience that provide coherence.
A well-known and well-repeated "formula" of the African American experience
is: Knowledge and wisdom brings forth the understanding. Wisdom gained through
experience and perspective.
Don't automatically assume that you should dominate, especially in areas
outside of your "realm". And stop trying to convince other people (while you
have no footing) that they must be silent, passive and accept that they are
wrong. Allow that sometimes others do know when we don't - and if you
disagree, try to have some facts?
The fundamental problem with some on this list is that they do not want to let
go of the days when they could be the great and sensitive saviours of the
"oppressed masses". When they could simply ride high feeling that they weren't
as mean as the nasty old racists, not like the KKK - therefore allowing
themselves to not see their own flaws in these areas. They long for those days
when the "oppressed masses" didn't talk back, didn't speak their own words,
perspectives, and didn't dare challenge the right of the great white knights
(and damsel knights) to feel like saviours and protectors raging against the
immorality of their kinfolk.
Heaven forbid, one of those "people" says "no wait, let me say how I feel
about this issue" or egads! dare say " I disagree with you" or (horror of
horrors) say "You are acting like the others you claim not to be like, though
in your liberal sensitive cloak".
Then those philosophers, educators - the liberals, the educated and "aware"
rush in just like the klan to suppress, disempower, undermine (and rant about
erection threats, sexual entendres just like the klan did and does) to make
sure no one dare question them, stains the great sainthood they hold dear. [we
are required to be blind and deaf, but we can think, just not speak]
The sainthood which allows them to paint somalis as savages en masse, to
disregard non-white women entirely except as objects to be 'saved and guided
and molded' by a great white jesus figure and to be "educated" yet wave around
presumptions as facts in the name of sensitivity. All of course call upon who
they have dated, who they have by marriage become related to, among the
"oppressed peoples" as proof of their deep understanding and awareness. Not
even knowing that this is no proof.
These people are far more insidious damaging than the kkk and neo-nazis - and
they don't even know it. The Klan type people are openly against and out for
destruction - people like this are covert, subtle destroyers, liberal spoken
paternalists who feel if they talk nice then they aren't really tying the dog
to the fence they are looking out for its own good. That they aren't
oppressive, they are just looking out for our best interests and want to do
some ethnic exploring and "bonding" (just like the great white hunters on
safari who bragged of their expeditions).
They have their cloaks of righteousness firmly wrapped around their eyes - and
will never get it off to know otherwise.
Thankfully, a lot of us do know it and exist against it. Even a some of the
kin of the cloaked.
"THE MOST POTENT WEAPON IN THE HAND OF THE OPPRESSOR IS THE MIND OF THE
OPPRESSED." - Steve Biko
This is over for me.
Nicole
