I think Henry had this in mind for L-I as well. Jim will be missed. > [Part I of forward from Henry Liu of a piece written by Jim Blaut, > broken up into multiple parts and reformatted to look nice for Jim. > Les] > > > Henry: > > You're 100% right. Nonwhites actually make up 80-85% of the world's > population. I wrote a paper on this: Reprinted from Antipode: A Radical > Journal of Geography 23(1992): 289 299. > > The Theory of Cultural Racism > J. M. Blaut > Department of Geography > University of Illinois at Chicago > > i. Theory and Practice > > Very few academics these days consider themselves to be racists, and > calling someone a racist is deeply offensive. Yet racism in the > universities is just as pervasive, just as dangerous, as it was a > generation ago. Nowadays we seem to have a lot of racism but very few > racists. How do you explain this paradox? > > The place to begin is to notice the essential difference between > racist theory and racist practice. Racism most fundamentally is > practice: the practice of discrimination, at all levels, from personal > abuse to colonial oppression. Racism is a form of practice which has > been tremendously important in European society for several hundred > years, important in the sense that it is an essential part of the way > the European capitalist system maintains itself. > > Racist practice, like all practice, is cognized, rationalized, > justified, by a theory, a belief-system about the nature of reality > and the behavior which is appropriate to this cognized reality. (The > word "theory" is better in this context than the word "ideology," > because we are talking about a system of empirical beliefs, not about > the cultural bindings of belief.) But theory and practice do not have > a one- to-one relationship. One form of practice can be underlain by > various different theories. Since racism-as-practice, that is, > discrimination, is an essential part of the system, we should not be > surprised to discover that it has been supported by a historical > sequence of different theories, each consistent with the intellectual > environment of a given era. Nor should we be surprised to find that > the sequent theories are so different from one another that the racist > theory of one epoch is in part a refutation of the racist theory of > the preceding epoch. > > Putting the matter in a somewhat over-simplified form, the dominant > racist theory of the early nineteenth century was a biblical argument, > grounded in religion; the dominant racist theory of the period from > about 1850 to 1950 was a biological argument, grounded in natural > science; the racist theory of today is mainly a historical argument, > grounded in the idea of culture history or simply culture. Today's > racism is cultural racism. > > I will try to show, in this paper, what cultural racism is all about > and how and why it has largely supplanted biological racism (at least > among academics). To start things off, I'll explain the paradox that, > today, in universities, we have racism but few racists. > > Generally, when we call a person a racist in the academic world of > today we are accusing this person of believing in the hereditary, > biological superiority of people of one so-called race over people of > another so-called race, with the implication that discrimination is > justified, explained, rationalized, by the underlying biological > theory. But hardly anybody believes in this theory anymore. Most > academics believe that the typical members of what used to be called > inferior races have a capacity equal to that of other so-called races, > but they have not been able to realize this capacity. They have not > learned the things one needs to know to be treated as an equal. They > have not learned how to think rationally, as mental adults. They have > not learned how to behave in appropriate ways, as social adults. The > problem is culture, not biology. And, naturally, the inequality will > disappear in the course of time. But in the meantime, discrimination > is perfectly justified. Of course it is not called "discrimination" in > this newer theory. It is a matter of treating each person in a way > that is appropriate to his or her abilities. The people of one race -- > pardon me: one ethnic group -- demonstrate greater abilities than > those of other ethnic groups, abilities in IQ, ACT, and SAT > test-taking, in "need achievement motivation," in avoidance of > criminality, and so on. Given that they have these higher realized > abilities, they should be given greater rewards. They should be > admitted to college, be granted Ph.D.s and tenure, and the rest. And > so racist practice persists under the guidance of a theory which > actually denies the relevance of race. The differences between humans > which justify discriminatory treatment are differences in acquired > characteristics: in culture. > > > Another way of putting this is to say that cultural racism substitutes > the cultural category "European" for the racial category "white." We > no longer have a superior race; we have, instead, a superior > culture. It is "European culture," or "Western culture," "the West" > (see Amin 1989). What counts is culture, not color. > > ii. Religious Racism > > The notion of European cultural superiority is not a new one. Early in > the 19th century, Europeans considered themselves to be superior > because they are Christians and a Christian god must naturally favor > His own followers, particularly those who worship Him according to the > proper sacrament. He will take care of such matters as hereditary > abilities, thus making it easier for His followers to thrive, > multiply, progress, conquer the world. He will even make certain that > the physical environment in which Christians live is more favorable > than the environment surrounding heathens: hence Europe's climate is > neither too hot nor too cold, not "torrid" nor "frigid" but nicely > "temperate." In a word: it was believed that the people of Europe, > traditional Christendom, possess cultural superiority, biological > superiority, even environmental superiority, but all of this flows > from a supernatural cause. This was the theory which, in the period up > to roughly the middle of the 19th century, underlay most racist > practice. > > Note that the religious theory of racism was an empirical > argument. The cause was supernatural, but the effects were > straightforward facts. God had created white people, in a region which > Europeans considered to be their own cultural hearth: the "Bible > Lands." The Garden of Eden was thought by many scholars to have been > located somewhere around the headwaters of the Tigris river, in the > healthful, temperate, mountains of Armenia, not far from Mt. Ararat, > where Noah landed, not far from the Caucasus Mountains which were > known to be the home of the Caucasian race, and (as was often pointed > out) in the same temperate latitude as Greece and Rome (see, e.g., > Lord 1869). There was no such thing as early cultural evolution, since > Man was given agriculture, cities, and civilization in the days of > Genesis. All of pre-Christian history took place among white people in > a small piece of the earth's surface, roughly between Rome and > Mesopotamia. The rest of the world was uninhabited. People migrated > from this hearth to, and so populated, Asia and Africa. During the > course of this exodus they became non-white, and they degenerated > (Bowler 1989), and lost the arts of civilization (although Asians > retained some of these arts).1 All of this was considered to be > historical fact. It followed, then, that the white race has always > been superior and still remains superior, and for very evident > reasons. In short: an empirical theory, giving scientific > justification for racist practice. > > > iii. Biological Racism > > Toward the end of the 19th century, naturalistic arguments had > displaced biblical and theological arguments in most scholarly > discourse. But it should not be thought that religious racism (as > theory) had entirely disappeared. In many contexts thereafter, this > theory was (and still is) used to justify racist practice in which > people of one religion oppress people of another on grounds of this, > or some very similar, theory. An obvious contemporary example is > Israeli expansionism. God gave all of Palestine (and more) to the Jews > long ago, so the Jews have overriding rights to all of the God-given > land, and can expel anyone else from that land on the basis of this > absolute principle. It is quibbling to object that this is not racism > because Jews are not a race. It is religious racism. > > The secularization of thought after about 1850 made it necessary to > rest racist practice in a new and different theory. Religious racism > had already established the causality by which God gives better > heredity to Christians, and this argument could now be adapted to > assert the genetic superiority of the so-called white race, grounding > this argument now in the immensely influential biological theories of > the period, notably Darwinism and (later) Mendelianism. The genetic > superiority of the so-called white race was now believed in > axiomatically by nearly all social theorists. The cultural superiority > of Europeans (a category vaguely identified with the white race) was > also believed in, also axiomatically. Cultural superiority was > mainly, though not entirely, considered to be an effect of racial > superiority. (I say not entirely because various other sorts of > naturalistic causality were also invoked: Europe's environment is > superior. Or Europe's cultural priority originated in the mysterious > and impenetrable mists of prehistory. Or no causation was postulated > because none was thought to be needed. For some thinkers, among them > Max Weber, all of these arguments were heaped together in a melange of > race, culture, and geography.) But it is fair to say that the > hereditary superiority of the white race was considered to be the > single most important explanati multipart fon for the white man's > obvious superiority in culture. This was the era of classical or > biological racism. > > After the First World War, the theory of white biological superiority > began to lose force in the scholarly communities of most (not all) > European countries. This reflected several causes. Some were internal > to intellectual progress, in, for instance, culture theory (e.g., > Boas, Radin), psychological theory (e.g., Lewin), philosophies > grounded in experience rather than the Cartesian-Kantian a priori > (e.g., Dewey, Whitehead, Mead). One external causes was the rise of > egalitarian values, notably socialism, which militatated against > theories of innate superiority and inferiority. A second external > cause, a very powerful one, was opposition to Nazism, which almost > necessarily meant opposition to doctrines of biological superiority > and inferiority. _______________________________________________ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
