-----Original Message----- From: Yoshie Furuhashi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 24, 1999 4:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:8310] The Theory of Cultural Racism Rod Hay wrote: >Cultural differences are not racism. Jim Blaut's paper doesn't say that they are. In fact, it explicitly says, "It is one thing to respect culture, and to appreciate cultural differences, and quite another thing to rank human groups on cultural criteria, and to claim then that you have explained history" (emphasis mine). The paper points out that a newer racism (that Blaut says has supplanted a biological racism) tends to argue that non-Europeans are poor because they are (unlike Europeans) culturally backward. (From a marxist point of view, culture is of course not the prime mover of history.) One hopes that disagreement comes from a correct reading. Otherwise, there can't be any debate. Yoshie Response: This is not a "newer" form of racism; it is the same old shit. This has been the argument in Development literature since the inception of "Development" as a separate specialty and indeed has been the argument of racists all along--you are not like us that is why you are poor. The neoliberal globalists have their own little version of this form of racism with a slightly slicker veneer. Imperfections and market failures of capitalism are due to not enough "pure capitalism" and excessive government or the wrong type of government intervention. Underdevelopment is due to not having/adopting enough capitalism and not looking/acting enough like the US. Since pure capitalism requires the requisite sociocultural "capital", value systems, property rights, derivative institutions and "proper" role/scope of government (like that mythologized about the US and not the de facto situation), cultures and social capital not like that of the US are backward because they are not like that alleged to be in the US. Hence "conditionality" in IMF, World Bank etc "loans" and "aid" etc. It is all racism albeit in a slick package. The "radical" neoliberals then, can still play neoclassical games, operate within a fundamentally bankrupt, reifying, objectivfying , formalistic and ultra-reductionistic paradigm, designed to obscure or divert attention from the critical issues (said to be non-operationalizable and therefore not within the focus of "economics") through tautologies and contrived syllogisms, still get published and rack up the old CV in the "accceptable" journals (neoclassical run) and academic media, and, once in awhile, drop in on progressive academia and play parlor radical for a day or two. When I think about the neoliberals and neoliberal globalists, I am reminded of the passage from "The Book of Counted Sorrows": Evil is no faceless stranger Living in a distant neighborhood Evil has a wholesome hometown face With merry eyes and an open smile Evil walks among us, wearing a mask Which looks like all our faces. _____ Jim Craven _____ _____
