whats the roots of racism?

[eremon]

marxsist resources are referred to capitalist development as the the root which racism functions as a divisive factor against working class's solidarity.

How this assumptions could be sustained ? can anyone develop it furthermore?

[Angry Young Man]

I'd say a mixture of cultural and natural.

I'd say that the natural one would be a temporary shock. In the C16, no European had ever seen an African, so there was a shock. And as Africa was tribal and Europe feudal, they assumed that because of their technological advantage, that they were superior. Same thing with white settlers in America.

The other is cultural, where people are told that a) they are better on the merit of ethnicity; or b) that they are somehow being swindled by another ethnicity (like nazis). This probably has alot to do with cultural hegemony. Remember the ruling classes supported Hitler because they were worried that the working class would see their real enemy (them).

[bolshevik butcher]

Racism as we know it today, "biological" racism emerged when it became profitable to do so. Chauvinism in the middle ages was based on religon and culture, the moors were shunned for being muslims, the mongolians for not beliving in Jesus etc rather than being based on any idea of a biological race. As it became profitable for capitalists to trade in slaves from Africa an ideological stand eremged from this of white superioroty to Africans and also the Native Americans who'se land was being seized to make way for the slave plantation. In this we see the roots of modern racism.

It is also true that as the imperial powers absorbed other countries into their empires the stand of "whitemans burden" emereged under which again white people were said to be superior and that they were doing the humane thing in subjigating the inferior indigenous population.

[la-troy]

I just say it's ignorance. Racism today is not different from what was prominent in the past.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Well, you have to look at the way capitalism justifies itself. Fundamentally, all the arguments for capitalism boil down to one idea: "Rich people are better than everyone else." Like all class systems, capitalism can only appear legitimate as long as it persuades the lower class that the ruling class deserves its wealth, power and status. Why do capitalists say they deserve to exploit you? Because they are "better" than you. In what way are they "better"? Well, they can't claim to have divine favour - that whole thing was out the window when the aristocracy got overthrown. Instead, the superiority that capitalists claim to have is usually biological in nature. They claim to be more intelligent, more talented than the unwashed masses.

So here we have a system that claims to be legitimate on biological grounds. Once you have accepted the belief that some people are biologically "better" than you, you may want to vent your frustration by imagining that there is also another type of people who are biologically inferior to you. And so, racism appears...

That's how the idea of racism got invented. As to the reason why it persisted for so long (and continues to persist), it is due to the nature of capitalist society. Capitalism forces workers to compete with each other, and this competition drives down all their wages and living standards. If a worker does not see the true cause of her decline in wages - the capitalist system itself - she may be tempted to blame other workers for it. One could easily reason that "if only those other workers did not compete with me, my wages would be higher". So those "other workers" get the blame for one's own misfortune. And since it is always easier to blame people who are visibly different from you, workers with a different skin colour tend to fill the role of those "other workers".

So, the bottom line is that capitalism creates a climate where you are likely to believe that people of different "races" are inferior to you AND they are stealing your jobs and money. Hence racism.

[eremon]

Well, you have to look at the way capitalism justifies itself. Fundamentally, all the arguments for capitalism boil down to one idea: "Rich people are better than everyone else." Like all class systems, capitalism can only appear legitimate as long as it persuades the lower class that the ruling class deserves its wealth, power and status. Why do capitalists say they deserve to exploit you? Because they are "better" than you. In what way are they "better"? Well, they can't claim to have divine favour - that whole thing was out the window when the aristocracy got overthrown. Instead, the superiority that capitalists claim to have is usually biological in nature. They claim to be more intelligent, more talented than the unwashed masses.

So here we have a system that claims to be legitimate on biological grounds. Once you have accepted the belief that some people are biologically "better" than you, you may want to vent your frustration by imagining that there is also another type of people who are biologically inferior to you. And so, racism appears...

That's how the idea of racism got invented. As to the reason why it persisted for so long (and continues to persist), it is due to the nature of capitalist society. Capitalism forces workers to compete with each other, and this competition drives down all their wages and living standards. If a worker does not see the true cause of her decline in wages - the capitalist system itself - she may be tempted to blame other workers for it. One could easily reason that "if only those other workers did not compete with me, my wages would be higher". So those "other workers" get the blame for one's own misfortune. And since it is always easier to blame people who are visibly different from you, workers with a different skin colour tend to fill the role of those "other workers".

So, the bottom line is that capitalism creates a climate where you are likely to believe that people of different "races" are inferior to you AND they are stealing your jobs and money. Hence racism.


great Edric O!!!!

[BlessedBesse]

Well, you have to look at the way capitalism justifies itself. Fundamentally, all the arguments for capitalism boil down to one idea: "Rich people are better than everyone else." ... Why do capitalists say they deserve to exploit you? Because they are "better" than you. ... They claim to be more intelligent, more talented than the unwashed masses.

((slightly off-topic, but...))
Or perhaps that they worked harder within the system.
Salesman A and Salesman B both work at the same job. Salesman A works very hard and makes more money than Salesman B. Now Salesman A has an advantage over B, even though for purposes of this argument they could be twins.



As to the reason why it persisted for so long (and continues to persist), it is due to the nature of capitalist society.... One could easily reason that "if only those other workers did not compete with me, my wages would be higher". So those "other workers" get the blame for one's own misfortune. And since it is always easier to blame people who are visibly different from you, workers with a different skin colour tend to fill the role of those "other workers".

You're claiming that racism wouldn't exist without capitalism. If you look at primitive or non-capitalist societies, I don't think you'll find any evidence supporting that.


So, the bottom line is that capitalism creates a climate where you are likely to believe that people of different "races" are inferior to you AND they are stealing your jobs and money. Hence racism.

It's a neat little scapegoat explanation, but this doesn't explain racism which has nothing to do with economic struggle.

I think racism is much older than capitalism. It probably goes back to the first time there was a perceived "us" separate from "them".

"Its easy to say these other white guys are part of our group, but those guys over there... who knows who they're with. Don't trust 'em!"

[Invader Zim]

in a word ignorance. People fear, dislike and scapegoat the things they fear and people fear that which they do not know and understand; that which is different.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by BlessedBesse+June 26, 2007 10:55 pm--> (BlessedBesse @ June 26, 2007 10:55 pm) ((slightly off-topic, but...))
Or perhaps that they worked harder within the system.
Salesman A and Salesman B both work at the same job. Salesman A works very hard and makes more money than Salesman B. Now Salesman A has an advantage over B, even though for purposes of this argument they could be twins. [/b]
The "hard work" argument still has biological undertones, which become visible as soon as you ask a capitalist, "why do some people work harder than others?" The typical answer they will give you is that some people are just naturally lazy, some people are just naturally hard-working, and other variations of the "naturally" theme.

Capitalist ideology in general tends to reject the view that society, or human interaction, has any meaningful influence on individual behaviour.

Of course that's a load of bullshit, as could be demonstrated by using many examples of twins, but since when do capitalists let truth get in the way of perfectly good propaganda?


Originally posted by [email protected]

As to the reason why it persisted for so long (and continues to persist), it is due to the nature of capitalist society.... One could easily reason that "if only those other workers did not compete with me, my wages would be higher". So those "other workers" get the blame for one's own misfortune. And since it is always easier to blame people who are visibly different from you, workers with a different skin colour tend to fill the role of those "other workers".
You're claiming that racism wouldn't exist without capitalism. If you look at primitive or non-capitalist societies, I don't think you'll find any evidence supporting that.
I never claimed that racism wouldn't exist without capitalism. I said that capitalism is a major cause of racism - which it is - but that does not mean it is the only cause.


BlessedBesse
I think racism is much older than capitalism. It probably goes back to the first time there was a perceived "us" separate from "them".
Doubtful. In order to be racist, you must have some kind of interaction with people of other races (it is difficult to hate black people if you've never seen one, and neither have your parents). Thus, racism wasn't really a serious problem until people started travelling far enough to reach lands inhabited by other races. Europeans didn't seriously begin to consider themselves superior to Africans until they began to explore Africa.

Primitive societies do have an "us versus them" attitude, but this usually creates ethnic hatred, not racism.

[TC]

Real, structural, racism can be traced to slavery, colonialism, imperialism and social ghettoization, and the reproduction of class status and wealth following slavery and colonialism.

Theres absolutely nothing "natural" about racism, it is, like most social phenomenon, a product of socio-economic power dynamics.

People on the left need to stop guessing aimlessly about the causes of social phenomenon like liberals do and instead analyze the structural factors that create the conditions that lead to it.

[eremon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 01:45 pm
Real, structural, racism can be traced to slavery, colonialism, imperialism and social ghettoization, and the reproduction of class status and wealth following slavery and colonialism.

Theres absolutely nothing "natural" about racism, it is, like most social phenomenon, a product of socio-economic power dynamics.

People on the left need to stop guessing aimlessly about the causes of social phenomenon like liberals do and instead analyze the structural factors that create the conditions that lead to it.
by the way, is any considerable site about structural analysis on racism to recommend?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 02:45 pm
Real, structural, racism can be traced to slavery, colonialism, imperialism and social ghettoization, and the reproduction of class status and wealth following slavery and colonialism.

Theres absolutely nothing "natural" about racism, it is, like most social phenomenon, a product of socio-economic power dynamics.

People on the left need to stop guessing aimlessly about the causes of social phenomenon like liberals do and instead analyze the structural factors that create the conditions that lead to it.
And what do you know about the causes of slavery? Slavery existed in European, post the era of classical antiquity long before the dawn of 16th century colonialism, which I presume is what you are refering to as did racism.

[bezdomni]

Racism is a bourgeois attempt to maintain the status quo, which is based in the exploitation of usually an inner-colony or specific ethnic group(s) within a country.

Racism is the result of bourgeois epistimology. Because of their class nature they cannot arrive to the conclusion that black people are much more poor than white people in the U.S. because they have been historically marginalized, exploited and oppressed more than any other ethnic group. This is because the bourgeoisie are incapable of making a proletarian analysis (this conclusion comes from materialism).

So instead, they analyze that black people are poor because they are lazy and deserve to be poor and that white people are the only civilized and hard working people.

Although after the 1960s in the U.S., racism began to take on a more subtle form, at least from the words of the bourgeoisie and the government.

It also serves as a tool to divide the working class. They don't consciously know that though...because in order for them to know that, they'd have to know that they were not telling the truth in the first place.

[TC]

Originally posted by Invader Zim

And what do you know about the causes of slavery?

the cause of slavery is obvious: slavery has financial rewards to the slave masters so groups of people with vastly superior weapons enslaved groups with less military ability. The cause of slavery in Ancient Greece and Rome was the same as the cause in 16th and 17th century European empires, its just that the later could do it on a much larger scale because their military superiority was more absolute.


Slavery existed in European, post the era of classical antiquity long before the dawn of 16th century colonialism, which I presume is what you are refering to as did racism.

no actually the development of 'scientific' racist anthropology coincided with european colonialism and colonialist based slavery, because they needed an ideological justification for such abject exploitation (they wanted to do it for economic reasons, the ideology follows from the economic motive). Before this there was no generalized social theory of race as such, nationality and language groups existed by race as such did not.

in antiquity, there was more a generalized contempt for foreigners who didn't speak greek or chinese or whatever, and lived in pre-agricultural social organization, so again there was an economic reason for a generalized xenophobia but it was hardly similar to racism proper as it existed after major European exploration.


The results of colonialism and slavery even after both phenomenon ended have left the decendents of colonial and slave populations within imperialist nations at an inhereted economic disadvantage to the population in general, and this is the what institutional racism is. Its also the origin of contemporary racial prejudice on an individual level because, as soviet pants explained, they cannot rationalize the demographic inequality as being an inequality of opportunity if they believe the capitalist myth that everyone has the ability to compete and accumulated wealth is earned and deserved.

[Invader Zim]

I'm actually going to be doing my MA dissertation on this subject having done a significant amount of work on it during my degree, and I can assure you that the origins of Early Modern era slavery are not as clear cut as you imply.



no actually the development of 'scientific' racist anthropology coincided with european colonialism and colonialist based slavery

Wrong. The first excursions by Portuguese to Africa in search of goods, but left with slaves, occurred in the mid 15th century (In Lagos the first full batch of slaves were displayed, this was in 1444). This is clearly before the European era of colonialism which can be seen to have occurred post 1492 and the first European excursion to Hispaniola. The period of European colonialism cannot be seriously considered in a context prior to the 16th century. European slavery pre-dates the phenomena of European colonialism and the origins of the two are unrelated, even if their subsequent growth are undeniably intertwined.

As for anthropology as a cause or example of apologism for racism and slavery, as a subject it found its origins in the 17th century and the enlightenment, long after the mass institutionalisation of slavery and presumably the institutionalised racism which that entailed. We are talking about several hundred years of European colonialism and slavery.

So to cut that story short, colonialism was not the cause of slavery and they did not coincide. And European enslavement of Africans and European colonialism long predates the likes of Blumenbach. Certainly pseudo-sciences such as Phrenology, which were used to provide scientific basis for racism, were developed at least 250-300 years after the dawn of mass European colonialism.


because they needed an ideological justification for such abject exploitation

There is no evidence for this. Slavery had existed long before the age of enlightenment which was the period in which many of these attempts at justification were produced. Yet many European cultures already held complex systems for determining social stratification which was based on ancestoral and ethnic factors in order to dictate seniority within society. Once mass colonialism and the institution of slavery were on the scene these ideals were simply extended. In other words racism long pre-dates any of these institutions. Perhaps in terms of the idea that those of other races were physically inferior, as opposed to culturally and socialy, you are correct and slavery was the underlying cause (which I would dispute), but slavery was not a cause for racism, rather pre-existing factors such as the attempts by Christians to fund a war to evict Muslims from the Iberian peninsular were early causes of both slavery and European colonial ambition. The issue of race was just a catalyst which perhaps made it easier to justify the mass enslavement of 20,000,000 people and the subsequent death of half the number following their capture, transport and first few months of service for their "masters".

[TC]

Invader Zim, you're trying to seem smart in 'scoring points' but none of the actual facts you provided in any way contradict what i wrote, i'm not wrong you're just making a purely semantic argument based on special-use terms which you've then decided to incorrectly apply to my general use terms. I could explain this in detail and make you look stupid, but its not really worth my time to indulge you when it wouldn't contribute to the discussion and i, unlike you, am interested in developing and explaining a politically honest marxist approach and not scoring points on a message board. If you insist that i indulge you, i might at a later point if i'm really bored.

[Invader Zim]

Invader Zim, you're trying to seem smart

Stating simple historical chronology is trying to be smart?


i'm not wrong you're just making a purely semantic argument based on special-use terms

I disagree, this entire paragraph is wrong: -

"the development of 'scientific' racist anthropology coincided with european colonialism and colonialist based slavery, because they needed an ideological justification for such abject exploitation (they wanted to do it for economic reasons, the ideology follows from the economic motive). Before this there was no generalized social theory of race as such, nationality and language groups existed by race as such did not."

Seriously, leaving aside all your other crap about point scoring, trying to make people look stupid, etc, that paragraph really is a misconception. I totally disgree with your premise that a generalised social theory of race coincided with slavery and colonialism. Both of the two latter phenomina became ubiquitous within European society at least two centuries before the former. Indeed slavery was in decline by the time "sciences" such as phrenology became popular. These are not semantic quibbles, but hard fact.

Slavery and colonialism existed long before attempts were made to scientifically justify racism and they did not coincide.


If you insist that i indulge you, i might at a later point if i'm really bored.

Please do.

[Black Cross]

Originally posted by Romantic [email protected] 25, 2007 05:55 pm
I'd say that the natural one would be a temporary shock. In the C16, no European had ever seen an African, so there was a shock. And as Africa was tribal and Europe feudal, they assumed that because of their technological advantage, that they were superior. Same thing with white settlers in America.

This is neither temporary nor natural. It is, for sure, not temporary. Hell, it still happens today, it has never gone away. So you can't say it is temporary. And it may be common to look down on other races who are not as highly developed as yours, but we should never accept this as natural; to me, that seems like it condones ethnocentrism.

I think Marx and Engels were right. Most of racism is due to capitalism, in short. Just as you said, Europeans looked down on Africans because they were underdeveloped. They weren't capitalist enough, so they were inferior. Just as with whites in america. The Blacks worked for the whites in a capitalist system, so they were, again, inferior. This sort of thinking also happens within races, but we're just discussing racism, so that isn't really applicable.

Sorry for back-tracking a few posts, i just needed to address that.

[Invader Zim]

If you insist that i indulge you, i might at a later point if i'm really bored.

Still waiting... or have you exhausted the wilipedia article already?