quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
In any case. What perhaps people do not consider that it might be possible that my analysis as an FN person or simply as an educated sociologist might have a slightly different tact than others, and that it might have some value, even if it were a wee bit controversial.

Not to reiterate too much, because quite frankly, I tire of the the discussion, but my analysis of the concept known as 'racism' is not about 'attitude' nor 'behaviour' nor 'feelings' but is more focussed on historically wrought social structures, which have been built through historical power systems, and are maintained through systems of power and consequent ideologies.

In my analysis, the concept of 'race' as a socially defining event and power structure did not exist as a meaningful concept until the advent of the colonial exercise to dominate the world beyond the European shores starting at some point within the sixteenth century. Prior to that, opressed groups, including the diasporic Jewish population were managed under ideological systems which incorporated religious, social, cultural and other motifs as their conceptual rationalizations.

It wasn't until the European powers had developed the technologies to reach and to subjugate the peoples of the Africas and the Americas, and later various people of Asia that the concept of 'race' as a quasi-scientific rationale became meaningful within the construct of power.

This is the core of my analysis.

---

I took the liberty of lifting some of Makwa's post in a thread about Debrief from "Should babble have a POC/FN only forum?" thread.

I thought it was interesting, and might be worthy of discussion. If that is innaproriate the thread can be closed, I guess.

[ 26 September 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

There's little doubt in my mind, however, that, even if the words were not the same, the idea of "race", and racism was probably born with civilization itself. I think it too handy a tool for keeping the people at the top in control for it not to be used at the first opportunity.

I think what has to be done is to understand why this works so well. I believe that cynical leadership utilizes human propensity-- perhaps a hardwired propensity-- for xenophobia.

For the life of me I can't remember a single passage in there where the enemy "other" is demeaned, or described as a lesser people, because they are Trojan. In fact, the kind of dehumanizing deligitimizing that accompanies most war stories of the modern period, is overtly absent from this text. All characters, wether Greek or Trojan are described in the most human terms, the emnity of the combatants, a result of vagaries of intentions of gods, not the inailiable superiority of one group over another.

What's left out is that there was a fundamental shift in the way Jew-hatred was practiced once these new tools to construct races were turned inwards and used to reframe antisemitism (and hatred of Indian-origin Gypsy nations) in terms of race once religion became less important in Europe, and as racial allegiances became paramount. This happened long, long before the Nazis.

Starting with colonialism, and especially with the Enlightenment, antisemitism changed fundamentally from a religious xenophobia into a racial construct. I mean there's an almost boundless amount of historical analysis on this. It's not even a stretch to say that the research on antisemitism is centrally focused on this shift and why it happened.

If people are interested, it is well summarized in the writing of Raul Hilberg. A Palestinian sympathizer, he actually used this analysis to disprove Alan Dershowitz's usurpation of antisemitic history. Hilberg says that there is no such thing as "the New Antisemitism" (the rhetoric that anti-Israel politics = antisemitism), precisely because it is not resonant with the colonial origins of antisemitism.
On the contrary, the modern state of Israel serves the same antisemitic purpose for the West as Jewish people always have, as a buffer zone and human shield to protect Western interests. It should be no surprise that the most antisemitic politicians are frequently "pro-Israel". This is same role that the Court Jews and Jewish financiers have served for Europe, as middle men for the ruling classes and as pressure valves for the White populace to release steam on. Antisemitism in its modern form is inextricably linked with colonialism and orientalism, and can't be separated. There are other reasons.

I guess what is bothersome to me is that I think that the analysis of antisemitism on this site has ignored the authors and theorists who live and breathe this stuff, and it has not been sensitive enough to progressive Jewish voices, with Jewish experiences. Most analysis here is invented from a very different place and even sometimes perpetuates antisemitic myths, although unwittingly. FN and POC threads have been ruined in exactly this way too, including by me, which I am ashamed of. I hate barn-storming into a thread which is supposed to be about POC, truly. But the moment someone speaks about antisemitic history with broad swipes I can't help it.
I don't want Jews to invade a POC-only space, nor an FN-only space, since I dont think we have a right to be in either of those places, but I also dont want our experience to be invaded by others, handled crudely by others, and I think that's a pretty universal feeling for everyone on this site.

[ 26 September 2008: Message edited by: just one of the concerned ]

[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: RevolutionPlease ]

The Illiad is an interesting point, because it's a story, but there's some good archeological evidence to help our understanding of it. I don't think we see evidence of racism in that particular story because Troy was, as far as we can tell, a Greek colony. It's more of a civil war. Skip ahead to something more familiar, and we see the same reverence paid to things like Picket's charge, and Robert E. Lee by the the victors in that war.

Interestingly, the last hypothesis (that I heard) concerning the actual war with Troy had it that the Greek colony was falling under the economic and political sway of people further east in what is today Turkey.

And, let us not forget that one of the enduring things the Greeks handed down to us was the word "barbarian", which was used just as pejoritively then as today. The Greeks had their racial hierachies firmly in place.

Homer put it that it was the "theft" of Helen that caused the war. And, it would seem xenophobia, if it is an instictive behavior, must have it's roots in control of the clan's genes, and physical resources. Chimps behave much the same way, and it is supposed that a common ancestor or ancestors probably found this advantageous at one time.

quote:

---

You seem to be asserting that xenophobia/racism, is and always been, and one presumes will always be with us.

---

What I am saying is that we don't know. It may be so, it may not. The late Stephen J. Gould cautioned that these hypothesis were "just so stories" because we cannot know-- and probably will never be able to know-- the conditions that existed when such behaviors came to be. And, if I were to critique this, I'd say it's one bit of speculation pilled on top of another.

However. It may be prudent to proceed with the posibility in mind.

Which doesn't by any means indicate that the battle is hopeless. I think any thoughtfull person could agree that whatever the origins, racism and xenophobia are certainly not advantageous behaviors for groups or individuals in any society today.

I have a theory that the origins of racism are actually a step up on the ethical ladder. In the Greek era the prevailing ethos was "might is right". By the start of the African slave trading era that ethos had been seriously attacked. Racism was invented as a justification for enslaving Africans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
I think, Cueball, that where we differ on this is that I think racism is one of the many symptoms of xenophobia, where you have it the other way around.

---

Yes. And I am supporting my statement by pointing out that in the United States racism is all over the place, yet black and white people have been living as part of the same society for many, many generations, so you really can't say that white people are racist towards black people because of xenophobia (fear of foreigners), since black people are not foreigners per se, but part of the same society. This indicates to me that the ideology of racism enforces the separation of communities, that allows for xenophobia to be present.

quote:

---

originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
The Illiad is an interesting point, because it's a story, but there's some good archeological evidence to help our understanding of it. I don't think we see evidence of racism in that particular story because Troy was, as far as we can tell, a Greek colony. It's more of a civil war. Skip ahead to something more familiar, and we see the same reverence paid to things like Picket's charge, and Robert E. Lee by the the victors in that war.

---

There are lots of possible interpretations of the what was being described in the Illiad.

The point I am making is that the evidence is usually interpretted in the context of modern ideological constructs. How you define racism, how you define xenophopbia, and how you define a "civil war". One could say for example that defining the Trojan War as a "civil war" is an interpretation of the events imposed retroactively, based in the modern ideological frame. One might ask, is there even a Greek state, or a civil society at all within which to have a "civil war"?

Are we engaged in a kind of semantic sleight of hand where we find the evidence that fits what we are predisposed to believe?

Notwithstanding the fact that our modern "civil wars" are frought with racially charged content, yet none appears in the Illiad. So, its hard to see how this definition of the Trojan War, as a "civil war", obviates the point about the lack of racializing content in the literature of the classical period.

You might retroatively describe the extermination of the Catheginians as an "ethnic cleansing" in the modern terms, but did it occur as an expression of a racist ideology? And if so, where is the evidence for that? Or did the Romans exterminate the Cartheginians simply because they were a competing local power, and neighboring tribe that consistently bothered them, without attaching an overiding ideological view that the Cartheginians were naturally inferior as the primary stated casus beli?

So, there is plenty of material out there, and though I have read substantially in this area, most of that was a long time ago, and I never read it with an eye to identifying racist constructs. I think it would be good if you could come up with some specific examples of the kind of racist ideological construct that appear in the modern era, in the Roman period.

I don't remember anything specific in the "Gailic Wars" about the "right" of the Romans to disposess the Gauls because they were an inferior people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by just one of the concerned:
Well it is definetly correct that racist systems are completely different from religious xenophobia that was waged against Jews among others before the Modern conception of "race" was set down, and this new kind of system was inextricably part and parcel of Europe's colonial project.

---

You seem to be agreeing but refusing to apply the definition as it functions today, and objecting when people do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
Since people now seem to be discussion classical Greek literature, I suggest we move this thread to the "culture" forum.

---

Why not?

[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Are we engaged in a kind of semantic sleight of hand?

---

Are we not on Babble?

Well, I think my confusion lies in our working deffinitions of xenophobia. Compared to mine, yours is more literal, meaning a different group has to be coming from a different geographical spot. In my usage, I think of xenophobia more broadly, in that it is the fear of anyone "different." And what I find most disturbing about my species is that we will always find someone different to be afraid of, and there will always be someone there to exploit that fear. In your example of the United States, in my mind it matters little that both groups have been living together, in the same geographical location for centuries or generations.

quote:

---

Notwithstanding the fact that our modern "civil wars" are frought with racially charged content, yet none appears in the Illiad. So, its hard to see how this definition of the Trojan War, as a "civil war", obviates the point about the lack of racializing content in the literature of the classical period.

---

Sure. And we know that race played more than just a significant role in the U.S. Civil War. But, today we can read romantacized accounts that don't mention this at all. What I am saying about the Illiad is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And we do know that the Greeks had an idealized vision of physical beauty that they thought was "superior". An idealized vision that didn't include the "barbarians". And if we dug back as deep into the record as we could, I bet we could find examples of what we call racism.

quote:

---

I think it would be good if you could come up with some specific examples of the kind of racist ideological construct that appear in the modern era, in the Roman period.

---

I did, actually, in another thread about the anti-semetic editorial cartoons, taking a quote from Cicero to show that negative Jewish stereotypes that we are familiar with today predated Christianity.

quote:

---

I don't remember anything specific in the "Gailic Wars" about the "right" of the Romans to disposess the Gauls because they were an inferior people.

---

Ceasar was a subtle man. And one of the justifications he used for the whole Gallic War was that the Gauls or Celts were savages that needed Roman Civilization, or failing that, Roman obliteration. But he didn't lay that out in a chapter, but sprinkled it through the book. Or scroll, I guess.

quote:

---

Or did the Romans exterminate the Cartheginians simply because they were a competing local power, and neighboring tribe that consistently bothered them, without attaching an overiding ideological view that the Cartheginians were naturally inferior as the primary stated casus beli?

---

I think the Romans exterminated the Cartheginians simply because they were a competing local power. Or at least the Patricians acted for those reasons. But to motivate the greater population who probably didn't care a whole lot about if the grain from Sicily came from Catheginian wholesalers, or fellow Roman wholesalers, a racist, "Romansupremacy" angle had to be developed.

The point being, those of us who are not equivelant to today's "Patricians" Seem to fall for this crap over, and over, and over again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
Sure. And we know that race played more than just a significant role in the U.S. Civil War. But, today we can read romantacized accounts that don't mention this at all. What I am saying about the Illiad is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And we do know that the Greeks had an idealized vision of physical beauty that they thought was "superior". An idealized vision that didn't include the "barbarians". And if we dug back as deep into the record as we could, I bet we could find examples of what we call racism.

---

You bet? Any evidence at all that racism is a primary motivator of imperial drive? I am really just looking for exact quotes here.

[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Anyone can play daytime TV pop-psychologist "resident expert".

[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

You bet? Any evidence at all that racism is a primary motivator of imperial drive? I am really just looking for exact quotes here.

---

I think you are shifting the goal posts on me. I'm saying the primary motivator of imperial drive is money. I'm saying that the way to motivate people who don't stand to gain much from imperialism to support it, is to play into their fears, and their propensity for xenophobia.

And further, that those who get roped into supporting imperialism in this manner, should put energy into examining as to why they are so easily manipulated into doing very nasty things to people who appear different than them.

And, I think it bolsters Makwa's original analysis, except that, as I originally said, it goes way, way back. Way back.

[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

And, if I am following this correctly, I think you are looking for evidence of a statement you either think or wanted me to have made.

That's beyond my abilities, I will admit.

Really. Seriously, that is all I am looking for, simply put. I'd like to be edified.

ETA: And personally, I am astonished at the lack of racism in the Illiad, as a piece of war literature, which is clearly embedded in the Greek world view, and apparently written largely for propoganda purposes, and the possibly to engrandize the legacies of specific greek families, where the Trojans are clearly cast as the "foreign enemy other", regardless of the "real" nature of the war, it is truly remarkable how sympathetically the Trojan's are portrayed.

It is a very rate bird, indeed. In fact, their cause is not even denounced per se, but realized as a competing cause, with substantial justice, in a setting where the main motivator for the conflict is the whimsical attitudes of various god figures playing out their personal animosities with each other, with human actors, more or less. The Greeks win, but this is basically just fate, and personal favour. The Gods themselves are not even clearly on one side or the other, not unanimously at any rate, so there is not even the "god is on our side" motif, which we commonly see in European war propoganda.

There are gods who benefit the Trojans as well. So, in no way can the Greeks be seen to have special access to spiritual authority. Spiritual authority is shared by both sides.

Indeed, Achilles is denounced for his war attrocities against Hector's body, which is not excused as the justifiable abuse of an inferior, but as a desecration of Greek practice honouring the dead, which shocks Greeks and Trojan's alike.

Even posed as "civil war" literature, this is quite unlike, for example, William Shakespears Richard the Third, where Richard is mishapen and evil and his cause completely barren of "right". Or Tytus Andronicus where the body of the Barbarian Queen Tamora is cast out of the city to be eaten by animals because "Her life was beast-like, and devoid of pity" and the Moor, evil incarnate, is to be burried up to his neck and starved to death, in gruesome torture.

[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

But, we do have this quote from Thucydides describing the treatment of the aboriginal inhabitants (helots) of what came to be known as Sparta:

quote:

---

"The helots were invited by a proclamation to pick out those of their number who claimed to have most distinguished themselves against the enemy, in order that they might receive their freedom; the object being to test them, as it was thought that the first to claim their freedom would be the most high spirited and the most apt to rebel. As many as two thousand were selected accordingly, who crowned themselves and went round the temples, rejoicing in their new freedom. The Spartans, however, soon afterwards did away with them, and no one ever knew how each of them perished."

---

The helots, as we know, were Sparta's slaves.

And we have this demonstration from Demosthenes:

quote:

---

He's {Phillip of Macedonia} so far from being a Greek or having the remotest connection with us Greeks that he doesn't even come from a country with a name that's respected. He's a rotten Macedonian and it wasn't long ago that you couldn't even buy a decent slave from Macedon.

---

I found this web site edifying, Cueball. It seems to support my beliefs generally, but trashes my example of the word barbarian as evidence of racism. On that point, I sit-- thanks to you with a numb posterior-- corrected.

THE ORIGIN OF RACISM IN EUROPE

[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

In other words just because modern forms of enslavement are clearly justified on racist ideological assertions, this does not mean that we can necessarily assert that principle historically and universally.

[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

How could they, when they did not even have a word to describe such an ideology?

[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

I don't think that was shifty at all. You brought up the lack of racism in the Illiad as evidence the Greeks weren't racist, and I'm just saying that while racism might not have been in the Illiad, it's no proof the Greeks weren't racist.

---

For what it's worth, the Greeks gave us both the word and the concept of "barbarian."

quote:

---

Meh. Not going to spend my life whipping myself because it pleases you. Besides are you not a "white man"? If that is the case, need I make the point that deflecting attention onto the sexism and racism of other white males might be a useful way to avoid analyzing ones own sexism and racism, and diassociating oneself therefore?

---

1. Analyzing your own racism and sexism is not "whipping [your]self because is pleases [me]".

2. I am also guilty of abstractions and over intellectualizing racism and sexism to avoid critical self-analysis.

3. This thread is an exercise in white priviledge. Of course this point will be protested by everyone participating in this circle jerk and of course these same people refuse to read and/or think about the many, many, many posts and links about white priviledge in the AR forum.

[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]

quote:

---

It wasn't until the European powers had developed the technologies to reach and to subjugate the peoples of the Africas and the Americas, and later various people of Asia that the concept of 'race' as a quasi-scientific rationale became meaningful within the construct of power.

---

The genealogy of Israeli state racism, Apartheid, Australia's subjugation of its aboriginal peoples, and the North American reserve system all stem from one another and share in common the British experience in Ireland which took several efforts to perfect.

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

For what it's worth, the Greeks gave us both the word and the concept of "barbarian."

Peace, guys.

---

Is that right. Or is the term, and its meaning, retrofitted to fit our conception of it? From reading Tommy's link, literally it means people who go "Ba ba ba", meaning people who do not speak Greek. That doesn't sound like a present day definition of Barbarian to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:

1. Analyzing your own racism and sexism is not "whipping [your]self because is pleases [me]".

2. I am also guilty of abstractions and over intellectualizing racism and sexism to avoid critical self-analysis.

3. This thread is an exercise in white priviledge. Of course this point will be protested by everyone participating in this circle jerk and of course these same people refuse to read and/or think about the many, many, many posts and links about white priviledge in the AR forum.

4. Yet again I am embarrassed of what is on this site.

---

I suppose the whipping is supposed to please me... tee hee.

It would seem that more or less any discussion or abstraction (thinking is abstraction by the way, so is analysis) amounts to "white male" privilege therefore. So, why not take your own advice and shut up?

[ 28 September 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
Brian White
Have you read any works by Cornelius Tacitus? He proves some good insight on the German tribes.

---

http://discovermagazine.com/1994/nov/thegeometerofrac441

What is interesting is that pretty much all of the research around race from then until maybe the end of WWII had been preoccupied with justifying Eurocentric racism, trying to explain why "whites" were superior.

What is interesting to note is that much of this research was driven by slaveholder money in the early stages, and this is why I think racializing is driven by politics, which (imo) is largely driven by resource allocation.

Referring to Jared Diamond's the Third chimpanzee, the point is made that hominids, prehistoric man included, would travel in bands. The males would typically be related, and the females from other bands. Unrelated males would fight each other. Jared cites observed hunter gatherer culture in Papa New Guinea (iirc) wherein if two strange men meet, they start reciting lineages in hopes of finding some blood relation, so they can avoid fighting each other. Once a year, the various bands would meet to trade goods and women.

This would suggest that "xenophobia" as an innate human trait is inescapable. However, this also shows there is hope, because we're nowhere near that bad today.

What has replaced the immediate male family boundary have been successively broader boundaries. Religion and the like. Ways to define in groups and out groups. "We" unite against "them". I don't necessarily think this is the only solution, but it does prove there are solutions to this tendency towards the familiar/family.

One interesting aspect on the subject of the evolution of race(ism) in Europe are the writings of Pliny the elder. "The monstrous races" as described in his Natural History informs racial myths to this day.

Pliny thought a lot of monsters could be found in India or Ethiopia which would basically mean Asia and Africa to most Europeans. Prominent among these races were the anthropophagi, wild men and women who lived naked in the forest, having sex willy-nilly and eating people pretty much exclusively. This was to inform relationships with many peoples in what was to become the Third World. Nudity and/or promiscuity being seen as evidence of being anthropophagi, and thus not worthy of conversion (but perhaps worthy of genocide).

Another myth is of people with tails (reported to exist in Africa during the slave-money fueled anthro "boom"), and of small people with enormous phalli (certain central African tribes such as the Mbuti would perhaps seem a confirmation of this, with the big wang thing being inferred - the myth is born - and explains the strange preponderance of so many early anthropologists to measure penises, or report doing so).

Yet another was the myth of dog-headed "men", which many took to refer to the baboon - which in turn raised the question of the degree of humanity to accord Africans.

Pliny was simply recording things he heard from others, who in turn were talking about places far away and dimly heard of. Myths ascribed to some mysterious outgroup. Now we are more familiar with foreign parts, and these myths are seen as loony.

The key solution, I think, is familiarity. Which has the same root as family. Instead of us vs them, it should be about extending the family by encouraging familiarity across cultural/ethnic divides.

[ 30 September 2008: Message edited by: djelimon ]

[ 30 September 2008: Message edited by: djelimon ]

quote:

---

Prejudice A state of mind; a set of attitudes held by one person or group about another, tending to cast the other in an inferior light, despite the absence of legitimate or sufficient
evidence; means literally to “pre-judge”; considered
irrational and very resistant to change, because concrete
evidence that contradicts the prejudice is usually dismissed
as exceptional. Frequently prejudices are not recognized
as false or unsound assumptions or stereotypes, and,
through repetition, become accepted as common sense
notions. When backed with power, prejudice results in acts
of discrimination and oppression against groups or
individuals.

Racism A mix of prejudice and power leading to domination and exploitation of one group (the dominant or majority group) over another (the non-dominant, minority or racialized group). It asserts that the one group is supreme and
superior while the other is inferior. Racism is any individual
action, or institutional practice backed by institutional
power, which subordinates people because of their colour
or ethnicity.

Xenophobia An unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers, their cultures and their customs.

---

Which brings me back to my point about the Greeks, Homer and slavery. While we are accusstomed to equating slavery with racism, because the ideology of racism has been used as justification for the European institution of slavery, is it really the case that the form of slavery practiced by Greeks had the same ideological foundation? Or was it based simply in the "right of conquest," the enslavement of captured enemies being a common practice in almost any early society I can think of.

Likewise, reading the Illiad it is striking how there is nearly no derogatory descriptions of the Greek enemies, who are actually very highly regarded as persons by the Greeks, and not dehumanized by the language at all; they are the honoured enemy.

Now, I am not a classical scholar by any means, but I am thinking that if you want to establish that racism existed as an ideology expressed in the insitutions and political practice of the Greeks, I think you would have to show that they justified their many conquests and wars, using the inferiority of their enemies as the Casus Beli of their imperial acts.

I don't think the fact that etymologically speaking we can trace the root of the word Barbarians to early Greek society, that this means the root word contained the same meanings as those we attach to it today. As I pointed out, people who say "ba ba ba", meaning those who can not speack Greek, does not really have the same connotations as those we attach to the English word Barbarian.

I am totally into seeing more evidence to support the thesis that the Greek instituted prejudice as an political practice of ideologicall motivated racism.

[ 02 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

I doubt that at that stage they were different species.

---

Genetic evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

One thing about modern humans historically - if they meet a strange population, there will be breeding.

Even the supposedly subhuman Africans were raped by white slavers on the voyage across the Atlantic.

For this reason, women have a greater genetic diversity than men. Men kill each other and have breed with the women. Women don't generally kill each other.

Based on that, if humans could breed with Neanderthals or other species (as they are called) of homo, they would.

However, there is no evidence of Neanderthal contribution to the gene pool.

[ 05 October 2008: Message edited by: djelimon ]

[ 05 October 2008: Message edited by: djelimon ]