July 14, 2007
Posted by yaman
What it means to be racist
Racism is nothing more than a mistake in analysis, and a logical error. It is not racist, as is often believed, to harbor malice towards another group of people. It is simply hateful. Considering that group of people to be a group worthy of any one feeling in the first place is what is racist. To come away from such an understanding of a “people” with a positive statement is no less racist than it is to come away with hatred and disdain, though its effects might not be as immediately reprehensible.
As an example, we might hear somebody say something like “I love black people” or “I love Jews” or “I love Arabs” etc. The speaker may not harbor any malicious feelings whatsoever, and may in fact be trying to prove the opposite: that they are not racist, and that they are not hateful. This strikes me as a stupid thing to say–it might confirm that the speaker is not hateful, but it says the opposite about whether or not the speaker is a racist. Racism has nothing to do with hate or love.
I think this brand of “positive” racism is much more widespread than may be apparent, and for the most part it is in and of itself relatively benign. But it reminds me of a recent article which explained Hannah Arendt’s refusal to “love the Jewish people” as a refusal to support “the premise and alibi for anti-semitism.”
I recently heard a claim from somebody that “the reason ‘They’ decided to attack Iraq is because 3,000 years ago, a king from Iraq was the one who exiled the Jews,” or something close to that. I don’t really care to look up the history of this claim, because I don’t think it’s of the slightest importance. But reflecting on this moment later I realized that the only reason anybody would or could believe such a claim is if they believed that Israel today is actually the culmination of 3,000 years of struggle by “the Jews,” that “the Jews” are forever a single unit with a single consciousness.
That notion is absurd and clearly racist but it is also one of the basic premises of the traditional national Israeli narrative. Too often, I think, we tend to refer to the negative pole of this phenomenon as racist (example above), while overlooking or ignoring the positive one (finally, after 3 millenia, we have a home). This is too bad, since it seems that the latter opens the door for the former by confirming–and relying upon–its logic.
That logic, in this case, would be ascribing to the general what may be true about one sample, or even the majority, but is not near true for all. I think this is something that people already know well (that is, the analytical mistake called racism) because we can see the ways in which the word racism is mis-used. For example, anti-Muslim sentiment has often been described as “racist,” when Muslim is by no means a race. This, I think, is because there is a strong similarity between what is “racism” (that analytical mistake when applied to races) and what is “anti-Muslim”ism (that analytical mistake applied to religion). Thus we say that Muslims have been “racialized” to explain why anti-Muslim attitudes are racist. The same analytical mistake can be made with a different criteria serving to identify the groups in question.
An understanding of racism and its relatives as an analytical mistake is important because, as mentioned previously, ‘progressive’ arguments based in the same logic are just as detrimental as regressive ones. Additionally, such mistakes in analysis inevitably lead to mistaken conclusions. Sometimes generalizations are useful–but when they cause us to err, as in the cases above, we must avoid them.
5 Comments
July 15, 2007
I agree with the main jist of this post, that the term “racist” is overused (or used in the wrong context). But when you go on to say what IS and IS NOT racist, your logic falls apart.
The real root of the problem of racism in America, and in the world, is the fact that people believe that there really is a scientific thing called “race”. Any attempt to divide people into races can only be subjective, bogus, and pseudo-scientific. The fact that you use the word “races” in your post only gives legitimacy to the notion of “race”, and implies that you think there really are some differences between these monolithic groups known as “races”, in which case it follows that some “races” must be better than others.
Obviously there are differences (visible and otherwise) among people, depending on where there ancestors lived, but these cannot logically lead to the categorization of people into races.
Anyone who does believe in this thing called race is, as you say, making a “logical error”, and I think this also makes them a racist.
I think it is important that we ask ourselves, “why is racism condemned so much in our society, and why is ‘racist’ such a dirty word to call someone?” The answer is that Racism(with a capital R) was the official ideology of the Nazi regime, and since they lost the war, racists are considered losers, and nobody wants to be a loser. If Germany had won the war, people would proudly call themselves racists(even if they were good-intentioned people arguing for noble causes like equality).
this website is interesting:
http://www.pbs.org/race/001_WhatIsRace/001_00-home.htm
The second component of this issue is the human tendency to form groups. There are practical and evolutionary reasons for this. In a family people care for and look after one another. The concept of “nations” and “peoples” is merely an extension of this idea.
All too often, people confuse nationalism(or some other group-ism) with racism. This is the mistake of self-righteous academics like Judith Butler and Hanna Arendt. They fail to see how, by being a part of the Jewish people, a person has an obligation toward his fellow Jews (same goes for other groups).
Imagine you have to choose between saving the life of an innocent stranger or the life of your own brother. Any normal person would pick their own brother. This is not because they believe he is “racially superior” to the other person, but because you have a sense of love and loyalty to him. When Israelis bomb buildings containing rockets aimed at crowded Israeli cities, its not because they believe “Israeli blood is more precious than Lebanese blood”.
Also, please keep in mind that Jews do not consider themselves a “race”, and they were not considered a race by others until the Nazi’s invented “Racial Science”.
Anyway, I think that you are wrong when you dismiss the theory about Jews having a grudge against Babylon. In many ways, the Jewish people, as well as the state of Israel, ARE the culmination of many thousands of years of history. If you need evidence, look at the origin of any Jewish holiday, e.g. Passover, or maybe just read a Jewish religious text, such as the Babylonian Talmud.
It is true that there are many references to Nebuchadnezzar being a terrible person and an enemy of the Jews. This is not surprising, since he destroyed the first temple in Jerusalem and brought the Jews as captives to Babylon. When the Persians conquered Babylon, Cyrus the Great allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. He is praised and honored and loved by the Jewish people.
Please ask your friend if this is the reason “They”(read neo-cons(read Jews)) want to attack Iran.
July 15, 2007
You raise a good point about ‘race,’ in that it is an idea that has been seriously challenged. I do not believe that there is much credence behind the idea, and I use it loosely. When I talk about these things, I usually use ‘ethnicity,’ but even then I still use the terms loosely and without so much knowledge about what, specifically, they might mean. In any case, I opted to use ‘race’ in this post because of the word ‘racist.’
Whether or not forming groups or categorizations is natural per se is something I’ll leave to the scientists to sort out–regardless, that tendency, if it is one, is sometimes useful, and sometimes useless. When we make the group too expansive, to the point that what we say is something held in common between all members is not actually held in common, then we make mistakes.
It may be so that in Jewish folklore there is animosity towards one figure or another. The same can be said about characters in Christian and Islamic liturgy. But would it not be a mistake for Jews to assume that those characters in the Bible actually have modern day parallels, or for Muslims to assume that those Jews referred to in some Qur’anic passages (the ones that were local to Mecca and Medina) are actually references to all the Jews throughout time immemorial? Or what about Christians blaming the death of Jesus on Jews contemporary to them, an idea that has fueled anti-semitism for ages? To me, all of these examples are examples of ‘racism,’ in addition to what you’ve said about what the Jewish people are and are not. Even with my examples above, are you really certain that if you approach every single Christian on this planet, they will tell you that they blame the Jews for Jesus’ death, and by Jews they mean their neighbors and colleagues, not that handful of people responsible for turning Jesus in (according to the prevalent narratives)?
I am not in a position to ask this person any more questions, but I am pretty sure by “They” they meant Jews, and not anything fancy like neo-cons etc. And I didn’t mean to assert that Jews are a distinct race–this question is muddled and something that Jewish scholars disagree on amongst themselves (who is Jewish?). But regardless of whether or not they are, they are often ‘racialized’ and treated as if they are one.
July 15, 2007
I have had problems with the blanket statement : I love Arabs or Jews or whoever although it is true that I feel well with Arabs and living in the Arab world. But when it was suggested that I try to be on the Al Jazeera program about Westerners who love Arabs, I cringed. I mean, this would have no sense for me.
So, I love Arabs ? How does it help them ?
People are individuals. Let’s say that I have a favorable prejudice toward Arabs and empathize with their positions.
Saying that I dislike deeply the Zionist behavior is an understatement but I still have nothing against Jews as such yet it takes an effort sometimes not to generalize.
July 28, 2007
In this academic discussion, nationalism, in this case exemplified by jews by john above, is just as ridiculous as categorising people into races. Nationalism is about categorising people into groups in the same way racism does, it only (a lot of the time) uses different markers to do so. The group is artificial in the sense that most of the people in your ‘nation’ will never meet or have any personal relations and are only ‘held together’ by believing in the groups existence. The nation is formed by constructing certain traits that bind the people together and by disregarding anything that might create differences. The Jewish ‘nation’ is constructed solely on the basis of religion (which is then connected to history and geography, real or not), whereas most other nations have to rely on a number of other markers, such as language and ‘culture’ however vague that term is. The worst part about the misunderstanding of nationalism is the idea that there should be solidarity only because of the belonging to this huge group.
The poster above claims that as a Jew one has an obligation to other Jews. This is how ‘treason’ is constructed in times of conflict. If i chose to save someone not from my ‘nation’ I am a traitor.
Being Norwegian, I am happily far away from a situation where I will ever be labeled a traitor (although it happens frequently enough if one participates in online discussions where ‘the good of the country’ is criticies – ie. not being anti-immigration), which means I will stay miles away from that reference to shooting rockets, but I feel a lot more solidarity to like-minded people the world over than to just any Norwegian.
In the end, nationalism is about creating borders between ‘us’ and ‘them.’ Like the poster above correctly states, when someone is not from ‘us,’ we have less of a responsibility to help them and that is ok. Too bad that most people the world over so readily embraces the idea.
July 28, 2007
I agree that nationalism can have similar effects, but it’s because when people make such claims–that “we” are different from “them” in this and that way–they are making the same analytical mistake that I have mentioned above. That’s why it doesn’t make sense when people say something like “The Lebanese are racist against Syrians” because Lebanese and Syrian are not different races or ethnicities, but only nationalities. National identities come and go. Just 100 years ago they all would have been Ottoman. These identities are every bit as constructed as you say they are.
Leave a comment