Who Is Racist?

[_Droopy]

Would you at least admit that racism against nonwhites has been the main form of racism for centuries

No. That claim is thoroughly ahistorcal and is, from a historical perspective, wholly disassociated from reality. Even during the period of the Atlantic slave trade, a brief snapshot of the much longer drama of ethnic hostility and bigotry that has spanned all of human history, the idea that other groups, and even related groups, are innately or deep-seatedly inferior in various ways was common to virtually all peoples everywhere.

There was nothing exceptional or unique about the European slave trade when contrasted and contextualized across the entire panorama of human history, save its particular destinations.

and has tended to be the kind of racism that has most often gotten itself into norms, social institutions and culture?

You should read some Aristotle or Plato, and find out what they believed about the innate characteristics of the people the ancient Athenians and Greeks enslaved, most of which shared their skin color and even nationality.

Would you also admit a long historical tendency for power and wealth differentials to favor whites more often by far than the reverse?

How long? That depends upon where you start and end your trend line and where you're looking. Had the Aztecs invented steel, iron, cannons, gunpowder, and ships capable of transoceanic voyages, and were the Europeans still making weapons out of wood, bone, and flint, the power and wealth differential would have favored the Aztecs and Europe today might very well look like any number of Mesoamerican archeological sites.

And, in fact, those differentials did favor the Aztecs, as any number of Inca's would have told you at the time the Spanish were colonizing their lands, which is the primary reason a tiny band of conquistadors were able to defeat the much more numerous Aztecs.

White ethnocentrism (little if any different from every other historical variety), as it existed for centuries and as it was deployed much later as a justification for American slavery (a unique 19th century development, especially post-Civil War, as before slavery had been understood primarily as an economic and social practice, not devoid of prejudice, but not grounded principally in what we today would call "race" in the sense of innate inferiority) was nether unique nor extraordinary in world history, save in one sense: England and America led the Western world in its abolition on moral grounds. That didn't happen in Africa at the time, nor Asia, nor the Middle East.

[_huckelberry]

How many liberals would even admit that it's possible for a nonwhite person to be racist? I've never heard them talk about anything but white people discriminating against nonwhite people. I think different races can get into their own race battles, but unless there is a way to make white people ultimately responsible, the issue is ignored and not talked about.

Ajax,
Speaking as a liberal I will state that I see racism in various ways and times occurring in all racial groups.

I think some confusion in conversation may result from the fact that there are various meanings for the word. A question about who can be racist might be asked with one meaning in mind but answered with another. The simplest meaning of racism used is not liking a group of people because of their race. A second meaning is having a belief and theory that the other race is inferior and deserves special negative treatment. A third meaning which is the common American version combines the first two meanings with an established set of laws and social conventions depriving the disparaged group of rights and opportunities making treatment of them as inferior the required norm. That kind of racism has certainly faded in the United States but is the form which people are thinking of if they say Blacks cannot be racist. Of course Blacks can be racist in the sense of not liking Whites. . There are some of those Blacks that may harbor a theory of white moral inferiority. That of course is a sort of racism but lacks the teeth of political, legal, and social power to coerce inferior positions for the others. It still has the danger of creating scattered unfocused violence.

It think that it is clear with the history of violence in the world that all sorts of races may get swept up in racist thinking belief and action. Whites do not have any monopoly on the full deal racism characteristic of traditional white American racism. Full deal racism was vigorous in Japan prior and during world war 2 against whites and other groups. In recent centuries whites have had more opportunity to take advantage of the power of full blown, combined all three types ,racism but I cannot think of any reason to imagine that only some races are capable of doing it. It does need opportunity.

Sometimes I hear what sounds like another puzzling set of meanings for the word racism. Some people speak as though any variation of treatment of people because of race is racism. That seems to me a confusing use of the word, It corrupts the other normal and established uses of the word discussed above . Sometimes in this neighborhood it sounds like racism gets used to refer to any concern to address racial problems. I understand that some ideas of how to address race problems can be rejected as poor solutions. I think it is better to state what is wrong with a certain proposed solution. Simply calling it racist is more like verbal noise than English communication.

[_ajax18]

People treat blood relatives differently than those who are not as closely related to them. Is racism just an extension of that?

[_huckelberry]

People treat blood relatives differently than those who are not as closely related to them. Is racism just an extension of that?

I think you are pointing out a natural foundation for racism. We probably will have some racism for the coming centuries because of that. I hope we can balance the tendency with a respect for people just as people.

[_beastie]

How many liberals would even admit that it's possible for a nonwhite person to be racist? I've never heard them talk about anything but white people discriminating against nonwhite people. I think different races can get into their own race battles, but unless there is a way to make white people ultimately responsible, the issue is ignored and not talked about.

I have NEVER in my life heard one single person claim that it's impossible for a nonwhite person to be racist.

What I HAVE heard claimed is that it's the powerful group that has the opportunity to make that racism count.

[_beastie]

What fun to answer these questions! Slavery was completely abolished in 1865. A mere 148 years ago. Seven generations ago. If you add to that the years where racial discrimination was officially tolerated, it's only been about 48 years. Two generations.

by the way, slavery by another name was only abolished in 1941. Visit this thread for the entertaining site of droopy making unsubstantiated claims and obviously not reading anyone else's posts on the matter. In other words, droopy being droopy.

viewtopic.php?p=702557#p702557

[_beastie]

2. There was no "genocide" of Amerindians, either carried out or contemplated by the United States government or its military.

I guess one out for you is that the smallpox infected blankets were distributed to the Indians prior to the Revolutionary War.

Fact is, on at least one occasion a high-ranking European considered infecting the Indians with smallpox as a tactic of war. I'm talking about Lord Jeffrey Amherst, commander of British forces in North America during the French and Indian War (1756-'63). Amherst and a subordinate discussed, apparently seriously, sending infected blankets to hostile tribes. What's more, we've got the documents to prove it, thanks to the enterprising research of Peter d'Errico, legal studies professor at the University of Massachusetts at (fittingly) Amherst. D'Errico slogged through hundreds of reels of microfilmed correspondence looking for the smoking gun, and he found it.

The exchange took place during Pontiac's Rebellion, which broke out after the war, in 1763. Forces led by Pontiac, a chief of the Ottawa who had been allied with the French, laid siege to the English at Fort Pitt.

According to historian Francis Parkman, Amherst first raised the possibility of giving the Indians infected blankets in a letter to Colonel Henry Bouquet, who would lead reinforcements to Fort Pitt. No copy of this letter has come to light, but we do know that Bouquet discussed the matter in a postscript to a letter to Amherst on July 13, 1763:

P.S. I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself. As it is pity to oppose good men against them, I wish we could make use of the Spaniard's Method, and hunt them with English Dogs. Supported by Rangers, and some Light Horse, who would I think effectively extirpate or remove that Vermine.

On July 16 Amherst replied, also in a postscript:

P.S. You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race. I should be very glad your Scheme for Hunting them Down by Dogs could take Effect, but England is at too great a Distance to think of that at present.

On July 26 Bouquet wrote back:

I received yesterday your Excellency's letters of 16th with their Inclosures. The signal for Indian Messengers, and all your directions will be observed.

We don't know if Bouquet actually put the plan into effect, or if so with what result. We do know that a supply of smallpox-infected blankets was available, since the disease had broken out at Fort Pitt some weeks previously. We also know that the following spring smallpox was reported to be raging among the Indians in the vicinity.

To modern ears, this talk about infecting the natives with smallpox, hunting them down with dogs, etc., sounds over the top. But it's easy to believe Amherst and company were serious. D'Errico provides other quotes from Amherst's correspondence that suggest he considered Native Americans subhumans who ought to be exterminated. Check out his research for yourself at www.nativeweb.org/pages/l egal/amherst/lord_jeff.html. He not only includes transcriptions but also reproduces the relevant parts of the incriminating letters.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... h-smallpox

Unfortunately for your claim, the Trail of Tears was, indeed, initiated by the US government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears

[_EAllusion]

People treat blood relatives differently than those who are not as closely related to them. Is racism just an extension of that?

Yes and no. Race doesn't necessarily correspond to relatedness. You could be more closely related to a black person than another white person. Race isn't the same thing as ethnicity though ethnicity can be used to help define a race. Race can be grouped by language, geography, vague impression of physical traits, etc. It's a socially constructed identity a group of people either take on themselves or define in others.

But people have an impulse to treat in-group members different than out-group members that is usually strongest in kinship. So that tribalism has an analogy there.

[_Droopy]

I guess one out for you is that the smallpox infected blankets were distributed to the Indians prior to the Revolutionary War.

I knew, I just knew I could draw the Morlocks out of their lairs into the disinfectant of light if I just took the bait a bit. Here is a case of the fish reeling in the fisherman.

This is one of the most poisonous and pernicious multiculturalist myths generated in the fetid swamps of academic political correctness on cultural record. There is not a shred of historical evidence that this was anything other than a tragic accident of biology and contact among previously vastly separated peoples (just as a similar epidemic among those the Spanish conquistadors came into contact with in Latin America).

What we have here is not anything resembling a serious historical claim but an artifact of multiculturalist ideology (and which, by the way, calls into serious question everything beastie's ever written about Mesoamerica or the Book of Mormon).

Fact is, on at least one occasion a high-ranking European considered infecting the Indians with smallpox as a tactic of war. I'm talking about Lord Jeffrey Amherst, commander of British forces in North America during the French and Indian War (1756-'63). Amherst and a subordinate discussed, apparently seriously, sending infected blankets to hostile tribes. What's more, we've got the documents to prove it, thanks to the enterprising research of Peter d'Errico, legal studies professor at the University of Massachusetts at (fittingly) Amherst. D'Errico slogged through hundreds of reels of microfilmed correspondence looking for the smoking gun, and he found it.

Yup, a conversation between two military officers. That's it in a couple of personal letters. That's the entire wad shot. Not even official government stationary. Beyond this, there is not a scrap of evidence from official documents or government texts showing any attempt or consideration of such a practice.

The abject stupidity (and ideologically generated gullibility) of such a claim is too obvious to bear repeating, but, as were dealing with the Left here, endless repetition of simple, logical connections and implications seems warranted. The smallpox epidemic of that time didn't just kill Indians, who were only more highly susceptible, but numerous whites as well. In other words, you are claiming that it was thought OK to kill thousands of Americans (including any soldiers/government officials coming into contact with them) in order to eradicate Amerindians.

Cough up some serious documentary evidence, beastie, just for once (not a letter between a local commander and a "subordinate") or give up the ship. Secondly, this was 1763, and "America" and "Americans" had nothing to do with any of it, even if the claim of "biological warfare" had the slightest historical merit (the source you quote gives away the game when he says, "To modern ears, this talk about infecting the natives with smallpox, hunting them down with dogs, etc., sounds over the top. But it's easy to believe Amherst and company were serious."
This and other similar statements are what historians say when they really mean "I have no idea one way or the other" but have a bias they wish to promote).

Michael Medved summed it up nicely:

Obviously, the decimation of native population by European germs represents an enormous tragedy, but in no sense does it represent a crime. Stories of deliberate infection by passing along "small-pox blankets" are based exclusively on two letters from British soldiers in 1763, at the end of the bitter and bloody French and Indian War. By that time, Indian populations (including those in the area) had already been terribly impacted by smallpox, and there's no evidence of a particularly devastating outbreak as a result of British policy.

For the most part, Indians were infected by devastating diseases even before they made direct contact with Europeans: other Indians who had already been exposed to the germs, carried them with them to virtually every corner of North America and many British explorers and settlers found empty, abandoned villages (as did the Pilgrims) and greatly reduced populations when they first arrived.

Sympathy for Native Americans and admiration for their cultures in no way requires a belief in European or American genocide. As Jared Diamond's book (and countless others) makes clear, the mass migration of Europeans to the New World and the rapid displacement and replacement of Native populations is hardly a unique interchange in human history. On six continents, such shifting populations – with countless cruel invasions and occupations and social destructions and replacements - have been the rule rather than the exception.

The notion that unique viciousness to Native Americans represents our "original sin" fails to put European contact with these struggling Stone Age societies in any context whatever, and only serves the purposes of those who want to foster inappropriate guilt, uncertainty and shame in young Americans.

A nation ashamed of its past will fear its future.

The only circumstantial evidence for the alleged "genocide" is in two unconnected and disassociated events some 74 years apart, the first being the letters between Amherst and his "subordinate" which suggested such a course of action (at all events independent of higher military command and of civilian government authority) and one claimed by the notorious academic fraud Ward Churchill, regarding the Mandan tribe in 1837. In that case, again, no evidence exists that there was any intentional attempt to infect anyone, and indeed, some evidence suggests that the settlers in that case attempted to prevent the outbreak.

Move along...nothing to see here.

[_Droopy]

The first:


http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/plag/524045 ... w=fulltext