OK so first of all. Race as it is commonly understood “black, white, yellow, red” does not exist. It is a social and legal construction invented by man and made popular through the writings of the Romantic National movements and it’s emphasis on “Volk.”
In any case “The 4 Great Races” is a fallacy. As many of us know there are countless places were people look “kind of White and kind of Asian” like in eastern Russia among the nomadic people. There are many other examples but for brevity I just present this one.
And Race is a legal construction.
I have set the stage to relate that RACISM is the belief “my terminology- as I hate to be a Paul Parrot” that there are OBJECTIVE qualities that place one RACE (often veiled as references to “culture”) as distinctly superior to another.
Concepts such as discrimination and oppression are important growths of racism.
My favorite all-encompassing framework aimed at the conceptualization of the question of race and inequality is known as the Unified Theory of Ethnic Relations. It is a truly elegant examination of many or most of the sociological, economic, vocational, etc. growing out of perceived racial difference.
These concepts are complex but are clear and can be objectified.
Those who make such old-as-dirt comments like “Why isn’t there a White History month?” are falling into the juvenile thinking and sophomoric concepts they have been fed by those who have in turn adopted these petty understandings. Such is how racism is passed down through the generations.
Lastly, Ridgerunner, I know that you do not feel as though some on this thread do. I do hope that this has been just a tiny bit helpful.
It is clear that comments of some on this thread AND another current one- are the SAME-OLD-SAME-OLD meat and potatoes comments and expressions of racists. Nor those who are prejudiced but true RACISTS.
So Don’t blame me for not taking the time to expand on my thinking and just calling these people stupid. I took the time. . . .
Again Ridgerunner- this is not aimed at you- but your inquiries as to what “really is racism” led to my little presentation here. Sorry for any typos or grammar screw-ups.
God Bless and save us from fear,
Thank you for your comments. However, I do not think of “race” in the old categories you mention. Many don’t. I recall, for example, a young “Anglo” woman married to a Mexican man; a Mestizo. She was expecting a daughter and wanted to name the child “India” (after the country). Her husband and his relatives exploded! No! She could not name the child “India”, because in Spanish that is the feminine form of the word “Indian” (as in American Indian). If I am not greatly mistaken, Mestizos (“La Raza”), broadly speaking, are 80% “Indian”. Yet, they look down on “Indians” in the same sort of way that some white Americans once looked down on blacks. Naming the child “India” would be like naming a white child “Negress” in early 20th century Mississippi. One could go on at length about how Mexicans view, e.g., Guatemalans or, for that matter, how Uruguyans view Mexicans.
Some time ago, I had an interesting conversation with a number of blacks. They were of various black/white mixtures (as virtually all American blacks are). I was then and there acquainted with all the various terms blacks use to distinguish the various colors among themselves. It was plainly admitted that esteem followed color among them, though all were slightly embarrassed by it and admitted of exceptions to it.
Now, those kinds of things may be thought of as “subsets” of the bogus “racial distinctions” you mentioned. But they are also social distinctions that do not necessarily depend on “race” per se. A very “Indian-appearing” Mexican might not be thought of as an “Indio”, depending on various factors, including economic status and family history.
But I will also say that some element of “racism” is virtually “hard-wired” into human beings, though not necessarily in a malevolent way. Humans define “us” and “them” in various ways and virtually from birth. It is my belief that it’s part of “self-definition”. Not all distinctions, certainly, have anything to do with race, though it is a visually obvious way to define groups, particularly inasmuch as cultures and customs are very frequently different among people of similar inheritable characteristics of physiognomy. Alpine Italians are unlike Sicilians in many ways, and appearance is one of them. Why are they different in culture and customs? History is the easiest answer. But, notwithstanding that a given Sicilian might more closely resemble an Alpine than a “typical” Sicilian, appearance is a “reference point” whereby one might have some inkling, in advance, of cultural differences that might matter in the interchange between the parties, in the same sort of way that, e.g., an urban scholar might get advance clues in relating to a man with large, rough hands and a “farmer’s forehead” (lily white forehead on an otherwise deeply tanned face). Further development of the relationship might reveal that the farmer is a Rhodes scholar or exceedingly wise. But initially, the “stereotyping” can actually be helpful.
(continued)
