7/03/97, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote:
>Those of us who bring
>to the attention of others that the construct of biological race is a
>scientific nonreality, that its invention was born in ignorance and
>exploitative relations, and that continued attempts to reassert its
>ontology perpetuate racism--we are "politically correct."
My dictionary (too old, it seems, to notate the entry as "folklore")
defines "race":
A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a
more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical
charactristics.
If you can't acknowledge the obvious existence of this phenomenon, at least
in relatively isolated communities (Eskimos?), then you're either deaf,
dumb, and blind or else suffering from compulsive ideology disorder. I
suspect the latter, but I'm open to a diagnosis of multiple advanced
diseases.
If you want to continue the discussion of race per-se, then let me say
"I've heard you": you happen to believe that THE ACADEMY has pronounced the
end of races. Fine, no need to repeat that. The Academy has been wrong
before, will be wrong again, and in the hands of corporate funders seems to
be making a profession of selling fabricated results to propaganda buyers.
(eg- "there's no conclusive proof that acid-rain is harmful", or something
close to that, not to mention non-sense about a "crime gene").
How about some simple summary prose about "the fallacy of racism"? I'm
open to hear it, I've seen the "obvious" demolished before my eyes in the
past and am always willing to learn. But please no more appeals to remote
authority.
>You often regurgitate conventional piety in an unthinking
>manner
>I don't have much faith that this post will be met
>with the understanding of a twice-born individual
For chrissake, gimmea break Andrew. If anyone is so regurgitating, and if
anyone needs to be open to understanding, I yield to you in priority of
need. Are you constitutionally incapable of addressing issues without
descending into personal attack?
--->activism against oppression
Obviously your passion here is political propaganda, not open scientific investigation. Nothing wrong with that, we certainly need more effective counter-propaganda to the mainstream neoliberal-culturalist-racist-imperialist line. We may have an excess of academics, but we don't have an excess of progressive propagandists, agenda setters, or leaders. More power to you.
But allow me to suggest that you're wasting your energy on this topic if you really want to do something about the ravages of racism. To a non-racist, there's no need to prove there aren't any races - he or she isn't the real problem. To a racist, you're simply a babbling fool - he or she "knows" there are races, "knows" some of them are inferior, etc. Who are you trying to convince, and why? What's your strategy?
>Ideologies of racial and gender >inequality legitimate the dissolution of social structures that present as >barriers to the expansion of capital, suppressing accumulation and the >integration of the global division of labor. The recent stream of racist >publications in the US, for example, have been directly applied to the >effort to dismantle affirmative action and other worker protections; these >works have been produced by the same organizations.
There was once a village which was regularly raided by bandits, who would always enter through a certain pass, descending to their task. The village was resigned to its fate and thought not in terms of resistance. One day a rare leader arose, with great effort roused the people to collective action, and built a wall of spikes across the pass. Much celebration of victory followed, and many casks of wine enjoyed. Unfortunately, when the bandits saw the spikes, they simply shrugged, shifted course, and entered by another route, not even angered by the trivial diversion. - channeled by the author from an ancient Afghan sage
This yes/no race question is but a segment of the substance of a single spike in the wall against elite propaganda. Such maginot lines - even if unanimously upheld by academics - are no match for today's adroit, adaptive, subliminal, focus-group enhanced media tactics. If you want to counter the individual thrusts, get out in the front lines and counter the presented arguments - which aren't typically overtly racist, and are more easily refuted on their face. If you want to counter the main body of attack, then focus on neoliberal ideology itself, and perhaps emphasize that it's old wine in new casks, and of a vintage that's been thoroughly discredited by previous generations of drinkers.
rkm