7/11/97, Gernot Kohler wrote:
>The analogy has several dimensions: a (predominantly) white
>minority is dominant in the system (military and political power), has a
>vastly higher standard of living than the multiracial majority (wealth)
>and is privileged in several other dimensions. Over much of the past 500
>years, this system was explicitly justified in racial superiority terms.
>How do others on the list react to such a concept (i.e., global apartheid)?
You didn't mention another obvious part of the analogy - immigration
restrictions as analog to the "apart" aspect of apartheid. My own
response, since you ask, is that the analogy is a very good one. The
thesis might be expressed as "Apartheid: microcosm of Euro imperialism".
Most of the wsn discussion on race/racism has had very little to do with
how race/racism relates to world-systems - it's had mostly to with personal
opinions about "race", propaganda strategies toward some unspecified target
audience, and, very occassionally, scientific results re/ genetics and
ethnicity.
The _relevance_ of "race"/racism to w-s may perhaps be summarized as:
(1) Racism is about 1mm beneath the skin of at least 90% of the world's
population, in the cases where it isn't overt.
(2) Because of (1), racism is a potent and available tool for
political manipulation by elites everywhere.
(3) This is very unlikely to change in the forseeable future.
(4) _Perceived_ racial identities (totally independent of the
actualities of genetics or ethnicity) have always been and
will long continue to be significant factors in the politics
and architectures of world systems.
Neither wishing these facts away, nor proclaiming the invalidity of "race",
will change the situtation.
---As a side note, let me say that in my observation nothing is more embarrasingly unscientific than a gathering of scientists condemning a notion that is unpopular amongst them. For example, Alan Spector said (9 Jul): >It reminds me of the astrology argument. The moon exerts tremendous gravity >on the Earth--pulls up millions of gallons of water with the tides. So the >astrologers asserts with no serious data, that Pluto lining up with >Uranus will affect a person's mood.
If anyone actually was interested in a scientific analysis of astrology, the initial relevant questions would be: (1) Are there any correlations between date-of-birth and observed personality characteristics? (2) If so, do the date-linked characteristics bear any relationship to the personality "types" proclaimed by proponents of astrology?
One can, presumably, dismiss out of hand the notion that heavenly bodies have anything to do with this issue. If in fact time-of-year has some effect on personality development, and this was observed empirically by the founders of astrology, then presumably they searched for an explanation and came up with a stupid one: the position of certain stars in the ecliptic. They found something that was correlated, and presumed it was causative - they concluded that the clock was the cause of time passage and of all related phenomenon.
But as to the issue of date-related characteristics - has anyone even looked at that question scientifically? Most commentators, like Spector, don't even realize what the relevant scientific queries would be, let alone having any notion of what pursuing them might lead to.
And yet they smugly pontificate, supported by the shared prejudices of their community, the absurdity of astrology. One couldn't find a less scientific discussion among washerwomen at a Third-World stream.
Believers in astrology at least have the argument that they perceive a correlation between astrology "readings" and their own and their friend's personalities. Their belief is therefore considerably more scientifically based than any of the anti-astrology arguments I've ever seen.
I suspect many on this list won't realize that the above is a discussion of the scientific process and the sociology of scientists - not a defense of astrology.
rkm