Race has undergone many definitions throughout history from skin colour to class and then again skin colour. Many early colonisers chiefly from Europe, Portugal, Britain, France and Spain raided sub-Saharan Africa stealing millions into slavery to their various colonies. The Belgium colonisers of the Congo used an unspecified number of slaves effectively enslaving the entire population. King Leopold ll between 1885 and 1908 used the Congo as his personal propertied land enslaving the entire population in effect within their own territory.
It was the German Third Reich, 19333-45, who resurrected the race based on appearances theory, Jewish people had, according to the Nazis, larger noses than non-Jews, black people were inherently inferior to Germans. Black Prisoners of War (POWs) during the Second World War suffered very badly at the hands of their inherently racist Nazi captors. These soldiers were from the French colonies and were used to fight for the very country which had colonised them, stealing lands and people alike. The subjects are far too long to cover here as one cannot be examined here with any clarity due to the sub sections involving all three closely related topics.
‘Reverse racism’ is something that can be looked at here as the concept is often used and invented by would be white supremacists to justify their hate filled spite. Early anthropologists wrongly concluded black people to be closely related to apes basing their erroneous findings on skull shape and the appearance of some developed apes, chimpanzees, gorillas, and baboons which do bear some resemblance to human beings, all human beings not just black people and those of colour. Humans, again all humans not just non-whites, share a very large percentage of genes with great apes with around 98 per cent of their DNA with Chimpanzees.
Of course this narrative does not suit the fascist/racist far-right agenda. They maintain or pretend to maintain that the similarities between apes and humans apply only to non-white peoples basing these false findings on such aspects as height, skin colour, hair, facial features etc. Many white people bear some similarities to apes as do some non-whites as we are genetically close. Yet racism is a predominantly white concept fuelled by far-right supposed politicians and some elements within the bourgeoisie to divide white workers from black employees thus preventing any solidarity within the working-class. Having whipped working-class people into a frenzy these street orators, like Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen Christopher Yaxley Lennon) in Britian to the Justin Barrett types in Ireland are building support bases on these sick ideas. Barret would not deny being racist but others like Herman Kelly, a founder of the misleadingly titled Irish Freedom Party, would deny being racist. Kelly was once employed as a press officer for Nigel Farage, leader of the Reform UK party.
The concept of racism was once depicted, in the 19th century, by class. For example, the business classes perceived the working class as a different ‘race’ to themselves. Prior to 1832 the aristocracy in Britain saw themselves a superior ‘race’ to all others. This changed as the bourgeoisie began their rise through the Industrial Revolution to power, many receiving the vote in 1832. They too then saw themselves as a superior ‘race’ to those who grafted for long hours in their factories. The ideas of racialisation of black people are used by revisionist historians who revisit the days of colonialism proving those peoples of sub-Saharan Africa are an inferior ‘race’ to the whites. There is absolutely no evidence to support these erroneous claims. It is true that only black people were enslaved as chattel slaves while white people, many Irish, were indentured servants.
The concept of racism was once depicted, in the 19th century, by class. For example, the business classes perceived the working class as a different ‘race’ to themselves. Prior to 1832 the aristocracy in Britain saw themselves a superior ‘race’ to all others. This changed as the bourgeoisie began their rise through the Industrial Revolution to power, many receiving the vote in 1832. They too then saw themselves as a superior ‘race’ to those who grafted for long hours in their factories. The ideas of racialisation of black people are used by revisionist historians who revisit the days of colonialism proving those peoples of sub-Saharan Africa are an inferior ‘race’ to the whites. There is absolutely no evidence to support these erroneous claims. It is true that only black people were enslaved as chattel slaves while white people, many Irish, were indentured servants.
The existence of the indentured servant was little better than a slave but they did have certain minimal legal rights which slaves did not. White indentured servants could be flogged but not to death or even within an inch of their lives whereas black slaves suffered regular floggings often being flogged to death. There are recordings of indentured servants taking their master to court because he took the whip to them too severely and winning their case with minimum compensation. Slaves who were considered ‘savages’ and ‘belonging up trees’ were not given these very basic legal rights. Domestic pets such as dogs received better treatment than did some slaves by their masters. Indentured Servants were as such for a temporary limited period whereas slaves would die as slaves, a life sentence. White people could not be seen as slaves and the status of indentured servant could be challenged in the courts if the length of servitude was considered too long.
The indentured servant would not live a happy life but they were not slaves as some right-wing revisionists would have us believe. Such revised history is a part of the ‘reverse racism’ concept: the ‘we had it as bad and worse than black people’ myth! Such racist remarks as n------ and savages referring to black people is blatant racism denied by some on the far-right. If a black person makes negative remark about white people suggesting whites are not as good in athletics particularly track and field as black athletes it cannot be put in the same league as the racist remarks describing black people as ‘monkeys’ who belong ‘up tree’s’. No comparison in the two remarks and though the comparison in sport may be considered ‘ethnocentric’ it is not racist. Those races who suffered historically through having first their lands then their peoples stolen by the white colonisers are those suffering from racism today. The fascist/racist right try to compare such remarks made by blacks about whites as ‘black anti-white racism’ which it is not. They use such arguments to justify their vile racist arguments which, alas, are gaining traction in Britain and Ireland among ordinary people who would not consider themselves racist. They follow and vote for such reactionaries as one time ‘Official Sinn Fein’ activist now arch right-wing preacher, Malachy Steenson, who has jumped across from a left-wing position to one of racist. He would argue against this, claiming not to be ‘racist’.
When a group of people or even individuals become ‘racialised’ because historically they had little or no power it is seen by some whites to be the case today explaining why white people are superior which is nonsense. Unfortunately more and more otherwise decent people are subscribing to such reactionary views. Such ideas have always been present but only among a tiny minority. In Dail Eireann, 1943, fine Gael TD Oliver J. Flanagan made his antisemitic speech about ‘Bees and Honey’ and ‘Jews and Money’ but very few paid him any attention. Twenty-five years later in the British Parliament Conservative right-wing MP, Enoch Powel, in 1968, made his famous racist ‘Rivers of Blood’ oration which, for a short time, did gather support as fascist groups like the National Front (NF) resurfaced. Anti-fascist groups during the seventies kicked them off the streets. Unfortunately, certainly in Ireland, such opposition does not appear to be present. Very concerning indeed!
Between the 1500s and early 1800s around 12 million slaves were stolen from sub-Saharan Africa into slavery by the Europeans. Portugal led the charge with 5.7 million to their colonies chiefly Brazil. Britain followed with 3.2 million to their colonies in the West Indies and North America. France then rowed in at 1.5 million with Spain not to be left out stealing around 1 million souls for slave labour. It is these colonising days which are the roots of racism against people of colour as their white colonisers, despite poorer health and fitness, were considered superior to these enslaved natives. In reality it was gun powder and fire arms which gave the colonisers the advantage and nothing to do with racial superiority. There is only one race on earth and that is the human race within which there are many ethnicities and cultures.
The far-right and fascist right use the non-existent ‘reverse racism’ argument to explain and justify their own remarks about race. This concept argues black people are as bad to white people and therefore it is perfectly alright to call the blacks ‘savages’. Of course this is certainly not the case and any remarks coming from non-whites about whites tends to be a reaction to the racism suffered by these people. ‘Reverse Racism’ is a myth pedalled by the fascists/racists, that is those intelligent enough to pronounce it, and only a myth. Like most myths it is easy to destroy using basic history let alone academic achievements made by non-white people. The unfortunate aspect about this myth is it is easy to orate and people alas do listen and believe simply because the arguments are simple!
The indentured servant would not live a happy life but they were not slaves as some right-wing revisionists would have us believe. Such revised history is a part of the ‘reverse racism’ concept: the ‘we had it as bad and worse than black people’ myth! Such racist remarks as n------ and savages referring to black people is blatant racism denied by some on the far-right. If a black person makes negative remark about white people suggesting whites are not as good in athletics particularly track and field as black athletes it cannot be put in the same league as the racist remarks describing black people as ‘monkeys’ who belong ‘up tree’s’. No comparison in the two remarks and though the comparison in sport may be considered ‘ethnocentric’ it is not racist. Those races who suffered historically through having first their lands then their peoples stolen by the white colonisers are those suffering from racism today. The fascist/racist right try to compare such remarks made by blacks about whites as ‘black anti-white racism’ which it is not. They use such arguments to justify their vile racist arguments which, alas, are gaining traction in Britain and Ireland among ordinary people who would not consider themselves racist. They follow and vote for such reactionaries as one time ‘Official Sinn Fein’ activist now arch right-wing preacher, Malachy Steenson, who has jumped across from a left-wing position to one of racist. He would argue against this, claiming not to be ‘racist’.
When a group of people or even individuals become ‘racialised’ because historically they had little or no power it is seen by some whites to be the case today explaining why white people are superior which is nonsense. Unfortunately more and more otherwise decent people are subscribing to such reactionary views. Such ideas have always been present but only among a tiny minority. In Dail Eireann, 1943, fine Gael TD Oliver J. Flanagan made his antisemitic speech about ‘Bees and Honey’ and ‘Jews and Money’ but very few paid him any attention. Twenty-five years later in the British Parliament Conservative right-wing MP, Enoch Powel, in 1968, made his famous racist ‘Rivers of Blood’ oration which, for a short time, did gather support as fascist groups like the National Front (NF) resurfaced. Anti-fascist groups during the seventies kicked them off the streets. Unfortunately, certainly in Ireland, such opposition does not appear to be present. Very concerning indeed!
Between the 1500s and early 1800s around 12 million slaves were stolen from sub-Saharan Africa into slavery by the Europeans. Portugal led the charge with 5.7 million to their colonies chiefly Brazil. Britain followed with 3.2 million to their colonies in the West Indies and North America. France then rowed in at 1.5 million with Spain not to be left out stealing around 1 million souls for slave labour. It is these colonising days which are the roots of racism against people of colour as their white colonisers, despite poorer health and fitness, were considered superior to these enslaved natives. In reality it was gun powder and fire arms which gave the colonisers the advantage and nothing to do with racial superiority. There is only one race on earth and that is the human race within which there are many ethnicities and cultures.
The far-right and fascist right use the non-existent ‘reverse racism’ argument to explain and justify their own remarks about race. This concept argues black people are as bad to white people and therefore it is perfectly alright to call the blacks ‘savages’. Of course this is certainly not the case and any remarks coming from non-whites about whites tends to be a reaction to the racism suffered by these people. ‘Reverse Racism’ is a myth pedalled by the fascists/racists, that is those intelligent enough to pronounce it, and only a myth. Like most myths it is easy to destroy using basic history let alone academic achievements made by non-white people. The unfortunate aspect about this myth is it is easy to orate and people alas do listen and believe simply because the arguments are simple!
Racism exists in society as an accepted though nauseous concept. Reverse Racism is a figment of the imagination in the minds of some far-right activists and is not a recognised analytical concept and is not accepted as a formal sociological or political term in academic fields. A myth is what it is and a myth is what it will remain existing only in the minds of the committed racists!
 |
| Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist. |
You should tell that to the families of Kris Donald and Richard Everitt.
ReplyDeleteChristopher - To be fair, it appears to me that perhaps the sentiment behind the reasons for your comment, is outside of the context to which Caoimhin is trying to convey in his piece.
DeleteI can't speak for Caoimhin, but I would assume that he's not under the impression that attitudes of, or acts of prejudice are not possible from non-white ethnicities towards white ethnicities. Indeed I don't think that is the intention of the piece.
White ethnicities can, and are indeed also subjected to racism. No matter which ethnic group targets another, that would still be racism. To my mind there are different levels to racism, but it is still that, racism, and just as wrong no matter which person/group is the target.
And so it is with reverse-racism, as a concept, I think the concept also has different levels, but I feel this piece speaks to that which is the reversal of historic attitudes towards race, in this case where the belief is that white ethnicities will suffer the same fate as non-whites did in the past. Or as another concept, the belief that initiatives taken in attempts towards racial equality are actually attempts to purposefully diminish and/or otherwise be detrimental to white ethnicities.
Of course Caoimhin can feel free to correct me if perhaps I have mis-interpreted his piece, or to clarify with any additional context.
Er, what? The early church charged the entire Jewish people with deicide from the early 2nd century(Justin Martyr and Melito of Sardis) so I'm confused why you blame the Germans as originators?
ReplyDeleteAnd who exactly sold their fellow Africans into the slave trade?
The appointed chiefs, as oppossed to those leaders natural to the tribe, by the colonisers. That was why they were put in such a position Steve. A subject I suggest people read up on instead of coming up with reformest interpretations. Those put in charge by the white colonisers, later imperialist, were so because they would supply humans to the slave trade in return for a position of privilege. Watch old films of Tarzan when one white man, Tarzan, kicks the shit out of rebellious tribes people. Tarzan was always thanked by the puppet chief.
DeleteI was not suggesting certain prejudices against white people by non whites do not exist because they do. However, these prejudices or "ethnocentricisms" are not the same as racism. As I started the article race, racism and racialisation are three long and distinct subjects all closely related. To cover with any clarity them would take a series of lectures with Q and As from the floor lasting a number of hours. Matt is correct racism is not the subject for reasons I explained, the article is about the imaginary 'reverse racism' which exists only in the minds of white supremacists. I must stress ethnocentricism must not be confused, though easy done, with racism. White ethnicities are subject to ethnocentricism, not nice I agree, but do not have the historical roots of racism, a point I was trying to make.
DeleteCaoimhin - Thank you for your follow-up comments, they clarify the intent of your piece, although I think they might also bring additional contention. I think a problem here could perhaps be due to semantics. I agree the possibility of confusing ethnocentrism and racism can and will happen, however, setting aside the historical aspects, to my mind the definition of racism does not change no matter which ethnic group is the target, the examples from Christopher are now relevant as a case in point. One can argue about the various levels and to the extent, but it is still racism and separate to the definition of ethnocentrism.
DeleteI would be quite keen on the idea of a future series from yourself and a Q&A here on The Quill.
I tend to agree with Matt in his reading of the piece.
ReplyDeleteTo me, racism is in play when someone regardless of race or nationality plays the race card to give themselves an advantage.
A recent example was a woman on a bus in town - the driver told her daughter she had insufficient funds on her card for him to be able to issue a ticket - he was letting her on anyway - the mother started accusing him of being a racist. My sole comment to the driver was that she, not he, was being racist. I don't see how it could be claimed by anyone other than the wilful woke that that the murders of Kris Donald and Richard Everitt were not racist - but I doubt that Caoimhin does not regard those killings as racist. He is making a somewhat different point as alluded to by Matt.
That's the very point, ethnocentricism does change the nature and molecular make up defining racism. History is a very important factor meaning, and I once shared your definition of racism, the oppressed races cannot be defined as racist in its true sense of the word. I too was surprised and once at Uni argued your points which after much debate with lecturers were wrong. I still share an element of support for your theories on definition, Anthony and Matt, but they are erroneous. Ethnocentricism is also not nice and must also be opposed though it lacks the historic evils of racism. White people sentenced to the colonies as indentured servants were done so as not to be deemed slaves, a status reserved for the "inferior" black people, the sons of Ham according to some religious right-wing nutters.
ReplyDeleteCaoimhin - Forgive me, but I don't see the error? I think attempts have been made more recently by some, to pull and stretch the definition of racism to an extent I don't necessarily agree with, but it seems to me that you are suggesting that the definition can only be viewed within the historical context, specifically regarding superiority/inferiority that would view one particular ethnic group as a completely different race, rather than being part of the same human race? If so, I would disagree with that.
DeleteThose ethnicities with a darker complexion that were, or are oppressed can certainly be capable of racism, and whilst the extent to which it led to historically may not be comparable, I feel there is a danger in not acknowledging that those with a much paler complexion can be, and have been subjected to racism too.
My understanding of ethnocentrism is that it can often contain racist elements, but it is still very separate to my view of what racism is. I would go as far to say that ethnocentrism need not contain any racist elements at all, but can be viewed as a cultural bias rather than necessarily based on ethnicity alone.
I too fail to see the error.
DeleteCaoimhin seems to be applying a dated Marxist concept of racism which seeks to historicise it. But Marxism is much diminished in influence and faces a range of competing paradigms which have more resonance in society than Marxism.
I don't think the 'isms' can afford to be territorial about the concepts and assert a monopoly over how they are to be applied. Meaning is more often positional than fixed.
Racism from a Marxist perspective can be viewed in a historical context but viewed in a more expansive way from other perspectives.
To assert that people who are not white cannot be accused of racism even when they kill white people on grounds of race, seems implausible. If people are motivated to hate or kill by race then it makes sense to describe their actions as racist.
The idea of Whites only are guilty of racism bears too much resemblance to the original sin concept - something white people are born with and which seems to be one of the biggest failings of Critical Race Theory. And there may be something racist lurking within that idea itself. It denies white people who are attacked by people of a different colour solely on race grounds the same right as black or brown people to describe what happened to them as racist and accuse their assailants of being racist. The victims of these attacks are then denied the rights that in my view should be universal from a Marxian perspective. They are treated as not worthy of the same range of human rights that others insist on having. Their status within the hymn race suddenly becomes less valued than that of others.
I am with Matt on this one although I do get what Caoimhin is saying. But this is part of identity politics which the white right is keen to push - the concept of a white identity which is being discriminated against and disadvantaged.