I just finished a book called "The Racial Contract," by Charles Mills. In the book, Mills draws upon traditional contract theory to show that white supremacy is in fact, if only subtly expressed in theory, the political system upon which modern social contract theory depends. Social contract theory roughly argues that modern democratic civilization is motivated by the idea that free individuals in the past either have, or would have, joined together, ceding the power of violence to the state, agreeing not to do any direct harm to each other, in order to create a space where all the signatories of this contract live better. This is a pervasive trope in Western public thought. For example, the signing of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitutional Convention can easily be seen as modern contract theory in the flesh.
Different contract theorists construe different motivations for signing the contract: Hobbes says we sign it for the safety and comfort the contract provides, for Locke, contract signing is the easiest way to facilitate commerce and the institution of private property, Kant understands the contract as the natural extension of human reason, and for Mill, the contract is an elegant way to bind society to promote utilitarianism. It's a moderately unobjectionable statement that these thinkers, along with Rousseau, represent the foundation of western political social contract theory. For the most part, this is the way academic political and legal philosophy talks about contract theory, with modern updates from Rawls, Nozick, and a handful of other thinkers who often look back to Hobbes, Kant, Mill, and Locke.
The problem Mills understands in social contract theory is that the theory is founded within a broader Racial Contract. This Racial Contract is the agreement that whites have come to about nonwhites: Hobbes thought that the American Indians were natural savages outside of civilization; Kant and Locke didn't believe that non-whites were annexed the same powers of intellect by God to see the beauty and ordered laws in the world; and Mill did not hesitate to give whites more than one vote when it came to his utilitarian calculus, as non-whites were not as morally sensitive. These contract theorists, while talking about equality within the contract in theory, all posited in practice, other, lesser races for whom the benefits of the white signatories were not extended.
The result is a pathology among Western whites where they it's completely consistent to misinterpret the political facts of their violent behavior in lieu of the idea of universal political freedom.
This willing divorce of political ideology and political practice explains why the same men who signed off on the statement that all men are created equal, voted that blacks weren't full men. This dualism also explains virtuous and violent conquests and colonizations by Europe from the enlightenment on through WWII. It even explains the My Lai Vietnam massacre, and Calley's subsequent suspended sentence, while others have served time for doing much less than overseeing the killing of a few hundred civilians.
Admittedly, this pathological dualism is largely specific to Western social political thought, because ours is one of the few traditions who talk the rhetoric of universal freedom and equality.
Mills argues that the social contract is an agreement whites have between themselves to misinterpret the political facts of the world, and their subjugation of non-whites, but with the assurance that their misinterpretations will be validated by white institutional authority. The punchline is that all of this conditioning not to see the world as it is, but instead, to see the world as they have imagined it to be, has produced "the ironic outcome that whites will in general be unable to understand the world they themselves have made."(pg. 18)
If you understand the racial contract as underlying the social contract, the Nazi Holocaust makes sense as the Germans just redefining the Jews and Gypsies as non-white, and using the same means the colonizers used at the time. The racial contract also explains why it's completely reasonable for democratic Israel to treat Palestinians as the other. Most importantly, understanding the Racial Contract allows these events to be considered as the norm rather than a deviation of social contract theory. The colonial enterprise, My Lai, the Holocaust, and the Indian Massacres and perfidy were not aberrations. They were working within the norm of the racial contract. And by understanding the Racial Contract, the ease in which democratic whites move to violently dominate non-whites becomes a matter for political philosophy, and with the Racial Contract, the fact of systemic white supremacy actually becomes a legitimate topic of political philosophy. For example, it makes the topic of illegal immigration-- and the tempting draw of institutionalizing a second tier citizenship in America-- much more than about cheap labor.
And if we rightly begin to divorce whiteness from a biological trait to an ethnicity, it explains how Alberto Gonzales can be caught up in the same white pathology that allows us to ask a white person whether all people should be treated with dignity, have the person will say yes, then ask the same white person about torture and prisoner's rights, and have the person will start to back pedal, with the added kicker that the person will back pedal with an astounding amount of popular and institutional support defending his claims that prisoners don't really count as people.
This divorce of biology and ethnicity also allows for race traitors like Howard Dean or Eleanor Roosevelt or any white person who was not complicit in the white supremest system of modern social contract theory.
"The Racial Contract" covers a lot of ground in 133 pages. I think that Mills did a good job.
[ November 22, 2007, 01:38 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Sergeant (Member # 8749) on :
My first read of this was "what does this have to do with contracts" But then I step back and realize you aren't talking about the same kind of contracts that my mind is stuck with and it all makes a bit more sense
Sergeant
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The problem Mills understands in social contract theory is that the theory is founded within a broader Racial Contract. This Racial Contract is the contract is the agreement that whites have come to about nonwhites...
This part is a load of bull.
Basically, what is required to draw your conclusion is the belief that white people will never be able to think of non-whites as fully equal human beings (and thus deserving of equality within the social contract).
That's a steaming pile.
The entire hypothesis boils down to: people will define other people as "not the same sort of human" in order to deny them access to benefits extended to other humans. Well, duh. Of course that's true. And frequently this denial occurs across racial lines. But the idea that this is somehow a problem endemic to Western philosophy is just ludicrous.
Mainly, Irami, what I find amusing -- and more than a little offensive at the same time -- is the idea that you're seizing at yet another rationale to justify your own deep distrust of "whites," without somehow realizing the extraordinarily hollow pseudointellectualism that's shoring it up. Are you really going to claim that such a "Racial Contract" doesn't exist among non-whites?
[ November 19, 2007, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote: Basically, what is required to draw your conclusion is the belief that white people will never be able to think of non-whites as fully equal human beings (and thus deserving of equality within the social contract).
That's not required at all. I do believe that there is a strong incentive to abide by the Racial Contract, as it stands, and that whites who don't abide will be branded as irrational or race-traiters. In addition, I think that there is an enormous, almost pathological blind spot with respect to social contract theory that allows white legal and political theorists to talk about democratic politics without even acknowledging or noticing the racial contract. This is one of the reasons why I believe that modern political philosophy is in such a bad way.
________
quote:The entire hypothesis boils down to: people will define other people as "not the same sort of human" in order to deny them access to benefits extended to other humans. Well, duh. Of course that's true. And frequently this denial occurs across racial lines. But the idea that this is somehow a problem endemic to Western philosophy is just ludicrous.
It's not the issue of "not the same sort of human," but that others are not fully human. And this pathology is unique to western social contract theory because are talking about a tradition that posits freedom and equality from the get go. It's this hypocrisy, and the inability to see it, act to right it, and even acknowledge its existence, that makes the Racial Contract a problem in western political theory.
[ November 19, 2007, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
White legal and political theorists acknowledge the "racial contract" all the time. We call it prejudice, and generally point it out when it's obvious.
This "racial contract" crap boils down to the idea that people dehumanize the Other. Well, wow. That's freshman-year sociology.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't suppose it helps to point out that the American revolution was dealing with colonialism itself. Sure it was a white boys only club, but various amendments have corrected that. In practice, it still mostly is, but there is no law barring the ascendance of minorities. I can't find the quote anymore, but at one point Barak Obama's wiki had his statement that minorities have to relinquish their victimhood or something to that effect.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
This book sounds awfully racist.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:This "racial contract" crap boils down to the idea that people dehumanize the Other. Well, wow. That's freshman-year sociology.
With a side of 'White Devil!' thrown in!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: The result is a pathology among Western whites where they it's completely consistent to misinterpret the political facts of their violent behavior in lieu of the idea of universal political freedom.
Is that pathology also present in Asians who advocate universal political freedom? Is it also present in Blacks that advocate the same?
Or is this strictly a pathology for white people?
quote: ...with the added kicker that the person will back pedal with an astounding amount of popular and institutional support defending his claims that prisoners don't really count as people.
"Don't count as enemy combatants" I can buy happening, but do not count *as people*, ...astounding amount? You're going to have to back that up.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:In practice, it still mostly is, but there is no law barring the ascendancy of minorities.
That's absolutely true, especially if one is willing to accept the Racial Contract, which largely means that one does not talk about white supremacy and the racial contract. Cosby made his money by ignoring race realities, and urges other blacks to do the same. Gonzales became Attorney General by being a Latino who is casual about torture. Clarence Thomas is a role model because guys like Bush Sr. promote him to the supreme court, and OSC buys his books. Raisin in the Sun is one of the most popular black authored plays in American history because it depicts a black family who wants nothing more dearly than to be a middle class white family. Obama may even become President because he speaks to white talking points and respects the racial contract and priorities, which includes the idea that getting American soldiers home from Iraq is much more important than talking about prisons and schools. There is a great deal of money and prestige available for bright minorities who don't bring up the racial contract, and thereby remain complicit in the political system of white supremacy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:especially if one is willing to accept the Racial Contract, which largely means that one does not talk about white supremacy and the racial contract
Okay, so let's be clear about this: evidence for the "Racial Contract" is that white people don't talk about the racial contract?
Man, Irami, when will you wake up and realize that you're just trying to justify your own racism?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:this pathological dualism is largely unique to Western social political thought, because ours is one of the few traditions who talk the rhetoric of universal freedom and equality.
Unique as in, "Been around in some form or other since God?"
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:There is a great deal of money and prestige available for bright minorities who don't bring up the racial contract, and thereby remain complicit in the political system of white supremacy.
But would you call them race-traitors?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Scott, there is another element to this debate which centers around instituting white supremacy and the Racial Contract because white Christians are the only ones gifted enough to understand God's plan for civilization. I fully admit that colonization was a dominant theory because non-Christians were established as heathen others who could be slaughtered with moral impunity and even praise in the eyes of God.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:But would you call them race-traitors?
No, I call them opportunists.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Dude-- my point was not about religion, but about history.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Was I the only one who thought he was talking about Hobbes from Hatrack at first?
quote: Hobbes thought that the American Indians were natural savages outside of civilization
I kept thinking, "Man, that doesn't sound like the Hobbes I have come to superficially know on Hatrack."
I must be a little slow today.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:my point was not about religion, but about history.
Even if your point was about history, I still think that robust discourse concerning the viability of democratic freedom only exists in localized pockets of history, whereas brutal subjugation is all over the general run. The blend of western democratic theory and the Racial Contract is significant because here we have both, with one trope denying the existence of the other.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What's the difference between treating black inequally in 19th century America, and treating women inequally in Plato's Greece?
Both societies recognized a Tribe; blacks were not included in 19th century America; women (and others) were not included in Greece. The Tribe got a say in the political and sociological decisions; the Other did not.
It's old news, brother.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Not much, except that Athens wasn't explained by social contract theory.
Personally, I'm not being into contract theory. Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, and the whole American legal system is all kind of blah to me, but if we are going to talk about social contract theory, then I don't think it's appropriate to ignore the Racial Contract.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This Racial Contract is the agreement that whites have come to about nonwhites:
Part of the problem I'm having is that you still haven't told us what the Racial Contract is.
Typically a contract can be summarized by listing the promises made by each party. I can summarize the social contract easily in a sentence: a promise made by a member of society to restrict his behavior in certain ways made in exchange for the same promise by other members of society.
It doesn't have to be one sentence, but can you summarize the promises white people have made to each other as part of this Racial Contract.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
That not every person or group in a society is entitled to the full respect, as humans, of the social contract signatories. For example, it's permissible for the US government to go back on a treaty it made with an Indian tribe.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That sounds more like a philosophy to me than a contract.
What promises have been made here?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Irami, I would argue that -- in the cases cited -- the people involved did not believe that the groups excluded were in their society.
And, again, I don't see any evidence that this is unique to "white" civilization. Looked at Rwanda lately?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So what do you want people to do then, stop wearing clothes in rejection of the white social contract?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't understand how this fits the word contract. As I understand it, a contract is an agreement that multiple parties enter into that delineates the things that the different sides are promising to do.
I don't see mulitple parties here and I don't see any sort of promises.
It sounds like a term poorly chosen to play off of the idea of a Social Contract.
edit: Looks like Dag has addressed this in more detail already.
---
Also, the idea that Bill Cosby is some sort of Uncle Tom is patently absurd. You may as well say the same of Hari Belafonte or Sidney Poitier.
[ November 19, 2007, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, Sidney Poitier was in "Raisin in the Sun".
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The idea that if a black guy ascends to the single most powerful (and real power, too) position in the society, that's evidence of racism against black guys is pretty damn out-there.
And to answer your question, Tom, "Never. Especially not when it's a white-devil telling him."
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
"This racial contract" seems like it would be more appropriately named "The tribal contract". Mills seems to take the general theory that humans fear strangers and specializes it to white people. The real issue is that humans have natural tendencies to work together with people they know and to avoid those who they don't. Race is one [obsolete] way of identifying strangers, but it is certainly not the only. The idea that this is a white person thing is bunk (Tom's example of the Rwandan genocide being a perfect example of non-white ethnicity-based dehumanization).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not to mention that white people have been perfectly capable of dehumanizing other white people who look just like them.
Or what Tom said.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Other Non-White Tribal Contract:
Shi'ite/Sunni violence.
The Koran makes the statement that you claim only Western Politics does--that all men are created equal. But to quote Animal Farm, some are more equal than others.
The Koran states that all Muslims are equal, yet those who follow the ways of the Shiah and those that follow the ways of the Sunni don't count each other as equals.
Then I have seen good Muslims from Iran argue that 9/11 could not have been caused by Al-Queda because, and I quote from a man of Persian lineage, "Those Arabs aren't smart enough to pull something like that off."
Tribalism is everywhere.
Western White leaders of the time of Locke were not only arguing that Blacks were not white enough, but that Slavs, Italians, and the Irish were not quite human either.
The Jews you use to prove the "Racial Contract" in Isreal are also a Non-White race when the Nazi's began exterminating them.
Still with all of that, does a Racial Contract exist similar to a Social Contract.
I think so.
But it only exists in the minds of the more racially segregated people, and that is people of all races, everywhere.
Whether you are talking about a Russian Colonel who can't get a promotion because he was not born in true Russia, but has Arab/Persian blood in him, or if you are talking an Indian woman who has her marriage arranged so she can move up in the caste system, there are people who believe and promote a Racial Contract--perhaps not the same one, but one they follow.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:In practice, it still mostly is, but there is no law barring the ascendancy of minorities.
That's absolutely true, especially if one is willing to accept the Racial Contract, which largely means that one does not talk about white supremacy and the racial contract. Cosby made his money by ignoring race realities, and urges other blacks to do the same. Gonzales became Attorney General by being a Latino who is casual about torture. Clarence Thomas is a role model because guys like Bush Sr. promote him to the supreme court, and OSC buys his books. Raisin in the Sun is one of the most popular black authored plays in American history because it depicts a black family who wants nothing more dearly than to be a middle class white family. Obama may even become President because he speaks to white talking points and respects the racial contract and priorities, which includes the idea that getting American soldiers home from Iraq is much more important than talking about prisons and schools. There is a great deal of money and prestige available for bright minorities who don't bring up the racial contract, and thereby remain complicit in the political system of white supremacy.
Wait a minute...isn't a common minority complaint that too much of the American military consists of minorities because white people are rich and can afford to opt out? Either way, whatever the rationale is, I've heard that complaint before, and considering so much of the military IS of the minorities races in America, why wouldn't Iraq be very much a minority issue? Seems kind of cheap to call it a white issue when Obama wants to get us out of there, but I bet if ALL the white people wanted us to stay, you'd call THAT racism too.
And how are schools purely a minority issue either? Schools aren't a minority issue, they are an EVERYONE issue, and if you wanted to break it down a little more, I'd call it an economic class issue more than a black issue. Poor and mid to lower class white people are having just as many problems as black people are finding good schools and finding a way to pay for their kids to go to them, and being from Michigan, with our wonderful little one state recession and Republicans running our education system into the ground, I know how that is first hand, not just as part of an intellectual debate. You're far too quick to call something a black issue while ignoring the stake whites have in it too. Get off your high horse.
PS. And if I understand this correctly, the first rule of Racial Contract Theory is: "Don't talk about Racial Contract Theory"?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's strange. Frequently I'm one who's willing to continue arguing an issue long after it's obvious that the mind I'm arguing with won't be changed, and that my mind won't be changed. Sometimes I do this in order to increase understanding. Others, I just do it because I enjoy arguing or pointing out flaws. Kate Boots being an example of the former, and people such as Irami and KoM being an example of the latter.
It's like Irami is playing, "How close can I come to saying something without actually saying it?" when the things being said are "black man elected president=systemic racism" and "white people are the most awfulest people around".
If his mind is ever going to be changed, it's certainly not going to be some honky that does it. Even though us crackers may not want (actively) to be awful, may not be aware (consciously) that we're awful, and may in fact be committed (publicly) to not being awful, the truth is we're so deeply and subtly awful that it's just not going to change. This is a pretty liberating way to think about race relations, since it helps one exclude any views favorable to the opposition because of the one already accepted truth.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
Drawn by a child in my friend's ESL class in Korea:
Likes: meat, chicken, video games. Dislikes: green peppers, homework, Japan people.
More enculturated prejudice: Crow vs. Cheyenne. Apache vs. Mexican. Chickasaw vs. EVERYONE. Ha.
Racism against American Indians has been rampant since 1492, but I think broken treaties have more to do with Economics and Real Estate than with ethnic discrimination. They could have been lily white, but they weren't speaking English or accruing person wealth. They were a conquerable people living on valuable land. Me wants land, me takes it. Most of those treaties came about when people like the Lakotas were powerful enough to beat the pants off of the as of yet not well funded U.S. Military. A treaty was a great way to get them to stand down long enough for the military to recuperate; and then go back and take what they (the U.S. govt.) wanted.
I really don't find this kind of discourse to be part of a solution; if anything it conjures up racism where it wasn't in the first place. I am not saying there isn't racism; it just isn't everywhere some people claim it to be. Or want it to be, in order to rationalize their own prejudice and fears.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
When an issue that is so black and white (heh) comes up, I always feel sorta left out.
I never know where Asians fit in.
What, are we not prosperous enough to be part of the white conspiracy to keep the black man down?
On the other hand, are we too prosperous to be part of the downtrodden, the ones that the white man is placing his boot upon?
Can we not get a memo from at least one side of this so-called divide? As it stands, it seems like we neither get the benefits of being able to play the victim OR the benefits of being the oppressor. What a jip Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hey! Stop oppressing the gypsies!
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Can we not get a memo from at least one side of this so-called divide?
We sent out a memo, but you must not be the right type of Asian!
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I think Irami has said that he considers most Asians to be "culturally white." Then again, Irami seems to conveniently consider everyone who is middle class or above and/or who owns a business to be "culturally white." Except himself. Just like how he considers everyone else racist except himself.
-pH
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:And, again, I don't see any evidence that this is unique to "white" civilization. Looked at Rwanda lately?
quote:And to answer your question, Tom, "Never. Especially not when it's a white-devil telling him."
[Ironically, I've heard of this book and I'm fairly certain Rwanda is mentioned more than once.]
*
How is "ethnicity" being defined? By you or Mills?
--j_k
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Culturally white?!?
What the heck? We were sewing stuff and starting to build walls, walls that would later be expanded and become labelled "great" when white people were still shivering in furs. (Note: White man, do not be offended, I'm sure they were great furs. I'll need your help with hedge fund selection later)
What a load! Culturally white... But I suppose the monocles, Cuban cigars, and bags of American money to light the cigars with should make the pain go away a bit. I do expect a country club membership too.
I'll get on informing the relatives at once. Oh wait, one note of clarification...those billion or so peasant relatives I have in China. Do they at least get share the "we're being oppressed by the evil white man" card or do they also get in on the free monocle deal...because thats a lot of monocles.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Dude, I want a monocle...
-pH
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
*snaps PH's glasses in half*
There. Now you have two.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:What the heck? We were sewing stuff and starting to build walls, walls that would later be expanded and become labelled "great" when white people were still shivering in furs. (Note: White man, do not be offended, I'm sure they were great furs. I'll need your help with hedge fund selection later)
Laying aside the fact I agree with you that technologically and in many ways philosophically China was ahead of the rest of the world for a very long time, I would not use the Great Wall of China as an example of cultural superiority.
It was a stupid wall that took hundreds of years to build, cost the lives of thousands who worked themselves to death to build it, and it failed in what it was designed to do. It was the product of an Emperor's hubris, not of Chinese prowess.
It should be rightly called, "The Great Engineering Blunder of China," to quote Scott Adams.
[ November 19, 2007, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
*offers Mucus one of her monocles. Looks around for a cane and a tophat*
-pH
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Culturally white?!?
What the heck? We were sewing stuff and starting to build walls, walls that would later be expanded and become labelled "great" when white people were still shivering in furs. (Note: White man, do not be offended, I'm sure they were great furs. I'll need your help with hedge fund selection later)
Perhaps we spent our time learning to spell gyp? Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
So, what are black values and what are white values?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
pH: Thanks. But I think we get them in the mail, along with the cigars.
BlackBlade:
Humourous response: White man, we didn't call it the Great Wall. AFAIK, we call it 长城 or Chángchéng which just means "long wall" which is pretty damn undebatable.I just put in in there because some white dude dubbed it "Great".
While it failed, at least it worked for several hundred years before some horse-riding Mongols finally figured out that they could bribe the Chinese guards rather than fight their way through. How did your white Maginot line fair? Yeah thats right, completed in 1939, circumvented by invasion in one year
Oh crap, why did I bring it up as great then. Augh! I AM "culturally white"! I *deserve* those monocles! *sobs*
Serious response: You're almost completely right, I just picked the fastest Chinese thing I could think of. If you haven't noticed, I'm not being entirely serious here.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Then again, Irami seems to conveniently consider everyone who is middle class or above and/or who owns a business to be "culturally white." Except himself. Just like how he considers everyone else racist except himself.
-pH
Yes.
quote:Originally posted by pH: Dude, I want a monocle...
-pH
And Yes.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus: Because you asked, "Chang Cheng" literally means "Long City." Last I checked chang cheng didn't even have a crapper much less a city hall, but hey call it what you will. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:While it failed, at least it worked for several hundred years before some horse-riding Mongols finally figured out that they could bribe the Chinese guards rather than fight their way through. How did your white Maginot line fair? Yeah thats right, completed in 1939, circumvented by invasion in one year
Well, on the flip side of that, the Maginot Line did precisely what it was designed to do: Stop the Germans from invading over the German/French border. And they didn't, they simply went around it and through Belgium. They decided not to build it through Belgium because it would have been too expensive, which ironically in hindsight was a stupid guess, since a small extension would have been much cheaper than having most of France levelled by the war.
If the Germans had had to go THROUGH the Maginot Line, WWII would have likely gone quite differently. Instead of overrunning France as they did, they probably would have ended up in a situation similar to WWI, and the French Navy would have been a serious hindrance on the high seas.
And so that one little "oops" moment helped change the course of history.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I'm uneasy with the idea that the only dangers on this planet come from white folks. Last I checked, the Hindus aren't white, and they've got the A-Bomb. Seems like the Chinese do too, last I heard. I think the main reason white folks have spread around the world to dominate is mainly geographic/geologic. Between relatively gentle weather, easily accessed and used waterways, relatively few mountain ranges (compared to the Himalaya or Western China) or deserts (compared to the Gobi and the Sahara), it was pretty easy to trade and travel via ocean, river, and land. I'm not saying this is the whole story, but I think it's a big part.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Just a quick point of clarification, steven: "Hindus" don't have the A-Bomb. India, which happens to have the second largest population of Muslims in the world, does. Also, I'm going to be a Hindu in roughly a month, and I'm pretty white.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
It sounds like your point is that Muslims run India, and were/are responsible for the atomic weapons program there. We know that's bunk.
My point is that India got the bomb before Pakistan.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
By what, a week?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Granted.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, somewhere between twelve and fifteen years, most likely.
edit: exact dates are unknown due to secrecy, but it was pretty definitely over a decade, and very very likely over twelve years.
also edit: and India isn't run by Hindus, either. It is a democracy with very strong participation in voting and as office holders from all ethnic and religious groups.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Just a quick point of clarification, steven: "Hindus" don't have the A-Bomb. India, which happens to have the second largest population of Muslims in the world, does. Also, I'm going to be a Hindu in roughly a month, and I'm pretty white.
Anybody know without researching which country has the highest population of Muslims?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Indonesia.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"India isn't run by Hindus, either. It is a democracy with very strong participation in voting and as office holders from all ethnic and religious groups."
I wasn't aware that India had ever had a Muslim Prime Minister. Not that that proves anything.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote: How is "ethnicity" being defined? By you or Mills?
Kirk, here is an except from the Book:
quote:Race is sociopolitical rather than biological, but it is nonetheless real... By recognizing it as a system, the "Racial Contract" voluntarizes race in the same way that the social contract voluntarizes the creation of society and the state. It[Racial Contract Theory] distinguishes between whiteness as a phenotype/genealogy and Whiteness as a political commitment to white supremacy, thus making conceptual room for "white renegades" and "race traitors." And its aim is not to replace one Racial Contract with another of a different color but ultimately to eliminate race (not as innocent human variety but as ontological superiority and inferiority, as differential entitlement and privilege) altogether.(126/127)
One of his main projects is to understand the brutal subjugation tied to European imperialism and American Expansion not as a factor of historical necessity, but as whites acting through institutional constructs of their own making.
"We are blinded to realities that we should see, taking for granted as natural what are in fact human created structures."
Mills argues to demystify the foundations of our history and thereby have us think more careful about blithely going along with the structures developed from that history. Here is the myth:
quote:"there is the impression that the modern European nation-states were not centrally affected by their imperial history and that societies such as the United States were founded on noble moral principles meant to include everyone, but unfortunately, there were some deviates. The Racial Contract explodes this picture as mythical, identifying it[the picture] as itself an artifact of the Racial Contract in the second, de facto phase of white supremacy...[The Racial Contract] switches paradigms, inverting "norm" and "deviation," to emphasize that non-white racial exclusion from personhood was the actual norm.... the racist exception has really been the rule; what has been taken as the "rule," the ideal normof race indifference, has really been the exception.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Indonesia.
My hat goes off to you sir! Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
One of his main projects is to understand the brutal subjugation tied to European imperialism and American Expansion not as a factor of historical necessity, but as whites acting through institutional constructs of their own making.
Well, that explains it. Good to know his biases before beginning to read, isn't it?
No one I know (here at least) should be surprised that his biases are the same as Irami's. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Irami -
Wow. Crap.
First of all, neither white nor black seems to matter in your definitions. Rich black people that go along with the 'white party line' are as good as white, a la Debra Dickerson saying Obama isn't African-American. And by that definition, I'd say Eminem is as black as DMX is. If actual color doesn't matter, and socio(and this is dumb, ECONOMIC should be a factor too)political is the only factor, then you aren't even talking about traditional race. The thing is, you're doing I think exactly what you're accusing whites of. You say that whites will do whatever it takes, even defining other whites by whatever definition we need to in order to destroy them, but aren't you just defining everything you like as black and everything you don't like as white in order to make sure all YOUR goals are met? How is fighting fire with fire going to get you to your goal? All you are doing is redrawing the battle lines.
As to your last quote there, WOW. You think white people came over here and gave themselves all the rights and everyone else got the shaft? Talk about a selective view of American history. Catholics couldn't vote or hold office, or in some places even go to school when America was first colonized. White immigrant labor before and after slavery built vast swaths of modern America, and thousands or millions of them died while doing it, most in poverty.
Pretending that all whites, or at least everyone that YOU PERSONALLY define as white, have it so good, and have ALWAYS had it so good, and that all blacks, or at least everyone that YOU PERSONALLY define as black, have always been the only victims, is so incredibly wrong I don't even know if it's worth trying to correct your erroneous knowledge or conclusions. If we never solve the world's race problems, it'll be people like you, regardless of their color, that keep it that way. I'm not even sure with a position like yours you even want the problem solved, you just want someone to blame, and to eternally be rooted to the foot of the victim's microphone.
You're so unwilling to not be a victim that when a black man has a serious chance of becoming President of the USA, you call him white! What the hell is that? He isn't black enough for you? What gives you the right to define race like that?
Alright, this rant went on for a lot longer, but I'm cutting it short there. You aren't worth it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: No one I know (here at least) should be surprised that his biases are the same as Irami's.
Let's not get too carried away. We should not confuse Irami's summary of Mills's work with his actual work.
Having seen what selective quoting and summarizing can do on the Internet (I'm sure we can all think of examples) regardless of whether its being done by a supporter or a detractor.
That said, I'm basing this entirely on what is in this thread. It is entirely possible that Mills is obsessed with Black vs. White, I just don't want to make that judgement based on just what is here.
Edit to add: NVM, I may have to scratch this post. I read a portion of the book at google book search (URL is something books.google.com/books?isbn=0801484634... with a lot of what I think is personalized info). It looks fairly ... well, I'm going to have to say BS for lack of a better word. And yes, the discussion is strictly centered on black vs. white... sigh...
[ November 20, 2007, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yeah....I looked it up before I commented.
That doesn't mean it can't spark an interesting discussion, of course, but it helps to call it want it really is, IMO.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I'm a college graduate (3.5 GPA)--and while I "understand" all of what's being said here, I want to point out that I wouldn't be able to come up with a cogent response to Irami's first post or to all of the criticizing posts. I get the gist of it all, but I feel inadequate even having an opinion about it. I know that I grew up as a very racist kid, so I have to keep an open mind. It's weird to think how many people out there would never comprehend this conversation except on the most basic level.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Irami,
I'm curious as to how you would account for the rise of multicultural relationships and children in recent decades. Assuming, for the moment, that the "Racial Contract" did in fact have some kind of power in the past, would you at least agree that its power is dissipating?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The thing is, you're doing I think exactly what you're accusing whites of.
Perhaps this is the point of the "Racial Contract?"
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: It sounds like your point is that Muslims run India, and were/are responsible for the atomic weapons program there. We know that's bunk.
I wasn't aware that India had ever had a Muslim Prime Minister. Not that that proves anything.
I'm not sure if India has ever had a Muslim Prime Minister, but the last President, Abdul Kalam, was a Muslim. He was also scientist/engineer with a doctorate who worked on India's rocket program, and, yes, their nuclear missile program. The current President, Pratibha Patil, is India's first woman President, altho they have had female Prime Ministers before (unfortunately). The current Prime Minister is a Sikh. He has a Ph.D in economics and was largely responsible for India's economic transformation in the early 1990s.
India's government has plenty of things wrong with it, but I don't think you can attack it on the basis of being exclusionary to minorities. Especially since the US has only managed to elect Christian white guys. And none as well educated as the people India has in power.
Edit: Abhi says that India has had two Muslim Presidents (or perhaps one Muslim & one Sikh - he's not sure), and several Muslim Deputy Prime Ministers, but no Muslim Prime Ministers (yet).
Edit the Second: Apparently, four Muslim Presidents: Zakir Hussain, Muhammad Ullah, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, and Abdul Kalam. You'd think, given the age of the country, Abhi could remember all the leaders. This is what you get for taking the science track in high school...
[ November 20, 2007, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Jhai ]
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Different contract theorists construe different motivations for signing the contract: Hobbes says we sign it for the safety and comfort the contract provides, for Locke, contract signing is the easiest way to facilitate commerce and the institution of private property, Kant understands the contract as the natural extension of human reason, and for Mill, the contract is an elegant way to bind society to promote utilitarianism. It's a moderately unobjectionable statement that these thinkers, along with Rousseau, represent the foundation of western political social contract theory. For the most part, this is the way academic political and legal philosophy talks about contract theory, with modern updates from Rawls, Nozick, and a handful of other thinkers who often look back to Hobbes, Kant, Mill, and Locke.
The problem Mills understands in social contract theory is that the theory is founded within a broader Racial Contract. This Racial Contract is the agreement that whites have come to about nonwhites: Hobbes thought that the American Indians were natural savages outside of civilization; Kant and Locke didn't believe that non-whites were annexed the same powers of intellect by God to see the beauty and ordered laws in the world; and Mill did not hesitate to give whites more than one vote when it came to his utilitarian calculus, as non-whites were not as morally sensitive. These contract theorists, while talking about equality within the contract in theory, all posited in practice, other, lesser races for whom the benefits of the white signatories were not extended.
So now that we realize that Hobbes, Locke, etc. were wrong about non-whites, why can't we just have the social contract theory apply to the non-whites in America as well? I agree that we still need to overcome a lot of latent racism before we can complete this process, but I don't see why this makes the social contract theory inherently unsound---or indeed why the fact that holders of any idea were evil implies that that idea is wrong.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
While I agree with you, Omega, I wouldn't go so far as saying that Locke, Kant, etc were evil for their racist views. They were just products of their time - it would have been better had they not been so, but it's difficult to judge a historical era from the viewpoint of today.
Generally, though, I agree that it's good to remember that ideas are not equivalent in value to the people holding them.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
I too think they were more products of their times than evil; I just said evil because if what I said is true for evil people then certainly it's true for mistaken people. I was thinking of the "Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarianism is wrong." fallacy.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Yeah, I wasn't sure from your phrasing if you were implying that or not, so just thought I'd comment. I was considering commenting on the famous Hitler example as well... Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Godwin.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Irami -
Wow. Crap.
First of all, neither white nor black seems to matter in your definitions. Rich black people that go along with the 'white party line' are as good as white, a la Debra Dickerson saying Obama isn't African-American. And by that definition, I'd say Eminem is as black as DMX is.
No, I'm sure it only works one way. Blacks who "act white" are white, and whites who "act black" are just oppressing blacks by co-opting their culture.
You can't ever win with a philosophy of victimhood like this. If you treat members of the victim class worse than other people, you're a racist, and if you treat them better, you're patronizing. If you treat people equally, you're ignoring past injustices. And working in the opposite direction, if a member of the victim class is antagonistic towards others, it's understandable, and if he's not, he's Tomming.
I've seen this philosophy of victimhood used for race, sex and religion. It's boring and childish.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Lisa wins the thread.
-pH
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
She pulled together something like 24,000 conversations here on Hatrack.
About 23,990 of them were with Irami.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Mills draws upon traditional contract theory to show that white supremacy is in fact, if only subtly expressed in theory, the political system upon which contract theory depends.
Wow.
This is the dumbest academic concept I've run into in a long, long time.
Social contracts are not reliant on the presence of race relations in any way. You could have a world populated entirely with whites or blacks or whatever and the same phenomenon would occur just the same. Not to mention that the presented theory cannot be credibly maintained as a 'white' thing any more than the concept of the social contract is dependent upon, specifically, white supremacy. The whole damn thing is as specious as it is hollow. It's just using some complex associations, flings them about like a radical SOC-101 student, and you've cherrypicked it to spuriously bolster your own extraordinarily weird racist conceptualizations with some hollow pseudointellectualism.
On the whole there's so much wrong with this theory interpretation session that I'm having trouble figuring out what to pick out in particular so instead I'll just say oh my god this is all so dumb.
/ spontaneous edit
quote:You're so unwilling to not be a victim that when a black man has a serious chance of becoming President of the USA, you call him white!
hahahaha
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Lisa wins the thread.
-pH
I was going to post the exact same thing. Except for signing it differently.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic:
quote:Originally posted by pH: Lisa wins the thread.
-pH
I was going to post the exact same thing. Except for signing it differently.
--Enigmatic
I, on the other hand, endeavored to be more true to pH's vision.
-pH
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think you've got to look at Irami's behavior when he posts his racist rants. I remember one where he was going on about how blacks should form a separate intellectual community from white people, which I think really tipped me in to what he was looking for.
I think he comes to renew his feeling of victimization. He posts these things to provoke people (whom he assumes are all white or "culturally white") into criticizing him. It helps him justify his lack of achievement, which I believe is the main purpose of his racism in the first place. He likes to believe that he is brilliant, so it must be something external like the man keeping him down.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Lisa, that is such a good, clear argument that I'm going to memorize in case I ever get into a similar argument IRL.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Wow, when so many people who normally vehemently argue with each other unanimously agree on a particular point it's kind of mind-boggling.
I'd still love to have Irami over to dinner sometime though.
AJ
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote: I've seen this philosophy of victimhood used for race, sex and religion. It's boring and childish.
Racial contract theory draws attention to a possible predisposition of Western modern democratic discourse to talk about people as raceless, sexless, religionless individuals, yet act in a way that takes race, gender, and religion into account, biasing towards WASP males. Maybe this is a philosophy of victimhood, but if Racial Contract Theory obtains, and this behavior is the norm and not the exception, I'd like to think it's worth talking about, especially as we start dealing with issues of immigration and transnational business.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Racial contract theory draws attention to a possible predisposition of Western modern democratic discourse to talk about people as raceless, sexless, religionless individuals, yet act in a way that takes race, gender, and religion into account, biasing towards WASP males.
I'm having difficulty parsing this sentence. It seems that "Western modern democratic discourse" is the subject, which makes sense when the verb is "to talk", but makes less sense than when the verb is "to act".
Who is talking one way, and acting another? Who exactly are you making an accusation of?
My guess is that you are referring to "white people". I think that's the cusp of the problem here. You see "white people" as some sort of group which thinks and acts as one. As if we are not individuals.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Xavier, As far as I can tell, all white people have agreed to treat non-white people (which, as far as I can tell, is just unsuccessful black people - any successful ones are actually really white) as second class citizens.
I still have no idea how this could constitute a contract.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I agree with Irami.
Wait a sec before the rotten tomatoes start flying.....
I agree that this is an important conversation to have, and perhaps one long overdue. White people aren't allowed to discuss race these days lest they be labeled racist.
Of course, if Irami is correct....which I strongly doubt...then the same sort of social contract exists within the Black community. If we are going to discuss social contracts in this manner, then ALL social contracts should be examined.
It would be interesting to hear about what social contracts other racial groups have within their own groups, don't you think?
Unless you don't think that anyone other than a white person can have a social contract within a racial context, of course.
I do find this conversation interesting, but not for the same reasons Irami does, perhaps.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Irami: Ok, fill in this part of what I don't get about this whole thing:
Let's make the grand leap that The Racial Contract exists (big assumption, but let's run with it), that white people on average have designed institutions that consciously or unconsciously advantage white people while professing equality.
What do we do about it?
From the perspective of a country like India or Japan that has imported many institutional structures from either America or Europe, what parts of their institutions have to be changed to wipe out this hidden pro-white bias?
More importantly, what is an example of such an institution that advantages WASPs that cannot be be simplified to an institution that advantages one race at the expense of another, white or not?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Irami, are you arguing that a Racial Contract is equal to the Social Contract, that you can't have a Social Contract without the white-dominated WASP Racial Contract being its goal, reason for being, or backbone?
I would agree that Racial Contracts have and do exist. There is quite possibly a hidden "Racial Contract" being brought to light in Jena LA. However, it seems to me that any and all Racial Contracts are a subset of the larger Social Contract.
Further, as society changes, and hopefully changes for the better, parts of that contract are amended, so the role of the Racial Contract addendum to the Social Contract becomes weaker and less powerful. We no longer have a law keeping people of any color out of higher education, and while financially it becomes difficult for those of lower economic classes to go to the best of those institutions, it is obvious that progress over the past 50 years has been made to defang this part of the Racial Contract.
Other examples of the changes made in the American Racial Contract, a subset of the American Social Contract, are readily available.
However to argue that 1) WASP Power is the result/reason for being for all Social Contracts limits all non-WASP peoples to being unable to form any society, and that is clearly false. 2) That the same Social Contract that existed in the time of Locke and Hobbes, unchanging and unchangeable, is also easily proven to be weak and false.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Irami, are you arguing that a Racial Contract is equal to the Social Contract, that you can't have a Social Contract without the white-dominated WASP Racial Contract being its goal, reason for being, or backbone?
I think that the social contract theory is the subset of the Racial Contract. The Racial Contract isn't the goal, the goal is living well in a community, the dictates of the Racial Contract are presupposed prior to the agreements of social contract. It's complicated because we are talking about theoretical constructs, ripped out of time, but the Racial Contract is logically prior to the social contract. The Racial Contract determines who is a full person and draws a distinction between people and sub-people before the social contract is agreed upon by the full people.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Who do you consider "full people," Irami?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I would consider the Racial COntract as subset of the larger, more powerful Social Contract, myself.
Hands down. I can site a ton of examples if you like, they aren't hard to find.
I could also give examples of Racial Contracts in other societies if you like.
Non-white countries, even, Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I would consider the Racial COntract as subset of the larger, more powerful Social Contract, myself.
That doesn't work because at no point do/would sub-people sign on to be sub-people.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:I would consider the Racial COntract as subset of the larger, more powerful Social Contract, myself.
That doesn't work because at no point do/would sub-people sign on to be sub-people.
Right, so...the racial "contract" can't exist?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Irami: Ummm, if you're planning on skipping the last post due to its complexity, I can try simplifying it a bit.
What behaviour, institutionalized or otherwise, can be explained by "Racial Contract" theory that cannot be explained by simple racism among individuals, in large numbers or otherwise? i.e. why is the book so adamant on saying "Black" and "White", capitalized no less when it seems like the theory could be applied to any two races?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:I would consider the Racial COntract as subset of the larger, more powerful Social Contract, myself.
That doesn't work because at no point do/would sub-people sign on to be sub-people.
So, wait. You just made it so that the racial contract doesn't exist.
What the heck?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:why is the book so adamant on saying "Black" and "White", capitalized no less when it seems like the theory could be applied to any two races?
It's not. The book is adamant about the Racial Contract making a distinction between whites and non-whites, but that's just because that's the dominant contract at play in the ever growing Western World. Whites determine what's literature, what's history, what's political science, what's philosophy, what's criminal, what's a fair trial, what's a reasonable government, what's women's rights, what are minority rights, what's the proper attire for business. Non-whites either assimilate or risk the degraded life of sub-humanism within white concocted public institutions.
Mills argues that early Japanese imperialism could be seen as guided by a similar Racial Contract. Mills picked white supremacy to explore as a political system because that's the one we live with.
quote:So now that we realize that Hobbes, Locke, etc. were wrong about non-whites, why can't we just have the social contract theory apply to the non-whites in America as well?
The first issue I can think of is labor. There is a lot of grueling work to be done. One of the reasons the illegal immigrant question is so contentious is because we need the Racial Contract in play to get all of our lawns mowed, buildings cleaned, buses driven, and food picked under cost. Our economic system was built on the Racial Contract, treating these laborers like full people risks the entire system crumbling.
[ November 21, 2007, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Combine
quote:Our economic system was built on the Racial Contract, treating these laborers like full people risks the entire system crumbling.
with
quote:white supremacy is in fact, if only subtly expressed in theory, the political system upon which contract theory depends.
You heard it here, folks: Without racist whites, civilization cannot exist. Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I find it fascinating that Irami thinks that subjugation/slavery based on race is entirely a European phenomenon. Darfur shows us otherwise. The bloodshed in Darfur is 100% based on class distinctions, which are themselves based 100% on race. These race and class issues far predate European influence in that part of Africa.
Watch Irami backpedal.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I find it fascinating that Irami thinks that subjugation/slavery based on race is entirely a European phenomenon.
And I find it tiresome that you think that I think that subjugation/slavery based on race is entirely a European phenomenon.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Awww, poor little Irami. I'm oppressing him!
Dude, this is Hatrack. We are every bit as well-educated and intelligent as you are. Unless you've done years and years of homework in a very particular area, you will get bested here by someone. Here's a hint: race/class/gender/religious oppression is not a small enough subject area to reasonably ever win any argument here.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:I find it fascinating that Irami thinks that subjugation/slavery based on race is entirely a European phenomenon.
And I find it tiresome that you think that I think that subjugation/slavery based on race is entirely a European phenomenon.
And I find it incredible that you think that I think that you think that steven thinks that Irami thinks that erso's doppelganger chanced upon that Tom's roomate discovered the plans that Mucus telepathically determined that Kwea's independent faction of mountain warriors pillaged the microfilm showing that Dan_Raven knew since the beginning of creation that Xavier altered reality using special magic so subjugation/slavery based on race is entirely a European phenomenon.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Here's what I don't get about this racial contract theory as it is....
I live in a suburban middle class neighborhood, and in my part of town, everyone mows their own lawn. On the richer side of town, or for that matter in richer communities in the Metro area, they hire people to mow them. How can you seriously still consider this to be a race issue and not a socioecnomic issue? Black and white rich people will almost always band together against black and white poor people before they align along race. Ideally we'd all get together, but I think we're far more divided by class than race, and you're deluding yourself by sticking to this.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I know you've been answering many different people, Irami, but I really would like to hear your thoughts (or anyone else's for that matter) on this. It seems like actual interracial relationships are often left out of race relations discussions. If no one's actually interested in this, I'll drop it after this post.
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Irami,
I'm curious as to how you would account for the rise of multicultural relationships and children in recent decades. Assuming, for the moment, that the "Racial Contract" did in fact have some kind of power in the past, would you at least agree that its power is dissipating?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Y'all are just enabling him.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Black and white rich people will almost always band together against black and white poor people before they align along race.
But Lyrhawn, "rich black" = "pretending to be white", don't you see? A black person can apparently never succeed in society unless they "pretend to be white" - which begs the question: "If social success means pretending to be white, does that mean social failure is inherent in the definition of what it means to be black?"
While Lisa is right (we agree on something! it does happen!), I'm curious.
Irami, what, in your opinion, would be the definition of a "successful black person" in our society? What would a person need to do to become a "success" in your mind while avoiding the stigma of "pretending to be white"? Or do you believe that no black person can ever be successful without "pretending to be white"? And, if so, does that mean that to retain one's identity as a black person one must necessarily seek to fail?
If so, it seems pretty clear that if you feel no one can be successful without "pretending to be white" and that black identity by its very nature means rejecting a pretense of white identity (and therefore, under the auspices of this argument, rejecting social success), that you equate in your mind the ideas of "black" and "social failure", or, as Lisa stated it, you equate the ideas of "black" and "victim". By this logic, if someone refuses to take the role of "victim" or "social failure", then that person can no longer be considered "black".
So, what would a person need to do in our society to be socially successful while retaining their identity as a black person? Or do you feel this is impossible?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Y'all are just enabling him.
That sounds suspiciously like patronizing ghetto speak, or was it the whites co-opting black culture schtick? Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Here's a funny thought: if we're going to be talking about this nonsense in contractual, strictly pragmatic terms...how much of this so-called 'racial contract' is justified, seeing as how whites even today make up an overwhelming percentage of race in the United States?
I mean, whites make up about 70% of the population...why shouldn't it be primarily their decision what is culture, art, law, financially sound, blah blah blah? If we're going to use terms like 'contract' to describe the situation, that is.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
The first issue I can think of is labor. There is a lot of grueling work to be done. One of the reasons the illegal immigrant question is so contentious is because we need the Racial Contract in play to get all of our lawns mowed, buildings cleaned, buses driven, and food picked under cost. Our economic system was built on the Racial Contract, treating these laborers like full people risks the entire system crumbling.
That's a practical obstacle to treating certain races as full people, but I'm not sure that it affects the set of principles that our government ought to embody. After all, assuming we have an acceptable definition of "people," what's wrong with the idea that our government should be one that all people would agree to if they didn't know what race they were going to be, how much money they would have, etc. (as John Rawls says)?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Irami, what, in your opinion, would be the definition of a "successful black person" in our society?
Any black person who attains their full humanity, and I think that humanity is a plural state involving public truthful interaction without denying, ignoring, excusing, or apologizing for the racial reality of the American public sphere, thereby not being complicit in the political system of white supremacy: Julian Bond, Haki Madhubuti, Aaron McGruder, Toni Morrison, Danielle Allen, Charles Mills, Thurgood Marshall and those are just people in the public eye.
_____________________
Guys, money doesn't address these issues, it just masks the symptoms. If anything, turning this into a class issue just confuses the matter by masking the symptoms. An upper class Jew in an upper class WASP neighborhood is an upper class Jew in a close-knit upper class WASP neighborhood, unless he/she picks her topics of conversation carefully, converts, takes communion and puts up Christmas lights, or is otherwise inoffensive in speaking her truth.
quote:After all, assuming we have an acceptable definition of "people," what's wrong with the idea that our government should be one that all people would agree to if they didn't know what race they were going to be, how much money they would have, etc. (as John Rawls says)?
Omega,
Rawls imports a Kantian idea of personhood to lay down the basic structure of his society. This raceless, sexless, circumstanceless, uninspirable person is so far removed from our political reality and motivations, this person may even be unintelligible that us as a person. It's the equivalent of basing a human society upon how Martians would act. Kant himself said that the ways and means of the choices of this noumenal self(this raceless, sexless, hormonaless, circumstanceless self) outstrip our understanding, since our understanding is conditioned upon our experiences of things through space and time.
These "people" are uninformed by any narratives at all, and part of what makes people, people, especially what makes individual persons, a people, are the shared narratives.
[ November 21, 2007, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...denying, ignoring, excusing, or apologizing for the racial reality...
The best part about refined racism like Irami's is that, unlike Joe Rebel Flag-wearin' redneck down the street who hates blacks and Mexicans, whose racism can be casually dispelled by a critical eye to reality, Irami's racism pemits all aspects of reality to reinforce his prejudice.
I don't know why people are arguing with Irami about this. He's made it clear in the quote above that those words mean "agree with me about race". Disagree with Irami about race? You're white, either by pigment or social politics.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:or is otherwise inoffensive in speaking her truth.
May we all strive to be inoffensive when we speak the truth.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:May we all strive to be inoffensive when we speak the truth.
No. I think that'll lead to bad language and even worse thought. here
Rakeesh,
It's not that I don't consider Cosby, Rice, Thomas, or post-campaign Obama black, I just don't consider them successful.
[ November 21, 2007, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Any black person who attains their full humanity, and I think that humanity is a plural state involving public truthfully interaction without denying, ignoring, excusing, or apologizing for the racial reality of the American public sphere, thereby not being complicit in the political system of white supremacy
This is an interesting definition, but it sounds a lot like "be the best person you can be" without giving any actual details as to what specifics this entails.
Does Aaron McGruder not make his living from publishers, television networks and newspapers that are predominantly owned by white people? It seems as though he uses the "system" to distribute his "counter system" message.
Would you consider Oprah a successful black person? Or Ray Charles, Al Sharpton, Chuck D, or Tupac Shakur?
I'm also curious - do you feel that this definition of "success" can also be applied to white people? Meaning, can you substitute the word "white" for "black" in the quote above, or does the color of their skin preclude them from being outside the "political system of white supremacy" regardless of their actions/beliefs?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:This raceless, sexless, circumstanceless, uninspirable person is so far removed from our political reality and motivations, this person may even be unintelligible that us as a person.
Irami, why do you simply not get that I don't live my life by a "racial narrative?" What in your life is so intrinsically dependent upon your skin color that you would be a different person if you were white?
What, specifically, would you do differently if you were a white guy selling networking gear? Why would you feel compelled to do it differently?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What in your life is so intrinsically dependent upon your skin color that you would be a different person if you were white?
Because this way, even trivial successes are great triumphs and all degrees of failure are mostly or entirely someone else's fault.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, I'm really reluctant to put words into Irami's mouth. I don't think we should get into guessing his motivations like that; it doesn't seem charitable to me.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Juxtapose, I'd be interested in hearing Irami's (and other's) take on interracial marriage, partially because I'm in one. Granted it's not to a black man, but brown oughtta count for something.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You know, no matter how many times we have this discussion with Irami, I still never really understand what he wants America to look like.
All I ever hear is that whitey is keeping everybody down, and that white culture is oppressively dominant, but what does his America look like? What is black American culture, or latino American culture, etc, and what does he imagine they should look like in his ideal America, that they'll supplant white America? Or that we all take turns or something?
I see a whole lot of complaining and blaming, but not much solving.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
[Edit: fixed link]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Lisa, those both link to Lion's Blood.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Thanks.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Y'all are just enabling him.
That sounds suspiciously like patronizing ghetto speak, or was it the whites co-opting black culture schtick?
"Y'all" is hardly used exlusively by "ghetto speak." It's common in the South and Southwest, and seems even more common on the internet (possibly because it's an acceptable English form of shorthand, though this is a wild guess)
I say y'all all the time, and I was born and raised in California.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I said it in that case because English uses "you" for both singular and plural second person pronouns. I didn't want it to sound like I was talking to one person in particular, so I used "y'all". Also, I lived in Louisiana for a bit when I was little, and the odd southernism pops out every now and then, particularly when I'm tired.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Guys, money doesn't address these issues, it just masks the symptoms. If anything, turning this into a class issue just confuses the matter by masking the symptoms. An upper class Jew in an upper class WASP neighborhood is an upper class Jew in a close-knit upper class WASP neighborhood, unless he/she picks her topics of conversation carefully, converts, takes communion and puts up Christmas lights, or is otherwise inoffensive in speaking her truth.
What do you base those claims on? I live in a town that is mostly upper class with a significant Jewish population. I'm an atheist and I do not recall ever having awkwardness with inter-racial and inter-religious conversations (hell, I have an Indian friend, a Korean friend, and a Jewish friend).
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: What behaviour, institutionalized or otherwise, can be explained by "Racial Contract" theory that cannot be explained by simple racism among individuals, in large numbers or otherwise?
Still wondering about this one...
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: What behaviour, institutionalized or otherwise, can be explained by "Racial Contract" theory that cannot be explained by simple racism among individuals, in large numbers or otherwise?
Still wondering about this one...
"Racial Contract Theory" conveys a quasi-intellectual imprimatur that helps hawk books, or punch-up op-eds, or condemn whole societies, or the entire 1st World, on flimsy abstract rhetoric.
Or short answer, nothing but imaginary unconscious conspiracies.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm going to echo TomD here and politely say that I'm more interested in Irami's take on the issue since he (seems to) genuinely believe in Racial Contract theory.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm still wondering how what has been described could be considered a contract, but Irami has always served up large helpings of pseudo with meager amounts of intellectual, so I'm not really expecting much.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You know, I'm really reluctant to put words into Irami's mouth. I don't think we should get into guessing his motivations like that; it doesn't seem charitable to me.
Why not, Tom? He's routinely putting words in my (as a white guy) mouth, thoughts into my head, politics into my voting, motives behind my spending.
Also, I never said this is what he would say his motives are. But he obviously feels very free to speculate as to the motives of millions of people he's never met or interacted with. I have interacted with him many times. I'm a helluva lot more charitable than he is.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
First in my class here at MIT Got skills, I'm a champion at D&D M.C. Escher, that's my favorite M.C. Keep you're 40, I'll just have an Earl Grey tea My rims never spin, to the contrary You'll find that they're quite stationary All of my action figures are cherry Stephen Hawking's in my library
My MySpace page is all totally pimped out Got people beggin' for my top eight spaces Yo, I know pi to a thousand places Ain't got no grills but I still wear braces I order all of my sandwiches with mayonnaise I'm a wiz at Minesweeper, I could play for days Once you've see my sweet moves, you're gonna stay amazed My fingers movin' so fast I'll set the place ablaze
There's no killer app I haven't run (run) At Pascal, well I'm number one (one) Do vector calculus just for fun I ain't got a gat, but I got a soldering gun (what?) Happy Days is my favorite theme song I could sure kick your butt in a game of ping pong I'll ace any trivia quiz you bring on I'm fluent in JavaScript as well as Klingon(in part)
They see me roll on my Segway I know in my heart they think I'm White and nerdy
Think I'm just too white and nerdy Think I'm just too white and nerdy Can't you see I'm white and nerdy Look at me I'm white and nerdy
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: First in my class here at MIT Got skills, I'm a champion at D&D M.C. Escher, that's my favorite M.C. Keep you're 40, I'll just have an Earl Grey tea My rims never spin, to the contrary You'll find that they're quite stationary All of my action figures are cherry Stephen Hawking's in my library
My MySpace page is all totally pimped out Got people beggin' for my top eight spaces Yo, I know pi to a thousand places Ain't got no grills but I still wear braces I order all of my sandwiches with mayonnaise I'm a wiz at Minesweeper, I could play for days Once you've see my sweet moves, you're gonna stay amazed My fingers movin' so fast I'll set the place ablaze
There's no killer app I haven't run (run) At Pascal, well I'm number one (one) Do vector calculus just for fun I ain't got a gat, but I got a soldering gun (what?) Happy Days is my favorite theme song I could sure kick your butt in a game of ping pong I'll ace any trivia quiz you bring on I'm fluent in JavaScript as well as Klingon(in part)
They see me roll on my Segway I know in my heart they think I'm White and nerdy
Think I'm just too white and nerdy Think I'm just too white and nerdy Can't you see I'm white and nerdy Look at me I'm white and nerdy
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Funny, but we're really not supposed to post that much of a song. The Cards have expressed concern about copyright issues.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Irami has always served up large helpings of pseudo with meager amounts of intellectual"
Ouch. Been taking TomD lessons, have we?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:What behaviour, institutionalized or otherwise, can be explained by "Racial Contract" theory that cannot be explained by simple racism among individuals, in large numbers or otherwise?
The talk of freedom and equality. Racial Contract theory creates a way to discuss the gap between how we talk about freedom, democracy, public trust, and equality, and how we act concerning those same issues. It's a way to clarify our political hypocrisy; whereas the current schemes in political philosophy are silent on this issue. ___________________
For all of those questions about inter-racial relationships, I think Carole Pateman wrote a book called "The Sexual Contract," which delves into these issues. My gut reaction is that the Racial Contract concerns strangers, not intimates. For all of our talk about self-reflective individual rights and even the responsibilities of family, I think our political discourse is wanting regarding our aspirations and responsibilities to strangers and strange groups within diverse communities.
[ November 24, 2007, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Darfur. Is that the white man's fault? I brought that up almost a page ago. Your answer was found...wanting.
Black Africans have owned other black Africans as slaves for centuries at least, perhaps millennia. In some cases, they were born into slavery. I'm trying to figure how this is somehow the white man's fault. I'm not succeeding too well.
[ November 24, 2007, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: steven ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think you could blame SOME of what's wrong in Africa on European whites today, though not specifically Americans. We generally stayed pretty hands off when it came to colonialism and Europe back then. We didn't get involved like Belgium, France, Germany, and Britain did, in taking over whole swaths of land and reordering things to fit whatever they wanted. They created fake tribes, more or less, and screwed things up in pretty lasting ways for a lot of those countries for decades or centuries.
I don't think that means anyone can blame Europe for EVERYTHING, I mean after so many generations you really have to own up and move beyond your past. I don't think Darfur is a white/black racial blame issue though.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
WHile I still find this theory wanting in many ways, I do find it interesting that it would apply (at least to Irami) to strangers. I know that in my personal experience with ACTUAL racism, it is far harder to maintain your hate for another race (or religion, or any other number of other issues) if your do not have actual contact with members of that group.
And by personal experience I mean myself as well. I am not a racist, but when I was younger I had some issues with people who were gay. My only experience with that group had been very negative, which had reinforced my preconceptions.
However, I had been raised to always challenge my beliefs, and as I met more and more people in my life who happened to be gay, the less and less I was able to justify my beliefs. I never thought them evil, or anything like that.....it was more subtle than that.
Now I could care less, and I attribute my change in attitude on two things....my upbringing, which always required me to reexamine any type of discriminatory beliefs, and my exposure to a number of really cool people who just happened to be gay.
It is hard to continue to think of people in that way once you get to know them....it becomes personal.
Although Irami seems to hold on to it well enough.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Irami, you're embarrassing yourself. At least some white people in this country are and have actively worked for racial equality. Some have been more politically motivated than others, but at least they've made the effort, and not all have been politically motivated. OTOH, there are plenty of situations in Africa where class distinctions are made on the basis of race (much smaller differences in race than between blacks and whites in America) and exist for centuries. Nobody in the ruling classes/races there questions it much, unlike whites here in America. As a result, Darfur happens.
The atrocities in Darfur are not all Arab versus Black. I saw an entire episode of Dateline NBC (I believe that was the show) where several women from the (Black) ruling class there had been forced to hide in a home bathroom for weeks on end, hoping to avoid being hacked to death via machete. The (also Black, of a slightly different race) underclass is rebelling and killing them wholesale.
Irami, recognize. Compared to the Black ruling class in Darfur, American whites do not look that bad. Granted, we still have a pretty good ways to go, but acting like whites tend toward racism more than any other group is CRAP, CRAP, CRAP.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: I'm an atheist ... I have an Indian friend, a Korean friend, and a Jewish friend).
What's funny is when Threads and his friends walk into a bar.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Granted, we still have a pretty good ways to go, but acting like whites tend toward racism more than any other group is CRAP, CRAP, CRAP.
steven, until you understand that Racial Contract Theory is much less about race, racism, violence, or oppression than it is about explaining a profoundly deep-seeded, almost pathological hypocrisy, then we'll just keep talking past each other. What makes European imperialism and America's racial history on through today's immigration debate significant isn't the brutal violence, it's that the brutal violence flowed from a civilization that spoke, and to an alarming degree believed, that this behavior was consistent with the rhetoric about the universal dignity of man.
[ November 24, 2007, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I don't really see how else things could be done. The natural progression is from inorganic materials, to single-celled organisms, to multi-celled organisms, to vertebrates, to intelligent creatures, to creatures with larger and more world-spanning societies, to creatures with galactic-wide societies. The kind of local, tribal awareness you're talking about isn't necessarily valid from the perspective of a world-wide society. I'm the very first to decry what the white man has done to native groups all over the world. I've posted literally page after page bitching about whites selling white flour, white sugar, and all the other sickening foods to native groups, instead of something useful or at least not as harmful. However, I see it as all part of the larger learning process. Blaming white people exclusively for the problems of the world today is crap, my man. There are kings in Africa who could buy and sell every person in this discussion on this thread 100 times over without noticing the difference in their bank accounts. They are certainly more responsible for any problems in Africa than the average white American. Why not blame them? Am I oppressing them? Look who you're bitching at. And look who's actually treating you like a human.
Your problem, Irami, is that you don't see us as being all in this together. It's your choice to have that perspective, but I'm not sure it's totally valid.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What makes European imperialism and America's racial history on through today's immigration debate significant isn't the brutal violence, it's that the brutal violence flowed from a civilization that spoke, and to an alarming degree believed, that this behavior was consistent with the rhetoric about the universal dignity of man.
Whoa! Human societies are hypocritical! Shocking! It takes a deep mind to fathom this amazing discrepancy, unique to whitey.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The funny thing about that is Irami appears to be under the impression that black people JUST discovered that hypocrisy. You don't think there were contemporaries of the time crying foul along the way? Of course there were, and I'd say the majority of them were white, they just happened to find themselves in the minority at the time. And there were plenty of times when whites stood up and spoke and died to try and correct a mistake they thought their peers were making. I'd direct you to couple hundred different books on the Civil War to start with.
And I don't realize how this is so surprising. How many people in history actually look at themselves as the villain? Of course people who do things that us more enlightened people see as barbaric think they are in fact perfectly enlightened themselves. It's called progress.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:until you understand that Racial Contract Theory is much less about race, racism, violence, or oppression than it is about explaining a profoundly deep-seeded, almost pathological hypocrisy...
Wouldn't it be much easier -- and more truthful -- just to say "Western philosophy was largely hypocritical, especially in its application of 'personhood' to others?" There's no need to pretend to any sort of "contract," and I don't think anyone will find anything to argue with in that statement.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Granted, we still have a pretty good ways to go, but acting like whites tend toward racism more than any other group is CRAP, CRAP, CRAP.
steven, until you understand that Racial Contract Theory is much less about race, racism, violence, or oppression than it is about explaining a profoundly deep-seeded, almost pathological hypocrisy, then we'll just keep talking past each other. What makes European imperialism and America's racial history on through today's immigration debate significant isn't the brutal violence, it's that the brutal violence flowed from a civilization that spoke, and to an alarming degree believed, that this behavior was consistent with the rhetoric about the universal dignity of man.
In other words, when African tribal blacks sold fellow blacks into slavery, they were simply being true to their culture. No hypocrisy, so it's okay. When European whites did the same thing, it was evil.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
What I think Irami misses is that blacks and whites are not, at heart, different. Left to their own devices, blacks would have eventually developed metals technology and the ability to travel to the stars, IMHO. The Masai in East Africa developed iron smelting and refining totally on their own, and about 10 years ago, I saw a special on PBS (or Discovery, or something) about an abandoned city in West Africa. It was a large and extensive stone city, and realistically, it was probably built by a complex society. Based on these two facts, I don't see any fundamental difference between Africans and Europeans.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:In other words, when African tribal blacks sold fellow blacks into slavery, they were simply being true to their culture. No hypocrisy, so it's okay. When European whites did the same thing, it was evil.
It's not okay; it's just a different issue.
quote:Wouldn't it be much easier -- and more truthful -- just to say "Western philosophy was largely hypocritical, especially in its application of 'personhood' to others?"
Western political philosophy is fundamentally hypocritical. The hypocrisy is bone deep, so far that's it's largely taken for granted as common sense. Racial Contract Theory draws attention to this hypocrisy as the norm rather than a deviation from the norm. And once this morally unattractive hypocrisy is revealed, the result will be a new, more compelling series of public questions. The influx of women philosophers in the last 40 years has already done great work in this regard.
[ November 25, 2007, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It's not okay; it's just a different issue.
It's an issue you never address or even hint at voluntarily. It's like pulling teeth with you to even get a whiff that maybe whitey isn't the worst thing evah. That's why you're a racist, not a sociologist.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:In other words, when African tribal blacks sold fellow blacks into slavery, they were simply being true to their culture. No hypocrisy, so it's okay. When European whites did the same thing, it was evil.
It's not okay; it's just a different issue.
How is it a different issue? Human beings enslaved human beings. That's wrong. What does their color have to do with anything?
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Wouldn't it be much easier -- and more truthful -- just to say "Western philosophy was largely hypocritical, especially in its application of 'personhood' to others?"
Western political philosophy is fundamentally hypocritical.
Saying that it's fundamentally hypocritical means that hypocrisy is so much a part of its basic makeup that it would not -- could not -- exist without it.
That seems like a strange claim to make of western philosophy. Particularly if it's being made of western philosophy relative to other philosophies.
The only way in which one could reasonably claim western philosophy to be fundamentally hypocritical is by starting with the premise that western philosophy expects more from us than any other philosophy. And since people aren't always perfect and cannot always live up to the lofty values of western philosophy, its adherents will always fall short. In the aggregate, if not in each individual case.
Do you view this as something negative? Do you prefer a philosophy that says "People suck, so of course people will do crappy things like enslave others"? Do you prefer a philosophy that simply says "Might makes right"? Because while such a philosophy may not result in hypocrisy, it will also result in a much nastier society.
Do we always succeed in living up to our own expectations of ourselves? Maybe not. But at least we set the bar high. When you condemn us for that, you're really condemning yourself for being unable to cast your view that high.
Neal Stephenson says it better than I possibly could in his book The Diamond Age:
quote:"You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of vice," Finkle-McGraw said. "It was all because of moral relativism. You see, in that sort of a climate, you are not allowed to criticize others - after all, if there is no right and wrong, then what grounds is there for criticism? [....] Now this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticize [...] And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all vices. For, you see, even if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to criticize another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what he has actually done."
You might want to think about that, Irami.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
Western political philosophy is fundamentally hypocritical. The hypocrisy is bone deep, so far that's it's largely taken for granted as common sense. Racial Contract Theory draws attention to this hypocrisy as the norm rather than a deviation from the norm. And once this morally unattractive hypocrisy is revealed, the result will be a new, more compelling series of public questions. The influx of women philosophers in the last 40 years has already done great work in this regard.
Is the philosophy itself hypocritical, or do Westerners just want to avoid its implications, e.g., by making themselves see large numbers of humans as biologically less developed than they are? I still can't see what's racist about, say, social contract theory provided that you have the correct definition of what a person is.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Is the philosophy itself hypocritical, or do Westerners just want to avoid its implications, e.g., by making themselves see large numbers of humans as biologically less developed than they are? I still can't see what's racist about, say, social contract theory provided that you have the correct definition of what a person is.
The political philosophy is hypocritical if the political facts on which the theory depends are untenable. For example, if it is the case that it is impossible to build a society to function with both Universal freedom, and without outsourcing labor to degraded "others," whether those others are children halfway across the world, illegal immigrant labor, or even a put upon wife at home, then a political philosophy that presupposes that all people are emancipated from degraded labor, in other words: free, is untenable. The issue moves from a matter of freedom to a matter of how to we divvy up the slavery fairly.
Democratic freedom is a really tricky idea. The idea was birthed in one of those rare times in history where, en masse, the biological necessities of life were taken care of by "others." The idea is so attractive that it's hard to admit that it may not be tenable without the "others." The reality of this issue didn't reveal itself fully to our public institutions until after the civil rights and women's liberation movements came into full swing. Now, whole institutions are crumbing. It's funny. The most amusing aspect of this debate, in my opinion, is amateur athletics, wherein college and Olympic athletes are supposed to both the best, and incidentally and magically, not ever have to worry about paying for lunch.
[ November 25, 2007, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
You have a serious issue (not that that is a suprise) if you equate all physical labor with slavery.
There are now, and always will be, those who have and those who have not, at least to some degree.
The difference between that and slavery is that there are choices....choices which allow you to sink or swim based on factors other than race.
But I doubt you will ever be able to let go of your hatered of white society, and of white, long enough to see that.
If you did you would have to see that people have to take responsibility for their own actions most of the time, and that no one else is responsible for the situations you find yourself in.
Keep blaming the system, Irami....it's all the excuse you will ever need to justify your failures, personally and racially.
Hopefully the rest of us will continue to work around you, living our lives as best we can.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:if it is the case that it is impossible to build a society to function with both Universal freedom, and without outsourcing labor to degraded "others," whether those others are children halfway across the world, illegal immigrant labor, or even a put upon wife at home, then a political philosophy that presupposes that all people are emancipated from degraded labor, in other words: free, is untenable.
Is this your claim, Irami?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: The political philosophy is hypocritical if the political facts on which the theory depends are untenable. For example, if it is the case that it is impossible to build a society to function with both Universal freedom, and without outsourcing labor to degraded "others," whether those others are children halfway across the world, illegal immigrant labor, or even a put upon wife at home, then a political philosophy that presupposes that all people are emancipated from degraded labor, in other words: free, is untenable.
But that's ridiculous. You're assuming that the reason labor is outsourced is that the people it's being outsourced to are "degraded". I assure you that if they charged the same amount for their labor that people in the US do, there'd be no outsourcing to other countries.
There's nothing racist or degrading in the fact that the same thing can be worth different amounts in different places. An ice cube isn't worth as much in Alaska as it is in Egypt. Not because Alaskans are better than Egyptians or Egyptians are better than Alaskans, but because it's cold in Alaska and hot in Egypt.
If I live somewhere where the average salary is half of that in the US, I might choose to work for half of what a similarly skilled person in the US might choose to work for. In such a situation, a US employer might prefer to employ me. Not because of race or degradation on anyone's part, but because intelligent and sane people, when faced with paying $1 or $2 for the same thing, will generally pay $1.
Now, if you're coming from some sort of whacked out socialist perspective where it's somehow immoral to pay less for something or to make a profit, then fine. But that also has nothing to do with race.
Furthermore, the idea that freedom from having to work is what "freedom" means is terrifying. Freedom means that you aren't forced. Period. If I can't bench press 200 lbs (I assume that's a lot), that doesn't mean that I'm less free than someone who can. If I'm able to find a job that allows me to sit at my desk in my home and type on a computer all day, that doesn't make me more free than someone who pushes a mop. That's not what freedom means. Force me to program all day, and I'm less free than a person who cleans floors all day willingly.
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: The issue moves from a matter of freedom to a matter of how to we divvy up the slavery fairly.
So slavery is when you don't like your choices, right? If you like your choices, or at least some of them, you're free. If you don't, you're a slave. And you want to be respected for that sort of view?
[ November 25, 2007, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: Lisa ]
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: The political philosophy is hypocritical if the political facts on which the theory depends are untenable. For example, if it is the case that it is impossible to build a society to function with both Universal freedom, and without outsourcing labor to degraded "others," whether those others are children halfway across the world, illegal immigrant labor, or even a put upon wife at home, then a political philosophy that presupposes that all people are emancipated from degraded labor, in other words: free, is untenable.
But that's ridiculous. You're assuming that the reason labor is outsourced is that the people it's being outsourced to are "degraded". I assure you that if they charged the same amount for their labor that people in the US do, there'd be no outsourcing to other countries.
There's nothing racist or degrading in the fact that the same thing can be worth different amounts in different places. An ice cube isn't worth as much in Alaska as it is in Egypt. Not because Alaskans are better than Egyptians or Egyptians are better than Alaskans, but because it's cold in Alaska and hot in Egypt.
If I live somewhere where the average salary is half of that in the US, I might choose to work for half of what a similarly skilled person in the US might choose to work for. In such a situation, a US employer might prefer to employ me. Not because of race or degradation on anyone's part, but because intelligent and sane people, when faced with paying $1 or $2 for the same thing, will generally pay $1.
Now, if you're coming from some sort of whacked out socialist perspective where it's somehow immoral to pay less for something or to make a profit, then fine. But that also has nothing to do with race.
Furthermore, the idea that freedom from having to work is what "freedom" means is terrifying. Freedom means that you aren't forced. Period. If I can't bench press 200 lbs (I assume that's a lot), that doesn't mean that I'm less free than someone who can. If I'm able to find a job that allows me to sit at my desk in my home and type on a computer all day, that doesn't make me more free than someone who pushes a mop. That's not what freedom means. Force me to program all day, and I'm less free than a person who cleans floors all day willingly.
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: The issue moves from a matter of freedom to a matter of how to we divvy up the slavery fairly.
So slavery is when you don't like your choices, right? If you like your choices, or at least some of them, you're free. If you don't, you're a slave. And you want to be respected for that sort of view?
Fixed formatting
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm just trying to figure out what definition of "freedom" includes "emancipation from 'degraded labor.'"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The part where 'degraded labor' equals 'slavery'. Once you make that idiotic leap, white people are awful enslavers until the whole freaking planet is up to the so-called 'First World's' standard of living.
It lets Irami nestle comfortably in his racism for the forseeable future.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: The reality of this issue didn't reveal itself fully to our public institutions until after the civil rights and women's liberation movements came into full swing. Now, whole institutions are crumbing.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)