posted
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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...
That doesn't mean it can't spark an interesting discussion, of course, but it helps to call it want it really is, IMO.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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...
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.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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... Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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!
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, that is such a good, clear argument that I'm going to memorize in case I ever get into a similar argument IRL.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
