American Racism

[Roman]

I'm reading this book by Howard Zinn called "A People's History of the United States". Other than being a hugantic pinko, one of this guy's conjectures is that American racism is a product of the upper class making a scapegoat out of nonwhites. That way, poor whites and slaves would not ally to turn on their oppressors– the upper class.

This began as early as the 17th century, where the leaders turned the angry, landless, hungry, poor white population against non-whites. Eventually it became ingrained in the culture and political process of America. Targetting negroes became a relief valve for poor, rural whites, which kept them from targetting the real culprit of their lowly station– the plantation owners.

In fact, much of the racism seen today, on these very forums, wouldn't be so much a product of actual racial inferiority or genetic disposition to not like darkies, but because the elites are playing you like a bitch. Energy wasted on racism is energy not spent of pulling the rich's dick from your ass.

Your thoughts?

[Prince_James]

It does not take into consideration the fact that the majority of nations have been racially, culturally, and religiously homogenous, or if there was true cosmpolitanism, it was only in large urban centres, whereas the rest of the nation was not.

[imaplanck.]

I'm reading this book

Wow! Just Wow!

[Prince_James]

Hiyo!

[Roman]

Wow! Just Wow!

Alright, you caught me. It's actually a book on tape.

[Roman]

It does not take into consideration the fact that the majority of nations have been racially, culturally, and religiously homogenous, or if there was true cosmpolitanism, it was only in large urban centres, whereas the rest of the nation was not.

That's not a fact.
That's hardly a fact.
In fact, nations are entirely artificial concepts that encompass many different races, cultures, and religions. The idea of a nation serves to get people from racially, culturally, and religiously different backgrounds to unite as citizens.

We see the origin of the nation-state at a time of growing mercantilism and trade, when regions became less homogenized. The development of the nation was in reaction to increasing integration, to unite people behind the idea of the state.

Who a nation considers sitizens, however, is something else entirely.

[nicholas1M7]

I'm reading this book by Howard Zinn called "A People's History of the United States". Other than being a hugantic pinko, one of this guy's conjectures is that American racism is a product of the upper class making a scapegoat out of nonwhites. That way, poor whites and slaves would not ally to turn on their oppressors– the upper class.

This began as early as the 17th century, where the leaders turned the angry, landless, hungry, poor white population against non-whites. Eventually it became ingrained in the culture and political process of America. Targetting negroes became a relief valve for poor, rural whites, which kept them from targetting the real culprit of their lowly station– the plantation owners.

In fact, much of the racism seen today, on these very forums, wouldn't be so much a product of actual racial inferiority or genetic disposition to not like darkies, but because the elites are playing you like a bitch. Energy wasted on racism is energy not spent of pulling the rich's dick from your ass.

Your thoughts?

I once saw this book years ago, I read a bit of it at school, but was taken aghast by the length. Sounds interesting now that you point out this information.

[Roman]

I once saw this book years ago, I read a bit of it at school, but was taken aghast by the length. Sounds interesting now that you point out this information.

It's a classic.
The author's extremely liberal, but he offers some fairly convincing arguments for an alternative view of American history.

For instance, the Revolutionary War was not a mass uprising against a cruel and unjust monarchy, but a rebellion led by some very rich men who stood to make a lot of money. Zinn argues that the rhetoric of the Founding Fathers was mostly a tool to lead the lower classes to follow. The Constitution undermines (or doesn't well cover) much of the freedoms declared by the Declaration of Independence, as it continued to protect the status quo of the elites, at great cost to blacks and natives.

[Prince_James]

Roman;

It certainly is a fact.

Humans organize themselves into societies that reflect soldarity and homogeny often to an extreme level. Nations for thousands of years have followed this trend or had districts (provinces, states, dependent kingdoms) where minorities lived as local majorities.

The only nations that tend to have a great variety and fill the latter form of "district majority, overall diversity" are Imperial systems.

[madanthonywayne]

As far as I'm concerned, that book is communist propaganda meant to undermine the values our nation was founded on and impune the virtues of the founding fathers.

The concepts expressed in the declaration of independence were truly radical for their time. To say the whole thing was nothing but a way to make money is complete BS. Clearly, these men could easily have worked within the system and made plenty of money without all the fuss of revolution. Indeed, most signatories of the declaration of independence were dead before the revolution was over! Worked out real well for them, huh?

[Roman]

1. Nations are new, three or four hundred years old, at best. Valence to a nation, rather than a specific cultural or religious identity is a relatively new phenomena.
2. Nations must incorporate multiple cultures, languages, religions and races, and convince them that they're all the same.

During the rise of nation states, how much arable land you had was in direct relationship with how much wealth you generated. If governments wanted more wealth, they'd have to rule over lands occupied by people with different religions, cultures, etc.

3. Wars trade culture, religion and race. Due to the migratory and belligerent nature of humans, no nation's demographic composition remains the same for long. Rather, there's some ineffable quality that makes one a member of a nation.

4. The quality that makes one a Brit, or an American, or an Indian, isn't dependent on race or even religion. It's an entirely artificial one that you use to distinguish yourself apart from everyone else, and identify with a select group of people– your countrymen.

5. This quality is new, and a direct product of the necessity of a nation to pull together disparate groups and submit to the government.

[Prince_James]

1. Nations are new, three or four hundred years old, at best. Valence to a nation, rather than a specific cultural or religious identity is a relatively new phenomena.

Yet are based in prior forms of society and are virtually indistuishable from those antecedent forms.

2. Nations must incorporate multiple cultures, languages, religions and races, and convince them that they're all the same.

During the rise of nation states, how much arable land you had was in direct relationship with how much wealth you generated. If governments wanted more wealth, they'd have to rule over lands occupied by people with different religions, cultures, etc.

Those are properly called -empires-. Moreover, you will note that only in the modern immigration era do we find a limited amount of nations, such as the United States, based on disparate cultures.

SEe the definition even adopted by STalin for a nation: "A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture."

And just the whole "defining a nation" aspect of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation#Defining_a_nation

3. Wars trade culture, religion and race. Due to the migratory and belligerent nature of humans, no nation's demographic composition remains the same for long. Rather, there's some ineffable quality that makes one a member of a nation.

Hardly. French culture existed prior to, and after, WWII. Japanese culture, also. German culture, in fact. American culture. There was no "great exchange that made a new entity". Neither do we find this in any situation, other than wars which result in long-term occupation and intergration into a larger empire, and even then, local culture tends not to change much.

Also, race is rarely exchanged. It requires tremendous efforts of rape to do such, and perhaps the only succesful instances would be the Mongol/Hunnic/Turkic involvement in the racial composition of some Eastern Europeans.

Religion is also a generally solid thing. It takes hundreds, or even thousands, of years for radical changes to occur.

4. The quality that makes one a Brit, or an American, or an Indian, isn't dependent on race or even religion. It's an entirely artificial one that you use to distinguish yourself apart from everyone else, and identify with a select group of people– your countrymen.

American, no. Indian - certainly. One must be an Indian in order to truly be an Indian, that is, to have long-term ancestrial ties in India. Same with Britain.

5. This quality is new, and a direct product of the necessity of a nation to pull together disparate groups and submit to the government.

Nonsense, as societies are rooted in homogeny and are, in essence, great extensions of family ties.

[Prince_James]

Madanthonwayne:

Very true. He is zealously anti-American and basically spits on the system that gives him the right to say what he does.

[Roman]

As far as I'm concerned, that book is communist propaganda meant to undermine the values our nation was founded on and impune the virtues of the founding fathers.

Have you read it?

The concepts expressed in the declaration of independence were truly radical for their time. To say the whole thing was nothing but a way to make money is complete BS.

Again, have you read it?
Zinn doesn't claim "the whole thing was nothing but a way to make money." But money certainly played a very important role.

Clearly, these men could easily have worked within the system and made plenty of money without all the fuss of revolution.

Plenty of money. Ha. Right.
People in the top income brackets have plenty of money. What's it matter if they're taxed 90%? That remaining 10 million is plenty of money.
"Plenty of money" is no argument when it comes to how well people are motivated by greed.

The policies of King George cost the colonists, especially the very wealthy, a lot of money. The majority of colonists saw the wealthy as wealthy at the expensive of the poor, and the colonies were always close to a revolution against the wealthy, regardless of the rhetoric of the founding fathers! The founding fathers simply channeled that energy away from the small, wealthy elite, who stood to lose so much if the colonists rebelled on their own.

Indeed, most signatories of the declaration of independence were dead before the revolution was over! Worked out real well for them, huh?

Most? More than half?
You sure about that?
I just went through wikipedia's entry on the declaration. Only 8 died before the war ended. Eight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...f_Independence

The rebellion against Britain wasn't a populist movement, neither. It was driven by the wealthy.

[S.A.M.]

Money=American values.

Yup, makes sense to me.

[Prince_James]

Yes, SamCDKey, we don't like to live in poverty.

We have this "wow, being poor sucks!" conception of life.

[Roman]

Yet are based in prior forms of society and are virtually indistuishable from those antecedent forms.

Hardly. Compare England at 0 AD, 1000 AD and 2000 AD. Virtually indistinguishable?

The fact that the region England shared that 2000 year history allows for it to be a nation– a national identity; but the cultural and racial identity of England before Christ and 2000 years after are extremely distinguishable.

For a guy who sees tremendous differences between negroes and caucasians, I'd think you'd be more discerning.

Those are properly called -empires-. Moreover, you will note that only in the modern immigration era do we find a limited amount of nations, such as the United States, based on disparate cultures.

Not based on. Incorporates. Replaces a bunch of different cultures and religions with a national identity.

SEe the definition even adopted by STalin for a nation: "A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture."

Common, similar, etc. Not identitical, not homogenous. A degree. The modern nation is an integral system, not an exclusionary one. Spain, Germany, Italy, Greece, all republics. China, a republic.

[quote]And just the whole "defining a nation" aspect of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation#Defining_a_nation[quote]

Did you miss the part about "will"?

Hardly. French culture existed prior to, and after, WWII. Japanese culture, also. German culture, in fact. American culture. There was no "great exchange that made a new entity". Neither do we find this in any situation, other than wars which result in long-term occupation and intergration into a larger empire, and even then, local culture tends not to change much.

WWII was a very short event, with very little essential territory changing hands. There weren't a great many migrations, either. Compare that with the Doric invasion of Greece, or the Hebrews smashing up everything in the Middle East. Or the Arabs spreading through North Africa and into Central Asia.

Virtually every nation, today, combines mutiple historic ethnic, lingualistic, and cultural groups under one entity. You may be Castillian or Catalonian, but guess what passport you carry? What do you call yourself? Who do you identify with? I know a Frenchman from a historically German region of France. Does he call himself French or German?

Also, race is rarely exchanged. It requires tremendous efforts of rape to do such, and perhaps the only succesful instances would be the Mongol/Hunnic/Turkic involvement in the racial composition of some Eastern Europeans.

Not amongst nation states. Ethnicities are being lost due to the fact that no one no longer recognizes them. People forget what social groups they belonged to, historically, in the past, as their identity becomes closer and closer to that of the national identity.

Religion is also a generally solid thing. It takes hundreds, or even thousands, of years for radical changes to occur.

It also takes hundreds or thousands of years for race to occur. Why bother discussing the trivialities of what happened in the last decade, compared to the macro scale at which race operates?

American, no. Indian - certainly. One must be an Indian in order to truly be an Indian, that is, to have long-term ancestrial ties in India. Same with Britain.

Did you ever read Kim, by that Brit who wrote the Jungle Book?
Was Kim Indian or British?

Nonsense, as societies are rooted in homogeny and are, in essence, great extensions of family ties.

I agree that society is rooted in homogeneity– but not actual homogeneity. It's an artificial one. Real homogeneity are blood relations. Society simulates a family so we work together, rather than in competition, or at least mitigates the carnage of direct competition.

If you look at socially cohesive forces (or at least, the most successful ones); religion, nationality, culture– it's about inclusitivity. About the relatedness of people, regardless of whether or not they're actually related.
Xenophobic religions have no where near the staying power of the love thy neighbor as thyself shit.
Fascist governments inevitably implode.

[S.A.M.]

If you look at socially cohesive forces (or at least, the most successful ones); religion, nationality, culture– it's about inclusitivity. About the relatedness of people, regardless of whether or not they're actually related.
Xenophobic religions have no where near the staying power of the love thy neighbor as thyself shit.
Fascist governments inevitably implode.

Makes evolutionary sense. Diversity survives, exclusivity is the short cut to extinction.

[spuriousmonkey]

My thoughts? Any book that makes you think about a certain aspect of human life is a great book. And apparently that's what you have been reading.

Is everything what has being said in the book true? Yes and no. History writing results in a series of views on past events that differ. Which one is the truth?

None of them and probably all of them.


Could it be possible that the American elite was behind racism? Of course. Similar things happened in Europe with the jews. Hatred can be easily incited by a few to the masses.
A similar thing happened with the Serbs. A few people in power, such as milosevic made the calculation that inciting hatred against certain groups would gain them a profit. In the end these miscalculated and their lust for power put a whole region to war and ethnic cleansing.

There is probably a core of truth in the book. It doesn't sound very unlikely. I guess you have to judge the content based on other literature on this topic and the sources.

[Prince_James]

Roman:

Hardly. Compare England at 0 AD, 1000 AD and 2000 AD. Virtually indistinguishable?

From around 500-2000, virtually indistinguishable. The Romano-Celtic inhabitants were driven into Cornwall, Wales, and Southern Scotland, though. This you are correct, by invasion and conquest.

The Norman invasion, on the other hand, composed mostly the ruling class. The Anglo-Saxon lower stratas remained.

Not based on. Incorporates. Replaces a bunch of different cultures and religions with a national identity.

Such as?

Perhaps Italy's disparate demi-nations you are referencing? Which shared much in the way of similarities. Indeed, only Venetian and Sicilian culture differed much from what can be considered a "mainline Italian norm". This similarity lead towards their unification being realtively easy compared to what it could have been.

Common, similar, etc. Not identitical, not homogenous. A degree. The modern nation is an integral system, not an exclusionary one. Spain, Germany, Italy, Greece, all republics. China, a republic.

Spain, excluding the Basques, are hardly disunited. There are some local differences, but no nation can remain homogenous across the board. This was not suggested. Only a general and consistant homogeny overall, as well on a local level a tremendous amount of homogeny.

The same can be said of Germany (although the sundering of East Germany produced slightly different aspects), Greece, and China is over 90 percent Han Chinese. That's 900 million Han Chinese. And its majority language of Mandarin is spoken by practically everyone in the nation, excluding in Hong Kong, and even then is it gaining prominence.

WWII was a very short event, with very little essential territory changing hands. There weren't a great many migrations, either. Compare that with the Doric invasion of Greece, or the Hebrews smashing up everything in the Middle East. Or the Arabs spreading through North Africa and into Central Asia.

And also note me affirming that such scenarios can radically alter the racial and cultural landscape.

Virtually every nation, today, combines mutiple historic ethnic, lingualistic, and cultural groups under one entity. You may be Castillian or Catalonian, but guess what passport you carry? What do you call yourself? Who do you identify with? I know a Frenchman from a historically German region of France. Does he call himself French or German?

He calls himself an Alsascen Frenchmen, I imagine.

But yes, there are incorporations of alien cultures into greater cultures, but you will note that the general character of these nations represents a unified and homogenous whole, with small pockets of the local diversity that is inevitable when one considers societies progress and change, specifically as communities tend to develop in relative isolation.

Not amongst nation states. Ethnicities are being lost due to the fact that no one no longer recognizes them. People forget what social groups they belonged to, historically, in the past, as their identity becomes closer and closer to that of the national identity.

Only in widely immigrant-based cultures, such as the United States. There is still a clear Frenchmen, Englishman, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Arab, et cetera.

It also takes hundreds or thousands of years for race to occur. Why bother discussing the trivialities of what happened in the last decade, compared to the macro scale at which race operates?

I would think this would undermine your argument if we did, for there are comparatively few races and sub-racial ethnic groups that generally remain prominent for hundreds and thousands of years.

Did you ever read Kim, by that Brit who wrote the Jungle Book?
Was Kim Indian or British?

He was an Anglo-Irish street kid raised as an orphan in Anglo-Indian street culture.

He, like Kipling, as a curry-flavoured Briton. That is, sympathetic and socially more Indian than the norm, but still quite the Briton.

I agree that society is rooted in homogeneity– but not actual homogeneity. It's an artificial one. Real homogeneity are blood relations. Society simulates a family so we work together, rather than in competition, or at least mitigates the carnage of direct competition.

Most societies quite begin with that family tie and these extensions of family ties produce the larger societies we find ourselves in. By virtue of the fact of livingw ith people ethnically similar to oneself in most situations, is one participating in what can be said to be an extension of this "larger family". This is even found in the fact that neighbourhoods tend to reflect a common ethnic identity.

If you look at socially cohesive forces (or at least, the most successful ones); religion, nationality, culture– it's about inclusitivity. About the relatedness of people, regardless of whether or not they're actually related.

What about the Jews? They've managed 4,000 years of exclusivity.

What about the older polytheistic religions? They were quite national cults.