Re: Racism and ancient history

Dr. Doug (
30 Dec 1996 16:42:55 GMT

In <5a6mm1$> (Robert Snower) writes:
> Doug) wrote:
>>[delete for reason of brevity]
>>>"Color" is not definitive of "racism," of course. Any marker will
>>>e.g., smell, geography, religion, totem, moiety, section, political
>>>opinion. "Racism" is the counterpoint of "kinship," in the broadest
>>>sense: ethnocentric favoritism as against egocentric favoritism.
>>>Unless you confine your meaning of "racism" to the FRAUDULENT
>>>attribution of differences--group differences which do not really
>>>exist. Then "racism" becomes simply a "sub-species" of the general
>>>The only way to lick a culture of racism is to offer an alternative:
>>>a culture of individualism. Individual merit as against group
>>>Best wishes. Robert Snower
>>I think you may have a valid point here. "Rascism" can be
>>as meaning any arbitrary seperation of "them" and "us" which is
>>immutable and permanent.
>>But I do think racism is USED by those at the top of the economic
>>ladder to stay at the top of the ladder. Obviously the people at the
>>top have the most influence with the rest of us. They will need to
>>keep those of us at various levels divided against ourselves. I
>>believe this is how rascism comes to be a cultural institution. It's
>>really part of the Me Society.
>>I think that a We consciousness is the only real antidote to this
>>sickness. We people reject the notion of genetic inferiority. We
>>people see all other people as brothers and sisters.
>>Happy New Year, Brothers & Sisters!
>>Dr. Doug
>All racists are We people. (As you say, Me people might *use* racism
>for selfish ends, but as Me people, they cannot, by definition, be
>racist. Only We people are racist, unpleasant as that fact may appear
>to you.
>Unfortunately, the We living organism which sees *all* others as
>brothers and sisters does not exist. But not so unfortunately. Such
>a case would obviate the possibility of evolution, thence the
>possibility of you and me. The New Man of Marx and Mao and communism
>cannot be constructed, a lesson history has made pretty clear.
>Best wishes. rs
What I've noticed in my study of the BaMbuti hunter/gatherer people of
the Ituri rainforest in Zaire is that they are very much "we" people in
that everything they do is in line with their clan's needs. And yet,
at the same time, they are very spontaneous and individualistic in
their personal behavior. No two BaMbuti do things exactly the same
way. They can't abide "leaders" or any kind of authority, and yet they
function in smooth harmony together. Perhaps their feeling of
belonging to this tight group gives them the internal permission and
confidence to be strong individuals.

Humans are very adaptive to external situations. We can live in
partnership communities and well as dominator societies, depending on
the situation. Perhaps it a mistake to counterpose one to the other
and say that only one is possible or "good." What think you?

Take care.

Dr. Doug