|
|
Re: What Are the Race Deniers Denying?
gkeyes6988@aol.com
13 Nov 1996 13:56:24 GMT
> The white race is important to me because it is my race, not because
>it is some kind of objective master race. If you do not know what I
>mean by white race, I think you are using sophistry in a very serious
>situation.
We all know what YOU mean by the white race. Many of us simply think that
you are mistaken in believing that western Europeans (and those of W.E.
descent) comprise a distinct biological entity.
> Human identity, racial, national, etc., has always been at least as
>important a matter as economics in history.
I'm not sure what you mean by Human identity. I suspect you don't mean
the recognition that all people are equally Human. If you mean the
converse, you are probably right; even groups like the Navajo used to (and
sometimes still do) identify themselves as "The People" as opposed to
other groups which were considered somehow not people. This logic was
much more narrow and specific than your concept of race, excluding people
who were similar (sometimes identical) culturally, genetically, and
lingustically -- like the Apache. Racists like yourself draw the circle
wider, but it makes the circle no more real to an outside observer. It is
still an arbitrary division created by self-interest, agenda, personal and
group identity.
Sure this has been important in history. Everyone knows that.
> With the defeat of Nazi Germany, the US and the USSR engaged in a
>world wide struggle which gave economic theory a wildly inflated place
>in the world. All direct reference to human identity was declared to
>be Hitlerite, The Enemy, The Devil of both East and West. All racial,
>ethnic, and national struggles were explained by both sides in terms of
>economic theory. This was as true of rightest libertarians as of
>leftist Marxists.
> Now that the Communist-West struggle is over, we have been
>suppressing the reality of human identity for fifty years.
Are you claiming that the reality of Human identity is whatever people
think it is or that it is an objective absolute (i.e. Race). I suspect
that latter. I would never argue that people don't percieve entities like
race and ethnicity and that these shape conflicts. I don't think anyone
on this thread would. But that there is a logical, objective basis for
these beliefs is disputable.
Your above assertion is also not true, in terms of "supressing" racial
identity. I've lived basically in three places: The Navajo reservation in
Arizona, in Mississippi, and in Georgia. Let me assure you that beliefs
like yours are endemic and shape personal, civic, and government policy.
We are all affected by them at every level. This doesn't make it true or
right, it just makes it the same old crap. I think what angers you is
that Academic theory tried for many years to create a credible
anthropology and sociology that could explain human social and behavioral
differences in racial terms, and it failed. Not for want of trying, Bob,
but because it was getting nowhere. What you want is an academic
legitimation of your own arbitrary, visceral beliefs, and since you can't
get it, you have to conclude that academics are all brainwashed fools --
to the point of actually ignoring or not comprehending that there has been
considerable clash among academics on this very thread about the genetic
realities of race, IQ, etc.
I suspect that if you lived in a world where the academic establishment
uniformly and unquestioningly agreed with you, they would by definition
not be brainwashed or fools. Unfortunately for you -- but happily for the
rest of us -- this is not that world.
>It's coming
>back with a rush, and all the standard left and right theorists have to
>deal with it is a theory that it's all just economics. In
>capitalist theory and leftist theory, there is no place for the white
>race. The white race happens to occupy lands which happen to be the
>West. These lands are all to become melting pots, because Hitler was
>bad.
> Many times in my life I have pointed out simple, fundamental
>absurdities, and this logic that doing away with whites is good b ecause
>1) the white race does not exist and 2) the white race deserves it, is
>just one more.
> Genocide, even against whites, is a deadly serious business.
Are you seriously claiming that the voluntary marriage and procreation of
people from different "races" (your definition) constitutes Genocide?
This term is usually reserved for the actual physical murder of a group to
eliminate them. Or perhaps you are being very subtle -- you know that the
concept race only has reality in your head as an idea, so anything that
threatens that idea (tries to 'kill' your concept of Genos) is violence
comperable to mass murder.
Nah, I don't think that's what you mean. But that's what you are afraid
of.
--Greg Keyes
|