Cheikh Anta Diop's theory of Race and Social Class

Greetings!

I am currently reading Cheikh Anta Diop's book "Civilization and Barbarism".

Some of his theses left me deeply disturbed, and I have spent the last week trying to figure out what exactly I found disturbing. I would very much like to reason with someone who is familiar with Diop, focussing on the chapter titled "Race and Social Class" (chap. 7).

First, let me review the main points of this chapter:

1. The Law of percentage

Diop argues that up to a threshold of 4-8%, ethnic minorities are met with sympathy by the majority population. But the more the percentage increases, the more the class struggle transforms itself into racial confrontation. Diop gives evidence from Sweden, "the champion of antiracism", where the true nature of the racial problem was ignored.

2. The Law of Assimilability

If majority and minority belong to the same large ethnic group, assimilation occurs progressively. In cases where the ethnic and cultural gap is to great, tensions are exacerbated with time. Coexistence is only possible in a truly socialist state, or one with a high moral philosophy. Africans in Europe are in this situation.

3. The Law of the Phenotype

Diop argues that in historical and social relations, the only intervening factor at the outset is the phenotype, i.e. the physical appearance. The laws of class struggle according to historical materialism apply only to a society previously made ethnically homogenous by violence. In this ancient form, the class struggle has an ethnic origin and takes the forms of Darwinian bestial violence. Most nations have gone through this phase, including the Americas, Australia, Scandinavia and a good part of Asia. Diop states further: The relations between Hutu and Tutsi seem to belong to this ancient type of relations, whatever the role of the former colonial power had been in the deterioration of these relations.

------------------------------------------------------------

Now, let's proceed to my reactions. Reading this, I felt deeply disturbed, but I had difficulty understanding why, because Diop's theses make a lot of sense to me. After pondering on this issue for a while, I related it to the political climate in my own country, Norway.

What Diop said about Sweden a few decades ago is the case in Norway today. Among the politically correct, nominally anti-racist, majority, there is a denial of problems related to immigration and integration. The quasi-racist, far right, party are the only ones pointing at the problems of immigration. Only recently, the left has admitted there are problematic issues concerning immigration, this is seen as an admission to the far right.

In this political climate, Diop's views play into the hands of the racists. Norwegian quasi-racist politicians would have loved quoting Diop out of context. For instance, they would argue that we now have too many immigrants in Norway, because we are over the threshold of ethnic tension. They would argue that integration is impossible because a truly socialist society is neither desirable nor possible. They would argue that Africans are at a lower stage of evolution because of their ancient ethnic forms of struggle. And they would have credibility because they could quote an African saying these things.

A related point concerns my academic training. As a social anthropologist, I am skeptical of biological explanations, because they often come in the form of biological reductionism. Like politically correct public debate, politically correct anthropology denies the existence of race. I am therefore uncomfortable with Darwinism applied to social problems, because it reminds me of the social darwinist thesis of the survival of the fittest, as an argument in favor of liberal capitalism and against socialism.

It is a serious problem, though, because the truth is that biology and racial phenotype DO matter in social relations, and that there exist REAL problems related to ethnic minorities. Of course, this doesn't mean that ethnic minorities ARE the problem, or that biology DETERMINES ethnic conflict, as racists want us to believe.

Diop is courageous to speak the truth, and say things that no white scholar could have said without being labelled a racist, but at the same time, white racist scholars can easily abuse his points. Some liberals, who like to believe in the myth of liberal multiculturalism, would call Diop a racist.

How should we relate to this "denial for a good cause"?

Personally, I think Diop's points make a lot of sense and seem convincing. They are also applicable to the situation in my country. But, I am confused about how to react and act on his theses in my Norwegian cultural context.

I hope those of you familiar with Diop have some comments on my reactions, and maybe we can reason our way out of the dilemma.

Peace,

Tian