WHY did Eurpean/White people do this to the world?

[Rootsie]

I think it's really important that, while we can see the source of white aggression and 'superiority/inferiority complex,' this does NOT let whites off the hook. If we can see what we have done, we have to be accountable, whether we were originally 'to blame' or not.  All I'm saying is that the 'Isis Papers' theory should not be used for the purpose of allowing whites to say, 'Hey it's not on me. One love. Ok?'

When that guy is quoted as saying "Forgive them for they know not what they do..."  Well, we can know what we do when we see what we have done. And that is our responsibility now. To conduct ourselves with the clarity that the history of white behavior gives us, and not only behave differently, but act to address the historical damage. Reparations, for example, is in every white's self-interest.

Rootsie

[marks]

your speaking truth rootsie, big respect. I completely agree, we as a human race, cannot progress forwards until we go backwards and work out where we're coming from. This will inevitably reveal some dreadful and sin-ful behaviour from whites, and we cannot ever reach the aim of equlity unless we address these shameful actions and look to 'heal' these (as far possible as it is to 'heal' 500yrs of raping, murdering and oppressing) before we go forward. As there is absolutely no way that we could build lasting equality without first addressing and 'repairing' where we have come from.

in specific relation to question, my opinion is that eu/white man has acted in such a way, due to a minority who have poised the majority with the capitalist ideology of greed, if there had been a few more powerful socialist influenced leaders in the western world, life would now be a lot more equal globally. Imagine being born into a world which had the historical foundations of a more communism (give what you can, take what you need) attitude, where all people help each other through choice, If leaders with ideologies like these had defeated the capitalists in the earlier days, the world would have developed in a very different direction, as the capitalists wouldnt have been able to breed their social class shitsdem which gives inequal opportunities and encourages division amongst humans, who are brainwashed into the rat race for money.

thanks for the time and space to reason, aker

[Oshun_Auset]

Thanks Rootsie and Aker,
I agree with, and appreciate both of your statements.


seshatasefekht7,

Iknow there is only one theory in the Isis Papers...I don't know why you thought otherwise. My orogional question was asking for a comparison between 3(or more) competing theories from DIFFERENT sources. The Isis papers, The Iceman Inheritance, and the socialist theory on the origin of racism. Are you just looking for things to critisize and disagree upon? You posts seem a little strange.

[seshatasefekht7]

Peace and hotep,

I believe that this whole topic is an effort to undermine a credible African female psychiatrist, frances cress welsing. Her theories should only be compared to the theorists of her field, psychiatry. Specifically psychiatrist.  


Rootsie could not have said it any better by stating,

 “I think it's really important that, while we can see the source of white aggression and 'superiority/inferiority complex,' this does NOT let whites off the hook. If we can see what we have done, we have to be accountable, whether we were originally 'to blame' or not.  All I'm saying is that the 'Isis Papers' theory should not be used for the purpose of allowing whites to say, 'Hey it's not on me. One love. Ok?'
……….Reparations, for example, is in every white's self-interest.”


Rootsie would we crucify frances cress welsing  to ensure our own petit reparations struggle? Who’s next.

Rootsie you say “this does NOT let whites off the hook”.

‘whites’  could say slavery does not let Africans off the hook either. the same argumemt for reparations works for them as well. be honest and admit that the world has been traumatized and needs repairing as well. fix the whole problem or continue to suffa.





Oshun_auset, I am sorry but here you lumped these three topics as theories:

"...I specifically left out the alien theory and only metioned the Isis Papers, Ice Man Inheritance, and Socialist theories in detail for comparison...They are all THEORIES none the less....

...Are you leaning towards a combination of the socialist and Isis Papers theories?(that is what I think you were saying)"

Oshun_auset, you lumped those three although after my last post you presently agree because now you state,  “I know there is only one theory in the Isis Papers...I don't know why you thought otherwise.”



As to your original question : “My orogional question was asking for a comparison between 3(or more) competing theories from DIFFERENT sources. The Isis papers, The Iceman Inheritance, and the socialist theory on the origin of racism."

why should Dr Francess C Welsing compete with amateur socialist writers? how demeaning.....  


Again I say, Her(Welsing) theories should only be compared to the theorists of her field, psychiatry. Specifically psychiatrist.

Also for clarity, could you elaborate on more writers of the social theories  of racism other than Michael Bradley and his ‘ice mans inheritance. I would like to compare them specifically.  

freedomisahapislave

[Tian]

 Greetings everybody!

I noticed Oshun Auset mentioned the book "Yurugu" by African American anthropologist Ms. Marimba Ani in his opening post. As far as I have seen looking through this reasoning, nobody else has followed up on this book.

As I am currently reading "Yurugu", I would like to share some thoughts.

First, Marimba Ani does not answer the question of why Europeans became imperialist in the first place. On the other hand, she gives one of the best theories I have seen on how European imperialism persists, even though it changes its character. I think some of the confusion arises out of the fact that imperialism has taken so many forms: racism, slavery, colonialism, neocolonialism......

I have also been wondering if classic socialist theory really gives the full story, as it usually traces the origin of racism to modern capitalist slavery in the Americas. I think we can go further back, at least to the Greek and Romans.

Ani locates imperialism in the cultural logic of Europe. This cultural essence can be understood as a kind of deep structure of cultural mentality. She uses the swahili term "asili" for this essence, and the European asili is extremely aggressive and confrontational. She further says that this asili is extremely difficult to change, it requires that the members of the culture become conscious of everything they take for granted, which is not easy.... But it's worth trying, anyway, I think. Asili is unevenly distributed in individual members of a culture, so there would always be some persons who embody the collective mentality to a higher degree, and these are the ones likely to become leaders of that culture.

One of her main points is that whereas all cultures have some kind of cultural logic that is internalized in its members, and unconsciously determines their behavior, in European culture intellectuals and scientists have rediscovered this cultural logic, assumed it is universal and presented it to the world as if it were objective, universal rationality. This is the key to European intellectual imperialism: Europeans always pretend that their own group interests are the objective and universal interests of humanity. This false universalism has deceived many because European interests are disguised and it is therefore difficult to protect oneself against this. We all need to watch out for scientific rationality, which plays a major role in justifying imperialism.

When I first read this, I really felt that some pieces fell in their place. Suddenly the picture of how European cultural imperialism works became clearer.

I highly recommend this book, although its 700 pages and some advanced terminology.

Reviewers on Amazon either say the book is racist (the classic accusation against afrocentrism made by many white people) or that it is brilliant. Several reviewers say there has not been any serious criticism of her theory, so instead Marimba Ani is attacked for having changed her name from an English to an African one.

Tian

[c-spot_rasta]

I'm sorry I'm not really an anal person, but bantu you seem to find something wrong with every single thing I say and then start gettin all mad at me about it so when I saw this I could not resist.

Moreover, English is the world's largest language, followed by Spanish,

English and Spanish only have 341 and 322 million native speakers where as Mandrin and Hindi have 874 and 366 milion

[Oshun_Auset]

I noticed Oshun Auset mentioned the book "Yurugu" by African American anthropologist Ms. Marimba Ani in his opening post. As far as I have seen looking through this reasoning, nobody else has followed up on this book.

As I am currently reading "Yurugu", I would like to share some thoughts.

First, Marimba Ani does not answer the question of why Europeans became imperialist in the first place. On the other hand, she gives one of the best theories I have seen on how European imperialism persists, even though it changes its character. I think some of the confusion arises out of the fact that imperialism has taken so many forms: racism, slavery, colonialism, neocolonialism......

I have also been wondering if classic socialist theory really gives the full story, as it usually traces the origin of racism to modern capitalist slavery in the Americas. I think we can go further back, at least to the Greek and Romans.

Thank you for your response, I also forgot I mentioned the book Yurugu. Thank you for giving a brief on what you read so far. It is much appreciated.  You are "wondering" about the same thing I am about the 'classical socialist' theory. Although I am a socialist the origin of racism does stem futher back than the socialist theory gives mention to.


seshatasefekht7,

Let me clarify....There are 3 theories/explanations of the develpoment of racism...I am not trying to debunk ANY of them. I was asking for people's opinions on them...The Isis papers gives one explanation/theory, the Icemean inheritance gives another different explanation/theory, and the socialism gives yet another explanation/theory.  

The Icemean Inheritance is not synonymous with the socialist theory. They are different. The people that established the socialist theory are FAR from ametuers. And for me(and I assume many others), the ability to come up with theories is not determined by what college degree or training one has. Some people have inate abilities and intelligence that were never derived from study or "classical education". That may be your litmus test, and if it is, you are free to dismiss all ideas outside of the Isis papers if you wish. I wan't asking for that. I was asking for comparisons. So if you don't want to compare...than you don't have to, but others who don't have your "classical education" standards, may find other authors theories just as valid as those people's that are recognized as 'theories' by the establishment. I was looking for their opinions.  

[livelyup]

Greatings,

i will confine myself to the discussion of socialist theory with respect to racism, as the writings of the other theorists thatyou mention are spectacularly difficult to get a hold of here in australia (as are the writings of most american afro-centric authors). While I agree that classical marxism has a somewhat stilted and narrow view of racism, i am not so sure that this is the case for more contemporary marxist or anarchist theorists.

The problem with the original marxist and socialist texts is that they were developed in an era of limited and VERY eurocentric historical thinking. Marx's treatment of non-european cultures is probably best described as being cursory. Indeed one of the chief challenges of more contemporary marxist/socialist thought has been to incorporate the growing understanding of non-western cultures into a view of historical development that did not include them.

My understanding of contemporary socialist or marxist views of racism is that they would regard it as being a set of practices that are a product of structurally produced inequality in terms of access to resources, power, and the capacity to define legitimacy. They would suggest that the development of industrial capitalism in western europe gave rise to a powerful (white) elite who then had the capacity to define the structural properties of the society that they created, most importantly who had access to power. this is acheived through having control of the engines of legitimacy such as eductaion, religious institutions, and the media to reinforce their hegemony.

While i have a general sympathy with these ideas they have a bit of a tendency to disallow the power of the individual.Yes racism is a broad structural trend, but it is also very much the cumulative effect of individual choices to behave in particular ways, and simply explaining this away as being the product of 'brainwashed' populations doesnt really gel with my personal experiences. few people i know are that conformist.

If i can add another set of theroies to the mix...

Giddens describes what he calls the theory of structuration. His basic idea is that society is composed of the dynamic interplay between individual choices and the social structures that enable these choices and give them shape. Seen in this light racism would seem to be both a set of individual decisions, which are supported and enabled by social systems, both formal and otherwise.

For example.... the institution of slavery was both individual choices (ie. i need some labour for my farm, i know i will go and buy a slave) and social systems (the legal legitimisation of slavery and all of its attendant infrastructure, ships, wharehouses etc). In contemporary society the formal systems for enabling racism are diminishing, but informal legitimisation of the practices stil exist, with regional and class/social based differences in terms of how much racism is regarded as being 'legitimate'.

of course all of this just theory and open to debate... and goes no way to explain the genesis of racism beyond it being another form of power based discrimination (like sexism, ageism, religous bigotry etc.) My question would be, is it actually possible to come up with a single 'cause' of racism, or is it, like other social phenomena, a complex set of inter-related forces?



love and life
paul

[seshatasefekht7]

Peace and hotep,  

Oshun_auset , the only point that I tried to make by distinguishing psychiatrist from social scientist is that in matters of the human mind I would first consider the psychiatrist.
Especially if that doctor is Frances  Cress Welsing. I know that all levels of human activity begins in the mind, since as a man thinkest ,  he is.    

The only socialist writers that are important to me are the dystopic ones who write about countries of total misery and wretchedness which are real to me. As opposed to the utopic writers who envision a coming world of  peace through improvements in social interactions because historically power gives up nothing without struggle.  Wasn’t marx financed by capitalist?  Aren’t  his socialist  theories diametrically opposed to capitalist  theory?    How did communism and capitalism work together to undermine the underdeveloped world/ information poor parts of the world?

Oshun_auset  would you please define each of the three theories that you introduced so i may make a fair comparison.

Frances Cress Welsing quotes socialist writer Neely Fuller Jr. in her dedication of the isis papers.  He states

“if you do not understand white supremacy(racism) – what it is, and how it works – everything else that you understand, will only confuse you.”

She finishes her dedication by recommending that all non ‘white’ people worldwide read Neely Fuller Jr. ’s work,

THE UNITED INDEPENDENT COMPENSATORY CODE/SYSTEM/CONCEPT:  a textbook/workbook for thought, speech and/or action for victims of racism(white supremacy).

 In his work, Fuller discusses (and Welsing refers to)                   

NINE MAJOR AREAS OF PEOPLE ACTIVITY IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE

They are economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex and war which are social activities. However the racists(white supremacist) dominate non ’white’people in all areas of major activity.

perhaps this is why i cannot accept an accurate comparison of Welsing withe 'white' socialist writers like bradley and marx. they have different agendas.  

freedomisahapislave          

[Nemesis23]

Oshun_auset , the only point that I tried to make by distinguishing psychiatrist from social scientist is that in matters of the human mind I would first consider the psychiatrist.

Psychiatry IS a social science as is psychology, Their all being behavioral sciences. As for the human mind, if it was an issue of the human mind than i would be more apt to consider a psychiatrists opinion, but a marxist/socialist theory on the origins of racism has little if anything to do with the human mind and more to with capitalism, imperialism and economics. One person's psychiatric explanation for racist phenomenon is no more or less valid that one person's marxist/socialist explanation of that same phenomenon.


Frances Cress Welsing quotes socialist writer Neely Fuller Jr. in her dedication of the isis papers.  He states

“if you do not understand white supremacy(racism) – what it is, and how it works – everything else that you understand, will only confuse you.”

She finishes her dedication by recommending that all non ‘white’ people worldwide read Neely Fuller Jr. ’s work,

 

In his work, Fuller discusses (and Welsing refers to)                  

NINE MAJOR AREAS OF PEOPLE ACTIVITY IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE

They are economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex and war which are social activities. However the racists(white supremacist) dominate non ’white’people in all areas of major activity.

perhaps this is why i cannot accept an accurate comparison of Welsing withe 'white' socialist writers like bradley and marx. they have different agendas.  

freedomisahapislave          

I fail to see how white dominance/control of the 9 major areas of human activity validates the "Cress theory" or invalidates 'white' socialist writers like Bradley or Marx. Accepting for argument's sake that whites control all of these, neither of the explanations presented of why whites control all of these sheds any more light on the subject.

If one is really intent on getting to the bottom of this, certainly one could do some research and uncover more theories than this. The problem with the current explanations is that the Marxist/Socialist theory of racism, marginalizes the history, complexity and dynamics of race matters as they believe all matters of oppression stem from differences of class. The problem with the cress theory is that it is based in a hypothesis that if not being crude, poorly thought out and ignorant to certain matters of biology, history and anthropology (and that's being nice) at the very least is centered in areas where Cress the psychiatrist is out of her element scientifically speaking (and that's being nicer) As for Michael Bradley (boy we must really be scraping the bottom of the barrel now) He makes welsing seem Objective, well researched and thorough by comparison.

 

[Oshun_Auset]

This is in general response to the last several posts...

The socialist theory of racism is not 'white'. There are many African socialist writers such as Kwame Nkrumah and Sekou Toure...I never mentioned Marx. Socialism is a principle like gravity, it existed before Marx, just as Gravity existed prior to Newton. Is gravity 'white'? Socialism is the natural extension of African communalism. Just because it wasn't true socialism under Marx, doesn't mean that socialism wouldn't work if properly applied. Communalism worked well in many African communities prior to colonization.(minimizing exploitation and oppression, I am not nieve enough to think that either would be eliminated).

As far as the theories mentioned, thanks for everyone's input,...If anyone knows of other theories on the developmenat of racism, I requested in the beginning to please discuss them,  It is much appreciated.

 

[iyah360]

This is a little off topic, please forgive me for this if it distracts from the main point.

This is in general response to the last several posts...

The socialist theory of racism is not 'white'. There are many African socialist writers such as Kwame Nkrumah and Sekou Toure...I never mentioned Marx. Socialism is a principle like gravity, it existed before Marx, just as Gravity existed prior to Newton. Is gravity 'white'? Socialism is the natural extension of African communalism. Just because it wasn't true socialism under Marx, doesn't mean that socialism wouldn't work if properly applied. Communalism worked well in many African communities prior to colonization.(minimizing exploitation and oppression, I am not nieve enough to think that either would be eliminated).

In an aspect, Marx and company co-opted the ancient idea of socialism and added their own stipulations and rules. I do not trust Marx but feel 'Capital' is a great critique of the secret lifeforce of capitalism. Revolution is often times co-opted by the powers that be . ..  look at French, American revolutions. Look at what is happening in Haiti now, this will show the workings of engineered revolutions. " . . .pararamilitaries have opened ships and stores for looting, capitalizing on the desperate poverty and hunger of Haitians to DIRECT THE  ENERGY OF MASSES into looting, in order TO NEUTRALIZE THEM POLITICALLY. . ."
http://www.africaspeaks.com/reasoning/?board=International;action=display;num=1077118013


People love revolution until the PIGS take over*

* see Orwell's 'Animal Farm'

[Tian]

Greetings,

First, thank you all for interesting input. I like the way this reasoning is going.

Paul,

I am familiar with your problem of getting hold of literature, as I live in Norway. I have found certain titles in the university library, the remainder I have had to order from Amazon as far as I can afford. In my experience, Amazon has a fairly good selection, but certain titles take several months to get, if they are out of stock or out of print. I've also bought some second hand books though Amazon. For an African Marxist view, I recommend Peter Rigby: African Images.

Seshatasefekht7 and Oshun Auset,

Although I am an anthropologist, I also consult psychologists and psychiatrists in my research. For the Afrocentric perspective, I have found Frantz Fanon, Amos Wilson and Na'im Akbar very interesting.

Nemesis23,

You draw our attention to the different focus of psychologists opposed to Marxists. I think their perspectives complement each other. Interestingly, the psychiatrist Fanon also considers economics, as do some others. Imperialism certainly has both economic, political, cultural and mental aspects. I am not sure if the origins can be located in one aspect alone.

Tian

[Tian]

Greetings,

This is slightly off the original topic of this reasoning, but I think it is relevant as we try to transform our knowledge of white supremacy into action.

I would like to add some personal reflections on my earlier post about Yurugu:

I would like to relate to personal experience Marimba Ani's key point, that European intellectual imperialism works by falsely presenting as universal and objective what is actually a subjective group interest. Relating abstract theories to personal experience has enhanced my understanding, especially of the emotional aspect implied.

A person I know well personifies the arrogance of the white man rationalising his own interests, even towards other white men like me. He is extremely political, strategic and "rationalist". He has a tendency to speak for both of us, saying "we agree that...", "objectively speaking...", or "it is logical that...", even if I don't agree. Often I don't object because I do not have the necessary facts to disprove him at the moment. Instead, I get annoyed.

On the other hand, and this is the dilemma, I myself also show this tendency to speak for others and present my own views as objective facts, although I try to unlearn my white man's arrogance. People who are conscious of their own interests and understand the nature of white male arrogance, react strongly when I do that. While many others do not object, I have been told that they still feel uncomfortable about me imposing my views on them, even though they are unable to articulate what gives them that feeling. It is very difficult to stand up against the false superiority claims of Western "scientific rationality" that Europeans invoke to disguise their self-interest at the expense of other people's legitimate interests based on their experience.

My personal experience is deeply involved in this dynamic, because I unconsciously show the same arrogance that I criticize. It certainly lies in the deep structure of the cultural unconscious since it is so difficult to break out of it.  I can only try to imagine how it feels to be African and be exposed to this on a massive scale.

It is so habitual that even I, who is trying to unlearn my arrogance, am still unintentionally showing it at the very same moment that I criticize it. This puts me in a dilemma as I would like to teach other white people about white male arrogance and how it affects blacks. I have been told that I replicate this arrogance in two ways: unconsciously, in my habit and style (intellectualism, claims to objective truth, "listen, this is how it really works"...), and even consciously, as I am kind of saying "all the other white men are like this, but I know better...".

My attention was drawn to this after a discussion I had with my wife, who is Asian, where I was trying to explain to her what I had recently found in my research. I never meant to teach her, a non-white person, about black experience of white arrogance in the first place, but that is how it turned out... (roles reversed!) and of course, she got upset with my arrogance.

Can we teach critically about the white man's arrogance even as we are still trying to unlearn it?

Or, do we have to liberate ourselves from our cultural habits before we can attempt to teach others?

Or, perhaps this does not matter that much if we only teach white people, who are at the same level of arrogance themselves?

It is not easy to live what you preach. Any comments, I would like to reason on this....

Tian

[livelyup]

Greetings all,

a fine set of questions Tian, particularly for those of us of european roots. In an ideal world no white person would have the effrontery to 'teach' other white people about racism. However... situations dictate that sometimes that may well be the only viable alternative, in which case the best bet, form my perspective, would be honesty. By this i mean that we do not claim to be liberated from the system and attitudes that manifest themselves as racism. I do not believe that this is a claim that any white person can make for themselves, but that it is for black people to judge whether we are capable of truly treating them with equality. It is a livity to be lived, not a set of labels to be worn.

To try and close the loop back to socialist theory, the field of Critical Theory may have some keys here. Critical theorists suggest that the aim of all research (and therfore of teaching)  is to expose the fundamental imbalances that often constitute much of society. So i would say that irrespective of your (and my) whiteness, we can certainly have a shot at illustrating, exposing, and highlighting the fact of racism to the students that we are lucky enough to come in contact with. Hopefully by demonstarting that this kind of pervasive imbalance still exists (and that it is not just a part of history) you can equip students with some of the tools that they may use to examine how racism (and sexism, and all othe forms of discrimination) may manifest in their own lives.

Oshun,

in your original post you stated that only European folk had subjegated the world, which is totally true. However is it not also true to say that but for a set of historical/political accidents it could well have been the mongols who were the first world dominators? They possesed the technical and military power to do it, an example of which was the absolute carnage they wrought upon the teutonic knights, who were at the time regarded as being the elite european military force.
They also seemed for a time at least to have the political nous to hold an empire together. Would all of this point to a combination of military/technical power,  the capacity for stable (often despotic) centralised political power, and most importantly an economic system that alllows for banking and trade which encourages expansionism as being a key factor in world hegemony?

just a few thoughts
love and life
paul