On institutionalized racism and global politics
In their rush to portray liberal internationalism as the height of human achievement, too many historians have forgotten what Mazower regards as the real ideological impulse behind the U.N.’s creation: preservation of the British Empire and white rule over Europe’s colonial possessions.
From Hope Against History, a review of two books about the founding of the United Nations in The American Prospect.
This article reminds me of a piece I have been meaning to write about racism as an ideology. So often when we talk about race and racism, we want to play the equivalency game. When Harry Allen says, for example,Racism has a sole, functional expression: White supremacy.
, someone invariably trots Robert Mugabe as proof that non-white people can be racist too.
That’s a problematic game for a couple of reasons, the first being context. Harry Allen is speaking (I think) about racism as it functions in the U.S. Robert Mugabe encouraging the killing of white farmers is a Zimbabwean problem with a Zimbabwean context. And, I would argue, it is fundamentally different because the farmers’ whiteness isn’t the problem; that they are descended from brutal, murderous colonizers who happen to be white is. HisMugabe’s rhetoric (to my knowledge) is not arguing black superiority, but reclamation of resources (as a way to distract Zimbabweans from completely rebelling against his shitty governance).
The other reason is that the equivalency game assumes racism is an action. Racism is an ideology, one that hierarchically ranks people’s humanity based on phenotype. Racism’s historical origins are concomitant with — and was used as justification for — European imperialism, colonialism, and capitalism in the 19th century. To argue that racism and white supremacy aren’t the same thing is a demonstration of ignorance, naivety, or avoidance. Most cards played in the equivalency game are examples nationalism, ethnocentrism, or religion, not racism.
That’s not to say that religious bigotry, nationalism, and ethnocentrism don’t have the same practical effects — subjugation, death, discrimination — as racism. It’s to say that racism is different because it erases markers of ethnicity. Skin color — not culture, geography, language, or belief system — is considered a unifier and / or a measure of personhood.