>I don't know what it means to say that there is not a "necessary"
>connection between fascism and racism (btw, hatred of Jews is usually
>referred to as "anti-semitism" and not "racism"). There is of course a
>strong historical connection between neo-nazism and white supremacy in the
>United States. I simply cannot fathom why someone would want to obscure
>this connection through talk about what is "necessary" and what is not.
hello mark and others,
I think you there is some confusion going on. Chaz made the same comment in reply to (I think it was) Emma. nowhere did I see Emma claim there was no connection b/n racism and nazism. I think you (and Chaz) might owe her an apology of sorts, or at least show clearly where she said this. I can't seem to find it.
here's how I would see it: racism here or in the US does not come about because there are different races. racism is the attribution of certain qualities to particular groups of people. hence, to be a slave is regarded as a function of being black, for instance. slavery produces racism, races do not. races are not something already given prior to the organisation of exploitation and oppressions, they are ways of making those oppressions seem to arise naturally or mystically from the bodies being oppressed. this is why racism is not confined to racism against black people. it includes hispanics, 'asians', irish (at a certain time in british history and probably still residually), and those crazy 'balkans' (in relation to europe). where it differs from class is in organising people as groups on the basis of what are deemed to be natural predispositions: toward enslavability, toward laziness, toward criminality, etc. hence, racism is not tied to the division black/white, even though it takes that form most often. recognising that it does not always take that form is important, especially in light of the extension of a racialisation of the poor as we move into the next century: the failure of capitalism to deliver the goods has to be accounted for somehow, and it is increasingly being accounted for as the natural inability of the poor (black, white, hispanic, etc) to work hard and make their way up the proverbial ladder of opportunity.
how this relates to the discussion on the shootings I'm not at all sure. but I would think that this is not a particularly outrageous set of claims. I am also not sure why you would want to obscure the historical and political-economic connection between races and racialisation in favour of insisting that racism is confined to racism toward black people, which I think is a reification all its own. downplaying the importance of racism against black people is surely something to be deplored, but I do not think this is what has been happening on list.
there has been a disagreement over whether the shootings were a racist act, a product of a racist society, a product of the availability of racist speech, etc; whether there is a connection between racism and nazi non-conformism (which I think there definitely is); whether attention to overt racism can and does hide structural racism (which I actually think should be obvious); whether racial vilification laws are a strategy worth pursuing (which I doubt); whether insanity can be considered the decisive (hence separable) variable (which I doubt); whether computer games are to blame (which is absurd), and more.
what is clear is that these positions do not face eachother across a chasm. I think people are not reading others' posts carefully enough, seeing all manner of claims there that aren't.
Angela --- rcollins at netlink.com.au