>As to the nod towards Marx's formulation
>
>>Sort of like class society, which is the history of all hitherto existing
>>societies, but which take many different forms.
>
>I always thought that this was a poor formulation on Marx's part, one
>that tended to substitute Hegel's 'idea' with a dehistoricised essence
>of 'class struggle'. But in any event, the idea that racism is something
>that has existed in all societies just strikes me as wrong, and
>ultimately to be fatalistic, like those apologists who say that it is
>just human nature.
Who said anything about dehistoricized essences? Isn't there a sense in which we can call feudal Europe, feudal Tibet, the American South of the early 19th century, Peru in 1999, classical Athens all class societies? Not that I think it's very important to think much more about class society in general than that, but what society since the Fall (a little religious language for Chuck Grimes!) hasn't been internally stratified and in conflict?
>To put it bluntly, racism is a modern, capitalistic ideology, quite
>distinct from the petty parochialisms of feudal society, or the rigid
>hierarchies of ancient slavery.
How did Athenians feel about non-Athenians? Chinese about non-Chinese?
>Clearly identification with one race is
>not something that the Anglo-Saxons felt towards their Norman ruling
>class.
Who said they did? The Norman dominance was still constructed ethnically though, wasn't it?
>But erecting it into an all-
>powerful fetish that can never be beaten is not really the best way to
>address a problem. It's the best way to wallow in it.
Who said it can't be beaten? I'm not sure how, but I'm all for beating it.
Doug