I would not call British exploitation of Ireland as "racist". These groups considered each other distinct ethnic groups, but race goes beyond ethnicity. It seems to me that race is a "meta-ethnic" construction that has been used to create lineage and categorization on a global scale. There are parallels, but I think ethnicity and race are considered separately by regular people.
Another way I think of it is "raza", or "the race", which is how Mexicans refer to themselves. It's a mestizo identity of a new race that combines Indian and European lineages. They take the idea of race as having a biological basis. Does this mean you need the science of biology to have race? Maybe.
In Mexico's case, the idea of la raza is used to oppress Indians, so, the idea of race is used to create two distinct categories - the Mexicans, and those who are not Mexicans but live in Mexico, don't speak Spanish, and cling to traditional Indian lives.
It could be that, as ethnic conflict becomes counterproductive to capitalism, new kinds of ethnicity are created: racism.
I start with the assumption that ethnic conflict always helps lower wages by creating an underclass and overclass. By creating conflict between several ethnic groups, you control their labor more effectively. At some point, as the economy scales up and companies get bigger, you reach a point where it's counterproductive for ethnic groups to battle so hard. At this size, it's better to create racial conflict.
In the midst of ethnic conflicts, there are always some parties arguing for unity, be it geographical, class, or race. Participants in the conflict have some ability to choose ideologies that will serve them at that moment.
These different parties also have the ability to get large enough to impose their order upon the entire conflict, changing the rules of the game.
I'm thinking, partly, about Japan's pan-Asian imperialist goals during WWII, and also about the different strains of White Power ideologies going around.
The interesting thing about racism is that, a person, once branded with a particular race, finds it hard to escape the identity. You can't say the same thing about nationalism, political views, or class. The idea of "race" extends into biology and culture. I don't think you can accurately say that race is created by capitalism for this or that purpose, rather, it's something dynamic that exists outside of any particular system, but is easily adapted to the needs of those in control of a system.
At 03:59 PM 12/23/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Charles Brown wrote:
>
>>racism/colonialism
>
>You're treating these as if they're synonymous, but maybe they're
>not. Does colonization produce our notions of "race"? Did Ron Brown
>push U.S. capital's interest abroad for racial reasons? Was British
>exploitation of Ireland "racist" in the sense we understand it? Is
>Japanese investment in Thailand "racist"? Taiwanese investment in El
>Salvador? Did capitalism contribute to the end of apartheid?
>
>Doug
John Kawakami johnk at cyberjava.com visit cyberjava at the corner of hollywood and la brea