homogeneity - was Re: Comparing...

[Henry C.K. Liu]

There is a social distinction between prejudice and discrimination.  Prejudice is an attitude, discrimination is a categorical act.
Everyone is entitled to his/her prejudice.  It is a peronal morality problem.  But discrimination is overt oppression.
When the Japanese think Americans smell bad, it is the Japanese' problem.  But if they pass laws in Japn to make bad-smelling Americans ride in the back of buses, even though there migh be a "common sense" rationalization because Americans smell bad, that is oppression and must be resisted.
The Japanese, like all other people, have problems of in-group prejudice. Chinese have it, Jews have it, Afro-Americans have it.  But discrimination is universally intolerable.

Henry C.K. Liu

Charles Brown wrote:


> >>> kelley <d-m-c at worldnet.att.net> 06/09/99 12:57PM >>>
> Michael Perelman wrote
> >I think that I mentioned that the Japanese, from what I know are racist -- at
> >least my Japanese friends have told me so -- All Americans smell bad from
> eating
> >butter .....
>
> i think we need to make an important distinction here.  if the japanese
> think americans smell bad because they eat butter what consequences does
> that have for the individual and collective lives of americans?  does it
> harm them?  how so?  i'd call this ethnocentrism, though charles had
> another word for it, though i don't recall.
>
> ((((((((((((((((((
>
> Charles: One word to use might be "prejudice" . The point is not that prejudice is politically ok, but that it is important to take account of the power patterns in all of these issues (political questions are power questions) and racism = prejudice + power. I have no problem with "ethnocentrism", which might bring out other dimensions of this and related questions.
>
> ((((((((((
>
>  the point is that such a
> belief doesn't necessarily have a deleterious effect on an american's or
> americans' [as a group] lives.  this is because there aren't any powerful
> social institutions and practices that intersect in complex ways with other
> beliefs and practices which systematically and systemically diminish the
> lives of americans.
>
> Charles: Right on, Kelley SnitgrrRll.
>
> I'll read the following from Habermas, although I hate to say he has come out in support of NATO's war on Yugoslavia. On the other hand, Brad D. might say to dismiss his evaluation of other matters based on that would be  _ad hominem_ argumentation.
>
> Charles Brown
>
> (((((((((((((
>
> here's something i mentioned to angela a couple of weeks ago that might be
> interesting in fleshing out how we might talk about racism as a form of
> oppression and how it's linked to exploitation and domination.
> THE POLITICS OF DIFFERENCE
>         Habermas' framework is the foundation upon which Iris Marion Young
> (1990:3) builds a theory of justice out of the conceptual cornerstones of
> "domination and oppression."  While she concedes that Habermas' account of
> societal rationalization, advanced capitalism, and communicative action
> should be retained, she believes that critical theory must be strengthened
> in at least two ways:  First, it must construct a detailed theory of
> oppression and domination and, second, these concepts require a
> corresponding "politics of difference."
>
> _clip_