>Messsage du 01/12/2000 20:13
>De : <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>A : <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>, <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Copie à :
>Objet : Re: The Color of Money
>
> At 02:46 PM 12/1/00 +0200, Christopher B. Hajib-Niles wrote:
>
> > > Eh? Jews (and Bolsheviks, and gays, and lesbians, and Poles, and
> > > Russians, etc. etc.) were targeted for mass extermination because of
> > > Nazi Germany's bizarre fiction of a master Aryan race. No racial
> > > ideology, no Wehrmacht.
> >
> >Thank you, gentlemen. this is a good example of how the term "racism"
> >creates confusion.
> >
> >first of all, the nazi's did not "create" any bizarre fictions of a master
> >race (though the term "master race" itself seems to have been a nazi
> >innovation). they elaborated on one that was created, and more publically
> >discussed, among scientisct, intellectuals and the rest of the chattering
> >classes, in the united states.
>
>
> i think you fail to realize that most people here understand this.
actually, i assume that most people on this list have some notion of this. but i made the point for a reason: why do we consider the nazi's aryan rhetoric bizarre and the largely american created fiction of the white race not so bizzare? why is it that we can chuckle when people talk about the aryan race but we don't chuckle when we talk about the white race, a notion that is no less silly but with even more staying power?
a i
> haven't read one regular contributor who doesn't also realize that nazism
> and fasicsm were only extreme forms of what was taking place all over.
what do you mean by all over? europe?
and
> i think most folks agree that racialization (that's balibar's and zizek's
> and others' word for the process through which bodies are marked, etc)
> should point our analysis to those doing the racializing and not just those
> who have been racialized.
is there anything that i wrote that suggest that it should not?
i think that what is going on is that you are
> reading things into people's posts and assuming they are reading things
> into yours--and its just not there.
come on, kelly. please don't condescend. i can read. i know when questions are being evaded or when straw men are being created. white folks, including white leftist, are unfamiliar and uncomfortable with an anti-white analysis. my experience in discussing these matters with otherwise serious white activist is that they don't listen, or as is the case on listserves, they don't read, then become quite defensive.
it's what might explain why the
> disconnect in these conversations.
i've explained my position fairly clearly. the disconnect is that some folks don't wanna engage this issue directly. it's that simple.
>
> >secondly, i think what yoshie is getting at it that the term "racism" has
> >usually been used in reference to the white/black situation in the u.s.(?)
>
>
> last i checked, yoshie vigilantly upholds the notion of racism that you're
> attacking.
>
i was not suggesting that he was not. i was referring to what i thought was the reason for his objecting to the use of the term viz. the treatment of jews in nazi germany.
chris niles
>
> kelley
>
>