Oh, hell, it's been years since I read the social science lit on this, but it seems to me that this is pretty well the point of Allport, Myrdal, Adorno -- the classical social science literature on prejudice. I don't mean to deny the multicausal nature of the phenomenon, but pride doesn't play a big role in the picture as far as far as I recall. Nor does it seem plausible that it would. Pride by itself is a positive sense of acheivement, even if only vicarious. One wouldn't expect that would generate loathing, rage, violence, xenophobia. fear -- the characacteristic attitudes of racism. The negative feeling that goeth with pride is contempt, but racists are too insecure to feel contempt, much, and while contempt has a role in racism, it's not a big part. It's not contempt that drove whites to lynch blacks suspected of looking sideways at their sisters.  I've also been influenced by less scientific and more historical and even philosophical studies that ring psychologi cally true: Nietzsche on ressentiment, Freud, Sartre on Anti-Semitism, Fanon. You may say that is just speculation, but perhaps speculation by deeply historically informed widely cultured thinkers is worth almost as much as a properly operationalized social scientific study. jks  Chip Berlet <cberlet@igc.org> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Hi, "Most racism, even most conscious racism, is driven by hatred and fear, not pride" Interesting claim. Care to cite any studies that support this? I am in the middle of writing a book chapter that touches on these issues and from the studies I have seen there are multiple factors behind racism, including prejudice, stereotyping, fear, hate, pride, and defense of dominance, in the forms of status, privilege and power. Racism involves a dynamic process that uses these factors in a myriad of combinations. Developing a concept of "racial formation," Omi and Winant argue that "racist projects" entail a linkage between "essentialist representations of race and social structures of domination." They further argue that "racial ideology and social structure" act in an interconnected and dialectical manner to shape racist projects. While m embers of organized White supremacist groups are tiny fraction of the poplation, White supremacist notions among Whites across a range of income and education levels are widespread. Attitude surveys reveal this quite clearly. I also agree with the point that race intersects with class and gender issues in U.S. elections. My working definition of racism is: "Racism is an ideology that elevates the social construction of racial difference to a primary place in human relations, and assumes a hierarchy. It was developed to claim superiority of White people over people of color based on the false idea that race is a fixed and immutable essentialist reality. Racism + discrimination + power/privilege = racial oppression. The overwhelmingly hegemonic form of racism in the U.S. is White supremacy, but other forms exist in other countries. Racism can exist anecdotally in oppressed groups, sometimes as a backlash response to the opp ression." -Chip Berlet = = = = = = --! ---Original Message----- From: owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com [mailto:owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of andie nachgeborenen Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 11:08 PM To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com Subject: Re: Electoral Dilemmas Re: Color of Anarchism I agree with Carrol here. The number of avowed white supremacists is very small. If theyw ere all we had to deal with we'd be in excellent shape. Most racism, even most conscious racism, is driven by hatred and fear, not pride. And I also agree with Carrol that conscious racism is not the main problem. jks Carrol Cox <CBCOX@ILSTU.EDU>wrote: Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: > > >andie nachgeborenen wrote: > > > >>Though my real point was that the Southern Strategy > >>had to do with fear, not pride. > > > >White supremacists are proud of being white. They think their skin > >color marks them as the bearers o f civilization (even though they're > >generally poor advertisements for their cause). Surely you're not > >denying that? > > > >Doug I would deny it rather emphatically. In the first place the largest group of racists (objective white supremacists one might say) are those whose slogans are "racial harmony" and "color blindness." And even among those who are more overt racists (who include many of my relatives) show no evidence of "white pride." I'm not even sure I understand what that could m ean. It's not just (as Yoshie point out below) that overt expressions of "white power" etc are a no-no, though that is certainly the case, but that that most people never even think of themselves as "white," except when a situation of explicit contrast arises. There are presidential candidates and black presidential candidates; there are writers and black writers; there are neighborhoods and black neighborhoods . If racism consisted only of those who proclaim (priva! tely or publicly) "white pride" there would be no issue worth discussing. They make up too marginal a part of the working class. Carrol > > An overt and public expression of "white pride," "white power," > "white supremacy," etc. is probably a no-no even in the Republican > Party. Lott broke the unsaid protocol about it. The main strategy > is to incite the fear of (especially unorganized) white workers and > middle strata, presenting t hem as _victims_ of affirmative action, > "white baiting! ," etc. > -- > Yoshie > > * Calendar of Events in Columbus: > > * Anti-War Activist Resources: > * Student International Forum: > * Committee for Justice in Palestine: Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now </BLOCKQUOTE> <hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!? <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com">Yahoo! Mail Plus</a> - Powerful. Affordable. <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com">Sign up now</a>