Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site ubvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!amd!amdcad!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
From: tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: defining racism -- Laura on compassi
Message-ID: <391@ubvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Dec-85 16:11:18 EST
Article-I.D.: ubvax.391
Posted: Thu Dec 19 16:11:18 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 24-Dec-85 20:44:56 EST
References: <336@l5.UUCP> <28200398@inmet.UUCP>
Reply-To: tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch)
Organization: Ungermann-Bass, Inc., Santa Clara, Ca.
Lines: 170

(Begin self-crit)

I apologize if I stepped on some exposed nerves in my previous
article, which looks to me in retrospect like part flame and part
argument, in a wrong balance.  Unfortunately, I tend to write
while relaxed in a more aggressive manner than good discussion
on this net should have, and then I forget to edit or lack the
mood at the moment to do so.  I am starting to change my views
about Eastern Europe and the USSR as a result of another topic,
but I still think what I wrote on racism is valid.

(End self-crit)

I don't think anti-semitism has much to do with people's psychology;
as I've written in a past article, I think it has more to do with
the definitions of nation historically developed by states which
did not include Jews as a protected group.

Lack of social and state protection assured that Jewish social status
would decline, because national medias and institutions saw no reason
to spread positive messages about Jewish accomplishments.  It became
easy for people to setup Jews as enemies because no institution would
stop them.

By "state" I don't just mean official national institutions; I also
mean what a citizenry thinks a nation or important groups in a nation
are.  In "Western" states, what the citizenry believes takes on more
importance and less importance than in "Eastern" states.

More importance in normal social life, because there is freedom to
organize according to what one believes.  Less importance in official
political life, since there is a structure of rights which holds an
official state from acting on behalf of citizen beliefs when those
beliefs conflict with rights.

Anti-semitism is a specific case of racism.  I think most racism
follows the lines of just what I've described above for historical
anti-semitism: because of the organization of popular opinion and
national institutions, bad news about the victimized would spread
and add to popular information, while good news about the victimized
would get bottled up by intent or because people didn't think it
significant or interesting.

The only "psychology" involved, I'd suggest, is that people follow
what they believe and commonly know to be the case.

And people remember selectively, saving what fits their beliefs
and already accumulated opinions (which could be very complex
and flexible), while letting the rest fall thru the cracks.

*** A BRIEF DIVERSION ON COMPASSION ***

What is compassion?  Seems to me that "compassion" means the following:
	(p) is a person in need, (p) needs help, and
I feel bound to, or I want to, help (p).  I think that (p) has a right
to assistance which I know others might not agree that (p) has, so I
am going to do my best part to help (p) live as if (p) had this right
for real.  And I am not going to advocate that (p) be given this right,
apart from suggesting that other individuals like myself be compassionate
too.

This sounds very complex to me, but it encompasses what I think is a
complete description of compassion.  I'm offering it up to critique.
Ronald Reagan talks about compassion and private charity frequently;
this is what I for one think he means.

Now, I can't but cry at its self-limitations.  For instance, if
one is compassionate to the homeless, does that mean that one should
*demand* that homeless people be *guaranteed* decent shelter by the
public authority?  Not necessarily at all.

Reaganite Republicans can be compassionate to the homeless because they
think the homeless should have no place in the Reaganite social system,
that the Reaganite social system should *never* guarantee people decent
shelter.  Compassion to the poor has nothing to do with the distribution
of public funds, whose use for social welfare purposes is fundamentally
illegitimate.  And it has little to do with the spread or decline of
the poor.  It's mostly a salve for thin-skinned social darwinists.

I believe I'm just being consistent with my distaste for this kind
of doublethink when I write that I don't believe in compassion as
a useful social remedy for racism.

*** END OF DIVERSION ***

There are more "psychological" theories than mine.  Laura's (broadened
by Jan), sounds too Freudian for me to swallow.  A social opportunism
of the id does not cover most serious examples of racism:

>[Laura Creighton  sun!l5!laura  (that is ell-five, not fifteen)]
>>...  what I believe happens is that people have a great well
>>of frustration and hatred inside them.  They look for socially acceptable
>>ways to dump this and find out that thhe bottom line is ``is is bad to
>>hate people, except for Gays/Blacks/Orientals/Vietnamese/What-have-you''.
>>So they go out and hate people in group X, not because they have any
>>real dislike of group X but because they finally have found a role in
>>which they can hate.

The problem with this is that most modern racism has little to do with
frustration at all.

If companies screen out blacks from entry-level jobs because many
blacks lack work skills or because the average US black performance on
educational tests is lower than whites, these motivations show either
a bad understanding of how statistics apply to individuals or a pragmatic
understanding of the high costs of interviewing.  Since this kind
of screening is a labeling of individuals according to skin color,
it's a classical racist activity.

If a company rejects a black as a salesman in the South, for an entry
level job, does frustration lead it to do so?  Maybe its customers
could be expected to not like blacks, and the company is afraid
that dislike would reflect on it and its products.  Pure racism,
to me.

Was the paternalism of Gone With the Wind a consequence of frustration
and hatred?  Or just common opinion about the appropriate place for
blacks?  Racism again.

If a black family comes into a neighborhood and common wisdom is that
the movement of black families precedes larger movements and eventual
rundown of a community and spread of crime, is resisting that family
a sign of frustration and hatred?  Racism again.

I'd contend that the only racism the above theory might explain is
the resentment-against-the-world-as-a-whole type of racism characteristic
of the KKK or Aryan Nations -- not unimportant, but not pervasive either.

Should one's stance towards common wisdom, as manifested by regular
people, businesses, communities, and institutions, be compassionate?
Use any definition of compassionate you like.

>Hatred and frustration are basic, racism (or homophobia or  reli-
>gious  bigotry etc.) is an outlet for them. Close one outlet, and
>some good may be done because people don't *exercise* their capa-
>city  for  hatred so much; but it only helps if the deep wells of
>frustration are exhausted. Otherwise, new outlets will be  found,
>as bad or worse as the old ones. 
>
>It is the Manichaean view of the  world,  acquired  in  formative
>years;  it  is  the  passion  for invidious *comparisons* that is
>responsible: "we are poor *because* others are rich" ; or "we are
>the good guys *because* we are not like the bad guys".
>
>Children have a great capacity to *enjoy* differences, proved  by
>their  love  for *animals*. If they can only be taught to enjoy a
>person of different race, religion or social class,  as  much  as
>they enjoy a squirrel or an elephant - social harmony won't be far
>away.
>
>		Jan Wasilewsky

Jan's point about children sounds foolish to me.  Children have a great
capacity to exploit difference, proved by their exploitation of other
children.  Which example is more relevant, loving animals or mistreating
different children?  (Maybe neither -- most children grow out of both)

Still, my point is that most racism is not the racism of the frustrated,
but the racism of all those who are well-informed about popular national
public opinion, and who accept a solely national view as true.  (An
international view about national delusions cuts down on this junk.)

For most people, especially those that claim to be educated,
should we feel compassion for their ignorance?  Is compassion even
the right word to use for what is needed to end most racism?

I'd say NO.

Tony Wuersch
{amdcad!cae780 or amd!}!ubvax!tonyw