I mean this is why the word 'racism' is so problematic IMO, it's such a liberal term solely reserved for 'extreme' situations, so systemic and institutional 'racism' don't get covered... so 'racism' is insufficient really, when it's really about 'white supremacy' (ty to my friend who I had this discussion with the other day!).
Okay - what's my problem right?
The bold parts of this paragraph here, are my problem. Anyone with more eloquence, intelligence, strength and energy want to take it on? Or am I just really going on about nothing (cause at this point, that's how I feel - I don't think I have the energy to talk about anything anymore because I don't even know if I make sense really):
After all, white people have dominated the sciences and arts and humanities in the West for awhile now; they did come up with some useful things in the process, such as computers and penicillin. Unlike some of my more racist brethern, though, I don’t think this means white people are inherently better. I think that if everyone else got access to the education and opportunities white people have hoarded for themselves, they’ll start inventing the next rounds of computers and penicillin. In fact, I suspect that is exactly why white people haven’t shared; we didn’t want to be bested at anything. The downside is that so much squashed potential probably means that many more computers and penicillin that we don’t have.
Some quick notes:
1) Coming from both the 'art's' and 'sciences' - I have to wonder - what are the arts and sciences and what makes them so different from each other? Really, are they THAT different - or are those boundaries artificial? Where do doctors like Paul Farmer fit into this (i.e. someone who's both an anthropologist and a medical doctor)? Or economists like Amartya Sen? Or feminist physicists etc...? Psychologists etc? In places like India - you have doctors who are both students of 'western medical practises' and 'naturopathy/homeopathy'... now - where do those ppl fit?
2) Who created this division between the arts and the sciences? How are the arts and the sciences treated differently, how do they affect different groups of ppl? How do we value certain types of knowledge over others? Why is that a problem? Who produces certain types of 'knowledge' and who's 'type of knowledge' do we value more? Are the producers of knowledge valued more, or are the labourers who work to 'produce' the 'tools' of this knowledge valued more?
3) What is the problem with this idea that progress needs to be measured in terms of how many medicines and technical gadgets you produce? I.e. is your worth as a human being measured in your 'productive' value or your fiscal contribution? Is this the only model of progess that we have? Where do local/indigeneous forms of knowledge or learning fit in here? Or are they just completely useless and therefore must be eradicated?
ugh... back to e-hiatus.
17 comments:
I think that if everyone else got access to the education and opportunities white people have hoarded for themselves, they’ll start inventing the next rounds of computers and penicillin.
Because inventing yet more and more worthless gadgets and expensive pharmaceuticals is the most important work a human being can do.
Do liberals even bother to question their assumptions?
Y, EXACTLY!
I like your point about the largely artificial divide between "arts" and "sciences." It's one more way to diminish contributions by those who don't fall neatly into either category.
I think you could pop just about any achievement that racists traditionally try to use to argue that whites are superior into Amanda's paragraph, and it would still work; I don't think it had to be "computers and penicillin," because I know I have read the same racist arguments made regarding the arts, usually along the lines of "why are there no black Shakespeares?" or "what has the art of indigenous peoples got to compare to a real achievement like the Sistine Chapel?" Stupid stuff like that. Racists don't really care which categories achievements fall into; they just care about making sure they appear to come out on top in all of them.
ilyka,
Maybe I have taken this paragraph out of context, but I am not sure if it's clear to me in that the post what's really being said. I wouldn't be surprised right now if I am particularly daft, I'm not feeling too 'clear' lately.
I guess my point is that the measuring stick by which all human achievements are measured by - is the white man's penis really. so, it becomes a rather circular argument to be arguing that lack of opportunity is really what keeps 'progress' from happening (or in Amanda's words - 'unrealized potential') when the unit of measure itself is the problem...
So, I guess that's where I'm coming at this from.
For a far more concise discussion about this isue - I refer you to this entry here: http://www.genderracepower.com/?p=203
I.e. is your worth as a human being measured in your 'productive' value or your fiscal contribution? Is this the only model of progess that we have?
an interesting point. in an age where success is directly proportional to your output and productivity alone, it should be obvious* that the only means of figuring out how much damage you have done, historically or currently, is to measure the lost productivity due to your actions.
Where do local/indigeneous forms of knowledge or learning fit in here? Or are they just completely useless and therefore must be eradicated?
the question seems largely rhetorical, but i dont think they fit in the discussion because of the largely american focus.
i dont have the chops to express myself more elegantly at this time. i.e, i am in a very cynical mood, but i'll see if i can come back with something more substantial.
btw, found your blog through mandos, whom i found on RoD.
*not being serious here.
If you don't mind a little criticism, I wish you would summarize the premise and assumptions of the blog post in a more cohesive way instead of just linking to it.The points you make kinda make me have to go over there and read through all the comments to understand fully what you're trying to say. You wrote enough words that there would have been space to encapsulate it for me.
PS art and science were divided as far as Europe goes sometime in the 17th century, I don't have the rest of the details right now.
Thanks Salty C - I should have summarized the article before posting, you are right.
I will try to update it later. I don't think the comments are worth reading in that thread.
I don't know if it's relevant to this discussion, but it's interesting the way important classical pioneers in math and science are white-washed. Archimedes from southern Sicily and Pythagoras from Turkey would be considered colored, especially in the first half of the twentieth century. Euclid and Ptolemy were from Egypt.
They are all considered "greek" because they spoke Hellenic Greek. Greece had conquered a lot of land in their time. Not all Spanish-speakers are European.
And anyway it's funny that in the early part of the 20th Century, modern Greeks were not considered white, but classical greeks were.
That is a really interesting observation SaltyC! I appreciate it - makes a lot of sense. It's like we 'project' what we want to see on 'europeans' right. I.e. use greeks/italians etc... to define how 'europeans' were 'civilized' and invented things for us - but the reality of them now is so 'different' than how it 'used to be' - so they don't posess their own history, the current neocolonials do.
Comment by ilyka, that went missing & was emailed:
In the event my reply to you went missing like that, I'll reiterate it here: I just wanted to apologize for not getting it the first time--your point WAS clearly stated right there in the post, in your third paragraph, especially, and overlooked it--and to thank you for your response and for the link to the Gender, Race, and Power article.
------------------
AD: Thanks ilyka, I appreciate it. I have been a little insecure lately about what I write, so I didn't clarify the context as I should have.
hey almostinfamous - pls come back with more! ty
on artificial separation of arts and science, lisa jardine writes with great frequency and (imo) much conviction. she's worth checking out.
cool sw, will check that out!!! that is being added to my reading list! thanks
and do yo think there is also a very disturbing individualist tone throughout the piece?
yes, it's interesting zooey how many people can actually use 'we're all racists' as a blinder to 'how and why racism is still projected' even when trying to write about other's racism. But I am sure that that was not the author's direct intention. It's just she has not taken the model of progress/development perspectives into account when writing about anti-racism.
I have to wonder - what are the arts and sciences and what makes them so different from each other? Really, are they THAT different - or are those boundaries artificial?
btw, my dad (a chemist) has been part of something called the Society for Literature and Science for a while now; they try to explore that dividing line--humanities vs. sciences.
What I know off the cuff--once upon a time, the sciences in general were looked down upon in "classical" education. Orwell f'r instance talks about how his (horrible) headmistress used to sneer at him for "chasing little butterflies," you know, clearly he should've been using his time studying Latin.
The Cold War, I think, was when the drive to improve math and science skills really kicked in, at least in the U.S.--the arms race, you know.
Why there's a divide in the first place--'twasn't so much so during the Renaissance, I don't think. I am thinking the Industrial Revolution might've been where they really started drifting apart, but i have nothing to back that up at the moment. But in general I think what's called "atomism" is largely responsible--specialization in general, that is. That and what's called "scientism"--overapplication of the scientific method as the best or sometimes only determinant of what's "true" or even "real."
Post a Comment