The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc... I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Philosophy Now, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here

Thursday, 20 June 2013

Culturalism Isn't Racism

Accusations of ‘racism’ (especially from the red-fascist Left) are so annoying, ridiculous and unfounded that they are hardly worth responding to. However, I will give an off-the-cuff definition of racism to clarify things.

In the 19th and early 20th centuries racism was essentially a (pseudo) science. Clearly, it was a doctrine about the differences between races. More precisely, it was about differences of blood. In contemporary terms, it was about genetic differences.

Racism was also a causal argument. Certain races have genetic traits that necessarily lead all its members to acquire - or have – particular negative personality or character traits. For example, ‘Blacks are innately good lovers/musicians.’ (This is an example of positive or 'inverted' racism.) ‘Jews are instinctively miserly.’ ‘Arabs are inherently deceitful.’ ‘The Irish are born thick.’ ‘Germans lack a sense of humour.’ And so on. All this is rubbish. Nonetheless, it is rubbish only if seen in blood/genetic terms; not necessarily if seen in cultural terms.

In the traditional racist sense of race, races like that simply don’t exist. Although there may be genetic determinants – in some loose sense – of certain character traits, they are never race-specific.

In strict logical and scientific terms, it only takes a single black person to be a bad lover, a single Jew to be philanthropic, a single Arab to be honest, a single Irishman to be intelligent, etc. to belie the racist claims of genetic determinism (or of 'racial essentialism'). 

Many counter-jihad and patriot groups, however, are culturalist. There are certain aspects of certain cultures (e.g., Islamic culture) that we find culpable and indefensible (no doubt in our own ‘Eurocentric’ way). We believe that British culture is superior to Islamic culture. It believes that much of Islam is despicable. Blood (or genes), in the literal sense, accounts for very little vis-à-vis distinct races. Culture accounts for just about everything.

We don't swallow the Continental relativism and post-modernism which say that ‘all cultures are equal’. (In any case, most relativists don’t really believe that anyway. Edward Said and George Galloway, for example, believed and believe that Arabic/Muslims cultures are superior to ‘the West’. Isn’t that a non-relativist judgement?)

Again, all this has nothing whatsoever to do with race. Many Muslims are terrorists and fundamentalists - but not ‘by nature’. All Muslims don’t even belong to the same race. It only takes a single Muslim, as per above, to become, say, a rock star or a liberal Anglican vicar, to prove the point against – scientific – racism.

But I am a culturalist! For example, personally I have a big problem with R ‘n’ B. It is sexist, materialist, soft pornographic, self-indulgently melismatic, etc. R ‘n’ B is a part of black culture. Therefore, according to some (say, guilt-ridden middle-class white Leftists), I am a racist. Don’t doubt this. Some anti-racists do reason is such a blatantly simplistic manner! It is even possible that a person could be against all aspects of black culture and still not be a racist. However, he probably would be a racist.

What racist Leftist fail to distinguish is between a caricature or intellectual criticism of a member of an ethnic or racial group (say of  a black person or an Arab), that is not racial, and one that is. It can’t be racist simply because the target is black or Arab. If that were the case, then any criticism of a white person, from Martin Smith of the SWP-UAF to David Cameron, would be racist (racist against whites). Just because the subject of an intellectual attack happens to be black or Arabic, that doesn’t mean that the attack is about that person’s being black or Arabic. He just happens to be black or Arabic.

The problem is that many people make a living – if only indirectly – from the ‘race industry’ (e.g., Nick Lowles and Searchlight and Tell Mama). So they consequently see racism everywhere. (Much as the Puritans saw sex and sin everywhere in the 17th century.) Others use the ‘fight against racism’ as a political tool to further ends that have nothing to do with combating real racism (which clearly exists). This is the Trotskyite strategy in which all means are justified by the end which is revolution or radical social and political change.

So, in the end, the is a huge difference between racism and culturalism. Racism is deterministic and essentialist. Cultures fluctuate are are neither fixed not have many essential features. That's why National Socialist Jew-haters refuse to distinguish between different types of Jew. If the Jew is a Marxist or a 'neo-Con', a moralist or an immoralist, a banker or a worker for a charity, he still remains a Jew and there's nothing he can do about it. To a culturalist, on the other hand, a Jew being a Marxist or a conservative makes all the difference and his blood- or genetic-nature is utterly besides the point.

No comments:

Post a Comment