Public ideas
The idea of “race” has outlived its use-by date by 150 years
By the late nineteenth century scientists and philosophers had largely abandoned the idea of “race” as a concept with any validity in classification. It was a human construct offering a superficial explanation for minor differences in people’s appearances, particularly skin colour.
Yet the idea of “race” and its use in public policy continued, with Nazism as its most horrendous manifestation. There were also the Jim Crow laws in the USA, Apartheid in South Africa, and our very own White Australia Policy.
And lest we think it has gone away, consigned to the trash can of unscientific prejudices, we now hear people of otherwise liberal disposition using a binary racial classification of humanity, into “whites” and “people of colour”.
It is therefore refreshing to hear a disciplined thinker, Kenan Malik, criticizing the continuing use of racial classification, particularly in identity politics, on Late Night Live. (39 minutes)
He explains how “race” was a convenient rationalization for slavery and colonization. Because eighteenth century liberals had asserted that all men were created equal they needed some excuse for the ongoing oppression of slaves and colonized people. “Race” as a classification served that purpose well.
More recently the US Jim Crow laws were a useful way of blocking the development of political solidarity between poor “whites” and poor “Afro-Americans”. Race allowed for a division that suppressed the growth of Marxist class consciousness, and gave poor “whites” an imagined status. Although the Jim Crow laws have gone, to this day liberal Americans seem to be overly concerned with “race” discrimination, while ignoring class discrimination, the long legacy of slavery, and theft of the land from the original owners.
Malik is author of Not so black and white: a history of race from white supremacy to identity politics.
Yes – history does rhyme, unfortunately
If ever we wanted confirmation that history has not ended, Putin provided it with his invasion of Ukraine. Writing in Eureka Street – What men call history – Gillian Bouras reviews The Russo-Ukrainian war: the return of history, by Harvard professor Serhii Plokhy, who has family in Ukraine and has lost a cousin in the war.
Along the way Bouras touches on authors who have written on the same theme, including Arnold Toynbee and Christopher Clark.
As Mark Twain noted, while history does not repeat itself, “it sure does rhyme”. Bouras makes the additional point that people like Putin draw on history to justify their behaviour.
What drives terrorism?
Although acts of terrorism have a depressing similarity, authorities are always grappling to understand the motivations and ideologies that drive people to such acts. The terms “left” and “right” rarely serve as a useful means of classification. As pointed out in the 3 May roundup, the classification “far right” can cover a wide range of motivations, as can the classification “religious”.
David Wells, who was most recently Head of Research and Analysis at the UN Counter-Terrorism Directorate, writing in the Lowy Institute’s Interpreter, suggests that extreme misogyny may be a condition common to many far-right terrorists: Misogyny is often the connection between overlapping far-right ideologies. Of course there are other factors, but his work lends confirmation to the general observation that societies in which there is gender separation tend to be more violent than those in which there is more gender mixing.
Thoughts on public space
In earlier days churches were places where people came together. And there were pubs.
Attendance at religious services has fallen, and the local pub has given way to the corporatized entertainment venue, if one can call poker machines “entertainment”.
There is still the playground where young parents come together, there is the municipal library, and there are coffee shops.
But for many people life has become more crowded, with every block of time committed. And there has been the pandemic, when, because of lockdowns or fear of public places, we got into the habit of communicating with SMS messages, or if we were presentable, using Face Time exchanges.
The Atlantic has a 40-minute podcast – The infrastructure of community – about places where people, through purpose or accident, bump into one another. (It also has a transcript.) It’s a conversation – the sort of conversation we might enjoy over a two-hour lunch – rather than a structured discussion. But it raises issues of urban design, the commercialization of public space, and the way we relate to people with whom we share space but who are outside our circles of friends and colleagues.