Globalization of Racism

Donaldo Macedo, Panayota Gounari

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• eBook ISBN:
  9781317258865
• Subtopic: Multicultural Education

Addressing ethnic cleansing, culture wars, human sufferings, terrorism, immigration, and intensified xenophobia, "The Globalization of Racism" explains why it is vital that we gain a nuanced understanding of how ideology underlies all social, cultural, and political discourse and racist actions. The book looks at recent developments in France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Portugal, Spain and the United States and uses examples from the mass media, popular culture, and politics to address the challenges these and other countries face in their democratic institutions. The eminent authors of this important book show how we can educate for critical citizenry in the ever-increasing multicultural and multiracial world of the twenty-first century. Contributors are: David Theo Goldberg, Loic Wacquant, Edward W. Said, Zygmunt Bauman, Peter Mayo and Carmel Borg, Anna Aluffi Pentini and Walter Lorenz, Peter Gstettner, Georgios Tsiakalos, Franz Hamburger, Julio Vargas, Lena de Botton and Ramon Flecha, Concetta Sirna, Jan Fiola, Joao Paraskeva, Henry A. Giroux. It explores new forms of racism in the era of globalization.

THE GLOBALIZATION OF RACISM

1

GLOBALIZATION AND THE UNLEASHING OF NEW RACISM: AN INTRODUCTION

Donaldo Macedo and Panayota Gounari

Through the process of dehistoricizing race and, by implication, racism, the dominant ideology gives rise to a fertile terrain that confuses the meaning of race and enables conservatives as well as some liberal scholars to claim the “end of racism.” By dominant ideology we refer to the organizing principles that generate, shape, and sustain white supremacy designed to exclude other human beings by virtue of their race, language, culture, and ethnicity so they can be exploited. In the United States, for example, writers such as Dinesh D’Souza who falsely claim the end of racism, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, are handsomely rewarded. This evidence ranges from the growing number of racial incidents on college campuses to the burning of synagogues and black churches to the proliferation of racist radio talk shows, whose hosts advocate killing Muslims in the name of patriotism.

The proposition that we have achieved “the end of racism” attempts to close down any space in which to question racism and the structures that produce and sustain it. In addition, this false proposition is intended to block all forms of interrogation concerning our understanding of race and racism while impeding clear analyses of these categories. The closing-down of the field of interpretation for racism has the consequence of dehistoricizing the term and its discourses and material practices. Through this dehistoricizing, racism is often disarticulated from politics and the ensuing political projects that crystallize subjectivities, agency and democratization. Individuals who embrace a dehistoricization process in their treatment of racism fail to recognize that racism is always historically specific and that it manifests itself differently in terms of geographical, cultural, ideological and material location, as accurately demonstrated by Loïc Wacquant’s analysis of racism in the United States in chapter 6 of this volume. These factors invariably shape and define racism and its manifestations to a large degree. And while “historicality” usually conveys the raciological rationalization of history in that it has been, according to Paul Gilroy, associated with “attempts to differentiate the status of peoples, their cultures, fates, destinies and different racial and national spirits,” historicizing the race debate is crucial to our understanding of the racialization of discourses and the ensuing racist practices.¹

Gilroy correctly observes that “‘historicality’ is a modern notion in that it presupposes a politics of time: making connections between ontology, nationality and theories of racial difference. It is associated with not only the idea of authenticity and the national principle but also, the elevation of ‘race’ to a determining position in theories of history, especially those that pronounce on war and conflict, naturalizing them in the convenient idea of specifically race-based imperial conflict.”² Since historicality plays a fundamental role in the construction of the reality of race in the first place, we must look at the ways in which racism has and is currently manifested. Through a historical framework, it becomes much easier to adhere to David Theo Goldberg’s notion that “if race is a conception, then racism is a condition; or more precisely, where race is a set of conceptions, racisms are sets of conditions,” and conditions are never realized outside of history.³ It is through history that we can more accurately identify the structures that shape and promote “the dominant feature of racist expression,” which is, according to Goldberg, exclusion.⁴ Hence racisms invariably involve promoting exclusions; consequently, any rigorous analysis must view racisms as phenomena of exclusion articulated on different levels and loci that either complement or clash with each other, constructing an arena where the diverse geographic, material, ideological and discursive elements coexist and are open to interpretation and analysis. Again, Goldberg’s insights are illuminating: “racisms assume their particular characters, they are exacerbated, and they have different entailments and ramifications in relation to specific considerations of class constitution, gender, national identity, region and political structure.”⁵ By dehistoricizing the spaces that racism has occupied and is still occupying both imaginatively and materially, we are forced to embrace a depoliticized notion of race while remaining trapped in a field in which political interaction has been banished. “The end of racism” inaugurates a depoliticized space devoid of debate over meanings and institutions—a space where entailments and ramifications are simply terminated so as not to awaken dangerous memories or provoke uncomfortable discussions. That is why the topic of racism is usually labeled controversial, a characterization that discourages debate or discussion. Meanwhile, racial antagonisms remain present in shaping and reproducing the racialized discourses and practices.

Racism includes a set of ideologies, discourses, discursive practices, institutions and vocabularies. However, we take racism to be not simply an ideological construction, since, as Goldberg points out, this view “leaves unexplained the fact that racist expressions may at times define and promote rather than merely rationalize social arrangements and institutions.”⁶ As an academic designation it encompasses scholars in multiple disciplines who are preoccupied by the question of race and exclusion. As an object of scholarly research and study it produces theoretical and social discourses. This production of knowledge defines and shapes our understanding of racism as it is also shaped by its discourses and practices. The knowledge about racism as exclusion situates inclusions and exclusions that function as a false dichotomy whereby “us” is juxtaposed with “them” (as is the case with the clash of civilizations myth) in a way that “them” is always understood as a negative value. This dichotomy has been astutely used by the Bush administration to conduct its war on terror and expand its imperial ambitions unimpeded by a domestic opposition. By constructing a terrorist enemy that encompassed all Muslims (a “group” that amounts roughly to 1.2 billion people worldwide and comprises numerous countries, societies, traditions, languages and lived experiences), the Bush administration, aided by a compliant media, exacerbated the racism present in U.S. society so that all Muslims became suspected terrorists. And it legitimized racist treatment of Muslims, as when “Muslim-looking” individuals are deplaned by major airlines because white folks express fear of flying in their company. However, the same racial profiling was never applied to white males resembling Timothy McVeigh after the terrorist bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, where more than one hundred fifty people died, including women and children.

The us-versus-them dichotomy is constructed on both an academic and an imaginative level, and it produces the “reality” of what it means to have different races. It is the constructed knowledge around race that produces a racialized discourse. Furthermore, race as an “identity” marker has also been used to “reckon with the patterns of inclusion and exclusion that it cannot help creating.”⁷ Following Edward Said’s line of thinking, racism is something historically and materially defined. We need to examine racism as a discourse or else we cannot possibly understand the enormous systematic discipline by which exclusions based on race, ethnicity, culture and other markers of “otherness” are able to produce racism materially, discursively, politically, sociologically, ideologically, scientifically and imaginatively. It is the work and dissemination of a powerful discourse through an acquiescent media, institutions for cultural reproduction, along with material practices, that produces racialized appearances.

Arguably radio hosts and television commentators who implicitly or explicitly advocate racist practices against Muslims are on the fringe and are not part of mainstream America. Unfortunately, the dehumanization of Muslims in the current fight on terror often blurs the boundaries between fringe and mainstream, as exemplified by the comments of Lieutenant General James N. Mattis: “You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot fun to shoot them.”⁸ Mattis was speaking as part of a panel sponsored by the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association, where his comments “were met with laughter and applause from the audience.”⁹ His comments also received no censure from his superior, General Mike Hagee, who remarked that “Lieutenant General Mattis often speaks with great deal of candor. I have counseled him concerning his remarks and he agrees he will choose his words more carefully.”¹⁰

The current assault on Muslims worldwide and in the United States in particular points to the fact that “race is irreducibly a political category … and there is no generic racism, only historically specific racisms each with their own sociotemporally specific causes.”¹¹ According to Goldberg, “There is no single (set of) transcendental determinant(s) that inevitably causes the occurrence of racism—be it nature, or drive, or mode of production, or class formation. There are only the minutiae that make up the fabric of daily life and specific interests and values, the cultures out of which racialized discourse and expressions arise. Racist expressions become normalized in and through the prevailing categories of modernity’s epistemes and institutionalized in modernity’s various modes of social articulations and power.”¹² If Goldberg is correct, and we think he is, then the facile proposition claiming the end of racism not only ignores the historical specificities that give rise to racist practices but also reconstitutes itself as a racist expression to the degree that the very denial of racism is a racist act. Further, such a proposition relies on specific determinants that sustain the end of racism claim—determinants that remain disarticulated from a constellation of historical factors that give rise to and maintain multiple forms of racism. In addition, we want to argue that a thorough comprehension of a racist reality can be achieved only through a convergent model of analysis that gives proper weight to each historical factor and its relationship with other factors that serve as the root cause of a particular racist manifestation. In other words, no single factor provides enough basis for a thorough understanding of racism. Hence the apprehension of racism as an object of knowledge depends most of all on the articulation of multiple factors of history such as the interdependence of race and class, which in turn produces specific forms of racism as a fact of history.

The main goal of The Globalization of Racism is to denude the ideological manipulation inherent in the false proposition “the end of racism” while calling attention to new forms of racism that are manifesting globally and are exacerbated by the commonsense discourse of neoliberalism and its theological embrace of the market as a panacea for all world problems. The chapters in this volume are designed to provide readers with an understanding of the historical conditions that produce specific manifestations of racism—a theoretical posture that moves away from the rigidity of a particular model of racist analysis by showing that

The claim that racism is nothing more than ideological is confusing or delimiting in a different way. It misleadingly leaves the deleterious effects of racist practices and institutions to be captured by some other term like racialism or racist discrimination. Alternatively, by insisting that the raison d’être of the racist ideological structure is to hide some underlying form of economic, social, or political oppression, this widely shared claim refuses to acknowledge the materiality of racially defined effects in their own right. It fails to acknowledge, and so leaves unexplained, the fact that racist expressions may at times define and promote rather than merely rationalize social arrangements and institutions. Sepulveda’s characterization of Mexican Indians as fit only for slavery enabled their enslavement to be conceived rather than simply serving to rationalize their exploitation ex post facto.¹³

By going beyond a model of analysis that merely serves to “rationalize social arrangements and institutions,” the case study chapters for each country demonstrate how “racist expressions may at times define and promote” conditions that make it easier to exploit other human beings through the establishment of racial differences that invariably lead to exclusion. For example, in chapter 12, “Greece: Xenophobia of the Weak and Racism of the Progressive,” by Georgios Tsiakalos, the analysis of racism is predicated not exclusively on racial differences per se but on exclusionary practices that target Albanians who belong to the white race. The Globalization of Racism also points out the impossibility of “the end of racism” in light of the exponential increase of xenophobia throughout the world, which has been caused in large measure by neoliberal policies producing economic dislocation that has impelled millions of the world’s poor to seek economic relief by migrating from rural to urban areas and from poor to rich countries. This massive migration has, more often than not, heightened racism that has manifested itself differently in other contexts.

The United States is not alone in facing a dramatic increase in racism and xenophobia. In France the ultraright National Front Party headed by Jean-Marie Le Pen has mounted an incessant attack on immigrants, particularly Muslims from the former French colonies. In the past decade or so the National Front was able to elect four mayors in the south of France. In turn, these ultra right-wing politicians implemented racist policies in, for example, the town of Vitrolles near Marseilles, where French families with children were given $833 as a birth allowance, while foreign immigrant families received no allowance. In Germany there has been a significant increase in the number of neo-Nazi groups; they have been responsible for a number of house bombings against Turks and Greeks. In London racism has reached outrageous levels, prompting serious investigation concerning the widespread institutionalized racism at all levels of life in Britain. Similar xenophobia has been seen in Spain, particularly toward North African immigrants and Romani. For example, in the town of El Ejido, “thousands of people were armed with sticks and iron bars tearing down immigrant stores, bars that were frequented by [immigrants] … They burned down shacks, they destroyed archives, files … Spaniards were heard shouting at the immigrants: ‘You will have to leave and we will stay here. We are going to kill you all.’… Among the thousands of people one could hear ‘let’s throw poison in the water they drink.’”¹⁴ For years Portugal prided itself on creating a haven of racial harmony by disingenuously keeping out African immigrants. Now that the end of its colonialism has propelled massive numbers of Africans to Portugal, racist practices are as visible as the shanty-towns around Lisbon populated by those dispossessed Africans, who are excluded from full participation in the country’s civic life. According to Josephine Ocloo,

Racist and fa...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• 1 Globalization and the Unleashing of New Racism: An Introduction
• 2 The Crisis of the Human Waste Disposal Industry
• 3 Racism and Middle East Politics
• 4 The Global Reach of Raceless States
• 5 Spectacles of Race and Pedagogies of Denial: Antiblack Racist Pedagogy
• 6 From Slavery to Mass Incarceration: Rethinking the “Race Question” in the United States
• 7 Zionism as a Racist Ideology: Reviving an Old Theme to Prevent Palestinian Ethnicide
• 8 The Racism of Globalization
• 9 Toward an Antiracism Agenda in Education: The Case of Malta
• 10 Globalization between Universal Sameness and Absolute Divisions: Creating Shared Pedagogical Border Zones as an Antiracist Strategy
• 11 Austria: Right-Wing Populism Plus Racism at a Governmental Level
• 12 Greece: Xenophobia of the Weak and Racism of the Mighty
• 13 Violence in the New Germany: Reflection about the Connection between Blocked Immigration, Politics, and Pedagogy
• 14 Equality of Differences versus Postmodern Racism
• 15 Portugal Will Always Be an African Nation: A Calibanian Prosperity or a Prospering Caliban?
• Index
• About the Contributors