How to solve racism?

[Questions]

Hello folks,

It is quite clear from the Anarchist material I have read that it is a prerequisite of Anarchism to be anti-racist. Since Anarchists believe in individual freedom and freedom from exploitation, this is logical. However, I think it's safe to say that regardless of social progress any time in the future, racism will always exist amongst some individuals and groups. We can eliminate state institutionalised racism but what if a large mass of people still wished to practise some racist philosophy, such as racial separatism?

I guess the possible responses would be;
- Eliminating the racist minority by forceful means.
- Making it "illegal" to be racist and prosecuting anyone who does.
- Forcefully preventing the racists from living out their lifestyle.
- Allowing the racists to form their own racist utopia somewhere else, then isolating them.
- Allowing the racists to form their racist utopia and co-operating with them while shunning their values.

Which of these do people agree with, if any? If you have another alternative, please contribute.

Thanks

btw - I'm not racist, just an interesting thought I had.

[ambi]

'racism' is a loaded word, so let's break it down a little.

having thoughts in your head ("i'm scared of that black man!") is one thing, and exercising power ("i'm not going to hire that man because he is black!") is a different thing.

there is no way to stop thoughts in people's heads, nor should you. on the other hand, if people are being oppressed - for whatever reason - aid should be given if possible.

so, in an anarchist world, racists would be free to think racist thoughts, but they would not be free to coerce non-white people into leaving the neighborhood by, say, shooting at them. what would stop them? hopefully a bunch of armed anti-racists voluntarily rendering aid and co-defense. and if ou think about it, it doesnt have to be about race - if some group was trying to violently force anyone out of where they lived, the attackers would/should be opposed.

there's been some interesting scientific inquiry into racism. there's some evidence that people are looking for a 'team' to belong to, and they see skin color as an easy way to co-identify. when other races are presented as allies (by something as simple as supporting the same football team or having a common work experience), racism tends to fall away rather quickly in most people (again, according to hypothesis and some evidence)...

[Questions]

Good answer.

Let's add something to the hypothetical. Let's say that the group of racists we're talking about are the "team" sort, they want to form a group but they want that group to be different and separate from the others. So, they move to a place where other people aren't living and form a community, while making it clear to the other people around them that they don't want trouble, they just want to be left alone to practice their lifestyle.

So... The group isn't interested in coercion or oppression of another group, yet they wish to live in a single-race community and all they ask of everybody else is that they are left alone. Would it be fair enough that people respect the wishes of this group (if it means racists have somewhere to go) and would it be fair enough that people didn't move in to their area and disturb their peace.

Of course, if the group decides they want more "living space" and begin expanding their area and in doing so, oppressing others then a response would be necessary. What do you think?

Thanks.

[|Y|]

Well, free association allows for that, but here's the key point, they cannot by the same token disallow people of color from their midst, otherwise they're not anarchists and actual anarchists can and would disassociate with them (denying them access to the wonders of an anarchist society).

Bookchin argued for sanctioning, and I don't believe in that persay, not economically speaking. But culturally, there's no reason my diverse community of anarchists of all races should have to associate, so we're having a nice parade, or parties, or drug sex festivals, they can't come.

Such an apparent disassociation would keep them at bay. And of course there would be the ocassional infiltration into their groups (with bloodshed being the end result if things go quite south). Some people moving in, being of the right color, but bringing along the culture of acceptance. And helping those who are in that society who are miserable (which is the end result of such oppressive realities) emancipate themselves and disassociate and find a place in an actual anarchist community at large.

There will be racist communities, there will be religious cults of epic proportions, but there will always be pressure, so there's no real problem here as I see it, because it doesn't allow the groups to grow. Over time the whole idea of racism would be lost on people, because it is perpetuated by the status quo. Ask almost any southern white male what his problems are and he'll spout about race. But his problems really are the state at large, not black people he has no association with whatsoever.

ambi's point about racial identity is true, but it only works in a *competitive environment*. Anarchism is about abolishing competition in ways that matter on a society wide level (not to say we don't have sports teams, but rather we don't have "southerners and northerners"). No class distinction, no real identity politics.

[Questions]

I like that answer [Y], I agree totally. Does anybody disagree with [Y] or have anything else to add? Thanks for the quick and well thought out responses so far!

Thanks!

[ambi]

So, they move to a place where other people aren't living and form a community, while making it clear to the other people around them that they don't want trouble, they just want to be left alone to practice their lifestyle.

i don't see a problem with that. however, historically racists have had a problem defining "people."

for example, one of the founding phrases of zionism's attack/domination of the palestinians was "a land without a people for a people without a land." since they consider palestinians to be sub-human animals, there were no "people" to oppress. (to be fair, people that follow the talmud are taught to consider all non-jews as sub-human animals.)

another example; in the US constitution (lauded the world over as a document of 'freedom' and 'liberty'), an african-american is defined as 3/5ths of human being.

we know that racism is a symptom of fear and ignorance, and we also know that fear and ignorance lead to 'fight or flight' and scapegoating. personally, i wold find it pretty hard to believe that a bunch of people who describe themselves as racists would be able to live peacefully, but if it were the case, i wouldn't see a reason to oppose it.

a harder question might be "what if there's a group of people who think adults should have sex with children and they move to a place by themselves and don't oppress anyone else....?"

[|Y|]

Why can't you just think of the children? The yummy delicious pretty children...

I tease. Really. That's a difficult discussion which has been played out many times here over the years. I don't have the energy for it. But it's a bit more complicated, most certainly.

[Insecuritykiller]

What is the problem? There is no problem. Who cares if someones racist?

They could go around beating up black people, i guess. But they wouldn't be able to get away with it for long. What would beating up black people acheive anyway?

I would personally go around trying to help people, saveing molested children, other people who need help and so forth in a anarchist society. That would be my profession of choice. I've concidered doing it in real life. But it's alot harder with cops around. Then again there might still be cops around in anarchist society. Someone will need to solve crimes.

[Marja]

Is separatism in itself a problem?

What if it were a lesbian-separatist community? Perhaps using sperm selection or even egg-egg mergers to change the sex ratio. Some of the children might be trans men, and it might seem unjust to drive them out...

It poses certain problems, but not insurmountable ones. Exceptions for hungry travelers, etc.

It's very different if the separatist community reinforces existing systems of oppression, if it undermines them, or if it has nothing to do with them. In fully-realized anarchism, there would not be any systems of oppression for the separatist community to reinforce or undermine. It could be shallow, but wouldn't be oppressive.

On the other hand, the actual system of racial covenants was itself abusive and enabled further abuses.

[Insecuritykiller]

Well individuals such as myself would take it upon themselves to fix problems in their own eyes. If children in a strict religious community are being mistreated. Then i would go in there with a gun and save them.

Let people do as they please. Hell if they could prove to me what they were doing was alright, i'd have to approve, however strange their practices. Maybe having sex with your children is ok sometimes who knows. It's a wierd world.

By the way all anarchism means is that you don't want a government, and that you don't want force for control. That's how i see it anyway. Hierarchy will always exist, it's damn natural and apart of being a human being, if you work with it, it can work with you. People are always going to gravitate towards more attractive people. I'm not talking race here. I just mean people will always have more time for 'cooler' people. That's the worst hierachy of them all. But it's human. Stupid people are always used by smart people, and it's the only way for stupid people to feel apart of this life. They like it that way too.

[rebelmouse]

Well individuals such as myself would take it upon themselves to fix problems in their own eyes. If children in a strict religious community are being mistreated. Then i would go in there with a gun and save them.

By the way all anarchism means is that you don't want a government, and that you don't want force for control. That's how i see it anyway.

Hierarchy will always exist, it's damn natural and apart of being a human being, if you work with it, it can work with you. People are always going to gravitate towards more attractive people. I'm not talking race here. I just mean people will always have more time for 'cooler' people. That's the worst hierachy of them all. But it's human. Stupid people are always used by smart people, and it's the only way for stupid people to feel apart of this life. They like it that way too.

but there is force from you if you go somewhere with gun to make your "order". there is spectrum of communities even today and all of them don't have the same understanding like West (Europe and USA). so, you can verbally argued in your community against something but only community can decide what is and what is not normal for them. you can't make "order" like individual.
beside it, police and force don't exist from existence of humans, people solved their problem when state and police didn't exist. how?
well, with different moral sanctions. for example, jealous man attacked other man who like "his" girl and he got sanctions: whole village refused to speak with him very long time. he was alone, refused from everybody. but they didn't make any body-sanction for him. all people, even today criminals are careful what their friends and family (their community) will think about them. all people needs connection with other people. it is the same with racism.

I am not agreed that hierarchy is natural, than I would say hierarchy is wild level of development. we have brain to reach better and better and we don't need to stay at wild level. anarchism include fight against any hierarchy: between partners, between parents and children, between old and young, etc.

[AndyMalroes]

if you believe hierarchy is part of nature than you're hardly anarchist, the proper term would be anti-governental but...who needs to play with definition of words.

Anyway... it's not like we can ban racism, hierarchy, capitalism, patriarchy etc. But with the revolution/evolution we can at least hopefully create a wider understanding of the common enemies and hey maybe the south will be come anarchistic or at least less prone to racist thought.

[Thunk]

Remember the state role in racism. Racism serves certain ends. It allows for scapegoating (Nazism), it promotes the sanctity of the state (Zionism), it polarises workers (borders and anti-immigrant sentiment), it promotes hierarchy and cheap labor (slavery => both chattel and wage), allows for conquest (wars on the Middle East and elsewhere in the third world). There is a very good section in the Anarchist FAQ describing how places in which white and black workers were more likely to be paid equally, both races also generally were paid better...which makes sense considering collective bargaining is only possible if racial divides amongst working class communities are disbanded.

So I would argue that in a large sense, racism is promoted by the presence of the state. Sure there may be race scuffles and such in an anarchist society, but you wouldn't see communities bombing each other, polarising their own class, sanctifiying their state while it murders the goyim, etc like within the scope of statist and capitalist systems.

It is generally acknowledged (translation: I'm too lazy to find a source) that human beings form in-groups and out-groups. But race is a very superficial barrier between peoples, and under the right circumstances I think it would just disappear, especially as globalization takes place (the good kind of globalization, not the bad kind...).

As far as the people who still adhere to hateful ideas, well, that is their right, and to forcefully bar them from having opinions that are offensive is basically thoughtcrime. So as long as they don't act on their ideas, everything is cool. If they do, well, then we just go back to that whole "how does anarchism deal with crime" thing. Because that's basically all a "hate crime" is => a normal crime with additional thought-crime related penalties. Nonetheless, in anarchism there wouldn't be structures in place to promote the polarization of peoples, especially those who have like interests, on the basis or race and stuff.

[AndyMalroes]

Thats the best description of it I've seen. You've perfectly summed it up!

[joebob]

[quote="Questions"]
I guess the possible responses would be;
- Eliminating the racist minority by forceful means.
- Making it "illegal" to be racist and prosecuting anyone who does.
- Forcefully preventing the racists from living out their lifestyle.
- Allowing the racists to form their own racist utopia somewhere else, then isolating them.
- Allowing the racists to form their racist utopia and co-operating with them while shunning their values.
/quote]
Is this guy for reals?