I believe there is a bit of confusion of expression here, or perhaps I misunderstand.
My point was, Thailand, never having been colonized, has developed at least as well if not better than its neighbors (regionally speaking) that were. That is, it arguablely is a case in point of colonial rule being a real detriment to the healthy development of post-colonial society, in re 19th century colonialism and its attendant racism.
FWIW, Barking, I’ll agree with you on the point of inoculations: they were created largely by European doctors and benefited African patients. Fine job all 'round.
But that falls far short of proving that there was a net benefit. If my brother sets my neighbor’s house on fire, even if I run in and save one of his six kids, I still shouldn’t be surprised if his family bears ill will towards mine.
My point also. I was merely pointing out that it’s not really arguable. 
The only places in the area that are significantly better off are:
–Singapore, and you can’t really compare them to a full-sized nation.
–Brunei, who lucked into oil money.
India isn’t really a neighbor, but I’d argue that given their built-in problems, they’ve transitioned from colonial status fairly well. Other than that, all the Asian colonies are more-or-less messes; and I include China in that.
East Asian countries not heavily colonized by whitey:
Japan.
Korea.
Taiwan.
Mongolia.
Three out of four are doin’ pretty good…
Whenever any group uses the “when a member of my race / gender / religion / sexual preference becomes President of the US” argument as proof of the end of (real or perceived) racism, they’re showing both their ignorance and flawed thinking.
Lola, when you say Asian-American, do you mean Indian / Arabian / Pakistani / Persian / Thai / Vietnamese / Laosian / Chinese / Japanese / Malaysian / Mongolian / Korean / Cambodian / Indonesian - American? or can they be from any one of the groups above to put you at ease? If it’s the former, perhaps racism can end in 2 short years. If it’s the latter, it’ll be a minimum of 56 years before Asian-American bias can be washed from the American psyche. Thank God they elected JFK in 1960, it did wonders extinguishing anti-catholic bias throughout the nation.
Keep balkanizing yourself if you wish…I can’t stop you.
Unfortunately, it’s people with the same group think mentality as yourself who are succeeding in tearing this once great nation of individuals into a tribal mosaic of competing interests.
originally posted by Tamerlane:
So we agree that the issue of racism is being used by people to further their agendas. I also agree with you that it is not just the left-wing. As for the right wing… I’m not a conservative on most issues, but I think it is likely that the positions held by the right wing are based on their own beliefs, and if those positions happen to coincide with the positions of racists that does not mean the right wing is using racist thought. I think I would have to agree with a racist on math questions, but that does not mean logarithms are inherently racist.
Once again I agree with you. Contrary to what the people who make their living off of it would argue, racism did not cause slavery, but as you have stated was actually a result of slavery and the conditions in Africa.
I wasn’t accusing anyone on this board of championing racism for their personal gain. I was saying that there are people who do this, and they are taking advantage of us and hurting many people.
This is where you may start misunderstanding my argument. I know that the colonizers treated Africans as inferiors, but I would say that this racism was just how they rationalized how they could do what they wanted to do for other reasons. Is this better than being inherently racist, or unable to believe the Africans could be equal to them? Maybe not. But it is certainly easier to overcome, because once it was no longer in their interest to rationalize themselves into racism, racism would not remain as the overriding factor some people portray it as.
The same things were done by other people. This shows that the actions could be rationalized in any number of ways, proving that racism is not the cause.
Slavery took the form in which it would most benefit and perform the task of the people who used it.
As I said, something in human nature allows us to rationalize things which will later be seen as terrible. Racism and slavery are both results of this human weakness. To blame one result for another result is to miss the real problem. This hurts us, because it makes racism seem like an inherent human quality and makes it hard to solve current problems.
I agree that it is an extremely biased argument, and not one that I am making.
I never made that claim. I’m sure there were many brutal and inhumane areas in the world, although Africa stands out due to the fact that the resource constraints were largely due to inadequate methods of gathering resources, rather then actual nonexistence of adequate resources. Why would atrocities in Africa not matter because atrocities also occur elsewhere?
I agree, European technology was a positive for Africa. I would gladly accept helpful technology from anyone, not call them racist because they think I need their help. I am aware that the way in which these ideas were introduced was very poor (understatement). Of course it would be interesting to see what would have happened if ideas were introduced instead via trade and exchange. However, until we invent a time machine, we have to deal with what actually happened.
I agree they were disasters. I do not attribute it to lack of capacity among whites. I also do not attribute the current conditions in Africa, or those before the colonies, to lack of capacity of any other group. We are all created equal, and if you are open minded and smart enough you can see how nothing that has happened in history is due to lack of capacity of any group.
Sending aid does save lives, but it also entrenches bad systems and allows self serving individuals to remain in power. This is worse in the long term. The reason we send aid and allow bad systems is that the people who are playing the system use racism to get what they want.
When I said something related to colonialism I mean we need people to go over there, not just money. We need people who know how to run a hospital, to get the most food out of the land, to run a moral government, etc. I don’t mean we need to return to the old colonial system, which was very bad.
Originally posted by Guinastasia:
This is exactly the view point I am trying to fight. As I said in my second post, which no one responded to, I look at Africa (and anything else really) and am not shaken in my belief that we are equal. I have an open mind and can see how things could happen. You seem to think that if we admit people in Africa need help then we are calling them “poor, stupid savages.” So which view point is racist? The whole “white man’s burden” thing is only consistent with your views, not mine. All I see is people that could use some help. I don’t blame myself for their dilemma (that is incorrect), nor do I think they are inferior for being in that situation (that is racist). I understand that this is just the way things have gone. I believe that if it was not for the people who use racism for their own gain, the people of Africa would not be starving, they would be growing enough food, and their governments would be far superior to what they are. I believe that the people of Africa want this to happen. So if we say that what they currently have is good enough for them (although we wouldn’t want it) and, hey, let’s just send some money, and let’s let those bad governments stay in power at least they aren’t white, and we don’t believe that they want the things we would want in their position, THAT is true racism.
NO NO NO! I don’t think if we admit people need help they’re poor dumb savages! OH NO!
Of course the people who use racism for their own gain make things worse. That’s natural.
I’m talking about JanL’s message seems to be that without White Europeans, Black Africans would be just wallowing in mud, miserable. That they needed the whites to “civilize them”, if you will.
No, I think we have a duty to help those who a less fortunate. I’m just saying that it doesn’t mean they’re less fortunate because they’re of a different race or what have you.
And you’re right-sending money isn’t always the answer. I don’t know what the answer is.
UNICEF, aid workers, etc. Something like the Maryknolls set up for Central America.
Well given those statements, as well as others, I’d put you in a very different place than JanL. Which is perhaps part of the confusion. Earlier you seemed to be defending his position, by renumerating the “good points” he made ( I am of the opinion he has made few, if any ). But it seems that his “good points” and yours may not be that congruent. For example:
IMHO that is not related to colonialism at all. A poor choice of words on your part( that is that your suggestion is colonialism or a cognate of it ), if you will allow me the criticism. One which lends itself to the idea that you advocated a ‘White Man’s Burden’ view of the world. Sending skilled aid instead of just money ( and to be honest I lump the two together in my mind, which is probably my own mistake and led me to not completely understand your point ), is of course a good idea - It is not colonial in any way, if there is no force-mediated ( military or otherwise ) coercion.
Well, if the position a given conservative holds coincides with the positions of racists on “race”, then it would probably be racist thought 
. If you are just saying that “racists think Mugabe’s government is repulsive and so do I, but that doesn’t make me a racist” - Then fine. If, on the other hand, you were to say, “racists think that the collapse of Zimbabwe is due in part to a basic inability of black Africans to organize and run things effectively and I think to some extent they have a point, but I’m not really a racist” - Then, no, you’re a racist .
Well there is more types of racism than just the Black/White variety. A combination of the rise of “scientific racism” concurrent with European world domination from ~ 1750-1950, generally fed racist thought.
Yes, but I’m still not clear what you mean by this. I know what JanL means, but not you. Are you referring to specific instances, like Mugabe? If so I can agree, though I’ll note that Mugabe’s cynical use of white racism as an excuse to justify the abuses of his followers does not mean that this racism does not exist and is not a problem as an objective reality. Or are you taking a more general view of the sub-continent and if so, in what way?
Or more on topic - Do you agree with JanL that racism is “pseudo-intellectual bunk”? If not, how not? You’ll forgive me if my own lack of reading comprehension has caused me to miss you point a bit ( I have been known to do that ).
But those rationalizations were racist. Call me dense, but I’m not seeing this distinction you seem to. The 19th century colonizers were overwhelmingly racist, yes. The used this, in part, as a rationale for conquering sub-Saharan Africa, yes. You argument is that they weren’t “really” racist, but it was just a clever excuse? No - They were “inherent racists”. Explain to me the difference between 19th century European Imperialist racists and modern racists.
Again, I’m finding it hard to tease out just what your view of modern racism is and how big of a problem it is. Are we in agreement that the overriding problem in Apartheid-era South Africa was instituitionalized racism? If not, why not, and what was?
Eh, no. It doesn’t prove that at all. It just means than in some of those cases that racism was not a factor. It doesn’t mean that therefore racism was never a factor.
Racism isn’t an inherent human quality, though tribalism in the broad sense might be. Racism is learned behavior. But you can sometimes blame one learned behavior on another learned behavior. Dominoes do fall .
Actually, on a purely factual nitpick, you are incorrect here. Sub-Saharan Africa did have some unique resource constraints, but this is probably not the thread to get into that. But it is an issue that has been discussed on this board before.
Again, a misunderstanding I think about what each of us considers “sending aid”. When I said aid ( or even “money” ), I meant the whole package - Money, expertise, training, etc.
You’ve lost me a little again. Please elucidate, if you will, including specific examples. And when using examples, please indicate if you think they are purely situational or can be applied to Africa as a whole and in what way. Thanks .
**
I think what Nightime is getting at is that a great deal of 19th century racism was based on cognitive dissonance rather than philosophy. “Gee, we’re making a packet treating these folks like farm animals! That’s a good thing, right?” I think you see a modern example of this in South Africa. Remove the economic incentive and much of the impetus for racism disappears. This doesn’t mean that racism disappears overnight, but at least that particular factor is no longer stoking the fire.
**
While this is a bit off-topic, clumsy attempts to provide aid in Africa have, indeed exacerbated, rather than assuaged, many of Africa’s problems. Even aid intended to help a country recover from a natural disaster may be counter-productive if not carefully thought out.
**
Unfortunately, there are many examples of less developed countries demanding aid based on guilt about colonialism, especially in Africa. This isn’t precisely racism but it’s close to it. Most recently, the debate about debt relief for HIPCs (Highly Indebted Poor Country) has pitted many HIPCs against donor countries along precisely these lines.
Hmmm…Yes, but I disagree that this was the case . I think by the 19th century it was just as prevalent ( actually much more so ), “inbred”, and “philosophical” ( probably more so ) as it is today.
Agreed. But this does not invalidate the concept of aid, it just points out the follies of mis-applying it.
Yes, well here we may have come to a philosophical stumbling block, because I consider this perfectly appropriate . IMHO the national inheritors of the 19th century imperialists owe a moral debt to their former colonies and material payment is a perfectly valid way to assuage it ( though it shouldn’t be the only way ) . For how long? Until those former colonies are economically “stable”. Might not this be ruinously expensive and quite possibly fail anyway? Yep . Pity, that.
Well, it might well be whiny . And there might even be an element of reverse racism from time to time. But it is based in reality, IMHO.
**
Almost nothing is ever caused by just one thing. Inevitably, things like racism have innumerable causes. It’s that much harder to listen to the still, quiet voice of your moral conscience when doing so is going to cost you big bucks. I really believe that removing the economic incentive for racism is an important first step to eliminating it. I’d have to disagree that racism was more “philosophical” (an odd word to use in this context, no?) in the ninteenth century than it is today. In the nineteenth century, “racism” was just an “accepted fact” even among many abolitionists. Race relations wasn’t really something that the average person thought that deeply about. In sum, though racist notions were widely held, they weren’t all that deeply held.
Nowadays, real-live racists are likely to have given a great deal of thought to their positions and are likely to be deeply committed to racist attitudes. Committed, indeed, to the point they define their lives around them. They may, for example, start contentious, polemical websites and spend their days spamming message boards with racist propaganda.
This doesn’t mean however, that there is more racism. On the contrary, now that the much of the “racism of ignorance” has been burned away, the “inbred” impervious-to-rational-thought hardcore racism really stands out whereas before, it was hardly noticeable.
**
I guess we do have a philosphical stumbling block. I have several problems with this. Some practical, some philosophical. First, as a practical matter, this sort of approach annoys donor countries, even those that do contribute. Second, it just won’t work on many countries which may have the most to offer in terms of aid and expertise. It’s a bit difficult to make the Japanese (or the Americans, for that matter) feel guilty about their colonial record in Africa.
Perhaps the biggest problem is that there is a near-complete disjunct between many of modern Africa’s problems and colonialism. Take debt relief, for instance. This is a great idea, if adminstered properly. Unfortunately, “adminstered properly” implies a certain degree of paternalism. Many leaders of HIPCs have attempted to link debt relief with guilt for colonialism and have bitterly objected to donor countries’ efforts to condition debt relief on government reforms designed to break the cycle of indebtedness. The problem is that, all too often, HIPC ought to be an acronym for “Comically Mismanaged Kleptocracy” The goal of debt relief is not to allow a new generation of leaders to enrich themselves by robbing their countries’ blind.
The point is that most of these HIPC leaders needn’t look to colonialism as an explanation for their countries’ troubles, they need to look in a mirror. Now it is true that the social forces that let some of these jokers take power can be at least partially blamed on some aspects of colonialism, especially some of the bizarre borders in Africa that reflect little more than mid-nineteenth century Great Power politics. This is not, however, a problem that can be solved by pumping aid into Africa, especially aid without strings attached.
This brings me to a philosophical problem. I’m uncomfortable with the concept of trans-generational group guilt. I do recognize some of the “enrichment” arguments. Nonetheless, I find the idea that you ought to be penalized for something your grandparents (or your great-grandparents) did both insidious and distasteful. The real reason to help the less-well-off, whether individuals or countries, is because you can and because it is a meritorious thing to do, not because you are obligated to do so because of the sins of a previous generation.
**
Many of these countries are not economically unstable primarily “because of” colonialism. There are a variety of factors. Pouring aid into a bottomless pit isn’t going to help until those factors are addressed. Indeed, it may make the problem worse. There is good evidence that high levels of foreign aid in the form of cash grants and loans can severely distort a society and give rise to very high levels of corruption
Oh, certainly. But it’s just a first step. I would argue the economic incentive for racism internal to the United States, has mostly not been noticeably high since the 1870’s ( in an objective way - obviously subjectively openly non-racist policies adopted by a business might have resulted in a backlash by a largely racist public ). But the persistence was dogged.
Hmmm…Well I have to agree that paradoxically virulent, raving racism is probably more prevalent today, in part because societal tolerance for open expressions of racism has decreased.
But the 19th century was the heyday of “scientific racism”, remember. I just don’t agree that the widespread, “unthinking” racism of the past century or two was as skindeep as all of that. I don’t think the average person thought about it as much, true. But I do think ( based on years of slow absorption, so no cite handy as of yet ) that it was very deeply ingrained for all of that.
Well, I agree with you in part ( see above ). But I think that the 19th century “racism of ignorance” was pretty “inbred”, albeit perhaps more subtly by society rather than indoctrinated by a hate-spewing father.
Probably only a partial one, really. My earlier statement was more unqualified than it probably should have been - I was being a little hyperbolic.
Agreed - I don’t think that colonial sins are the only reason or the primary reason to give “aid” ( however you care to construe it ). Enlightened self-interest is a far more important reason.
Have to reject this comment on the face of it, while still agreeing with some of your points below. Ultimately the biggest disaster for Africa historically was not the slave trade ( devastaing though it was ), but colonialism. Modern Africa’s problems are a direct result of decades of extractive mismanagement that completely disrupted native polities and left us with the artificial contructs of “nations” we mostly have today. IMHO the connection is a still, even 40-odd years later, a direct one. See also below.
I can’t disagree at all here( except maybe the paternalism part - oversight needn’t be paternalistic, though doubtless you are correct that it has been perceived that way ). I am in no way in favor of a “no strings attached” approach.
Agreed. Corruption is a huge issue.
Change “partially blamed” to “largely blamed” and we’d be on the same page .
Well, I agree here as well, and like I said, I didn’t mean to be so glib in my earlier reply. However if I may take the extreme opposite of that position and rebut it - I think providing no “aid” ( support, training, etc. ) is not a good answer either.
I am perfectly open to a reasonable middle-ground between those two.
Again, I was being a bit glib. I do believe in trans-generational group guilt of a very limited sort ( not generally individual guilt, but collective instituitional guilt of a sort I have a hard time articulating ) - Though you hardly need it here, in some cases we are barely one generation removed from colonialism. I do think that there is a moral obligation ( not surprising, I’m sure - I’ve gone on record as saying that the United States had a moral obligation to help rebuild Afghanistan after the Soviet pullout in 1989, one that it shirked to its misfortune IMO). But I don’t think you have to take that to an unhealthy extreme and there are, as I’ve said, many good reasons in terms of self-interest to provide support to the less fortunate.
Disagree. Proximately you might be right ( though in some cases, not even that, as with the less than happy departure of the Portuguese in the 1970’s, when they stripped every modern piece of equipment and record they could before departing in a fit of post-colonial pique, hamstringing the incoming governments ), but ultimately you are not. MHO only, you understand.
Agreed, here.
The corollary of that - Withholding aid might make things better, doesn’t really hold up either, IMHO.
I understand this and it is a problem. However their are both short-term needs and long-term needs to be addressed. Trying to funnel more aid to extra-governmental and international groups may be part of the solution to dealing with those immediatehort-term problems while we wrestle with the long-term issues.
Despite my litany of protestations, I think you make many good points TruthSeeker. But pretend historian that I am , I still think the impacts of colonialism were profound and continue to this day and bleeding heart that I am, I still think continued aid, in some form is a necessity to ameliorate immediate misery. However I am entirely willing to consider reforming the entire concept behind how and what type of aid is provided.
What would you propose is the solution? ( not rhetorical or snippy - I’m honestly curious )
p.s. - Correction: In an earlier post I referred to FRELIMO. I of course meant RENAMO.
Collounsbury wrote:
Waaaaait a minute … if the GDP went down between 1999 and 2000, how can both 1999 and 2000 have a positive GDP growth rate?!
Very busy presently, don’t have time to check WB methodology, but note that GDP is expressed in current dollars, the GDP growth I think is a real growth rate, perhaps off of the rand rather than dollar GDP.
I would imagine without going back to the data that you’re seeing an artefact of currency translation and real versus current measurements.
This is straight out of the WB World Indicators – I believe you can access without a data subscription – check it out.
Jarl, should Black South Africans be allowed to vote or not?
Well, I might quibble with this. Blacks in the American South had a pretty rough time of it until well into the 1950s. I don’t mean just prejudice, I mean near complete social, economic and political disenfranchisement. You could argue that this permanent underclass did benefit whites and helped promote racism just as keeping Blacks down in South Africa benefitted them there. But this is kind of a side point, I guess. The real point, on which I think we agree is that having an economic incentive to exploit people is at least one factor which contributes to racist attitudes.
**
I totally disagree. “Scientific racism” is 100% skindeep. 
I’d agree that these attitudes were ingrained but more in the way of social custom than of core belief, sort of like men having long hair. I don’t really mean to be flip. It’s actually not a bad analogy. There was enormous generational angst in the 60’s regarding long hair. Nowadays, most people would agree that this is a thoroughly silly thing to get upset about. I think something similar applies to most people’s racial attitudes especially in the 50s and 60s in the U.S. Many whites were simply uncomfortable about minorities for no articulable reason. Rather than being a core belief, racism was just a social convention they had grown used to.
**
Yes, exactly. It’s just what was “done.”
Regarding colonialism in general, my point is that it is all too often an excuse rather than a reason. Yes, no doubt, colonialism dealt Africa a bad hand. That doesn’t mean Africa shouldn’t play its cards to the best of their ability. I must confess that this steams me up not a little. “Look at this mess! It’s all colonialism’s fault!” No, it isn’t. It’s your fault. Now put down the machete and stop trying to decapitate your neighbor. Yes, colonialism created tensions in your society and messed up your social structure. But you’re the person who picked up the machete and you’re the person who can put it down.
I’ve got the same sort of gripe with respect to economic development. Yes, it’s true that colonialism wreaked economic havoc in Africa. That, however, is not an excuse for some of Africa’s leaders to make things even worse. Mugabe is, of course an extreme case but he does have company. Colonial countries need to accept responsibility for creating these problems. Africans need to accept responsibility for failing to begin solving them. It’s absurd for a kleptocratic “government” that has systematically destroyed (or refused to develop) a country’s economic and political institutions to demand money on the basis that colonialism wrecked the country.
To some extent, some of these bad governments are a legacy of past colonial practices. Nonetheless, providing aid, especially in the form of cash, to these same governments is not going to help the situation.
**
Well, it depends. In many cases, HIPCs were given aid in the form of loans, either guaranteed or subsidized, which were subsequently stolen or wasted by corrupt elites. Now, these countries have a crushing debt burden and often have little or nothing to show for it. These countries would have been better off had they not been given this aid. Even grants can fuel corruption and the collapse of efficient and effective government. This is not to say that all aid is bad. However, in the past, far too much aid has, indeed, on balance, done more harm than good.
**
Why would I want to offer something positive when I can snipe from the sidelines?
I don’t really know what I would propose. For one thing, I think it is long past time for donor countries to take a harder line in terms of attaching certain conditions to aid. I don’t mean things like the “buy British/French/US” requirements, which should be dropped. I mean that donor countries should do much more to monitor how aid is spent and insist that it be accompanied by reform.
Some of this will, inevitably, be decidedly un-PC. I’m not suggesting that donor countries should be cultural hegemons. However, far too many completely dysfunctional regimes are given far too much respect. For example, I haven’t the slightest qualm about a donor country insisting that a HIPC take certain, precise steps to begin to combat corruption or to guarantee property rights or reform the judicial system. There are certain basic building blocks that any functioning country needs. If ensuring that a country begins to develop these institutions requires interference in its affairs then that’s what needs to happen.
In addition, heads can, and should, be knocked together far more often, and harder, than they typically are. Just as one example, consider the recent mercifully brief but painfully bloody and expensive war between Eritrea and Ethiopia. Donors did bring some pressure on both sides to end it, but if donors had been more aggressive, it might never have started in the first place.
On this note, there is a good deal to be said for “Costa Ricanizing” much of Africa. Large standing armies are expensive and more likely to be used against the population they are supposed to be defending than they are against any foreign enemy. Eliminating a country’s standing army obviously isn’t going to be practical in every case. Nonetheless, reducing or eliminating armed forces ought to be something that aid donors push for in appropriate cases.
I also think that particularly incompetent or malicious regimes ought to be simply cut off. There’s no point in throwing good money after bad. I’m afraid that in some cases, things have to get worse before they can get better. Propping up some of these regimes may do little other than prolong the country’s wretchedness rather than actually benefit ordinary people.
Finally, I think NGOs ought to be given a bigger – and more “subversive” – role. I’m a firm believer in multiculturalism. Nonetheless, many cultural practices around the world just suck. In some countries, (Bangladesh, for example, IIRC) NGOs are having an enormous impact by educating women. This is drawing a great deal of resentment from certain quarters because it is fundamentally altering the dynamic of traditional society. “You go, girl!” say I.
Some of this may sound like cultural imperialism. However, I don’t believe it is. If aid donors really care about helping people living in desperate poverty rather than merely making themselves feel virtuous, they need to make some difficult, pragmatic choices. If certain regimes don’t want to participate, there is little aid donors can do, especially since handing over cash with no strings attached may be worse than doing nothing at all.
Other than the “Costa Ricanizing” aspect, I have no particular objections to any of your proposals . The only I have objection to that one ( and it’s not even really an objection ) is that it often isn’t the military per se that’s a huge drain, but the corrupt elites that run them ( and often the country ), though in a few cases ( Nigeria perhaps most prominently ) reducing military spending as well as the corruption might be a real help. But in many other cases it might not be very practical as you said, plus a very few countries are going to insist on trying to be regional powers ( again, Nigeria most prominently ), aid and economy bedamned. I think this is the area where your proposed plan(s) of action would likely have the least success.
On colonialism as an excuse - You’re quite right. My father’s side of the family is too blame for the crappy genes that allow me gain weight at the drop of a hat - Doesn’t mean I don’t bear the major responsibility if I get out of shape and fat ( okay, so it’s not a perfect analogy ). My point was just that it was indeed colonialism that led, pretty directly, to this sorry state of affairs, not that it is permissable for Mugabe et al to use that as an excuse to let themselves off the hook for their own malfeasance.
On 19th century racism - I agree with everything, except your core point 
. Yes, it was “just” a part of the social fabric, rather than an indoctrinated credo. But I feel that in many ways that its very pervasiveness was far more powerful. A 19th century white European meeting an educated black man might have been mightily surprised, but I don’t think it would shake their world view - It would just be an exception. Much like people I’ve worked with in the past that were extremely prejudiced ( in private ), but when you asked about their black co-worker would say - “Oh, well, Joe’s okay, he’s not like the rest of them.” :rolleyes: But that’s okay - We can agree to disagree on that minor point - I just think the difference between that sort of “instituitional or societal racism” and “indoctrinated racism” is slimmer than you.
So I don’t think we’re all that far apart, really. As we say on the job - “Close enough for government work” .