What makes you think you're not a racist?

[Pilchardman]

I don't think it is apposite to this discussion, because Jewishness is both racial (insofar as that concept has any meaning) and cultural.

Criticism of Israeli state policy is neither cultural nor racial, but political.

Indeed it is (or rather, it is not necessarily anti Semitic to criticize Israeli state policy, although of course it is possible to criticize Israeli state policy in an anti Semitic way).

This is relevant to the discussion, in my view, because it is an example of free speech being jumped upon by calling all criticism racist. It is by definition racist to criticize Israel since Israel is the Jewish state, goes the argument. I disagree with that argument.

But it is that kind of view which makes it hard for (some) people to tell whether Blatter was being racist by underestimating the level of racism in football. Which is what the OP wanted to explore, which is why I raised the critique in the first place.

[Pilchardman]

The argument that the Jews have no right historically or biologically to be considered a race is a different argument altogether.

And one that wasn't raised here until you did so now.

[jean]

'm saying that there is a bureaucratic orthodoxy which seeks to blur the distinction between race and culture, and which uses those two terms - race and culture - interchangeably, almost as synonyms. It is that tendency that I am calling Multiculturalism. (Not my term, but one that has long been in use in the way I describe).

Further, I am saying that Multiculturalism is a racist project, and one that suppresses freedom of speech and espouses moral relativism.

But surely, the problem with this is that, as someone said on this thread some time ago, there is no single universally-accepted definition of Multiculturalism that would identify it uncontrovertibly as a racist project.

I am still not clear what happened at the real life diversity seminar that led people to suppose, erroneously, that what was in fact a cultural practice was a racial characteristic.

[Pilchardman]

To talk about cultural practices is not to deny to individuals the possibility of being, as individuals, social or political agents.

Not sure where that came from, either. But, no, you're right, it doesn't.

[jean]

The argument that the Jews have no right historically or biologically to be considered a race is a different argument altogether.

And one that wasn't raised here until you did so now.

This link was posted by John Skelton in #177:

http://inventionofthejewishpeople.com/

That's what I was replying to.

I have no wish to 'raise' this topic, believe me.

[Pilchardman]

I am still not clear what happened at the real life diversity seminar that led people to suppose, erroneously, that what was in fact a cultural practice was a racial characteristic.

That is one example. I'm sorry it has attracted so much focus, since it's the principle that counts rather than the specifics. However, what happened is that the seminar leaders were of the view that culture and race are much the same thing, and therefore that giving offence by being ignorant of culture is by definition to be racist. It isn't. One can give offence culturally without being racist. But, furthermore, the seminar over-generalised one cultural meme (that in certain Asian cultures one does not hand anything to anyone with one's left hand) to apply to all Asians. It doesn't apply to all Asians at all, and even those to whom it does apply would know perfectly well, I'm very sure, when offence was intended and when it wasn't.

This is a general feature of Multiculturalism. It stereotypes and over applies at the same time as claiming to admonish stereotyping. It also seeks to divide people into Cultures. This is your Culture. This is yours. People who look like you must have this culture. It furthermore seeks to say that all people of one Culture (thus defined) have more in common with each other than they do with people outside that culture. Thus a working class British Asian will thought to be properly represented by a barrister who happens to be Asian (a "community leader"), regardless of the fact that they might have more in common with a white working class person. "No", Multiculturalism will say, "you have identity of interest due to culture, not class". It is identity politics of the worst kind.

[jean]

Not sure where that came from, either. But, no, you're right, it doesn't.

It 'came from' John Skelton's the claim that people are defined by cultural practices (generally seen as 'otherness') rather than as social or political agents. (my emphasis).

I don't think that the fact that people are individual social or political agents means that some of their actions and reactions may not be influenced by cultural factors. I don't think that we should not talk about such cultural factors. I do think we should not ascribe such cultural factors to racial groups.

I hope that's clear.

[Pilchardman]

This link was posted by John Skelton in #177:

http://inventionofthejewishpeople.com/

That's what I was replying to.

I have no wish to 'raise' this topic, believe me.

I haven't read Schlomo Sand's book, but I don't read that link as saying that Jews have no right historically or biologically to be considered a race. However, it is, you are right, a topic for another thread.

[Pilchardman]

It 'came from' John Skelton's the claim that people are defined by cultural practices (generally seen as 'otherness') rather than as social or political agents. (my emphasis).

I don't think that the fact that people are individual social or political agents means that some of their actions and reactions may not be influenced by cultural factors. I don't think that we should not talk about such cultural factors. I do think we should not ascribe such cultural factors to racial groups.

I hope that's clear.

I don't think John was saying people aren't influenced by cultural factors. I'm certainly not saying that. Of course they are. And of course we should talk about cultural factors.

It seems we're in agreement.

[jean]

However, what happened is that the seminar leaders were of the view that culture and race are much the same thing, and therefore that giving offence by being ignorant of culture is by definition to be racist. It isn't. One can give offence culturally without being racist. But, furthermore, the seminar over-generalised one cultural meme (that in certain Asian cultures one does not hand anything to anyone with one's left hand) to apply to all Asians. It doesn't apply to all Asians at all, and even those to whom it does apply would know perfectly well, I'm very sure, when offence was intended and when it wasn't.

Thanks - that's much clearer now, and I agree with what you say.

This is a general feature of Multiculturalism. It stereotypes and over applies at the same time as claiming to admonish stereotyping. It also seeks to divide people into Cultures. This is your Culture. This is yours. People who look like you must have this culture. It furthermore seeks to say that all people of one Culture (thus defined) have more in common with each other than they do with people outside that culture.

But then we're back to a universal definition of multiculturalism, which I don't think exists.

Thus a working class British Asian will thought to be properly represented by a barrister who happens to be Asian (a "community leader"), regardless of the fact that they might have more in common with a white working class person. "No", Multiculturalism will say, "you have identity of interest due to culture, not class". It is identity politics of the worst kind.

I certainly agree that the idea that race/culture trumps class may be used as classic divide-and-rule tactics.

But working-class barristers of any race are pretty thin on the ground.

[Pilchardman]

But working-class barristers of any race are pretty thin on the ground.

Yes they are. My point is that working class "community leaders" are even thinner on the ground, since "community leader" by definition means, to the elite, "people like us".

[Pilchardman]

But then we're back to a universal definition of multiculturalism, which I don't think exists.

Well, what I'm defining as Multiculturalism is the project inspired by, and used in the furtherance of the interests of, the neoliberal elite. AKA the Thatcherites and post-Thatcherites who have been in power since the 70s.

What David Cameron calls "multiculturalism" is another thing all together.

[John Skelton]

It 'came from' John Skelton's the claim that people are defined by cultural practices (generally seen as 'otherness') rather than as social or political agents. (my emphasis).

I don't think that the fact that people are individual social or political agents means that some of their actions and reactions may not be influenced by cultural factors

Of course not. I was suggesting that 'multiculturalism' could be seen as way of defining people in terms of 'culture', eliding their status as social or political agents (it could be seen as working against class solidarity, for instance. So that class doesn't matter. Culture or, indeed, in another discourse, sexuality does). That's not the same as saying that cultural practices are irrelevant or unimportant or to be ridden roughshod over.

Israel had already been introduced into the conversation. The point I was getting at is that Israel defines itself, as a State, racially. The intersection of that level of racial self-definition with its dark negative is something Sand examines: he doesn't say that Jews have "no right historically or biologically to be considered a race" - he argues that Jews are neither historically nor biologically a race, but that's rather different to saying they have no "right" to; he deconstructs the identification of nationhood with membership of a race (in the context of Israel, but beyond Israel. The irony, of course, is that outside the Israeli context his argument would be considered anti-racist and is often made in the context of anti-racist - genuinely anti-racist - arguments. Deconstructing the claims of 'white British' or 'white European' 'supremacists'. In the Israeli context, though, he is accused of aiding and abetting anti-semitism).

[Pilchardman]

Israel had already been introduced into the conversation. The point I was getting at is that Israel defines itself, as a State, racially. The intersection of that level of racial self-definition with its dark negative is something Sand draws attention to: he doesn't say that Jews have "no right historically or biologically to be considered a race"; he deconstructs the identification of nationhood with membership of a race (in the context of Israel, but beyond Israel. The irony, of course, is that outside the Israeli context his argument would be considered anti-racist and is often made in the context of anti-racist - genuinely anti-racist - arguments. Deconstructing the claims of 'white British' or 'white European' 'supremacists'. In the Israeli context, though, he is accused of aiding and abetting anti-semitism).

Similar vilification has occurred of Norman Finklestein (himself a New York Jew, and son of Holocaust survivors) and Ilan Pappe (Israeli historian and author of "the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine"). Both are called "self-hating Jews" and accused of anti Semitism, for daring to critique the Israeli state and its origins.

[jean]

Of course not. I was suggesting that 'multiculturalism' could be seen as way of defining people in terms of 'culture', eliding their status as social or political agents (it could be seen as working against class solidarity, for instance. So that class doesn't matter. Culture or, indeed, in another discourse, sexuality does). That's not the same as saying that cultural practices are irrelevant or unimportant or to be ridden roughshod over.

Well, yes. But a certain kind of left-wing politics has done precisely that. The refusal to see women (for example) as having interests different from those of the working class in general has enabled Trade Unions to ignore their specific concerns, especially when they conflicted with those of men.

So that argument cuts both ways.

Israel had already been introduced into the conversation.

I am aware that you weren't the first to mention it. But it was your post I was replying to.

he argues that Jews are neither historically nor biologically a race, but that's rather different to saying they have no "right" to...

If they aren't, then they have no right to claim to be. If they are, they have that right. That's all I mean.

But I don't want to discuss Israel on this thread, beyond endorsing Pilchardman's

It is not necessarily anti Semitic to criticize Israeli state policy, although of course it is possible to criticize Israeli state policy in an anti Semitic way.