What do you think about this author's critique of racism?

“So what do you think? Can racist practices be seen as nationalist practices?”

Sure, if you are living in Nazi Germany. Fortunately, here in America we have codified in our laws that discrimination based on race is not acceptable.

Hitler is the obvious example. But it’s also current in modern Europe where people are afraid of immigrants.

Obviously, we can expect people who are wrapping racism in a nationalist flag to admit it or even to recognize it. But it seems to me that it happens in this country, too. Some people want to forbid the speaking of languages other than English. They say it’s because it’s “Unamerican” but it seems more xenophobia to me. People get up in arms about modes of dress that reflect “foriegn-ness” and by association, race. Some of my forebearers arrived with nothing to wear except kilts and they were singled out for it. Tiday it’s the turban or the veil.

The best example, of course, is the willingness to suspend what we all thought were rules of law to “protect us” from foreign looking people. Many people agree with the differential treatment prosecuted on Arabic looking people by Homeland Security. And then there’s Arizona, where many people think someone of dark skin should have to prove their innocence even without a hint of a crime.

It’s amazing how far people are willing to compromise what they claim they value if they feel their security is threatened.

@YoBob
I don’t think anyone is saying racism is acceptable…

I don’t know why my brain can’t grasp big words and thoughtful concepts today, but I’ll give it a shot… So, are you saying that some countries or nations prefer to have their own people (for lack of a better phrase) within that area and no one else? Is that it?

@naivete Perhaps you misunderstood. I am saying that while it is true that throughout history there have been instances where nationalism was tied to racism (Nazi Germany being the obvious answer from recent history), this is not the case in the country in which I live as codified in our laws.

@6rant6 @Facade
That’s pretty much what the author is talking about.
People begin worrying about the supposed “safety” of their community when too many “others” start moving in. Some people are more likely than other to “take action” (verbally, or physically) against these people.

@YoBob
I guess by nationalism, I meant the way in which you see your country, city (whatever space you live in).

I think it’s an interesting perspective. I think that rather than having it be about nationalism OR racism, we can view it in terms of compounding effects…that is, in a country where nationalism is highly enforced, racism can take on nationalist overtones but it’s still racism.

Ghassan Hage, the author of the book, uses the example of an attack that occurred in Australia where a White women tore off the head scarf of a Muslim women in a parking lot. Hage argues that the act of tearing off the scarf of the women is done because it is a harmful presence within the White women’s imagined community. Hage asks why the she couldn’t simply let the Muslim women wearing the scarf be and she states: “This is a Christian country. I don’t see why such backward forms of putting down women ought to be allowed. Soon there’ll be too many of them…How would you like it if we end up having to put a veil on, too” (37). The imagined community of this women is threatened by the presence of the scarf of the Muslim women. There is absolutely no room for the “others” to create space.

Hage says: “Racism, in itself, does not carry with it the imperative for action. One can believe that there is a White race, Black race or Yellow race. One can even believe that the White race is superior to the Black and Yellow races. There is nothing in this belief, however, that requires one to act against members of the supposed Black and Yellow race”

No doubt in my mind. A lot of racism is simply this: what are these people doing in my country, they should all be sent back where they came from.

I agree with the author as @flutherother said, but I still don’t understand why people would choose to dislike or hate another person because of their race.

@YoBob Hage’s claim is not that all nationalism has racist overtones or undertones, but rather the converse: all racism has nationalistic overtones or undertones. As a matter of historical fact, this has a lot behind it. Nationalism and racism have been intimately tied together by the Ku Klux Klan, for example, as well as by various separatist/survivalist groups in the United States. Indeed, these groups often frame their desire to eliminate non-whites as a way of defending the nation (claiming that non-whites have a right to exist, just not here).

The Australian case mentioned by @naivete is also a good example here, as is the recent manifestation of France’s longtime racism towards Arabs in the form of l’affaire du voile (i.e., the debate surrounding France’s ban on veils). In this last example, France has shown itself willing to violate one of its most prized commitments—the notion of laïcité—in order to facilitate its racism. For what was supposed to be an impenetrable wall preventing religion from interfering with government and government from interfering with religion has become the rationale for selective secularization of an essentially coercive sort. (Moreover, the sloppiness with which the laws were written have caused some problems for beekeepers.)

Racism has also been used by non-whites in other countries to fuel revolutions against white colonists—movements that also come along with nationalistic themes (“drive the imperialists out for the sake of our country!” and so forth). None of this proves that Hage’s claim is correct, of course, but it does give it a strong empirical basis. Besides, nationalism need not have anything to do with the actual laws of a country (though institutional/structural racism may persist even after the most obviously racist elements of a legal system have been abolished). So the fact that racism is ostensibly against, or at least not enshrined in, the law really has little to do with the connections between racism and nationalism.

I only read the first two or three pages of the chapter, and it seemed to resonate with me. I’ve never considered most attacks [domestic, USA] against Muslims to be particularly ‘racist’ in nature. That’s because not all Muslims wear hijabs and what we instantly recognize as “traditional” Muslim dress for men. And not all Muslims are olive-skinned Semites. But it seems that when these attacks occur, those are the people targeted.

The reason seems to me to be nationalist, as the writer is arguing. That is, “they don’t act like ‘we’ do”, and they seem to identify with ‘non-American’ (which doesn’t just mean non-Christian, but also non-Jewish, non-Hindu, non-Buddhist and non-Atheist, because those people – now – are generally getting a pass). In other words, it’s not just a pro my-nation nationalism, but an anti-nationalism that’s targeted against people “who are obviously Muslim” and therefore (in the attacker’s minds, anyway) ‘non-American’.

So Sikhs, for example, who wear turbans (men) or saris (women) and are also clearly ‘not typically American-looking’ get a pass on most of this type of anti-Nationalist violence, because they’re not part of the targeted group.

That seemed to be the thrust of the writer’s argument vis-a-vis Australian incidents, anyway. I think I would generally agree with that.

This isn’t the first time this kind of mindset has occurred in the USA, either. One hundred years ago our targets were southern and eastern Europeans, who were marginalized, ghettoized and generally shunned. Fifty years before that it was the Irish in the eastern US, and the Japanese and Chinese on the west coast and inland, where they were given jobs as track layers for the railroads, and clothing launderers.

Every action has a context, the aussie woman for example. What is not mentioned is the gang of muslim males who were roaming Sydney and gang raping non muslim females. It was a very scary time and most all white women felt unsafe in the environment. The incident mentioned could very well be a backlash from that. Some of those guys are still in jail and their mothers are still proclaiming their innocence and saying the girls asked for it. I find it interesting that most racism discussed is usually white against non white. There is much racism perpetrated against whites as well, it just doesn’t seem to get the press. I have friends who have traveled and lived in middle eastern countries and the abuse they endure is pretty intense.

I think @rooeytoo brings up an excellent point, indirectly.

It’s only in pretty open and self-critical societies (which tend to be those from non-authoritarian countries, such as those that prevail in Europe and the Americas) that you’ll even find mention of racism as a criticism of their own social problems. No one in Australia, Europe or North America is going to criticize Arab racism and bigotry in the countries where it’s endemic, and not just because of the ‘pot calling the kettle black’, either. You criticize your own family in order to improve it or show how you’ve improved from your beginnings; there’s no point in criticizing the families of others – except in order to foster an ‘us against them’ mindset.

I think it makes for some racists needing to reevaluate their rhetoric.