Libertarians who think they can discuss empire, occupation and torture without discussing racism can go fuck themselves in the fucking face.
— Comrade Keaton (@Antiwar2) July 6, 2014Something tells me that racism used in this context is not limited to objections relating to government laws and regulations based on race, but extends to individual interactions, where people choose to interact with some people and not with others. Perhaps Comrade Keaton can clarify. As I have written before, I do not consider racism in the sense of individuals freely choosing to limit interactions with specific races a big deal. SEE: Why Racism Is No Big Deal.And this type of limited interactions can in no way be categorized with the abusive methods of empire, occupation and war.
-RW
Sure, if we were that simple minded, we could just (like the liberals do with every issue) blame the government's horrific foreign policy on "racism".
ReplyDeletePeople in the Middle East are of a different ethnicity from the invaders of their countries. That's gotta be the reason "we're" over there.
These people (liberals posing as libertarians) are full on Marxist in their analysis. Instead of focusing on the obvious reality (military adventurism/ global hegemony) they think they (and only they) can see the REAL underlying issue driving humanity; race or class oppression.
The sad thing is, they're actually only looking for street cred with those they look down upon in society. Shouting from the roof tops: "I'm so NOT racist! Look at me! I bring up racism constantly, so I'm obviously righteous!"
When "race" or "group rights" or any sort of collectivist/tribalist theory is at the base of anything and everything you do (instead of individual liberty), it's seems clear that you're, simply, a racist.
"Otherization" of the target population is an important aspect of how the state builds a threat narrative against them. Race can easily figure into this as it is an aspect of otherness. To ignore this is silly.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad I'm not the only one sitting here wondering how on earth an otherwise bright man can willfully ignore the historical fact that racism was a motivating factor for European colonialism (also religion and "capitalism" were also main factors). Furthermore, his (RW's) analysis that people deciding not to interact with some people, because of their race or otherwise, is totally a-okay is completely irrelevant to a discussion on empire and colonization. Yes, Wenzel, free-association allows you to NOT interact with some people. However, the concept of free-association does not extend to the positive nature of empire and colonization--that is, going there and forcibly interacting with other people and cultures in order to subjugate them, convert them, and exploit them. To even speak of free association in the context of empire is to show a complete lack of understanding about what the phenomenon of imperialism is at its most basic level.
Delete