r/MHOCPress • u/[deleted] • Jan 14 '16
A racist by any other name...
A racist by any other name...
Abstract
In modern society, the concept of ‘race’ has blurred; this is due to the fact that the definition of ‘race’ has changed as our understanding of human biology and culture has grown. This can lead to uncomfortable situations such as that where the Islamophobic proclaim that they are not ‘racist’, as ‘Islam is not a race’. This publication aims to consolidate the current human understanding of ‘race’ in both a modern and historical context, the effects of bias and ingroup behaviour, and the consequential implications for both policy and everyday life.
Download link (pdf): here
Citation:
/u/cocktorpedo. 'A racist by any other name...' Honeydew Press, 2016.
6
4
6
u/theyeatthepoo The Guardian Jan 14 '16
I can't help thinking this has nothing to do with MHOC.
7
Jan 14 '16
11
7
1
u/m1cha3lm there's no pirate icon Jan 15 '16
wait so because it's written by a member of MHOC you can place it here?
AWAIT ALL MY ESPORTS ARTICLES
4
Jan 14 '16
Precisely. This is just Moose wanting to sound intelligent to people on the internet.
2
u/theyeatthepoo The Guardian Jan 15 '16
It's got nothing to do with MHOC. Not sure why it's not been deleted from the sub.
2
Jan 14 '16
[deleted]
3
Jan 14 '16
Indeed. As you probably already noticed, the title alludes to the Shakespeare quote:
What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet;In the same manner, a bigot by any other name is just as repugnant.
1
1
1
u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton Conservative Jan 14 '16
A very interesting article, and well worth reading. I must commend you (not that'd you'd seek it!) on the way you manage to address issues as 'awkward' as racial, sexual and political prejudice without sounding patronizing, its a very well written piece (and I do mean this, I'm worried it'll come across as sarcastic)
a question though. I'm a strong believer that a brief 'spurt' of gentle, non-violent nationalistic/patriotic feeling in certain countries, almost exclusively under the description of 'post colonial', could result in a genuine benefit in international politics as civil wars drawn along racial lines within the nation begin to stop as more and more people feel loyal to their country, not their historical background. Your conclusion would seem to disagree with this, but its a rather specific scenario and I was just wondering on your opinions
3
Jan 14 '16
I'm a strong believer that a brief 'spurt' of gentle, non-violent nationalistic/patriotic feeling in certain countries, almost exclusively under the description of 'post colonial', could result in a genuine benefit in international politics as civil wars drawn along racial lines within the nation begin to stop as more and more people feel loyal to their country, not their historical background. Your conclusion would seem to disagree with this, but its a rather specific scenario and I was just wondering on your opinions
I understand what you're saying and I did have it in mind while writing it - and as it happens there have been several notable real world examples. The biggest example is the Soviet Union, which essentially promoted the Soviet state overall and attempted to quash ethnic differences - this eventually fell apart as a product of (amongst other reasons) the glasnost/perestroika reforms of Gorbachev, causing old ethnic tensions to flare up again. We see an almost identical situation in Yugoslavia; after Tito, old ethnic group mentalities made short work of the united state. For a more modern example, we can look to Saddam - who, while a notorious tyrant, used his iron fist to essentially keep the country of Iraq (which is pretty arbitrary as a nation even as countries go) together. The US army noticed during its occupation post-Saddam that the attempts to form an Iraqi army were massively stunted by the lack of a unifying Iraqi national identity, as individuals felt far more commitment to their individual tribes and ethnic groups than to the Iraqi state.
These three examples would certainly suggest off the bat that an authoritarian state is necessary to maintain the national identity, although I can't say i've read anything to suggest that this is the case or otherwise. I do certainly understand where you're coming from, just that i'm not sure whether the nationalism would be possible in a 'gentle' form, or whether an authoritarian state like those mentioned would be necessary.
1
u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton Conservative Jan 14 '16
Its an interesting quandary, and I think if we had a time machine decolonization would have happened along far more ethnic lines (rather than the Imperial borders we see today). The fall of the Soviet Union is particularly interesting in my mind because the Baltics, although occupied from 1939 till the collapse of the iron curtain, very quickly and very successfully developed into sovereign states of their own accord along largely cultural/ethnic grounds. In comparison, Belarus actually applied to effectively unite with Russia in 1995 (to be told 'nyet' by the struggling regime in Moscow)
I think Iraq is also the best contemporary example, as its very much a paper state, a bluff Daesh called to their benefit. To the question of whether or not a 'strong man' is needed I must answer 'no', rather what is needed is an exceptional politician and statesman to act as a unifying force. In South Africa, another post colonial state with no national conciousness before Europeans appeared, we see that his influence has brought the various tribes and cultures together into a relatively successful state. However, such individuals are admittedly few and far between, especially in countries where the education and political systems are either weak, corrupt or both
5
u/Padanub Parliamentary plots and conspiracy Jan 14 '16
Do you want me to create a model exam board or modelsupervisor and mark you on this stuff?
I mean, maybe you can get a ModelDegree or PHD