In my previous post, I engaged Deleuze and Guattari’s notion of the White-Man face. I was not simply claiming that we need to repaint our images of Jesus. Rather, I was pointing out that such images have an oppressive quality to them. Imagine a world in which your God does not look like you. Mother Mary looks nothing like your mother. Most of those in authority do not look like you or your siblings. The people on your currency do not resemble your father. Santa Clause looks nothing like your grandfather. And so on… Perhaps there would be cause for you to think that you were in some way inferior. The real point here is that “the Church” has been guilty of following suit with racist ideology. In order to retain power within a white-world, “the Church” has whitewashed itself. Catholicism is facing this issue at the present moment. Most Catholics live in the so-called “third world.” Yet, Catholic leadership is dominated by Europeans. It should not be difficult to realize where this becomes a matter of conflict. I raise this as a concern so that Christians in general will be sensitive to ways through which we perpetuate racial oppression.
Racialization, the systemic and systematic oppression of persons according to racial categories, not only affects those typically thought to be the “oppressed minorities.” It bears down upon the identity of all persons living within a racialized system. In other words, racism cuts like a double-edged sword that conditions both the oppressor and the oppressed. The negative affects conditioning the oppressed, no doubt, are more obvious to us. However, within certain projects rests an implicit conditioning of the oppressor as well. For example, in 1712, South Carolina passed An Act for the Better Ordering and Governing of Negroes and Slaves. Despite the title, the emphasis of the act is on the treatment of “negroes,” who, at the time, were considered synonymous with slaves. Let’s focus on the first four paragraphs of the act:
Introduction: Negroes are unsafe for civilized society. “Negroes and other slaves brought unto the people of this province for [labor] are of barbarous, wild, savage natures, and such as renders them wholly unqualified to be governed by laws, customs, or practice.”
I. Declared slave or free by the government: Even if a slave owner grants freedom, the government still has the final say. “And in case any negro, mulatoe, mustizoe, or Indian, doth lay claim to his or her freedom, upon all or any of the said accounts, the same shall be finally heard and determined by the governor and council of this province.”
II. Permission to move: Negroes must attain a pass to leave the plantation. Failure to have a pass will result in being whipped. White men (not the owner) who see a negro without a pass and fail to whip the negro “shall forfeit twenty shillings, the one half to the [parish].”
III. Inspection: “That every master, mistress or overseer of a family in this province, shall cause all his negro houses to be searched diligently and effectually, once every fourteen days.” Note that at this point, negro and slave are synonyms.
We can see that this act mentally and socially conditioned both the slave and the free. It not only states what a slave may legally do, it also enforces the way in which whites are supposed to act. It states the way(s) in which whites should socially engage "negroes"/non-whites. The racism here affects both parties. It provides reinforcement for racialization. While this may seem to be a remote, historically old illustration, projects like these have, over time, shaped identity.
In Idea for a Universal History (1784), Kant, writing about political formation, claims that
If we finally add the political history of other peoples episodically, in so far as knowledge of them has gradually come down to us through these enlightened nations, we shall discover a regular process of improvement in the political constitutions of our continent [Europe] which will probably legislate eventually for all other countries (Kant: Political Writings, 52).
Kant, like many other Aufklarer, held the Eurocentric view that only persons descending from Europe were governed by laws. Governance by law was understood to be superior to governance by custom or opinion. Does "the Church" function in a similar way? Is white Christianity (or white Christianities) the norm? Who determines the modes of discourse and action for "the Church"? Who controls doctrine?
This hierarchy is most clearly seen in Linneaus’s The System of Nature (1735). Linnaeus thought that humankind was mandated to understand and classify nature as a means of bettering its knowledge of God. God had, in fact, ordained the alleged culturally elevated to classify all living things. He states that five types of humans exist. The first we would consider to be chimpanzees, gorillas, etc. With the other four, Linnaeus describes physical appearance, clothing, and personality:
1. Four footed, mute, hairy. Wild man.
2. Copper-coloured, choleric, erect. American
Hair black, straight, thick; nostrils wide; face harsh; beard scanty; obstinate, content, free. Paints himself with fine red lines. Regulated by customs.
3. Fair, sanguine, brawny. European.
Hair yellow, brown, flowing; eyes blue; gentle, acute, inventive. Covered with close vestments. Governed by laws.
4. Sooty, melancholy, rigid.
Hair black; eyes dark; fevere, haughty, covetous. Covered with loose garments. Governed by opinions.
5. Black, phlegmatic, relaxed.
Hair black, frizzled; skin silky; nose flat; lips tumid; crafty, indolent, negligent. Anoints himself with grease. Governed by caprice.
Notice the stark differences between each category. While these distinctions are overly simplistic, they retain some importance for racialization. In the end, they help affirm white privilege and the status quo. This is not to deny the importance of customs or opinions. Rather, I am noting that when our predecessors speak of “law” or even “reason,” they are speaking of European law and rationality. They assumed that there was only one proper form of reason, one proper notion of law. Those who do not follow the one proper form are deemed deviant.
I think it would be safe to say that most people are unaware of this sort of conditioning. Nevertheless, projects like these have helped shape our society. So what are we to make of these things in our contemporary time? First, there is a need for us to understand the history that we have inherited. Second, we must be cognizant of the various ways that conditioning still occurs. Third, racialization must be dismantled, while still embracing both identity and diversity, and white privilege reformed into an order of equality. The latter seems to be the more difficult process—one to which I am open to suggestions for proceeding.
Recent Comments