Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 10:44:49 +1000
Subject: Re: AUT: Re: The Seduction of Unreason: The Intellectual Romance
From: Thiago Oppermann <thiago_oppermann-AT-bigpond.com>


On 21/4/2004 2:07 AM, ".: s0metim3s :." <s0metim3s-AT-optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> Levi-Strauss can be accused of many things,
> including a shonky 'cultural relativism' (which is
> not, btw, a feature of any postmodernism I've come
> across, and) which, to be fair, L-S saw as a
> strategy against colonial assimilationism (hardly
> symmetrical with de Gobineau or Herder).  Sure, a
> version of cultural relativism has been used in
> recent times as a new form of racism (a la Le Pen
> and Hansonites here in Australia); but its
> references are precisely Herder, not Levi-Strauss.
> And, isn't it peculiar that the the first solid
> critique of multiculti ('everyone in their place')
> racism came from Balibar?  Dastardly antihumanist.

It's a long bow to draw to suggest that Herder is the intellectual precedent
of Hanson, who probably never heard of the guy. I think there is a way in
which he exemplifies something that Hanson also exemplifies, but first you
need to look at the actual precedents of Hanson. The intellectual millieu
from which her thought has emerged has in fact come from... the antihumanist
liberalism, or rather, counter-humanitarianist liberalism,  of Australian
racists, including the League of Rights and associated scum. It's worthwhile
to read the sources of ultra-right Australia, back through the maniacal cold
war ALR publications, through to a corporativist publication such as the
Social Creditor, or the material from the Citizens for a Sane Democracy.
(All of which was often 'sensible' and 'commendable' or 'provocative' enough
to make its way onto more mainstream publications, as that which we're all
thinking but not saying.)

The validation of racism has from the beginning been cast not, primarily, in
terms of linguistic nationalism ­ which, I believe, is a strategy for
subaltern nationalism, of which Herder's is the prototype and Hanson an
example ­ but in terms of a language entirely built into British imperial
notions of civil rights, freedom, etc... Even in Hanson, the criticism is
still how racist all those Asians are. They will destabilize our nice
non-racist society. Looking back at publications such as Pacific Islands
Monthly, or the Rabaul Times ­ which were the voice of Australians at the
frontline of colonial domination ­ one finds a discourse that is suffused
with concern that 'race feeling' will spread to the indigenous population.
When these liberal racists talk about racism, it's always "They, the
racists". Colonialism is Their colonialism ­ eg. in West Papua. Our
'colonialism', by contrast, is a sacred trust. The justification is straight
out of Locke: children, natives, women and other beasts need to be loved
toughly. I think that it is far to generous to suggest these are merely
hypocrisies and cynical deployments of liberalism. At the very least, we
have to recognise that liberalism can be moulded, quite naturally, into an
instrument of domination and power. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone
who's ever read Locke... There are plenty of resources of racists to draw on
before they start pilfering from Fascists.

Thiago Oppermann











     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---