Not talking about races does not lead naturally to the demise of 'race thinking' – it just obscures the persistent inequalities
It's become something of a commonplace to speak of the US as having entered a post-racial age. Both the right and the left have heralded the end of race, either triumphantly or as a way of dismissing talk of racism as so much political correctness. However, in Europe, the debate about race – post- or otherwise – is virtually non-existent compared with North America, where race never really goes away as a topic no matter how much people wish it would. Which is why it is surprising that the issue has become a significant part of François Hollande's term in office. During the French presidential elections last spring, the Socialist candidate pledged to remove the word "race" from the French constitution. Currently, it states that "France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social republic. It guarantees equality before the law for all citizens without distinction of origin, race or religion." He is promising to effect that change before the summer.
Critics of the move have accused Hollande of politically correct pandering to anti-racists. Hollande can certainly be identified with a tradition in French anti-racism, embodied by SOS Racism, funded by the Socialist party since the early 1980s, which sees the solution to racism in the upholding of the principles of French republicanism. Some of his closest political allies are former SOS leaders; Harlem Desir now leads the Socialist party. However, it would be wrong to reduce Hollande's commitment to correcting the constitution to politicking. Rather, his declaration that "there is no place in the Republic for race" is revealing of a longer continental European discomfort with evoking race, which says more about Europe's view of itself than any real commitment to overcoming racism.
If ending racism were as simple as banning the one word, racism would be a thing of the past in Europe where, following the Holocaust, "race" was rightly declared a scientifically bogus term and officially dismissed as adding nothing to the understanding of human difference. However, racism did not simply melt away, as the French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, whose participation in the Unesco anti-racist project which led the charge against race from the early 1950s, admitted later.
Not talking about races does not lead naturally to the demise of "race thinking". This is because structured into the well-intentioned project to discredit race as a concept was its simplistic reduction to a pseudo-science based on a system of biological classification said to determine differences in human ability.
However, science was but one of the routes used for justifying the systemic oppression and exploitation of people considered expendable. Very often, these people stood in the way of profit (as in the case of imperialism), or could be used to increase it (as in slavery). Sometimes they challenged a hegemonic belief system (as under the Spanish Inquisition) or came to be seen as detrimental to the national project (nazism).
What makes racism a modern phenomenon, rather than a perennial one, is that theory and science could be used to make the inequality upon which these systems of exploitation relied appear natural. The common argument about slavery, for example, was that slaves would not know what to do if freed as it was in their nature to be dominated by "superior" whites. The justifications were not purely biological or to do with skin colour. Culture, religion and nationality were seen as coterminous with biology. White Jews were racially inferior; their culture was seen as being inscribed on what Stuart Hall calls their unseen "genetic code".
This is why amending the French constitution, rather than being an anti-racist stance, contributes to concealing the centrality of race to the past and present of modern Europe. Seeing race as connected only with the bogus science behind the Holocaust denies the myriad ways in which race is given meaning. Tying race to a single inexorable historical event, seen as completely at odds with what are portrayed as being Europe's democratic traditions, disconnects it from colonialism, which is given a more positive spin as a civilising rather than a murderous mission. The Holocaust may well be the worst example of racism. However, claiming a special place for race by associating it uniquely with a single historical event has the effect of making it literally unmentionable in other contexts.
This is particularly important today, when state-sanctioned discrimination against Muslims in Europe, perhaps most especially in France, recalls the widespread social and political antisemitism of the early 20th century. Banishing references to race risks banalising these forms of racism by making them about culture or religion, and thus not properly racist. But what racism does is to naturalise things such as religion, making possible the identification of all Muslims with the actions of a minority of extremists and justifying the denial of religious freedom and equality of citizenship.
For those who see Hollande's race promise as an anti-racist endeavour, the fact that Hollande's old rival, Nicolas Sarkozy, opposes the move is unsurprising. Race, he stated, should be retained "so that no one ever forgets the millions of victims of the greatest racist enterprise the world has ever known". In fact, Sarkozy and Hollande are united in their view of race as unique to the Holocaust. Their attitudes to contemporary racism differ little: both treat France's Muslim population as either uncontrollable hooligans or unassimilable fanatics. Both hound undocumented migrants and detain children. Hollande's incursion into Mali comes on the back of his refusal to apologise for French colonialism during a recent visit to Algeria, echoing his predecessor.
It is unlikely that Hollande believes his election pledge is the silver bullet to obliterate racism. Like Sarkozy, he seeks to promote an easily digestible view of cultural diversity that obscures the persistent inequalities that – it is undeniable – have their roots in race. The scapegoating of Islam and Muslims, the racialised inequality in housing, education, and employment, and the dominance of a Republican ethos that denies the true diversity of French society go on. Not talking about race won't make them go away. Reported by guardian.co.uk 1 hour ago.
It's become something of a commonplace to speak of the US as having entered a post-racial age. Both the right and the left have heralded the end of race, either triumphantly or as a way of dismissing talk of racism as so much political correctness. However, in Europe, the debate about race – post- or otherwise – is virtually non-existent compared with North America, where race never really goes away as a topic no matter how much people wish it would. Which is why it is surprising that the issue has become a significant part of François Hollande's term in office. During the French presidential elections last spring, the Socialist candidate pledged to remove the word "race" from the French constitution. Currently, it states that "France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social republic. It guarantees equality before the law for all citizens without distinction of origin, race or religion." He is promising to effect that change before the summer.
Critics of the move have accused Hollande of politically correct pandering to anti-racists. Hollande can certainly be identified with a tradition in French anti-racism, embodied by SOS Racism, funded by the Socialist party since the early 1980s, which sees the solution to racism in the upholding of the principles of French republicanism. Some of his closest political allies are former SOS leaders; Harlem Desir now leads the Socialist party. However, it would be wrong to reduce Hollande's commitment to correcting the constitution to politicking. Rather, his declaration that "there is no place in the Republic for race" is revealing of a longer continental European discomfort with evoking race, which says more about Europe's view of itself than any real commitment to overcoming racism.
If ending racism were as simple as banning the one word, racism would be a thing of the past in Europe where, following the Holocaust, "race" was rightly declared a scientifically bogus term and officially dismissed as adding nothing to the understanding of human difference. However, racism did not simply melt away, as the French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, whose participation in the Unesco anti-racist project which led the charge against race from the early 1950s, admitted later.
Not talking about races does not lead naturally to the demise of "race thinking". This is because structured into the well-intentioned project to discredit race as a concept was its simplistic reduction to a pseudo-science based on a system of biological classification said to determine differences in human ability.
However, science was but one of the routes used for justifying the systemic oppression and exploitation of people considered expendable. Very often, these people stood in the way of profit (as in the case of imperialism), or could be used to increase it (as in slavery). Sometimes they challenged a hegemonic belief system (as under the Spanish Inquisition) or came to be seen as detrimental to the national project (nazism).
What makes racism a modern phenomenon, rather than a perennial one, is that theory and science could be used to make the inequality upon which these systems of exploitation relied appear natural. The common argument about slavery, for example, was that slaves would not know what to do if freed as it was in their nature to be dominated by "superior" whites. The justifications were not purely biological or to do with skin colour. Culture, religion and nationality were seen as coterminous with biology. White Jews were racially inferior; their culture was seen as being inscribed on what Stuart Hall calls their unseen "genetic code".
This is why amending the French constitution, rather than being an anti-racist stance, contributes to concealing the centrality of race to the past and present of modern Europe. Seeing race as connected only with the bogus science behind the Holocaust denies the myriad ways in which race is given meaning. Tying race to a single inexorable historical event, seen as completely at odds with what are portrayed as being Europe's democratic traditions, disconnects it from colonialism, which is given a more positive spin as a civilising rather than a murderous mission. The Holocaust may well be the worst example of racism. However, claiming a special place for race by associating it uniquely with a single historical event has the effect of making it literally unmentionable in other contexts.
This is particularly important today, when state-sanctioned discrimination against Muslims in Europe, perhaps most especially in France, recalls the widespread social and political antisemitism of the early 20th century. Banishing references to race risks banalising these forms of racism by making them about culture or religion, and thus not properly racist. But what racism does is to naturalise things such as religion, making possible the identification of all Muslims with the actions of a minority of extremists and justifying the denial of religious freedom and equality of citizenship.
For those who see Hollande's race promise as an anti-racist endeavour, the fact that Hollande's old rival, Nicolas Sarkozy, opposes the move is unsurprising. Race, he stated, should be retained "so that no one ever forgets the millions of victims of the greatest racist enterprise the world has ever known". In fact, Sarkozy and Hollande are united in their view of race as unique to the Holocaust. Their attitudes to contemporary racism differ little: both treat France's Muslim population as either uncontrollable hooligans or unassimilable fanatics. Both hound undocumented migrants and detain children. Hollande's incursion into Mali comes on the back of his refusal to apologise for French colonialism during a recent visit to Algeria, echoing his predecessor.
It is unlikely that Hollande believes his election pledge is the silver bullet to obliterate racism. Like Sarkozy, he seeks to promote an easily digestible view of cultural diversity that obscures the persistent inequalities that – it is undeniable – have their roots in race. The scapegoating of Islam and Muslims, the racialised inequality in housing, education, and employment, and the dominance of a Republican ethos that denies the true diversity of French society go on. Not talking about race won't make them go away. Reported by guardian.co.uk 1 hour ago.