An excellent piece and one I wish every US citizen would read. One additional point: I’m fascinated by the fact the when Europeans colonized the Americas, Catholics and Protestants treated this issue of race/ethnicity differently. The Venezuelan viewpoint described here was common to all areas colonized by Catholics, including Louisiana where the mixed race population has long been far greater than in the old Anglo-Protestant south. Protestants, often Puritanical in their beliefs, tended to oppose miscegeny far more vehemently and forebade intermarriage. I believe this holds up historically, but I’d be interested to know what knowledgeable historians make of this.
Race became an industry... an arena where non-profit executives and politicians could farm money-making opportunity, and the media could keep generating lazy copy to sell.
Then we started making real progress after Republicans passed landmark civil rights legislation and beat back the racist Democrats. We got to a point where everyone needed to admit that we had achieved what our great system intended... that all men were created equal under the eyes of our creator, and that racial bias needed to be extinguished from all institutions. What would be left, what would always be left, would be the ubiquitous and scientifically-explained flaw of tribalism that causes some underdeveloped people to demonstrate individual bias against those of other ethnicities and races. And as long as those people never caused material harm to another over their race, we should have been fine with that.
What was needed.... acceptance of our achievement and a commitment to launch civil rights 2.0... a raceless movement toward class equality. A movement that opened up the doors for low income minorities to ascend into the middle class.
But two camps of opposition formed.
One - the race farming industry that had developed did not want to lose their money, fame and vote-getting arena.
Two - the corporatist establishment ruling class, at the time, was pushing a globalist agenda that required selling off American industry and manufacturing and exporting working class jobs to other countries like China and Mexico for bigger Wall Street returns.
Initially, the first camp exploited the Democrat political connections, and the second camp the Republican party. Since Obama is has been the Democrats that have taken over both camps... with a small minority of Republican politicians that continue to be part of this globalist corporatist uniparty.
But today the Democrat party and their Wall Street-powered globalist corporatist billionaire overlords, their coastal and big city liberal cultural progressives (aka cultural radicals), their army of NGOs and all their media activist pals masquerading as journalists, refuse to concede that real institutional racism is bygone and the actual problem with minority outcomes is an economic issue.
They reject civil rights 2.0 because it is inconvenient to their power and money sandbox. They NEED those poor minorities to stay miserable... on the plantation of low economic circumstances... so THEY can continue their looting ways.
I might put this all more simply: As we pick each other to pieces over "pronouns" amd "privilege," the oligarchs keep laughing all the way to the bank.
Then again, racial resentment is a double-edged sword. Today's Republicans represent an oligarchic element that mirrors Democratic race-hustling by playing to the fears and grievances of whites. Remember the Central Park Five? That's as far from "Civil Rights 2.0 " as anything coming from the Democrats.
I agree with you. "Race" should be reduced to a mere physical description. What you don't say, however, is that American "black" elites are the main supporters of this so-called "one drop rule" (which politely excludes Latinos and Arabs). Google the term "passing for white" and you will be deluged with hysterical "black" denunciations of part-black white people who prefer to identify as white and see no reason to pretend to be "black." American blacks and pretend-blacks believe that anyone with "black blood" (no matter how small the amount) has some kind of moral obligation to to identify with blacks and never with whites. One might call it an imaginary brotherhood of "black blood," in which the word "white" is far too superior to describe anyone claimed (usually against their will) by the so-called "black" race.
Those same race-hustlers conjure "whiteness" as an oppressor identity that incorporates Jews and Italians -- and potentially their respective West Coast counterparts, East Asians and Latinos (who are no more nor less "brown" than Italians) -- though when it's politically convenient, they'll speak of the oppressed as "Black and Brown."
Except for those now called BIPOC, we're all descended from immigrants who strove voluntarily to follow their dreams in North America -- most of whom had nothing to do with slavery (or Jim Crow, or even redlining for that matter). At this point, "Whiteness" exists only as a rationale (or foil) for an intransigent Blackness, and as fodder for the foundation-funded scolds on NPR.
The situation appears to be quite different in Peru. Yes, there are a range of skin tones and of ethnicity (indigenous or not). But preference is given to those who appear "white". In fact there is a great deal of concern about "white" Venezuelans migrating to Peru because being white will give them an advantage in the Peruvian job market. White Peruvians were outraged when an indigenous man was elected president and his term was cut short and he was put in jail. When a couple is expecting a baby there is a worry about just how "dark" the baby will be. In other words there is a lot of racism in Peru. Fortunately there is now a group of young people dedicated to bringing awareness to the issue of racism in Peru. They are now working to train teachers in elementary schools so that teachers can bring awareness of this issue to young children.
Good question. His family was involved in forcing the indigenous president out of office and putting him in jail. He was accepted as a representative of the white Peruvians. The indigenous president was Pedro Castillo, the last elected president. The claim was Castillo tried to stage a coup, but all he tried to do was call for new elections of the congress which was stoping him from acting on his platform. Of course the CIA was involved in his removal and now Peru has a "president" who was not elected but acceptable to white Peruvians .
So is this really about "race," or is it about a variety of ideologically-driven (and corrupt) political factions, each running a protection racket and posing as the savior of one or another "racial" group?
There is widespread discrimination against indigenous people in Peru who are a majority of the population. I would describe this as racial discrimination. And a vast majority of them are poor. Castillo proposed to help. I do not believe that he was corrupt (Even if he were corruptible, his time in office was so short he did not have time for corruption). In comparison to the US, however, there is no violence, no calling of the police when an indigenous person is hanging out in a city street or even entering a shop.
Evidently the issue re Castillo was not corruption, nor is he an authoritarian leftist (no fan of Maduro). Especially on issues of race and class, he seems to be that rare and endangered species, an honest politician -- overall, a good guy.
However, he seems to have become become a rather perplexing figure, especially after falling out with leftists in his own party.
In that context, I'm genuinely confused by this (from Wikipedia); perhaps you can clarify:
"A social conservative, Castillo ultimately began to align his policies with Congress and Evangelical groups on social issues, including his opposition to same-sex marriage, gender studies and sex education.
"He also called on Maduro to take Venezuelan refugees back to their native country, saying that Venezuelans arrived in Peru 'to commit crimes.' Castillo described the Venezuelan refugee crisis as an issue of 'human trafficking,' and said that he would give Venezuelans who commit crimes seventy-two hours to leave Peru.
"At a bilateral meeting with president of Brazil Jair Bolsonaro on 3 February 2022, Castillo was seen embracing him. Bolsonaro, who wore Castillo's straw chotano hat, said Castillo was a defender of freedom and 'conservative values.'”
An excellent piece and one I wish every US citizen would read. One additional point: I’m fascinated by the fact the when Europeans colonized the Americas, Catholics and Protestants treated this issue of race/ethnicity differently. The Venezuelan viewpoint described here was common to all areas colonized by Catholics, including Louisiana where the mixed race population has long been far greater than in the old Anglo-Protestant south. Protestants, often Puritanical in their beliefs, tended to oppose miscegeny far more vehemently and forebade intermarriage. I believe this holds up historically, but I’d be interested to know what knowledgeable historians make of this.
Race became an industry... an arena where non-profit executives and politicians could farm money-making opportunity, and the media could keep generating lazy copy to sell.
Then we started making real progress after Republicans passed landmark civil rights legislation and beat back the racist Democrats. We got to a point where everyone needed to admit that we had achieved what our great system intended... that all men were created equal under the eyes of our creator, and that racial bias needed to be extinguished from all institutions. What would be left, what would always be left, would be the ubiquitous and scientifically-explained flaw of tribalism that causes some underdeveloped people to demonstrate individual bias against those of other ethnicities and races. And as long as those people never caused material harm to another over their race, we should have been fine with that.
What was needed.... acceptance of our achievement and a commitment to launch civil rights 2.0... a raceless movement toward class equality. A movement that opened up the doors for low income minorities to ascend into the middle class.
But two camps of opposition formed.
One - the race farming industry that had developed did not want to lose their money, fame and vote-getting arena.
Two - the corporatist establishment ruling class, at the time, was pushing a globalist agenda that required selling off American industry and manufacturing and exporting working class jobs to other countries like China and Mexico for bigger Wall Street returns.
Initially, the first camp exploited the Democrat political connections, and the second camp the Republican party. Since Obama is has been the Democrats that have taken over both camps... with a small minority of Republican politicians that continue to be part of this globalist corporatist uniparty.
But today the Democrat party and their Wall Street-powered globalist corporatist billionaire overlords, their coastal and big city liberal cultural progressives (aka cultural radicals), their army of NGOs and all their media activist pals masquerading as journalists, refuse to concede that real institutional racism is bygone and the actual problem with minority outcomes is an economic issue.
They reject civil rights 2.0 because it is inconvenient to their power and money sandbox. They NEED those poor minorities to stay miserable... on the plantation of low economic circumstances... so THEY can continue their looting ways.
I might put this all more simply: As we pick each other to pieces over "pronouns" amd "privilege," the oligarchs keep laughing all the way to the bank.
Then again, racial resentment is a double-edged sword. Today's Republicans represent an oligarchic element that mirrors Democratic race-hustling by playing to the fears and grievances of whites. Remember the Central Park Five? That's as far from "Civil Rights 2.0 " as anything coming from the Democrats.
I agree with you. "Race" should be reduced to a mere physical description. What you don't say, however, is that American "black" elites are the main supporters of this so-called "one drop rule" (which politely excludes Latinos and Arabs). Google the term "passing for white" and you will be deluged with hysterical "black" denunciations of part-black white people who prefer to identify as white and see no reason to pretend to be "black." American blacks and pretend-blacks believe that anyone with "black blood" (no matter how small the amount) has some kind of moral obligation to to identify with blacks and never with whites. One might call it an imaginary brotherhood of "black blood," in which the word "white" is far too superior to describe anyone claimed (usually against their will) by the so-called "black" race.
https://people.com/parents/craig-melvin-recalls-moment-son-delano-thought-sister-sybil-was-white/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x5K7COjYnQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQp7jeNp_yg&list=PLvzaW1c7S5hQcox9CjaJWA7QKTYXw9Zn2
Those same race-hustlers conjure "whiteness" as an oppressor identity that incorporates Jews and Italians -- and potentially their respective West Coast counterparts, East Asians and Latinos (who are no more nor less "brown" than Italians) -- though when it's politically convenient, they'll speak of the oppressed as "Black and Brown."
Except for those now called BIPOC, we're all descended from immigrants who strove voluntarily to follow their dreams in North America -- most of whom had nothing to do with slavery (or Jim Crow, or even redlining for that matter). At this point, "Whiteness" exists only as a rationale (or foil) for an intransigent Blackness, and as fodder for the foundation-funded scolds on NPR.
The situation appears to be quite different in Peru. Yes, there are a range of skin tones and of ethnicity (indigenous or not). But preference is given to those who appear "white". In fact there is a great deal of concern about "white" Venezuelans migrating to Peru because being white will give them an advantage in the Peruvian job market. White Peruvians were outraged when an indigenous man was elected president and his term was cut short and he was put in jail. When a couple is expecting a baby there is a worry about just how "dark" the baby will be. In other words there is a lot of racism in Peru. Fortunately there is now a group of young people dedicated to bringing awareness to the issue of racism in Peru. They are now working to train teachers in elementary schools so that teachers can bring awareness of this issue to young children.
Where does Fujimori fit into that analysis?
Good question. His family was involved in forcing the indigenous president out of office and putting him in jail. He was accepted as a representative of the white Peruvians. The indigenous president was Pedro Castillo, the last elected president. The claim was Castillo tried to stage a coup, but all he tried to do was call for new elections of the congress which was stoping him from acting on his platform. Of course the CIA was involved in his removal and now Peru has a "president" who was not elected but acceptable to white Peruvians .
So is this really about "race," or is it about a variety of ideologically-driven (and corrupt) political factions, each running a protection racket and posing as the savior of one or another "racial" group?
There is widespread discrimination against indigenous people in Peru who are a majority of the population. I would describe this as racial discrimination. And a vast majority of them are poor. Castillo proposed to help. I do not believe that he was corrupt (Even if he were corruptible, his time in office was so short he did not have time for corruption). In comparison to the US, however, there is no violence, no calling of the police when an indigenous person is hanging out in a city street or even entering a shop.
Thanks! I stand corrected!
Evidently the issue re Castillo was not corruption, nor is he an authoritarian leftist (no fan of Maduro). Especially on issues of race and class, he seems to be that rare and endangered species, an honest politician -- overall, a good guy.
However, he seems to have become become a rather perplexing figure, especially after falling out with leftists in his own party.
In that context, I'm genuinely confused by this (from Wikipedia); perhaps you can clarify:
"A social conservative, Castillo ultimately began to align his policies with Congress and Evangelical groups on social issues, including his opposition to same-sex marriage, gender studies and sex education.
"He also called on Maduro to take Venezuelan refugees back to their native country, saying that Venezuelans arrived in Peru 'to commit crimes.' Castillo described the Venezuelan refugee crisis as an issue of 'human trafficking,' and said that he would give Venezuelans who commit crimes seventy-two hours to leave Peru.
"At a bilateral meeting with president of Brazil Jair Bolsonaro on 3 February 2022, Castillo was seen embracing him. Bolsonaro, who wore Castillo's straw chotano hat, said Castillo was a defender of freedom and 'conservative values.'”