From: blamb@rodan.hri.com (Bill Lambert)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan
Subject: Economics, War, and Racism
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:37:27 GMT
Reply-To: blamb@rodan.hri.com (Bill Lambert)
Organization: Horizon Research


In recent discussions related to WWII and the Russo-
Japanese War of 1905, the question of whether certain
government's actions had racial or economic motivations
kept cropping up. This is a "chicken and egg" type of
discussion, it seems, but I would like to present how
I think the issues of economics and racism are one and
the same.

{Racism is a difficult term to define exactly, and some
people might argue the terms, but for the puposes set
forth in this article, I will define racism as "self-
differentiation of human groups by negative comparsion
to other human groups". In other words, human groups
define themselves by differentiating themselves from
other human groups by a negative comparison of traits.}

First point: the justifications for racism are definable
as economic issues in some form or another. No matter
how human group differentiation is defined, there is always
an economic component that is at the core of the differentiation.
Whether it be; "we have to pay more taxes to support them";
"they are keeping us from our destiny"; "they aren't trading
with us fairly"; "they won't sell us datatda"; "they are
controlling the banks"; "they are part of the datata conspiracy",
you name it, there is always a key economic component. 

This key economic component, in common human thinking, is seen as
justification, or license, for other, baser forms of differentiation
that may include race, culture, or other characteristics. Aside
from the fear of death, the most important human fear is loss
of sustenance, or economic in nature. When threatened by economic
means, or when sensing a means to gain economic advantage,
almost automatic responses are invoked to isolate one's self
from the cause of the threat or the foil of the advantage. Allies
who's interests are likewise are indentified, and outsiders
or enemies defined. After the definition, or even within the
process of definition, is racism: a secondary artifact of all-
consuming and base economic interests.

Governments that "create" or define economic interests that lie
outside of their borders (or even sometimes within) need not
bother to create the racism - or differentiation - needed to
support their economic adventures. It is a natural process that
will occur by itself with very little encouragement other than
stressing the economic threat of the enemy. 

Should the government stress the racist differentiations, it only
serves to enhance the visability of the economic threat.

Should the government stress the economic threat, it serves to
enhance to natural process of differentiation, or racism.

Sometimes governments have done both, such as Nazi Germany, or
Japan in WWII, or yes.... Cowboys and Indians. In this kind of
environment, there will be hell to pay for someone, or everyone,
as the feedback paths become out of control.

Such a symbiotic relationship between economic activity or direction
and racist inclinations is tribal in nature, and not a recent thing.
During the past industrialized age, the tribal groups and economic
spheres of interest were large enough to give us very visible and
often dire results. Today, in the market economy - a transitional
phase toward a true global economy - it is becoming less evident
how to define a human group that has common economic interests by
strictly racial or national means. This seems on the face of it
good, because it portends less conflicts across international
borders, or along racial lines. However, it also may be an omen
of more internal strife within certain countries, as human group
differentiation for economic purposes may divide across class lines
within a nation, or be divided by value systems, or political
parties.... whatever. But this is just a leopard with different
colored spots.

Just passing thoughts on a Friday afternoon....

- Bill Lambert	 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan