Racisms is a word and a concept that is often used in the current discussions within society, but what is it really? And what is the history behind the concept?
Let us try to trace it back to its origin and discuss the concept of today. The focus on race started with Darwin. In his very famous book Origin of the species, he discussed the development of nature. The thoughts of Darwin have been reflected through the times, in according to the ethics of the time. Darwin published his work in the time of Victoria, so sex and the more profane nature of things was overlooked. It is a petty, because his main work was actually not on the selection by habitat, but selection by sexuality, or if you will love.
The unbalanced focus on the negative trends of nature; selection by strength or strife, led to an emphasis on the waraspect of nature. This was put into a social theoretical frame, that ultimately led to the racial theories of the Third Reich. The theory was, that not only animal races compete over ressources, but also human races do the same. As a consequence of this idea, Hitler proclaimed that the aryan race was in war with the jewish race. The arabs really liked this idea, although they are very closely related to the jews. Both jews and arabs are semites.
To have an unbalanced wiev on nature is allways very dangerous, and the sole focus on war and the absence of love, gave an extremely violent and evil ideology.
Now, the nazi theories did not end with the fall of the Third reich, it survived in the middle east, actually it merged with Islam through the work of the muslim philosopher Sayyid Qutb. The father of organisations as the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Quada. How Qutb reflected on Darwins race theory, I regrettably do not have any knowledge, but looking at the result of his work; Al Quada, something tells me that the love part of Darwin did not play any role in his world of ideas.
So the race theory survives, racism is still here, mostly in the shape of Nazi inspired Islam.
But basically they are wrong in their understanding of nature, if they follow the trends of nazi racetheory, because Darwin was misinterpreted in the first place. Yes, there is strife among living things, but there also love. And it is only through the balance of the two that harmony will happen. Right now neo islam is all about strife, thereby forcing the rest of the world to fight them. If the neo islamic creed does not find a balance in their universe of thought, it will be an all or nothing fight. Either Islam wins it all, or looses it all. It is exactly the same dynamics that drove nazism, the conclusion of the all strife argument is a win all or loose all ideology. To be realistic, Islam cannot win the fight if it fights everybody in the world. It will probably end in the annihilation of Islam, as it did with Nazism.
i’m not going to spend a lot of time on this,
but: “The focus on race started with Darwin”.
Huh.
?.
Let me just put a big question mark after that one.
Because in continental Europe, until after the first world war (and in Denmark to this day) the word “race” was widely and generally used to mean “breed” and is predicated on a blood and soil ethnic nationalism in which ethnic nations were seen as eternal and immutable, bearing a mystical relationship to the landscape in which they had originated in. This originates long before Darwin in the writings of Johann Gottfried Herder, ie: it is an early Romantic concept. And you can find it alive and amply kicking in the mid-Romantic writings of Grundtvig, the father of Danish blood & soil ethnic nationalism. (If you’re in any doubt I suggest you skim “Seven Sisters”). And of course it emerged in all its full flowering in the early-mid 20th century. No, continental theories of “race” did not die after the second world war. They were momentarilly eclipsed by the anglo-american notions of nation, but after the collapse of Communism were breathed back into life. And Denmark and its mass popular anti-Islam hate-frenzy is a museum-quality illustration of this.
I do agree with you that Qutb & Al Qaeda share a lot in common with Nazis. I disagree with you sharply that this is predicated on “race” in either its Herderian/Gruntvigian or Darwinian ideological manifestations. Islamists posit religion, not race as the primary mode of dividing the world in “good” and “evil”. The Nazi’s true Middle Eastern successor’s in the race field were secular pan-Arabists whose philosopher (a Syrian Christian named Michel Aflaq) who took late-romantic race ideology, wedded it to the mystical glorification of violence of the Syndicalist philosopher Georges Sorel and put it into an organizational form copied wholesale from Italian fascism, Spanish falangism, etc. This pan-Arab racist-nationalist political movement became known as “Ba’athism” and of course Islamists of any stripe (Muslim Brotherhood or Al Qaeda) were anethema to these regimes.
And of course an attempt to conflate the entirety of Islamic philosophy – which is vast and complex, to put it mildly – with Qutb and his confreres is either an idiot’s task or the work of someone with a concealed agenda to promote.
And frankly anyone Danish calling for the “annhilation of Islam” seems to be suffering from historical amnesia about where exactly Denmark stood during the second world war. If a blogger wrote droolingly about “Annhilation of Judaism” we’d quite rightly consider him…well need i continue?
In short, maybe you are indeed trained as a philosopher. In which case i hope your writing is a bit more compelling in Danish than it is in English. If you want to do real “history of ideas” maybe you should drop the little green footballs. Or maybe you should stop pretending to be anything other than just another member of the danish hate-islam chorus.
And i consider this response a test to your commitment to free speech and “press freedom”. My bet is that it will be deleted within seconds…
my error: of course Aflaq was a Lebanese Christian.
First of all, to discuss something you have to show mutual respect. So please, I listen to your points, pay the respect back, otherwise it is just sabotage, and will not lead to any renewal of understanding. The truth is always relative to the situation.
Let me correct some of your ideas, with all respect.
First of all, Grundtvig was actually first loyal to the crown, and then loyal to the democratic assembly. He was actually a member of the parliament. He was a very strong defender of freedom of speech, which is the basis of democracy. He had a long life, so he changed his ideas. But there is no sign of any fascist ideas in his writings. He was for freedom.
I agree that Herder was a nationalist, but there is a lot of difference between being a nationalist, and being af national socialist. What I put my finger on in national socials is the notion of race. You can be a nationalist without the notion of race. Grundtvig talked the folk, not the race.
And you must admit, that the socialdarwinist ideas was a speciality of the nazis. There were many qualities within nationalsocialism. They had the first welthfare system, the were really into ecological ideas and so on. But the evil within Nazis were the social darwinist ideas. To understand these ideas, you have to understand Darwin. That is quite obvious.
Concerning the philosophical discussion with the muslim world, as I said, I no not know all the details, and I am not into the different parties. I know some about Al queda, because they are here i Denmark, but the intricacies of the muslim discussions is not my field.
Anyway, you have to realise that that is not really so important. The muslim world has to create a version of islam that respects the secular state, otherwise the secular state has to take action and eliminate the treath to the state. It should be done in a way that is as sympathetic as possible, but it has to be done. At least that is the case here in Denmark. We cannot accept the violation of law and democracy.
Annihilation of Islam. It will happen if Islam does not find a way to work with the west. Right now we are enemies, and enemies fight. In the world theatre of today, fights are very uncompromising. And to be realistic, a globalized world with an active Islam preaching jihad doing Taquia is not a world that will work. Islam has to step down on its negative principles, embrace a true spiritual manner, or it will remain the enemy of all its neighbours. Not because of its neighbours, but because of itself.