Originally Posted by
ooo
Racism is individualistic at its core, which is a sick one. We have to recognize that we alone can’t function, obviously, before any further discourse can be made. But that’s not too much a developed reasoning. It’s quite the basic.
Now the matter is, which kinds of relationships (inevitable) are the best? A racist answer would be: the ones with your own brothers and sisters, with the same language and the same culture. Basically not too different from a form of incest. If racists could, they’d reproduce with themselves, like worms do. But they can’t, nature taught us we can’t reproduce alone, we need the Other, but for a “racism” scope, this Other must be as similar as possible, because all that is different is bad.
This reasoning is not individualistic? Ok, you can view it as “self preservation”, “care”, or “protection”, wtv you like really. Ancient Pharaos and still many coultures have the same approach, excusing such inbreeding in all sort of ways… but it’s funny because behind all the reasons there’s usually a mere economical view: you marry your sister, so we’ll keep the reign in the limits of our own power without spreading its benefits too broadly; you marry your cousin and so again your family will have more labour force to work the soil and take care of the sheeps and whatnot.
Economy is just another way to say: value. What are your values? Preserving your self, your achievements and keeping them for yourself and your family only? Fine, but if this will orient all your contacts with people, that’s racism. Like a worm that reproduces itself alone.
Nature (which means nurture in latin) is far more anarchic than those strict bonds assessed by the individual “values“. Anarchic as in, every single part of nature is free. Free and lustful, it can go wherever it wants, it can be and mate without bounds, without imposed values. Anarchy itself, professing the freedom of every individual, is the exact opposite of individualistic, because the individuals have to recognize to everyone the same freedom, and don’t impose themselves above anyone.
There’s a very idealistic and utopistic setup to anarchy, that is that all the men and women recognize to each other their own freedom -not to do all they want (that’s the stupid conception of what anarchy gotta be), but the freedom to BE all they can be-. This, for and foremost, means respect, culture in its most highest form, as in knowledge, and understanding. Comprehension, as in the etymology “to take within”. As the opposite of “exclusion”, to close outside.
It’s a difficult balance; the unknown, the different, is always scary, the Other is here to challenge us, to puts us outside of our comfort zone. Sometimes it harms us, and self protection, as a sane form of self-love and individuality, is good. But when such an orientation takes the lead, when all we do is in the scope of ourselves only, that’s the rotten part that causes harm, because to no other is granted the right to be what they are.
if you’ve made it this far here’s a heart for you <3