White nationalism owes something to biological racism. I don't see why that's a shocking or upsetting claim.
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet
You were making a stronger claim than that. You're not saying white nationalism owes something to the broader phenomenon of white racism (an obviously true claim). You're saying if you wanna read a good fascist/white nationalist author (if only to critique), here are some guys.pic.twitter.com/pdl79nF0kM
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @InfiniteTask @HeerJeet
The fact you refer to white nationalism's debt to biological racism and suggest Kant is likely their source (even if it is an adjustment to your original claim) is ironic given how so many fascists/racists (inc. Schmitt) reject Kantian liberalism in favor of fascism/nationalism.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @InfiniteTask
One specific reason I deliberately included Kant is that I think it's a mistaken genealogy that sees liberalism as totally unconnected to racism & white nationalism.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HeerJeet
I didn’t say you said that was the only reason to read these authors, but you made a list for a hypothetical curriculum of white nationalist and fascist authors, that is, authors who are part of the genealogy of white nationalism and fascism, and you included Kant in that canon.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @InfiniteTask
Yeah, if you want to understand white nationalism and fascism you have to understand the intellectual roots of biological racism.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HeerJeet
No one is opposing the claim that Enlightenment thinkers didn’t help in advancing biological racism; this wasn’t even part of the original conversation. If I wanted to take a class on the modern roots of racism I could very well read samples from a host of 18th/19th c. thinkers.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @InfiniteTask
Right, I included Kant in the list as a stand-in for a host of 18th/19th century thinkers who were not rightists/reactionaries/nationalists but still contributed to biological racism. It was a deliberate choice on my part.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
That's not what you said actually.pic.twitter.com/f9i3ayTHDd
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @InfiniteTask @HeerJeet
Again, I think it's one thing to say Kant was, lamentably and in a way all too common among Enlightenment thinkers, a biological racist, and to say, *his liberalism*, or his ethics, contributed to the development of white nationalism. But, I acknowledge that here we disagree.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Yeah, I think the language of "lamentable"and "common" is a cop out and ignores how the thinking was innovative and contributed to future developments.
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet
It's obvious his ideas about race are distinctive while being part of a broader Enlightenment trend. A class on Enlightenment racism could/should certainly include Kant's "Lectures on Anthropology". That still doesn't change that your claim was different from just this.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.