Reactie op "de leugen regeert?" - II

Reactie van Doro (Ojalá) op de TV-uitzending "De Leugen regeert":

Hallo,

now I have seen the programme as well, I was very curious about it now, and I am still shocked about the racism displayed by Koopman. I completely agree with Ryan that one should always try to get an overview about any kind of opinion in a conflict, but this does not justify violent action and killings. The point remains why a journalist needs to discuss partiality in the current situation? To justify the attacks? And it's beyond the point to play it out again as "inverse racism" when it's really a democratically elected state that is attacked. So, it's not about natives against whites in any case right now, but some people upraising against the democratically elected state, its organs, and people they associate it with.Furthermore, it happens again and again that papers print Reuters-news without journalists counter-checking it, it is a very sad fact. And it is probably not very lucrative to do investigate journalism, apart from the fact that it's sometimes bad for your health. Some people loose their life doing investigative journalism, and others are threatened or put into prison. And in some conflicts, it is already from the start the case that we get only limited information (see Irak war). Problem with Koopman is that he is not investigative either. He is just producing opinions, and I believe he is producing them on the background of racist assumptions that believe that people from minor backgrounds (that could be the majority, but who have less power than the major position - I am refering here to a term by DeleuzeGuattari) could not represent "everyone," that they are partial to their group (which would then be counter-caricating our understanding of western, "representative" democracy). One problem hidden there is that representative democracies are normally never representing the interests of everyone, so he is talking about a quite common denominator for this kind of state system. It is racist in the sense that he is assuming something for one kind of group (minor) that he wouldn't assume for another kind of group (major).

>> E.g. Is Bush ever been attack for not representing the interests of Hispanics, Blacks, and Native Americans BECAUSE HE IS WHITE? Did anyone ever ask what kind of language he spoke at home? Why English, if there is also Navajo as a native language? Or did anyone ask these kind of questions about other presidents, for that matter? The major group can always pass itself off as being "impartial," "objective," "detached," even if they aren't, and although they simply can never be impartial because it's simply impossible to be so. But the question is not posed if they are partial because they are white, rich, male, able-bodied, etc. pp. We are just so blinded by their whiteness that they don't need to justify themselves for being partial, because we assume that they can transcend their own position and become representative for a state. That's what bothers me so, although I believe the total lack of investigation is quite thrilling as well.

>> Furthermore, there are some kind of assumptions what being "native" means that are interesting in themself, especially under post-colonial conditions. So, nowadays being Native means speaking the native language? Growing up in native communities? What is the guy talking about??? Does he not know that in some states, native languages have been forbidden (also in Europe, if one looks at Spanish Fascism and its relation to Basque, Catalan, Galego.)? That school and official languages are normally the colonial languages? That people are discouraged to speak their native language, and that they are discriminated against when doing so? That their communities have been destroyed by forcing people from their grounds? I don't know if this was the situation in Bolivia, but I do know that this was happening in many countries of the world, including the complete Northern Hemisphere of the Americas. That's why the number of world languages is seriously on decline - it is estimated that around 2 languages will die every month in the course of this century, with only 600 language of an estimated 6-7000 relatively safe of distinction - a subtotal of 10%. The only cure against it: if the prestige, power, educational presence and media-use ability of the speaker will increase within major group (see David Crystal, Language Death, Cambridge UP 2000). So, all in all, I just don't believe that one can talk about reverse racism, it's just completely beyond the point and doesn't serve to install a position that is based on actions, instead of on colour or origin, for that matter. Just repeating racisms, that's all. And in any case, I do not believe in inverse racisms, for all the arguments I have listed above, and because I believe racism is so alive and kicking that one cannot get rid of it in only a few years of World History.>

Best greetings,
Doro

P.S. Here a very nice quote I stumbled across when researching today, I think it could be a good aim:"Those of us who struggle against racial injustice most come to see that the basic tension is not between races. The tension is at the bottom between justice and injustice. We are out to defeat injustice and not the white person who may happen to be injust." Martin Luther King, jr.