Eliminationism in America: A Ten Part Series

[Zinkovich]

Here's an excerpt from the first part describing the topic of the series of posts from the blog Orcinus:

While it may seem as though this rising drumbeat of eliminationism proceeding from the American right is something new and uniquely dangerous, a look at our history actually reveals that it is something buried deep in our national psyche. It lies dormant in our soil and comes bursting forth when bidden. What distinguishes eliminationism -- and particularly the rhetoric that precedes it and fuels it -- is that it represents a kind of self-hatred, especially in an American culture which advertises itself as predicated on inclusiveness, egalitarianism, and equal opportunity, since it runs precisely counter to those ideals. Eliminationists, at heart, really hate the very idea of America. It has its origins, like slavery and war, in some of man's most ancient and most savage impulses: the desire to dominate others, through violence if necessary. However, in contrast, it goes largely unnoticed and largely unexamined, perhaps because it is a side of human nature so ugly we prefer not even to recognize its existence. So much so that only recently have we even had a term like "eliminationism" with which to frame it. As I've explained, the term's first significant use came from historian Daniel Jonah Goldhagen in his controversial text, Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. Goldhagen never provides a concise definition of the word, but rather constructs a massively detailed description of the eliminationist mindset. Goldhagen's focus, however, is almost solely the Holocaust and the virulently antisemitic form that took root in Europe prior to the Second World War. But as a principle, we can see eliminationism playing a role in human history through the ages -- including its special role in American history and the shaping of American culture, right up to the present day. I've tried to give a more concise definition previously: What, really, is eliminationism? It's a fairly self-explanatory term: it describes a kind of politics and culture that shuns dialogue and the democratic exchange of ideas for the pursuit of outright elimination of the opposing side, either through complete suppression, exile and ejection, or extermination. ... Rhetorically, it takes on some distinctive shapes. It always depicts its opposition as simply beyond the pale, and in the end the embodiment of evil itself -- unfit for participation in their vision of society, and thus in need of elimination. It often depicts its designated "enemy" as vermin (especially rats and cockroaches) or diseases, and loves to incessantly suggest that its targets are themselves disease carriers. A close corollary -- but not as nakedly eliminationist -- are claims that the opponents are traitors or criminals, or gross liabilities for our national security, and thus inherently fit for elimination or at least incarceration. And yes, it's often voiced as crude "jokes", the humor of which, when analyzed, is inevitably predicated on a venomous hatred. But what we also know about this rhetoric is that, as surely as night follows day, this kind of talk eventually begets action, with inevitably tragic results. What distinguishes eliminationist rhetoric from other political hyperbole, in the end, are two key factors: -- It is focused on an enemy within, people who constitute entire blocs of the citizen populace, and --It advocates the excision and extermination, by violent means or civil, of those entire blocs. As Jerry Klein found, those impulses lie not very far beneath the skin of American civil society. In fact, as we will explore here, they are deeply woven into our very makeup, and can be found as deep strands running and twining through our history: the genocide against the Indians, the "lynching era" and the Ku Klux Klan, the internment of Japanese Americans, the continuing shameful legacy of hate crimes in modern America. Eliminationism all began, of course, long before there was even an America. But the roots of America's history are bathed in the blood of an eliminationist impulse imported from Europe -- and we have never quite outgrown that legacy.

Link to first part: Orcinus

Read the entire series and comment on it- it starts off slow, but gets into the actual historical roots of such rhetoric and becomes quite stimulating as you get further into it.

[Scribbler1]

Sounds like the last few elections to me. The theme always seems to be how bad the other guy is, but never how good you will be.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Eliminationism is the ideology of humanity, not just the U.S.

[Jern_Sandyer]

Quite disturbing and I have to wonder how much of my history books have had a 'nice' history even though I'm in Canada and we didn't have the Indian Wars but I want to know to what extent we practiced similar actions. Though now that I think about it off hand I remember something about how when Canada spread west we sent our Mounties out if an American Tribe was being hunted they would go to the Canada border and if they came across a Mountie the americans wouldn't hurt them......Well I've rambled on enough about history.

[Compugasm]

what are you talking aboot?

[Technosoul]

In modern times and most noted in the Southwest is the hatred of some Americans for Mexican-Americans, and not just those who sneak across the boarder in search of a better life.

They want to get rid of all those Mexicans, to put it blunt. And you often hear slang words used to discribe that bloc of people by some Americans, but not all of us by any means are supportive of such "eliminationism" ideals.

The Governor of California had to withdraw some of his statements but it is clear he (as a leader) advocates such eliminationism motivations.

Things are starting to heat up relative to that situation.

People are joining private groups to "montitor the boaders" with their guns loaded.

Students in highshools are bloc-ing together to fight the Mexicano bloc, even black kids are gang waring with the Mexican community gangs. A new generation is coming up - soon to leave school to join our mainstream culture.

Is this just human nature? Like tom cats that do not like other tom cats? Or is it something else that was "learned" and not natual.

We are not even close to what happened in Germany but close to what happened in the south after the slaves became independant. But now that the spanish americans have got so much notice as the new minority they have had a little more say so in politics, before they were unseen and unheard. not in TV shows (as Mexicans) and not noticed much by the music industry (with only one or two exceptions). Now that they are the new underdogs they are getting more roles on TV and in Movies and are big time stars in the music fields. A odd paradox within our culture. But as "Ugly Betty" .... hmm? Interesting?

I buy and sell "collectables" as my current occupation. A few years ago pioneer stuff was the hot item, now the fastest selling "vintage items" are things hand made from Mexico as well as Native American items. Cast iron pots have taken 2nd place to Mexican folk art at the collector's store.

And on ebay.

And mexican food is sweeping the southern USA even with us white folks, and a lot of the brand foods in stores have gotten a little hotter or have more spice then before. Even Jeff Foxworthy eats breakfast at Taco Bell.

It is a love hate relationship white folks have with other races. Lets hope this stays in balance so that the unfounded resentments do not overpower our sense of what is reasonable. PS - that love-hate attitude is a two way street on both sides of the fense. (and yes - the fenses are still up but not as bad as they once were).

Are we really going to have nine more "parts" about this topic?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Jern_Sandyer Quite disturbing and I have to wonder how much of my history books have had a 'nice' history even though I'm in Canada and we didn't have the Indian Wars but I want to know to what extent we practiced similar actions. Though now that I think about it off hand I remember something about how when Canada spread west we sent our Mounties out if an American Tribe was being hunted they would go to the Canada border and if they came across a Mountie the americans wouldn't hurt them......Well I've rambled on enough about history.

When France controlled parts of Canada they hired indians to keep the English and others out of their truf, they paid them so much for each scalp they brought back to prove they killed a English (or other) invader into what is now Canada. And so the early people who lived in Canada were the ones who started the American-Indian wars. In effect - the conflicts in the northern parts of the USA were paid for by Canada (before the English gained control over France).

But that is another topic.

[Jern_Sandyer]

Quote by: Zinkovich Here's an excerpt from the first part describing the topic of the series of posts from the blog Orcinus: Link to first part: Orcinus Read the entire series and comment on it- it starts off slow, but gets into the actual historical roots of such rhetoric and becomes quite stimulating as you get further into it.

You said that there was 10 parts but I only found the first five. Is a series in progress?

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: Jern_Sandyer You said that there was 10 parts but I only found the first five. Is a series in progress?

Yes, but it will go up to ten parts fairly quickly. He tends to be pretty fast on the updates.

[Athena]

It is human nature to think in terms of "us" verses "them" and to do what will benefit us, which often means hurting "them". Look at our Christian bible, especially Levitus, and a main target for discrimation is females. The bible also tells us Hebrews can own slaves and pass them on as property to their children, but are not to be slaves, because of their special relationship with God. A Jew is circumsized to acknowledge a special converant with God that non Jews do not have. What do you do when a people's religious beliefs make this "is" verses "them" thinking the way of God?

Democracy counteracts religion, but the US stopped transmitting the culture essential to democracy in 1958, which is really a sad thing. We didn't have public education until around 1840, so that is just a little more than 100 years of education for democracy. And during this time, children were needed as laborers, and farms and industry put children to work. Also schools were not well funded and it is amazing they did as well did. People easly live past 50 years, and we had only about 100 years of education for democracy! If any of the religions stopped teaching in the first 100 years, they would be none existant! We are wrongly assuming our democracy will survive without education for it.

Democracy is rule by reason, and education for it habituates individuals to over ride their emotions with reason. Not just whatever reasoning pops into an ignorant person's head, but reasoning built on the gradual learning of increasingly complex concepts. This learning of concepts is essential to democracy, and this is no longer what our education is about, as we now producing products for industry and ignoring the education for being human.

Today what rules is our feelings, and we are poorly prepared to understand life beyond our own personal experience of it. We are not learning and living by the principles of democracy. We are no longer ruled by reason, so the worst of our nature is surfacing.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Democracy is rule by the people, it is only reasonable if the mob chooses to listen to reason. Try telling the victims of the french revolution that total democracy is reasonable. That's why the french limit the people's power today, and why the U.S. has an incomplete democracy (not even a democracy, but a republic)