60 years after the UN Convention - Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation

166 development dialogue december 2008 – revisiting the heart of darkness
to refute his class analysis, Marx reminds them of the texts of historians
and political economists which espouse the cause they claim as
their own:
...I should...remark to the democratic gentlemen that they
would do better fi rst to acquaint themselves with bourgeois literature
before they presume to yap at the opponents of it. For instance,
these gentlemen should study the historical works of Thierry,
Guizot, John Wade, and others to enlighten themselves as
to the past ‘history of classes’. Before they try to criticize the critique
of political economy they should acquaint themselves with
the fundamentals of political economy...
...no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in
modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me
bourgeois historians had described the historical development of
this class struggle, and bourgeois economists the economic anatomy
of the classes. (Marx [1852] 1953: 84-85, 86)
For both Arendt and Foucault, the transformation of 17th century
race-thinking in the 19th century indicates two divergent paths: that
of class struggle as revolutionary discourse on the one hand, and that
of a biologically based racism on the other (Arendt [1951] 1994: 159;
Foucault [1976] 2003: 60-62).
Based on this insight, Arendt draws both a distinction and a conjunction
of the lineages of racism that are summed up under the headings
of ‘race-thinking’ and ‘racism’, respectively. The possibility of their
conjunction on the basis of their distinction that Arendt charts, moves
beyond the odometers measuring the distance or proximity between
Nuremberg and Windhoek, or Nuremberg and Kigali, that simultaneously
serves to position the scholar on one end or another of the
political spectrum.
The distinction between race-thinking and racism allows Arendt to
develop a further distinction (albeit one that is not analogous or homologous
to the former): namely that between continental and overseas
imperialism. She shows the diff erent and distinct origins, trajectories,
and outcomes of overseas imperialism (including colonial
and apartheid racism) and continental imperialism (including antisemitism):
‘The striking and fateful diff erence between continental
and overseas imperialism has been that their initial successes and failures
were in exact opposition’ (Arendt [1951] 1976: 250). Continental
imperialism was carried by a movement that had no developed organisational
form, but was rich in literary and philosophical sophistication,
and was off ering a ‘key to history’ (Arendt [1951] 1976: 250).