Privilege: Having special rights, advantages or immunities.
In Hannah Arendt’s book, The Origins of Totalitarianism, there is a chapter sub-heading “The ‘Rights of Englishmen’ v’s the Rights of Men”, dealing with racism, and how the definition of ‘race’ has changed over time, especially in consideration of the growth of the British Empire, and other European Empires during the nineteenth century.
The question of race and racism became most pertinent during that time with the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of the Species (1859) and The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871), which changed very much the way different peoples were seen, considered in evolutionary terms, allowing the claim that Europeans in general but Englishmen particularly, because in part of their innovative skills and the development of new ways of exploring and conducting wars, were a more evolutionary developed version of mankind than say, Africans, or other indigenous peoples in their vast empires who had not developed the skills which allowed Europeans to dominate the world.
Move on a couple of hundred years and we see that things have changed, yet have remained essentially the same.
History from the time of Darwin has moved on. Europe transformed from a number of principalities, controlled to some degree by several royal households, but essentially a feudal environment to the formation of nation states, where people were considered as belonging to a particular nation through links such as language, religion and physical features. The pseudo-science of Eugenics further defined eligibility to belong to one nation or another. National definition altered the status of people from subject to citizen.
Most people – races – managed to fit into national categories, Polish, German, Russian, English and so forth, and each of them fitted neatly into a geographic area, disputed at times, like the shifting borders between Ukraine, Poland, Germany over the years, or to the south between Germany and France, but essentially nationality was tied to a geographic region. The exception, two ‘nations’ without geographic regions to call home. The Jews and the Gypsies.
Both denied areas they could call their national home. For generations they had been denied the ability to own land because they were not baptised, their baptism, as opposed to births, were not recorded and so did not legally exist, moved on when superfluous, called back when needed for their particular skills.
Nationalism was just one of a number of ‘isms’ which divided the political landscape in the various newly formed nation states.
‘Isms’ are ideologies, nationalism is an ideology and its application defines who may, and who may not be part of a particular nation. ‘Isms’ discriminate, define people who belong and those who do not. ‘Isms’ became the defining political culture of nation states, especially the emerging nations states after the conflagration called World War I saw upheaval in Germany and Russia as Communism and Naziism became the ruling ideologies, the measures of control over their populations.
As Hannah Arendt explains:
“Ideologies – isms which to the satisfaction of their adherents can explain everything and every occurrence by deducing it from a single premise – are a very recent phenomenon and, for many decades played a negligible role in political life. Only with the wisdom of hindsight can we discover in them certain elements which have made them so disturbingly useful for totalitarian rule. Not before Hitler and Stalin were the great potentialities of ideologies discovered.” (The Origins of Totalitarianism, p 615).
At about that same time, another ism was created, Zionism, to define Jewish people who had been marginalised, separated from mainstream societies for many generations, as a people without a land, in search of a land at that time. The single premise, based on another ism, Deism, the ideology which considers the idea of god, and in this case, the JHWH, or Jehovah, the one who promised Abraham back in the book of Genesis that the land of Israel was to be their homeland forever:
“Now the Lord said to Abram, ‘Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonours you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” (Genesis 12: 1-3).
And so the holocaust, the decimation of European Jews, the Stalinist regime in Russia which saw over 20 million people killed and many more sent of to the Gulag, prison camps for re-education, the settlement of Israel and the displacement, annihilation of the Palestinian and Bedouin people, he total destruction of Gaza and the demolition of homes om the West Bank can be explained and justified through the single premise of the appropriate ‘ism’.
While we can consider the current situation in Israel as a continuation of the rise of ‘isms’ at the turn of the last century, we need to consider the current situation regarding immigration and the marginalisation of non-white people today in the developed world. The rhetoric of hatred which emanates from influencers and political leaders is nothing new, they follow the footsteps of those leaders and influencers before them.
This came to light for me when on a Messenger thread a picture of Charlie Kirk standing at the pearly gates with the words “WELL DONE, MY GOOD AND FAITHFUL SERVANT” appeared. In answering my question whether that was Charlie Kirk’s image the reply came “Yes it is. It was a day of tears for him and free speech.”
Later, another image of Kirk was posted with the caption “It’s not gun violence. It’s Democrat violence. Do you agree?”
I dared to disagree, followed with various links to demonstrate that most of the political violence in the USA has come from the right, from Republicans and their supporters. I was then asked whether I had hear Charlie Kirk speak, and yes I have, and what I heard from him was hatred under an extended list of isms.
Racism, Feminism, Gender-ism, Christian Nationalism.
And hatred toward Islamist and yes, Jews, just to mention a few, but one which was not quite as blatant, and denied by Trump and his supporters was the underlying philosophy of Fascism.
My messenger poster countered with, “He offered opinions with a call to come prove me wrong. That’s what inclusive speech looks like” … and out of the blue, “Did you really read the Quran or was that a defective deflection”, referring to an earlier discussion on Israel’s right to exist and their absolute right to kill as many Islamists as they can because Islam is evil.
And yes, I have watched Charlie Kirk use that ‘freedom of speech’ thing with his ‘prove me wrong’ line, where he attacked the person to whom he made that offer, a young man, probably a teenager, and demolished the points with sarcasm and humiliating language.
Why bring p Charlie Kirk in this?
Democracy in the USA has descended into farce.
The lies this man repeated, the seeds of hatred he spread around, are really just a continuation of the rhetoric and behaviour from the Republican in Congress, as in the way they manipulated the appointment of High Court Justices, the gerrymandering of electoral districts at both federal and state levels, and the absolute contempt that President Trump has for the law.
The USA is descending into lawlessness in much the same way that Germany in the 1930s and the USSR under Stalin did. The use of the military in dealing with crime, the detention and deportation of immigrants, both legal and non-documented, the riding rough-shod over the norms of a federated nation of states is seeing power become entrenched with the Presidency and human rights being trammelled follows the Totalitarian song book, line by line, verse by verse.
People who do not fit the preferred model, and here again Kirk is useful in listing them, are demonised, silenced, isolated. These include ‘left’ leaning academics in universities, women who seek positions of power, black women particularly have been singled out, the role of women is being redefined to suit the role modelling of generations ago, with a bare foot and pregnant stay at home subservient wife being the hallmark, trans-gender people are demonised… Really anyone who tries to be different than what is ‘good’, but that definition of ‘good’ can change in the blink of an eye. Daring to be ‘different’, daring to teach humanitarian concepts, daring to encourage critical thinking, doing to self define sexuality, any difference, daring to be yourself will mark a person, silence them, isolate them.
Again, citing Hannah Arendt:
It has frequently been observed that terror can rule absolutely only over men who are isolated against each other and that, therefore, one of the primary concerns of all tyrannical governments is to bring this isolation about. Isolation may be the beginning of terror; it certainly is its most fertile ground; it always is its result. This isolation is , as it were, pre-totalitarian; its hallmark is impotence in so far as power always come from men acting together, ‘acting in concert ‘ (Burke); isolated men are powerless by definition. (Ibid P. 623).
We are seeing this descent into tyranny, a sliding to totalitarianism in a nation which has been so proud of its democratic foundations. But the threats are all around when we see in other democratic nations, France, Britain, Germany to mention just a few, the rise of the right, the rise of nationalism defined in racist terms. And yes, here in peaceful Australia too, the same marginalisation of minorities, the same religious disputations, the same noise on any perception of difference.
The Origins of Totalitarianism was first published in 1951, so written in the few years after World War II when the horrors of the holocaust were still fresh, when the Iron Curtain had recently crashed to divide Europe and Berlin. And here we are seventy four years later, and not much has changed.
Privilege, it seems, is for the powerful, the price is paid by the powerless and those who stand in the way of the powerful pay the highest price.
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
Totalinariast occupation of feeble Democracies is the current threat! Is the Democracy we Post-World War II children created; really enough to manage us through these times of Despotic, fascist, Nationalistic times?
Like the rest of you, I think not. So what does it really take to reduce Far-Right Nut Jobs to the lowest IQ level, we predict they belong to?
It doesn’t take much to upset these Dumbarses; It just takes a plethora of educated intellectuals ready to argue against such Disinformation, on a constant loop!!!!
After we’ve shut them up from embarrassment and shame; we can then target them for their vacuous claims!
But it really takes input from everyone who is not Corporate/ly sponsored!!!! IS THAT YOU? IF SO PLEASE DO SOMETHING MORE THAN FOLLOWING US ON SOCIAL MEDIA!
Middle Left-Wingers, (Centrists) have been swooped by articulate Far-Right Wing, educated Nut-jobs. From polite left wing opinions; we advocates of common-sense, really need to find a new offensive angle, with some real CLOUT!
A putrid oozing arsehole of a defective loudmouth has just exited in USA violence, as might be expected anytime, for that pestilential nation has a record of violence, idiocy, irrationalism, evils, criminality, horror. Vanity, stupidity, insolence, coercions, wilfulness, egofixations, MAD. And, Trump is a figure of adoring brainrot.
Nice work Bert, very well presented.
I cannot say the same for Hannah Arendt.
Only someone too close to the events of the 1930s and ‘40s could say that ideologies are a very recent phenomenon.
Even the title of her sub-heading — “The ‘Rights of Englishmen’ v’s the Rights of Men”, contradicts her assertion. The ‘rights of Englishmen’ was an ideology from the time of Magna Carta possibly, but certainly from Elizabethan times on.
You raised a most important topic in explaining the influence of Darwinian thought on how we see the world. But it must be said that the influence came from followers of Darwin rather than the great man himself.
The followers of Darwin misused his work to invigorate the cult of elitism/individualism that you alluded to in your reference to the innovative skills of European in general but Englishmen in particular.
That cult of elitism has been a persistent thread in British thought since the Norman conquest. It was enshrined in the Magna Carta, flowered during the reign of Elizabeth 1, was given a pseudo-scientific basis by Darwinians, was further invigorated by neo-Darwinian evolutionary biologists from the 1970s on, and was instrumental in establishing the liberal world order under which we suffer today.
So what is the end result of the ascendance of elitist ideology?
It’s to be found in your final words.
Privilege, it seems, is for the powerful, the price is paid by the powerless and those who stand in the way of the powerful pay the highest price.
We must not forget the nasty and petty childish vindictiveness of the Orange Emperor:
https://thenightly.com.au/politics/donald-trump-hints-at-anthony-albanese-meet-in-us-in-angry-tirade-at-abc-journo-c-20044118
Not before Hitler and Stalin were the great potentialities of ideologies discovered.
Europe under the christian church would beg to differ. That is every bit as much an ideology as the sociopolitical ones named, and it had as hard a grip on the lives of people under it.
Steve and leefe, yes I agree, my view of Hannah Arendt’s book has been that she seems to suggest that history started at a certain time, about 150 years ago, where the same hatreds, the same discriminations, the same quests for total control have been around a long, long time.
Reading The Canterbury Tales from the 14th century, there is The Prioress’s Tale which tells of the antisemitism and separation of the Jewish community in Britain at that time. In the copy I have, there is an illustration of, and I quote the footnote, ‘A late medieval painting of Jewish elders from a psalter. Jews had been banished from England by Edward I in 1290 but prejudice lingered on. the anti-Semitism of the Prioress’s Tale would not have shocked Chaucer’s audience.’
The differences Arendt highlights include that at no previous time in history had ani-semitism been used for the mass, physical extermination of the Jewish people, that so many died as a consequence of their marginalisation. That Hitler and Stalin both used fear and violence to rid their nations of their perceived pestilences she sees as historically extreme, and yet, that thinking can be, indeed needs to be challenged, both in looking back through history, the history of Imperialism and colonisation, the slave trade where conservatively over 20 million Africans were enslaved, but who knows how many died before they were counted?(Only those ‘sold’ at the slave markets were counted.) and when we look at the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, in the attempt to rebuild the Czarist Russian Empire, the religious conflicts in Northern and Central Africa, the thread of history and violence based on difference, and however that difference is defined, ideologically, ethnically, racially, not much has changed.
The view that history started just a few days ago is a common means of distorting a conflict. A good example is the Gaza situiation. Listening to many Israel supporters, the conflict started because of the events of 7 October 2023. There is no suggestion that anything that happened before that may be important to consider, perhaps things like the Nakbah, the displacement of the Palestinian population of Palestine when the name was changed to Israel, or the Balfour declaration of 1917, or perhaps even ‘The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine’ as written by Rashid Khalidi, a revised edition published in 2024…. no, that takes way to much effort and may serve to undermine the existing power balance.
Nails it with Imperialim.
There has been dinkum antisemitism in the modern era going back a thousand years. Most people are familiar with pogroms and the like; that is the actual antisemitism that folk know, not pinched as something for criticism of genocide.