2.8—”Women, Colonisation, and Racism,” Jan Jindy Pettman Pettman examines the impacts of colonialism upon the ‘colonizing’ (i.e., white) women. --posits that white women are ambiguously placed into constructions of global power different from white men and from ‘other’ women --this ambiguous status has resulted in many interpretations of white women’s roles in the colonial process Pettman’s analysis points to the problems of the historical universalization of women’s experiences, and she argues that an accurate historical analysis must account for racialized and gendered global power relations. Much colonial theorizing has posited that women share a status with the colonized due to the nature of gendered power relations --but Pettman argues that a new level of power relations exists

History tends to ignore or grossly overgeneralize women’s experiences Common characterizations of women: sharing oppression with the colonized oppressing even more extensively than colonizing (white) men ‘Retrieval’ stories often sanitize women’s roles in the colonial process, but “while colonisation was gendered, gender was racialized, and white women were ambiguously placed in terms of the colonial project” (144) --This means that: Both the colonized and women were oppressed by patriarchal relations But colonizing women were privileged by race over the colonized Also, “Colonising women benefited from empire, as ‘the inferior sex within the superior race’ (Strobel, 1991: xi)” (145).

2.9—”The Myth of Catching-up Development,” Maria Mies ‘Catching-up Development’—the idea that “by following the same path of industrialization, technological progress and capital accumulation” (150) all countries can mimic the US, Japan, and Europe --yet nowhere has this happened --Much research points to colonization—rather than some inherent inferiority—as the cause of underdeveloped countries’ lack of industrialization and advancement. --In addition to this, colonization often comes at the expense of the native culture and customs. Mies posits that affluent societies live in a sort of schizophrenic, double-think state of existence in which we are aware of the problems with our lifestyles and our consumption, yet we do nothing to limit it. Why not? The inverse relationship between GDP and quality of life…

Part 3—Constructing Difference: Creating ‘Other’ Identities 3.1—Assigning Value to Difference, Albert Memmi “Racism is the generalized and final assigning of values to real or imaginary differences, to the accuser’s benefit and at his victim’s expense, in order to justify the former’s own privileges or aggression” (173) Stressing the real or imaginary differences between the racist and his victim “…but it is not the difference which always entails racism; it is racism which makes use of the difference” (174) It is the interpretation of a difference that defines prejudice and racism Assigning values to these differences, to the advantage of the racist and the detriment of his victim. “…intended to prove two things: the inferiority of the victim and the superiority of the racist” (175) -the racist views the differences as deserving of denunciation -the racist will maximize the difference between himself and his victim

Trying to make them absolutes by generalizing from them and claiming they are final. “One thing leads to another until all of the victim’s personality is characterized by the difference, and all of the members of his social group are targets for the accusation” (176) “In the extreme, racism merges into myth” (177) this occurs often through a process of gradual dehumanization “Slowly he makes of his victim a sort of animal, a thing or simply a symbol” 4. Justifying any present or possible aggression or privilege. “It is in the racist himself that the motives for racism lie” (177) “A certain embarrassment when faced with what is different, the anxiety which results, spontaneous recourse to aggression in order to push back that anxiety—all of these are to be found in children, and probably in a good many adults as well. Whatever is different or foreign can be felt as a disturbing factor, hence a source of scandal” (177)