There is a form of racism that jumps out at you and there is a racism that is more subtle. We can commonly speak of macro-racism and micro-racism (for the micro-aggressions that it generates). We can say that modern societies are the place where a war is taking place that does not say its name and of which the soldiers are not aware. In short, there is the opposition between soldiers who practice conventional warfare and warriors who use guerrilla strategies. The warriors undermine the enemy’s morale by using microaggressions, while the soldiers use conventional warfare.
Reminder On The Notion Of Asymmetric Warfare: The Case Of Spain And French Troops During The Napoleonic Wars
Asymmetric warfare, which is the idea of using one’s strengths and advantages against an opponent without resorting to direct confrontation, has been a major factor in warfare throughout history. Perhaps the most famous and vivid example of this phenomenon is the Napoleonic Wars between France and Spain. This long and arduous conflict saw the French and Spanish troops constantly outmaneuvering one another, creating a very unique type of warfare.
By the early 19th century, Spain had become a major power in Europe, creating a significant military presence. While the French had increased their own military strength, the Spanish had done so far better. In particular, the Spanish army was well trained, with innovative tactics and strategies, led by a skilled commander. This made them an effective rival against the French forces.
The Spanish also had the greatest advantage during their occupation of most of Spain. Their lines of communication were shorter, so they could act with more speed. Their terrain was also rockier, which offered greater strategic and tactical advantages. This allowed them to remain mobile and make well-timed attacks and probes, while the French could only muster a fraction of their forces.
In the face of the Spanish forces’ strength, the French tried to make up the difference by overwhelming them with sheer numbers. To do this, they employed a strategy that has become known as “superiority in numbers”. This strategy called for obtaining large numbers of troops to make up for the Spanish advantage in numbers. However, this strategy did not work in the long term, as the Spanish would remain in control and have the ultimate advantage.
Asymmetric warfare played a major role in the Napoleonic Wars. The Spanish could utilize their advantageous terrain and mobility to execute attacks and surprises on the French, while the French could not. This led to a situation in which France was consistently at a disadvantage and forced to accept lesser terms of surrender. This highlights the importance of asymmetric warfare in warfare, and its ability to significantly impact the outcome of a conflict, even when the forces are relatively equal.
The case of Spain and the French forces during the Napoleonic Wars serves as a reminder that asymmetric warfare can be an effective tool in conflict. The Spanish were able to leverage their advantages and outpace the French, while the French could not overcome their disadvantage in numbers. This demonstrates the potential of asymmetric warfare to create an uneven battlefield, and how it doesn’t always come down to raw power or brute force.
Consider The Case Of The United States
The United States has European institutions and a population that is predominantly of European descent even today, although the trends may reverse in the future. White” people, to put it simply, enjoy a symbolic favoritism that is the legacy of segregation and the not-so-distant slavery. This privileged position of course creates injustices that are experienced by the rest of the non-white population. From there, mutual aggression is set up. The strategy of guerrilla warfare has always been employed by the indigenous populations, at least those who had the advantage of the terrain. This is the case here. The whites have the institutions on their side, they play at home, and it is therefore they who practice a form of guerrilla warfare against the non-white populations. These materialize in the form of micro-aggressions. The non-White populations would be assimilated to occupying troops – not having the terrain to themselves – (which is not in fact the case, the ancestors of the Latinos being the true Native Americans and the Black ancestors having arrived for the most part before a large part of the White Americans, a significant part of whom would have arrived in the 19th and 20th centuries, well after the slave trade from the 16th to the 19th centuries) and would practice a more conventional war made of macro-aggressions, more visible.
Micro Vs Macro-Aggressions
How many micro-aggressions are there for a single macro-aggression? That is difficult to say. Is there convertibility between a macro-aggression and a micro-aggression? If so, what is the exchange rate?
It’s easier to show footage of a violent assault on the street. It is memorable. It freezes the blood and creates a sense of revolt. Yet there is a whole range of micro-aggressions that fly under the radar: that door not held by our neighbor who comes and slaps our face because we weren’t expecting it: We know that he knew we were following him, these messages from tenants on airbnb who suddenly have no more availability for the period we had chosen, this evasive look that we meet when we go to a place where we are obviously not welcome, these repeated mockery that make fun of part of what we are, of course in a humorous way, these hundreds of embarrassed smiles that we wipe or these reproving looks that we regularly undergo etc. Yes, all this goes unnoticed. One does not justify the other but understand: violence is a vicious circle whose ramifications are not always clear, each of us has the means to extinguish a fuse, we can play the role of valve.