Labelling "Racism" in Mauritania

(look out, it's a long one)
So I have an issue with the word “racism”, as has been the case for ages. Just to preface this post a little.

I’m in Mauritania and find that there a some very deep-seated issues involving prejudice, socio-cultural segregation and “race” among black (sub-saharan) African and Arab (north African) people. The question is whether it can accurately be called “racism” and, if so, to what extent does that label, bearing with it centuries of historical baggage, serve to complicate the problem by means of over-simplification? This last part of the phrase seems a little odd but it is the only way to describe it. When one uses the term “racism”, the immediate impression is that of a prejudice borne of skin color….because its widely considered for such prejudices, currently and throughout history, to be egregious and horrible, the word “racist” or “racism” tends to overshadow the underlying historical and sociocultural factors that cause the visible elements of racism (skin color etc). I guess what I’m trying to say is that the word racism denies the subject a real, deep, and important subtext that, in the end, leads to faulty information and sometimes a perpetuation of a problem that needs to be recognized and addressed at its roots. Also, because “racism” immediately suggests the existence of a dichotomy, it tends to reshape multifaceted and non-dichotomic problems in its image (I want to say the problem of “race” in Mauritania is poly-something in nature, as it is nonlinear and the categories of prejudice are multiple)…..
In this case, the issue is Mauritania, in which the historical presence of repeated conquest (Arabic and colonial) and a caste system – to me – resist the categorization of systematic prejudices here as “racism”. I feel that if and when I use that word, I am doing a disservice to the effort to understand and deal with a very serious problem…. But then, what word can I use to provoke the appropriate level of disgust and indignation that’s needed here, without the hassle of false impressions? To add on to all this, I can’t help but think of the prejudices associated with caste in India as well – is the word “racism” applied in Mauritania (rather than India, where I haven’t heard it as a ref to caste system issues before) just because it’s part of Africa? Or what? I know race is a social construct and not a genetic thing, but this doesn't shake the superficial connotations of skincolor that the word "racism" carries with it....
The word racism is very specifically part of a western historical consciousness, and I’m getting the increasing impression that, as such, ignores the scope of prejudices that are above and beyond (not to mention pre-dating) that same historical consciousness? Bear with me, I’m not getting my words out here (its Monday morning J).
History-wise, the question of “racism” dates back to the arabic-islamic conquest that originated in the middle east and spread downward and westward into and across the sahel, and its an influence that has been there for thousands of years (i.e. the Islamic empire). So Mauritania's white "moors" are the descendants of these arab populations from the north, and the black moors are those who were originally indigenous to the south but for generations, have adopted the arabic culture as their own. Most people in Mauritania (about 50%) who are metissé (brown) have adopted the moor culture as well. So islam and the arabic culture are very much intertwined and totally inseparable here. Because Mauritania contains both populations, one of whom thinks of itself as the conqueror (this leads to a slave issue, ill get to it later) and owner of the land (mostly white moor), and the other who think of themselves as the rightful inhabitants and as distinctly african (so wolof - wolof culture and langauge, same for fulani) with the right to the land and their respective cultures. Note also here that conventional white-black racism here is blurred by issue of arab culture among moors; in fact, the term “white moor” refers mostly to brown people, a small minority of whom are very light skinned (think Moroccan people) but still not white in the racial sense.
All this prejudice and conflict between cultures and people was exacerbated by colonial borders imposed in the 60s, because originally senegal and mauritania were together as french west African colonial territory before being sliced up with the african population on both sides of the Mauritanian border. What colonialism also did was to add another dimension to the problem – that of skin color, as they naturally favored white moors as the ruling class and therefore as the beneficiaries of colonial rule and, later, independence. As one sees with aboriginal people in North America, the drawing of artificial lines that cut across peoples leads to an especially strong sense of solidarity, which of course leads to bitter and severe clashes with arab moors in Mauritania. This led to widespread massacres and expulsions of blacks in '90 - 91, so there are still refugees on the senegalese border, this happened in part because the government implemented an "arabization" policy (and there has not been an african government, ever, they are all moors). you can fill in the blanks...

To further complicate the whole thing there is the issue of caste - there were already caste systems in place among the wolof and fulani in the region that dictated, via surname, who was aristocracy and who was servant, and so to this day even in senegal there is a BIG issue with upward mobility in employment and with women's rights and stuff because strict social rules remain stating that you absolutely cannot marry outside your caste. Many people still follow these rules (they are enforced at a social level) in order to preserve their position and keep their name since it indicates status. Which in turn causes a vicious cycle of prejudice. So what happened with the Moors was that they used this to their advantage and obviously put themselves at the top of the chart, because they considered themselves superior culturally (which translates into skin color superficially), and this also allowed them in the process of conquest to take slaves from those who were already in the lowest castes. Like I said though, color is superficial, because even Black moors own/owned slaves, and the distinction between them is in their names/caste status. This is also an indicator of the cultural factor in all this, commonly called “arabization” here in Mauritania – one can see with the Black moors how the adoption of Arabic culture over time has superceded the importance of skin color in society, allowing them the same privileges and status of their white moor counterparts.
There is still a kind of conquistador/slavekeeper mentality, and people joke about it here in the office but there are serious office politics that show its something thats really deep rooted. And it happens all over - like Nicole's driver, who is a white moor, refuses to greet the Fulani guard or the women who work at the house (who are ivorian, but are still ‘black’/non-arab for him.
I saw this whole caste/slave/”race” thing firsthand the other day: A woman named Mariam N'Diaye (African name, black woman, servant caste), a specialist in psychology, came to talk to our office about stress management (they brought her in because of an office politics thing, which is yet another caste-social status-linked-thing). During the seminar, she asked everyone their name. One guy (white moor, brown, arab), when called on, said his name was Alhassan Sy (an Arabic name). Mariam didnt hear him so she asked him to repeat his last name, to which he responded, "My last name is Sy, as in, your master". Because Sy is an arabic name indicating a caste that traditionally owned slaves. So this was followed by an awkward silence which Mariam laughed off, as she is from Dakar the whole arab moor thing is new to her. So while slavery itself is still a serious and obscene practice/problem that has been pushed underground, it exists in very small numbers, around like 2000 or something. The bigger issue is an antiquated caste system aggravated by cultural and “racial” factors that stifles social growth and opportunity for everyone involved and perpetuates a monopoly of power among moors. So, to return to my point in the first place, the term “racism” is simply insufficient to explain what is going on here and from what I have read in US country information on Mauritania, it totally disfigures a western historical understanding of prejudice, slavery, culture and “race” as it exists here in Mauritania.