> Kevin assumes I show "epistemological arrogance" the emphasis >I put on racism.
Overconfidence, not arrogance. Personally, I wouldn't mind being described as overconfident now and then, but "arrogant" might offend me. Then again, it might not.
My guess is that awareness of racism would probably be more important as an organizing tool in Bloomington, Indiana than it would in, say, a small town in Vermont.
I'd certainly make it an issue while organizing a workplace beset by racism. Of course, if you believe that every workplace is beset by racism...
Take, as a single example, a hypothetical workplace that is entirely composed of so-called white people. Although some of these workers may hold racist beliefs, there are no primary victims present (perhaps one may consider these racists and their co- workers secondary victims of their own prejudices). What you have here is a workplace constituted by (in the case that the workplace is in a demographically heterogenous area with a extensive "racial" mix, yet the workforce is entirely white) and suffused with racism. But one might argue that, in the absence of a mixed workforce, with racism present merely as an absence, calling the workers' attention to this may be of limited value in organizing them into a union.
On the other hand, perhaps there would be a population of people excluded from the workforce who would be willing to picket and agitate for inclusion. Then they might join with a union or other organization in a campaign. I recall that this technique has been used to integrate construction crews in New York City, although, as outsiders, the agitators risk being viewed as extortionists. One can imagine a number of different situations.
What utility is there in proposing a single issue as the basis for the litmus test of authenticity among your fellow activists? In any case, given that there is strong theatrical element in politics, is testing the actors for absolute authenticity appropriate?