> >>> Paul Henry Rosenberg <rad at gte.net> 12/04 5:02 PM >>>
> Charles Brown wrote:
> >
> > I've been trying to catch up on this thread.
> > I have to echo Christopher Niles note of
> > amazement below at what seem to be
> > several white people quite righteously
> > bandying about an analysis of whether
> > a Black person is a racist.
> >
> > It is still the best understanding of this
> > that Black people cannot be reverse
> > racists. That is , Black people might be
> > prejudice against white people , but
> > there is a qualitative difference between
> > the prejudice of Blacks against whites and
> > vice versa, because, of the group dominance
> > of whites over Blacks and its long history.
> > This doesn't mean Black prejudice is
> > a virtue. It is also basically based on
> > a reaction to the history and ongoing
> > fact of white supremacy.
>
> This is the standard line, but it's BS.It takes an important truth,
> _________
>
> Charles: Please state the important truth in
> a non-rigid manner that doesn't instinctively
> smell fishy to most Americans.
>
> and expresses it in a rigid manner that instinctively smells fishy to
> most Americans.
> _______
The important truth is that (1) Black Americans continue to suffer race-based oppression in a wide range of ways, while white Americans experience a state of privilege, which most are utterly unaware. (2) White expressions of prejudice conform to, express and strengthen this objective state of injustice and oppresion while black expressions of prejudice are in many -- but not all -- forms simply RECOGNITIONS of this same objective state.
However, problems come about because (1) prejudice which is rational in terms of systemic oppression is distorted through the lense of individualism, which has hegemonic influence across race and (2) prejudicial identity politics takes on many of the same features of the ideology it reacts against, despite coming from a very different objective situation.
This is reinforced by the governments long-time war against militant black socialist activists, and it's relatively benign attitude toward militant black capitalist activists (most prominently NOI).
Now, I don't pretend for a moment that this has been stated "in a non-rigid manner that doesn't instinctively smell fishy to most Americans."
But then, I don't see why I should have to. Hegemonic discourse works by (among other things) making it extremely difficult to say such things. To overcome that, one must be able to think clearly and talk about possible means of intervention with other like-minded people. This is a necessary precursor to finding language that can challenge the hegemonic order. We're involved in just such a discussion here on LBO-talk.
> Charles: My experience is that it is not
> so fishy to Black Americans. It is troublesome
> to many White Americans. I can see that. If it
> wasn't , the problem would be solved.
The truth is troublesome to White Americans, but the mode of expression
REALLY IS fishy.
> That is smells fishy to whites today ( it didn't
> always as much in the middle of the radical
> reform of the 1960's) is itself the fact
> of racism 1990's style. Exactly.
You've got an important piece of the truth here. There IS a new racist hegemonic discourse. In that discourse, affirmative action smells fishy, and the propoponents of Prop 209 here in California were righteously indignant at any attempt to ACCURATE connect their efforts with David Duke, as they repeatedly FALSELY connected their efforts with Martin Luther King.
However, just because this new hegemonic discourse IS racist does not get us off the hook from the pragmatic need to find new ways of arguing against its reconstituted ideological foundations.
The kind of talk that I was criticizing is politically dysfunction, QUITE OBJECTIVELY from its failure to reach people, as well as its failure to engage what is new as well as what is old in this racist discourse.
> It's routinely used, as you have used it, to BLOCK OUT
> the actually existing text before you, and replace it with another.
> _________
>
> Charles: I am not sure what text you are
> talking about that it blocks out. Why don't
> you say what the blocked out text is ?
> Then I'll critique that directly and you
> will see that nothing is blocked out by
> the argument.
I was talking about my previous post, which was not directly responded to, but instead was characterized in a manner that tossed it in with Bennett & D'Souza.
> ________
>
> If you want to eliminate the white race, then you've got to see that
> racism afflicts all of us, both within and without.
> ________
>
> Charles: Actually, I think that's Niles approach.
Precisely. I was pointing out an internal contradiction in his position.
> I don't approach it as eliminate the white race.
> I would say the "white race" is largely European
> culture. In this era especially,, it has made many contributions
> to the wealth of human culture. It has, contradictorily,
> brought us some real dangers (nuclear weapons,
> racism, et al.) But I wouldn't want to throw out
> the European baby with the bathwater. It would
> be more purge the White culture of its dangers.
> It is European culture which mainly brings humanity
> capitalism/communism.
>
> I'm for eliminating racism, not the white race.
Then you and I are substantially in agreement. Except for that capitalism/communism thing, which needs clarification.
> _________
> Naturally it
> afflicts us all differently, but it afflicts us all, nonetheless. This
> SHOULD be a step forward, making it possible to talk about racism and
> stare it down, rather than brandishing it like a bloody shirt.
> ________
>
> Charles: The thing on this is that Black forms
> of racism against themselves are MUCH
> less of a problem than white forms of racism.
The thing on this is that Black self-hatred is only ONE example. OF COURSE white racism is far more of a problem, as well as being the historical and ongoing source of the overall problem. I would never dispute that, and I'd be surprised if ANYONE on this list would. In this forum, this is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the issue I'm trying to address, which is the issue of EXISTENCE, not of relative power, moral culpability, etc.
> You make it sound like racism is equally
> a problem of Black and White peoples'
> conduct.
No I don't. I explicitly chose the example of black racism expressed in terms of a form of self-hatred. The lack of symmetry could not be more obvious in this example. It is your way of listening to what I was saying which makes it sound like it is "EQUALLY a problem of Black and White peoples' conduct."
I think it is vital that we recognize the difference between formal similarities and effective differences. So long as any talk about the formal similarities of white and black racist ways of thinking is verboten, we will fail to develop a contemporary understanding of the vast effective differences. We will continue to fight the new racism with the tools of the old anti-racism. But the new racism was specifically developed to counter the old anti-racism. Failure to recognize this is a perscription for continued political defeat --- which we can then self-righteously blame on the racism of others, such as the white working class.
> That is off. Your calling it the standard
> line does not demonstrate by argument and
> facts that the standard line is BS. The rest
> of your posts in this thread have not either.
The rest of my posts have been trying to say something quite difference from what I've been accussed of. I cannot be IMMEDIATELY responsible for your failure to hear me. But I can be responsible in the long run by delving into how your expectations of what I have to say derive from a hegemonic discourse that both of us, on some level, wish to oppose. This is what I'm now trying to do.
> We haven't reached the point where
> whites, the main bearers of racism,
> can readily instruct blacks on blacks
> own self-hate or self-racism.
Here you are falling prey to hegemonic individualism. I must be judged on what I say, not on the color of my skin. If I'm right, my skin color is irrelevent. The same if I'm wrong.
(ASIDE: You don't even know the color of my skin. You presume me to be white, but you don't actually know it. So my whiteness is YOUR construction.)
This kind of pre-evaluation:
> You haven't
> demonstrated such a high level of
> anti-racist consciousness on this list
> that you can assume such a role
> of instructing a Black person such
> as Chrisotopher Niles
> on his self-hate and internalized
> racism.
is simply inimical to the very possibility of new ways of thinking to respond to the racism of today, rather than that of yesterday.
> By the way, I would not say that
> Paul Rosenberg is a racist from
> his general posting on this list.
> I would even say he is a stronger
> anti-racist than the average person
> today. I
> would sharply criticize his analysis
> of the current issue.
But you HAVEN'T criticized my analysis. You haven't really said anything about what *I* said. You have simply repeated the standard line regarding whites in general, and talk about black racism in general. But I haven't been talking in general, and I'm not a white in general.
> However, this position is truly a new form of ,
> lets say, white chauvinism, a real
> form of left conservativism.
You haven't done anything to show you've heard anything new and distinctive in what I've said. ALl you've done is argue against things I HAVEN'T said. It's a bit perverse to now claim that my position "is truly a new form of , lets say, white chauvinism." First let's see you demonstrate that you can understand what I'm saying that's new. Then and only then can we determine if it's white chauvinism.
> It is
> always amazing how racism is so resilient
> in finding new forms of expression or influencing
> even non-racists. This is
> its multivariate perversity.
That was my point exactly vis-a-vis Chris.
> I will forward this post to some other
> Black activists to get their feedback.
Without the larger context of this ongoing discussion, I'm afraid it will be difficult for them to evaluate fairly. I know for sure it would be damn difficult for me. Don't forget, one of the most powerful elements of the new racism is the quotation of MLK out of context re judging people by the content of their character.
Context is everything.
-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"