Speaking to an African American union leader who returned from the BRC, I was told there were about 2000 in attendance (organizers expected something more like 500-750), of whom perhaps 25 were white, a few were Asian, and a few were Latino. These are his ball park estimates, not a systematic evaluation of registrations. The organizers (a diverse group) did not seek white participation or encourage it but no white person, Asian, or Latino who sought admission was turned away. I think you have clearly explained the objective of the BRC organizers, as well as how presumptuous (dare I say arrogant and patronizing) it is for white "intellectuals" to condemn the desire of Black activists to work through their own differences without having to simultaneously address the interventions of non-Blacks (whether well-meaning or not).
I have not heard it said, but would those who decried (while erroneously describing nonexistent) exclusionism make the same argument to women when they sought to meet without men present, as a means and prelude to more effectively addressing sexism in society, but also in the Left, which had been so rampant and which created such an obstacle course as well as outright barriers to their exercise of leadership and full participation in every aspect of the movement?
To describe any gathering of Black radicals as an expression of nationalism and an impediment to class unity is not just wrong. It is insulting, pretentious, patronizing, and condescendingly arrogant and presumptuous. All one has to do is to consider the innumerable occasions on which the white Left has met to ponder theory or strategy on any number of fronts with little more than a token nod (if that) toward the participation of non-whites without a hint of self-consciousness to realize why those who put together the BRC would have little interest in encouraging white radicals to attend. The best guarantee of Black/White unity which is widely agreed to be essential for working class victories is for whites to challenge other whites in their expression or demonstration of continuing racism, bigotry, discrimination, bias, insensitivity, and the myriad other manifestations which constitute the real barriers to unity. Reactionary nationalism is the other side of the coin of rampant racism. What we need to create a better foundation for unity is fewer words and more deeds -- or may I say, praxis.
In solidarity, Michael E.
At 05:07 PM 6/24/98 -0500, Jamie Owen Daniel wrote:
>Folks,
>
>I've just re-subscribed to the lbo list and thus am entering the
>discussion of the BRC in mid- or perhaps late stream. I want to respond
>to Carrol's reply today to Doug's inquiry about what actually went on at
>the BRC (tagged on below) and to several comments made yesterday and today
>on the BRC.
>
>I teach at UIC in Chicago where the BRC was held & I organized the annual
>eight-day Institute on Culture and Society of the Marxist Literary Group
>which met June 13-20 and thus coincided with the BRC. (Thanks again,
>Doug, for joining us.) When I realized this coincidence would be the
>case, I immediately asked black colleagues at UIC and black
>comrades from political organizations to which I belong who were working
>on the organizing committee about whether we (the mostly white MLG
>people) would be able to attend some of the BRC sessions.
>
>>From the get-go, it was clear that the question of just how the BRC
>could be a specifically BLACK Radical Congress if it were open to
>white registrants was one over which the organizers were agonizing. In
>the weeks just before the BRC I was in daily contact with these people,
>who made it clear that heated arguments were going on and continued to go
>on over this issue until the last minute. My friends on the committee
>finally informed me that, although they were deeply, painfully conflicted
>about making such a request, they would prefer that the BRC be understood
>to be a specifically black event, meant to allow a space for black
>activists with often widely divergent positions and politics to meet and
>figure out ways to work with each other, understanding this as a vitally
>necessary first and long-overdue step to take BEFORE it would be possible
>to begin to address how
>to make stronger links with predominantly white activist/left/radical
>constituencies.
>
>I informed the MLG registants of this, most of whom understood the issues
>and respected the organizers' preference. However, those who disagreed
>with the policy went over to the Friday night opening plenary and were
>admitted without opposition or any resistance.
>
>Reading some of the responses to the BRC "exclusivity" policy on this list
>and others has convinced me that it was indeed necessary as a FIRST step,
>as Carrol realizes, toward a more unified black&white left. Comments such
>as those yesterday by someone who claimed that "combatting corporate
>capitalism was more important than Black, Gay or Women's 'struggles'" (the
>quotes here obviously implying that these aren't authentic struggles) are
>PRECISELY what the BRC organizers are reacting to--the smug finger-shaking
>superiority of traditional leftists who assume everyone else should be as
>able as they are to consider race- and gender-based experiences of
>oppression secondary effects of class oppression, and therefore not worthy
>of the primary attention of "serious" leftists such as themselves.
>There's been an undercurrent of dismissiveness toward "identity" issues on
>this and many, many other supposedly left lists and discussions of late,
>often pitting "identity politics", caricatured, against "real politics",
>equally caricatured or left undefined. I won't list here the many, many
>recent books/articles etc. in this vein, but simply note that the worst
>excesses of the worst kind of "identity politics" haven't simply sprung up
>out of the blue overnight. Rather, they've been consistently fertilized
>at least since the 1970s by a rich supply of self-righteous doo-doo
>unwittingly provided by those lefties whom "anonymous" referred to earlier
>today as "whiny, condescending bourgeois whites" (Rakesh's "Nation"
>readers who see the magazine as a mirror of bourgie middle-class
>progressive values and priorities), folks who don't have to prioritize
>or even think much about race or gender if they don't want to. As long as
>they chose to exercise this option, an option that simply isn't available
>for most Americans, groups like the BRC will sontinue to see, and to
>rightly see, the white middle-class progressive left as an obstacle to be
>overcome rather than as a potential partner.
>
>This point has been made often enough over the years, but it sure seems to
>be taking a long time to sink into some folks' heads.
>
>Jamie
>
>On Wed, 24 Jun 1998, Carrol Cox wrote:
>