> I don't recognize the words below as mine. I don't necessarily
> disagree with it , but I think we should keep who said what
> straight ,because
> I might have differently formulations from people who I
> essentially agree with.
> > >we view in reality 180 million racists. The radical who is
> > fighting to bring about change is
CHas. is quite right. The quote about 180 million racists is from the SNCC statement Louis uploaded. I regret the error in attribution.
> > >conscious of this fact, but does not have the courage to admit
> this. When
> > >he admits this reality, then he must also admit his involvement
> > because he
> > >is a part of the collective white America. It is only to the
> > extent that he
> > >recognizes this that he will be able to change this reality.
> > This is just guilt-tripping rubbish. If all white people are
> > intrinsicaly racist then any progressive project is doomed from the
> > outset.
> Quite right, though the statement itself is
> sufficiently broad and wide-ranging that one
> cannot dismiss every included assertion.
> > . . .
> > It is a shame that just when a number of young and working class people
> > were distancing themselves from the outlook of the US establishment and
> > the fictitious community of American nationalism, here is the SNCC
> > insisting that, no on the contrary, all white people have a common
> > interest in racial oppression.
> It may not be obvious but my impression is that the
> SNCC statement is a good thirty years old. It has
> no current significance at all. SNCC no longer
> exists. It derives from Stokely Charmichael's move to
> expel whites from SNCC, which was a major, negative
> development in radical politics. Charmichael himself
> hasn't done anything positive since. A documentary
> on SNCC including archival footage showed SC as one
> jive turkey. I myself attended a speech by him many
> years ago (well after the SNCC turn) featuring explicit
> jew-baiting, a perfect example of the case of negative
> nationalism which can only have the effect of driving
> whites to the right.
> JH again:
> > . . .
> > This is the classic difference between moralism and Marxism. The SNCC
> > statement is a moral critique of racism, which appeals to guilty white
> > liberals, to recognise their culpability, and hang their heads in shame.
> > But it does not appeal to the working class to break from the ruling
> > racial ideology on the basis of their material interests.
> > It is an appeal addressed not to class interest but to middle class
> > guilt.
> In addition, it reflects an inept effort to claim
> leadership of that which it cannot win by force of
> positive persuasion. Otherwise known as selling
> wolf tickets.