Oh Max, you have been inside the Beltway too long if you think that DC/PG County is the most likely place to find real world expressions of what you call "practice." That's like saying Atlanta is representative of the South, or Santa Fe of the SW. Time for you to take a few months off, climb in the jelopy, and visit the world outside DC and its environs.
>On the whole I don't deny that the BRC is
>an encouraging development, but as we know
>it has yet to unfold. In any case, I don't
>need to be convinced of its positive
>potential.
Good.
. . .
>> come to establish THE BLACK REVOLUTIONARY VANGUARD or some other kind of
>
>That's not my particular preoccupation but reflected
>my effort to accept the terms of others' views for
>the sake of argument. "Vanguard" need not apply to
>revolution, but simply to the leading source of
>militancy or even reform.
I presume on this list at least that words like "vanguard" have more than dictionary meaning. If you want to use them generically, outside the Left lexicon, then you'd better make that explicit.
>> . . .
>> experience and the opportunities the BRC afforded them. You want
>> "evidence." You will have to look in the myriad of places where
>> these Black
>> radical activists carry out their political work, as opposed to
>
>I'm looking.
Not if you limit your quest to the Beltway! Try south side of Chicago, Hunters Point out here or Richmond (either CA or VA will do), Memphis, Kansas City, Jackson, MS, ......
>
>> . . .
>> I question why the BRC is automatically branded "nationalist."
>
>Note that the term is not pejorative coming from me,
>but really, if something is called the "black radical
>congress" is at least divided on the subject of inviting
>whites, it seems safe to call it a nationalist gathering,
>broadly speaking, while recognizing that it entails many
>shades of variation.
How many predominantly white conferences have you been to in which there were a multitude of tendencies, some extreme, others not? These rarely if ever are characterized on the basis of their whiteness, but when Blacks gather and among them are some who would just as soon never interact with a white person if they did not have to, the entire gathering is immediately labeled "nationalist." When SCLC or the A. Philip Randolph Institute, or any number of other primarily Black organizations conduct gatherings to which only a handful of whites come, they are not branded "nationalist." But when Black radicals convene and seek to do so without having to cater to the views, interests, or feelings of whites, the entire gathering becomes "nationalist." When Jews gather together are those gatherings automatically Zionist? When Christians gather are they automatically Anti-Semetic?
>> "nationalist." When the Coalition of Labor Union Women, or the National
>> Organization of Women meet, would they be "sexist" conclaves because they
>
>Feminist, not sexist. Just as nationalist need not
>be racist.
Nationalist need not be racist, but in the context of the debate we have been having, its use was linked to "exclusion," which suggests that those who feel excluded on the basis of their race invest in the term "nationalist" something more than a benign characterization, especially considering the emotional volatility of the interchanges we have had.
>Cheers,
>
>Max
And three cheers to you too.
In solidarity, Michael