>Actually, I said the U.S. policy is riddled with racism. I am not sure I
would say the U.S. policy IS racism. Max or somebody will jump on the logic
of it. Some racism is not anti-immigration. Perhaps you mean ALL
anti-immigration is racist.<
this is what I wrote: ">I would not say that anti-immigration *in general* is riddled with racism. I would say that anti-immigration is racism." does that say racism is reducible to the anti-immigration aspects of it? I don't think so. I'm not sure what you're getting at. I would omit the word 'riddled', specifically because I think that racism is constitutive of an anti-immigration position, as distinct from anti-immigration being simply a terrain in which racism appears. so: anti-immigration is racism.
>I was not involved in that aspect of the BRC. In fact, I only went to the
feminist workshop , because I had to leave early. I am a rank and file member
and I have not really been involved in any of the writing of the Agenda. I
have sent in comments. If you elaborate your comments , I will send them to
one of the leading collectives. <
I've been looking thru my folders and can't find the agenda, or was it draft agenda, that got posted some time back. but I recall the wording being something which led me to think that a space was being left open for a discussion of immigration, but that it looked like there was far from any agreement, as there were on most other points. leaving open the space for a future statement is a good thing, but I am wondering to what degree there is resistance to this and why, when there might be resistance to many things this one was not overcome.
I guess I'm also asking a more general question about the possibility or existence of anti-racist work that encompasses both African Americans and Mexican Americans.
>
>Hey, is deconstruction sort of destructive creation ?<
more creative destruction. the emphasis would be on a critique of the terms of construction of something.
Angela --- rcollins at netlink.com.au