>>> "rc-am" <rcollins at netlink.com.au> 04/29/99 02:48PM >>>
Chaz wrote:
>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.
Chas.: So by your usage if something is constitutitive of the position of something else it is that something else ? OK.
My way of saying it would be that anti-immigration is often racist in the U.S. And the obverse of your above: anti-immigration is not reducible to its racism. Thus, the usage "anti-immigration is racism" would be misleading. It would be like saying "The Littleton murders are racism". Can you imagine the furor on this list if I said that ? Just saying the murders are racist is bad enough.
However, I didn't speak in terms of "simply a terrain in which racism appears". You seem to attribute to me the notion that anti-immigration is a terrain in which racism appears. But I didn't say that. I said the U.S. immigration policy is riddled with racism and I gave you several examples. The number aspects and importance of the impact of racism on the conduct of the Immigration and Naturalization Service is what I meant by riddled.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((
>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.
Chas.: I will look into it. I think there is some possibility that the phrase you are referring to may not have been meant to say something limiting support for opening up immigration
))))))))))))))))))
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.
Chas.: The struggle for affirmative action is anti-racist campaign for both Blacks and Chicanos. In general, all work for anti-racist laws attacks the racism against both groups. All other racially oppressed groups benefitted from the Civil Rights Movement/Black Power movement of the 60's/70's. There is a long history of joint struggle between the two groups you mention. In the overall picture ,there are some conflicts too, but the BRC very much reflects the tradition of unity between progressive Blacks and Browns.
>
>Hey, is deconstruction sort of destructive creation ?<
more creative destruction. the emphasis would be on a critique of the terms of construction of something.
Chas. Do you know of Schumpeter's phrase about capitalism having creative destruction as a key moment. That's why I said it the other way, to avoid the identity with Schumpeter's term. Did the deconstructionists intend to render an idea analogous to the economist Schumpeter's ? In Marxist terms, periodically some constant capital has to be destroyed to reestablish or raise the rate of profit.
Charles Brown