Actually, the tendency that most gets on my nerves is with the white activists who claim that we need to "listen" to the wants, needs, and thoughts of black people or other particularly oppressed groups, then choose a sect as the "spokepeople" for blacks; the group itself being completely out of touch with most black people and much more popular among chic white radicals.
If we truly "listened" to the average black person, and heeded his/her political wisdom, we would all be voting for left of center democrats. Furthermore, we would be Christian with a great deal of ambivalence about abortion and drug legalization. This is the absurdity of the white identity politic trend.
Better that we speak for ourselves and base our political action on our own perceptions, however limited they may be. The key is to expand our perceptions, and to understand why a vote for a democrat who will guarantee a few more millions in social programs is worth voting for, even if we choose to avoid "lesser evil politics" because the difference has little or no meaning for our personal lives.
In my opinion, the racism on the left is most profound in ideological absolutes, and identity politics where we pick and choose the "spokespeople" for another community.
Yours,
Eric
rc&am wrote:
>
> i can smell bridges burning as i'm about to post....
>
> i've been trying to get some work done and avoid list banter and list
> flurry, but i am really becoming quite fascinated with the extent to
> which anything outside established orthodoxy on anti-racism gets so
> gleefully jumped on as (this is the implication - how can anyone
> really doubt what is being implied...) racism itself. what the fuck
> is going on? there have been anti-semitic statements i've seen passed
> by with very little mention, and some notable apologetics, there's
> even been some good old homophobia and sexism that i've seen defended
> as if it wasn't what was happening at all; including some pretty
> machismo 'polemics' that goes largely unnoticed because it is regarded
> as somehow standard marxist fare. this on the various left/marxist
> lists i've been on.
>
> what is really incredible though, is that none of these things gets
> discussed at length. i'm not suggesting that they necessarily should,
> but the comparison is pretty interesting.
>
> on the contrary, when particular anti-racist strategies are critiqued
> - FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT ARE VIABLE OR EFFECTIVE ANTI-RACIST
> POLITICS - all hell breaks loose. what the fuck is going on?
>
> aint it also a tad strange that those who have been most vehement in
> their defence of established orthodoxies claim a special insight into
> 'what the true interests/politics of black people are - or at least
> should be', since these statements are really so much prescription?
> and, i am somewhat surprised that those who usually have quite a
> critical attitude, like carrol, would now sit back and assert that the
> facticity of 'black nationalism' is akin to the facticity of
> mountains. isn't it more apt to compare this facticity with that of,
> say, capital or wage labour or femininity or masculinity or any other
> historical fact? sure, it exist, and sure, what do we actually do
> about it other than ruminate on these lists, but since when did this
> entail casting them as being off limits for critique?
>
> aint it also a tad unsettling that those who are accused of 'not
> having a clue' what these 'interests' might be are themselves
> subjected to racism? what is going on here? what exactly are the
> stakes involved that such maliciousness would be brought to bear on
> what should/could be a fairly interesting discussion and debate over
> what the most effective strategies might be? are there lives at stake
> from this email discussion such that this insistence on holding fast
> to a particular line is warranted? i doubt it. does some 'white
> folk's' self-image as anti-racist get a boost when they can imply a
> more intimate (or the correct) understanding of what is best for the
> anti-racist struggle?
>
> the only possible explanation i can come up with for such crappy stuff
> is that anti-racism has become so instrumentalised within the left -
> something that some people feel accords them with a moralizing
> capacity they would not otherwise have - that it is no longer really a
> question of what the most effective anti-racist strategies might be,
> but rather how anti-racism can be mobilized in the service of various
> doctrines about the world. one of those doctrines is clearly about
> the need for icons. so: iconisation is to be protected over and above
> any serious discussion of anti-racism, because anti-racism is now
> reduced to, or made synonymous with, iconisation. now, i reckon no
> one who takes themselves seriously as a marxist would shy away from
> the ambiguities involved in anti-racism, nor indeed from the specific
> case of the problems associated with nationalism or malcolm x, but
> this to some extent has been what is happening here. i do think loius
> is a serious marxist. but i think he's being peculiarly cynical. i
> don't reckon he actually believes in malcolm x in the unequivocal way
> that you would assume from reading his defense/attack posture. but,
> he does think it - iconisation - is an important INSTRUMENT of left
> organisation - something for all those less-than-theorised masses who
> couldn't possibly understand a complex argument - they need icons and
> simple phrases or else confusion threatens. somehow, to critique the
> icons would be to put at risk the possibility of anti-racism? i doubt
> this too, since no one has really set forth a defense of 'balck
> nationalism' - whatever that is - as an effective anti-racism. all
> i've seen is an at-distance discussion about why the 'white left'
> should meet up with black nationalist movements and try to recruit
> (potential marxists) from them. and isn't the swp's malcolm x just
> such a handy instrument in this? you can forget about anti-racism
> here.
>
> rakesh may have been wrong in not emphasizing 'the break' as loius
> contends, but that does not fully explain for me why his statements
> have been met with such hostility, since as far as i can read them,
> they were critical remarks on a specific politics. if they haven't
> been sufficiently elaborated, and i for one would like to see them
> argued through a bit more so i do get an idea of the fullness of such
> a critique, it's perhaps because the discussion has instead become one
> in which rakesh feels he has to defend himself from some pretty
> vicious insults. in any case, this talk of 'breaks', where it has
> been entertained, has only been invoked as a way of refusing a
> critique of this 'earlier period' and the politics therein, which may
> well be enjoying a resurgence. i'm wondering also that it may well be
> easier for the 'white' left to pass over in silence the policing of
> the acceptable boundaries of subjectivity/politics by 'black
> nationalist' groups, to think that the only real issue at hand is
> whether or not use them as a potential site for recruiting and little
> else.
>
> looking forward to actually debating racism and strategies for dealing
> with it at some stage,
>
> } or is it not allowed?
>
> angela