It's a reminder of just how intolerant the underlying meaning of the uncritical worship of black nationalism on the part of white leftists really is.
This is an attitude that stereotypes black people just as forcefully as does racism. The stereotype of black resistance amongst the white left is one of a primordial force of nature, struggling to be free. Of course the stereotype demands that the black activist is courageous and steadfast, but also un-intellectual and inarticulate (which is one of the reasons that Rakesh's interest in books is so offensive to his detractors).
The demand for uncritical support sounds good, but what it means is that one refuses to communicate on equal terms. To say to any group in society, 'whatever you say, I agree with it' sounds supportive. But its real meaning is 'it does not matter what you say'.
Real respect means that you should be willing to debate issues without pussy-footing around. To say to someone that what they say doesn't matter, it is their race that is important is really an insult, not support.
It is not surprising that all the hostility in this discussion is directed at Rakesh. Though he never refers to it himself, it is Rakesh's race that makes what he says unacceptable to Carrol and Louis.
To those who hold the position of uncritical support for black activists, Rakesh's rejection of that argument represents a version of the paradox of the Cretan liar ('All Cretans are liars' said the Cretan). This version runs something like this
Carrol: Whatever black people decide for themselves is right.
Rakesh: But black people are often wrong.
Rakesh's race, which is not something that he talks about is of paramount importance to Carrol, because it refutes his original proposition. If Rakesh is black, then he is right. But if he is right, then often black people are wrong. Carrol is in a bind. If he rejects Rakesh's argument then he refutes his own original proposition, if he accepts it then he refutes his original proposition. Rakesh makes him so angry.
After trying to silence Rakesh by placing him outside the arena of acceptable argument (as Ken also tried) Carrol adopts the only solution possible to resolve the paradox: 'Rakesh is white'.
In message <000801be3cfa$e3883e40$7cbb8482 at nathan.newman.yale.edu>, Nathan Newman <nathan.newman at yale.edu> writes
>I've commented on how offensive were Louis's comments such as "Rakesh
>knows nothing about black people" (and if Louis actually knew anything
>about Rakesh's life, he'd shut up and be embarassed for a few years), but
>Carroll jumped the polemics to a whole new level of obscenity when he
>said:
>
>"Rakesh, black in complexion is politically white"
>
>WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU AS A WHITE PERSON TO DEFINE SOMEONE'S ELSE'S
>ETHNICITY?
>
>Okay, Doug, please kick me for violating my own standards of civility, but
>having a discussion of racism where a bunch of white people tells an
>activist of color that he is some kind of oreo race-traitor makes my skin
>crawl. Rakesh has engaged in heroic civility throughout this abuse but
>this has got to end.
>
>--Nathan Newman
>
>
>
-- Jim heartfield