>>> "rc-am" <rcollins at netlink.com.au> 06/05/99 11:18AM >>>
>> Let me guess. You are one of these people who thinks the charge of
>> racism is over used.
Chaz,
can you see a difference between claims that 'racism is overused' and arguments over whether the charge of racism is applicable in certain instances? I would hope that you can, but often, when there is an argument over the latter, you seem all too ready to denounce this as an instance of the former. that is, unless it is you who happen to be arguing that racism not an accurate assessment of a situation or issue... that does not seem to me to be an honest way of conducting a discussion, since what it does is seek to shut any debate down.
((((((((((((((
Charles: Of course, I know the difference between the two. Your questioning whether I can see the difference already begins your argument that follows generalizing about my mixing them up. However, I do not agree that I make the general error that you describe. You will have to bring up specific examples.
((((((((((((((
you and I have disagreed over whether anti-immigrant politics is necessarily racism, and you have argued that immigration and colonisation can be seen as two ways of designating the same thing - an argument which seemed to me to be reaching for a way of justifying anti-immigrant politics on the terrain of an anti-imperialist discourse.
((((((((((((((((
Charles: I have never said what you say here. Your restatements of my statements distort them. In brief, you said something like "anti-immigration is racism". My only point was that this is grammatically a bit overbroad. There is some racism that has little to do with immigration.
Your imagining about justification of anti-immigration politics is just that: your imagination. I don't support anti-immigrant politics.
(((((((((((((((((
that the slogans of anti-imperialism and self-determination can indeed imply racism has not been taken very seriously by those who insist that these are concepts reserved for anti-capitalist politics. it seems americanfront has put paid to that illusion*.
(((((((((((((((
Charles: Demogoguery always abuses progressive ideas and slogans. However, this cannot be a reason to give up anti-imperialist and self-determination ideas and slogans.
((((((((((((
perhaps it is a discourse without much purchase in the US, I don't know. here in australia it is quite central - but I would add a cautionary note: no one thought it was central ten years ago when multiculturalism was regarded as an established discourse. the upshot being: the new racism is indeed very multicultural, as Doug noted in relation to americanfront's crap. there was no dramatic break, the themes 'equal but essentially different' just became more acute, more viciously explicit and more focussed on territorial integrity (self-determination and anti-imperialism you could say).
(((((((((((((
Charles: On parentheses, you mean "you could say". You putting too many words in my mouth to fit your argument in this thread.
Yes, I was thinking of that American Front thread as an example of up to date, Nazi like demogogy. The Nazis were "National SOCIALISTS". And I think Wojtek posted a name that had "workers " in the party title too. Yet, socialist workers parties could not give up their terms because rightwingers were stealing the words. Same here. Just because you have some people stealing the left vocabulary doesn't mean we don't fight for our own words.
((((((((((((((
now, whether or not we will ever agree on this remains open, and it perhaps has as much to do with the different marxist currents to which we subscribe than with anything else. but it is the case that we have disagreed - and I would not think of accusing you of belittling racism or of resorting to the charge you've made against others when they've disagreed with your analysis of, say, the militias or the shootings in Littleton.
((((((((((((((((((((
Charles: I am not following your example on this as far as my arguments or citiques. I don' t agree with your analysis of racism, and thereby I don't agree with your attitude of "not thinking about criticizing others on militias or the shootings in Littleton.
Put simply , if I were to take your approach on this, it would mean that I agree with your analysis of the problem of racism and how it is reflected in the discourse here. But I don't agree with you. So, I wouldn't follow your approach of failing to critique the racism in the militias or Littleton. And the failure to make such criticism is a reflection on the left of racism itself. It is a step down from the approach of the white left from twenty years ago.
Charles Brown
______ * the citation from americanfront: "The People's of every Nation have an unalienable right to self-determination - to preserve their own culture and traditions and have control over their future and the future of their children. We believe that European (White) people represent distinct Nations in American, Canada, and Quebec, linked by ties of culture and history. Common ancestry is the main determining factor in Nationhood. We feel that culturally mixed societies cannot form a true Nation and are inherently unstable. No one race or culture is "superior" to others, but they are all different. Racial integration threatens all Peoples. Humane efforts towards separation and self-determination are better for us than endless repression, tension, and racial violence."