>can you see a difference between claims that 'racism is overused' and
>arguments over whether the charge of racism is applicable in certain
>instances?
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.<
there are two recent examples: the one I mention here (anti-immigrant politics) where I define something as necessarily racist and you do not; and the thread on the militias, where you referred to them as an instance of racism and someone disagreed with you. the point being, that in the latter you made the accusation that Jordan (?) was downplaying racism; whereas in the former (following your example, which I don't) I could accuse you of the same thing. I don't, though we disagree over whether a specific set of politics is racism.
I had written:
>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.<
Chaz replied:
>I have never said what you say here. Your restatements of my statements
>distort them.<
this is what you had written: "Charles: Yes, there is a very big racist dimension to U.S. anti-immigration, especially in California and Texas, southwest, as you say. But the point I am making is that there is also much of racism is rooted in relations between "settled" populations. In other words, the "immigration" of Africans was forced on them, long ago, (at that time immigration, not anti-immigration was the racism; the slave trade was the racists being pro immigration, if you follow me)."
and, in reply to my comment: "so, it is historically, if not analytically, absurd to say that colonisation was/is immigration.", you wrote: "Chas.: Naw, not absurd. I imagine if we used a dictionary definition it might even fit."
what prompted an offlist conversation and debate about immigration politics was my question of some time ago re the BRC's position on immigration. according to you, the designation 'racism' should be confined to white supremacist politics. by implication, if someone was anti the immigration of people they defined as 'white', this would not by definition be racism. hence, immigration itself can be defined as racism, as per your remarks above. this is a confusion between colonisation and immigration.
in short, you see racism as potentially a 'dimension' of an anti-immigrant position, whereas I see it as intrinsic. you would therefore applaud a statement that 'white' immigrants were cheating their way in to the US, as you did a recent comments of wojtek's on eastern european immigrants, and in my view missed the racist 'dimension' of such statements.
C:>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.<
on the last point we have never disagreed once have we? as for grammar, it's certainly ugly, but saying that 'anti-immigration is racism' is not saying that all racism is anti-immigration, is it? (I've restated this numerous times, but for some reason, you keep going back to it, as well as trying to convince me that not all anti-immigration is racism.)
by saying that my 'grammar' is 'overbroad', you are saying that my definition is too broad. you are saying I have misapplied it. we disagree on this, as you have disagreed with jordan and others over whether a particular instance/event is or is not racism. how that makes any of us racist is not clear.
C: >Your imagining about justification of anti-immigration politics is just
>that: your imagination. I don't support anti-immigrant politics.<
I never thought you actually did Chaz. but I think you might be looking for ways to render the BRC's inability to take a clear position on this as palatable. you recently wrote to jordan: "The unstated implication of your discussion is that you are pro-Michigan Militia and are offended by an investigation of the suggestion that they have fascistic racists in their ranks."? should I say instead of the above that 'the unstated implication of your discussion is that you are pro-black nationalism and are offended by an investigation of the suggestion that they have racists in their ranks'? I wouldn't say that, but there is only so far you can presume to know what the other is in fact denying based on a smattering of short posts in cyberplaces. and if you deny this, should I accuse you of being able to dish it out but not take it?
related to this (and I am not saying Chaz that you take this position): there was a lengthy debate in Telos on immigration to the US, in which the key argument against immigration was that it would degrade the ability of the US to recompense the descendants of slaves, that it would eat away the nation's welfare budget, thus impoverishing those already in the US who were poor, and mostly black, etc.... you can see the general line: here was an attempt to enhance the anti-immigrant line in the US by giving it an anti-racist spin, and by making it look like the victims of the supposedly deleterious effects of immigration would be black people.
I would guess that anti-immigrant politics amongst blacks in the US is (relative to whites) much smaller, though I have no figures and would like to see any if they were available. but my concern in raising this is the same as my question from some time back that led to this discussion: is there any combined effort on the part of Hispanics and blacks in the US to fight anti-immigrant politics?
it was a question of the extent, or not, of solidarity. how much is this line (apparent in Telos) a real division expressed as the absence of key black political groupings in the struggles against anti-immigration politics?
C: >Just because you have some people stealing the left vocabulary doesn't mean we don't fight for our own words.<
the question that needs to be posed is whether this (self-determination and ant-imperialism) is an inherently leftist vocabulary. the military coup in Fiji was driven by the concepts of self-determination; the violence in aceh and ambon (indonesia) is driven by concepts of self-determination; same goes for the politics of One Nation here; the la rouchite support for global apartheid (what Doug called multicultural racism); etc. these are examples.
at a conceptual level, the concept of self-determination and independence leaves unquestioned the processes by which the 'self' is constituted. how are the lines drawn around this 'self'? if it is constituted in any way approximating a familial definition (kinship, blood ties, race, etc) then it is racist, not emancipatory, and certainly not marxist.
the first act of australian self-determination (in 1901, the first law of federal parliament) was the 'white australia policy': an explicit act against British insistence that Chinese immigrants should not be excluded as a whole. anti-imperialism in this instance was racist.
>Charles: 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.<
I didn't say you shouldn't criticise others on this point or any other. I said that you should be sure to say that you are disagreeing with their analysis, not reach for the accusation that they are 'downplaying racism' or pretending racism isn't important. I haven't seen anyone 'downplay racism' - I have seen it hotly contested whether a specific occasion, remark, issue is racism. that it raises so much heat shows that it is taken seriously. it may well be a form of denial that's going on, but if it is, then it isn't going to be immediately transparent to the denier is it? and the same then could be said of everyone, including you and I. in which case, there should be other ways of elaborating what's at stake than hurling (what can easily become) boyish insults.
we disagree on what racism is, and this isn't always reducible to the fact that we come from different countries, it's also a difference of politics, biography, perhaps even age. I can't see either of us reaching easily for the accusation against the other of 'downplaying racism' though, can you?
...though I do recall you reaching for this when we first started yelling at eachother on the lists, and it's taken a cessation of the yelling in order to be able to actually have the debate.
Angela --- rcollins at netlink.com.au