I'd say the main difference between us is that you do not take sufficient account of the impact of the institution of colonialism on immigration.
Interjections below.
>>> "rc-am" <rcollins at netlink.com.au> 06/07/99 10:41PM >>>
I had written:
>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.<
Angela: there are two recent examples: the one I mention here (anti-immigrant politics) where I define something as necessarily racist and you do not;
((((((((((((
Charles: But that example exhibits something of the opposite of what you are claiming here. In that discussion , I am not arguing for a wider use of "racism". You are. How does this example support your point here ? It does not demonstrate me overusing racism or not understanding that there are arguments that "racism" may not be applicable in certain instances.
Just to be clear, what I said to you was that some racism is not anti-immigration, because you said something like "anti-immigration is racism" , which is a little overbroad. They are not identical ,although there is significant overlap.
((((((((((((( Angela: 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.
Charles: The examples you give show I do recognize differences in racism in different situations.
(((((((((((((((((
Angela: 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."
Charles: Yes, I recall this, but it doesn't support your claims on this thread that I am overusing "racism" or don't recognize the need to analyze whether "racism" fits a situation.
Nor does it support your vague accusation that somehow I am arguing against immigration today under cover of anti-imperialism.
All I was doing was responding to your proposition " anti-immigration is racism". I pointed out to you that in the case of the slave trade, a form of immigration (though forced) , that immigration was racist.
I stand by that and everything you quote above.
((((((((((((
Angela 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.
Charles: Yes, I still say "racism" should be confined to designating white supremacy. "Prejudice" would be the term to apply to the bias of the oppressed or colonized against the oppressor/colonizer.
I was not thinking so much of the example of coloreds opposing white immigration as not racist, in the context of an oppressed national opposing colonizing immigration by oppressor whites, as in South Africa or the like, but that is a good example, come to think of it. I'd say rather than a confusion, this is necessary limitation on the definiton which colonialism imposes on analysis of immigration.
((((((((((((
Angela
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.
Charles: Actually the racism there is the difference in the way the white immigrants are in fact treated (well) and the way the non-white immigrants are treated (badly).
My applause for Wojtek was because in the case of immigrants from formerly socialist countries (when they were still socialist countries) not only did they have the discrimination in their favor as whites vs discrimination against colored immigrants, but it was part of the bourgeois. anti-communist propaganda. They were "escaping the tyranny of communism". This was actually translated into a legal discrimination in their favor over immigrants from countries that had tyrants supported by the U.S. There was double discrimination in their favor: racist and anti-communist.
Bottomline on this thread is that favoring those immigrants WAS very exactly RACIST, because white immigrants were favored over colored immigrants in U.S. immigration policy. This is still the case I bet.
((((((((((((((((((
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.)
((((((((((((
Charles: You may have stated it several times, but you keep going back to my arguments with you before you had stated it. Most of what you quote above was before you clarified it. In order for me to respond to your discussion of my earlier comments, I have to recall the context , which was your earlier comments.
((((((((((((
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.
Charles: See above.
(((((((((((((
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?
(((((((((((((
Charles: Yes, you can say that, but I have already explained above why it doesn't follow from what I said. So, your asking it helps me to clarify that for you. Thus, I am dishing it out and taking it, contrary to your suggestion above.
As to Jordan, I said that to him because I actually thought he might be arguing for the militias. Why be so into defending them against charges that there is a problem with racism in their ranks if you are an indifferent bystander ? But as it turns out, Jordan is "neutral" on the militias, but militant in fighting what he sees as too much charging racism in general, as I understand him now. I consider the latter worse than finding something positive in the militias.
((((((((((((
Angela: 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.
Chas.: I'd say this is the most straight forward you have been on this. Yes, there is this problem. But it is a minor dimension or cause of anti-immigration, which is mainly white supremacist /xenophobic. Black Americans do not control U.S. immigration policy. Also, not all Black Americans buy the above you describe.
(((((((((((((
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?
Charles: There is some solidarity between Brown and Black on this, but I do not know the overall pattern of joint activism.
I would not undertake to generalize about the attitude toward immigration among Black Americans. I don't have the data. Some Black people somewhere probably even oppose the immigration of Blacks, Haitians, etc. I would guess that most Black people would oppose the widespread DISCRIMINATION based on race in the immigration policy.
(((((((((((((((
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.
Charles: In my opinion, self-determination and anti-imperialism are "inherently leftist vocabulary", and valid analytical and political concepts.
Again, misuse of the terminology by the bourgeoisie or rightwing is not the finally determining factor. For example, Reagan called the counterrevolutionary terrorist gangs he created or supported in Nicaragua , Mozambique, Afghanistan and Angola "freedom fighters". That is left wing terminology, and we don't give it up because Reagan misused it.
((((((((((((((
Angela 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 focus on Lenin's arguments on self-determination. There is extensive literature developing that concept, the "self"'s development, the development of modern nations. You are not differentiating between oppressor and oppressed nations in your analysis. I would say that is a main difference in our definitions. Colonialism is a major aspect of the definition of self-determination as I am using it ,after Lenin.
(((((((((((((((((
>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.
Chas.: I don't have to reach for it. It is jumping out all over the place. We are innundated with it.
((((((((((((((((((
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.
Charles: I disagree sharply with your characterization that I hurl boyish insults. I make adult critiques. The characterization of them as insults or inappropriate comments is part of the current defense works of racism.
(((((((((((((((((
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?
Charles: I can't see you very easily accusing me of downplaying racism.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((
...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.
Charles: I don't "reach" for it on these lists. I'm sort of innundated with it and I don't have to reach to grab it and push it away.
The problem is you think it's not there , and I have to "reach" for it, which has the connotation of conjure it up when it is not there. This is false. It is there in spades, as we say. I am just pointing to what is there.
Charles Brown