oh and carrol i forgot. i don't think it silly to say that there is one group called 'whites" i think it problematic. i suspect what jordan gets annoyed with is that the charges made individualized and personalizes racism, when he might rather argue that racism is institutionalized [systemic, systematic] in the way i mentioned elsewhere, and miles added to it by talking about hidden forms of discrimination. i'm just not sure where i came off as suggesting it was silly.
an example. black women slaves were often stereotyped as either overly sexual jezebels or asexual mammies. that stereotype worked in conjunction with the ideals of victorian womanhood in complex ways. white women (uppermiddle class white women, to get really specific) were subjected to and defined in terms of the victorian ideal of womanhood [we could talk about how that aided and abetted capitalism, too, but i don't have time]. that ideal of white upper middle class womanhood worked very efficiently because black slaves were defined as being not women--as too sexual or not at all. [similar process with defining white working class women as overly sexualized, a stereotype that is still with us. now what i was suggesting to henry was that it is fruitful to look at how that worked and continues to work today. i realize that you think that this is idealism and subjectivism. i have explained why i think it's not and why it's important to understand why people come to have the identities and self understandings that they have because of the real, material social relations that shape their lives. in my work, i focus on the workplace, but one could make the argument for other concrete very material social practices that shape identities. it's not a question of ideas influencing action as you always seem to read it. but more anon.
kelley