thanks for the tone. still there is much to fight about...
>
> i don't see why you think anyone thinks nazism bizarre while not also
> thinking the white race bizarre?
one can't prove these things but it seems obvious to me that the vast majority of everyday folks, particularly whites, don't think there is any thing particularly bizarre about the notion of a white race. do you really believe that you could make a casual comment at a dinner table with everyday white folk about how strange the notion of a white race is and have everybody around you saying, "well, that's obvious" or elaborating on your comment. you would more likely get stoney silence or somebody might ask you what you meant by that.
for most people, their is nothing bizarre about the idea of the white race in america because it is simply a fact of everyday life life. goose-stepping aryans spouting vile about a master race looks a little strange because it is not part of everyday life in america, much of the intellectual roots of aryan suypremacy having their roots in this country not withstanding. even for sophisticated lefties who don't buy into racialism, the everyday, mundane social fact of the white race can become so familiar as to dull one to its repressive edge.
frankly, i am more convinced that the
> particular brand of racialization in the US is one in which whiteness is
> erased while others come to have race.
again, i'm a bit confused. you say "frankly" as if i implied otherwise somewhere or as if this was not a primary concern of mine. i don't think i wrote explicitly what you wrote above in any of my messages but i thought it would have been obvious by now that i believe it to be a serious problem that "race" usually means "black", or at the very minimum, "not white", making white folk the norm from which all others deviate. indeed, the whole point of developing the "anti-white" language as a part of a larger critical political discourse is to put the spotlight directly on white folks in a way that "anti-racism" does not.
very few people think of the "white
> race" as a race,
i would say that white people don't of themselves as members of race simply because they don't have to think about race like black folks do. but when the topic comes up, yes, i think that most white folks think and talk as if they are members of a racial group. most everyday black folk, you can be sure, think of white people as a race.
but they did and do think of blacks, asians, native
> american, latinos as a race.
yes
and now, when leftists have come to question
> "race" they question the social construction of other groups and not
> whiteness conceived of as a race.
yes, this has been my point...
>
> the problem with this, as you know, becomes most poignant for me when i
> teach. my pedagogy and research has drawn on the lessons of black feminist
> thought*-- to turn the analysis to whiteness, middle and upper middle
> classness, heterosexuality, masculinity, etc to make those groups
> uncomfortable, to turn the spotlight on them for a change. such an
> approach is extremely difficult b/c it does set off a great deal of
> hostility, as you know.
yes...
>
> *(black feminists basically have said: quit asking me what it's like to be
> black, what racism means for me and start asking yourself how whiteness,
> etc works).
>
> >a i
> > > haven't read one regular contributor who doesn't also realize that nazism
> > > and fasicsm were only extreme forms of what was taking place all over.
> >
> >what do you mean by all over? europe?
>
> i think dennis answered this question pretty much as i would. but yes,
> guilty as charged for being careless in my wording.
>
>
> > and
> > > i think most folks agree that racialization (that's balibar's and zizek's
> > > and others' word for the process through which bodies are marked, etc)
> > > should point our analysis to those doing the racializing and not just
> > those
> > > who have been racialized.
> >
> >is there anything that i wrote that suggest that it should not?
>
> chris, can you see how this question is unnecessarily seeking out some sort
> of argument when there is none?
ok, kelly. first of all i am not seeking any arguments. second of all, i was a little frustrated because neither you or dennis answered my very basic question about whether oppressed goups in japan, etc., were members of different racial groups than their oppressors. i asked the question because i was trying to get clear on your opinion so that we could "converse" more coherently but both of you just ignored the question, then proceeded as if the answer to the question did not matter. in that context, yes, it did indeed seem like you were pointing out something that you did not think i was grasping. but if you weren't, well i apologize for the tone.
but frankly, kelly, you are gonna put the heat on me for a pretty mild question asking for clarity after all the very obvious, very white shuckin' and jivin' that's been going on here by some other folks?
that's what i mean. i haven't attacked or
> challenged you. i was describing what i take to be the position of most
> folks on this list who've addressed these issues--and we have several times
> in the past. i remember you from way back when, i'm correct right? but
> you left in the fall of 98 perhaps?
yeah, that's right. i remember some of the unnecessary nastines with which my commentary was greeted and bolted after just a couple months on the list-serve. way too much ego and cult-of-brutal-critique shit and too little constructive discourse. very, very white. i joined the list because i've long been a reader and admire of lbo and thought that i would find a community of serious thinkers really committed to creative thought and principled struggle. oops. i am making a second attempt because i still think there are a lot of smart, well meaning people on this list-serve fromwhom i can learn a great deal, or so i hope.
> >come on, kelly. please don't condescend. i can read. i know when questions
> >are being evaded or when straw men are being created. white folks,
> >including white leftist, are unfamiliar and uncomfortable with an
> >anti-white analysis. my experience in discussing these matters with
> >otherwise serious white activist is that they don't listen, or as is the
> >case on listserves, they don't read, then become quite defensive.
>
> sure, we're uncomfortable. i don't have a problem with being anti-white or
> referring to it as anti-white. but that's because i don't think it matters
> what you call it.
but i do! maybe that's why you ignored my question. listen, if you don't think it matters then try the following expirement with a friend. give your friend a bumper sticker that reads "end racism now!" and have him put it on the back of his car. you take a bumper sticker that reads "abolish the white race by any means necessary!" and do the same. then both of you should drive around--let's say downtown boston. who do you think is more likely to get stopped by the police? who is more likely to get their car firembombed by some charlestown thugs?
i also don't think dennis's or anyone's else use of the
> word racism is indicative of their fear. nor do i think that the use of
> that concept means that they don't share an analysis very much in line with
> yours.
frankly, i'm having a hard time pinning down y'alls analysis...you've said some interesting things but i am not at all sure what they have to do with a discussion about racial discourse itself.
>
> in sociology, we try to deal with the same phenom, by talking about
> structural racism and individual level racism, disentangling them for the
> purposes of analysis, but also examining them as they work in tandem,
> though sometimes even at odds with one another.
>
again, the conversation has largely been about language but you write here as if i have not indicated several times that i have serious problems with this term. do you see how this could be frustrating for me?
> i don't think, say, my use of the concept of racialization is somehow
> expressing my desire to evade the analysis you ask of others, nor do i
> think it is because i am afraid of destroying whiteness.
kelly, i LIKE the term racialism! i think it is a very useful term. i thought i made that clear. i think you are referring to my comments about "racism." you see how things have gotten a little screwy...
chris niles
>
>