>
>kelly,
>
>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
>
> >
> >
>
_____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com