At most this still shows that the Ayran race does not yet exist. I do not think that the Ayran Nation types are the sort of threat the Nazis were, in any case.
>
> Of course the white race is a social reality without a real
> > biological foundation,
>>but has a kind of objectivity that is quite resistant
> > to change and cannot be wished away.
>
>"a kind of objectivity"? i understand that we are not writing dissertations
>here and that we have to cut some analytical corners but this is a bit
>mystical.
Don't be obtuse. The idea of objectivirt as intersbeerjectivirt is not mystical. Nations are entirely socially constituted, but they exit because we agree they do. They are objective: there really is a Uniterd States. But its existence is not independent of what we collectively think. This is not particularly hard.
absolutely nobody in this discussion has suggested that "racial" problems,
however one characterizes them, can be wished away- . . . . seems less
indicative of careful "listening" to what's being said and more like
somebody just vampin' on the general theme, just sorta talkin' to himself or
herself.
>
Well, excuse me. I think that that calling on people to renounce their
whiteness amounts to this sort of foolishness.
>
>In fact I am white _because_ I am treated as whote whether I like or
> > not.
>
>not only that. you are also white because you are deemed to "act" white and
>because you are not, for example, a part of an effective
>anti-white/anti-authoritarian social movement that might attract reprisals
>from various intellegence and police agencies. when you start to think,
>act, and talk in anti-white terms, you will begin--and only begin--the
>process of becoming anti-white.
This leaves itself open to the kind of criticism Spike Lee launched against jsut thsi sort of attitude in Bamboozled,w ith the white participant in hsi fictiona "Mau Mau" group. I think Lee is right: even then, in our society, renouncing white skin privilege is easier said than done.
>
>Same goes for the black race too, btw.
>
>yes and no. yes because a liberating, revolutionary tendency requires that
>"black" folk move beyond the destructive contradictions of blackness. but
>no: on the whole, black folk are much more open to radical, fundamental
>change, and much better prepared for it. both the prison gaurd and the
>prisoner are fucked but the prisoner always has a deeper appreciation of
>and desire for freedom. when's the last time you saw a white man speak
>convincingly of freedom?
This is radical chic, it's sort of embarrassing to see these attitudes from the 1970s being deployed today. Blacks are staunchly liberal in many attitudes, deeply conservative in others, but the black revolution has faded, to say the least. And I have heard and read many white men who spoke convincingly of freedom. I like to think that I am one of them.
--jks _____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com