>
> i answered your question. i disagree because i'm a woman and a feminist
> and if i followed your demands regarding another struggle that's important
> to me, i'd call that struggle anti-masculinism. but masculinism isn't
> really capturing, for me, the complexity of women's experiences of
> oppression. i don't think getting rid of masculinity will get rid of
> sexism or gendered institutions and practices.
again, kelly, i am not arguing that changing terminology will get rid of anything, no matter what the struggle. i have never suggested this. i am arguing that changing terminology can help us to both see the target more clearly and improve communication among agitators.
no word EVER captures the complexity of ANY experience. we should all know this by now. language, as i said at the very beginning of this thread, is always approximate. but for every phenomenah, some words are more approximate, more precise, than others.
just like too many marxist confuse any kind of moral or ethical concern with moralizing, a lot of marxist confuse a concern with "getting the language right" with "paralysis of analysis." we can do better than this.
> yes, putting an "abolish the white race" bumper sticker on our cars (and an
> abolish masculinity bumper sticker and/or abolish capitalists, too) would
> mean we'd get stopped by cops, etc.
careful now: this was not about JUST getting stopped because you sport that bumper sticker, it was about getting stopped MORE than you would if you had the anti-racism sticker. that was shat this was about. from what you wrote above, i'm not quite sure what your answer to that query is.
also--and again, you might think of this as unnecessarily looking for a fight--why do you feel compelled to add the points about the abolish masculinity and capitalism stickers? is it because you think that the police would stop you just as much if you drove around with abolish the white race bumper sticker? if that is what you are suggesting, then i don't think so. or to put it another way, who is more likely to get harrasseed MORE by the police, a white woman with anti-capitalist/anti-masculinist stickers or a black woman? i think we all know the answer to that.
also, one of the annoying habits of a lot of white radicals is to start talking about class and gender as if to suggest that a black person talking about race is "obsessing" on racial matters and forgetting the other forms of repression. i'm sure you know what i'm talking about. it is clearly a form of defensivness. you are clearly a women who is committed to understanding racial matters but i have say to that to bring up the class and gender stuff in this context feels vaguely defensive to me. i really don't mean that as an attack and i am not trying to diminish your committment. but with white folks who are trying, i really believe in being straight about my feelings about these matters, whether or not they are grounded in reality so...
but that is precisely because i think
> that the use of "white" or "masculinity" or "capitalists" is perceived by
> others as an individualizing approach--an attack on persons.
of course they are, but so is "racism", "sexism" etc. indeed, EVERYTHING in america is percieved and discussed in individualizing terms except by radicals who know better!
i know you
> don't mean this, but that's what we're up against here.
yes, i would agree. but that in and of itself does not mean that we should stop using terms that identify phenomenah more clearly. it does mean that we have to work to build a solidarity that can efectively fight against the individualizing tendecies in america today
>
> here's a story. i had a friend in grad school, R. she and i used to talk
> about our experiences as "outsiders" to white, upper middle class
> academia. she black, from well-to-do family, from historically black
> college; me from poor white background, went to nontrad state uni. R used
> to call it all racism, what she experienced. for example, the lack of
> cooperation among her colleagues, their extreme individualistic
> competitiveness, etc were, she said, about being white. but i wasn't so
> sure about that b/c i experienced the same, found their world alien as
> well. we both could turn to emerging literatures exploring what it was
> like to be black in white academia and to be working class in middle class
> academia. we both found that others said the same, experienced the same
> outsider on the inside, etc experience. so, was it "whiteness" or
> "classness" (some would have actually reduced it all to "maleness"
> identifying hyper-individualism and hyper-competitiveness a "male"
> characteristic) in academia that made for that sort of culture--a culture
> that labeled both of us outsiders, that marked our behavior as wrong and in
> need of correction, that meant that we saw things that seemed wrong to us
> and our backgrounds but were really normal for everyone else who had the
> cultural capital to negotiate grad school/academic culture.
thank you for the story. my answer to your question: yes, i would suspect that "racism" has something to do with your classemates experiences but who knows? the best you can do in these circumstances is try your best to understand what's happening around you in a world where the various forms of oppression often intersect in "complex" and not necessarily obvious ways.
>
> again, i'm not making an equivalence, because there were ways in which our
> experiences weren't the same at all. but in some instances they were very
> similar and i'm having a hard time figuring out how you can call the
> institution of academia "white" and part of what should be destroyed when
> we destroy white, without also seeing how some of what is called white can
> be conceived of as the norms and characteristics associated with upper
> middle class and male.
again, NOTHING in this country can be reduced to what i call whiteism. we live in a nasty capitalist country brimming with all manner of repression. my only argument is that you cannot understand ANYTHING in this country without understanding race. gender oppresion does not make this country unique, nor does capitalism repression (though, obviously, we have our unique versions of these phenomenah); race is what makes this country historically and socially unique. i am not arguing any moral superiority of racial concerns over gender concerns or whatever. quite the opposite. i am arguing that the normalization of the white race has interfered and continues to interfere with the best radical and revolutionary efforts in this country and that until we highligh it as the repressive force that it is, there will be no liberation for "whites", "blacks", or "others".
>
> so, when i've tried to teach people what i mean by structural racism i
> might use my and R's experiences like so:
>
> their response is often, "but that's just academia."
> "Yes, That's Right!" i answer, "that's structural racism!"
> they sometimes say, "But doesn't that stink for everyone? How can it be
> racist if it doesn't have origins in an attempt to keep blacks
> out? doesn't this also keep women and poor people out? Don't these
> assumptions about social life harm people who aren't black?"
> "Yes, that's right!"
> "So, how is it racist?"
> "Because it has the effect of keeping blacks out, making them feel
> uncomfortable, making them drop out, get poorer grads." (sometimes i have
> extremely individualist students who say, "tough luck; they should buck up
> and get with the program and quit whining"
> (then i show stats on numbers in college, on attrition rates, on extremely
> low numbers in grad school, etc)
> "But it keeps others out, too, right" they ask.
> "Yep, see, here are the numbers on women and poor, working class whites"
> "So, how is it racist?"
> "Well, it's not just racist, but also sexist and classist"
> "Why call it racist then?" (and if you were talking to them, they'd say,
> so why be in favor of getting rid of whiteness, when there are also
> problems with maleness and classness (for lack of better word there)
>
> they think for awhile. invariably someone pipes up:
>
> "wait a minute, it's good to encourage competitiveness -- and what's wrong
> with individualism, anyway? are you a commie?"
>
> :) ad nauseum.
but what would happen if you started your year discussing the absurdity or race, outlined the history of the emrgence of the white race, then discussed how we are all, in a certain way, manipulated by virtue of who we THINK we are, creating all manner of confusion. what would happen if you challenged the students to determine what the white race is and how it is meanigful? do you see any value in that discussion in your classroom
>
> >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.
>
> agree wholeheartedly. i meant that i didn't think folks here thought like
> typical USers about nazism.
yes, of course not...
So, i guess i thought the charge at dennis
> for using the language he used was misplaced--
but the discussion WAS about language. dennis simply ignored it and decided to talk about what he wanted to talk about. i made no assumptions about his beliefs viz. nazis that i would not normally make with other lefties...
looking for a perspective on
> the topic typic of most USers, when you know that the list is leftist and
> not particularly inclined to buy that bit about hitler, etc.
now i'm a litle confused. which bit?
granted his
> language was poorly chosen, but don't think it warranted the accusations.
>
his language was not simply poorly chosen. he did not engage the issue at hand. it's really that simple!
> btw, elswhere you characterize me as thinking you are aggressive. i
> don't. being aggressive is a good thing. i was suggesting that you are
> expecting the worst of folks here and i'm not sure that's warranted.
well, i don't expect the worst pers se from folk but it is true that i do expect a certain amunt of foolisheness from otherwise sharp white folks when it comes to these matters. i can gaurantee you that does not make me any different from a lot of other racial black folk, the specifics of their politics on race nothwithstanding. white folks, even of the leftish variety, can be dismally predictable.
i do
> know it's typical for folks to do that and, from what you've said, you feel
> you have good reasons to be cautious. i was pointing out my frustration at
> being read as hostile to your ideas when i wasn't and didn't think i'd
> indicated that i was.
>
my impression of you both now and my previous foray onto this list that you have been supportive. which is why i was a little surprised when you came to dennis support after what seemed to me his obvious dancing around the essential matter. that said, i certainly don't mean to alienate you and hope that we can continue discussing these matters productively.
>
> > 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.
>
> no, not saying you don't agree. i was just articulating what i thought in
> order to see what you thought about that idea.
>
> but more than that, i think i was trying to get at why i think is
> problematic here: first you have to get people to see whiteness, to see
> how whiteness is socially constituted, etc.
>
but i have never seen this--and i thought i was making this clear--as NOT difficult and problematic, that's why i don't understand your elaborting on this matter.
> >
>
> now, when you say "white" this is what you mean, yes? how what others call
> 'white privilege" works, yes?
yes...
see, for me, i didn't hear that in your
> discussions of why anti-white would be a better strategy than
> anti-racism.
yes, a better strategy because it more clearly marks the target.
i suspected, and that's why i asked for some elaboration when
> i said, and i still believe i'm right, that it's difficult to demonstrate
> structural racism or white privilege without also finding that its
> integrally bound up with gender and class, at least.
>
quite true.
> i'm trying to think of ways in which i or others talk as if i'm a member of
> a white race. i'm sure it's there and i can't see it b/c it's so normal i
> haven't yet learned to see it.
yes, exactly. and the only way that it can be seen more clearly is if the the white race is "de-normalized". the white race needs to made an explicit target, talked about and attacked as a problem that is a part of a larger repressive complexs. i understand how that can make people extremely uncomfortable but i don't know how anybody can deny that as an obvious fact. how could marx have meaningfully or compelling addressed the problem of capitalism if he refused to call the institution by its name?
> >yes, this has been my point...(that the left doesn't think about the
> >social const of whiteness)
>
>
> well, i'm not too sure that the entirety of the left rejects the
> deconstruction of whiteness,(for lack of firing synapses this a.m. that
> might help me think of better word).
no, that was not my point. only that the left as a general tendency has a serious problem with race.
> >
> > are you sure? :Þ
quite sure. i'm looking for quality discussion and debate, not petty argument and granstanding.
>
> >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.
>
>
> ahhh. well i didn't know you wanted *me* to answer that question. i know
> very little about japan, so i couldn't answer you. i jumped into the convo
> for a different reason altogether.
i urge you to check out the rest of the thread if you can; i think you'll better understand why my tone was what i was...
> >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?
>
> wasn't putting the heat on you. just trying to finesse the dynamics... i
> confess to not paying attn to lbo much, which is unusual for me, but i've
> been busy.
>
> now! this "very white shuckin' and jivin'" from others i've not paid
> attention to. i may be doing it, but you know what i'd call it? academic
> training. :)
i can go with that!
>
>
> >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.
>
> i just recall chuckling because you were getting in folks face and they
> were getting nasty-- i think the list was born in a whirl of anti-identity
> politics frothing--and i wrote you offlist to encourage you to keep it up!
yes, i remember now. thank you.
>
> >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.
>
> are you referring to my use of the analogy with feminism. or my discussion
> of my identity as a white working class woman? or my discussion of white
> trash earlier?
it was just that nobody was talking to anybody, that's all. i don't recall the specifics.
>
thanks for the thoughtful response, kelly.
>
> >chris niles
> >
> > >
> > >
>
>