>Messsage du 22/11/2000 05:09
>De : <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>A : <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Copie à :
>Objet : Re: White Men & Freedom Essential to Capitalism
>
> Christopher B. Hajib-Niles:
> > where do you see this happening? and again, i don't see
> > racism, whatever that is, as the problem but so-called whites.
> > to put it another way, if we wage an aggressive battle against
> > 'racism' but still have white folks around, we may have altered,
> > perhaps for the better, some of the apparent aspects of racial
> > degradation but fundamentally, we will have changed nothing.
> > what folks call 'racism' (what i think is much more precisely
> > referred to as whiteness) stems from the existance of a social
> > construct called the 'white race' which is in turn rooted in
> > a very primitive, racialization of humanity. if one wants to
> > destroy 'racism' one must destroy the white race. ...
>
> Perhaps it would be more accurate to say one must get the
> White race to abolish or deconstitute itself as a race, since
> hopefully one does not wish to actually abolish the constituents
> of the White race
well, the slogan is meant to imply these things and for some people it has but there is no doubt that it could generate confusion.i've been passively trying to develop a new slogan that is just as powerful and shocking but more clear...
and in any case there is no external force
> which can be brought to bear on the White race to get it to
> abolish itself one way or the other.
based on letters that we have received at the new abolitionists and on observation, the cultural and political self-activity of black folks has, over the years, moved a small but significant number of white folks to question their whiteness and in a increasing--but still tiny--number of cases their membership in the white race. still, it is clear that it wiould be much more effective for 'white' folk to develop an anti-white politics and and shout anti-slogans as a part of their involvement in, say, the anti-globolization movement than it would be for black folk. that said, i do believe it is critical for black agitators to move from an anti-racist paradigm to an anti-white paradigm.
>> In order to bring about or even encourage this abolition, it
> would be necessary to understand how what I'll call White-racism
it took 300 years for 'white' folk to go from being white to 'racist'(late 1920's) so that now we think the problem is racism and not white folk! black folk will often say that all white folks are racist to one degree or another, to which i always respond that you experience all white folk as being racist to one extent or another because they are white, not because they are racist; when they stop acting like white folk, then you will stop experiencing them as racist; what must be done is to re-articulate white identity as something inherently destructive and qualify their whiteness, not to complicate matters by calling them a racist, language which blurs history and, therefore, current realities, and alienatnes 'whites' who are serious about wanting to work in solidarity with others.
also, do you mean to suggest that there is something called black racism? as we live thorougly racialized lives too, black folks can say dumb and hurtful things about other people too. but to call these things 'racist' not only lends credence to the idea of racial difference, it depoliticizes racial discourses and misses the point of race which is to yield power of one 'group' over another. or am i presuming too much?
> functions positively in the lives of its adherents, so that
> whatever it does for them can be replaced, assuaged, or
> accounted for in some way.
yes! precision in these matters has a better chance of yielding imaginative, forceful, effective political work!
The White-race person needs to
> see how his or her life would be better without the construction
> of the White race. (Not more moral or meritorious; _better_.)
yes! but as far as i am concerned, a better life, in the best sense of the term, is synonmous with improved ethical prospects.
>
> The problem, then, is similar to the more superficial problem
> of gun fetishism (positive or negative): you can't deal with
> it until you understand what it does for people. And I don't
> think you can do this purely as an exercise in literary or
> cultural criticism.
yes! i hope you don't think abolitionism is a exercise in cultural or literary criticism. it is, first and foremost, an effort to develop a politics that is serious about winning...
I think some kind of science is going to
> be needed, like actually talking to the constituents of the
> White race (or the gun fetishists) and finding out what's on
> their minds.
yes! i think the problem with the left is that because of it urbanism and its urban pretensions, it presumes much too much about white folks and gun fetishist and in the process, misses opportunities to to develop what could turn out to be extremely productive political relationships. the new abolitionism is about doing the exact opposite: the key to revolution may turn out to be those rural 'white' AND 'black' folks toting guns out there in rural america, not because of their guns per se, but because of their conditions and their insightful yet too often circumbscibed outlook on the world
An unpleasant task, maybe, but effective subversion
> requires knowledge of the subvertee. It's not enough to enjoy feeling superior to these people.
yes! but not to unpleasent. i've got into discusions about anti-whiteism with white folks in bars in locations (incidents in wyoming, montana and texas leap immediately to mind)where as a black man, i should not have been talking about race. but in those discussions, i've been impressed by how many non-drunk white boys say "i see your point" or more frequently something like, "hmmm, you are making me think." of course, when they start to think, i'm outta there. nothing more dangerous in the world than a drunk white man...
chris niles
the new abolitionist
>
>