| >> 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?
I define racism as a political theory and practice based on the principles that (1) there are races in a physical sense; (2) some races are superior or preferable to others; and (3) one's politics and other social behaviors should be informed and directed by this difference. Also, there's "objective racism" in which a community behaves as if it were composed of racists although no one overtly professes racism. Both of these are different from ordinary ethnic prejudice and bigotry in that the latter often do not include theories of superiority or political action. Obviously racism as a theory could focus on any categorization of persons, although for its actual exercise the racists would have to have political power to carry out their theories.
I was thinking of something different when I wrote "White-racism." (I see that "Whitism" has been used, which might be a better term.) This is a somewhat different theory from standard-issue racism (or practice which seems to embody such a theory) -- that the creation and maintenance of a _White_race_ is a good thing regardless of whether the White race exists physically or is necessarily superior to other categories of people. The categorization may be cultural and pretty arbitrary. For instance, the Los Angeles disturbances of 1992 were often characterized in the media as a White versus Black conflict, and so they construed Korean shopkeepers as White and Chicano rioters as Black even though both groups are of about the same pigmentation and have little or no African ancestry. The media behaved as if it was necessary to _create_ a White race which comprised gun-toting shopkeepers and victimized truck drivers, when events did not supply one.
Clearly, this sort of race has a lot to do with class, whereas old-time racism often didn't appear to. (I think both kinds of racism are resonances of more fundamental class war, but the old kind of racism obscured class more effectively and had other functions.)
In other words, I see Whiteness as reverting from a sort of pseudo-ethnicity to a something like class, a categorization of political status based only partially on appearance and supposed ancestry. So people who look like they're from eastern and southern Asia, for instance, may now be sort-of White in the United States, just as years ago Italians and Jews became sort-of White after having been considered Not White. If they continue to bourgeoisify themselves properly, perhaps they'll become entirely White. If there is no reason not to consider a Siberian to be of the same quasi- ethnicity as a Portuguese, one might as well throw in some Japanese and Punjabis as well.
The thing I find odd in all this is that one can't make that much out of invidiously exploiting one-eighth of the population or whatever portion is considered Not-White at present. From 1492 until the great waves of late 19th-century immigration, the extraction of value from the murder and enslavement of American Indians and Africans was crucial to the success of the American enterprise. Racism was a necessary concomitant of imperialism and colonialism. But this isn't true any more. Consumer capitalism doesn't need slaves in the classical sense because it can make people enslave themselves. Racism and the creation of the White hyper-ethnicity also served to eliminate ethnic and religious conflict between European immigrant groups; but these groups have now pretty much melded. So of what use is Whiteness? It's surely doing something for those who cling to it.
| ...
| > 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.
I wouldn't expect to see a great deal of concern with one's own justice or righteousness outside of the Fundamentalist communities (Muslim and Jewish as well as Christian). Most people believe they're entitled to the good life as prescribed by liberalism, I think -- short-term semi-enlightened self- interest rules. So if people think Whiteness does something important for them, they'll continue to adhere to it even while vehemently denying racism or prejudice.
| > 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'm trying to say, though, that I don't think we (or at least I) really understand what it's doing for the people who embrace it. My guess is that it's a response to class war, partly a defense, partly a concession or alliance.
| > 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...
It doesn't always work, of course. During the War in Vietnam I spent a lot of time talking to pro-war people and never came up with anything usable because they were as confused about the war as I was. Their instinct was to support the order of things as mine was to oppose it, but we were all on that darkling plain Matthew Arnold sang about as part of the long intro to World War I.