>Messsage du 24/11/2000 01:05
>De : <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>A : <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Copie à :
>Objet : Re: White Men & Freedom Essential to Capitalism
>
> I define racism as a political theory
the problem with defining racism as a political theory is that there is nobody who would use that term to describe their politics. even classic white supremacist will deny that they are racist, insisting instead that they love and are strong advocates for the white race, which is indeed a more accurate description of their politics. we should take these folks at face value and call them what they are: white power agitators. a strong suspicion i have about the term 'racism' (which, i believe, was first used in reference to jews) is that it entered the popular lexicon somewhere between the late 20's and mid 30's as a means by which liberal northern white folks could resolve their confusion about race: they thought of themselves as white and enjoyed the (obvious) attendent priviledges but were uncomfortable with the jim crow expression of that priviledge. what should one do if one thinks he is white, likes being white but does not want to be associated with them backwards crackers down south who call themselves white, too, and insist that their lynch mobs are about the defense of the race as a whole? why, defend the more subtle (and more effective) nature of your material priviledge and buttress your need to be at ease with your consciouss by clearly distinguishing yourself from them: that is, define what those white folk down south do as racism, the people themselves as racist and ! paint a picture of the north as a place where, as one mid-30's film put it, "the black man can find, good work eqaulity and peace of mind." with anti-racism, white folks can have their cake and eat it, too.
and practice based on
> the principles that (1) there are races in a physical sense;
anti-racism is a confused discourse and politics where one can find some people who clearly don't buy into racial logic and some who do and many who have not even thought about it. the only way to resolve this problem is to develop some new, more precise language so that we might better know where people really stand.
> (2) some races are superior or preferable to others; and (3)
the raison d'etre of the establishing the white race as a legal category in the 17th century was to establish the superiority of european-cum-white owners AND laborers over africans-cum-blacks. the idea of 'racism' both confirms and clouds this historical reality.
> 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.
again, racism is not a theory but an accusation. even racial scientist claim evidence for superiority of whites. they would never call themselves racist. again, we should take them at face value. the "bell curve" is not a racist book; it is simply an aggressive argument for the intellectual superiority of white people--which, you might have noticed, sold well and resonated--on different levels--with a whole lot of literate white folk. per my argument above, i don't think its authors, like most of their readers, would cotton to gory, uncivilived stuff like lynching negros; nor would they appreciate or understand being called racist--or, for that matter, white supremacist because that has unsophisticated overtones (though they are indeed that). the authors would not have a problem being called 'white' which is, indeed, exactly what they are. what differentiates them from other white folks is their bold self-confidence, backed by wacky pseudo-science, about their whiteness.
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.
i know what you are getting at but i don't quite agree. i think all ethnic prejudices and bigotry require some notion of superiority.
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 would say that white folks have to be established as a social group first before they can establish white power, e.g., a slaveocracy, jim crow, the upper-echelons of the corporate workplace, etc.
>
> I was thinking of something different when I wrote "White-racism."
> (I see that "Whitism" has been used, which might be a better
> term.)
it might have been me who misspelled it first but its 'whiteism.' when i first started using this term five years ago, i thought i had created something new but it turns out that Malcolm used it first. still, not bad company!
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.
this describes the whiteness studies people in acadamia. they've launched a mission to valorize white people and define white cultlure--that is, white food, white music, white literature, white dances, white spirituality, white body language, white art. in other words, they are in search of white pride! most of these folks describe themselves as leftist--i know 'cuz i've been to their confernces. i'm almost willing to go stalinist and describe these people as dangerous. i'm definetly willing to describe them as silly. or maybe better, just lost.
> 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.)
leftish white labor historians, by and large, still don't see slavery as labor history. this is a perfect example of how whiteism blurs the ability of even radical historians to see racial/class history clearly in the u.s. for a long time, to be a member of the so-called black race in the u.s. meant that you were a member of the most degraded class, the slave class. you cannot say that any more but race still bedevils any notion of class solidarity in america.
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.
well it continues to play the role of pseudo-ethnicity, i think, but yes on the latter point.
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.
yes!
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.
*
yes!
>
> 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.
you are right: exploiting black folk makes a whole lot less sense these days; but maintaining the illusion of the white race makes a great deal of sense. despite all the anxieties that most white folks have about blacks, i'm convinced that few white folks are deeply consciously, or as the case may be,consitently committed to an anti-black agenda. but it is very important for the purposes of capital and otherwise contrived authority that people stay poltically and socially bewildered. the most effective way of breeding such confusion in the states is to maintain the fiction of a white race. i cannot imagine anything more liberating for white-skinned folk, more useful for black folk and other marginalizd constituencies both here and abroad, or more dangerous for domestic, foreign and international authorities than the destruction of the mythic white race.
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.
whiteness is doing less and less for 'white' folk, which is why you are getting 'angry white men' and such. of course, whiteness still has great relative value to blackness, but it should also be pointed out that the wages of whiteness have never been themselves great. they just pay better than those of blackness.
>
> | ...
>
> | > 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).
i did not intend to say that i expected this, only that one of the benefits of freedom is that is allows you to take these considerations into account. i certainly do (not that i am free in any political sense of the term), and i do not have any truck with christians, muslims, etc.
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.
well, that's a bit determinist. yes, that the tendency but there are definetly plenty of examples of people who at least try to move beyond their whiteness because they think it is the right thing to do. >
> | > 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.
>
>