renouncing whiteness

[Christopher B. Hajib-Niles]

wojtek, you took your analysis way too far. you are, fundamentally speaking, right to characterize the term 'racism' as an analytically useless one. but then you go on to say that the issue of 'racism' "diverts
attention from the broader issues of the organization of economy and society." first of all, what gets classified under the term 'racism' has everything to do with the broader issues of economy and society-- unless you are ready to argue that  u.s. slavery, lynching, urban segragation, the near extinction of the black farmer, the black rebellions of the 60s and 70s, blues, the distributions, marketing and selling of crack, etc., have nothing to do with economy and society or have nothing to do with 'race.'

but yes, it is true that the language of racism/anti-racism is brimming with contradictions and confusions that allow everyday folk to think of racial problems as strictly an individual problem, which in turn allows politicians like al gore to demogogue effectively on the issue. it even confounds discussion among smart people as is evidenced by this discussion.

the words that we use to describe social phenomenah are at best, very useful approximations of what is really going on. reality is dynamic. it is important that the words we use when trying to communicate get as close to that reality as possible. terms such as 'white,''racialism,' 'racialized,''whiteism,' 'whitness,' 'anti-black,''blackness,''anti-racialist,'non-white,' etc., are not perfect. but i would argue that they are far, far, far more precise than highly vague, overly suggestive terms such as 'racist' and 'people of color.' 

one of the reasons it is hard to get a hearing for these new terms is because so many people at politically oriented non-profits and academics are literally sold on the old language. being an anti-white academic or professional activist (!) can only bring you grief. 

the biggest problem, however, is that many white agitators bristle at terminology that targets 'white folk' more specifically, precisely because the language demands more of them as agitators and human beings in general. lots of white lefties get hostile because they think that they are doing pretty good on the race tip relative to most americans (and that is certainly true), then here i come arguing that they've got to do better, much better. my discussions with black folk have been much more productive, not because any of those i've talked to hate people with white skin but because they can see the obvious analytical and political benefits of being anti-white (i should note that even with 'professional black activist' i have detected some hesitation about using such language, if not about abolitionism in general).

chris niles


>Messsage du 27/11/2000 23:10
>De :  <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>A :  <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Copie à : 
>Objet : Re: renouncing whiteness  
>
> Charles Brown wrote:
> 
> >CB: No, even Al Gore had to admit that currently in the U.S. there 
> >is general phenomenon of police discrimination against Black people 
> >and other "darker" people in the form of racial profiling.
> 
> Not to be too cynical, but Gore & Co. like this issue because it's a 
> way to appeal to black voters on a topic that is barely a federal 
> issue, and doesn't involve any federal dollars. A (white) friend who 
> lives in the black Brooklyn neighborhood of Bed-Stuy got a call from 
> an automated Hillary just before election day saying how passionately 
> she cares about racial profiling. She's for capital punishment and 
> welfare reform too, but she didn't mention that in her call.
> 
> Doug
>