>Messsage du 27/11/2000 18:45
>De : <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>A : <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Copie à :
>Objet : Re: renouncing whiteness
>
> > ...
>
> Gordon:
> >> I think the way one would get White people to renounce
> >> Whiteness would be show them that there was something better
> >> than Whiteness. The only way I can think of doing this is
> >> to go to the underlying class war, which I think resonates
> >> and drives the construction of Whiteness.
>
> Christopher B. Hajib-Niles:
> > i don't think you mean that we can avoid racial
> > discussions and go straight to 'class' but that there
> > is a need to show the destructive link between whiteness
> > and capitalism in order to develop new solidarities, yes?
> > or no?
>
> The only category of people I know of who exhibit a living
> rejection of the class war are marginal types like punk rockers,
> anarchists, Earth Firsters and the like.
i'm not exactly clear on what you mean by this...but if by 'exhibit a living rejection' you suggest a conscious, possibly debated decision, i don't think i would agree. i know a lot of these folks. one of the things that makes them different from the previous generation of self-described radicals is less political training; that is, they are less likely to have participated in group discussions sponsored by, say, some cp outfit aimed at deepening their understanding of marx or whatever. hence, their less formal conscioussness and discussion about class struggle. another thing that distinguishes them from the previous generation of radicals is a much deeper ecological consciousness. in fact, the source of their radicalism is not, as indicated, any studied notions of class warfare but their strong suspicion, and sometimes understanding, that capitalism is anti-thetical to life as we know it.
it is worth adding that these days, most anarchist i know have only the most vague familiarity with some of the best writing in the anarchisst tradition. for many of these young folks, anarchim is more about rejection of everything and anything with authoritarian overtones, and even, sometimes, simple authority. a similiar tendency (perhaps because there is much overlap between these communities) exist with earth firsters, punk rockers, etc.
When I look at these
> people, among other things I notice an absence of racial and
> gender exclusion or preference.
really? i rarely see black folks at anarchist, earth first or punk rock gatherings.
More than half of the groups
> I have observed are female, persons of Asian and African
> ancestry are in evidence.
how much in evidence? where is this? the female (white) part, ok, but asians and african-americans? by in evidence, you mean significant numbers?
There is little internal structure,
> so there are few offices and privileges to compete for.
i would say few material priviledges to compete for bu, yeah, generally true dat.
> > Nevertheless, they do not seem to be unaware of racial problems;
i think they are aware but very distant from them, partly because the you don't people most overtly affected by racial problems in their ranks. these groups are, in my experience, quite white.
> two of NYC Food Not Bombs's regulars were arrested as a result
> of participating in the protests which resulted from the
> acquittal of Amadou Diallo's killers.
food not bombs folks are a little different then the above groups by virtue of their dealing with the problems of various food issues in the ghetto. also, food not bombs was founded by folks who were exhibited a basic understanding of the relationship between poverty, race, food and capital.
I don't know how they
> theorized their presence; I've never asked, lest my cynicism,
> pessimism and decadence cloud the clear righteousness of their
> actions. But I keep my ears and eyes open. I think they're
> people from whom I can learn something even if I lack their
> courage and commitment.
>
very true.
So we have people who are attacking class in a fundamental
> way and this seems to result in an abjuration of or at
> least emergence from Whiteness.
as per my point above, not exactly. but yes, their committment and courage and relative open-mindedness makes them a real potential pain in the ass to capital.
It's true they could still
> go to law school; I'm just talking about where they are _now_.
most do and will. like i said: these groups are profoundly white; as a result, those who constitute its ranks are always vulnerable to the allures of the great white race. i have some hopes for and like these folks. but if they are not able to understand whiteness, how it structures their political and social lives and change thier organizational tendecies and politics accordingly, they won't last.
>
> We also observe high-school kids who go around in what could
> be called racial drag. This might have some subversive effect.
>
well, maybe except corporate america has quickly commodified that look, stripping it of any problematic associations with trouble makers. but that is nothing new. corporate america has been commodifying black cool for a long time.
> By contrast the praxes of academics, mediasters, and liberal
> and radical politicos around race do not seem to accomplish
> anything, at least not beyond the requirements of liberalism
quite true...
> (that is, we'll go on constructing race and Whiteness but we
> won't write laws or regulations about it, or if we do they'll
> be very fair).
even if we could what laws would we write that could do what needs to be done--that is, simultaneously attack capital and whiteness? i can say that given the history of the vast majority of legislation supposedly designed to improve the lives of black folk, one should be deeply suspicious of the idealogical and political motives behind any such legislation in the future. but then again, that's fundamentally the same attitude one should have about any legislation drafted by our rulers viz. the interest 'working' people...
My conclusion is that attacking class and
> its productions -- in the street -- is what does anything.
yes, quite true. but anti-whiteism, that is abolitionism, is incomlete without revolution; revolution (at least not the kind those on this list want) is not possible without abolitionism.
>
Of course my evidence is completely anecdotal and, as I say,
> very marginal. I still have little idea how to approach the
> huddled masses in the aisles of Wal-Mart.
i do, but an electronic list that is at least occasionally monitered by the fbi which is still on the lookout for black radicals making common cause with serious 'white' folk is not the place to discuss such things...
chris niles
>