>Messsage du 28/11/2000 16:09
>De : <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>A : <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Copie à :
>Objet : Re: renouncing whiteness
>
> All concepts that folks have invented in their attempts to address a
> complex ensemble of social relations -- including the fact that
> "there are persistent patterns of multi-faceted social inequalities
> that correspond with ethnic differences that are undeniable reality"
> you note -- allow "anyone to read into it whatever he wants." In
> fact, it is the nature of the social relations that produces such
> conceptual mush:
your point is well taken but i think we need to be more careful here. social relations are much more likely to produce such mush when they are informed by the kind of social confusion that is variously reproduced in a society where there is a large vested economic and political interest in keeping people ignorant and frightened: anti-globalist attack "corporations" because they would alienate a heavily mind-fucked population if they attacked capitalism; many writers and activist see the white race as a biologically empty and socially destructive but hesitate to become anti-white for fear of social alienation, so they settle for "anti-racism." in both cases simlicity is sacrificed and confusion, social mush, is reproduced. when that happens, communication breaks down and the meaning of a word begins to inflate.
for instance, the reduction of "racism" to a matter
> of "attitudes" of "individuals." A fundamental attributional error
> is at work here.
strictly speaking,yes, but i still think we need to be more careful. politically, this attributional error is frequently less an error and more the result of a clear dissembling intent. the racial innocence one can claim by turning "racism" into simply a matter of "individual attitudes" is a very useful tool for many ambitious white politicians (and, it should be noted, profit conscious corporations) who are vulnerable to accusations of "institutional racism."
On another list, I wrote: "The problem is that
> Ricardo anachronistically sees 'Europeans' when & where he should be
> seeing capitalism. To attribute the origin of freedom to 'Europeans'
> & 'European culture' is akin to attributing the origin of racism to
> 'white men' & 'white men's culture'." Likewise, one shouldn't
> attribute environmental degradation to "preferences of consumers"
> either, but many do.
if what you mean is that europeans were not, in and of themselves, more prone to repressive tendencies, then yes, i would agree. but again, we have to be a little careful. societies that have immediate technological, environmental and geographical, "advantages" (not to mention deadly germs) tend to kick ass. it is important that we try to understand precisely why one people--like "europeans" 'successfully' conquer another set of people--like aztecs--without falling back on silly racial theories (which most 'white' historians have a tendency to do--and not a few black writers too--if in a not very overt manner).
and yes, one should target their idealogical and political heat at the capitalit class but we should not forget that those pretty cars are buying allegiance and, indeed, destroying the environment and human life. we certainly should not be blaming 'everyday folk' for being auto-dependent (nor imposing gas taxes and the like on them) but they should at least know what auto-dependency entails and how their status as wage slaves conspires against their ability to do anything about it. no one who hopes for a better world should promote the fetishisation of working class innocence.
> This kind of attributional error that puts the cart before the horse,
> so to speak, is rooted in commodity fetishism; recall Marx's analysis
> of "the eighteenth-century Robinsonades" in _Grundrisse.
have not read it...
>
> With regard to race & racism in America, we should look at criminal
> justice & incarceration as not an effect of racism but as _the cause_
> of "persistent patterns of multi-faceted social inequalities that
> correspond with ethnic differences."
this is not clear to me. capitalism, because of the specifics of european history, required race; the modern notion of race would not have developed if it were not for capitalism; that is, racial slavery and the slave trade made the business of capitalism possible while the depradations of racialism were created and intensified by the rush for profits; theoretically, of course, capitalism could have evolved without race but it did not; and yes, race could go away now without their being a corresponding fall of capitalism, but it hasn't yet; and yes, class, now that "black" is no longer always or almost always synonomous with "slave" or "poor" is, in a strict material sense, more fundamental than class. but to try to put the class chicken before the race egg seems to be a waste of time (not to mention old fashioned ideas about cause and effect). we hate capitalism; we hate race; we know the two are deeply entangled; we know the two phenomenah, in their various guises, have cons! pired in much evil; let's focus on destroying both as necessary to fundamental, revolutionary change.
While slavery existed in the
> American South, ideology characterized slaves as "happy darkies";
> with the Civil War & emancipation, the old idea of "happy darkies"
> receded while a new idea of "dark criminals" emerged. Criminal
> justice became a part of reaction against Black Reconstruction.
> Similarly, in reaction against the partial success of the Civil
> Rights movement & other social movements of the 60s, criminal justice
> expanded to reproduce "persistent patterns of multi-faceted social
> inequalities that correspond with ethnic differences."
phew. i understand the components of your arguments but they seem to contradict. can you simplify it for me?
>
chris niles
> Yoshie
>