Chip Berlet wrote:
>
>
> I recognize that the most oppressive form of racism in the US manifests itself
> as White supremacy. But Farrakhan is still a racist and antisemite. He lacks the
> power to make it a form of oppression.
>
If one were looking back on the present from a future perspective in which white supremacy had disappeared, then as a sort of archival truth one might make this point.
(Another perspective yet would be that of black radicals who encounter Farrakhan as a political opponent within the black community. I don't occupy that position and cannot coin a term for that use.)
But let us look at what I think is the single most common context in which Farrakhan appears in public debate: Another horror occurs, there is an uproar (sometimes a riot, sometimes just a splurge of discussion in the media), black activists and/or theorists challenge the policy of some important white (a chief of police, a mayor, etc), and some fucking columnist says, "What about Farrakhan?" The late and unlamented Mike Royko used to specialize in this sort of obscenity.
I would argue that Farrakhan's racism or anti-semitism has, for the most part, only an ideal existence; it never operates as a rationalization of actual oppression.
Carrol