You haven't made your case yet. No one is gonna argue that white workers in the south suffered considerably from racism. But thats not the point. You define away the possibility of white workers reaping any material benefit, short of workers becoming capitalists, and any symbolic benefit, because it any material. Its actually not a matter of the proposition being supportable or not; your theory prohibits it.
>
> White workers do not materially benefit from the list of "white
> privileges & advantages" created by Peggy McIntosh. The theory of
> "white privilege" is not only an incorrect analysis of how racism
> affects white workers (in fact, those who think like McIntosh do not
> clearly distinguish white workers from white capitalists at all --
> capitalists are invisible subjects in the theory of "white
> privilege"!); it constitutes an obstacle in the path toward the
> abolition of racism (_even if_ it helps us understand some aspects of
> symbolic compensation for white workers' feelings of powerlessness in
> the face of capital).
Bad form, Yoshie. McIntosh isn't the enemy. You're suffering from that disabling theoretician's disease known as totalitis. You've subsumed the whole of whatever is represented by race, racialism, and racism under the category of subsidiary forms of capitalist domination. And to be sure there's a lot of appeal in theorizing it that way. It supplies a clear historical and systemic account for racism's origins and functionality. But if one is to be true to the contingency of it all, then racism operates in some complicating ways - such as by according a range of benefits and advantages for groups beyond capitalists. But you are albeit grudgingly giving ground in this thread as you offer implicitly a definition of at least one of the main currents of racism: "symbolic compensation for white workers' feelings of powerlessness in the face of capital."
>
> white workers of the USA, wise up!
>
Would that they could...and why won't they easily?
Dennis Breslin