<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>Yoshie:
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">>I don't speak for Art, but it seems to me that it would diminish racial
<BR>division if >whites accepted blacks' right to self-determination, just as
<BR>the division between >Jews and Palestinians (and other Arabs) would
<BR>diminish if Jews accepted
<BR>>Palestinians' right to self-determination. Oppression that creates the
<BR>oppressed >group = negation. Recognition of the oppressed's right to
<BR>self-determination = >negation of negation. In a dialectical movement, it
<BR>takes negation of negation to >reach a higher synthesis.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Doug:</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">>Hmm, but if a racial category was invented in the process of oppression,
<BR>then >how is accepting that category negating it? Looks to me more like a
<BR>perverse >reinforcement. The negation would be to reject racial
<BR>categorization altogether.
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>I am coming off my summer trip to friends and family, so I am a bit behind
<BR>here and my responses are belated.
<BR>
<BR>There is a dialectical relationship here, but one of the articulation of the
<BR>universal and particular that is a lot more complex than has been presented
<BR>by the simple minded formulations of oppressor nation [bad guy]/oppressed
<BR>nation [good guy] which have been bandied about here recently on the subject
<BR>of Israel and Zionism. From the days of the slave trade, European and North
<BR>American imperialism relied upon ethnic contention among Africans to pursue
<BR>its objectives, using one group to enslave the other. A pan-African
<BR>consciousness and identity first developed out of the struggle against
<BR>European and North American imperialism, and in various ways, bears the
<BR>imprint of its birth. Note here, as one example of this dialectic, the ways
<BR>in which African nationalist movements have had to adopt the language of the
<BR>colonizing power, such as Portuguese in Mozambique, as their official
<BR>language, because it was the only national [universal] language, and the use
<BR>of an African language would have meant the privileging of one African ethnic
<BR>group over another. A study of the language issue in South Africa, and how
<BR>the ANC has attempted to address it in the field of education, for example,
<BR>would give one a good grounding on the complexity of the issue, and the ways
<BR>in which it is impossible to transcend the imperial/colonial experience in
<BR>the sense of simply stepping outside of it ["we will no longer consider
<BR>ourselves in the context of our race or nationality"].
<BR>
<BR>The Marxian formulation which Doug's quotes, that the workingman "has no
<BR>country," is utopian in the sense that it postulates that capacity to step
<BR>outside of all [national] particularity and have an unmediated human
<BR>universality. Where liberalism assumes the deracinated individual of
<BR>unmediated humanity as the starting point of its political philosophy [the
<BR>individual in the state of nature who crafts the social contract], this
<BR>Marxian formulation just calls upon him to reject the false consciousness of
<BR>his particularity, and embrace that unmediated humanity. It doesn't work.
<BR>Don't forget that it was in South Africa where that famous phrase was coined:
<BR>"White workers of the world unite!"
<BR>
<BR>The trick, from my point of view, is how to articulate the particularity in
<BR>which we find ourselves with wider notions of universality, a political
<BR>project which Martin Luther King managed so masterfully in the civil rights
<BR>movement. That is why I have troubles with this Marxian formulation, and
<BR>Doug's embrace of it.
<BR>
<BR>Leo Casey
<BR>United Federation of Teachers
<BR>260 Park Avenue South
<BR>New York, New York 10010-7272 (212-598-6869)
<BR>
<BR>Power concedes nothing without a demand.
<BR>It never has, and it never will.
<BR>If there is no struggle, there is no progress.
<BR>Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation are men who
<BR>want crops without plowing the ground. They want rain without thunder and
<BR>lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters.
<BR><P ALIGN=CENTER>-- Frederick Douglass --</P></FONT></HTML>