I didn't say that invoking anything is enough> Read it again.
I said and say that young whites are significantly better off than almost all blacks, and probably most older whites, ergo their alliance with the GOP.
I said and say, the survey showing 83% of African Americans more "comfortable" with the Democrats is a rudimentary indicator of economic status. The last time I checked with the BLS and the Statistical abstract of the US, wages for blacks were still less than 3/4 that of whites. Statistics generally considered to link economic status with social welfare, i.e. longevity, infant mortality, education, net worth, etc. indicate that blacks are significantly less well off than whites. Democrats fashion themselves as more sympathetic and responsive to those issues among African Americans.
To say that the GOP is the party of white pride is susperficial to the point of gross stupidity. Sorry, not, if you're insulted. It (Gop as white pride) is the metaphoric equivalent of saying that the National Socialists were the symbol of German pride, ignoring the vital henchman's work done in destroying the German revolutionists and working class leadership. The GOP is the flagship party of the hard core of big property. Just check out the dramatic overfunding of the GOP by business and wealty individuals compared to the funding they provide to the Dems.
I said if we regard the party allegiance as an indication of economic status and the point of all, anarchists-socialists-syndicalists-marxists, was the revolutionary displacement of that exploitation, then race, the analysis of race, and the participation of people of color in that movement is/was/will be, as Yoshie argues, important.
A little more rigor here Doug and less mortis.... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 9:03 PM Subject: Re: Color of Anarchism Re: Protest ISO...
> David Schanoes wrote:
>
> >Don't you think that split between young whites=GOP,
African-Americans=Dems
> >is a rudimentary index to economic status?
>
> Not exactly. Many young whites aren't very well off. There's
> certainly a racial angle to affiliation with the Reps, but it's not
> entirely explicable by income. The Reps are the party of white pride!
>
> > And if a common point among revolutionists is to actually develop a
> >process, method, program, activity for revolution, doesn't that process
need
> >to reflect, attract, and be developed by the economically less
advantaged?
> >In which case, Yoshie is right on it.
>
> Of course. Who would disagree with that? You think that invoking the
> need for revolution is enough to get people to sign up?
>
> >Notice how I used non-inflammatory language to avoid bruising the
delicate
> >sensitivies of the more refined? Believe me, it ain't easy.
>
> Couldn't help yourself, could you?
>
> Doug