bitch at pulpculture.org wrote:
>
> At 09:07 PM 1/27/2007, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> >On Jan 27, 2007, at 7:42 PM, Jim Straub wrote:
> >
> >>anti-racist mass movements
> >
> >But, as Carrol Cox has told us, those are still white supremacist.
> >Perhaps he can explain how.
Doug, neither you nor anyone else who claims to know antthing at all about u.s. political history should disgrace yourself with a question like this. K does,fine below, but it's sad that she had to explain.
Carrol
> >
> >Doug
>
> It depends on what people mean, but if they're just "including" people of
> color then, yeah, it's white supremacist. If race is seen as cultural
> difference rather than as the result of systematic and systemic racializing
> oppression then, yeah, it's white supremacist. If it's not clearly
> understood that, as the pithy expression goes, the liberation of whites is
> bound up with and dependent on the liberation of people of color and the
> liberation of male workers is bound up and dependent on the liberation of
> women workers, then -- yeah -- it's still white supremacist.
>
> This has truly hit home as I've watched liberal feminists interact with
> radical women of color feminists online. Their anti-racism is superficial
> and they come off as if they're doing favors by "including" people. They
> don't blog on anything other than their standpoint as white, middle class
> women -- because they don't bother to ask questions about the world from
> the perspective of anyone but themselves.
>
> "If you have come to help me, please go home. But if you have come because
> your liberation is somehow bound with mine, then we may work together."
>
> http://blog.pulpculture.org
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk