> That's exactly why this 10% claim is so dubious. As rhetoric, it
> effectively conceals the fact that racism is a integral element of all
> social institutions in the U. S. (e.g., religion, education, politics,
> economy, family). Given the impact of racism as a wedge that divides
> the working class, I'd go as far as to say that racism is one of the
> lynchpins of capitalist social relations in our society. --And all of
> this is just as true today as it was 50 years ago! I understand why
> Obama would say "we're 90% there"; it's inspiring, it's motivating, it's
> upbeat. But it's also bullshit.
The left should keep Obama's feet to the fire, but with good arguments. I don't think this is the case. It wouldn't be ridiculous to claim that the abolition of slavery and the elimination of Jim Crow delivered the *main* blows to racism in U.S. history. That the remainder is not piece of cake, but that the most difficult tasks have been carried out. After all, under current conditions, with the tools within their reach, with what they've conquered already, the definitive emancipation of Blacks has become a real possibility. I don't think it's a bad idea to pay due homage to those who struggle before us. It's a standing on the shoulders of giants type of argument.
But, aside from Obama's views, there's a much larger political question here. And that's really my concern. That's the question of how to best position or frame the movement of, say, Blacks for racial equality or Latino immigrant workers for full rights in the U.S. political arena. Clearly, by their composition and dynamics, these are eminently *national* movements. Or, at least in the tradition of Marxism, that's how one would term them. However -- and not only because both Blacks and Hispanics are demographic minorities in the U.S., although specially taking that into consideration -- it would be misguided to frame their demands as if they were sectoral demands opposed to the interest of other sectors of the working class, especially its white majority.
I mean, if you don't question the usual assumptions, the interests of one minority group of workers and those of the other minorities, or those of whites, *are* mutually exclusive. But why should we accept the usual assumptions? I mean, it's entirely understandable if a particular struggle of Blacks or Latino workers comes across as too Black, Hispanic, and even anti-White. I would understand it. With me at least, the struggles of historically oppressed peoples don't have to pass strict tactical tests to qualify as valid struggles. But that doesn't make their tactics necessarily effective. Things are different when a highly educated worker or an intellectual defends certain tactics that position the interests of Black workers as opposed to those of White workers. Then my judgment changes.
IMO, the most effective way to position the demands of Blacks and immigrants in the U.S. political arena is as demands whose conquest can *only* advance the best interests of *all* workers in the U.S., including prominently the interests of the white majority. Because they will -- in the long run at least. Yes, Black and immigrant workers need the solidarity of White workers. But White workers also need satisfactory solutions to the national demands of Blacks and immigrants. White workers cannot liberate themselves when Blacks and other minorities are oppressed.
If you think *this* is irrelevant, just note the early (and failed) attempts by Hillary (via Bill, echoed by the media) to pigeonhole Obama's campaign as your typical Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton campaign. It's meant to put everybody down: Obama, Jackson, Sharpton, the Black people, and the public! And note the emphasis on the supposed jealousy or rivalry between Blacks and Hispanics (and Asians) in CA, etc. It may well be a good description of isolated events or even a fully representative fact -- if one look at things *statically*. But it's not an innocent fact. Journalists know (or should know) that there's a value judgment implicit in the selection of the facts that they highlight in a news story. It is a trick of the rulers to pit workers vs. workers, to frame the struggles of different segments of the working class as zero-sum political games. They are not such. (And Obama's campaign is, in fact, a struggle for racial equality, as imperfect as it may seem to us.)
IMO, framing a struggle for Black equality as in the best interest of whites is not demagoguery or cowardice. It's not an adaptation to the biases of the bigots. It is not to please David Duke or the KKK, or to deny reality. It is the proper, inclusive way to present our struggles. They divide. We unite.