> > heh. I think this is where someone might include these responses in a list
> > of examples of white privilege. :)
> >
> > he knows when public education was extended to people who weren't slaves
> > prior to the late 1800s. he's saying that it wasn't truly public education
> > until black people attended school. just like it wasn't much of a
> > representative democracy in this country until until well after the end of
> > Jim Crow -- and some people would argue it ain't much of a representative
> > democracy now because the way we, in the u.s. do things, we manage to keep
> > a lot of folks out of the polls via informal mechanisms.
>
>
>I think I'll wait for CB's response to be convinced of this.
i think you are being defensive. :) everything you say below is not an argument against charles' position. it is support for it.
if you (general you, not you alan, you) can be blinded by a privileged position to think public was public and inclusive in 1840s and forget that a lot of folks were left out, then charles can also be blinded by his privileged position and not think about native americans or poor whites or even engage in racism against black -- internalized racism. I know. Adoph Reed thinks blacks should stop worrying about whether Oprah is racist. btw keep meaning to post this from angela. she wrote it when i accused charles of being a sexist and he accused me of being a racist. that is why he sometimes signs off as chaz -- as joking reference to that argument. :)
angela is way better on identity politics than AR and WBM every imagined being. i am not smart enough to understand angela without reading her three times, but if you have to read her a lot to get it, i promise, it's really actually worth it.
THE FANTASY OF BEING OUTSIDE IDEOLOGY
<quote>
Sure, one option would be to remove the sense of racism and sexism from speech acts entirely, to make it refer only to institutional, structural, or whatever other formulation one likes that would separate people from structures. And, for most occasions, i'm inclined to think that's quite a good strategy.
Which is perhaps why Jim H and I, despite what I'll say below, have similar responses to the rhetorical and political focus of much of the left on extreme manifestations of racism, hate speech legislation, etc. I think it diverts attention from those politics and practices which will never be signalled with racist and sexist epithets but are nonetheless more dangerous, which provide the context for the ubiquity of racism and sexism....
But that, unfortunately though interestingly, is just a (philosophical) liberalism in reverse: that reality can be distinguished from words and it is unaffected by them especially when it comes to the reality of something like an e-list, where the whole space is excessively worded. The problem with pursuing Zizek into censorious mode (censoring the charge(s of sexism and racism themselves) in the abstract) is, as Bitch says, that it regards racism and sexism as existing entirely within the realm of speech acts.
But, speech acts is all we do here (in cyberspace), which has the effect of making racism and sexism, as well as a discussion of them, more pronounced and more troubling. If I write:
"no one, least of all those of us who think these are not a matter of personal whim, would deny that they are racist or sexist"
then this should have been a fairly clear gesture toward those who here have both claimed that racism and sexism are not a matter of intentional decision (that it consists of structures which exceed any of our intentions) and who, simultaneously, respond to claims that they are being (in this instance) sexist with nothing other than denial.
That is, such a denial from this perspective is absurd. And what it shows clearly is that those who are often most keen to dispense their judgements on others are absolutely unwilling to countenance such implications in regard to themselves, thus flying in the face of what they simultaneously assert about the ubiquity of racism and sexism.
And it's this initial judgement that I would say yes, is indeed about enjoyment: that is, the enjoyment of distinction, superiority, the fantasy of being outside fantasy
A fantasy held onto at all cost, including a refusal to deal at all with what they claim they are most concerned with: racism, sexism, etc.
I happen to think there is always space for that discussion and debate, and I would much prefer it if it was banalised by a recognition that racism and sexism permeates what we do here than to shift it into the realm of rhetorical insult (as if it is some kind of willful malevolence), which is largely and unfortunately where it remains now. And, it's as insult that it becomes enjoyment and the basis for identification, both for those who do the calling and those who are called. That is, there should always be a debate and discussion on whether or not some comment or perspective is racist.
What happens more often than not however is that discussion is halted, usually at the line of 'if a woman says x is sexist then it is true'; this is all too troubling so we should stop now; 'you are being racist when you say x'; 'you are/you aren't'; etc
What would it hurt other than my leftist pride if someone said I was being racist? I'll ask for evidence and I will most likely debate it, but it doesn't destroy my sense of self. Why should it? What do I stand to lose other than my fantasy of being outside ideology?"
> In any event,
>I think this is a problematic argument. Where do we draw the line for
>"truly" in this instance?... as you point out about representative
>democracy? Did the "truly" public education of whites and blacks educate
>girls and young women the same as it did boys and young men? If not, by
>your standard educating ex-slaves isn't yet "truly" public. And, of course,
>what about Native Americans? What about "illegals"?
>
>It seems to me that what we need in this instance is either more detail from
>CB and/or a way of defining "public" in non-anachronistic terms since the
>"public" of the 1820s and 30s was defined as not including slaves, though it
>may have included ex-slaves (however small their numbers and racist their
>treatment at the time.) Who's gonna argue that public ed hasn't privileged
>already privileged whites since, of course, many of the now-white weren't
>yet white at the time and poor whites have never been fully "white"
>anyway... since "whiteness" is, by default, assumed to be "middle class"
>(whatever the hell that means).
>
>Too much shorthand and too many incomplete stances taken here, mea culpa.
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)