At 04:47 PM 10/4/2009, Doug Henwood wrote:
>On Oct 4, 2009, at 4:28 PM, wrobert at uci.edu wrote:
>
>>My frustration with these types of comments is that the category that
>>is being identified is so vague and amorphous.
>
>Well, Michaels as been criticized - surprisingly, to me - as some sort
>of class-first troglodyte by Louis Proyect and Richard Seymour, who
>are quite sophisticated people.
>
>And then there are the self-righteous Tim Wise types. E.g the eruption
>below from Wise, part of an email exchange stimulated by Adolph Reed's
>last appearance on my show, when he suggested that he was beginning to
>doubt the usefulness of race as an analytical category. My particular
>offense was wondering why "Black" was capitalized but not "white."
>
>Doug
>
>----
>
>From: timjwise at mac.com
>Subject: Re: Doug Henwood interviewing Adolph Reed [post-racialist] on
>KPFA Sat, Aug 29, 10:-11:am
>Date: August 31, 2009 11:46:03 AM EDT
>To: dhenwood at panix.com
>
>
>While Joseph's "ignorance" about about Adolph Reed's racial identity
>may be unfortunate, it is surely no more so than Doug's rather typical
>(amongst us white folks) ignorance----more fitting to conservatives
>frankly---about why Black is often capitalized while white usually
>isn't. Anyone who has paid any attention to the struggle for racial
>equity in the past, say 30 years, would know the answer to that
>question that seems to confuse comrade Henwood so (I would say,
>Brother Henwood, but come on, who would I be kidding?)...but of
>course, white Marxists (or whatever term they may prefer to go by
>nowadays), steeped in the Eurocentric tradition, never need to pay
>attention to such "peripheral" struggles as the fight against white
>supremacy, since, to such persons, it detracts from the "real" battle
>(which they and they alone of course are qualified to determine)
>against capital. Ah yes, the voice of privileged white leftism speaks.
>What's next Doug? Will you begin to ask why there is no white history
>month, since, ya know, there's that Black history thing? (and where is
>WORKER'S HISTORY? right). I mean, really, who gives a crap about black
>bourgeois leaders like King or DuBois when there are white proles out
>there to prioritize?? Surely Tom Joad is a more important figure than
>DuBois!! And enough with that "Lift Every Voice," identity politics
>crap, we need more Woodie Guthrie! Because don't you know Joseph? Race
>is not "organic," while class status is: the latter is rooted in
>material reality while the latter is just a figment of our
>imagination...pay attention Joseph!!
>
>Since I'm sure Doug will not care to actually investigate the answer
>to his own question about capitalization, here it is: Blackness is an
>identity forged and claimed in opposition to white supremacy. When it
>was claimed by the freedom struggle, capitalizing Black, though surely
>not required, is often seen as a way to claim an official and positive
>identity from Blackness, as contrasted say with "colored" or "negro"
>however capitalized. White, on the other hand, was a category created
>specifically for the purpose of dividing class coalitions (on this
>Doug and I would likely agree, since it comports with most left/ Marxist
>analysis), and as such carries NO positive connotation. It is
>an identity only linked to oppression. Those of us called white can of
>course turn against whiteness, and stand in solidarity with Blackness
>as a political project. So no Doug, I am not saying that whites as
>people are inherently oppressive. But whiteness as a political project
>is nothing but oppressive. By not capitalizing it, those of us who
>believe in justice, seek to linguistically de-emphasize its organicity
>(since it is wholly fake and imposed upon european peoples), while
>with Black, we seek to display the counter-hegemonic nature of the
>freedom struggle. It's really not a huge deal of course, and
>capitalizing Black isn't necessary by any means in order to show
>solidarity. I don't always capitalize it, for instance. But to not
>*know* this history, to not even demonstrate a passing familiarity
>with it, is the strongest evidence I have seen in years that some
>white leftists know nothing about, and appear to care little about,
>the fight for racial equity in this country. I suppose they have more
>important things to concern themselves with, as usual.
>
>As for me, I too think the struggle against capital is critical, but
>I'll take my cues on that matter from black and brown Marxists who
>understand that with a strong class analysis must also come a strong
>anti-white supremacist analysis. Whiteness has, after all, long been
>the transmission belt of the very false consciousness about which Marx
>warned: the false consciousness that has divided working people. But
>that false consciousness is rooted in a material reality of privilege
>vis a vis peoples of color, which has turned whiteness into a form of
>alternative property for those possessing it (in Cheryl Harris's
>terms, whose work I am certain Doug is also unfamiliar with), and
>encouraged them to cleave to skin over class every time. This truth is
>why Doug's (and Adolph Reed's) analysis of the centrality or non-
>centrality of anti-racism is, I think, wrong. Anti-racism must be
>central to undoing not only the racial inequity before us, but even
>the economic inequity. Without a frontal assault on racism, white
>working people will NEVER work in solidarity with people of color to
>achieve anything.
>
>Colorblindness means blindness to the consequences of color, and it is
>no more appealing when practiced by the left, than when practiced by
>the right.
>
>Tim Wise
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk