>
> On Oct 7, 2009, at 12:00 PM, John Gulick wrote:
>
> I do find
>> it a bit odd that you are so zealous about going to the mat to defend a
>> critique of anti-racism that (as Shag has astutely
>> pointed out) is fundamentally that of a cranky left-liberal rather than
>> one of a radical Marxist...
>>
>
> What I'm defending is Michaels' argument that "anti-racism" is entirely
> compatible with neoliberalism, and is even used to legitimize it. That's not
> to say there's no such thing as racism, or sexism, or homophobia - but that
> much of the American elite proudly thinks of itself as beyond it.
>
>
But, and on top of Eric's point, I don't think anyone here is arguing
against that first point. In fact, a whole bunch of us have said that he's
right on when it comes to that point. Nobody here, I don't think, is
contesting the argument neoliberal democrats conflate multiculturalism and
diversity with class or at least progressive politics because their
cosmopolitan hyperindividualism leaves them believing that all that's needed
is a genuinely level playing field for there to be equality and justice...
John Rawls anyone?
It is claims like Michaels made about the Katrina disaster having nothing to do with racism, it is suggestions that "we" are pretty much all OK with illegal immigration 'cuz its like multiculturalism and good for neoliberalism, it is comparisons of the US to "real" racist societies like the Jim Crow South or Nazi Germany suggesting, therefore, that the US is effectively only classist (though it is pretty clear that he means we're hegemonically anti-racist), and it is the refusal to analytically differentiate classism and structural and cultural racism that sets us off. It is how little he knows, and how little interest he appears to have in learning, about the sexist, racist, heteronormative and classist socialization of students (including their families and communities) who attend Mid-American Conference schools - much less those attending Div II football schools that sets us off.
No one is saying that multiculturalism, like sustainability and green and organic and fair trade and free speech and... add whatever you want, hasn't been appropriated in a manner so as to serve neoliberalism. What _I'm_ saying, at least, is that there's more to the anti-racist impetus behind multiculturalism, there's more to environmentalism than green neoliberalism, and there's more to free speech, assembly etc. than to corporate free speech... and a whole raft of folks, by no means all - or even a plurality - of course, working in these areas - in the academy or elsewhere - are cognizant of those aspects of "more than" but are not in a position to do more than they are, do not have allies to support them if they wanted to and don't have exogenous political movements making space for their work...