Again, what does invoking racism get you that fighting against Israeli
> policy, for open borders, and against the brutalization of Indians doesn't?
> And what does putting all these different things under a single category -
> "racism" - accomplish, other than running the risk of turning it all into a
> matter of subjectivity?
>
Actually understanding the social dynamics shaping these things, rather than falsely treating them as isolated hit-and-runs?
One cannot adequately grasp relations between Israel and the United States, Canada, or Australia, for example, without considering the pressure of a certain kind of settler-colonial racial solidarity.
And I can't even imagine examining the forces behind US immigration policy without considering racism as a factor. It might be a fun mental exercise - like "what-if" history - but what would be the practical use?
Perhaps your answer will simply be that I should read more of Reed, but I think the more obvious question is: What advantage can come of disregarding race in such racialized conflicts?
-- "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað."