> Yeah, I asked Adolph to write that piece actually. You may have noticed
the
> publication venue. It's kind of weird that you think that earlier
> representations were inaccurate, considering that.
----------
This could put us off on the wrong foot again. So I'll ignore it.
It is true we cannot fight racism (I'll return a bit later to why). We fight concrete institutions, practices, laws, etc. So the proper response to Reed is not simply to repeat his points as a mantra but to focus on the kind of struggles called for.
For example: Destroy the Prison System. It cannot be reformed and its very existence generates and regenerates racist ideology. (Racism is an ideology, and ideologies cannot be attacked; rather one must attack their material basis.)
For Example: Fight Stop & Frisk.
For example: Open Borders!
For example: Local police cooperation with the INS.
For example: Defend the Teachers (even when, as is often the case currently, they will not defend themselves.) Don't clutter such struggles with irrelevant wails of "What about the Kids." Only by defending the teachers can one help the kids.
Attack Charter Schools.
Attack use of tests at all levels.
In every one of these struggles the _main_ opposition will come from those who in one way or another embody racist ideology; they are the material grounds of racist ideology.
Actually, I think Barbara Jeanne Fields makes the essential points better than Reed does. In any case her and Reed's arguments are complementary. Both reveal the wrongness of the ideologies of "white-skin privilege" or the silly concept of ideologies having a life of their own.
The U.S. is a racist society -- but mouthing that (true as it is) does nothing to change the world. _Denying_ it is also wrong of course. One notes it and turns to ways of meeting its material embodiments/sources.
Carrol