will you white crackers please stop whining for the love of god [Archive]

Sasha

2nd July 2013, 18:25

I dislike how it views white Americans as one group of people, one that has killed millions of people. I am a white American yet I have not done anything like that. I realize it is not intentional nor does it mean that, but it sounds like it and thus sounds as ignorant as people claiming Arabs do this or Blacks do that and Whites did this.

i would say thats is the opposite of what the article argues (rather bluntly); contrary to other "races" the fact is that there is no slur that labels the whole group of whites in a profoundly insulting way, when i heard zimmerman called a cracker i feel not offended in a single bit, i know exactly what martin meant with cracker, its the KIND on white folk who behave exactly like zimmerman did at that moment, what happened afterwards is only its way to common next step.
martins cracker didnt mean white folk, it means creepy racist white folk, much more in the same way a "nigger" as called by fellow black people, a certain kind of black person (that gives other black people a bad name), which is something quite different than if white people use the slur.
i'm a bit rambling but my point is that its a fact that racial slurs about white people (cracker, redneck etc etc) are always about a certain kind of white people, sure they are still slurs so they still unfairly widen the group but they are still by far not about every single white person in existence.
quite unlike the slurs used against most other racialgroups.

Jimmie Higgins

3rd July 2013, 10:06

It was pretty pointless, but if it was just for the author to blow off steam then whatever.Well any sane non-racist who has come within a whiff of the Zimmerman trial coverage should need to blow off some steam.

When calling someone "Cracker" is trying to be used to make their murder okiee-dokee, then fuck all those whip-cracking ofeys.[/steam blown]

On a side note, the Judge in the trial of the cop who killed Oscar Grant deemed the useage of the n-word by one of the other cops who was detaining Grant as irrelevant to the case so it couldn't be used in evidence. So it shows agression if you are being followed and scared and you use a derrogatory remark... but if you handcuff someone and put them on the ground and use a derrogatory remark, it's just incidental? Or is it really just that the US justice system thinks it's ok to kill young black males.

Oh shit, I gotta blow of more steam now.:cursing:

bcbm

3rd July 2013, 18:24

Or is it really just that the US justice system thinks it's ok to kill young black males.

basically. or imprison them en masse.

Decolonize The Left

6th July 2013, 04:35

Fourth Internationalist

6th July 2013, 04:42

Maybe, but your whiteness carries that history with it everywhere you go. So you need to learn how to own up to it even though you - yourself - didn't actually do anything. Just like black people carry the history of racism on their backs everyday white people carry the same history only from the other end. White folks need to stop trying to run from their past take responsibility for what happened and what continues to happen - only then will we actually do our part in bringing justice forth.

Race is not a magical entity that carries history. I don't need to run from my past, I am an individual and race should not define anything about me, such as my history. Also, pretty much all cultures have done and still do horrible things racism included, everyone doesn't need to "take responsibility" for what a culture they descended from does.

blake 3:17

6th July 2013, 04:45

I use 'cracker' fairly frequently.

#FF0000

6th July 2013, 04:45

Race is not a magical entity that carries history.

Nah, it's a social one -- like class.

I am an individual and race should not define anything about me

Shouldn't, but we both know that it does.

Decolonize The Left

6th July 2013, 04:46

Race is not a magical entity that carries history.

No, it's a real entity which carries history.

I don't need to run from my past, I am an individual and race should not define anything about me, such as my history.

That's nice to hear. But it does define a lot about you whether or not you want it to. Your whiteness gives you privilege in the US. Your whiteness defines you in the eyes of everyone who looks at you to some degree or another.

Also, pretty much all cultures have done and still do horrible things racism included, everyone doesn't need to "take responsibility" for what a culture they descended from does.

Yes, they do. You can't say "I'm a German" and not accept responsibility for the German nation's actions in WWII. You can't say "I'm an American" and not take responsibility for what happened with slavery in the US. By identifying with a nation you are accepting that history as your own - you can then work to make it what you will but the past remains.

Fourth Internationalist

6th July 2013, 04:52

I'm American by definition, but I am not taking responsibility for slavery. What else should I take responsibly for? Women's oppression because I am male? St Patrick's Day because I'm Irish?

Fourth Internationalist

6th July 2013, 04:54

Shouldn't, but we both know that it does.

On RevLeft it shouldn't. This is an anti-racist forum. Everyone here should not view it that way. He doesn't need to try to define people because of their race or nationality.

Klaatu

6th July 2013, 04:55

I remember this episode of Star Trek. Two men from the same planet were battling each other, because of their 'racial' differences.
Seems kind of trivial and silly to us Earthlings, doesn't it? (why can't they just get along?)

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTU1ODkzNDExM15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNTU4Njg4._V1_S X214_.jpg
source:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708435/

MarxSchmarx

6th July 2013, 04:57

It's a crap article that utterly misses the point.

It comes down to whether people as individuals should be given the right to decide how they are referred to and how much control over the discourse over them they should have. If some white person doesn't like being referred to as a "cracker", they are justified in rejecting the term as it applies to them or people that look like them. If they further object to being called "carrot-top" or some such, again, then it strikes me as moronic and downright vindictive to go out of your way to call someone a "carrot-top cracker". And I think even if they happen to be the socially dominant group (again, in some contexts - until recently having European facial features was a serious drawback in Vietnam, at least for Vietnamese people) that doesn't mean we should not honor their wishes.

One example that might have some resemblance is the use of the term "boys" to refer to male soldiers in most modern militaries. I get that conscripts well into their 20s are on some level really barely more than children, but why not call them "men"? It trivializes their agency to call them boys.

My sense is that a lot of white people, at least in North America, don't appreciate being called "cracker" any more than any other ethnic group really enjoys any number of offensive designations. As a non-white person it doesn't bother me that they are offended by it, and I have no compunction trying to refrain from using the expression.

Fourth Internationalist

6th July 2013, 05:01

I heard the term cracker comes from the 'crack' of a whip supposedly. That's why I don't like people using it, but it's not so offensive that I'd get offended over it because most people don't know it means that.

Decolonize The Left

6th July 2013, 05:04

I'm American by definition, but I am not taking responsibility for slavery. What else should I take responsibly for? Women's oppression because I am male? St Patrick's Day because I'm Irish?

Yes, for the most part. Especially the bit on women's oppression and racism. As a white person you are always embraced within a complex system of racism/sexism/homophobia/etc... all of which revolve around social constructs and... guess what?... you play into those social constructs at all times. So you are absolutely responsible for them.

Now, you're not responsible for all of it. It's not like you owned slaves or beat your wife or anything - but you are responsible for your portion of it because you act it out everyday in being yourself - you are acting out your role in society all the time.

Fourth Internationalist

6th July 2013, 05:09

You have a very odd conception of what it means to be responsible for something.

Decolonize The Left

6th July 2013, 05:14

You have a very odd conception of what it means to be responsible for something.

No, I don't think I do. I think I have a very coherent understanding of responsibility. Just to keep things clear: I'm not saying you should go out and pronounce how sorry you are for some shit you did - you didn't do slavery or whatever. But if you're going to identify with a nation which did, then you need to own up to that history.

Now, I'm an American in the sense that I was born in America and conditioned by this context. But I don't actually give a shit about "America." What I care about is the people who live on this land, including those whose land this was in the first place, those who were brought here on boats against their will, and those who are kept out for whatever reasons.

No nations - No borders. Workers of the world unite.

EDIT: With this said, I still own up to the fact that my whiteness brings me privilege, that my dick brings me privilege, and that the fact that I like women (as opposed to men or both) brings me privilege. They all do, everyday. I take responsibility for this by acknowledging it, working against it when I can, and supporting women, non-whites, and LGBTQ folks in their quest for liberation.

Fourth Internationalist

6th July 2013, 05:18

Now, I'm an American in the sense that I was born in America and conditioned by this context. But I don't actually give a shit about "America."

Same but that is what it means to be an American. It's not any sort of political or historical affiliation.

Decolonize The Left

6th July 2013, 05:26

Same but that is what it means to be an American. It's not any sort of political or historical affiliation.

Maybe not to you, or me, but it is to a lot of people. Just like your whiteness is really important to a lot of people even though you don't want to think about it. That's what I'm trying to say here. You need to own up to how you play your role in society.

Fourth Internationalist

6th July 2013, 05:33

I don't understand how that first half can be turned into that last half. "People treat you differently" --> "Own up to the sins of your people"

Decolonize The Left

6th July 2013, 05:43

I don't understand how that first half can be turned into that last half. "People treat you differently" --> "Own up to the sins of your people"

Alright. So white folks enslaved black folks back in the day. But that shit's over right? Black folks are like, totally equal now, right? Wrong. Shit is all sorts of fucked up all over the place. So when your white self walks down the street you are playing a role in that play - the role of a white person. Which means that in that role you have the history of slavery and the current context of fucked up shit. When you take responsibility for your role you are taking responsibility for the context of the role as well because they are intertwined and cannot be separated.

Make sense?

Fourth Internationalist

6th July 2013, 05:47

It's horrible logic. "You're white therefore you have a role in slavery and you should take responsibility for said role"

Decolonize The Left

6th July 2013, 05:48

It's horrible logic. "You're white therefore you have a role in slavery"

Dude. That isn't at all what I said.

Fourth Internationalist

6th July 2013, 05:55

I know, it's paraphrasing and summarising.

Le Communiste

6th July 2013, 06:06

Be more than happy too

The Garbage Disposal Unit

6th July 2013, 07:10

#FF0000

6th July 2013, 07:10

I know, it's paraphrasing and summarising.

No it's totally wrong.

Rugged Collectivist

6th July 2013, 08:40

And you're not. You know how I know? People who are seriously engaged in fighting the system understand their responsibility in relation to the system. There's no, "That happened before I was born!" bullshit.

There's a difference between being responsible for and "owning up to" slavery, and being responsible for and owning up to systemic racism that is a direct result of slavery.

Red Banana

6th July 2013, 08:44

I understand white people needing to take responsibility for the oppression that people of color currently face and working against that, but theres really nothing white people, at least in North America can do about chattel-slavery anymore since it's, you know, abolished.

I really don't see how this whole "take responsibility for what people with the same color skin as you did hundreds of years ago" even does anything because white people today had no part of that and since its in the past, can't really change it. What they do have a direct role in are the injustices being committed against people of color right now that are a direct result of those injustices committed in the past, which they actually can do something about, which they need to take responsibility for.

I also don't really know what some people mean by "responsibility" in this thread. What constitutes "taking responsibility" for chattel-slavery? Is it recognizing the injustices of early America as your own fault and accepting a punishment for them? I doubt that's what they mean. Do they mean merely recognizing the fact that those injustices have happened while giving verbal approval to black liberation movements today? Is it being heavily or at least some-what involved in the black liberation movements of today? I've seen the phrase "own up" used in the place of "taking responsibility" but that's really just another way of saying it rather than a definition.

Fourth Internationalist

6th July 2013, 15:41

Hey, if you're a white American, you're living on stolen land, and the roads you drive on, the schools you went to, etc., etc. were built with the blood money from slavery, from imperialism, etc. You are responsible for these historical acts of genocidal violence insofar as you continue to enjoy their spoils.
Instead of whining "notmenotmenotmyfault!" you need to actually stand up fight against the system that is still incarcerating black people en masse, stealing indigenous children, setting up puppet governments to ensure the steady flow of oil, and so on.
And you're not. You know how I know? People who are seriously engaged in fighting the system understand their responsibility in relation to the system. There's no, "That happened before I was born!" bullshit.

So everyone of every culture needs to look back at the culture they descended from, look at what that culture did, and accept responsibly for all of them? And our idea of fighting the system is saying "I am responsible for slavery"? Since I dont do that i am a supporter of imperialism! Of slavery! And since I don't run away from my parents, family, and friends, I am responsible for the native American genocide. Yes I guess I should go to Europe at 15 years old? What if I can't afford to even as an adult? What about those poor people "enjoying the spoils"? They're so poor they can't stop "enjoying the spoils"! Anywhere you go, chances are that land was stolen by someone who killed the population living there.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

6th July 2013, 16:04

I think there is quite the difference between recognising the existence of systematic racism and the function white people as a social group (not as an identity; the structural inequalities between race-castes can't be defined away) play in such racism and feeling personally responsible for them. The latter - well, I'm not about to tell anyone how to live their life - but it leads to bad politics, such as the entire "privilege politics" rubbish, which actually hurts the radical elements of the minority nations, races, etc. etc.

That said, anyone who equated words such as "cracker" - and "cracker" is an anti-white slur, the notion that it applies "only to racists" is preposterous - with slurs against black people has either failed to notice the systematic racism against black people and the absence of systematic racism against white people (in America), or they are still holding on to liberal notions of "colour blindness". Communists are not neutral. Communists are on the side of the oppressed, and that includes having understanding for reactionary sentiment that the oppressed will sometimes exhibit toward dominant groups. Of course this sentiment should be challenged - but it should be challenged by demonstrating that it has a detrimental effect on black liberation, not that it makes white people uncomfortable.

Lucretia

6th July 2013, 16:49

Communists are not neutral. Communists are on the side of the oppressed, and that includes having understanding for reactionary sentiment that the oppressed will sometimes exhibit toward dominant groups.

Understanding reactionary sentiments while challenging them is different than subtly defending them by saying that anybody who criticizes them just doesn't "understand" how oppressed the people harboring the reactionary sentiments are. A lot of the responses in this thread, though not yours, seem to be shading into the latter category.

Of course this sentiment should be challenged - but it should be challenged by demonstrating that it has a detrimental effect on black liberation, not that it makes white people uncomfortable.This is a bad dichotomy. In this case, "making white people uncomfortable" by engaging in racial slurs against them DOES have a detrimental effect on black liberation. That's why, as you correctly say above, it's reactionary. So you can not separate detrimental effects from slurring "white" people in ways that make them uncomfortable. The way to counter racism is not by pretending it doesn't exist, but neither do you counter it by advocating that victims of racism be as racist to dominant racial groups as those dominant racial groups are to the oppressed. This is tantamount to calling for workers to seize the means of production in order to make the bourgeoisie engage in wage labor in perpetuity, as thought the bourgeoisie as individuals are the problem, not the system of capital accumulation that they are overseeing. Similarly, "white people" are not the problem -- and shouldn't be slandered as such. The problem is a system of racism. And the way to counter racism is to understand that it is underpinned and driven by a exploitative economic system that can only be overcome when groups of different "races" join together in revolutionary struggle. This is hindered, not helped, by any group using racial slurs.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

6th July 2013, 17:35

So everyone of every culture needs to look back at the culture they descended from, look at what that culture did, and accept responsibly for all of them? And our idea of fighting the system is saying "I am responsible for slavery"? Since I dont do that i am a supporter of imperialism! Of slavery! And since I don't run away from my parents, family, and friends, I am responsible for the native American genocide. Yes I guess I should go to Europe at 15 years old? What if I can't afford to even as an adult? What about those poor people "enjoying the spoils"? They're so poor they can't stop "enjoying the spoils"! Anywhere you go, chances are that land was stolen by someone who killed the population living there.

Did you read what I posted?
THIS ISN'T FUCKING PAST TENSE.
It's what the institutions you participate in continue to do, and the ongoing benefits you receive from the accumulated wealth of stolen labour, stolen resources, and mass murder.
Listen, if you go and buy a goddamn stolen bike, and you meet the person it was stolen from are you like, "It's not my responsibility!" Of course not (unless you're an asshole)! You take responsibility, and you give them their goddamn bike back. Taking responsibility goes beyond having been the one to initially commit an injustice: responsibility means that when an injustice is part of your life you do something about it.
And tell me, are you "One of the poor people?" Do you have access to schooling? To food? To health care? If you do, you need to stop using "the poor" as a plank for your arguments, because that's some condescending bullshit. It further posits that "the poor" (not coincidentally, disproportionately racialized people whose poverty you are right now denying any responsibility for) are incapable of developing the political analysis to situate themselves vis-a-vis imperialism, settler colonialism, etc. - thankfully, however, this is not the case. Many poor whites have gotten past the irritating stage of "ARE YOU SAYING I SHOULD GO BACK TO EUROPE?!" (and no, nobody is saying that, though maybe people who ask that question should), and actually invested some time in learning history, in engaging with communities in struggle, etc. Seriously, go do some reading on decolonization. Go learn about your treaty obligations (if there were treaties made with the people whose land you're on). I'm well aware that you don't particularly take me seriously (and that you're borderline rabidly defensive of the political integrity of the white race), but if that changes, let me know and I'll point you to some good books.

Others in this thread, particularly Lucretia:
You need to read Fannon. Or, like, almost any Marxist theory from the third world.

Lucretia

6th July 2013, 17:51

Others in this thread, particularly Lucretia:
You need to read Fannon. Or, like, almost any Marxist theory from the third world.

Oh? And he will get me to change my mind on what? The idea that racial slurs are reactionary, even when made by racially oppressed groups?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

6th July 2013, 17:57

Did you read what I posted?
THIS ISN'T FUCKING PAST TENSE.
It's what the institutions you participate in continue to do, and the ongoing benefits you receive from the accumulated wealth of stolen labour, stolen resources, and mass murder.
Listen, if you go and buy a goddamn stolen bike, and you meet the person it was stolen from are you like, "It's not my responsibility!" Of course not (unless you're an asshole)! You take responsibility, and you give them their goddamn bike back. Taking responsibility goes beyond having been the one to initially commit an injustice: responsibility means that when an injustice is part of your life you do something about it.
And tell me, are you "One of the poor people?" Do you have access to schooling? To food? To health care? If you do, you need to stop using "the poor" as a plank for your arguments, because that's some condescending bullshit. It further posits that "the poor" (not coincidentally, disproportionately racialized people whose poverty you are right now denying any responsibility for) are incapable of developing the political analysis to situate themselves vis-a-vis imperialism, settler colonialism, etc. - thankfully, however, this is not the case. Many poor whites have gotten past the irritating stage of "ARE YOU SAYING I SHOULD GO BACK TO EUROPE?!" (and no, nobody is saying that, though maybe people who ask that question should), and actually invested some time in learning history, in engaging with communities in struggle, etc. Seriously, go do some reading on decolonization. Go learn about your treaty obligations (if there were treaties made with the people whose land you're on). I'm well aware that you don't particularly take me seriously (and that you're borderline rabidly defensive of the political integrity of the white race), but if that changes, let me know and I'll point you to some good books.

Others in this thread, particularly Lucretia:
You need to read Fannon. Or, like, almost any Marxist theory from the third world.

The implication that all "Marxist theory from the third world" (all of the early Maoist texts are from that region, and I am sure most of us are familiar with them) is like Fanon's phenomenological revisionism is hilarious. The rest of your post has precisely nothing to do with Marxism - you act as if the structural racism of American society is a matter of individual "injustice" and can be resolved, not just by appeals to bourgeois morality, but also by bourgeois legality (the treaties made with native states)!

This is a bad dichotomy. In this case, "making white people uncomfortable" by engaging in racial slurs against them DOES have a detrimental effect on black liberation. That's why, as you correctly say above, it's reactionary. So you can not separate detrimental effects from slurring "white" people in ways that make them uncomfortable. The way to counter racism is not by pretending it doesn't exist, but neither do you counter it by advocating that victims of racism be as racist to dominant racial groups as those dominant racial groups are to the oppressed. This is tantamount to calling for workers to seize the means of production in order to make the bourgeoisie engage in wage labor in perpetuity, as thought the bourgeoisie as individuals are the problem, not the system of capital accumulation that they are overseeing. Similarly, "white people" are not the problem -- and shouldn't be slandered as such. The problem is a system of racism. And the way to counter racism is to understand that it is underpinned and driven by a exploitative economic system that can only be overcome when groups of different "races" join together in revolutionary struggle. This is hindered, not helped, by any group using racial slurs.

I think it depends on the context - Third-Worldist "theory", for example, is divisive even when it doesn't use slurs, and someone who constantly attacks white individuals should be corrected, of course, but at the same time I don't think sporadic use of terms such as "cracker" is problematic in itself, particularly since it doesn't (usually) represent an actual threat to white people. Depending on the circumstance, using such terms can even be a radical act, though couched in reactionary external forms.

The Feral Underclass

6th July 2013, 18:09

Thanking people's posts isn't vindication of their or your argument.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

6th July 2013, 18:12

The rest of your post has precisely nothing to do with Marxism - you act as if the structural racism of American society is a matter of individual "injustice" and can be resolved, not just by appeals to bourgeois morality, but also by bourgeois legality (the treaties made with native states)!

Thank-you for at least engaging on grounds that make a discussion of white supremacy (and its relationship to the capitalist totality) possible. I agree that my post is too simple - but this simply reflects the point at which the discussion is at.
That said, nowhere do I see an appeal to bourgeois morality in my post. Rather, I think it's pretty clear that I'm making an appeal to grapple with whiteness, settler-colonialism, and imperialism historically. It's on this basis that an individual can locate themselves, and establish a basis for moving forward. If you're lost, you need to figure out where you are to figure out where you need to go. Responsibility, in this sense is not "moral" - it's historical. It has to do with the material and historical relationships the serve to constitute current realities, and one's relationship to them.
As to bourgeois legality, I confess that I do see certain limitations in terms framing indigenous struggles in terms of treaties. However, in my experience, indigenous communities in struggle hold up treaties in terms not of bourgeois legality, but in terms of their own sovereignty as nations (not states, typically): that is, they are not subject to interpretation by the courts or legal apparatus of the bourgeois state, but constitute a basis for indigenous sovereignty. That said, I recognize that this may be particular to Canada, and even then to particular nations in Canada.

Not coincidentally, re: "a lot of [. . .] Maoist texts", I owe a pretty deep debt to J. Sakai (a "Japanese-American" Maoist) in regards to my grasp of this shit.

Lucretia

6th July 2013, 18:36

I think it depends on the context - Third-Worldist "theory", for example, is divisive even when it doesn't use slurs, and someone who constantly attacks white individuals should be corrected, of course, but at the same time I don't think sporadic use of terms such as "cracker" is problematic in itself, particularly since it doesn't (usually) represent an actual threat to white people. Depending on the circumstance, using such terms can even be a radical act, though couched in reactionary external forms.

Ok, I'm game. Please provide an example of a context in which racial slurs against "white" people isn't reactionary, and instead represents a progressive move to help unite the working class in the struggle against capitalism.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

6th July 2013, 20:38

As to bourgeois legality, I confess that I do see certain limitations in terms framing indigenous struggles in terms of treaties. However, in my experience, indigenous communities in struggle hold up treaties in terms not of bourgeois legality, but in terms of their own sovereignty as nations (not states, typically): that is, they are not subject to interpretation by the courts or legal apparatus of the bourgeois state, but constitute a basis for indigenous sovereignty. That said, I recognize that this may be particular to Canada, and even then to particular nations in Canada.

Even so, surely communists should stand in contradiction to the existing modes of struggle of the proletariat and of the oppressed groups, not tail them? Relying on the existing indigenous nations means relying on the leadership of these nations, which has, as far as I can tell, been nothing if not conciliatory and reformist, a sort of native PA, if you will permit me a possibly obtuse comparison.

Ok, I'm game. Please provide an example of a context in which racial slurs against "white" people isn't reactionary, and instead represents a progressive move to help unite the working class in the struggle against capitalism.

Before unity, there must be splits with the opportunist element. Now, I am by no means an expert on the history of the black movement in the United States, but as I understand it, during the latter part of the Civil Rights era, a lot of civil rights organisations found themselves limited by the white liberals in their membership, and as a consequence, expelled their white members. I don't know if slurs were used, but the end effect was the same. Of course, prima facie this is reactionary, but by ridding themselves of the liberal element, these organisations built a basis for a stronger union with the entire labour movement in the future.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

6th July 2013, 21:21

Decolonize The Left

7th July 2013, 00:44

[/I]Even so, surely communists should stand in contradiction to the existing modes of struggle of the proletariat and of the oppressed groups, not tail them? Relying on the existing indigenous nations means relying on the leadership of these nations, which has, as far as I can tell, been nothing if not conciliatory and reformist, a sort of native PA, if you will permit me a possibly obtuse comparison.

No, indigenous struggles should be supported on whatever grounds those people decide to wage their struggle. We, as white people, have absolutely no place in telling American Indians and other natives peoples how to fight their fight.

Are you actually saying that we should not rely on the leadership of oppressed peoples? In the first place, we're not 'relying' on it at all as it's their struggle. In the second place, we aren't fit for leadership in their struggle because it's not ours. And in the third place, as someone who has not lived the struggle of indigenous peoples (you, me, etc...) we have absolutely no understanding of what they have to go through everyday - so if they seem 'conciliatory and reformist' that is only from our limited perspective. Have you ever been on a reservation?

blake 3:17

7th July 2013, 01:06

Seriously, go do some reading on decolonization. Go learn about your treaty obligations (if there were treaties made with the people whose land you're on). I'm well aware that you don't particularly take me seriously (and that you're borderline rabidly defensive of the political integrity of the white race), but if that changes, let me know and I'll point you to some good books.

I don't think there are any legal rights for indigenous peoples in the US. Maybe state by state.

It's one of the things I actually like about Canada -- in law many conflicts about native rights are between native people and the Queen!

Have you read This Is Not A Peace Pipe? Highly recommended for thinking through constitutional issues around First Nations in a readable way. Basically liberal, but much better than most Marxist garbage on the question.

blake 3:17

7th July 2013, 01:25

Relying on the existing indigenous nations means relying on the leadership of these nations, which has, as far as I can tell, been nothing if not conciliatory and reformist, a sort of native PA, if you will permit me a possibly obtuse comparison.

"relying on the leadership of these nations" -- there are multiple leaderships. The geography is very very different.

Idle No More has been led by mostly young women who've gone between city and country and back again. My peeps are supporting http://www.idlenomore.ca/tags/_sovsummer

This is a serious break in the official leadership and one that is pro-woman, pro-ecology, pro-labour

South African Apartheid was based on the Canadian system. There are some really good connections between the Lefts here, South Africa and Palestine. Often informal.

RadioRaheem84

7th July 2013, 01:46

There is no racial slur that will offend white people and that should say a lot more about white privilege than anything else. Call a white guy a cracker or a honky in the most insulting turn and he will just chuckle. But he can call someone a racial slur and watch the sting it can have on a person if color. There isn't a lot you can tell a white person to make him think that he is inferior racially. It's strange. Growing up I've noticed that they do not get offended at all by racial slurs

Desy

7th July 2013, 03:41

White privilege society is even mad they can't control racial slurs.

*white privilege american* No, we haven't had any true genocide because of our color. BUT... wait... you know who eats Crackasssss... Poor people. And I'm no peasant!!! I'm fucking white!!!!!

But really. Shut up you Jive ass Turkeys.

L1NKS

7th July 2013, 04:03

I'm curious. Where does the term "cracker" stem from? From white people always trying to crack somebody else's skull open?

bcbm

8th July 2013, 03:15

(3) to a thin crisp biscuit; in America the general name for a biscuit. In the southern states of America, "cracker" is a term of contempt for the "poor" or "mean whites," particularly of Georgia and Florida; the term is an old one and dates back to the Revolution, and is supposed to be derived from the "cracked corn" which formed the staple food of the class to whom the term refers.
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Cracker

neither do you counter it by advocating that victims of racism be as racist to dominant racial groups as those dominant racial groups are to the oppressed.

could you point out one person suggesting this here?

The Garbage Disposal Unit

8th July 2013, 04:31

The way to counter racism is not by pretending it doesn't exist, but neither do you counter it by advocating that victims of racism be as racist to dominant racial groups as those dominant racial groups are to the oppressed.
could you point out one person suggesting this here?
That was totally me. I was all like, "Yeah, I want the POC police force occupying my community to put me in the POC-run prison industrial complex. Hopefully it will be the beginning of generations of systematic and systemic violence that will ensure whitey is kept down forever." You know, that totally plausible thing that POC communities and their white antiracist allies are always advocating. Fucking privilege politics.

L1NKS

8th July 2013, 07:08

The "niggers" werde dragged over from Africa against their will by white imperialist scum, then turned into property, given new names, and forced to work for their slave masters for centuries. And now the descendants of those "niggers" dare to be as bold as to call their oppressors "crackers". Give me a break.

boneawl

8th July 2013, 07:17

This is a bad dichotomy. In this case, "making white people uncomfortable" by engaging in racial slurs against them DOES have a detrimental effect on black liberation. That's why, as you correctly say above, it's reactionary. So you can not separate detrimental effects from slurring "white" people in ways that make them uncomfortable. The way to counter racism is not by pretending it doesn't exist, but neither do you counter it by advocating that victims of racism be as racist to dominant racial groups as those dominant racial groups are to the oppressed. This is tantamount to calling for workers to seize the means of production in order to make the bourgeoisie engage in wage labor in perpetuity, as thought the bourgeoisie as individuals are the problem, not the system of capital accumulation that they are overseeing. Similarly, "white people" are not the problem -- and shouldn't be slandered as such. The problem is a system of racism. And the way to counter racism is to understand that it is underpinned and driven by a exploitative economic system that can only be overcome when groups of different "races" join together in revolutionary struggle. This is hindered, not helped, by any group using racial slurs.

To me all this crap about worker unity is useless, because there will not be communism without the liberation of oppressed groups, and probably vice versa, because without it, structures formed under capitalism will still be present. The focus is on the oppressed being liberated, and I'd rather fight for my rights as a member of both the LGBTQ and the [email protected] communities than be part of some worker's unity, where my rights are ignored. I'm not sure if the use of derogatory words for whites would be beneficial to the rights of POC, but I'm almost positive it's not detrimental. After all, it's not about white people, but the struggles of POC, so I don't think that the feelings of white people should have any place in the discussion of our rights.
This is also problematic because there is no racism in the word cracker, because you literally CANNOT be racist to a white person. Can classism and capitalism be used against the members of the bourgeois? Of course not. Racism, though discrimination does play a part in it, must be backed up by some form of systematic oppression, and that is lacking in the word cracker, or any other attack based on the race of whites.

The Feral Underclass

8th July 2013, 10:59

If having to contend with the word "cracker" every now and again is what we have to put with after a legacy of centuries of brutality, rape and slavery, then I think we got off pretty lightly.

MarxArchist

8th July 2013, 11:17

Yes, for the most part. Especially the bit on women's oppression and racism. As a white person you are always embraced within a complex system of racism/sexism/homophobia/etc... all of which revolve around social constructs and... guess what?... you play into those social constructs at all times. So you are absolutely responsible for them.

Capitalism is responsible for them. This whole idea that ideas alone can change the world we live in is, well, idealism. In any event when we use privilege theory to paint a black and white picture illustrating a strict labor/social hierarchy we do a great injustice to class analysis. A poor white working class male with proper class consciousness is not, I repeat, is not responsible for the social construct that is largely the result of the economic "base". Reactionaries are responsible for maintaining the "superstructure" but this "matrix", so to speak, has material origins.

Lucretia

8th July 2013, 16:33

Before unity, there must be splits with the opportunist element. Now, I am by no means an expert on the history of the black movement in the United States, but as I understand it, during the latter part of the Civil Rights era, a lot of civil rights organisations found themselves limited by the white liberals in their membership, and as a consequence, expelled their white members. I don't know if slurs were used, but the end effect was the same. Of course, prima facie this is reactionary, but by ridding themselves of the liberal element, these organisations built a basis for a stronger union with the entire labour movement in the future.

Huh? What does splitting with liberals and opportunists have to do with calling people racial slurs? Are you suggesting that using racial slurs isn't reactionary because it's the way to test who is "liberal"? All I asked was for an example where using racial slurs wasn't reactionary, and so far I haven't seen it.

Lucretia

8th July 2013, 16:42

That was totally me. I was all like, "Yeah, I want the POC police force occupying my community to put me in the POC-run prison industrial complex. Hopefully it will be the beginning of generations of systematic and systemic violence that will ensure whitey is kept down forever." You know, that totally plausible thing that POC communities and their white antiracist allies are always advocating. Fucking privilege politics.

I am still waiting to hear what it is I am supposed to learn from Fanon that I can't learn from Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Trotsky.

#FF0000

8th July 2013, 16:49

I am still waiting to hear what it is I am supposed to learn from Fanon that I can't learn from Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Trotsky.

Is this what you do whenever you hear about a writer that isn't Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Trotsky?

Lucretia

8th July 2013, 17:44

Is this what you do whenever you hear about a writer that isn't Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Trotsky?

No. It is what I do when people on a revolutionary politics forum tell me I am wrong about an issue that Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky covered pretty damn well, and that I should read so-and-so.

bcbm

8th July 2013, 17:51

I am still waiting to hear what it is I am supposed to learn from Fanon that I can't learn from Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Trotsky.

'what could i possibly learn about race and colonialism from a person of color who participated in an anti-colonial revolution that i couldn't from some white guys?'

Lucretia

8th July 2013, 17:53

'what could i possibly learn about race and colonialism from a person of color who participated in an anti-colonial revolution that i couldn't from some white guys?'

How clever of you. Because we all know that being the victim of racism and colonialism is the same thing as having a correct analysis of it. Same thing with capitalist exploitation, which is why we presently see that every worker wants to overthrow it, in contrast to those bourgeois assholes Engels and Marx. Excuse me while I hold my nose at your caricature of identity politics.

bcbm

8th July 2013, 18:01

How clever of you. Because we all know that being the victim of racism and colonialism is the same thing as having a correct analysis of it.

not always, but certainly i would value someone's lived experience over the theories of those who do not suffer these things. also being known as 'the leading anti-colonial thinker of the 20th century' and having influenced such people as malcolm x, the black panthers, steve biko, abahlali basemjondolo and countless other liberation movements, writers, theorists would suggest there is something he has to say that is worth hearing and thinking about.

Excuse me while I hold my nose at your caricature of identity politics.

excuse me while i hold my nose at your caricature of a critically thinking person.

Lucretia

8th July 2013, 18:06

not always, but certainly i would value someone's lived experience over the theories of those who do not suffer these things. also being known as 'the leading anti-colonial thinker of the 20th century' and having influenced such people as malcolm x, the black panthers, steve biko, abahlali basemjondolo and countless other liberation movements, writers, theorists would suggest there is something he has to say that is worth hearing and thinking about.

excuse me while i hold my nose at your caricature of a critically thinking person.

For somebody who constantly whines that people are accusing you of saying things you've never said, you're pretty damn quick to engage in those very accusations. I am not devaluing anybody's experiences, and I challenge you to show me where I said any such thing. I am saying that those experiences do not automatically translate themselves into a correct analysis of the structures and powers that to a large degree determine them.

I repeat: what can Fanon teach me about colonialism and imperialism and racism that Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky cannot? NOT what can Fanon teach me about Fanon's experiences with colonialism and imperialism and racism.

Odd that this guy is touted as a fount of wisdom, yet people can only attack the question rather than answer it.

Quail

8th July 2013, 18:15

Capitalism is responsible for them. This whole idea that ideas alone can change the world we live in is, well, idealism. In any event when we use privilege theory to paint a black and white picture illustrating a strict labor/social hierarchy we do a great injustice to class analysis. A poor white working class male with proper class consciousness is not, I repeat, is not responsible for the social construct that is largely the result of the economic "base". Reactionaries are responsible for maintaining the "superstructure" but this "matrix", so to speak, has material origins.
The ruling class do benefit from discrimination, and I don't think we will see liberation for oppressed groups while capitalism still exists, but I also find this mentality problematic. While an individual's actions will not bring down a system of institutionalised oppression, the way that individuals interact with people of colour, LGBT people, women, etc., can make a difference. For example, something as basic as listening to their concerns and making changes to your behaviour as necessary can make the difference between someone feeling comfortable organising with you or not.

So while you might not be responsible for racism as a white person, you have subconsciously absorbed the values of a racist society so will probably at some point mess up and be unintentionally racist. In which case, it's important to listen to people of colour so that you can change whatever you did wrong.

bcbm

8th July 2013, 18:32

For somebody who constantly whines that people are accusing you of saying things you've never said, you're pretty damn quick to engage in those very accusations. I am not devaluing anybody's experiences, and I challenge you to show me where I said any such thing.

um if you read what i wrote again you will see that i am saying that i would value fanon's ideas because he is a highly regarded theorist who lived what he writes about. i am not accusing you of devaluing anyone's experiences.

I am saying that those experiences do not automatically translate themselves into a correct analysis of the structures and powers that to a large degree determine them.

and i am saying that in this case they do.

I repeat: what can Fanon teach me about colonialism and imperialism and racism that Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky cannot? NOT what can Fanon teach me about Fanon's experiences with colonialism and imperialism and racism.

well for a start fanon is a marxist, so obviously he is building off the foundations you rely on so heavily. beyond that he deals quite a bit with the psychology of colonization, especially its affects on those colonized and discriminated against. his theories of anti-colonial violence are also very influential and i think he has written more extensively and in greater depth about colonization and racism than your founding fathers. having lived through a period of actual anti-colonial upheaval and revolt he also has more to offer than someone writing, say, at the height of colonial expansion.

now off to work.

Lucretia

8th July 2013, 18:40

well for a start fanon is a marxist, so obviously he is building off the foundations you rely on so heavily. beyond that he deals quite a bit with the psychology of colonization, especially its affects on those colonized and discriminated against. his theories of anti-colonial violence are also very influential and i think he has written more extensively and in greater depth about colonization and racism than your founding fathers. having lived through a period of actual anti-colonial upheaval and revolt he also has more to offer than someone writing, say, at the height of colonial expansion.

now off to work.

Fanon claims to be a Marxist. So did Joseph Stalin. The proof in the pudding. But I get very little sense of what that pudding is, because your statements about his work are so vague that it is impossible to say for certain what exactly Fanon has, or has not, contributed to the Marxist canon.

Anyhow, the original question arose in the context of how my statements that racism and racial slurs are reactionary, and should be condemned, regardless of context showed that I supposedly needed to read Fanon.

Are you aware of any arguments that Fanon made about progressive racism?

Decolonize The Left

8th July 2013, 19:49

Fanon claims to be a Marxist. So did Joseph Stalin. The proof in the pudding. But I get very little sense of what that pudding is, because your statements about his work are so vague that it is impossible to say for certain what exactly Fanon has, or has not, contributed to the Marxist canon.

Anyhow, the original question arose in the context of how my statements that racism and racial slurs are reactionary, and should be condemned, regardless of context showed that I supposedly needed to read Fanon.

Are you aware of any arguments that Fanon made about progressive racism?

Are you honestly saying you won't read someone because they're not in "the Marxist canon?" How intellectually inept are you? Darwin isn't in 'the Marxist canon'... neither is Dickinson, Faulkner, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, Plath... better not even consider reading these people unless a) they can be fit into 'the canon,' or b) someone takes the time out of their lives to argue to you why you ought to consider reading some other people.

It's statements like yours that make communists look like narrow-minded intellectual morons totally unable to relate to any normal working-class person.

Decolonize The Left

8th July 2013, 20:01

Capitalism is responsible for them. This whole idea that ideas alone can change the world we live in is, well, idealism. In any event when we use privilege theory to paint a black and white picture illustrating a strict labor/social hierarchy we do a great injustice to class analysis.

Not at all what I said. I never said "ideas alone can change the world we live in," if you're going to quote me then use the quote function like a responsible poster and don't build pathetic straw men. It only makes you look stupid.

I did say that sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.. all exist as socio-cultural phenomenon which affect people's daily lives. This is a materialist analysis. Deal with it.

A poor white working class male with proper class consciousness is not, I repeat, is not responsible for the social construct that is largely the result of the economic "base". Reactionaries are responsible for maintaining the "superstructure" but this "matrix", so to speak, has material origins.

There you go - now you're getting down to it. In order to not be responsible for shit all you need to be is:
1) poor
2) white
3) working class
4) male
5) with the "proper" class consciousness

Fill out all these criteria? BOOM! No responsibility for shit.

I get that you and others in this thread do not like taking responsibility for your role in a complex, sexist, racist, homophobia, way fucked up system in which we all live. I get that it pains you sensitive heart to actually think that you do racist, sexist, homophobia things all the time whether or not you want to. It's really tough - I remember when I thought the way you did. But, someday, you'll get over your narrow perspective and see the bigger picture.

PS: Sexism existed long before capitalism so your whole rigid perspective is faulty.

LuÃs Henrique

8th July 2013, 20:10

Race is not a magical entity that carries history. I don't need to run from my past, I am an individual and race should not define anything about me, such as my history. Also, pretty much all cultures have done and still do horrible things racism included, everyone doesn't need to "take responsibility" for what a culture they descended from does.

Mno, it is not an issue of individual responsibility. But if I am white - as I am - I need to understand some basic things, including that the fact that the police don't stop me shouting "hands up, vagabundo", but instead calls me doutor and step away so that I can pass is not a natural phenomenon nor a product of my uber-nice personality, but a direct consequence of "white privilege" and police racism.

Luís Henrique

The Garbage Disposal Unit

8th July 2013, 20:12

PS: Sexism existed long before capitalism so your whole rigid perspective is faulty.

Though that is true, this sexism didn't exist before capitalism. There is a real material relationship between sex, race, and class that is not only peculiar to capitalism, but constitutive of it.
Sexism, as we now know it, has a particular historical relationship to the emergence of capitalism, where women's reproductive and unwaged labour, exclusion from certain spheres of work, the destruction of certain spheres of knowledge and relationships (traditional medicinal knowledge, women's social relationships), etc. emerged in an inextricable relationship with capitalism. Race and racism need to be understood similarly, that is, historically, in their relationship with the whole of capitalism. So when someone says, "The enemy is capitalism, not white people!" they're displaying a certain ignorance of both capitalism and whiteness, and consequently missing a necessary part of confronting capitalism.

Lucretia

8th July 2013, 20:25

Are you honestly saying you won't read someone because they're not in "the Marxist canon?" How intellectually inept are you? Darwin isn't in 'the Marxist canon'... neither is Dickinson, Faulkner, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, Plath... better not even consider reading these people unless a) they can be fit into 'the canon,' or b) someone takes the time out of their lives to argue to you why you ought to consider reading some other people.

It's statements like yours that make communists look like narrow-minded intellectual morons totally unable to relate to any normal working-class person.

Yes, that's clearly what I said. This is why I have only read books written by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky. In fact, I can't even walk into bookstores without having a panic attack, for fear that I might be exposed to words that were strung together by other people. This forum sometimes creeps me out for the same reason, too. Thank you for exposing me as a cultist poser. You must be very proud of the great intellectual service you've provided to the forum with this hard-won discovery.

LuÃs Henrique

8th July 2013, 20:26

Are you honestly saying you won't read someone because they're not in "the Marxist canon?" How intellectually inept are you? Darwin isn't in 'the Marxist canon'... neither is Dickinson, Faulkner, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, Plath... better not even consider reading these people unless a) they can be fit into 'the canon,' or b) someone takes the time out of their lives to argue to you why you ought to consider reading some other people.

On the other hand, if I don't know, say, Dickinson, and someone tells me to read her, it would be interesting to know why the other person thinks Dickinson is an important read.

When talking about political or sociological theory - not about poetry - interspersed - with dashes - one would probably like to know what exactly the arguments are without the need to read the whole thing. For instance, if someone asks me about, eeehhh, for instance, Wilhelm Reich, I would say that he has some interesting things to say about mass psychology, and about the manipulation of sex in modern education, and about the repression of the youth, etc, that aren't exactly contained in Marx or Lenin, and that result of his attempt to mix Marx with Freud, or to complete one with the other.

I am pretty sure that something similar can be said in favour of Fanon, and that would be more helpful for convincing people that Fanon is worth reading, than merely saying that people should read him.

Luís Henrique

Lucretia

8th July 2013, 20:35

On the other hand, if I don't know, say, Dickinson, and someone tells me to read her, it would be interesting to know why the other person thinks Dickinson is an important read.

When talking about political or sociological theory - not about poetry - interspersed - with dashes - one would probably like to know what exactly the arguments are without the need to read the whole thing. For instance, if someone asks me about, eeehhh, for instance, Wilhelm Reich, I would say that he has some interesting things to say about mass psychology, and about the manipulation of sex in modern education, and about the repression of the youth, etc, that aren't exactly contained in Marx or Lenin, and that result of his attempt to mix Marx with Freud, or to complete one with the other.

I am pretty sure that something similar can be said in favour of Fanon, and that would be more helpful for convincing people that Fanon is worth reading, than merely saying that people should read him.

Luís Henrique

Well, I wasn't going to be bothered to respond to the buffoonery going on in here with as systematic an explanation as you have provided. But you are correct. After being attacked for espousing views on racism that are consistent with classical Marxism, and being told I had to read Fanon, I apparently cannot ask what Fanon adds supposedly adds to a Marxian understanding of racism and imperialism without being attacked as intellectually narrow and parochial.

The real issue here is that I dared to question the implicitly liberal sacred cow, rarely articulated but deeply embedded in the politics of this forum, to suggest that a person isn't always the best interpreter of his or her own experiences. How anti-pluralist and "authoritarian" of me! Nothing will raise the ire of more people on this board than this.

Fourth Internationalist

8th July 2013, 20:37

Mno, it is not an issue of individual responsibility. But if I am white - as I am - I need to understand some basic things, including that the fact that the police don't stop me shouting "hands up, vagabundo", but instead calls me doutor and step away so that I can pass is not a natural phenomenon nor a product of my uber-nice personality, but a direct consequence of "white privilege" and police racism.

Luís Henrique

I agree, but that's different from being responsible even in part for slavery or something else the culture I came from does or did.

Lucretia

8th July 2013, 20:56

I agree, but that's different from being responsible even in part for slavery or something else the culture I came from does or did.

If I might clarify, comrade, I don't think it's true to say that anybody today is "responsible for slavery." How could we? There is no slavery, and we cannot responsible for an institution that died before we were even born.

What I think a lot of people are trying to say in their inept, quasi-liberal, obnoxious way is that slavery has left a legacy of racialized ideas that people who identify with (and are identified with) dominant racial identities to some degree, in various contexts, wittingly or wittingly, propagate by employing. And it is the responsibility of said people to acknowledge their relationship to these ideas and to combat them as much as possible.

The way to combat them, of course, is not to maintain the myth of ontological race, by flipping it on its head through using racial slurs against dominant racial groups. Or to express solidarity with such a thing, or to soft-pedal it by saying it is "understandable." The way to do is to acknowledge "race" as the product of a very powerful network of ideas that, while irreducible to class, helps to constitute class and could not exist without class. For "race" is not a property that somebody actually possesses independent of those ideas, which might merit that somebody be slandered by virtue of possessing.

MarxArchist

8th July 2013, 21:07

So while you might not be responsible for racism as a white person, you have subconsciously absorbed the values of a racist society so will probably at some point mess up and be unintentionally racist. In which case, it's important to listen to people of colour so that you can change whatever you did wrong.

This is common sense BUT on this site that mentality, left unchecked, has led one person to call me a rape supporter and another person to call me racist (poor me I know). The raper supporter allegation came from my questioning the boundaries of lying in relation to sex. As a man I should have simply been quiet and accepted this theory that led to some serious questionable theory surrounding rape.

I was called a racist by a moderator in a thread concerning discrimination. I brought up to a poster the fact that just because a person is a person of color it doesn't make their theory surrounding liberation desirable for communists. I was speaking about black nationalism and how it's goals aren't aligned with the goals of communism. This strangely earned me the "racist" label from one of the moderators. I've asked him to apologize twice to no avail. Poor me I know. The issue is, things like this happen in the activist community often as a result of "check your privilege". Some times people need to "check their privilege theory". Not only can it be extremely alienating, as it's intended goal is to combat, but it can also lead to some rather absurd positions going unchallenged. It can be used to shut down debate/discussion.

Not only do loose accusations of racism/sexism alienate people, privilege theory in relation to organizing in general can have some negative side effects. I sat by and watched Occupy Oakland morph into some strange obsession with identity born of and fixated on privilege theory (Decolonize Oakland). This is the result of the new left embracing some rather dubious organizing tactics and positions that theorize the most oppressed, even if not communist and or don't even want communism, are the only revolutionary class and that they should lead their own struggle. The end result has been an already weak left fractionalized with no real focus on communism. Class analysis gets thrown aside as well.

Leftsolidarity

8th July 2013, 21:25

I was called a racist by a moderator in a thread concerning discrimination. I brought up to a poster the fact that just because a person is a person of color it doesn't make their theory surrounding liberation desirable for communists. I was speaking about black nationalism and how it's goals aren't aligned with the goals of communism. This strangely earned me the "racist" label from one of the moderators. I've asked him to apologize twice to no avail. Poor me I know. The issue is, things like this happen in the activist community often as a result of "check your privilege". Some times people need to "check their privilege theory". Not only can it be extremely alienating, as it's intended goal is to combat, but it can also lead to some rather absurd positions going unchallenged. It can be used to shut down debate/discussion.

Because I won't apologize for calling out your shitty politics around oppressed people. I stick to what I've said. Sorry that I think you kind of suck?

The Garbage Disposal Unit

8th July 2013, 21:33

Not only do loose accusations of racism/sexism alienate people[. . .]

I don't think positing something as more-or-less generalized, then pointing out an instance of it is what's implied by "loose accusations". I also don't think they're that loose - probably most members of this forum haven't been accused of racism/sexism (since most don't mouth off about how not-sexist/not-racist their shitty normative views on sex and race are).

Anyway, do you know what alienates more people that "accusations of racism/sexism"? Racism and sexism.

privilege theory in relation to organizing in general can have some negative side effects. I sat by and watched Occupy Oakland morph into some strange obsession with identity born of and fixated on privilege theory (Decolonize Oakland). This is the result of the new left embracing some rather dubious organizing tactics and positions that theorize the most oppressed, even if not communist and or don't even want communism, are the only revolutionary class and that they should lead their own struggle. The end result has been an already weak left fractionalized with no real focus on communism. Class analysis gets thrown aside as well.

You know what is a much better critique of this than yours?
"Who is Oakland?" (http://escalatingidentity.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/who-is-oakland-anti-oppression-politics-decolonization-and-the-state/)

I recommend reading it, and, as a critique of "Privilege theory" it may appeal to you. Hopefully it will allow you to develop your critique in ways that aren't racist/sexist/stoopid.

MarxArchist

8th July 2013, 21:56

Not at all what I said. I never said "ideas alone can change the world we live in," if you're going to quote me then use the quote function like a responsible poster and don't build pathetic straw men. It only makes you look stupid. I did say that sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.. all exist as socio-cultural phenomenon which affect people's daily lives. This is a materialist analysis. Deal with it.

Idealism comes into the picture not in saying oppression exists (as it's obvious to anyone who's willing to be honest) it's introduced in much of the theory surrounding what constitutes racism/sexism itself. Specifically we see idealism in a lot of feminist theory. One major example is that patriarchy was the beginning of class society and men/women are in two separate classes. Then a lot of these ideas become unchallengeable, debate is shut down and any sort of proper class analysis is throw to thee wayside.

There you go - now you're getting down to it. In order to not be responsible for shit all you need to be is:
1) poor
2) white
3) working class
4) male
5) with the "proper" class consciousness

Fill out all these criteria? BOOM! No responsibility for shit.

If one is indeed perpetuating a racist culture one should take responsibility for doing so. If one is being sexist one should take responsibility for it. Idealism is introduced in the process of labeling this or that as racist/sexist. On this very site I've been, rather rudely, told to take responsibility for being a rape supporter and for being racist. The two accusations were completely baseless. You yourself even wrote an apology to me for arguments in the rape thread. What do you think those arguments were based on? Materialist analysis? At least, for whatever reason, you understood it went too far. You took responsibility. At the same time I'm completely aware racism/sexism/homophobia have a whole host of more subtle forces tugging on society, but, as I said, where the waters get murky is when we attempt to explicitly define what behavior, conscious or unconscious, is perpetuating these things.

I get that you and others in this thread do not like taking responsibility for your role in a complex, sexist, racist, homophobia, way fucked up system in which we all live.

I suppose you could just read the article in my blog. It touches on some points I've made over the years. I'll also repeat myself a little here and say I don't mind taking responsibility for racist/sexist/homophobic behavior if I do indeed take part in such behavior but issues arise when some very lose definitions of such behavior are thrown around.

I get that it pains you sensitive heart to actually think that you do racist, sexist, homophobia things all the time whether or not you want to. It's really tough - I remember when I thought the way you did. But, someday, you'll get over your narrow perspective and see the bigger picture.

And in the last two weeks on this site I've been called a rape supporting racist. Why don't we use these two specific examples to focus on what problems arise with the whole "you're a white male and need to just be quiet and check your privilege" culture. The implications are "you need to embrace being called out". The problem is, as I said, idealism is the foundation of much of the process that defines what behavior is perpetuating racism/sexism.

PS: Sexism existed long before capitalism so your whole rigid perspective is faulty.
The negative affects of sexism are cemented into form by economic systems that limit women's free and equal access to the means of survival. Anyway, you may want to give this a read http://isreview.org/issues/02/engles_family.shtml

(If you're a woman me recommending you read an article concerning Origin Of The Family Property ans State could be framed as me being oppressive in the sense that I would be a man telling a woman how to fight her own oppression. I could be perpetuating sexism, perpetuating a culture where "men know better simply because their men". "Mansplaining" it's called.)

MarxArchist

8th July 2013, 22:03

Because I won't apologize for calling out your shitty politics around oppressed people. I stick to what I've said. Sorry that I think you kind of suck?
Lets be specific here. All I said was black nationalism isnt something communists should support and if I criticize it I'm not "trying to control black people". You think to criticize any liberation theory coming from an oppressed group is racist/sexist/homophobic (depending on what theory one is criticizing and depending on the gender/race/sexual orientation of the person who's doing the criticizing). The next day in a different thread you then said there is some feminist theory that isn't proper analysis. By your own definition that statement made you a sexist.

The question at the end of the day in relation to your loose definition of racism is, should communists embrace racial separatism? Should we not criticize black nationalism in any way shape or form? If we do so are we racist?

Quail

8th July 2013, 22:04

(If you're a woman me recommending you read an article concerning Origin Of The Family Property ans State could be framed as me being oppressive in the sense that I would be a man telling a woman how to fight her own oppression. I could be perpetuating sexism, perpetuating a culture where "men know better simply because their men". "Mansplaining" it's called.)
This is just unnecessary obnoxiousness.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

8th July 2013, 22:17

This is just unnecessary obnoxiousness.

No way! It's a very witty taking to task of anti-Marxist feminism's attempts to silence Engels. How come you feminists have no sense of humour?

MarxArchist

8th July 2013, 22:19

I don't think positing something as more-or-less generalized, then pointing out an instance of it is what's implied by "loose accusations". I also don't think they're that loose - probably most members of this forum haven't been accused of racism/sexism (since most don't mouth off about how not-sexist/not-racist they're shitty normative views on sex and race are).

The rape supporter accusation wasn't pointed directly at me it was pointed to half of the thread in question where the topic of rape was being discussed. The racist accusation was thrown my way for saying communists should be critical of black nationalism. This isn't "generalized" it's two concrete examples of what happened on this very site relating to the topic at hand.

Anyway, do you know what alienates more people that "accusations of racism/sexism"? Racism and sexism.

This is obviously true but it doesn't justify throwing around baseless claims of rape support and racism. Sexism/racism/homophobia have direct material impacts on women, people of color and the gay community. Me being called a rape supporter is in no way shape or form as bad as being raped but forgive me if I don't embrace the label.

You know what is a much better critique of this than yours?
"Who is Oakland?" (http://escalatingidentity.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/who-is-oakland-anti-oppression-politics-decolonization-and-the-state/)

I recommend reading it, and, as a critique of "Privilege theory" it may appeal to you. Hopefully it will allow you to develop your critique in ways that aren't racist/sexist/stoopid.

There you go. You just called me racist and sexist (and stupid). Please provide clear examples of me being sexist/racist. I'm aware who Oakland is, I've lived here for 20 years. My "racist critique" of organizing tactics (Decolonize Oakland) was essentially a jab at Herbert Marcuse.

MarxArchist

8th July 2013, 22:46

This is just unnecessary obnoxiousness.
What I find unnecessarily obnoxious is being called a racist rape supporter because I questioned the limits of lying in relation to sex. I illustrated how far we could take the "lying is rape" scenario. The forum was pretty divided on the topic. What I find more obnoxious is the allegation of racism for suggesting communists shouldn't support black nationalism (or any sort of nationalism/separatism). I can understand, not agree with but understand, the rather dubious rape supporter allegation because there are cases where lying in relation to sex is indeed rape (as I said in that thread) but being called racist for saying communists should criticize black nationalism is absurdly obnoxious and is tied into privilege theory. A theory which partly paints a picture where any sort of criticism or even suggestion coming from a "non oppressed" person is a racist/sexist/homophobic attack.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

8th July 2013, 22:57

The rape supporter accusation wasn't pointed directly at me it was pointed to half of the thread in question where the topic of rape was being discussed. The racist accusation was thrown my way for saying communists should be critical of black nationalism. This isn't "generalized" it's two concrete examples of what happened on this very site relating to the topic at hand.

I think this is a case of miscommunication. What I'm trying to say is that racism and sexism are generalized - they are the "common sense" in patriarchal white supremacist society. Ergo, being called a racist or sexist isn't particularly spectacular since both are "normal" (and calling "half the thread" "rape supporters" was probably not far off the mark). I'm not saying your examples were too general (and in fact, I think they're fine particular examples of exactly what I'm getting at).

This is obviously true but it doesn't justify throwing around baseless claims of rape support and racism. Sexism/racism/homophobia have direct material impacts on women, people of color and the gay community. Me being called a rape supporter is in no way shape or form as bad as being raped but forgive me if I don't embrace the label.

So, where do you think those direct material impacts come from? Over-and-above frothing at the mouth racist/homophobic/sexist zealots? Of course not, they come from the utterly banal day-to-day reality of racism/sexism/homophobia, which are taken as normal, unremarkable, and even, in liberal democratic society, not racist, sexist, or homophobic. Something to think about.

There you go. You just called me racist and sexist (and stupid). Please provide clear examples of me being sexist/racist. I'm aware who Oakland is, I've lived here for 20 years. My "racist critique" of organizing tactics (Decolonize Oakland) was essentially a jab at Herbert Marcuse.

And no, I didn't call you racist and sexist (and stupid) - I called your analysis those things. Because you're probably not stupid, I hold out faith that you can benefit from critique and probably develop a sharper grasp of patriarchy and white supremacy than a white European man who died over a century ago (valuable as Fred's contributions are).

MarxArchist

8th July 2013, 23:27

I think this is a case of miscommunication. What I'm trying to say is that racism and sexism are generalized - they are the "common sense" in patriarchal white supremacist society. Ergo, being called a racist or sexist isn't particularly spectacular since both are "normal"

You miss my point. I'm aware of the subtleties and the fact one need not be a card carrying KKK member to either benefit from or perpetuate sexism/racism. My point is these subtleties make materialist analysis a complicated task and as a result unfounded accusations of racism/sexism are thrown around. When one is "called out", according to privilege theory, one must embrace whatever accusation is being thrown their way. Many times these accusations have no material basis. It's an idea generated in a persons head no different than making a statement that I have green skin, which would be true if I were the Hulk.

(and calling "half the thread" "rape supporters" was probably not far off the mark). I'm not saying your examples were too general (and in fact, I think they're fine particular examples of exactly what I'm getting at).

No, it was far off the mark. It didnt even hit the target. It was like a blind drunken child playing pin the tail on the Donkey with rape support accusations.

So, where do you think those direct material impacts come from?

The largest most common material impact of racism/sexism/homophobia (besides outright rape/murder/assault) is derived from people having unequal limited access to the means to survive (the means of production). Of course there's a whole slew of emotional/psychological impacts but as Marx pointed out with materialist analysis of the Iroquois ones relation to the means of production largely determines the amount of autonomy one has. In Iroquois tribes if a man attempted to abuse or control his partner she could simply kick him out of the house because A she built it and B she has free access to the means of survival. The mans sexism could exist but the material impact of it was minimized because there was no systemic ties forcing her to submit to his sexism. The material impacts are largely as they are because oppressed groups don't have free and equal access to the means of production. This isn't to say if communism arose tonight all impacts of racism/sexism/homophobia would go away but the immediate material impact would be greatly reduced. Much work would still need to be, done, possibly forever, to combat hate/discrimination and all the more subtle social impacts.

And no, I didn't call you racist and sexist (and stupid) - I called your analysis those things. Because you're probably not stupid, I hold out faith that you can benefit from critique and probably develop a sharper grasp of patriarchy and white supremacy than a white European man who died over a century ago (valuable as Fred's contributions are).

A took colonial and woman's studies in college. My critisizms of certian aspects of some theory isn't done from a foundation of ignorance. Nor are any criticisms lacking in empiricism. I don't think you even understand my 'grasp' of patriarchy and white supremacy. If you think it's limited to Engels and Marx you're quite mistaken.

MarxArchist

9th July 2013, 02:17

No, indigenous struggles should be supported on whatever grounds those people decide to wage their struggle. We, as white people, have absolutely no place in telling American Indians and other natives peoples how to fight their fight.

Don't ever criticize North Korea then. It would be racist if you did so since Juche came to be as a reaction to imperialism and attempts at subjugation pushed by mostly white people in the US military. Maybe we should consider Farrakhan's path to black liberation to be above criticism? Maybe a cis male shouldn't criticize anti trans feminist theory? After all, the man criticizing it is a privileged man and the theories themselves came from oppressed woman. How dare I tell women how to wage their fight! Maybe Isreal, in it's quest for liberation from global persecution/antisemitism, should be beyond reproach? After all, a gentile can't understand what it's like to be persecuted for being a Jew. How dare I criticize Israel for apartheid policies. And so it goes from there into less obvious examples focusing on the dangers of shutting down debate merely because one group has been oppressed and another has benefited from their oppression.

Decolonize The Left

9th July 2013, 02:25

Don't ever criticize North Korea then. It would be racist if you did so since Juche came to be as a reaction to imperialism and attempts at subjugation pushed by mostly white people in the US military. Maybe we should consider Farrakhan's path to black liberation to be above criticism? Maybe a cis male shouldn't criticize anti trans feminist theory? After all, the man criticizing it is a privileged man and the theories themselves came from oppressed woman. How dare I tell women how to wage their fight! Maybe Isreal, in it's quest for liberation from global persecution/antisemitism, should be beyond reproach? After all, a gentile can't understand what it's like to be persecuted for being a Jew. How dare I criticize Israel for apartheid policies. And so it goes from there into less obvious examples focusing on the dangers of shutting down debate merely because one group has been oppressed and another has benefited from their oppression.

Yeah. How about instead of telling other people how to live their lives you try and "criticize" what's going on in your own community? Like, say, white people telling other people how to live their lives?

Os Cangaceiros

9th July 2013, 02:35

For some reason I thought this thread was going to be about the whole Paula Deen fiasco.

I agree with the article, I'm white and I think "cracker" is pretty funny, actually. I liked the giant image of the Saltine cracker, too. That was a nice touch.

MarxArchist

9th July 2013, 02:48

Yeah. How about instead of telling other people how to live their lives you try and "criticize" what's going on in your own community? Like, say, white people telling other people how to live their lives?

Rather than capitulate you post the above? You need to realize there are limitations to privilege theory and major theoretical and practical problems arise when it's used as the foundational framework of organizing against capitalism. I criticize the Israeli state. I criticize some questionable feminist theory. I criticize black nationalism. I criticize North Korea. I don't "make a carrier" out of it but when shifty theory/practice is advocated I certainly don't just quietly accept it just because it's coming from a member of an oppressed group. This isn't an uncommon position for a Marxist to hold. It's not like I'm writing books criticizing Du Bois, Fanon, Langston Hughes, Paulo Freire etc and so on I'm simply criticizing privilege theory not because I don't think people are oppressed in different ways but because privileged theory itself has and can be used to cause division when in fact it's goal is to bring us all together. In lieu of people perpetually telling others to "check their privilege" in some cases people need to "check their privilege theory".

Brandon's Impotent Rage

9th July 2013, 03:29

Yeah, as a white southerner I'm afraid that quite a bit of what the article brings up is sadly too true. I hear shit like this all the time where I live. It's brought on by a juvenile sense of entitlement of a conservative white (and often Southern) population that is slowly, but surely, losing both its relevance in the modern world, as well as its grips on power.

The last part, about trying to equate the world 'cracker' with the far more offensive term 'nigger' is just an example of this. It's part of the martyr complex of old conservative America. They're desperately trying to hold on to the little bits of power that they still cling to, which in itself is slowly slipping from their grasp. The "America that THEY knew" is now justifiably being thrown into the dustbin of history, and these crusty old reactionaries now somehow think that they're the new Civil Rights movement.

Just look at the Tea Party, or Glenn Beck's little cult.

bcbm

9th July 2013, 04:38

Fanon claims to be a Marxist. So did Joseph Stalin.

well you're off to a horrible start here, but let's keep digging

The proof in the pudding. But I get very little sense of what that pudding is, because your statements about his work are so vague that it is impossible to say for certain what exactly Fanon has, or has not, contributed to the Marxist canon.

its been a few years since i read fanon and in my last few minutes before work it is a bit difficult to leaf through my copies of his work and compile an exhaustive summary for you. luckily with the magic of the internet, i can provide you with a nice summary of two of his most famous works, the latter being perhaps the most influential.

Black Skin, White Masks (Peau noire, masques blancs, 1952) by Frantz Fanon, is a sociological study of the psychology of racism and the dehumanization inherent to colonial domination.[1]
With the application of historical interpretation, and the concomitant underlying social indictment, the psychiatrist Frantz Fanon formulated Black Skin, White Masks to combat the oppression of black people; and thus applied psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic theory to explain the feelings of dependency and inadequacy that Black people experience in a White world. That the divided self-perception of the Black Subject who has lost his native cultural origin, and embraced the culture of the Mother Country, engenders an inferiority complex in the mind of the Black Subject, who then will try to appropriate and imitate the culture of the colonizer. Such behavior is more readily evident in upwardly mobile and educated black people who can afford to acquire status symbols within the world of the colonial ecumene, such as an education abroad and mastery of the language of the colonizer, the white masks.
Based upon, and derived from, the concepts of the collective unconscious and collective catharsis, the chapter six, “The Negro and Psychopathology”, presents brief, deep psychoanalyses of colonized black people, and thus proposes the inability of black people to fit into the norms (social, cultural, racial) established by white society. That “a normal Negro child, having grown up in a normal Negro family, will become abnormal on the slightest contact of the white world.”[2] That, in a white society, such an extreme psychological response originates from the unconscious and unnatural training of black people, from early childhood, to associate “blackness” with “wrongness”. That such unconscious mental training of black children is effected with comic books and cartoons, which are cultural media that instil and affix, in the mind of the white child, the society’s cultural representations of black people as villains. Moreover, when black children are exposed to such images of villainous black people, the children will experience a psychopathology (psychological trauma), which mental wound becomes inherent to their individual, behavioral make-up; a part of his and her personality. That the early-life suffering of said psychopathology — black skin associated with villainy — creates a collective nature among the men and women who were reduced to colonized populations.

The Wretched of the Earth presents thorough critiques of nationalism and of imperialism, a discussion of personal and societal mental health, a discussion of how the use of language (vocabulary) is applied to the establishment of imperialist identities, such as colonizer and colonized in order to teach and psychologically mold the native and the colonist into their respective roles as slave and master, and a discussion of role of the intellectual in a revolution. Fanon proposes that revolutionaries should seek the help of the lumpenproletariat to provide the force required to effect the expulsion of the colonists. Moreover, in traditional Marxist theory, the lumpenproletariat are considered the lowest, most degraded stratum of the proletariat social-class — especially criminals, vagrants, and the unemployed — people who lacked the class consciousness to actively participate in the anti-colonial revolution. Yet, Fanon applies the term lumpenproletariat to identify the colonial subjects who are not involved in industrial production, especially the peasantry, because, unlike the urban proletariat (the working class), the lumpenproletariat have suffient intellectual independence from the dominant ideology of the colonial ruling class to readily grasp that they can successfully revolt against the colonial status quo, and so decolonize their nation and their country.

Anyhow, the original question arose in the context of how my statements that racism and racial slurs are reactionary, and should be condemned, regardless of context showed that I supposedly needed to read Fanon.

Are you aware of any arguments that Fanon made about progressive racism?

i think he touches on something of the sort in wretched of the earth, and pretty early on in the book too. when i have a chance later i'll look through it.

Martin Blank

9th July 2013, 08:23

Will all you white crackers going on about being called "cracker" please stop whining for the love of god?

(Fuckin' wašičuŋ, amiright?)

Il Medico

10th July 2013, 14:07

What I find unnecessarily obnoxious is being called a racist rape supporter because...
Alright, I'm gonna just stop you right here. Listen mate, pretty much every post of yours in this forum I've seen recently has been complaining about how some one accused you of being this or that. I don't know if this was some sort of one time thing you won't let go or has happened repeatedly (in which case you might want to consider why it keeps happening), doesn't really matter because you're handling it all wrong. When I first joined this forum some people would tell me "Hey Il Medico, you're being a bit of a sexist bag of dicks" and I would get all offended and whine about it and stamp my feet and what not. Eventually though, when I thought about what they were saying I realized "Yeah, I totally am a big ol' sexist bag of dicks, maybe I should work on that". Now of course this isn't necessarily true for you, but instead of whining about how the big mean feminist, or what not, hurt your feelings by calling you sexist/racist/etc think about what they are saying and really try to see where they're coming from. If you really consider what they're saying and you don't find any of it to have merit, good for you, you can move on safe in the knowledge that that person was full of shit. If you do find their points have merit though, try to work on those issues. Either way, stop bloody whining about it.

Comrade Samuel

10th July 2013, 16:32

No, it's a real entity which carries history.

That's nice to hear. But it does define a lot about you whether or not you want it to. Your whiteness gives you privilege in the US. Your whiteness defines you in the eyes of everyone who looks at you to some degree or another.

Yes, they do. You can't say "I'm a German" and not accept responsibility for the German nation's actions in WWII. You can't say "I'm an American" and not take responsibility for what happened with slavery in the US. By identifying with a nation you are accepting that history as your own - you can then work to make it what you will but the past remains.

I can't help but wholeheartedly disagree with this. Let me just try to paint a picture and could you please tell me how it falls in with this worldview?

Many generations back one of my ancestors served with the 24th Michigan Volunteer Infantry during the American civil war. Throughout my childhood my grandfather would weave many tales about all of the "great American heroes" my family has spawned. He always spoke so highly of this man who supposedly fought at Gettysburg and how he played a role in "saving the Union and ending slavery". As a grew I realized how Ironic it was that my grandfather had said all of these things and yet is a tea bagger and a bigot who spends most of the year in the deep south enjoying all of the white privilege he can stomach.

and then there is myself, a godless commie who genuinely cares about civil rights for all and ensuring maintainable social equality for generations to come. The question I'm asking here is how does our shared pedigree/ national origin have any effect on who we are and what we believe in? By your logic both my grandfather and myself could just as easily prance around on our high horses claiming to be personally responsible for ending slavery in the United States as opposed to being who we actually are. Just because a person happens to have been born somewhere and acknowledges that fact does not make them a nationalist, much less somehow responsible for the actions of their long dead countrymen.

Jimmie Higgins

10th July 2013, 17:16

I can't help but wholeheartedly disagree with this. Let me just try to paint a picture and could you please tell me how it falls in with this worldview?

Many generations back one of my ancestors served with the 24th Michigan Volunteer Infantry during the American civil war. Throughout my childhood my grandfather would weave many tales about all of the "great American heroes" my family has spawned. He always spoke so highly of this man who supposedly fought at Gettysburg and how he played a role in "saving the Union and ending slavery". As a grew I realized how Ironic it was that my grandfather had said all of these things and yet is a tea bagger and a bigot who spends most of the year in the deep south enjoying all of the white privilege he can stomach.

and then there is myself, a godless commie who genuinely cares about civil rights for all and ensuring maintainable social equality for generations to come. The question I'm asking here is how does our shared pedigree/ national origin have any effect on who we are and what we believe in? By your logic both my grandfather and myself could just as easily prance around on our high horses claiming to be personally responsible for ending slavery in the United States as opposed to being who we actually are. Just because a person happens to have been born somewhere and acknowledges that fact does not make them a nationalist, much less somehow responsible for the actions of their long dead countrymen.

How someone feels or if they identify positively or negatively with their national or ethnic history, ultimately doesn't matter that much. I'm pretty sure German politicians probably "acknowledge the horrors of Nazism" while at the same time making an argument that the legacy of NAZI antisemitism is now the reason Germany should use Nazi-like repression against Arab immigrants because they just don't get European enlightened liberalism.

In the US I don't know what good acknowledging any personal thing means much; for example, my family immigrated here in the 20th century and is racially mixed... so what does any personal legacy of slavery itself really mean for my family? But socially and politically we NEED to talk about these things and their legacy - in part just to counter the "colorblind" post-racial "common sense" which is basically the wide-spread ideological form of contemporary racism (and for sexism and nativism as well). Any movement that hopes to begin to counter contemporary oppression needs to take-on this color-blind myth and to clarify what racial/sexual/etc oppression is and how it really functions. Second, as a marxist/anarchist we need to understand slavery because it was the fuel of American capitalism. The legacy of slavery that we deal with every-day is CAPITAL, with this understanding we can also upend the color-blind arguments because the playing field will never be "fair" when those who control everything got there by enslaving Africans and indenturing former-peasant Europeans. In this view massive reparations and funding of destroyed black communities wouldn't be a "tax giveaway" but rather, a tiny tiny payment for all the wealth and power America now has. Labor creates wealth and the richest country in the world had the start-up capital from stolen land and stolen labor.

ed miliband

10th July 2013, 17:42

How someone feels or if they identify positively or negatively with their national or ethnic history, ultimately doesn't matter that much. I'm pretty sure German politicians probably "acknowledge the horrors of Nazism" while at the same time making an argument that the legacy of NAZI antisemitism is now the reason Germany should use Nazi-like repression against Arab immigrants because they just don't get European enlightened liberalism.

well yeah, it's precisely the logic that germans must "accept responsibility for the German nation's actions in WWII" that has lead to the antideutsch chanting slogans like 'abolish all nations: germany first, israel last'.

i thought the workers had no nation?

Rocky Rococo

10th July 2013, 18:06

As a cracker, I believe my only job is to sit around all day smelling like bologna. I'll bet I'm bolognifying well.

MarxArchist

10th July 2013, 21:12

Alright, I'm gonna just stop you right here. Listen mate, pretty much every post of yours in this forum I've seen recently has been complaining about how some one accused you of being this or that. I don't know if this was some sort of one time thing you won't let go or has happened repeatedly (in which case you might want to consider why it keeps happening), doesn't really matter because you're handling it all wrong. When I first joined this forum some people would tell me "Hey Il Medico, you're being a bit of a sexist bag of dicks" and I would get all offended and whine about it and stamp my feet and what not. Eventually though, when I thought about what they were saying I realized "Yeah, I totally am a big ol' sexist bag of dicks, maybe I should work on that". Now of course this isn't necessarily true for you, but instead of whining about how the big mean feminist, or what not, hurt your feelings by calling you sexist/racist/etc think about what they are saying and really try to see where they're coming from. If you really consider what they're saying and you don't find any of it to have merit, good for you, you can move on safe in the knowledge that that person was full of shit. If you do find their points have merit though, try to work on those issues. Either way, stop bloody whining about it.

I've only brought this up in this thread and once in the thread where the mod called me racist for saying we shouldn't support black nationalism. I've only been called a rape supporter once (along with about 15 other posters in a generalized accusation) and a racist once for saying communists shouldn't support black nationalism. My goal isn't so much to personalize this it's to point out a problem on the left in general showing how people in the general public can be alienated by our baseless claims of racism and sexism.

Obviously the alienation, downright fear and terror one can feel from experiencing racism/sexism/homophobia is eternally harder to deal with than frivolously being labeled a racist/sexist/homophone but this still doesn't excuse the behavior of frivolously labeling people as such.

In this thread I implore YOU, since you felt the need to interject, to explore the only two times I've been labeled and explain in detail why these labels were just. Until you can do that I'm going to have to stop you right here.

Ceallach_the_Witch

10th July 2013, 22:49

As a cracker, I believe my only job is to sit around all day smelling like bologna. I'll bet I'm bolognifying well.
I thought crackers were something wallace and gromit ate with cheese, to be perfectly honest

Vanguard1917

11th July 2013, 00:06

No viet cong ever called me cracker. Doesn't quite work.

Quail

11th July 2013, 10:39

I've trashed some of the off-topic stuff, try to stay on topic.

MarxArchist, you have a habit of twisting or misinterpreting people's arguments and attacking huge straw men. In the thread where you think you were called a rape apologist, you were for the most part attacking an argument that nobody had put forward, i,e,, that all lies, no matter how trivial, meant that someone could not consent to sex. I don't want to bring the arguments of that thread into this one but I think you're doing something similar here.

I don't think anyone is arguing that liberation movements should be immune from critique. However, there is a valid point that as someone who doesn't belong to an oppressed group, you don't experience that discrimination, and so you don't really have the full picture of what's going on. So I don't think you're in the best position to know how to organise against that oppression in a way that makes members of the oppressed group feel safe. Also, it plays right into the idea that POC/women/etc are "inferior" if white people/men/etc are constantly swooping in to tell them that they're wrong, they don't know how to organise, they should do this instead, so it is quite obvious why it is offensive to do that. But also, a movement needs to be led by the oppressed group, and they need to win their liberation.

ed miliband

11th July 2013, 15:53

I don't think anyone is arguing that liberation movements should be immune from critique. However, there is a valid point that as someone who doesn't belong to an oppressed group, you don't experience that discrimination, and so you don't really have the full picture of what's going on. So I don't think you're in the best position to know how to organise against that oppression in a way that makes members of the oppressed group feel safe. Also, it plays right into the idea that POC/women/etc are "inferior" if white people/men/etc are constantly swooping in to tell them that they're wrong, they don't know how to organise, they should do this instead, so it is quite obvious why it is offensive to do that. But also, a movement needs to be led by the oppressed group, and they need to win their liberation.

all too often, though, the argument that "you don't really have the full picture of what's going on" (however true or valid that may be) does become an argument for such movements being "immune from critique".

i mean, afed's aims and principles outline their opposition to national liberation movements and stress their materialism and rejection of religion. now it's not outside the realms of possibility that somebody would argue such positions undermine the efforts of oppressed people struggling against colonialism or imperialism or white supremacy or whatever, and that it's a reflection of white privilege. does that mean afed should drop opposition to national liberation? should they start cheering on all movements of the oppressed because they don't know their oppression, in which case critiquing their movements would be offensive and questioning their ability to act for themselves?

Decolonize The Left

11th July 2013, 16:04

all too often, though, the argument that "you don't really have the full picture of what's going on" (however true or valid that may be) does become an argument for such movements being "immune from critique".

i mean, afed's aims and principles outline their opposition to national liberation movements and stress their materialism and rejection of religion. now it's not outside the realms of possibility that somebody would argue such positions undermine the efforts of oppressed people struggling against colonialism or imperialism or white supremacy or whatever, and that it's a reflection of white privilege. does that mean afed should drop opposition to national liberation? should they start cheering on all movements of the oppressed because they don't know their oppression, in which case critiquing their movements would be offensive and questioning their ability to act for themselves?

It would seem like if you're not in need of national liberation then you shouldn't tell other people to not be either. As an example, American Indians are in desperate need of liberation, including repossession of their lands, but white people don't need this. So why should leftists support this when they could be supporting materialist anti-priviliege theory things?

I think the real issue here is that oppressed people know what they need. We (speaking broadly for white dudes here) should shut the fuck up and listen to them. If we need something to fight for - for ourselves - we should fight for the liberation of the working class as a whole as this is our class, our fight. But this doesn't mean we shouldn't support and help oppressed peoples in their quests for liberation simply because we have our 'own' fight (we all know that our fight is the fight of the proletariat).

This isn't a black and white, either/or, situation. But it is a situation whereby white men need to stop telling other people what the fuck to do. There is ample room for critique when it is delivered in a respectful and coherent way but all-too-often it comes off as divisive and ignorant; a rejection of another group's self-willing power to liberation. Because really: what do white people know about American Indian liberation, about life on the res, about the immense hurdles to the American Indian in both politics and economics? Nothing. And if they did, why would any Indian listen to them?

ed miliband

11th July 2013, 18:11

It would seem like if you're not in need of national liberation then you shouldn't tell other people to not be either. As an example, American Indians are in desperate need of liberation, including repossession of their lands, but white people don't need this. So why should leftists support this when they could be supporting materialist anti-priviliege theory things?

what does this mean for afed then? as a british organisation, should they drop their opposition to national liberation and support those engaged in it? the same applies to ultraleft / communist left groups and organisations, and some trots.

reminds me of a bit of paul frolich's book on rosa luxemburg, he explains that luxemburg, a representative of the working class of an oppressed people, wished for an alliance between the polish and russian working class through the organisational affiliation of the polish party to russian social democracy. lenin opposed this, calling for the right of self-determination for all peoples -- otherwise, would he be supporting an alliance between the working class of an oppressed nation with that of the oppressor?

using your analysis, who was right?

I think the real issue here is that oppressed people know what they need.

is this really true though? i imagine many british proles truly believe that sending immigrants home and stopping all immigration to britain will mean no unemployment, easier access to social housing, less public debt and higher wages. no doubt many black americans thought obama's election would signal a change in race relations, and many lgbt people think gay marriage will lead to equality. i once had challenged a co-worker for his homophobia only to be told i wouldn't be able to understand him, since in his culture homosexuality is considered an "abomination punishable by death" (an actual quote) -- a funny argument, since arguably homophobia was introduced to the african continent by colonialism.

people believe stuff that is wrong. in some cases, people truly believe in things that kill them; how many proles were willingly lead to death, in the name of patriotism, in ww1 and 2, or any other war? how many people hate their jobs, their lives, but believe there is no alternative? that capitalism is absolute, all there is? of course, this doesn't make these people stupid, it doesn't mean they should be mocked or that they need some crackers to liberate them, but there's no point in communism if communist analysis is simply cheering on whatever the oppressed do or believe.

This isn't a black and white, either/or, situation. But it is a situation whereby white men need to stop telling other people what the fuck to do. There is ample room for critique when it is delivered in a respectful and coherent way but all-too-often it comes off as divisive and ignorant; a rejection of another group's self-willing power to liberation. Because really: what do white people know about American Indian liberation, about life on the res, about the immense hurdles to the American Indian in both politics and economics? Nothing. And if they did, why would any Indian listen to them?

i don't know why you imagine i'm talking about white men telling people what to do. my question was about how, for example, ultraleft/anarchist opposition to national liberation struggles can be valid if we take it to be true that since we can't understand oppression(s) we can't take critical positions on them.

ed miliband

11th July 2013, 20:20

Most definitely they should drop those positions.

why? to support some weird inverted populism whereby whatever minorities or oppressed groups are doing is supported uncritically?

Brandon's Impotent Rage

11th July 2013, 20:54

My great-great-great-great grandparents on my mother's side did actually own a slave....a woman named 'Julia'.

According to my grandmother, when my great-great-great grandmother was about 10 years old, Julia took her and her younger (then 8 years old) brother out beside the house and put them at the bottom of a drywell in the backyard of the house. She told them that she would be back soon.

No one ever saw her again after that. It's believed she made her way to Canada.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

11th July 2013, 21:16

I realise the discussion has moved on a bit, but I'm genuinely curious, so:

Yes, for the most part. Especially the bit on women's oppression and racism. As a white person you are always embraced within a complex system of racism/sexism/homophobia/etc... all of which revolve around social constructs and... guess what?... you play into those social constructs at all times. So you are absolutely responsible for them.

I've probably missed it, but perhaps you can explain to me how I'm responsible even though I have no choice in being "embraced within a complex system of racism/sexism/homophobia/etc". We can control our own actions, but we can't control the time and place of our birth.

Now, you're not responsible for all of it. It's not like you owned slaves or beat your wife or anything - but you are responsible for your portion of it because you act it out everyday in being yourself - you are acting out your role in society all the time.

It's not a role I ever asked for. If society is casting me in a certain light on account of characteristics of mine that I cannot control - my gender identity, my skin colour, and so on - then what exactly am I responsible for? Beyond the obvious ones like being sincerely anti-racist and anti-sexist, I mean.

MarxArchist

12th July 2013, 04:06

I've trashed some of the off-topic stuff, try to stay on topic.

MarxArchist, you have a habit of twisting or misinterpreting people's arguments and attacking huge straw men. In the thread where you think you were called a rape apologist

I don't want to debate this, as, it's a matter of fact, many people (not just myself) were labeled as such.

I
you were for the most part attacking an argument that nobody had put forward, i,e,, that all lies, no matter how trivial, meant that someone could not consent to sex. I don't want to bring the arguments of that thread into this one but I think you're doing something similar here.

Fundamentally, the main arguments I'm bringing into this thread are two fold. A- baseless accusations shut down debate and B- baseless accusations alienate people. Personally I refuse to let debate be "squashed" and I will also not let this "tactic" turn me into some sort of reactionary (which is the initial accusation). This is the "tactic" TAT used to shut down discussion.

I don't think anyone is arguing that liberation movements should be immune from critique. However, there is a valid point that as someone who doesn't belong to an oppressed group, you don't experience that discrimination, and so you don't really have the full picture of what's going on. So I don't think you're in the best position to know how to organise against that oppression in a way that makes members of the oppressed group feel safe.

Common sense, yes. I completely agree. I in no way shape or form think white people should lead the struggle against racism in America. Nor do I think men should lead struggle against woman's oppression. That would be absurd, racist and misogynistic. What a fundamental question surrounds is(?) where we separate these struggles in relation to class struggle. I'm aware it's a complicated and sometimes "shitty" question. I ask it non the less.

Also, it plays right into the idea that POC/women/etc are "inferior" if white people/men/etc are constantly swooping in to tell them that they're wrong, they don't know how to organize, they should do this instead, so it is quite obvious why it is offensive to do that. But also, a movement needs to be led by the oppressed group, and they need to win their liberation.

This plays right into my point. My point being at what point do we draw the line between proper analysis and idealism? What does liberation mean? How do we attain it (for all)? How do we organize this? This issue is extremely complex and small online "Revleft" posts, i fear, can't do justice to the topic. I'm willing to proceed but not at the expense of being labeled a reactionary.

Decolonize The Left

12th July 2013, 05:42

I've probably missed it, but perhaps you can explain to me how I'm responsible even though I have no choice in being "embraced within a complex system of racism/sexism/homophobia/etc". We can control our own actions, but we can't control the time and place of our birth.

It's not a role I ever asked for. If society is casting me in a certain light on account of characteristics of mine that I cannot control - my gender identity, my skin colour, and so on - then what exactly am I responsible for? Beyond the obvious ones like being sincerely anti-racist and anti-sexist, I mean.

None of us have a say in the system within which we are born into. White people, males, heterosexuals, are born into positions of privilege within this system: the system favors them and encourages their existence. Others not so much.

So you pop up and are conditioned to be X, Y, and Z. In doing so, when you walk down the street, talk to people, buy stuff, interact with others, go to work, get a drink at the bar, go home, talk to your significant other... you enact these roles. You live them out. You embody them. You construct, deconstruct, and reconstruct them at all times. You cannot escape them no more than you can escape your name.

So you are, in this sense, responsible for them. You are responsible for your role that you hold in the big play of society. You are responsible for your actions within this play. And, in being responsible for this small part, you are responsible for the history of the play because you are finally acting coherently within the context of the play in general. This is to say that when you coherently and responsibly addressing the fact that your whiteness carries a privilege in society, that it brings you benefits not accorded to non-whites, that it subconsciously raises your status in the eyes of other whites, etc... when you coherently and responsibly accept the context of your role within society, you accept the responsibility of that history. You are finally taking responsibility for that history, and this doesn't mean that you are to blame!, it only means that you understand it and accept that it lives and breathes through you every day.

This is the responsibility of history: to accept it's existence and weight upon the present and to take hold of this weight like reigns, and direct it, as best we can, into a future which holds a better light for us all.

To deny this, to say that the history has no part in your life, that it is past and you are now, that is has nothing to do with you, is to deny the history of African-Americans, American Indians, women in general, is to deny their claims to wrongful treatment, to deny their claims to justice and injustice, it is to deny your part in this play in which they have been demonized and discredited. Because when you deny your role in this play you deny their role as well - you discredit them with your unwillingness to assume responsibility. It takes great strength to assume responsibility and we owe our brothers and sisters who fight for their own liberation a great debt as they bring this strength to us through struggle - they force us to confront our history.

In order for women, blacks, indians, immigrants, LGBTQ, and everyone else who is marginalized and oppressed within our culture, in order for them to be able to seek liberation, we, as white, heterosexual, males, must accept our history as well. We are all acting on the same stage, only many white men wish not to act but still receive the benefits of acting.

A bottle of wine, a re-read to fine immense spelling and grammar errors, and three G&Ts later - I'm out.

Decolonize The Left

12th July 2013, 06:08

i don't know why you imagine i'm talking about white men telling people what to do. my question was about how, for example, ultraleft/anarchist opposition to national liberation struggles can be valid if we take it to be true that since we can't understand oppression(s) we can't take critical positions on them.

First, great post. You are right that I didn't address your question properly. I shall try to respond below, although I urge you to read my post which I just posted as it contains much of my thoughts.

what does this mean for afed then? as a british organisation, should they drop their opposition to national liberation and support those engaged in it? the same applies to ultraleft / communist left groups and organisations, and some trots.

A leftist organization is about capitalism: more specifically, about economic self-determination for the working class. That's what we're all about. It's what communism is about and what anarchism is about. Sure, we have other issues as well: we fight for equal rights, etc... but really - when you get down to it - we're about ending capitalism because it fucks us.

So with this in mind, yes, we have no right to make claims about what an oppressed people should or shouldn't do for themselves because:
a) we aren't oppressed like they are
b) we're talking about capitalism
c) they aren't

In short, we're talking about a different context. They are talking about a context of racism, sexism, homophobia, whatever - we are talking about capitalism.

The problem with many leftists, in my mind, is that they place our context above others and hence belittle other struggles in doing so. Do I, personally, think that capitalism is a greater problem than sexism, racism, etc...? Sure, in many ways I do.

But that is because I do not confront sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.. every minute of every day of my life! (at least, not in the same way). So you see that from my perspective these issues appear secondary, or to use the words so common on this forum, as a part of the 'superstructure.' But to many others, they are so base that they seep through the concrete of the pavement like the blood of history. And we walk on this and track our steps through this solemn setting.

reminds me of a bit of paul frolich's book on rosa luxemburg, he explains that luxemburg, a representative of the working class of an oppressed people, wished for an alliance between the polish and russian working class through the organisational affiliation of the polish party to russian social democracy. lenin opposed this, calling for the right of self-determination for all peoples -- otherwise, would he be supporting an alliance between the working class of an oppressed nation with that of the oppressor?

using your analysis, who was right?

I have no idea. Nor, to be honest, do I really care.

is this really true though? i imagine many british proles truly believe that sending immigrants home and stopping all immigration to britain will mean no unemployment, easier access to social housing, less public debt and higher wages. no doubt many black americans thought obama's election would signal a change in race relations, and many lgbt people think gay marriage will lead to equality. i once had challenged a co-worker for his homophobia only to be told i wouldn't be able to understand him, since in his culture homosexuality is considered an "abomination punishable by death" (an actual quote) -- a funny argument, since arguably homophobia was introduced to the african continent by colonialism.

people believe stuff that is wrong. in some cases, people truly believe in things that kill them; how many proles were willingly lead to death, in the name of patriotism, in ww1 and 2, or any other war? how many people hate their jobs, their lives, but believe there is no alternative? that capitalism is absolute, all there is? of course, this doesn't make these people stupid, it doesn't mean they should be mocked or that they need some crackers to liberate them, but there's no point in communism if communist analysis is simply cheering on whatever the oppressed do or believe.

Excellent point, but only supports my argument.

For in your examples which are accurate and acute, you notice how folks don't really understand what's happening. These people are not fighting for liberation or freedom - and this was what I was addressing:

I was saying that a group of people, feminists or liberationists of whatever suit, are fighting for something which applies to them and not to me (or perhaps to you). Their liberation is theirs - it affects their lives every moment of every day in a specific way which does not affect us. We are affected differently and hence our perspective is different. Hence we do not have claim to that liberation.

So, in regards to my fellow working class who do not support women's liberation, LGBTQ liberation, etc... my place is to inform them of why it is in their benefit to do so - why it matters to them like it matters to me (as someone who is not a woman or LGBTQ).

But I think you understand this.

I think you're asking why can't we critique it when it happens. After all, as leftists, we support equality and liberty; why can we not critique their paths to equality and liberty?

The truth is that we can, but only in-so-far as we retain the real context of our critique, which is, as we all agree, capitalism. So we must always approach the situation from this perspective, we cannot critique a people's path to liberation on the grounds which they have laid forth because those are not our grounds; we can only critique them from our grounds. And(!), in doing so, we offer ourselves responsibly to them as who we are: we show them our support and critique from our context and perspective all-the-while maintaining respect for theirs.

But too often we do not do this. Too often we wish to overstep our grounds and moralize even though we hate the word. We most often do this when we attempt to not moralize, see MarxArchist's posts for examples (a user who I am glad is here and discussing, as I think s/he is immensely intelligent). I.e. in dismissing what one perceives as 'idealism' one is very well dismissing another's material reality and only doing so because one does not occupy this reality in everyday life.

I believe that I am now rambling. So I will not check this post for spelling/grammar and will retire to bed.