Race Matters?

[Zangetsu]

I said:

> I must delcare, i feel very comfortable with the ANC's concept of
> non-racialism. I dont believe in any correlation between race and the
> essance of a person. Culture, class, ect. i dont think can be
> constrained by race. Your views on race and multi-racialism-[essentialy,
> attaching signifigance to race which I think must be considered as
> equivlating too: Race MEANS something, SPEAKS to the essance of a
> person]. In thinking about multi-racialism, i can only conclude this is
> some sort of racist teaching... The ANC are pluralists, that
> is something I heard Palo Jordan say on 'A view from the house', then i
> looked it up; Someone who believes that distinct ethnic or cultural or
> religious groups can exist together in society. I dont think one could
> successfuly argue that the ANC are trying to convert everyone into a
> homogenous culture, they preach tolerance not assimilation...


She said:


"You should read Cornel West, Henry Louis Gates Junior and several
others, who are radical American race theorists who understand that, as
the title of one of the most pivotal texts states, RACE MATTERS. This
text is by Cornel West. You may then see the central critique of
Marxism, that race is more significant in terms of labour and social
practise than class or gender.

Why don't you argue about sexism? I am a race theorist. I understand
sexism, gender theories including feminism, but really to me the key
issues are resident in the cultural aspects of life as a raced
individual. Socio-economic circumstances 'produce' identities; the most
base aspect of those socio-economic circumstances is race, yet none of
Enlightenment's thinkers seriously understands or debates it, aside, of
course, from the philologists and eugenicists, who 'produce' 'race' in a
key socio-economic circumstance, according to their will, at their behest..."

These are some extracts of correspondence with one of my lecturers; i was just wondering if anyone has any insight or views on this matter? My lecturer was telling me Marx didnt take into account that slavery hadnt ended etc. and how this means Marxist theory needs some 'restructuring', has anyone read any of those aforementioned authors?

[redstar2000]

There certainly are some ominous implications in this exchange.

For example, if "race matters", then why shouldn't one "race" seek to become "a master race"? Why shouldn't "inferior races" be enslaved or exterminated?

Of course no "race theorist" can even give a coherent definition of "race"...except along the lines of self-identification as a consequence of cultural immersion.

I "was taught" that I "was white" when I was a kid..."therefore" I'm a "white man".

The Enlightenment thinkers were mostly disdainful of "race" and Marx followed that tradition. In the present period, it is fashionable in academic circles to regard Marxism as "dead". That's hardly unexpected; the competition for academic jobs is ferocious and "race theory" is chic.

But even its self-described "progressive" advocates have summoned up a demon. Why not a "Department of White Studies"? Why not a "National Association for the Advancement of White People"? Why not...well, you know?

I know of no reason why racism on the part of people of color should be any less reactionary or any less brutal than that practiced by whites over the last five centuries or so. Consider what the Japanese did to defenseless civilians in Nanking, China. Consider what some African "tribes" have done to others.

Yes, "race matters"...it matters very much that all forms of racial ideology be utterly discredited.

Those who believe otherwise deserve the kind of world that their "thinking" would create.

But I wouldn't want to live in it...and I don't think you would either.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Race matters in the same way "the nation" matters - it is utterly disconnected from material reality but politically useful in the same way as religion.
The fact that Universities allow reactionaries like her to lecture makes me sick.

[flyby]

hmmmm.

well, nations are not merely ideological inventions. Nations objectively exist in the world today -- their material base is the existance of capitalist national markets and that has a superstructural expression (in the form of national states, national culture, etc.)

Isn't there objectively a difference between Korean people (who form a nation of people) and Chinese people (who form a different historically constituted and stable community of people -- which includes within it many smaller nationalities and a majority Han group)?

Black people and Puerto Rican people (for example) objectively were forged as distinct nations -- through the very process by which they were dominated and oppressed within the larger social formation called "the United States of America."

The USA is not a single natoin -- but a "multinational state" which includes within its state borders, distinct oppressed nations, many smaller nationalities, and a Euro-American nationality (white people).

By contrast, the concept of "race" is not scientific -- including when it is defined by skin color, continent of origin or bizarre legal standards like the U.S. southern "one drop rule." The so-called races do not even correspond to the general "gene pools" of humanity (since for example, African people contain most of the genetic variation of the human species -- and so the genetic diversity among African is more significant than the distinctions between north africans and Europeans.) Color of skin actually varies with the latitude of origin (so that equatorial people -- in Africa, southern India, australia, etc. are often very dark -- even if they are not the same "race", while northern peoples like Europeans and Japanese are often very light, even though they are not grouped together by "race" theories.)

What is often called race in U.S. politics is actually nationality: Black people in the U.S. do not (in any scientific sense) constitute a "race." But they do constitute a historically emerged community of people that was forged as a nation in the former plantation areas of the South.

[Zangetsu]

Well my lecturer is a Pan Africanist... she belongs to a party called the PAC (Pan African Congress)... which is like a Black socialistic party- they are very anti-capitalist and want to perform rather large reforms in the way of land redistribution etc. If they ever were in power i think they would institute a kindof Socialism.

The Communist party is very much intertwined with the ruling ANC Party, we have a capitalist economy... we are trying to attract foriegn investors, retain all our skilled workers and keep international support- all of which i think has been deemed inconsistant with setting up a Socialist state. Of course the Communist Party finds it hard to manuveour itself between fighting for workers and practicly being a party to perpetuating a system that exploits workers through capital. The communist party has however done a lot for workers.. workers rights in my country are very well established etc. We have a right to strike in SA... and the Communist Party basicly plays the good guy fighting for more and more workers rights from within the horrible capitalist system... [the ANC and Communist Party are in an alliance, and members of either party can be a member of both Parties... So the president and vice president and about 50% of the ministers are Communists.]

There is growing resentment on the lack of progress/development (housing and service delivery in poor communities is not so good), and this breeds support for the PAC, i suspect the reason they are so disparaging towards white people (which is a synanom for capitalist in their rhetoric) is because they just dont invisage white people sticking around in the socialist state they plan.

Well these are at least my impressions, and i approached my lecturer in order to discuss Marxism and the PACs views... Thats when i heard things like 'Marxism is invalid as it doesnt take race into account'... something those authors would explain.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by flyby+--> (flyby)Well, nations are not merely ideological inventions. Nations objectively exist in the world today -- their material base is the existence of capitalist national markets and that has a superstructural expression (in the form of national states, national culture, etc.)[/b]

The historical evidence suggests, in my opinion, that "nations" were indeed ideological inventions of the emerging bourgeoisie...based on the desire for expanded markets, monopolization, and whatever pre-capitalist cultural similarities could be mobilized for that purpose.

Once a "nation" is formed, only then can you speak of its "objective existence". Only over time to people begin to think of themselves as "Americans" or "Canadians" or "Australians", etc.

And there's a lot of effort that goes into that process. People must be taught to explicitly think in terms of "nationality"...it's not something that people "just do" spontaneously. If anything, the human inclination is to spontaneously self-identify with a small geographical area and the people that live there in a kind of more-or-less community.

In the modern world, nations do "objectively exist" and in increasing numbers. They are being actively constructed in many parts of the "third world" as modern capitalism emerges there.

But it's not always, of course, an "inevitable" process.


flyby
Black people and Puerto Rican people (for example) objectively were forged as distinct nations -- through the very process by which they were dominated and oppressed within the larger social formation called "the United States of America."

I think this is a very dubious assertion...though it is something that could happen in the future.

Multi-ethnic empires like the United States have two options. If the "empire-builders" reserve all economic and political power to themselves, then the "minority" bourgeoisie as it emerges will inevitably see the development of "national consciousness" as their only road to wealth and power. This is exactly what happened in the old Austro-Hungarian Empire.

However, suppose the "empire-builders" are willing to admit the "minority" bourgeoisie (as it emerges) to the "inner circle" of wealth and power?

What purpose then would be served by building up a minority "national consciousness"?

I think this has been the approach of the American ruling class over the last five decades or so...co-opt the emerging bourgeoisie among African-Americans, Hispanics of all varieties, etc. Convince them that "identifying with the empire" is in their own class interests. Let them see with their own eyes members of their ethnic/cultural group moving freely among the highest circles in the empire.

I think this strategy is working...in much the same way that it worked in the Roman Empire.

To be sure, various minority groups in the United States are potential nations...under different circumstances, their bourgeois leaders could see it necessary to invent a "national consciousness" for them.

But I do not think that is "on history's agenda" at the present time.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[drain.you]

I often query whether race matters due to the fact I am from mixed heritage, chilean and english. I mean, why do different races exist if they don't matter? But I cannot argue this thought out in my mind, I believe that all races are equal and I just don't understand why different ones exist, if you see what I mean.
I think we are socialised into believing that race matters with things in the news such as immigrants and asylum seekers. It definately still divides us, just like gender, religion and social class do also.
I reckon that subcultures and race spark the most conflict in today's British society.

[urben]

The link below is for an essay written by Barbara Fields, a Marxist historian of the U.S. South. She pioneered a lot of the "race is a social construct" idea in the early 1980s, which by now has become a catch phrase in academia. Her point is not simply that race is unreal, but that race is a product of racism (and not the other way around), and that the word "race" and "race relations" is often used to to convert an act (racism) into a character (race), thereby shifting the blame from the racist perpetrator (the subject) to the victim of racism (the object). very interesting, written in a sharp, polemical style, and explained with fascinating historical examples...

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals...elds.html#REF18 (http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/108.5/fields.html#REF18)

[SonofRage]

I don't think I agree with that. Racism is a product of the concept of "whiteness." I don't see how race can be a product of racism...

[Mujer Libre]

Zangetsu, I think you're far too kind to the SACP and ANC. They're gone down this neoliberal path (admittedly with international pressure) and pretty much screwed over the poor so that they can "improve the economy." I think I heard that water supplies were going to be privatised?

Anyway, on topic. I think that race matters in a sociological sense. Race is used as a signifier that places people in power relations to one another. So while race itself is a biologically meaningless concept, I think that the power differentials it creates need to be considered when you attempt to analyse society.

That said, we should all be busy trying to dismantle the idea of race too. :)

[urben]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 06:04 AM
I don't think I agree with that. Racism is a product of the concept of "whiteness." I don't see how race can be a product of racism...
Well you should read the essay. My point was shorthand, and obviously there's no immediate causality from racism to race.. the point is that racism denotes the subjugation of one people, and the denial of rights to that people. It denotes an act and a power relationship. From that basic power relationship, concepts of identity emerge.

How do concepts produce each other out of thin air? Where do concepts come from? Yours is an idealist understanding of "concepts." Concepts emerge historically, and in the case of racialized identities in the United States, they emerge out of the irreconcilability of universal freedom with slavery. Particularly after the Declaration of Independence, the continued existence of slavery - the forced subjugation of an entire people based on their skin color - and its corresponding justifications, produced in the ideological realm the thing that we call "race." By saying that racism created race, my point was that slavery created all modern conceptions of race.

[drain.you]

But surely slavery was created by racism against Africans?
I don't have time to read the essay right now so maybe I dont know what I'm talking about but I'll read it later on and give you my thoughts on the matter.

[urben]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 07:08 AM
But surely slavery was created by racism against Africans?
I don't have time to read the essay right now so maybe I dont know what I'm talking about but I'll read it later on and give you my thoughts on the matter.
No, slavery in a broad historical sense was a mode of production, not a mode of "race relations." Slavery took a particular form in the United States, but was not unique to it. Slavery was created and propelled first and foremost by the need to make money and to extract surplus value.

In terms of slavery in the colonies that were to become the United States, white people too were enslaved for a period, but for the most part, having slaves of European descent became untenable due to the struggles for "free labor" in Europe itself and due to the potential (which was occasionally realized) for collaboration between slaves of African and European descent.

This is not to say that conceptions of "race" and ideological forms of racism did not exist beforehand (which the slaveholders were happy to employ in their coopation of the white poor), but as many historians have pointed out, the act of categorizing people is qualitatively different when that categorization comes with a particular social and class position (as was true with slavery). Unlike the crude conceptions of race that existed in pre-modern societies, all modern conceptions of race also are underlain with a certain class designation.

I look forward to your thoughts, after you read the essay.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 02:48 AM

Well you should read the essay. My point was shorthand, and obviously there's no immediate causality from racism to race.. the point is that racism denotes the subjugation of one people, and the denial of rights to that people. It denotes an act and a power relationship. From that basic power relationship, concepts of identity emerge.

How do concepts produce each other out of thin air? Where do concepts come from? Yours is an idealist understanding of "concepts." Concepts emerge historically, and in the case of racialized identities in the United States, they emerge out of the irreconcilability of universal freedom with slavery. Particularly after the Declaration of Independence, the continued existence of slavery - the forced subjugation of an entire people based on their skin color - and its corresponding justifications, produced in the ideological realm the thing that we call "race." By saying that racism created race, my point was that slavery created all modern conceptions of race.
I never said it came "out of thin air" so claiming I have an idealist view is really a huge assumption on your part.

Originally slavery in the US was not something restricted to Blacks, but when Black slaves, white indentured servants, etc. showed some unity as a class and started fighting back, the ruling class created and used this concept of "whiteness" (which implies non-whiteness) as a way to divide the working class.

I agree with everything you're saying except to say that "racism created race" seems backward...but it's not a major issue. I'll read the essay and comment on it more later when I have time (I'm at work right now!)

[DisIllusion]

Racism has no place in the Revolution, we are all equal comrades. But that thing about anti-racism being 'chic' was pretty true.

[SonofRage]

This is a good article on race: The Point Is Not To Interpret Whitness But To Abolish It (http://www.racetraitor.org/abolishthepoint.pdf)

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 11:36 PM
Well these are at least my impressions, and i approached my lecturer in order to discuss Marxism and the PACs views... Thats when i heard things like 'Marxism is invalid as it doesnt take race into account'... something those authors would explain.
I was reading Harry Haywood's autobiography recently and he mentioned the debate on South Africa within the early Comintern.

Basically, there were two lines.

One said that the immediate goal of the struggle in SA was socialism, on the basis of black and white workers unity.

The other said that the first task of the SA revolution was land reform, to take stolen land out of the hands of the white settlers and return it to black Africans. Only after that was accomplished could they proceed onwards towards socialism.

The first line ultimately won out in the pro-Soviet SACP, while the second line was taken up later by rev-nationalists and Maoists.

So it's not right to say that Marxism ignored the national question (the "race" question) -- only one trend in the Marxist tradition did that.

The national question in SA has big implications for the US, because it's also multinational state, forged out of land theft and colonial white-settler rule.

[urben]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 09:59 PM

I was reading Harry Haywood's autobiography recently and he mentioned the debate on South Africa within the early Comintern.

Basically, there were two lines.

One said that the immediate goal of the struggle in SA was socialism, on the basis of black and white workers unity.

The other said that the first task of the SA revolution was land reform, to take stolen land out of the hands of the white settlers and return it to black Africans. Only after that was accomplished could they proceed onwards towards socialism.

The first line ultimately won out in the pro-Soviet SACP, while the second line was taken up later by rev-nationalists and Maoists.

So it's not right to say that Marxism ignored the national question (the "race" question) -- only one trend in the Marxist tradition did that.

The national question in SA has big implications for the US, because it's also multinational state, forged out of land theft and colonial white-settler rule.
This is a good point. It's incorrect to say that the South African communist movement as a whole lacked consideration of the dimensions of the national question.

As far as the implications for the United States, I think the comparison is interesting, but limited. The axis of the national liberation struggle in the United States is no longer "forged out of land theft and colonial white-settler rule." That struggle principally belongs to the Native Americans, and not Black Americans (for whom the struggle derives from human theft and unpaid labor). The anticolonial struggle in the United States certainly merges with the struggle for socialism as in South Africa, but in very different ways.

I would, however, point out the similarities in the overthrow of South African apartheid to the civil rights revolution in the United States. Jim Crow segregation was an apartheid system, and its dismantling certainly represented an irreversible political revolution (as it did in South Africa). With that said, it left the capitalist system in place, and therefore left the social(ist) revolution as the remaining task. While establishing bourgeois democratic rights, the economic conditions remained the same (if they did not worsen).

With that comparison made, however, in South Africa there is a very small white working class. In the United States, the working class is of a multinational character, containing not only oppressed nations, but also over a hundred million members of the white oppressor nation. Both countries are "multinational," but this difference is of critical difference to revolutionaries. Whereas in the South African movement casting aside white people might equate to avoiding the pernicious influence of the ruling class (ie. avoiding reformism), in the United States such a strategy equates to abandoning a serious revolutionary perspective.

The other side of the story is, however, that socialist revolutionaries in Africa, Guyana and in Haiti have a long tradition of rejecting Black nationalism (often criticizing Black nationalist currents in the United States.) For instance, the National People's Party of Haiti - a revolutionary socialist organization - makes the point that historically Black nationalism in Haiti has functioned as a tool of the national bourgeoisie to obfuscate the class character of the struggle against imperialism. There, the working class and peasantry is all Black, and a great majority of the bourgeoisie is too. In their case, they consider "race" explanations to be a major hurdle in the development of socialist consciousness.

[Ginger Goodwin]

[...

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 07:08 AM
But surely slavery was created by racism against Africans?
I don't have time to read the essay right now so maybe I dont know what I'm talking about but I'll read it later on and give you my thoughts on the matter.
I think racism was developed in order to ideologically justify slavery, not racism causing slavery.

The concept of race and racism are fluid and not inherent and should be eliminated. However, I strongly disagree with comrades who are claiming that race dosn't matter.

Clearly race does matter even though it is a social construct and so on as people have said. American communists will never be able to unite the working class if they think race dosn't matter because they will never be able to adress the racism of the criminal justice system and racism attached to class-issues such as housing for minorities, poor schooling in minority areas and so on.

In order to unite the working class in the US, we need to end opression of nonwhites, Gays, and Immigrents. Until then we are divided and powerless.

Ask most european French 2 weeks ago if race matters, and they'd probably say no. Ask a North African French person 2 weeks ago and they'd probably have said yes. If the left dosn't attempt to fight against racial opression of minorities, then no nonwhite workers are going to become left-wing, they will turn to nationalist ideas instead.

[Black Dagger]

Whites are no more in control of the power structure than are Jews, Asians Etc. Etc.

You've got to be kidding. There is an irrefutable, statistical correlation between 'whiteness' and wealth in western countries.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by Ginger [email protected] 12 2005, 10:38 PM

Noel Ignatiev, editor of 'race traitor' and writer of the above article, is not someone that reasonable Leftists should admire.
The man is a spiteful racist and he does his best to foment racial genocide.
Capitalism is colorblind to all but the color of money.
Whites are no more in control of the power structure than are Jews, Asians Etc. Etc.

You are completely misunderstanding Race Traitor and abolitionist politics! When we say "abolish the white race" we are not talking about genocide or killing anyone at all. The "White race" is a social construct and nothing more. There's is not even a "white" ethnic group. Whitness represents nothing more than a power relationship. In his book "How the Irish Became White" he talks about how the Irish were not considered white when they began to immigrate to the US and had to "prove" their whiteness.

How can you not see that the US is a white supremecist society? Are you denying the existance of white privelage? Our goal should not just be to abolish capitalism, but rather to abolish the white supremicist capitalist patriarchy. The problem with a workers revolution is that it only frees us as workers...

A couple of things to read:

Build the Cadre, Abolish the White Race (http://www.agitatorindex.org/commentary/sanfi.htm)

The Goal of a Cadre Group is Class War (http://www.agitatorindex.org/ruckus/goal.htm)

I'd also recommend the book The Abolition of White Democracy (http://www.akpress.org/2004/items/abolitionofwhitedemocracy) by Joel Olson.

[Ginger Goodwin]

3..

[Ginger Goodwin]

...

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by Ginger [email protected] 15 2005, 03:50 PM

I would feel more comfortable if white privelege rather than the white race were advocated for abolition.

How can there be no white ethnic groups? The aboriginal peoples of Europe are fair skinned, called white, they spoke many different languages and their cultures were different.

If the Irish were able to prove their whiteness then it would seem as though the Asian and East Indian immigrants coming to Canada are also proving their whiteness. Down on Bay street or Howe street ( the financial districts of Vancouver and Toronto) you see some suit-and-tie-guys who are white, but theres plenty more that are not. I guess I'm just colourblind and I can recognize the class enemy by their behaviour and class position rather than solely on their race.

I took 'white' out of the following quote:
"The "Jewish race" is a social construct and nothing more. There's is not even a "Jewish" ethnic group. Jewry represents nothing more than a power relationship."

The folks who oppose us on the other side of the political spectrum advocate the above view, lets not stoop to that level.

I thought that the goal of Marxism was to abolish Capitalism not any particular race.

"The problem with a workers revolution is that it only frees us as workers..."

That sounds real sinister, dude. ;)
If we want to destory racism in general, we have to destroy the concept of race which is nothing more than a social construct. There is no white ethnicity...you're Italian or Irish or Greek or Romanian or etc.

Canada doesn't have the same history as the United States of America...I wouldn't apply the same strategy there because I just don't know. It's a very difference case in the USA and our white supremecist history...

I understand what you're trying to do by substituting the word "Jew" in that quote, but it's not accurate. Jews are an ethnic group with a long history, their own language, etc. Unlike whitness, it's a culture. My girlrfriend is Jewish and she's never considered herself white.

We need to abolish the "white race" because it's nothing more than a power relationship. It's an issue of power, not biology. If we negate the concept of the white race, we can negate the concept of race in general.

Oh yeah, I'm not a Marxist :)

What I mean by my last quote is that we have to abolish every form of exploitation, not just economic exploitation. We must overthrow the white supremecist capitalist patriarchy we live under.

[JC1]

How can there be no white ethnic groups? The aboriginal peoples of Europe are fair skinned, called white, they spoke many different languages and their cultures were different.


They have no common culture or language. Obviously there is not an White ethnicity. Indeed, there are people who have fair complexion's who are not considered "White". Look at Arab's, Jews, Russian's, Turk's, Kazak's, et cet era. None are considered "White". And there even people who don't have a white complexion who are considered "white" for example, the Japenese.

It's the same with black's. You could be an amero-black, an hatian, an jamaican, and Nigerian, et cet era. They have no common language or culture, how could they be considered one ethnicity ?


If the Irish were able to prove their whiteness then it would seem as though the Asian and East Indian immigrants coming to Canada are also proving their whiteness. Down on Bay street or Howe street ( the financial districts of Vancouver and Toronto) you see some suit-and-tie-guys who are white, but theres plenty more that are not. I guess I'm just colourblind and I can recognize the class enemy by their behaviour and class position rather than solely on their race.



I see what youre saying. But we must combat racism becuase it's a divisive startegy of the enemy.


I took 'white' out of the following quote:
"The "Jewish race" is a social construct and nothing more. There's is not even a "Jewish" ethnic group. Jewry represents nothing more than a power relationship."


Except Jew's are an ethnic group, not a colour caste.


I thought that the goal of Marxism was to abolish Capitalism not any particular race.


But we have to combat division's in our own class before we can get anywhere. That mean's crushing racism.


I was speaking from my own localized perspective. I live in a very multicultural place, lotsa blue blooded non whites around here. Our last Premier was a man from the Punjab in India.
You could say that in some places at least the tables have turned.
Anyway, with demographic projections whites will lose majority status in most of the west in a generation or so.

Multi-Culturalism need's to be crushed. It's a segratory policy.

I doubt thaty white's will loose majority status.

[Zangetsu]

Originally posted by SonofRage+Nov 15 2005, 08:58 PM--> (SonofRage @ Nov 15 2005, 08:58 PM)
Ginger [email protected] 15 2005, 03:50 PM

I would feel more comfortable if white privelege rather than the white race were advocated for abolition.

How can there be no white ethnic groups? The aboriginal peoples of Europe are fair skinned, called white, they spoke many different languages and their cultures were different.

If the Irish were able to prove their whiteness then it would seem as though the Asian and East Indian immigrants coming to Canada are also proving their whiteness. Down on Bay street or Howe street ( the financial districts of Vancouver and Toronto) you see some suit-and-tie-guys who are white, but theres plenty more that are not. I guess I'm just colourblind and I can recognize the class enemy by their behaviour and class position rather than solely on their race.

I took 'white' out of the following quote:
"The "Jewish race" is a social construct and nothing more. There's is not even a "Jewish" ethnic group. Jewry represents nothing more than a power relationship."

The folks who oppose us on the other side of the political spectrum advocate the above view, lets not stoop to that level.

I thought that the goal of Marxism was to abolish Capitalism not any particular race.

"The problem with a workers revolution is that it only frees us as workers..."

That sounds real sinister, dude. ;)
If we want to destory racism in general, we have to destroy the concept of race which is nothing more than a social construct. There is no white ethnicity...you're Italian or Irish or Greek or Romanian or etc.

Canada doesn't have the same history as the United States of America...I wouldn't apply the same strategy there because I just don't know. It's a very difference case in the USA and our white supremecist history...

I understand what you're trying to do by substituting the word "Jew" in that quote, but it's not accurate. Jews are an ethnic group with a long history, their own language, etc. Unlike whitness, it's a culture. My girlrfriend is Jewish and she's never considered herself white.

We need to abolish the "white race" because it's nothing more than a power relationship. It's an issue of power, not biology. If we negate the concept of the white race, we can negate the concept of race in general.

Oh yeah, I'm not a Marxist :)

What I mean by my last quote is that we have to abolish every form of exploitation, not just economic exploitation. We must overthrow the white supremecist capitalist patriarchy we live under. [/b]
I believe SonOfRage has extremely similiar views to my lecturer, thank you for providing those links, ima go peruse!

[Ginger Goodwin]

[...

[Black Dagger]

I cannot choose between my proletarian background and my Scottish ancestry.

So you're a national socialist? If you cannot choose between the proletariat (what of non-scottish proletarians?) and the 'scottish' as a generalised ethno-cultural bloc, how can you be trusted to side with the proletariat in a revolutionary period? If the proletarian movement to abolish capitalism and the state in scotland challenged traditional notions of 'scottish-ness' or scottish identity, which it must do- because this identity has been conditioned historically by feudalism, capitalism, bourgeois nationalism and values and so forth- is the chasm still unbridgeable?


My white skin is a pertinent part to my identity and my association with my ancestors.

How is being white a 'pertinent' part of your identity? Does being white make you proud?


There is value and worth in traditional culture and , I feel, that it must be maintained in this age of mass cultural extinction.

Of course there is, but there is also a lot of shit, outmoded, reactionary stuff, precisely because it is anicent culture!

[Ginger Goodwin]

[...

[Zangetsu]

Originally posted by Ginger Goodwin+Nov 16 2005, 05:47 PM--> (Ginger Goodwin @ Nov 16 2005, 05:47 PM)
Black [email protected] 16 2005, 12:19 PM

I cannot choose between my proletarian background and my Scottish ancestry.

So you're a national socialist? If you cannot choose between the proletariat (what of non-scottish proletarians?) and the 'scottish' as a generalised ethno-cultural bloc, how can you be trusted to side with the proletariat in a revolutionary period? If the proletarian movement to abolish capitalism and the state in scotland challenged traditional notions of 'scottish-ness' or scottish identity, which it must do- because this identity has been conditioned historically by feudalism, capitalism, bourgeois nationalism and values and so forth- is the chasm still unbridgeable?


My white skin is a pertinent part to my identity and my association with my ancestors.

How is being white a 'pertinent' part of your identity? Does being white make you proud?


There is value and worth in traditional culture and , I feel, that it must be maintained in this age of mass cultural extinction.

Of course there is, but there is also a lot of shit, outmoded, reactionary stuff, precisely because it is anicent culture!
Sigh. :rolleyes:

National Socialist? Negative.

How can I be trusted?

Well, 16 years of progressive activism including numerous arrests for civil disobedience should give me some credibility I hope.

If the "unbridgeable chasm" of which you speak includes the deliberate abolishment of my people, then yes I do have a problem with that.
If that is the aim of the progressive left then I have wasted my life.

Yes of course being white makes me proud.
Would you prefer I be racked with white guilt? I was in the past and it is not a positive mindset.

The double standard is obvious and really quite tiresome.
I encourage you to read 'To die for the people' or 'Revolutionary Suicide' by Huey P. Newton or perhaps Eldridge Cleaver's ( Yes, I know he sold out and became a Republican. I'm talking of the Eldridge before 1976) 'Soul on ice' for a nice taste of palatable Black Nationalism served up with a side of Mao.

Of course there is also pre 1964 Malcolm X . These folks and their racial shenanigans are a-ok with the left, yet when I merely mention that I would rather not see my people "abolished" by my supposed comrades, then it is taboo?

Too many times I have heard white comrades express morose regret at their whiteness and it really is ridiculous and damaging. Lets not hand the Fascists an excellent opportunity for propaganda as Mr. Ignatiev is doing.

To paraphrase Emma Goldman: " If I can't be white, its not my revolution."

Ok everyone, flame my white ass. :) [/b]
Are you proud of being born? are you proud of being human?

Black pride was generated and sustained primarily to counter-act white supremest notions that American society etc. continues to project. Black pride was the retaliation to the years of past physical subjugation and ongoing psychological subservance (ie. in general socio-economic positioning) of black people.

I do not agree with pride predicated on race, but i think black pride merely asserts that black individuals can obtain and are just as brilliant as white individuals. I do not like to characterise anyone by their whiteness or blackness; however some trends in society force people to think thusly, and therefore there was a need for a black consiousness movement.

I cant come up with any good excuse for the existance of white pride. please enlighten me.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by Ginger Goodwin+Nov 16 2005, 05:07 AM--> (Ginger Goodwin @ Nov 16 2005, 05:07 AM)
[email protected] 15 2005, 08:58 PM
We need to abolish the "white race" because it's nothing more than a power relationship. It's an issue of power, not biology. If we negate the concept of the white race, we can negate the concept of race in general.


Sorry Son of rage but our paths must diverge here.
I cannot choose between my proletarian background and my Scottish ancestry.
There is value and worth in traditional culture and , I feel, that it must be maintained in this age of mass cultural extinction. When cultures die, languages and knowledge die also and that is unacceptable for me.
My white skin is a pertinent part to my identity and my association with my ancestors.( Who were very much oppresed by other white people but thats another story.)
Regards--Gin. [/b]
See, this is where you are misunderstanding me. Yes, you have Scottish heritage and Scottish culture. Not white culture!

[Ginger Goodwin]

[..

[SonofRage]

There is no such thing as "the white people." It is purely a social construct and a power relation. By promoting white pride and the idea of the "white race" you are inadvertantly supporting white privelage and white surpremacy.

[Ginger Goodwin]

...

[JC1]

But you dont understand. There is no white people. There is no white culture or language common to whites, how can whites be called an ethnicity ?

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by Ginger Goodwin+Nov 17 2005, 05:32 PM--> (Ginger Goodwin @ Nov 17 2005, 05:32 PM)
[email protected] 17 2005, 09:05 PM
There is no such thing as "the white people." It is purely a social construct and a power relation. By promoting white pride and the idea of the "white race" you are inadvertantly supporting white privelage and white surpremacy.
I would respectfully disagree with your perspective , Son of rage.

All peoples have the right to existance and self determination.

The white people who misbehave have no monopoly on whiteness. [/b]
The "white people" DO NOT EXIST!!!!!

You need to stop trying to turn whiteness into an ethnicity. It just isn't.

somone started a "white culture" (http://racetraitor.org/fox.html) type class at a university doing the same thing that you are doing. I think Joel Olson wrote a good response:



Class fails to examine white privilege, promotes racist attitudes
Guest column by Joel Olson
State Press, Arizona State University
September 23, 1999

As the person who initiated the complaint about the white studies class offered by the Intergroup Relations Center this semester (CAM 394 "Exploring White/Euro-American Roots"), I thought it might be worthwhile to explain the two reasons why I oppose the class. First, the course is designed primarily for white students and is therefore discriminatory. Second, the course obscures the true nature of whiteness by attempting to turn it into an ethnic culture, when whiteness is really nothing but a form of unjust power. In so doing the class perpetuates white privilege despite the anti-racist intentions of its creators.

Let's start from the beginning. The white race is not a biological category. As hard as they've tried, scientists have never been able to come up with a scientific definition of race. If races don't exist in nature, they only exist because humans invented them.

The white race was invented in the 17th century by colonial elites in America as a way to prevent slave rebellions. To keep European indentured servants and African slaves from uniting against a common oppressor, plantation owners deliberately created divisions between them by creating a new legal and social category, "white." All those defined as white gained rights previously reserved for planters: the right to own land, to possess arms, to sell goods in an unrestricted market, etc. Most importantly, they were guaranteed that neither they, nor their children, could ever become slaves. In exchange, these poor "whites" agreed to help repress the slaves and Indians.

Since then, whiteness has been a tragic rite of passage for nearly every European immigrant in this nation. Whiteness, then, is like a club: its members enjoy privileges and pay dues. In the antebellum era that meant defending slavery. After the Civil War it meant enforcing segregation. And today, after the civil rights movement, it means an invisible set of privileges and prerogatives built into a so-called "colorblind" society.

Please note that none of this has anything to do with culture. If anything, becoming white means sacrificing much of one's former way of life.

I am not saying that white people have no culture. We can reasonably talk about Italian-American culture, Southern culture, corporate culture, punk culture, drug culture and, of course, American culture. But none of these are white. They're not cultures that all whites exclusively share in common. The only thing that makes "white people" white is common membership in the club of privilege.

I'm also not saying that whites have no right to study their past. I have no problem with courses that explore the history and issues of single ethnic groups. But it is historically inaccurate to call one's Irish, Jewish or English roots white. Europeans don't become white until they leave their continent.

Further, the majority of African, Native and Latino Americans also have European ancestry. "Euro-American" does not equal white. Why, then, does "Exploring White/Euro-American Roots" focus on the Euro-American experience of whites only? If the European experiences of non-white peoples are not part of the course, the class is designed for whites. It is therefore still discriminatory even though technically anyone can register for the class.

"White studies" is not equivalent to black or Chicano studies. The transformation of diverse West African ethnic groups into a single group was partly a product of slavery, which cast African immigrants into a single subordinate status. But it was also a product of the culture these people, segregated from the rest of the nation, created in order to survive. Blackness is a product of power and culture, and therefore we rightly have black studies classes. The same goes with Native American and Chicano Studies. Whiteness, on the other hand, is a product only of power.

I am not trying to stop "dialogue between different groups," as the State Press editorial suggests. I suggested to the creators of "Exploring" that they could offer a variety of other classes, such as the history of white supremacy, the history of the European immigrant experience (which would require an examination of how immigrants became white), or a class on the European influence on the United States (which would include a focus on how this influence affected and was affected by African, Native, Asian, and Latino Americans as well, of course). They rejected my suggestions out of hand.

People who want to do something about this nation's tragic history of white supremacy need to challenge the institutions that perpetuate white advantage in this society, from the police to the mortgage companies to the public schools to the health care industry to the university itself, if need be. "Exploring" may lead some white students to take up this challenge, but it is more likely to lead them away from it by providing them a space to navel-gaze free of the presence of students of color, thereby enabling them to avoid examining their own complicity in the white club.

The conflation between white supremacy and white culture serves to perpetuate the former by constructing a myth about the latter. This is the objective function "Exploring" serves, regardless of its creators' good intentions. I oppose "Exploring" not out of guilt, nor as a favor to anyone, but because I hate the system of white privilege. I encourage others to look carefully at the objectives and philosophy behind this class. The rallying call for a world without racial oppression shouldn't be "Exploring White Roots" but treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.

Joel Olson is a word processor in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering. His e-mail address is [email protected]