New Here and Interested in Dialogue - African-American in qu

[combatzone]

Hello,

My real name is Baruti M. Kamau and I own and operate the largest African-American owned and controlled online community in Cincinnati, Ohio. I learned about your web site last night from someone posting under the name "canikickit" on my web site's Anti-Capitalist Forum.

Since the founding of my publication Barutiwa Newspaper in November 1992, I've been trying to develop an ideology that would impel African-Americans toward a complete break from oppression in all of its complexities.

One of the chief premises of Barutiwa Newspaper's Editorial Policy from 1992 to 1999 was that the African-American problem is not racism; it is economics. We've argued that in modern times Afro-America has been subjected to White America's racism through an elaborate use of financial institutions that African-Americans are highly dependent upon. We have argued that if Afro-America could develop to the point where she can compete economically and financially, then the gradual demise of racism would gain momentum. If Afro-America was economically/financially independent from White America then White America's racism would not matter because Afro-America could no longer be threatened with loss of job, loss of fringe benefits and all that goes with it. We argue that White America controls us and pull our strings with her economic might. In 1862, 98% of black people in the U.S. worked for Whites. In 2002, 98% of black people in the U.S. work for Whites. Obviously from this perspective it is clear that the financial independence of Black Americans from White Americans will deliver a powerful blow to racism and allow for a more just society to emerge.

But the problem has been is what economic ideology do we apply to tread this path toward economic independence. Should we use capitalism or should we use socialism? Is there an in between? The profit motive of capitalism is not above criticism. But no effective alternative to the profit motive has materialized as yet.

I am highly interested in discussing these ideas with anyone who is interested. I also invite interested parties to visit my web site. It is http://www.barutiwa.com

Peace,

[j]

Sounds like you have interesting site and forum, I'll have to check it out.

I guess if you are looking for an economic model the ideal is socialism. If you are looking to a model that will uplift oppressed people then it would be a mistake to choose capitalism. As you well know capitalism is what drove the slave trade. Capitalism has perpetuated the class struggle we find ourselves in. The ideal that I hold high is found in Ralph Nader's slogan "People Over Profits." In it's very core it makes sense that all people have worth and are worthy. That worth should and can not take a subservient role to profits.

I am not sure if I agree that race is not a core issue. I find that it can be in many circumstances. However, I do agree that economics plays a huge role in the discrepencies we see between whites and blacks. To look at things at a deeper level, though, there are whites, hispanics, asians, american indians, etc. that are suffering from the discrepency between the have and the have-nots. While it is important to recognize that poverty and class are issues facing African Americans they are also issues faced by many people living in this country (and around the world). It is true that poverty fuels racism, it also fuels classism. W.E.B. DuBois said "the problem of the 20th century is the problem of the color line." I believe he was correct in many aspects. But to bring things to a more current level the problem of the 21st century is class. Race fuels these problems but poverty does not discriminate.

It is my reasoning that while we need to acknowledge the fact that blacks are disproportiately living in poverty and race plays a huge factor we also need to realize that problems of poverty and class transcend race. That is why we all need to work together at creating a more egalitarian society through socialism. We need to take small steps toward that goal, the first being socialized health care.

It's almost like a two-pronged attack. The first is eliminating racism and the second is economic equality for all without regard to race, religion, etc. I don't think that Afro-America can be independent of White America as White America can not be independent of Afro-America.

j

[Lardlad95]

I like how you think

and it's nice to see another black person around here...no offense to anyone

[combatzone]

When it comes to commerce and the transfer of knowledge an independent Black America cannot exist in a vacuum. However, White America must allow us enough autonomy to develop a unique identity, culture and a realm or environment allowing us hack out our own problems with our own methods and solutions. We should not be subjected to White conservative standards just to get crumbs off the Masters table.

Modern America prouds itself on political correctness and diversity. But really in reality diversity and genuine political correctness does not exist.

Just my 2 cents worth.



Quote: from j on 1:27 am on Oct. 17, 2002
I don't think that Afro-America can be independent of White America as White America can not be independent of Afro-America.

j

[KickMcCann]

I'm from Sin-cinnati as well, I deal with inner-city politics and race relations when possible. I'm a friend of Derrick B.
(I don't want to give his full name without his consent)
Do you know him? I've probably seen you before at city council meetings, if you go to them that is.
I agree with you on racial inequality in the economic area. But I also believe in racial integration not racial division,; and for the poor black community and white community to meld together, they must be on equal footing. So the black community needs to strengthen its economy, but more importantly, strengthen its knowledge and minds, which it is slowly but surely doing.

[BOZG]

Welcome to Che-Lives comrade. Your site sounds very interesting. I must have a look around it.

(Edited by BornOfZapatasGuns at 8:39 am on Oct. 17, 2002)

[redstar2000]

Welcome, friend!

Which road to take, capitalism or socialism, depends a lot on your time-frame horizons. If we're talking about the next few decades, even a fire-breathing commie like me has to admit that the capitalist road is the most PRACTICAL option for economic gain for the African-American community. For one thing, the mechanisms are already in place and have legal status. The (almost entirely white male) elite can be as racist as they like; they cannot stop African-Americans from preferentially purchasing from/working for African-American businesses.

It is, in other words, a path that we know works, gets results and, historically speaking, relatively quickly.

The drawback, of course, is obvious: there's no evidence to suggest that exploitation and oppression in the long run is dependent on ethnicity/color/language/national identity, or, for that matter, gender/sexual orientation.

In plain English, a black boss will exploit black workers with the same enthusiasm as white bosses exploit white workers. That's the core logic of capitalism; profits MUST be made...everything else is secondary.

A socialist road is a rather different matter; now you'd be talking in terms of many decades and perhaps even a century or more. During that long period of time, there might be a few gains along the way (reforms that the elite yield to the people to avoid the danger of revolution), but, on the whole, things wouldn't change much. There'd just be a lot of struggle, pain, defeats, etc.--something kind of like the civil rights movement from 1866-1958.

That might be a useful comparison; not much changed for a long, long time, and then change exploded within a single decade. The overthrow of Jim Crow in the American South was not a revolution in the sense that Marxists use the word--but it certainly FELT like a revolution to the African-American communities there.

So, I suspect, will the struggle for communism and the complete end of exploitation evolve. Not much progress for a long, long time and then suddenly, seemingly overnight, an explosion of world-wide rebellion.

It's a tough choice, no question about it!

[j]

Combatzone:

what do you mean by a "realm or environment?" I just need some clarity on that.

I think that there are a lot of people in the US who are subjected to the white elite standards and those standards are inherintly wrong. To be a successful minority individual one must learn to navigate both the home culture and the white working culture. This I understand. This white working culture is what many of us are rebelling against. This white working culture is a culture of capitalism and exploitation. I think by unity among workers (regardless of race) against this elite capitalist norm we then destroy the need for anyone to say "we need our own this or that." You see, by destroying capitalism and exploitation of the working class and creating equality we eliminate the institutional racism that we see today. I agree with redstar in saying that a black boss will exploit black workers the same as a white boss would. That's the important thing--capitalism has never been the road to equality only competition. Save competition for sport.

j

[combatzone]

Hello all, thank you very much for speedy response.

I gather here that everyone is in agreement with Afro-America improving its financial condition. But obviously there are different views concerning whether Afro-America should pursue political self-determination. When I say self-determination I'm talking about the establishment of a separate state within the USA or outside.

Furthermore, I do agree that African-Americans generally do not value information and knowledge as other American groups. This explains why Black people don't know very much or incapable of using information effectively and efficiently to better their lot in the collective sense.

[combatzone]

Autonomy.


Quote: from j on 2:31 am on Oct. 18, 2002
Combatzone:

what do you mean by a "realm or environment?" I just need some clarity on that.

I think that there are a lot of people in the US who are subjected to the white elite standards and those standards are inherintly wrong. To be a successful minority individual one must learn to navigate both the home culture and the white working culture. This I understand. This white working culture is what many of us are rebelling against. This white working culture is a culture of capitalism and exploitation. I think by unity among workers (regardless of race) against this elite capitalist norm we then destroy the need for anyone to say "we need our own this or that." You see, by destroying capitalism and exploitation of the working class and creating equality we eliminate the institutional racism that we see today. I agree with redstar in saying that a black boss will exploit black workers the same as a white boss would. That's the important thing--capitalism has never been the road to equality only competition. Save competition for sport.

j

[combatzone]

Feel free to email me [email protected]

Maybe we can have lunch together and kick around a few ideas.

Peace,


Quote: from KickMcCann on 5:53 am on Oct. 17, 2002
I'm from Sin-cinnati as well, I deal with inner-city politics and race relations when possible. I'm a friend of Derrick B.
(I don't want to give his full name without his consent)
Do you know him? I've probably seen you before at city council meetings, if you go to them that is.
I agree with you on racial inequality in the economic area. But I also believe in racial integration not racial division,; and for the poor black community and white community to meld together, they must be on equal footing. So the black community needs to strengthen its economy, but more importantly, strengthen its knowledge and minds, which it is slowly but surely doing.

[Guest]

ahh, yet another leftist insurgent

[combatzone]

The hottest discussions at Barutiwa.com follows:

Racism in the 21st Century
http://www.barutiwa.com/cgi-bin/webapp/ind...=display&num=62 (http://www.barutiwa.com/cgi-bin/webapp/index.cgi?action=forum&board=b121f&op=display&num=62)

Power Struggle in Black America
http://www.barutiwa.com/cgi-bin/webapp/ind...=display&num=65 (http://www.barutiwa.com/cgi-bin/webapp/index.cgi?action=forum&board=b121f&op=display&num=65)

[combatzone]

If you are having technical difficulties posting to Barutiwa.com forums, then send your message to [email protected] we'll post your message manually.

Peace,


Quote: from combatzone on 2:03 am on Oct. 20, 2002
The hottest discussions at Barutiwa.com follows:

Racism in the 21st Century
http://www.barutiwa.com/cgi-bin/webapp/ind...=display&num=62 (http://www.barutiwa.com/cgi-bin/webapp/index.cgi?action=forum&board=b121f&op=display&num=62)

Power Struggle in Black Americahttp://www.barutiwa.com/cgi-bin/webapp/index.cgi?action=forum&board=b121f&op=display&num=65

[TheVoiceOfReason]

No, god no!
Communism isn't the answer. It doesnt work ffs!

I could write loads about africa and solve all its problems in a five page political proposal. Unfortunately i dont have the time. I'll have to put off saving the continent until i get a break from work.

Tsk.

(until then Ill give you a clue: not being such a belidgerent bunch of bastards is a good rule of thumb)

[peaccenicked]

Here is an unsigned article I found on the web. It makes some good points.

Three class based analysis of race


The theory of "race formation" in Omi and Winant [Racial Formation in the United States] is a criticism of economic essentialism in class-based analyses of race. Class-based analyses of race fall into three major categories: the market relations approach, the resource stratification model, and class conflict theory or Marxism. Omi and Winant criticize these paradigms theoretically while Roediger spends more time revealing historical paradoxes that contradict class based theories.

The market relations model approaches race relations in the U.S. within the framework of the capitalist economy. Since racism and discrimination only hinder hiring the best employees, paying the cheapest wages, and taking advantage of the most ideal market situations, it is a hindrance to the market process. The claim is that the dynamic capitalist economy, unhampered by an interventionist state, would eliminate racial discrimination. This approach, however, narrow-mindedly assumes that racism stems only from institutional sources and that the "world" or "world economy" is inherently colorblind. This neglects many dimensions of racism which are embodied in race formation.

The resource stratification approach takes just the opposite perspective and sees the unequal distribution of resources as the cause of race inequality. As such it mandates that the state take increasing measures to insure the equal distribution of resources and thus equality of opportunity to succeed of all races. The approach, however, also neglects the multidimentional analysis of race embodied in Omi and Winant's race formation by assuming that there is no institutional racism and that the only cause of inequality is that blacks have fewer resources to build their future.

The essential strength of the race formation theory is its very ambiguity. The previous two attempts at explaining racial inequality attempt to define racial inequality not only as an economic phenomenon, but as an economic phenomenon with a specific cause. Market relations blames racial inequality on institutions while resource stratification blames racial discrimination on society. The very fact that both theories developed a following indicates that there are probably some elements of truth in both. Race formation's strength is that it recognizes the role of the economic state as well as economic society as well as many other non-economic elements in the determination of race hegemony. The essential point, however, is that economics alone do not account for the dynamics of race relations in the United States.

Roediger's history of the antebellum white working class gives a scathing critique of essentialist class based theories. As the U.S. white working class grew out of the War for Independence, the interests of the white working class and those of blacks become increasingly antagonistic. The white worker developed his identity as a "free republican" in contrast to blacks and the institution of chattel slavery (Roediger [The Wages of Whiteness] 23). White workers justified their own increasing wage slavery by a distaste for the intertwined identity of servitude and blackness. Blacks, even those who were free, were driven from Independence Day parades, victimized by white worker race riots developing from white worker insecurity with increasing wage slavery, and degraded in blackface minstrel shows by the white working class. Irish immigrants were willing to lynch and beat blacks to emphasize their own "whiteness" and thus receive the benefits of being a white worker. White workers organized to prevent blacks from entering certain industries and would beat blacks on the job with surprisingly little instigation. Most white workers and their unions supported slavery and were paranoid of a freed slave influx which would take away all their jobs. This divergence of class interest and racial interest definitively shows that the interests of workers and blacks are not always the same, thus implying that the problems associated with class conflict and those of racial conflict have different. In other words, according to Roediger, economics cannot be the only source of racial inequality. The white working class has shown that it can take the initiative in violent racism as well as the state.

I think that Roediger's argument and Omi and Winant's argument against Marxism breaks down at this point. In the first place, working class concepts of "whiteness" and "blackness" so often used as evidence that a class analysis is wrong is race hegemony. If the workers consider themselves "white" or "black," it cannot be solely attributed to them. Racial hegemony is maintained by the racial state (Omi and Winant 84). Thus, even though racial identity can be more or less emphasized or acted upon by workers, the entire drive for potential emphasis comes from the existing racial hegemony, in the care of the state. This does not divorce workers from all responsibility, but it does show that "whiteness," regardless of origins, is a racial project long established and supported by the "racial state" which pervades the working class and gains an unthinking, common-sense acceptance -- hegemony (Omi and Winant 66-67).

Similarly, Marxism does not assume that the workers are enlightened or that workers will naturally recognize their common exploitation and ignore race differences to fight in solidarity. This interpretation of Marxism is called "vulgar" Marxism; the very concept of spontaneous cooperation is both unrealistic and irrational. Marxism requires a conscious political "project" to further the aims of the workers. In America this would mean a definitive "racial project" to depropagandize workers and challenge race hegemony. Solidarity and unity of the working class is essential to Marxism. Many self proclaimed Marxist organizations have essentialized race, and typically in a dogmatic and "vulgar" critique. These vulgar critiques of race, however, are thrown out by Omi and Winant on page 30. According to a Marxist critique, race is a primary concern for any progress in America, but class is the penultimate tool for a real challenge to capitalism and its abusive system.

The pertinence of class in race relations is well illustrated by Montejano regarding the use of labor repression to secure workers for growers as an integral cause for segregation. In this instance there is a virtual marriage of race and class as Mexicans performed almost all manual labor in south Texas. Marable's observation of the increasingly labor oriented and socialistic tendencies of Civil Rights leadership through experience in dealing with race relations also indicates the importance of class in race relations.

With a historically greater emphasis in the U.S. on race instead of class, the weakness of labor or class identification is not surprising. The historically segregated and racist unions run by white racist workers has also hurt a broad level of labor support across race lines. This trend is slowly being reversed, however, as the fastest growing and most successful union in this country are those with a large minority representation. The emphasis on racial identification, however, still poses a major obstacle to broad based organizing.





Author's name omitted by request


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[El Che]

"But the problem has been is what economic ideology do we apply to tread this path toward economic independence."

That depends on how you approach the problem of oppression. To know, either you approach it from a racialy centered view, be it or not limited to the circumstances in the US, or you tackle it universaly. If you wish to fight oppression in the name of all then it is my belief that the answer lies in Socialism, in the broadest definition of the term.

"When I say self-determination I'm talking about the establishment of a separate state within the USA or outside."

This is for americans/african americans to decide, but personaly from a humanist prespective the desirable thing would be avoid racial devisions. The ideal would be to solve the problem of racial oppression without having to resort to measures that are them selves of doubtful moral fiber.

(Edited by El Che at 2:49 am on Oct. 28, 2002)


(Edited by El Che at 2:55 am on Oct. 28, 2002)

[j]

Hey, Voice of Reason--it's been two days...a long time at work huh?

If you can solve all of Africa's problems in an essay you are not only the smartest man who has ever lived you are indeed God. That's right, I'll start believing in him if you can prove that all of the African Diaspora's problems can be solved neatly in an essay!!!!!!

j

[Panamarisen]

I deeply agree with El Che.

Besides, we must not ever forget that this world rules today -and has, for quite a long time- on power BECAUSE OF MONEY. I mean, whatever your race, you are welcome if you got the money..., which means, you got the POWER. If, for instance, you ain´t got it -I mean the power- because HISTORICALLY you couldn´t, and you can´t yet because of the same reason, it doesn´t mean that you will not in the future...
Malcom X knew very well what he was talking about when he referred to the situation of African-Americans as too many people too used to be and behave as 2nd-class citizens. He, thus, tried to awake consciousness and make them all UNDERSTAND they were HUMANS, worth of the best just because of it...

HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!

[combatzone]

An article was posted to my web site recently by dwilliams entitled "An Argument For Equities." Check it out and post your comments.

Peace,
http://www.barutiwa.com