lulz

May 6, 2010

"The problem of race is that it primarily juxtaposes the political question as one of integration, as one of learning how to get along with one another, and not dealing with the question of returning land and territory and the battle for national equality. So it is about how do we get rid of our racist ideas or how do we deal with white privilege. White privilege is only one phenomenon of national oppression. The privileges happen because of the inequality between peoples, of which the first basis was depriving people of their land, resources and control of the fruits of their labor and innovations. The process of Americanization was the seizure of land and territory and then absorption or assimilation of that territory and those peoples into this mythical white supremacist thing called America. African Americans become Black Yankees when they assimilate the imperialist history and values of the Unites States, as opposed to seeing themselves as oppressed nationalities. Malcolm X demarcated the difference between identifying as oppressed versus identifying with the oppressor values and narrative: “We [Africans in the U.S.] are not Americans, we are victims of America”. The political logic of “anti-racism” or “fighting white-skin privileges” ironically privileges the target of struggle upon the attitudes and behaviors of whites. It presumes white leadership, the apriori-ness of white numerical majority, the sanctity of the current borders and configuration of the 50 states, and even the presumption of white working class inclusion in the revolutionary struggle to end U.S. imperialism, viz., the domination of U.S. monopoly capital in the domestic aspect of such struggle. And hence, the U.S. left since its formal inception, with the exception of such notable energies as the African Blood Brotherhood, the CPUSA adoption of the Comintern position of the Black-belt Nation thesis, and the revolutionary oppressed nationality movements of the 1960s-early 1970s, has been plagued with the fundamental white chauvinist problem of centering and basing the U.S. multinational working class movement upon the white working class, i.e., the focus and concentration upon the workers of the oppressor nation, rather than centering, focusing and basing the leadership and development of forces among the workers of the oppressed nations/nationalities."

—

Why the Emphasis on White-Skin Privilege is White Chauvinist | illvox (via guerrillamamamedicine) (via nezua) (via pcquotes) (via tobia)

I feel whats ultimately problematic about this sort of interpretation is that it races the question of what then? I dont believe that one can externalize a so called enemy as racism to be quite frank. There is a certain characteristic ressentiment centered within these discourses and I feel ultimately the only logical conclusion is the designation of “whiteness” as evil, which is certainly fun to do but wholly unproductive and tempt to relegate one to fascists conceptions. I agree that there is a certain antagonism based within these discourse, for example Philip A Randolph was famed for advancing black rights as a part serving in the armed forces in WWI as a double victory [for the united states and for black people] and this certain reinforces the dynamic of servitude to the larger white culture. The problem is however that of designating struggles. One does not simply refuse to ride buses because they privilege white people, but engages in strategic boycott. One does not quit the public educational system due to geographic and racial inequities but attempts to make the difference of integration. That is not to say that we are moving towards some wonderfully liberated future but that pragmatically speaking a discourse against white chauvinism only seeks to reinforce the dynamic that wealth is white and therefore their privilege. Of course the counter argument is that of militancy and a focus on developing the abjected position but I still respond that this is not a reason to abandon pragmatic politics. I would insist that affirmative action is an open acknowledgement of inequality with dealing with the situation in mind. While largely ineffectual the problem is not that these policies promote the white middle class but that they are in of themselves products of the system. In a sense yes they do assert the chauvinistic principle that “given the opportunity, the minorities should” but this is only because capitalism in of itself produces the social imperative of work or die. Now this may still seem a reason to reject the revisionist politics that ultimately identify with the system however I would argue that a position of rejection is too historically fatalist. I feel like politics in general are crippled when one conceives of them too far within the position of the oppressed without understanding that oppression is more an inherent aspect of the system, something that can be worked with in of itself.