16 Responses to “White Racism and Empathy (or the Lack Thereof)”

1. April Says:
   April 9th, 2006 at 6:36 pm Excellent correlations made here. I wouldn't expect anything less. I'm going to link this to my del.icio.us account, and it will automatically show up on my blog.
2. vegankid Says:
   April 14th, 2006 at 7:35 am rachel, this is incredible. I've certainly thought of the lack of empathy, but i've never put it together in my brain like this before. I feel like i have a new and hopeful approach to anti-racist organizing/education. Thanks! Now i'm inspired to write about my own approximating experiences.
3. douglass Says:
   April 27th, 2006 at 10:33 am A lack of disagreement makes conversation dull.
   
   
   I disagree with the interpretation of American history that implicates ALL whites as supporters and beneficiaries of African slavery and Jim Crow.
   
   Why?
   
   Because the introduction of African slaves to the American colonies drove down the price of free labor.
   
   If anything, the poor whites and the African slaves shared a common struggle against the plantation owner that the poor whites were blinded from by the illusion of 'white superiority'.
   
   Think about it. Racism is an illusion and money is power.
   
   This illusion was exchanged for lost wages. Sure, the average poor white 'felt' they were better than the black slave, but the feeling of superiority and hatred towards blacks was a numbing agent to the dick that was being driven into their collective ass by the plantation owner.
   
   The white laborers’ work was made less valuable by the introduction of slave labor. The poor whites lost real money when the slaves arrived.
   
   My point is that the legacy of racism is rooted in the politics of greed and class struggle.
   
   Sure 'white racism' exists (who in their right mind could deny that). But, so does 'black racism'.
   
   By singling out white people here, I think you are unintentionally Balkanizing today's political situation.
   
   (To the readers: feel free to tear me a new one on this issue, I don't claim to be an expert and I would like to see the response of someone who holds an opposing viewpoint.)
4. Thatzlife Says:
   December 18th, 2006 at 6:53 pm RESPONDING TO DOUGLASS
   What do u mean Black racism exist?
   U didnt say anything to prove that one. U simply said, by bringing slaves here, it drove down the value of poor white workers...thus black racism exists?
   What?!?!!
5. mattg Says:
   January 6th, 2007 at 5:11 am This is politics alone responsible for racism.
6. vegankid Says:
   January 7th, 2007 at 3:20 am i have no idea how i missed this comment for about eight months, but i admit i haven't been putting nearly as much effort into this blog as i'd like.
   
   douglass - you don't have to support slavery or jim crow laws to be a beneficiary of White Supremacy. throughout hystory, there are plenty of examples of White resisters to both, but just because you don't support something doesn't mean it doesn't, in some way, benefit you. granted, there are still plenty of other factors that come into play with regards to privilege (class being one of them, but also ability, gender, sexuality, age, immigration status, etc). but even the poorest of White people in the US benefited from slavery and continues to benefit from racism. not in the form of a monthly check or anything, but we receive certain social privileges such as not being perceived as threatening, stupid, law-breaking, etc because of the color of our skin.
   
   i've heard the argument before that slaves drove down wages and weakened the White working class' ability to organize and therefore slavery didn't benefit the White working class. my first reaction to this sentiment is that it seems to feed the basis of racism - pitting working class White people against Black slaves (as we see today with the arguments against the (Brown) immigrant workforce). my second reaction is to say that this is another example of centralizing Whiteness - making the weakening of the White working class the central focus of injustice while ignoring the far harsher circumstances in which millions of slaves died/were killed. that's not to say the struggles of the White working class aren't important, just that they aren't more important. and my final reaction is that its ahystorical. i'd suggest reading Wages of Whiteness for a more thorough history of racial constructionism within the White working class and how it benefited working class White people at the expense of people of color.
   
   i've thought about it - time and again, and again just now - and i don't see how you can claim that racism is an illusion. i agree that race is an illusion, but the power/disempowerment, violence, privilege, etc that has manifested from the forced categorization of race has turned the illusion into a real problem.
   
   i sorta agree with you that racism is rooted in greed and class struggle. they are certainly inextricable, but i'm skeptical of any claims of "root" causes (because they are usually followed by claims that any focus beyond the root is a waste of time - and its only a hop, skip, and a jump away from being killed by the Revolutionary Party after that:) but i agree that to combat racism, you must also work to end classism and greed.
   
   and although i wouldn't choose such homophobic phrasing, i agree that White Supremacy in the working class and early stages of the middle class served as a numbing agent. however, without some benefits the agent would stop working - just as the effects of a placebo will likely wear off after awhile.
   
   wrt your claim that Black racism exists, that goes back to definitions. i agree that anyone can be racist, if you are looking at racism as merely prejudice or even prejudice+(some)power. the definitions of racism are so varied that it gets confusing. that's why i prefer to use the term White Supremacy, but i'm planning on writing more about that soon. however, a persyn of color's prejudice does not make up for a lack of social power. nor do individual acts of "racism", such as the recent example of a group of Black people beating up a White womyn while using racial epithets, make up for a lack of social power. there are plenty of books and essays out there that articulate this far better than i can at this moment at 2am. unfortunately, i'm too tired to think of book titles (took me awhile just to remember Wages of Whiteness). my intention is not to downplay these individual acts of violence or even the systematic psychological trauma that has been caused by centuries of social conditioning. i simply believe that as a White persyn, its better for me to focus on Whiteness and White Supremacy. 1) just because i feel its best to look inward, and 2) i do believe that critically analyzing Whiteness is the best way to deconstruct (and ultimately destroy) racism.
   
   i have to agree with Thatzlife, tho. you didn't really back up your claim that Black racism exists.
   
   mattg - i don't understand what you are trying to say. can you clarify?
7. Douglass Says:
   January 17th, 2007 at 10:36 pm VK: “douglass - you don't have to support slavery or jim crow laws to be a beneficiary of White Supremacy."
   
   It’s been 8 months and 38 credit-hours after I wrote the above comment and my views have changed…slightly. Now, we might not disagree on the gravity of 'white supremacy' as a social force, inside the USA. at least.
   
   But I sense that many who are attracted to the dogma of ‘white racism’ deny the possibility of fluidity in the exercise of power, a denial that encourages whites to self-depreciate in a most vile expression of masochism.
   .
   
   VK: "throughout hystory, there are plenty of examples of White resisters to both, but just because you don't support something doesn't mean it doesn't, in some way, benefit you. granted, there are still plenty of other factors that come into play with regards to privilege (class being one of them, but also ability, gender, sexuality, age, immigration status, etc)."
   
   There, I agree. However we cannot deny that the magnitude of that “benefit”is fluid. I.e. the presidency of Andrew Johnson (to paraphrase a more learned man:) “ ensured that although the South lost the War of secession, she won the war of reconstruction” That event scuttled the progressive aspirations of oppressed blacks & republican reconstructionists. It reinforced that benefit up until the civil rights movement. when the ‘benefit’ was reduced via federal intervention and moral activism.
   
   VK: “ but even the poorest of White people in the US benefited from slavery and continues to benefit from racism. not in the form of a monthly check or anything, but we receive certain social privileges such as not being perceived as threatening, stupid, law-breaking, etc because of the color of our skin."
   
   Yes, but again, magnitude is a crucial factor in the study of white privilege, We cannot act as if the average ‘white’ living in the confederacy had an equal benefit to a man such as Millionaire slave trader, founder of the Ku Klux Klan &Lieutenant General Nathan Bedford Forrest , a sentiment I believe you mirror in your assertion that “Class…ability, gender, sexuality, age, immigration status, etc…come into play with regards to privilege”
   
   (wild tangent: the confederacy was SHOCKINGLY progressive on the issue of the Hebrews.. they were in the government as equals. Contrast that w/The northern general Grant’s expulsion of Jews from some border states. That’s an interesting topic for a study on white racism,fo sho’)
   
   See, I sense that there is no ‘benefit’, rather, a normality. It’s not like whites have special privledges..that’s very close, but slightly off.., Whites have the “privilege” of being treated as a human being. Perhaps people are labeled for inhuman treatment b/c of who they are NOT, for failing to meet the ideal: a wealthy, healthy, able bodied, handsome, &middle aged white male.
   
   VK: “i've heard the argument before that slaves drove down wages and weakened the White working class' ability to organize and therefore slavery didn't benefit the White working class. My first reaction to this sentiment is that it seems to feed the basis of racism - pitting working class White people against Black slaves (as we see today with the arguments against the (Brown) immigrant workforce)"
   
   My reaction to your assertion regarding the “brown” immigrant workforce is to note that animosity between the working classes today that break on racial lines aren’t always black and white or brown and white.Things become irritably complex:. Take for example Black&Hispanic hatred of each other in the American city of Atlanta Georgia. The er quasi legal (construction, gardening, etc) workforce was primarily black until the arrival of Hispanics in the late 1980’s and early-mid 1990’s.
   
   The Blacks were displaced and landed squarely into lubenproletariat.
   
   Today’s black antihispanicism burns in a pyre of homelessness, unemployment, and poverty. However, the blacks control the city Government, much to the anger of the outlying white suburbanites (epically considering that the black government doubled the price of all city services sent to her white annexes)…so, logically, they are seceding from the city. About a year ago, the rich white suburb of Sandy springs left Atlanta with most of the tax money. As this trend continues, the city has less resources with which to sustain her economically ostracized black constituency, a development I believe will not only inflame black resentment of the Hispanic competition , but also agitate a distrust and even hatred of white employers.
   
   VK: “this sentiment is that it seems to feed the basis of racism - pitting working class White people against Black slaves”
   
   Huh? You might have misread me, or I’ve misread you.
   
   I said: “poor whites and the African slaves shared a common struggle against the plantation owner”
   
   How exactly did you deduce the opposite?
   
   =
   VK:.” my second reaction is to say that this is another example of centralizing Whiteness - making the weakening of the White working class the central focus of injustice while ignoring the far harsher circumstances in which millions of slaves died/were killed. that's not to say the struggles of the White working class aren't important, just that they aren't more important.”
   
   
   I didn’t say that the struggle of the white working class was more important, I did not and would not make such a frivolously racist argument, I merely pointed out that their economic interests mirrored those of the working class white, namely a need to end exploitation by the plantation class. Now, the magnitude of exploitation is crucial here, a black slave was in a FAR more exploitative relationship w/ the slaveowner/planter than the hired, free, white laborer.
   
   VK:“ my final reaction is that its ahystorical. i'd suggest reading Wages of Whiteness for a more thorough history of racial constructionism within the White working class and how it benefited working class White people at the expense of people of color.
   
   Ah yes, your hammer finally falls.
   
   Very good.
   
   But unfortunately for You, I’ve run into this scattergun approach before.
   
   Pray tell, VK, What exactly about “it” is ahistorical?
   
   How, exactly, is “Wages of Whiteness” pertinent to the a/’historical nature of my position?
   
   VK:”i've thought about it - time and again, and again just now - and i don't see how you can claim that racism is an illusion. i agree that race is an illusion, but the power/disempowerment, violence, privilege, etc that has manifested from the forced categorization of race has turned the illusion into a real problem.”
   
   Racism of the white supremacist type was decisively and eternally disproven as a tenable ideology at the battle of Adwa in 1896 when the black African forces of menilik II crushed the white European Italians in a display of strategic and tactical genius, shaming them for their imperial pretensions. That event is THE issue to focus on when dealing w/white supremacists (other than the Hatian or Cuban revolutions…not castro’s Cuban revolution one that never ends, the one that started in 1868) b/c they have NOTHING to say other than, eh, perhaps our ideology is complete bullshit, ‘we’ were soundly defeated on the field of battle Now, If we go Ex Post Facto on the social construction of whiteness, things become even more dire for the poor white supremacist polemic. Under that lens, every time a socially constructed heir to the “west” (Hebrews, early xians,greeks &, romans) was defeated on the field by a dark-skinned or noneuropean-nonJewish enemy ..(I.e the Punic wars). is a shining example that their ideology represents, without and beyond a doubt, the slimiest and most rank collection of afactual bullshit demagoguery since the invention of Islam (That’s another room, lets not go there, I guess you could insert Calvinism, or some other absurd religious notion in the place of Islam).
   
   I agree, now at least; that even though something is a social construct or a demagogue’s illusion, that does not make the construct or illusion any less real in the immediate sense.
   
   VK: “i sorta agree with you that racism is rooted in greed and class struggle. they are certainly inextricable, but i'm skeptical of any claims of "root" causes (because they are usually followed by claims that any focus beyond the root is a waste of time - and its only a hop, skip, and a jump away from being killed by the Revolutionary Party after that:) but i agree that to combat racism, you must also work to end classism and greed.
   
   Yeah, as I develop less top-down perspective on history, I see the folly of the ‘root’ cause, however such generalizations are sometimes necessary (i.e. industrialization as a catalyst of economic change, etc)
   
   VK: ”and although i wouldn't choose such homophobic phrasing, i agree that White Supremacy in the working class and early stages of the middle class served as a numbing agent. however, without some benefits the agent would stop working - just as the effects of a placebo will likely wear off after awhile.”
   
   
   Homophobic? I thought my phrasing was quite Balkan, Serbian to be exact (since when do homosexuals have a monopoly on anal sex?) .
   
   VK: ”wrt your claim that Black racism exists, that goes back to definitions. i agree that anyone can be racist, if you are looking at racism as merely prejudice or even prejudice+(some)power. the definitions of racism are so varied that it gets confusing. that's why i prefer to use the term White Supremacy, but i'm planning on writing more about that soon.”
   
   Yes, I meant “black racism” &”white racism” not as institutional elements of the USA, rather i used those words in the layman’s sense. I believe it was my 1st or second post on ally work
   
   (Furthermore, I’m not about to use loaded and inaccessible language of Gobblesian proportions such as ‘white privilege’…, for if I do, my opponent has won the debate before it even started by commanding the terms)
   
   I was simply asserting that Whites & Blacks can and do practice racism in terms of thought and action. Power is a separate issue, it cannot be soldered to racism without completely ignoring the question of human nature. Here is an example. Many Jews who endured the Holocaust later became haganah thugs responsible for ethnic and religious atrocities… just as blacks who suffered under Rhodesian anti-black tyranny later became the butchers and torturers of their former masters.
   
   Those events happened, they are real, and the lesson to be drawn from them is that power is not a reliable indicator of morality.
   
   Thus the insinuated notion of white immorality hailing from ‘whiteness studies’ is nothing but the most despicable form of guttersnipe hate propaganda since the protocols of the learned elders of Zion.
   
   See, if we take our Macro-political formulas from a 2nd grade arithmetic class then proceed to sloganize them (racism+prejudice=power) for consumption by those who have ZERO grasp on macropolitics, then er, the result is likely to be simple and uncut anti-white prejudice. Now, ‘white supremacy’ is liable to have a similar effect on the less than or equal to high-school educated individual…..and last time I gathered, blacks are underrepresented in High Schools and Universities…
   
   VK: “however, a persyn of color's prejudice does not make up for a lack of social power. nor do individual acts of "racism", such as the recent example of a group of Black people beating up a White womyn while using racial epithets, make up for a lack of social power.
   
   Nah, that’s a BOLD lie of epic dimensions. It means that an event where a white is attacked, discriminated against or otherwise harmed by a non-white is somehow less apprehensible because of the current social stratification.
   
   Fuck that hate propaganda,, fuck it to hell. It actively and consciously encourages the dehumanization of whites, so that other racial groups can jockey for position within the current racially stratified framework. And you want me to think that is somehow humanitarian?
   
   Furthermore your analysis regarding anti-white hatred &violence encourages political masochism in the ‘white’ population b/c.Social power is not a natural right, it is earned via exploitation, cunning and warfare. Come ON! Power wouldn’t exist without a hierarchy and so there is NO equality of power. Never was, never will be for a prerestiquate(sp) for the exercise of power is an oppressed individual or group.
   
   VK: “there are plenty of books and essays out there that articulate this far better than i can at this moment at 2am. unfortunately, i'm too tired to think of book titles (took me awhile just to remember Wages of Whiteness)”
   
   Your Scattergun is choked rather loosely this time..
   
   .VK: “my intention is not to downplay these individual acts of violence”
   
   I don’t believe you, considering your previous remarks on an incident of anti-white racial violence and hatred.
   
   VK: “or even the systematic psychological trauma that has been caused by centuries of social conditioning”
   
   I believe that.
   
   
   
   VK: “i simply believe that as a White persyn, its better for me to focus on Whiteness and White Supremacy. 1) just because i feel its best to look inward, and 2) i do believe that critically analyzing Whiteness is the best way to deconstruct (and ultimately destroy) racism.”
   
   Cool, that’s your right. And I’m interested in the questions you’re asking from a purely historigraphical standpoint.
   
   VK: ”i have to agree with Thatzlife, tho. you didn't really back up your claim that Black racism exists.”
   
   I thought that was self-evident, but whatever.
   
   I fear that, like Thatzlife, you didn’t offer a counterclaim, nor did you offer the very empirical evidence that you fairly criticized me for excluding.
   
   Now, for run-of-the mill anti-white racism practiced by blacks, I should display dozens of examples (that I will display on request, if you must), But I’ll name three for the purpose of maintaining a relative brevity: Again, I rebuke the language of ‘whiteness studies’ on the grounds that ‘whiteness studies’ is an organ of anti-white hate propaganda.
   
   Exhibit A : Ethnocentric Anti-Europeanism: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/60/001.html
   
   Exhibit B: The Anti-white demagoguery along the lines of ZANU-PF:
   
   (http://www.zimbabwerescue.netfirms.com/) point 16. Racism: ZANU PF has whipped up racist anti-white feelings in the populace. On the understanding that the people tend to rally behind a government in times of war, It has claimed, falsely, that "racist" western powers such as Britain and the USA, in collusion with white "settlers" in Zimbabwe, are attempting to re-colonize the country. In a strategy reminiscent of that used by the Nazis in Germany with the Jews, it has attempted to portray whites as enemies of the black people of the country. It attempts to create the illusion of a conflict between the 50 000 or so whites left in the country and the 12 million blacks. It likes these odds. Blacks who oppose the ruling party are portrayed as being traitors or "sell-outs" to the whites. In some areas it has worked, in others it has served to further unify a beleaguered people.
   
   Exhibit C the anti-white racism of American blacks manifest in the torture-beating of truck driver reginald denny: “The day the Niggaz took over”,by Dr. DRE, RBX & Snoop Dogg
   
   : “And break the white man off somethin lovely, biddy-bye-bye
   I don't love dem so they can't love me”
   
   Conclusion: VK, I’m challenging some of your views, just as You challenge mine.. that’s how I learn. so If I seem harsh in the use of language or overly zealous in debate, pawn it off on my youth…I apologize in advance.
   
   -cheers.
8. Douglass Says:
   January 18th, 2007 at 1:04 am er, It's mean of me to bait you into the very guttersniping I denounce. I can't do it.
   
   I mean (Racism=predjudice+power), not (racism+prejudice=power).
9. vegankid Says:
   January 18th, 2007 at 2:34 am i'm going to try to make my response a quick one and perhaps i'll try to come back tomorrow to get a little more in depth.
   
   yes, some of your language and attitude seems a little harsh, but i recognize that this is probably just how you dialog about contentious topics. we all have our different ways of interaction.
   
   D: "But I sense that many who are attracted to the dogma of ‘white racism’ deny the possibility of fluidity in the exercise of power"
   
   dogma? ok. deny fluidity of power? um, have you not read my posts and comments about the creation of the White identity? if i believe that Whiteness is fluid, then what makes you believe that i would think power structures beyond just those pertaining to Whiteness aren't fluid as well? i recognize the fluidity of power and force. and i commend your attempt to look at power structures from a hystorical viewpoint. i think its VERY important that as we deconstruct current systems of power that we have a simultaneous conversation about how not to repeat those patterns. to do that, we have to be familiar with the patterns.
   
   D: "However we cannot deny that the magnitude of that “benefit”is fluid. "
   
   nope. sure can't. that's why its so hard to have discussions just about race. race doesn't exist in a vacuum. its intertwined with class, age, ability, ethnicity, and so many other things. the purpose of this blog was just to pull out one piece of what should be a much larger discussion.
   
   D: Perhaps people are labeled for inhuman treatment b/c of who they are NOT, for failing to meet the ideal: a wealthy, healthy, able bodied, handsome, &middle aged white male."
   
   before i became a blogger i wrote and essay about this very concept. i agree that what's happening is "normalization" and those that don't fit that category are then dehumanized, marginalized, etc. perhaps its time to give that topic its own thread.
   
   D: "My reaction to your assertion regarding the “brown” immigrant workforce is to note that animosity between the working classes today that break on racial lines aren’t always black and white or brown and white"
   
   certainly not. i wouldn't make such a claim. this could and should also be its own thread. you're trying to keep me busy, aren't you? this is where the intersection of race and class comes into play. look at coal miners in WV. used to be mostly White. then as former slaves and the descendants of former slaves moved in, the mine owners and bosses broke up organizing efforts by pitting White workers against Black workers using the kindling of racism that's alway kept at an arm's length away. eventually many of the coal miners realized they were all in the same boat, and the racial strife became less powerful. now, Latino workers are starting to come in and their presence is the new kindling. White and Black workers are pitted against Latino workers. now, is it really the fault of the Black or Latino workers that the union organizing efforts were being hindered? was it the fault of the White workers? i'd say no and no. i put the blame on the wealthy owners who used racism as a tool for union busting. but as the coal miners proved before, as workers start to dialog with one another, the tool of racism becomes less and less powerful. did i go too far off track with that?
   
   D: "Racism of the white supremacist type was decisively and eternally disproven as a tenable ideology at the..."
   
   i don't see how this is disproving the real effects of racism so much as it is disproving the notion of White Supremacy (particularly on the battlefield). for the record, i don't disagree that White Supremacy is an illusion. but i didn't think i needed to make that any clearer. but maybe this is just another example of our semantical disconnect.
   
   out of curiosity, why choose the example of Islam and not that of any other religion.
   
   D: "You might have misread me, or I’ve misread you. "
   
   i was responding directly to the claim that Black slaves are at fault for the falling wage of White workers. as stated above, i think the fault lies in the hands of the slaveowners and owning classes. we are in agreement that Black slaves were of the working class.
   
   D: "Pray tell, VK, What exactly about “it” is ahistorical?
   
   How, exactly, is “Wages of Whiteness” pertinent to the a/’historical nature of my position? "
   
   i was speaking to the claim that the White working class didn't benefit from slavery. its like claiming that the working class in the US don't benefit from sweatshops in Asia. this goes back to what you were saying about magnitude. certainly the White working class didn't benefit to the extent of the White owning class, but they still benefited. i suggest reading "Wages of Whiteness" because its about this very topic (how the White working class benefited from slavery and the notion of White Supremacy).
   
   i should make it clear that i wasn't necessarily claiming that your arguments specifically were ahystorical. i was just following the usual line of logic that comes after the claim that slavery drove down the wages for White workers. seeing as to how you have a class analysis of the situation and recognize Black slaves as members of the working class, i'd suspect that you wouldn't follow this path of logic. i was being a bad moderator and pre-responding based on past experiences when i should have only responded the to comments at hand. my apologies.
   
   D: "Homophobic? I thought my phrasing was quite Balkan, Serbian to be exact (since when do homosexuals have a monopoly on anal sex?) ."
   
   they don't. but to speak of anal sex in such a violent and negative way is to associate such sexual acts as negative, violent, or submissive. thus anyone who participates in such acts is either being violently acted up (rape) or is attached to a negative/wrong connotation. that's not just homosexuals, but such references to anal sex are often in homophobic context.
   
   D: "Power is a separate issue, it cannot be soldered to racism without completely ignoring the question of human nature...."
   
   to the surprise of many, i'm opposed to hate crime legislation. partly because of what you talk about here (partly because to me its a lot like the current "anti-terrorism" legislation - missing the point entirely).
   
   D: "Thus the insinuated notion of white immorality hailing from ‘whiteness studies’ is nothing but the most despicable form of guttersnipe hate propaganda since the protocols of the learned elders of Zion."
   
   do you know what whiteness studies is or are you just making assumptions. because this conversation we are having (even in all our disagreements) is Whiteness Studies. it is merely the study of Whiteness. what it is. where it came from. its fluidity. and so forth. there is not ideology attached to it. are there people with WS programs with a hatred for White people? probably. but there are people within Wimmins Studies programs who hate men, but that doesn't mean Wimmin's studies is anti-male hate mongering. because i want to study the foundations of Whiteness does not in any way mean that i hate White people. i don't. some of my best friends are White. ok. that was a joke. well, sorta. a bad one. but seriously. Whiteness and White people are different things. one is a construct, one is a living breathing loving being. i have nothing against people regardless of their social conditioning. i'm not responsible for what i've been taught, but i am responsible for what i can learn. what comes of that learning is up to the individual.
   
   D: "proceed to sloganize them (racism+prejudice=power)"
   
   just on a technical note, your equation is wrong. i believe its usually stated as power+prejudice+privilege=racism. but i agree that such an equation is a bit oversimplified. but to quote you in this same comment, "however such generalizations are sometimes necessary."
   
   D: "Nah, that’s a BOLD lie of epic dimensions."
   
   um. no its not. did they beat her up and go home to find that they are no longer systematically discriminated against because of the color of their skin? did the racial statistics of arrest rates, prison sentences, and so forth magically balance themselves out to a proportional matter? nope.
   
   D: "Fuck that hate propaganda,, fuck it to hell. It actively and consciously encourages the dehumanization of whites, so that other racial groups can jockey for position within the current racially stratified framework. And you want me to think that is somehow humanitarian?"
   
   you seem to be coming to this discussion with your own assumptions about my opinions. NO WHERE did i say that this event wasn't fucked up. it is seriously fucked up. and another example of why i think it is so very important for us to talk about race in this country. anyone who thinks that people of color are the only ones who are hurt by racism are sorely mistaken. we aren't as systematically hurt, but no one walks away from a fight of such epic proportions without some dead and wounded.
   
   i was not advocated any sort of hate propaganda by saying that this event was excusable because they were simply retaliating for generations of oppression. that's just fallible logic. i understand the logic, but that doesn't make it morally acceptable. not in my opinion, at least. i was simply stating that an individual act of racism is not of the same magnitude of systematic racism. its why i think groups like the ARA have it all wrong by focusing entirely on the KKK and neo-nazis. the KKK and neo-nazis have very little social power. they are fuck heads (like the kinds of fuck heads it took to beat up that womyn) and they deserve punishment for their actions, but they are also only part of a larger problem. not to say we should ignore the individual acts, but that we can't keep running around with a bucket to catch all the water running out the holes. eventually we have to admit that its time to start talking about replacing the whole damn thing.
   
   D: "Power wouldn’t exist without a hierarchy and so there is NO equality of power. Never was, never will be for a prerestiquate(sp) for the exercise of power is an oppressed individual or group."
   
   i see what you are saying, but i disagree. there are different types of power. power-over and power-with. collective power and authoritarian power. power is not a bad thing. people can come together and have the power to build an incredible community (power-with). or people can consolidate power into a hierarchy (power-over). i'm opposed to power-over and therefore, as you illustrate, to hierarchy. and just because we've never experienced something doesn't mean it can't exist. possibilities are infinite. conscious action can help direct the path of such possibilities.
   
   D: "I fear that, like Thatzlife, you didn’t offer a counterclaim, nor did you offer the very empirical evidence that you fairly criticized me for excluding."
   
   in all fairness, i said in my comment that i agree with you. i was simply agreeing with Thatzlife that you didn't back up your claim. and you can't have a conversation who just makes claims and refuses to back them up. you expect me to back up my claims, why should i expect less?
   
   with that said, you criticize me for criticizing you for not providing evidence of your claim. stating that it should be my job to disprove your claim without you first providing any evidence. this is not a "guilty until proven innocent" situation. we aren't in court. this is a discussion. all parties should back up their claims. that's how we learn. otherwise, it become a one-sided discussion with the other persyn just sitting back and every once in awhile interjecting with "prove it" or "disprove it". i don't think this is what you want. i think this because you just wrote a 10000 word response to my comment:) obviously you, like me, enjoy a good discussion.
   
   and with that said. thanks for your examples. i'm probably not going to review them because, well, we aren't in disagreement on this topic. yes, i'm an ass:)
   
   ok. that wasn't short at all. but let's be real, did you expect it to be?
10. Douglass Says:
    January 18th, 2007 at 9:51 pm VK: “dogma? ok. deny fluidity of power? um, have you not read my posts and comments about the creation of the White identity? if i believe that Whiteness is fluid, then what makes you believe that i would think power structures beyond just those pertaining to Whiteness aren't fluid as well? i recognize the fluidity of power and force. and i commend your attempt to look at power structures from a hystorical viewpoint. i think its VERY important that as we deconstruct current systems of power that we have a simultaneous conversation about how not to repeat those patterns. to do that, we have to be familiar with the patterns.”
    
    It is very good to recognize the fluidity of power and force, something I’m sure you do in concept, but perhaps, inside the context of “deconstruct(ing) (the) current systems of power”, a context that we laymen call ‘attempting the redistribution of social power’, such a recognition must accompany another recognition: the realization that attempting the redistribution of power is an act of warfare and will be perceived as such by the targets of that social piracy, unless, that is, the target is misled into not seeing the war and simply surrendering their power to groups who rightly consider them responsible for centuries of criminal exploitation at their expense….
    
    VK: nope. sure can't….."
    
    Agreed.
    
    VK: before i became a blogger i wrote and essay…."
    
    Nteresting & perhaps it would be a fair topic if refined a bit.
    
    VK:”certainly not. i wouldn't make such a claim…..”
    
    You didn’t go off track at all. In fact, I thought it was a tad too narrow (remember, you are dealing with Douglass, the Grand Vizier of all tangents) Also, I don’t blame the actors, by god they are all cutthroats inside that environment.(I couldn’t lay blame on pre-1794 slaveholders,either, and on different grounds..I’ll get to that later) I blame the system of social organization that encourages competition over cooperation.
    
    VK: i don't see how this is disproving the real effects of racism so much as it is disproving the notion of White Supremacy (particularly on the battlefield). for the record, i don't disagree that White Supremacy is an illusion. but i didn't think i needed to make that any clearer. but maybe this is just another example of our semantical disconnect.”
    
    See, I decided to leave a little gem for somebody scanning this site in search of ammo against White supremacist swine. Now, It might be a semantical disconnect in so far as I stated at the end of that paragraph: “I agree, now at least, that even though something is a social construct or a demagouge’s illusion, that does not make the construct or illusion any less real in the immediate sense”.
    
    VK: out of curiosity, why choose the example of Islam and not that of any other religion."
    
    The Koran is a crude forgery and expression of sexual inadequacy hailing from a child molesting jew-hating caravan raider named Muhammad It’s beyond me how the thing spread around the world. Now, I understand that most religious movements have their extremist elements, and I;m not unfairly singling out Muslim extremists. See, I’m opposed to Islam as a general prospect for Islamic Law, customs, culture, and whatnot simply revolt my American values regarding religious freedom, the right of women to be intact with their clitori, the separation of church and state, etc..
    .
    VK: i was responding directly to the claim that Black slaves are at fault for the falling wage of White workers. as stated above, i think the fault lies in the hands of the slaveowners and owning classes. we are in agreement that Black slaves were of the working class."
    
    I see our disconnect here, I said that “the INTRODUCTION of African slaves”…not ‘African slaves…’., so we agree, you were just a victim of my squalid maneuver; I failed to state who, exactly introduced African slaves in order to highlight the commerce between the slaveowner and the black African slave kingdoms (example: the Bantu)
    
    Unlike you, I place blame on systematic factors (I could be accused of liberalism there) such as the acceptability of the exploitative economic relationship, b/c applying my morals to history is ahistorical. (i.e. opposing slavery was unheard of back to 2600b.c. until the Jacobins abolished it in 1794 (see, I said I’d get to it later), british in 1807,1833 and so we cannot look at people before that and condemn them under our modern moral lens)
    
    VK: i was speaking to the claim that the White working class didn't benefit from slavery. its like claiming that the working class in the US don't benefit from sweatshops in Asia. this goes back to what you were saying about magnitude. certainly the White working class didn't benefit to the extent of the White owning class, but they still benefited. i suggest reading "Wages of Whiteness" because its about this very topic (how the White working class benefited from slavery and the notion of White Supremacy)."
    
    Again, I didn’t claim that the white working class didn’t benefit, In fact I described the benefit as a ‘numbing agent’ b/c I observed that their wages were harmed via a reduction in the price of labor stemming from the introduction of slave labor by the planter class and others, making the grand presupposition that issues of race play a second fiddle to issues of economic power in the politics of the plantation economy. (an insinuation that ‘mattg grasped quite firmly)
    
    VK: i should make it clear that i wasn't necessarily claiming that your arguments specifically were ahystorical…."
    
    It’s ok, good to clear that up. I accept your apology, if one was even necessary. Naw, It wasn’t necessary b/c I sense that we both enjoy a heated debate with an ideological opponent so far from our political sensibilities that we would never speak to them in social circles on such issues out of a real fear that we would cause an incident. So, I don’t mind hammers falling in such a discussion, Ally Work is at least a ‘safe space’ for talking about race no matter how vicious or nasty we become for there will be no social consequence for the discussion.
    
    VK: they don't. but to speak of anal sex in such a violent and negative way is to associate such sexual acts as negative, violent, or submissive. thus anyone who participates in such acts is either being violently acted up (rape) or is attached to a negative/wrong connotation. that's not just homosexuals, but such references to anal sex are often in homophobic context."
    
    That might be my ignorance-subconscious ‘othering’ of the homosexual at work. I’ll steer clear from such analogies in the future, k.
    
    VK: to the surprise of many, i'm opposed to hate crime legislation. partly because of what you talk about here (partly because to me its a lot like the current "anti-terrorism" legislation - missing the point entirely)."
    
    Huh? That has little to do with my assertion, which is quite bold: I said “Power is a separate issue, it cannot be soldered to racism without completely ignoring the question of human nature.”
    
    I’m stating that racism DOES NOT=Predjudice+power, and furthermore I claim that the correct definition of racism is prejudice on the basis of race.
    
    Now, SYSTEMATIC RACISM=predjudice+power, if one must use such a formula.
    
    On your smokescreen regarding hate-legislation, I think hate crime legislation has not only missed the point, but will also become home to innumerable hornet’s nests of profiteer-lawyers.
    
    VK: do you know what whiteness studies is or are you just making assumptions."
    
    I might know more than you do here in terms of untangling webs of lies regarding noble intentions and social justice.
    
    VK:because this conversation we are having (even in all our disagreements) is Whiteness Studies. it is merely the study of Whiteness. what it is. where it came from. its fluidity. and so forth. there is not ideology attached to it”
    
    I agree that the prejudice of a minority doesn’t reflect the sentiment of the majority here, but, to claim that this discussion is ‘whiteness studies..er..no.
    
    See, I’m shaming whiteness studies as an organization comprised of University departments, special interest groups and activist individuals for it’s propaganda campaigns conniving to disempower whites at the benefit of POC without attempting to challenge structural elements that produce injustice (primarily capitalism), but I guess that could be considered “whiteness studies”, if you must masturbate in that fashion.
    
    Also, since when does a campaign of disempowerment waged against a segment of society for the benefit of another NOT count as an agenda or underlying ideology?
    .
    VK: “…[schoolyard bullying]….but i agree that such an equation is a bit oversimplified. but to quote you in this same comment, "however such generalizations are sometimes necessary."
    See, I said ‘Sometimes necessary’ not “always”, or “most of the time”. Now, when somebody throws around the word ‘necessary’, we should ask this question; necessary to accomplish what, exactly?
    
    When the ‘necessity’ is, as in the case of (racism=predjudice+power), the un/just disempowerment of one group over another in a power struggle over the fruits over a poisonous tree, and furthermore I belong to the group targeted for disempowerment, I fear that my statement .regarding necessity would be voided considering the alignment of my best interests in such a situation.
    
    VK: um. no its not. (a lie) did they beat her up and go home to find that they are no longer systematically discriminated against because of the color of their skin? did the racial statistics of arrest rates, prison sentences, and so forth magically balance themselves out to a proportional matter? nope."
    
    That’s a semantic disconnect, I wasn’t specific enough…. The violent POC you mentioned were still facing systematic discrimination, of course, that’s logical result for the marginalized segment of a hierarchical system. that’s not a lie.
    
    I called you on the lie that social power is a natural right, that an individual is born with the right to social power, while living in the USA, today. See, A competitive system (in our case, the capitalist system) creates a never-ending war over the distribution of power. Race is only one camp in this conflict. That view might influence my views on forms of social activism that seek to meddle with the arrangement of power without seeking to destroy it’s foundation.
    
    
    VK: (in response to “fcuk that hate propaganda…)you seem to be coming to this discussion with your own assumptions about my opinions. NO WHERE did i say that this event wasn't fucked up. it is seriously fucked up. and another example of why i think it is so very important for us to talk about race in this country. anyone who thinks that people of color are the only ones who are hurt by racism are sorely mistaken. we aren't as systematically hurt, but no one walks away from a fight of such epic proportions without some dead and wounded."
    
    That’s an interesting stance, and I’d agree that we are all hurt by the general principle of competition and ‘getting ahead’, (the bedrock of both race and capitalism, among other evils).
    
    VK: i was not advocated any sort of hate propaganda by saying that this event was excusable because they were simply retaliating for generations of oppression. that's just fallible logic. i understand the logic, but that doesn't make it morally acceptable. not in my opinion, at least. i was simply stating that an individual act of racism is not of the same magnitude of systematic racism. its why i think groups like the ARA have it all wrong by focusing entirely on the KKK and neo-nazis. the KKK and neo-nazis have very little social power. they are fuck heads (like the kinds of fuck heads it took to beat up that womyn) and they deserve punishment for their actions, but they are also only part of a larger problem. not to say we should ignore the individual acts, but that we can't keep running around with a bucket to catch all the water running out the holes. eventually we have to admit that its time to start talking about replacing the whole damn thing."
    
    That was another semantic disconnect, again my accusation of propaganda is related to the principal of redistributing power within an unjust framework, not the absurd notion that poc violence is completely dampened by the history and reality of the American system, however I regret to admit that there is a degree of dampening in so far as black hatred of whites at least has a real provocation, unlike white hatred of blacks.
    
    VK: i see what you are saying, but i disagree. there are different types of power. power-over and power-with. collective power and authoritarian power. power is not a bad thing. people can come together and have the power to build an incredible community (power-with). or people can consolidate power into a hierarchy (power-over). i'm opposed to power-over and therefore, as you illustrate, to hierarchy. and just because we've never experienced something doesn't mean it can't exist. possibilities are infinite. conscious action can help direct the path of such possibilities."
    
    I KNOW that power is a bad thing within a competitive system. The idea that the exercise of power can be benign under the right circumstances is a beautiful idea, but one I consider unattainable on the grounds that, unlike the circumstances leading to power-over, circumstances conducive to power-with have never existed as sustainable societal manifestations.
    
    VK: in all fairness, i said in my comment that i agree with you. i was simply agreeing with Thatzlife that you didn't back up your claim. and you can't have a conversation who just makes claims and refuses to back them up. you expect me to back up my claims, why should i expect less? with that said, you criticize me for criticizing you for not providing evidence of your claim. stating that it should be my job to disprove your claim without you first providing any evidence. this is not a "guilty until proven innocent" situation. we aren't in court. this is a discussion. all parties should back up their claims. that's how we learn. otherwise, it become a one-sided discussion with the other persyn just sitting back and every once in awhile interjecting with "prove it" or "disprove it". i don't think this is what you want."
    
    Yes, agreed, that was the way I choose to badger you for posting the squalid elements of this statement, “i have to agree with Thatzlife, tho. you didn't really back up your claim that Black racism exists.”- especially the part where you didn’t admit to the existence of black racism, perhaps on the grounds that I had created some confusion about white racism by using ‘white racism’ and ‘black racism’ in the same sentence, in the laymans sense.. “
    
    VK: obviously you, like me, enjoy a good discussion."
    
    Indeed.
    
    VK: and with that said. thanks for your examples. i'm probably not going to review them because, well, we aren't in disagreement on this topic. yes, i'm an ass:)...ok. that wasn't short at all. but let's be real, did you expect it to be?"
    
    Nah, you aren’t an ass, just a victim a dick and his cunning (speaking of bad jokes..) Now, we are both speedy typists with a penchant for argument, I didn’t expect anything but the unexpected.
    
    In conclusion,
    
    My assertion that ‘whiteness studies’ is nothing but the most despicable form of guttersnipe hate propaganda since the protocols of the learned elders of Zion was a bit turgid in it’s phrasing, so I must rephrase by stating that any elements I consider propagandistic are those that promote the notion of white disempowerment while breezing over the issue of destroying structural elements conducive to hierarchy competition and power-over ,breezed over for the purpose of cloaking a wish exercise power-over, and not just power-over whites, power-over in general, to the same if not to a greater degree than practiced by today’s elites of all colors.
    
    Also, I don’t get how we can basically agree on deep issues such as the morality of power-over, the barbarism of the hierarchy, the idealism of power-with (save the possibility of power-with) &The sheer ugliness of Poverty, malnutrition, lack of medical care etc existing alongside the tremendous wealth of a few, and then…end up with sharply opposing views on race and racism.
11. Lance (Is that white or what?) Says:
    January 22nd, 2007 at 2:04 pm Douglass wrote:
    "Also, I don’t get how we can basically agree on deep issues such as the morality of power-over, the barbarism of the hierarchy, the idealism of power-with (save the possibility of power-with) &The sheer ugliness of Poverty, malnutrition, lack of medical care etc existing alongside the tremendous wealth of a few, and then…end up with sharply opposing views on race and racism."
    
    Response:
    I have followed this thread and found it intriguing and challenging. Do you two really think you disagree that much on anything OTHER than semantics? While it appears that Douglass is approaching this from a Marxist view - noting specifically the inherent flaws of capitalism because of its perpetuation of unequal power distribution - he recognizes that race is one component of that fight.
    
    I do not know for sure if Vegankid would be amenable to a Marxist view, but I think that may be a fair assumption. While your (VK) perspective is focused solidly on race, it is still also about power and the unequal distribution of it.
    
    Neither of you disagrees that there is an imbalance of power.
    
    Neither of you disagrees that there is tremendous institutional (particularly but not solely in the U.S.) racism against people of color by "white" people.
    
    You both agree that individual racism is despicable and when it takes the form of violence (any kind of violence), it is an evil.
    
    So, Douglass, is the only thing you disagree with is the moral claim that "Whiteness Studies" should exist? That seems an odd disagreement - to limit HOW one categorizes a form of study. But I gather you see "Whiteness Studies" as another form of racism because of its desire to unseat the white man from his position of power.
    
    It also seems that the other area of disagreement is in the demonization of "white" people. Douglass - Is it a fair assessment that you feel racism is being perpetrated evenly in all directions (or not exactly equal, but approximately)?
    
    What about the notion of white identity being a false one in the first place? Your arguments about working-class people in post-revolutionary America seem to support the idea of the construction of whiteness. The creation of a white identity was done specifically with the thought of separating slaves from working-class whites - two groups who had more in common than plantation-owning (or, later, factory-owning) whites and working-class whites.
    
    So, perhaps the evils of capitalism and the evils of racism are inextricably connected.
    
    Sorry to jump in late to this conversation and to pose ideas that may seem elementary to both of you, but I don't think you are as far apart as you think.
    
    -Lance
12. Douglass Says:
    January 22nd, 2007 at 6:40 pm Lance,
    
    
    On social constructs...or, in your words "the notion of white identity being a false one in the first place", my position is here “I agree, now at least; that even though something is a social construct or a demagogue’s illusion, that does not make the construct or illusion any less real in the immediate sense.”
    
    LANCE: "- Is it a fair assessment that you feel racism is being perpetrated evenly in all directions (or not exactly equal, but approximately)?"
    
    I see that you picked up on my presupposition aimed at the same LCD our paternalist buddies up in the womens/whiteness studies depts are so fond of poaching with their Gobblesalian prattle (i.e racism=predjudice+power)
    
    I badgered that development in the women’s/whiteness studies depts. by mining my otherwise serious critique of their economic arguments with a few propagandistic statements aimed at the LCD.
    
    Propaganda1: Think about it. Racism is an illusion and money is power"
    
    Propaganda2:"Sure 'white racism' exists (who in their right mind could deny that). But, so does 'black racism'."
    
    So, to answer your question, lance; my comparison of black and white racism as stated above is unfair in so far as it is unequal.
    
    Now, my ability to get away with that distortion (if you noticed, VK hasn't mentioned them so far) is pegged on the idea that the moderators here, like the rest of the womens/whiteness studies,um, folk, cannot admit to using propaganda without compromising their social agency as a movement (in this case, one seeking to combat the status quo)
    
    LANCE:, Douglass, is the only thing you disagree with is the moral claim that "Whiteness Studies" should exist?..."
    
    No, But I think you are very close to understanding the subtleties here.
    
    You stated that "perhaps the evils of capitalism and the evils of racism are inextricably connected.", a line that mirrors my original assertion that "the legacy of racism is rooted in the politics of greed and class struggle", as well as reflecting my sentiment in a later statement "A competitive system (in our case, the capitalist system) creates a never-ending war over the distribution of power. Race is only one camp in this conflict."
    
    Now, view things as you please, but I'm not asserting a mere connection.
    
    I might have confused by saying this : (“issues of race play a second fiddle to issues of economic power in the politics of the plantation economy”)
    
    I'm flat out saying that that Capitalism (er, (early capitalism, late mercantilism )is the cause of race as a social construct in the American colonies, in the 1600's, as a means of dividing the labor force and in turn driving down the price of labor.
    
    Moreover, and on the wider topic of the im/morality of white power , a transfer of power within an anti-human system (dictatorship, capitalism, kleptocracy, authoritarian communism, etc) does not even have the possibility of being connected to the notion of justice or ethics.
    
    That considered, when looking at a society founded on a structure of injustice, it is in the best interests of the dominant groups to maintain and sustain the status quo.
    
    In the case of America in 2007, it is in the best interests of 'white' people to maintain and sustain 'white' privilege, ‘white power’, ‘whiteness’, (er, whatever you call the reality of a systematic white edge) etc as a social force and to slander those who oppose it.
    
    That is where Vegan and I oppose White supremacists on completely different grounds.
    
    See, I oppose them b/c they are bad press for systematic white supremacy.
    
    Vegan opposes them b/c they are racist.
    
    So, I might be a Marxist in so far as I think capitalism is barbaric and there has to be another, better way, and that historical materialism is a good gauge of social stratifications..but, not much more.
13. Lance Says:
    January 22nd, 2007 at 10:41 pm OK Douglass,
    
    Forgive my density, but I am having trouble following your thoughts.
    
    You wrote, "a transfer of power within an anti-human system (dictatorship, capitalism, kleptocracy, authoritarian communism, etc) does not even have the possibility of being connected to the notion of justice or ethics."
    
    I understand what you are saying, but is it the only option - the transfer of power. That supposes that one revolution will merely replace the current power structure with a new one - no better than the last. But what about the possibility of evolution - that power can be redistributed and shared (as in Vegan's claim - power with instead of power over).
    
    Secondly, why can't it have the possibility of being connected with justice?
    
    And, since you name every kind of "-ocracy" I am familiar with - and some I am not ("kleptocracy"? - is that some kitschy term for socialism?), what are you advocating? Would you support a kind of post-left anarchism?
    
    Finally - and I must admit this is the statement that really through me - you said, "See, I oppose them b/c they are bad press for systematic white supremacy."
    
    What the hell does that mean? You don't want bad press for systematic white supremacy? Why wouldn't you want bad press for systematic white supremacy? The only people I can think of who don't want bad press for s.w.s. are the white supremacists? .
    
    Either I misread you in this statement or I drastically misread your previous statements.
    
    Assuming I did misread you, I am intrigued to know why you believe that all "-ocracies" are anti-human and why you believe there is no possibility of justice within any of these governmental systems (frankly, dictatorships and authoritarian communist governments are OBVIOUSLY immoral, so I'm not asking about those). SPecifically, I am asking about capitalism and socialism.
    
    Now, I am no fan of capitalism, but some very libertarian friends of mine would be quick to point out that capitalism is the one system that embraces complete economic freedom (personally, I think that's complete bullshit in practice - but I understand the theory). But a blended capitalist-socialist economy seems to do a relatively good job of ensuring widespread economic security while still maintaining a high degree of freedom. Is this, then, merely a balancing act?
    
    Or is it possible that capitalism will always lead to drastic imbalance.
    
    To bring this around to the original point, I do believe capitalism (late mercantilism as you referred to it) was a precursor and creator of modern racism. It was designed as a distraction to protect the wealth of the few. This problem is a central theme in Bacon's Rebellion.
    
    So, as a white person living several centuries later, I am still benefitting from the construct known as whiteness. It exists systemically and it exists interpersonally. Sometimes those two work together and sometimes they are independent. But they both exist and are thriving.
    
    And that is an evil thing. That is to confer power and privilege on someone who has not earned it.
    
    -Lance
14. Douglass Says:
    January 23rd, 2007 at 3:00 am Lance: ”Forgive my density, but I am having trouble following your thoughts.
    
    You (d) wrote, "a transfer of power within an anti-human system (dictatorship, capitalism, kleptocracy, authoritarian communism, etc) does not even have the possibility of being connected to the notion of justice or ethics."
    
    I understand what you are saying, but is it the only option - the transfer of power. That supposes that one revolution will merely replace the current power structure with a new one - no better than the last. But what about the possibility of evolution - that power can be redistributed and shared (as in Vegan's claim - power with instead of power over).”
    
    I am asserting that “one revolution will merely replace the current power structure with a new one” in this case. For here, there is no revolution. Rather there is a ‘revolution’ that seeks to rearrange power without undermining the source of the hierarchy; in this case a competitive and rather ruthless economic system.
    
    Lance: “Secondly, why can't it have the possibility of being connected with justice?
    And, since you name every kind of "-ocracy" I am familiar with - and some I am not ("kleptocracy"? - is that some kitschy term for socialism?) “
    
    I certainly did *not* name all –surly you’re familiar with democracy, theocracy, meritocracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, autocracy &, plutocracy, among others.
    
    ... Kleptocracy means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy (as in the case of the late ‘Zaire’) (P.s. I don’t trust wikipedia and refuse to use it except on blogs or other scrappaper, as to convey a base idea)
    
    
    Lance: what are you advocating? Would you support a kind of post-left anarchism?
    
    care to elaborate on ‘post left-anarchism’?
    
    I’m advocating that groups/individuals cannot claim the torch of social activism/revolution/justice while peddling propaganda discouraging one group (in this case‘whites’ in the continental US) from acting in their best interests while enduring an anti-human milieu (in this case, property over people).
    .
    
    Lance: “Finally - and I must admit this is the statement that really through me - you said, "See, I oppose them b/c they are bad press for systematic white supremacy."
    What the hell does that mean? You don't want bad press for systematic white supremacy? Why wouldn't you want bad press for systematic white supremacy? The only people I can think of who don't want bad press for s.w.s. are the white supremacists? “
    
    There is a difference between the decoy white supremacy of the ‘white nationalist’ and the real white supremacy enjoyed by today’s ‘white’ American population. The former is an untenable ideology based on lies and irrational hatreds, the latter is a set of conditions bestowing mild social privileges to ‘whites’ living inside the continental USA. I say mild because whites are divided on significant lines such as class and gender.
    
    
    Lance: “Either I misread you in this statement or I drastically misread your previous statements.
    Assuming I did misread you, I am intrigued to know why you believe that all "-ocracies" are anti-human and why you believe there is no possibility of justice within any of these governmental systems (frankly, dictatorships and authoritarian communist governments are OBVIOUSLY immoral, so I'm not asking about those). SPecifically, I am asking about capitalism and socialism.”
    
    I don’t believe that all ‘ocracies’ are anti-human…..only those that place something before people and their well being, (capitalism;property, theocracy; God Plutocracy; wealth) Direct Democracy & True meritocracy, for example, are not anti-human.
    
    Now, Socialism and capitalism are hardly competing in the usa, but both are not the peachiest of ideologies; Capitalism is based on competition, on getting ahead, on efficiency and on property, not on the well being of people. Socialism is perhaps the most promising ideology I’ve seen thus far, there is at least a utopian impulse. however that comes at the cost of an authoritarian government.
    
    
    lance: “Now, I am no fan of capitalism, but some very libertarian friends of mine would be quick to point out that capitalism is the one system that embraces complete economic freedom (personally, I think that's complete bullshit in practice - but I understand the theory)” But a blended capitalist-socialist economy seems to do a relatively good job of ensuring widespread economic security while still maintaining a high degree of freedom. Is this, then, merely a balancing act? Or is it possible that capitalism will always lead to drastic imbalance?”
    
    
    “complete economic freedom” What? The government controls the medium of exchange, the dollar, which is backed in securities and bonds issued by the government. Did I mention they control the interest rates of those bonds and securities?, Perhaps your libertarian friends are…misled in their concept of complete economic freedom.
    
    On the topic of socialism and capitalism; Remember when the democrats stopped supporting the labor unions? Um, Socialism is dead in the USA, lance
    
    Lance: To bring this around to the original point, I do believe capitalism (late mercantilism as you referred to it) was a precursor and creator of modern racism. It was designed as a distraction to protect the wealth of the few. This problem is a central theme in Bacon's Rebellion.
    
    
    That’s an insightful point about Bacon’s rebellion.
    
    
    Lance: So, as a white person living several centuries later, I am still benefitting from the construct known as whiteness. It exists systemically and it exists interpersonally. Sometimes those two work together and sometimes they are independent. But they both exist and are thriving.
    
    And that is an evil thing. That is to confer power and privilege on someone who has not earned it.”
    
    
    Evil?
    
    I can’t see your meritocracy of power.
    
    White supremacy/white privilege is another way of saying that there is inequality within an unjust source of social power: (race).
    
    &, I’ve established that (unjust) racial power is a manifestation of an unjust economic system; capitalism.
    
    So, to play the brigand w/ words: power double distilled by injustice and spiked with inequality might be perceived as evil, but, only having a problem with inequality in the distribution of the double-distilled evil that is the social significance of race dirties the good name of real justice, real revolution and real social activism.
    
    But, do you propose getting rid of race entirely, as an unjust source of power? And replacing it w/ universal suffrage?
    
    If so, I can at least understand your conviction and respect it
    
    To continue, I gather that there is no meritocracy here, that we are playing a barbaric, competitive, nasty game called capitalism, a game that splinters society along lines related to a game of hot-potato with the division of labor. So, I think it’s a bit silly to assert that it’s an evil thing for one group to act in self-interest while operating in a competition over who can be the richest, over who can be the most efficient in the exploitation of the weak, or the completion of some other evil..
15. Lance Says:
    January 25th, 2007 at 3:00 pm Douglass -
    
    Thanks for the response. Much to think about.
    
    You wrote that you, "certainly did *not* name all –surly you’re familiar with democracy, theocracy, meritocracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, autocracy &, plutocracy, among others.
    
    Sorry about that overstatement. So, you said direct democracy and true meritocracy are not anti-human. I can agree with that, enough to continue anyway.
    
    
    Douglass" "care to elaborate on ‘post left-anarchism’"
    
    Sure - from http://www.aforanarchy.org
    
    This is an anarchist movement that seeks to "return" to true anti-authoritarian anarchy and disconnect itself from traditionally leftist movements (socialism, communism, democratic socialism) or specific causes (peace movements, etc.). From what you said further in your post, I am not sure this fits any longer.
    
    Douglass: "Perhaps your libertarian friends are…misled in their concept of complete economic freedom."
    
    First, let me say, "Obviously." Second, let me say that I shouldn't have said "complete." They would argue that capitalism is the most free economic state. I still disagree with them - it seems that it would naturally result in unearned concentrations of wealth and power.
    
    Douglass: "Um, Socialism is dead in the USA, lance"
    
    Well, maybe on life support, terminally ill.
    
    Douglass: "So, to play the brigand w/ words: power double distilled by injustice and spiked with inequality might be perceived as evil, but, only having a problem with inequality in the distribution of the double-distilled evil that is the social significance of race dirties the good name of real justice, real revolution and real social activism."
    
    I'm not sure. I am not convinced that capitalism predates white (anti-other) racism. I think they are inextricably bound. To oppose one is to oppose the other. They are not mutually exclusive, nor is one a distraction from the other.
    
    Douglass: "But, do you propose getting rid of race entirely, as an unjust source of power? And replacing it w/ universal suffrage?
    
    If so, I can at least understand your conviction and respect it."
    
    Well, yes, eventually. However, I want to distinguish this from some "J.D. Hayworth/George Bush"-style pro-assimilation argument. If all "races" are encouraged to blend and the distinctions are blurred and the use of "race" as a segregating factor is eliminated, and yet the imbalance of power is not addressed, then what I would guess would happen is the dominant group would wipe out the identity of all subordinate (in terms of power) groups.
    
    So I do support the elimination of race as an unjust source of power, but not as a first step.
    
    Douglass: "So, I think it’s a bit silly to assert that it’s an evil thing for one group to act in self-interest while operating in a competition over who can be the richest, over who can be the most efficient in the exploitation of the weak, or the completion of some other evil."
    
    I don't think it's silly at all. Of course it is in the context you wrote. But it is evil for one group to hold down another (in this case, whites over everyone else). I understand your point about the fallibility of the system, but white racism in this country is oppressive, and is therefore evil.
    
    Crap...a bell rang that says I must leave. I will finish soon.
    
    -Lance
16. Douglass Says:
    January 29th, 2007 at 6:05 pm Lance,
    
    you say,
    
    "I'm not sure. I am not convinced that capitalism predates white (anti-other) racism."
    
    But this is a matter of fact, ('ill get to that later)
    
    
    L: "I think they are inextricably bound. To oppose one is to oppose the other. They are not mutually exclusive, nor is one a distraction from the other."
    
    Well, i'm not so sure there. Is whiteness studies' monopoly on a critical, deconstructive approach indiciative that the other races are concerned with deconstruction?
    
    ok, even the crudest agitprop of the type I've been shaming admits that not only does "capitalism predates white (anti-other) racism" but also, it is the source of 'whiteness'
    
    take an excerpt from Sharon Martinas' thoughts on white Priv:
    
    
    Historical Origins of White Privilege
    
    In the early 1600's, 50 wealthy Englishmen bought stock in the Virginia Company of London. Their stock options included large parcels of (indigenous) land in the new colony of Virginia, as well as the right to govern the colony.
    
    These English gentlemen did not intend to work their lands in Virginia. To get workers, they contracted with English merchants who delivered impoverished English teenagers and kidnapped African people. By the second decade of colonization, working servants, both English and African, outnumbered "gentlemen" by perhaps 100 to 1.
    
    Living and working conditions for African and English laborers were horrendous. Workers were regularly whipped, nearly starved to death, denied days of rest, and were refused permission to marry. English servants, who were supposedly protected under English poor laws, had limited times of servitude, but owners disregarded the laws. Those servants who were freed as required, usually died within a few years.
    
    Under these conditions, African and English servants struggled to survive and resist their common oppression. They traded together, they made love together, and they made war together against their masters. Most servants were armed, since the wealthy used their servants to protect the frontiers against "hostile Indians."
    
    Virginia records document ten servant revolts in the mid-1600's, culminating in the famous Bacon's Rebellion of 1676. African and English servants, free workers and farmers, demanded land and pay for their labor. They burned down Jamestown, the colony's capital. Colonial rulers had to call in the British army to subdue the rebellion.
    
    Colonial land-owning legislators responded with a series of Slave Codes, enacted from 1680 through 1705. These codes legalized chattel slavery (the child of an enslaved woman would be enslaved for a lifetime) and severely restricted the rights of free Africans. The codes equated the terms "slave" and "Negro," thus institutionalizing the world's first system of racialized slavery.
    
    The codes also set out the "rights" of and restrictions for "servants." At first, "servants" referred ambiguously to both Africans and English. But as "slave" became synonymous with "Negro," (the Spanish word for "Black,") "servant" came to mean "white," the term which replaced "English," "Christian" or "wench" to refer to poor or indentured Europeans.
    
    As the codes tightened the legal noose around enslaved Africans, they simultaneously loosened the legal bonds on English indentured servants. English or "white" servants were granted specific forms of *privilege* or *preferential treatment* which was specifically denied to slaves, or "Negroes."
    
    For example, the codes stipulated that servants could challenge unjust behavior of their masters in court; servants, both men and women, were entitled to specific "freedom dues," paid in tobacco (the legal tender of the colony) when their term of servitude was over. Servants could get a small plot of land, provided they promised to guard the frontiers. Poor white males were offered the first paid jobs in the colony -- on the slave patrols. They got bounties for every slave they caught. (I think the slave patrol is the institutional ancestor of the police department.)
    
    All these "privileges" were specified as being available only to "white" people. However, if any poor whites acted in solidarity with any Africans, they would be physically branded, and their privileges removed. Thus the term "white" became synonymous with "privilege"* in colonial law.
    
    In conclusion, a study of the historical origin of the term white suggests that:
    
    "White" is a political term. It was specifically created by colonial rulers to prevent oppressed people from different continents from uniting to confront their common oppressors.
    
    "White privilege" is a relational term. It is the other side of the coin of *racial oppression.* In the U.S. white supremacy system, they go together.
    
    White was originally a class term. The privileges of whiteness were first granted by the colonial ruling class only to the poor and servant class of Europeans. Colonial rulers did not need privilege. They had power.
    
    In a few generations, the institutional privileges for the white poor would wipe out the material basis for unity with oppressed Africans, as their daily lives grew further apart. (Bacon's Rebellion was the last multi-racial revolt of the oppressed during the colonial era.)
    
    Colonial rulers used the existence of these privileges to convince poor white people that the little they had was due to their racial superiority, rather than to preferential treatment combined with hard work. The impact of white privilege on white people's daily lives reinforced the ideology of white arrogance and "legitimized" their dehumanization of people of color.
    
    In summary, the system of white privilege for non-ruling class whites reinforces the system of racial oppression against people of color. And the complementary systems of white privilege and racial oppression maintain the system of white power for ruling class whites.
    
    http://www.prisonactivist.org/cws/sharon.html

Leave a Comment