Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth

Welcome to Infoshop News
Saturday, July 31 2010 @ 04:09 PM UTC

An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals

RaceRecent events in which reported progressives and radicals, purposely or ‘unintentionally,’ marginalized people of color, their lives, images, thoughts and struggles — after prompting a ‘what the fuck’ — remind me this seems so familiar. No, you won’t need to tune out the comments about ongoing racism that you always tune out, until a white person says the same thing. To you, white progressive or radical, here are some other thoughts to consider. by apoc from illvox.org

Dearest white progressive/radical,

Recent events in which reported progressives and radicals, purposely or ‘unintentionally,’ marginalized people of color, their lives, images, thoughts and struggles — after prompting a ‘what the fuck’ — remind me this seems so familiar.

No, you won’t need to tune out the comments about ongoing racism that you always tune out, until a white person says the same thing. To you, white progressive or radical, here are some other thoughts to consider.

Your society — and if you’re white, it is your society, regardless of your political pretensions to the contrary — and your way of life are built on a foundation of white supremacy. As a result, history glorifies whites; power is defined by whites; white chauvinism is such that white people assume the right to opine on things they know nothing about and make cultural assumptions about people of color that are misleading, racist and often wrong; and police, no matter how many brown faces you badge up, fundamentally will always act in the service of white power, as they always have. You’ve got it good, for real.

Yet, in a space where enlightenment, compassion and justice are supposed to be seeking a space to flourish, you believe you’re somehow above your society where such white supremacy was spoon-fed to you since birth. Then you take offense when a person of color points out such a fact.

I will spare myself the lecture about the lives people of color lead and the things we face, which you are happily and willfully ignorant of and defensive about. W. E. B. DuBois and a bunch of other people have shed many tears explaining how racism and white supremacy have disfigured this world and made a joke of the concepts of justice and freedom. Reading a book is on you anyway.

I will not bother to throw in all the asterisks about poor whites, everyone being oppressed, whiteness as a political construct and whatever. You’ll be more than happy to dig up qualifiers for racism and your innocence from now through the next Stone Age when you get done reading this.

What gets my goat is your fear.

When confronted, rather than listen openly, you refute any perception of bigotry in your ultra-pure movement or that maybe, just maybe, people of color might have credible/valid points, that even minuscule errors might have been made and you have some work to do. Our effort to candidly communicate issues we see is returned with the posture that you and your movement are above growing, learning or reproach. White privilege has trained you white folks since the spoon that you are an authority, THE authority. You know what’s best and right, whether you say it openly or not, because you’re white.

True power is never having to wonder how the world is perceived by someone different than you, having the luxury of manipulating that someone’s experience in whatever way you deem appropriate, and sitting pretty amid a status that is far better than people of color, and thinking you got here because you stuck to the Protestant work ethic of working hard. You have been educated and given messages, oh nice white progressive/radical, your entire life that people of color don’t know our history and experiences and can’t possibly have the tools to critically understand the world around us or your behavior. You practice the teaching every day that we people of color are here for your use. Maybe it was not worded that way, but it is certainly the outcome.

When people of color raise a criticism of your practice, rather than listen to the spirit of the matter, you play pilgrim and go for the smallpox blankies. Throwing in ad hominem attacks on people of color rather than addressing the issues solves nothing, but sure distracts people. So does chatting up what you assume of our personalities and politics, or rather what you want to paint as an extension of what we believe, even though chances are you have absolutely no clue what we really think. Don’t believe me? You’re picking apart the language in this essay right now — throwing in buts, discrediting comments with any minor example that contradicts a statement and figuring out every tactic to cling to your alleged superiority. It happens. White privilege has taught its subjects to do this all the time.

Typically, your goal is not discussion, but to win, destroy and one-up at any cost. Anything smelling of an admission of fault is always layered under such a large heap of self-righteous bullshit that it reminds us, with you at least, an apology is never an apology at all. People of color commenting about racism and marginalization are always without merit, and are negative, irrational, authoritarian, not precise enough, liars, reverse racists — you name it. Our disinterest in recanting our concerns about racism and then fetching massa a pillow so we can make you feel comfortable in your privileged position are cast by you as callous. You did nothing wrong, of course. It’s all in our heads. You are progressive or radical. Thus you are cleansed and above question from the colored people or anybody else you deem below you. You and your white activist pals dismiss us, as you always do, and go on about your day.

News flash: you’re not a victim, but a participant and collaborator in white supremacy. People of color have seen your behavior a thousand times reenacted by your fellow whites, ‘good’ and ‘bad,’ since our childhoods. Your attempts to shrug off, explain away, ignore, disrespect and act out are not original or progressive or radical. It’s completely arrogant and pretentious to think you are unique. You are just another white person who benefits from the powerlessness of people of color, and does so proudly and without remorse or regard. Save the blankie, William Bradford. People far smarter and more politically mature than you have been doing the shame-and-blame for centuries, and probably sounded smarter and more mature doing it then than you do now.

When people of color talk about acknowledgment and respect for people of color, you talk about how the movement can’t grow by focusing on ’small’ struggles, but how big tent issues (unity, class, feminism, war, etc.) play better with ‘people,’ who happen to be as white as you. No matter how crippling and prejudiced, you throw out false universals and analogies to fit the experiences of people of color into what point you must prove. Dare I point out the ‘ruling class’ you gnash your teeth over adores your loyalty to white privilege most of all? Nah.

You fail to grasp how, of all the issues you or I hold dear, whites in literally every case are the least impacted adversely among populations. You take for granted how white privilege shapes your world view and blanch at the suggestion that you hear out and take advice from people of color, who are often far more affected than you will ever be by a political situation, regardless of their social status or yours. You bleating about gender and class and anything else you can think of, fair-skinned one, sounds like one of many diversionary tactics used to deflect many an honest conversation about race. Still, you talk about your big tent. The problem is, when Third World people focus on white supremacy, whites take their crap and camp elsewhere.

Despite all this, you remain terrified.

It’s as if being the center of the political, historical, psychological, economic and military universe is not enough for you. The fear of looking over the castle wall of white privilege and acknowledging a fuckup grips you with the kind of discomfort no Black man walking into one of your hallowed meetings ever could. Saying white privilege is an issue is like saying you molest mountain goats on a regular basis. Saying a person of color has something to say that you should and WILL listen to and act on is like asking for a goddamn kidney. Woe be it to the person of color if one of you admits a mistake though. Then we have to kiss your ass (and the whites you vouch for) as the “good white people” ’til we’re both pushing walkers down the street.

For the vast number of people of color, just getting a concession is victory enough, let alone thinking YOU actually then do some work out of this deal.

I am almost inclined to qualify my comments as matters that are not about guilt, but rather of political principle. A few people of color defend you as a matter of political principle. Many more take your side because they know how power works and want a cut of the action, but I will leave it up to you to figure out which person of color is rocking which side of that equation. The ones who speak on your behalf on either end, I assure you, take endless shit from other people of color for being sellouts and having faith in their ‘hippie cracker friends.’ You don’t know about that, mostly, nor do or should you care. It’s not something you have to worry about after all. Those people of color who staked their political credibility on your smug asses get what we deserve. Still, it would be nice to think if you lived the politics you say you believe in, as they do, you would step it up a bit.

Other than that, I have absolutely no solutions to offer you. I can throw up resources for hours, but until you’re ready to make the break with white privilege and white supremacy on your own, no book or website I write about will help you. Until that time, you’re just one of those white people living off our backs, talking loud and saying nothing, like plenty before you.

Now before I go and you let the swords out like you just landed on the ‘New World,’ I could have written this letter like a doctoral thesis, citing Cornell West and Eduardo Galleano and all that. I doubt it would have made a difference, so I wrote it like I saw it. Generallly, people of color like me lost faith in you and your ilk long ago and don’t bother saying anything. We just refuse to trust anything you say or do. I’m surprised I gave you this much of my time.

Instances of racism from white progressives and radicals like we see now are not new. People of color have confronted, struggled with and discussed whites for decades. Still, progressive and radical movements are overwhelmingly white, and the unwillingness by Caucasians to let white privilege rule is a strong as it ever was, if not stronger. Some of us feel the effort we put into working with you far outweighs the benefits because there are more whites that stab us in the back than act as our allies. Always has been that way, and always probably will be that way under your society.

If you care to prove me wrong, be my guest. Maybe I am incorrect in that analysis, but I doubt it.

Oh yeah. Fuck Seal Press and Kevin Tucker.

Signed,

Another Anonymous Person of Color for illvox.org
Share
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Ask
  • Kirtsy
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Twitter
  • SlashDot
  • Reddit
  • MySpace
  • Fark
  • Del.icio.us
  • Blogmarks
  • Yahoo Buzz

Trackback

Trackback URL for this entry: http://news.infoshop.org/trackback.php?id=20080506232456151

Here's what others have to say about 'An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals':
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals | 45 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: HPWombat on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 02:52 AM UTC
Hey illivox.org,

Why are you publishing this bullshit? I've read your argument with Kevin Tucker. You make assumptions about other people and how "privileged" they are. I am guilty of the same thing, but usually it is more about an assumption of "middle class", which I assume illivox.org is dominated by. These vanguardists keep complaining about how white people they have real political disagreements with make them feel stupid. Its called politics illivox.org! Those that don't agree with you politically are going to not be nice to you...and you want to give your political rivals "advice"? Advice after you defended a POC caucus's decision to dictate to the anarchist movement about what they can and can't do based on their own self-centered and self-important interpretation of right and wrong. Fuck that shit.

---
Think your shit don't stink? Come over to anti-politics.net/forum for a critical discussion on how irrelevant you really are.
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: Al Ligator on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 03:38 AM UTC
There are alot of issues that come up about race that have alot of validity that white radicals should pay attention to, obviously, as a natural step to combating white supremacy. Racism just like sexism is ingrained in our culture, and sometimes we do not notice it within ourselves. But I must say that I have really never been impressed with what I hear come out of APOC, and especially the whole new controversy surrounding the "Go Light" pamphlet - not one argument made against the pamphlet seemed even half-way valid.
I'm sure there are some rad folks who probably work with the group but I have never came across anything that really honestly pushed me and some things don't even come across as anarchist. So - APOC, you still leave something to be desired.
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: ScavengerType on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 04:58 AM UTC
I'm surprized infoshop is publishing this. If taken as "An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals," to quote the title of the article, it is racist. But since the author clearly makes reference to whom he is jadedly fighting with we can tell the title is just a lure to make us read this rant of yours.
What purpose does being defensive serve?
Authored by: kraffft on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 05:42 AM UTC
As a white male anarchist that's been active for ten years and thought about race and white supremacy issues on a near daily basis, I appreciated the letter. You made some good points I have never heard before, in particular the 'hippie cracker' paragraph.

I'd like to encourage other white folks that are open to hearing criticism to create habits and structures for working on these issues. Don't let guilt, powerlessness, or confusion overcome you, and cause you to look away. Bring up conversations about race with everyone you know, and find out who you can have further mutually constructive conversations with.
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: Why on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 08:20 AM UTC
In the future will Infoshop kindly post my random rants against people who I have no desire to have dialoug with but would rather write some one-sided non-sensical diatribe about?

The author is not talking about "white supremacy." The author is talking about "western civilization" or rather "authoritarianism." All authoritarian cultures projected their culture this way. For the longest time 'whites' were indeed the 'race' of people perpetuating their culture on the world (see 'white' colonialism), but if we look at current trends the 'white' man is no longer even the richest 'race' by numbers. And this will be increasingly the trend as the *culture* of authoritarianism spreads around the world.

It's this one sided "issues only" viewpoint which is why the movement is completely shattered into pieces. Some people focus on saving animals, others focus on unions or coops or gardening and still others focus on race, gender, sex and so on.

Anarchism isn't one fucking issue, which is why I've stayed out of this banal he-said-she-said all this time. WTF is wrong with you people?

In the words of my generation, "Why can't we all just get along?"
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: HPWombat on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 11:16 AM UTC
Good Points Why, especially on culture. I'd say I strongly agree with this.

---
Think your shit don't stink? Come over to anti-politics.net/forum for a critical discussion on how irrelevant you really are.
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: abedford on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 08:30 AM UTC
As a white male middle classed raised anarchist living in Canada, I have to admit that I just don't have the facilities to see the world from so differing viewpoints. Whether or not I agree with the content of the letter is of little importance, but the ability to accept criticism, swallow my pride, consider another's viewpoint, and really challenge myself is the staple of what I view as being a "progressive". If (big if) I held an opposing opinion, and even if I could prove it 100%, 100 times over, that does nothing to change how this individual feels, and I feel that we need to accept that and work with it.

I don't think i have the right or the ability to decide who is or is not oppressed, hurt, mistreated, etc.

There are lots of great points raised in this letter, and I hope anyone who reads it takes a minute to sit and think it through.
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: Positive_anarchy on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 08:45 AM UTC
The issues brought up are extremely important and the person who wrote this probably has been alienated by white anarchist culture. Which is extremely understandable. Numerous anarchists all the time do slightly sexist or racists things. We are some times way better then the normal culture but at the same time we are also just as bad.

We have shit to work on and thats one of the first steps I think to not being complacent.

But assumptions that we are all the same isnt positive and I dont think you can work on someones racism through an open letter like this. I dont come from a "middle-class" back round and thats one of the big motivations why I want to destroy capitalism. If someone who I had personal ties with called me out I think it'd be a lot more welcomed.

I think you have to understand that person a lot to even start this conversation. An example, is a friend of mine, in the local anarchist circle in Frederick said some extremely classists comments if I didnt know them I would have never had a positive conversation about the issue and ultimately with attempting to work on the issue.

BTW its not racist, racism is a form of oppression, so how is this oppressing you? Perhaps prejudice but not racist.

We should still take this persons views into consideration and still work on this shit! Though, I think it takes multiple minds to solve this problem especially when you come from a certian back round.
How do I drop my White privledge?
Authored by: ecr on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 11:35 AM UTC
Suppose I agree whole-heartedly that this is an issue, running rather than facing accusations of privilege. The author states that "until [I am] ready to make the break with white privilege and white supremacy on [my] own...."

You offer no solutions or even suggestions. I am honestly asking, what can I do? I cannot erase my past and, more importantly, I cannot change the color of my skin. Racism and white dominance is built into political, social, and economic systems and no matter how I feel, they still perceive me as white, bestowing whatever benefits they bestow....

What am I supposed to do other than acknowledge and remain sensitive to it
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: HPWombat on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 11:51 AM UTC
We See Color and it Fucking Matters

Illivox.org's writers want to confront existing anarchist practice. This article is about them participating with Earth First!

I'm not sure what APOC is anymore, but they do ask Earth First for support in POC activist causes as a way of bridging the "gap".

---
Think your shit don't stink? Come over to anti-politics.net/forum for a critical discussion on how irrelevant you really are.

An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: Cornelius on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 12:53 PM UTC
It's ironic that a lot of these comments completely reinforce the issues brought up in the letter: charging that the author is "racist", that race isn't the issue, that the letter is too angry, etc. I am also surprised that people on this site still use a Jr. High school textbook definition of racism to label any anger directed at white people as racist, or to assume that since a handful of people of color have relatively profited off of domination that racism must not be the issue any more. I mean, obviously the War in Iraq is not imbued with glaringly racist implications from top to bottom since Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice helped execute it, right? Wrong. Hegemony is the means by which the dominant group exercises control over the subordinate group by bringing the subordinate group into the process. It might look different with some token people of color in positions of authority, but the underlying power structure remains as the legacy of colonialism. And pointing this shit out is not just some "issue only" "shatter the movement into pieces" diatribe. Its not single issue activism when the issue is connected to other issues and to a over arching critique of hierarchy and systemic oppression. If we can't start to recognize our weaknesses as a movement, we will be doomed to run around in circles like liberals. I think it should be obvious that patterns of white supremacy and white domination within an anarchist movement constitute weaknesses.

In resonse to ecr, I will first point out that a major point in the Letter was that it is not the job of people of color to tell white people how to overcome their internalized lust for power. White supremacy is our shortcoming and problem, and it is our responsibility to strategize on how to dismantle it. So, in that spirit, a couple quick thoughts from one white person to another. Its true that you can't just deny or wish away your privilege, which is what an awful lot of folks try to do. Openly acknowledging privilege and being aware of how it plays out is a good start. But you can also abstain from consciously using your privilege in ways that reinforce privileges. So calling the police anytime you feel threatened both cashes in your privilege of not being inherently criminalized by pigs, and also reinforces the role of pigs (a racist institution) in society. Instead, maybe learn ways to defend yourself or your community. That one is fairly obvious but its still to early for me to come up with other examples. Another tactic is using your privilege to support the work and struggles of people and communities that don't have your privilege. During the American Indian Movement occupation of Wounded Knee in 1973, a white pilot used his access to an airplane to air drop food and supplies to the AIM people who were surrounded by the pigs, allowing the occupation to continue. Or since your skin color affords you less scrutiny while shoplifting (if thats your thing), maybe you could see what various people of color groups need in the way of office supplies, etc. Again, just a few obvious examples. Ultimately its about supporting struggles led by people of color, and confronting that nasty habits that us white people have developed.
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: HPWombat on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 12:57 PM UTC
No...the point of the letter was to say "Fuck Kevin Tucker" everything else is just justification for running off the mouth.

---
Think your shit don't stink? Come over to anti-politics.net/forum for a critical discussion on how irrelevant you really are.
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: Admin on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 01:17 PM UTC
Yeah, one of the motivations was probably to diss Kevin Tucker.

I haven't had time to but skim part of the communique above, but I want to respond to several of Cornelius' comments. He makes several good points, but also some serious jaw-droppingly bad remarks. One of the problems I have with Cornelius' comments is that as a white person, he adopts this PC stance where he is speaking for people of color. I'm pretty tired of white activists who jump on these bandwagons, pick up some of the jargon, and then proceed to guilt-trip and annoy other white activists.

White anarchists are "lusting for power"? What the fuck! Dude, there isn't any power in the anarchist movement. We still have a rather marginal movement without much power to speak of. I also don't get this line about a "white-dominated" anarchist movement. You are confusing the demographics of the U.S. anarchist movement--which pretty much reflect the greater society--with some kind of anarcho white supremacy. Look, there are plenty of ways for anarchists of any color to plug into the movement and do their own thing. If you find opposition to what you want to do, it mostly takes the form of stupid sectarianism. Most anarchists I know are very open and supportive towards new projects and new people. I think that most of this hostility towards white anarchists reflects coastal leftist attitudes which are based on mistrust of other radicals. This is why guilt-tripping is allowed to grow and spread. It's hard to guilt-trip other radicals who are open, supportive and want to talk with you.

Cornelius scores some points for providing some good examples.

Chuck0
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: HPWombat on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 01:30 PM UTC
Yeah, Cornelius does have some good points.

---
Think your shit don't stink? Come over to anti-politics.net/forum for a critical discussion on how irrelevant you really are.
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: anony mouse on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 01:45 PM UTC
"There isn't any power in the anarchist movement"? Chuck0, I usually think your comments to be thoughtful and insightful, but you've got to be kidding me.

no power in the anarchist movement?
So there is no sexual violence in the movement?
nobody has ever felt marginalized, excluded, talked-down or unsafe?
and, oh, we are against racism so we obviously can't be racist.

come on. anarchism is ABOUT a critique of power, something we exercise and is exercised against us daily based on our position in society, whether we like it or not. Unless we are willing to apply a critique of power to ourselves we will never have a truly anarchist movement.

most of the objections I've seen written about the above article are essentially political in nature. they may or may not be valid. But, I think the point is, we cannot even begin to have POLITICAL discussions with others whom we wish to be our comrades until we are able to establish relationships of respect and trust, something that I have seen white people (and I am speaking as one of them) fail to do over and over again in relation to colonized people (people of color).

ALL OF OUR SHIT STINKS.


An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: Admin on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 03:56 PM UTC
>> "There isn't any power in the anarchist movement"? Chuck0, I usually think your comments to be thoughtful and insightful, but you've got to be kidding me.

I like to think that my bullshit detector is usually working, but I'll stand by my words, with one caveat: there is some minor power around the anarchist movement and that it manifests itself in ways that aren't being talked about here.

One thing that annoys me just as much as the retarded bullshit about "lifestyle anarchism" is this shrill whining about "privilege" and "power" in the *anarchist movement.* People, in their zeal to guilt trip white activists and gain power over them (hey, there's some power that we aren't talking about), confuse the power dynamics in the greater white supremacist (and patriarchal and etc.) society with the power dynamics in the anarchist movement. True, we all bring that baggage from the greater society, but remember that most people identify as anarchists because they oppose these problems and want to do something differently. I'm very much interested in talking about these issues in the context of the anarchist movement, but I have problems with the way that some people want to frame the debate. Many of us want to openly discuss these issues, while others want to guilt trip and blame other white anarchists.

"no power in the anarchist movement?"

There is some power in the anarchist movement, but let's be realistic here, the anarchist movement doesn't have much power. What irritates the fuck out of me is that somebody look at those of us who are more prominent and accuse us of having power. Let's be realistic: what I have is lots of responsibility and lots of headaches. On most days recently, I would rather walk away from all of this.

"So there is no sexual violence in the movement?"

Logical fallacy. Nobody ever argued this. In fact, there is sexual violence in the movement.

"nobody has ever felt marginalized, excluded, talked-down or unsafe?"

Sure, this happens all of the time. Speaking for myself, I could write a small book about the times I've been attacked, marginalized, cop-baited, and threatened by other anarchists. If people want to talk about this, then is has to be understood that these things happen to all of us, some of us more than others. I've always wanted to build a movement that was against these things, but one of my great disappointments with the anarchist movement has been how shitty people treat each other. If we are going to work on challenging these problems within the movement, then we all need to understand that all of us have experienced different problems. You can't just lump all white anarchists males together and think that you've identified the problem.

"and, oh, we are against racism so we obviously can't be racist."

We can play these semantic word games for years. I don't consider myself to be racist. I know that I'm part of a racist system of white supremacy which gives me special privileges. I respond to that by being an anarchist and doing stuff to change things.

"come on. anarchism is ABOUT a critique of power, something we exercise and is exercised against us daily based on our position in society, whether we like it or not. Unless we are willing to apply a critique of power to ourselves we will never have a truly anarchist movement."

Oh brother. Anarchism is about a critique of power, but our focus should be on those with POWER, not on those of us who may have small amounts of vague power in some social circle. This is where I judge the efficacy of the anarchist movement. When we were outwardly focused, we were doing stuff like the post-Seattle movement. When we navelgaze and label each other, then we quickly become an uncomfortable movement that *nobody* want to be around.

"most of the objections I've seen written about the above article are essentially political in nature. they may or may not be valid. But, I think the point is, we cannot even begin to have POLITICAL discussions with others whom we wish to be our comrades until we are able to establish relationships of respect and trust, something that I have seen white people (and I am speaking as one of them) fail to do over and over again in relation to colonized people (people of color)."

You are free to take whatever approach works for you. I prefer to just have discussions with people and try and trust them from the outset.

Chuck0
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: anony mouse on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 04:49 PM UTC
Chuck0, I think what you are identifying as "semantic word games" are actually very important conceptual differences related to our understanding of power.

So maybe we should try to clarify our terminology. When you say that the anarchist movement "has little power", I am assuming you mean political power - power to influence the direction of society. Insofar as that's what you are saying, I agree with you. But when I talked about power (above), that's not what I was getting at. Power also manifests in our interpersonal interactions all the time. This is why I used the example of sexual violence - which is ALL about power - and of people being marginalized, excluded, etc. And to say that people are marginalized, silenced, excluded, etc. due to white privilege does not preclude all of the other ways that people are oppressed and marginalized.

To say we need to combat white privilege does NOT mean that your experiences of being marginalized, excluded or oppressed are illegitimate - but neither does it make white supremacy and white power any less of an important issue - to combat politically, systematically AND interpersonally.

As anarchists, we have developed alot of tools to minimize the ways that all systems of power manifest within our communities, from decentralization, to consensus process to safe spaces, etc. These tools are really important and we use them precisely BECAUSE power is a pitfall that constantly reasserts itself (consciously or not) and needs to be dealt with. (For further examination of this I suggest David Graeber's "Fragments of an Anarchist Anthrapology") We should be proud of these tools and the ingenuity that's gone into developing them over decades of struggle, just as we should be proud of our commitment to end all forms of domination and oppression.

But being committed to ending domination does not mean that we have actually done so - in fact, all of us, as people born into this society (and austensibly, still living in it - as much as we might wish to escape) carry around alot of baggage -ideas, attitudes and behaviors - that genuinely limit our ability to act as allies and join with others who are engaged in struggles for liberation.

That is why it is so important that white people (again, I am one of them) incorporate anti-racist, anti-white supremacist AND anti-white privilege practices into our communities and struggles. Otherwise, we continue to (unwittingly, perhaps) recreate the kinds of power relationships we claim to wish to destroy.

The imperative to be combat white-privilege and white-supremacy is not, and should not be, driven by guilt, but out of our desire to create a truly libertarian society in which everyone is able to equally participate - and to create a movement capable of realizing this. Such a movement, as all movements, has to be based on relationships, which can only be built on trust and respect - something that, you are right, we should all be capable of engaging in.

But even beginning this project means we all need to act and speak with a little humility.



An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: Admin on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 05:01 PM UTC
When I was writing about the lack of power in the anarchist movement, I was thinking both about external power to influence society and the power that exists within the movement in terms of intrapersonal relationships.

I think a case could be made that the anarchist movement does have power in terms of the political power to influence politics and society beyond our movement. We do have more power than other leftist groups. The police spend millions of dollars to contain our little protests. That means we have power. We've managed to change policies and laws through activism--take the lower power radio movement for example.

As for power within the movement, I'm going to take a new tack and argue that the problems that are being described *within* the movement aren't as much about racism and sexism, as they are about people bringing in the whole smorgasbord of bad ways of relating from capitalist society. I think that the anarchist movement should be welcoming and as inclusive as possible. Much of my activism within the movement over the years has been about inclusion. This website is known as the home of "big tent anarchism," which is about inclusion, much to the consternation of sectarians who have created alternative projects which are mostly marginal.

If we really want to talk about social dynamics within the movement that alienate, oppress and marginalize people, then let's put everything on the table. I can talk at length about how other anarchists marginalize me because of my age. Or I could talk about how people marginalize me as a white male, making assumptions about me as a person that have little basis in reality. Or I could talk about the intolerant things I hear from anarchists and progressives about my sexuality.

Yeah, it gets complicated. It gets that was when you get down to the individual level, which starts breaking apart generalizations about "people of color" or "white anarchists."

Chuck
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: anony mouse on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 05:49 PM UTC
"If we really want to talk about social dynamics within the movement that alienate, oppress and marginalize people, then let's put everything on the table."

I couldn't agree with you more. But "putting everything on the table" does not mean reducing every form of power and privilege to abstract ideas of hierarchy and oppression (and I am not saying that you, Chuck, are doing this - but I have noticed this in other comments posted in response to this story).

Like I said, aknowledging and confronting white power and privilege does not preclude aknowledging and confronting other forms of marginalization and oppression - and in fact, as others have pointed out, all of these forms of oppression are related. I would argue this is not a diversion from anarchist struggle, it is an integral part of it.

The author of this letter states: "When confronted, rather than listen openly, you refute any perception of bigotry in your ultra-pure movement or that maybe, just maybe, people of color might have credible/valid points, that even minuscule errors might have been made and you have some work to do. Our effort to candidly communicate issues we see is returned with the posture that you and your movement are above growing, learning or reproach." This accusation could not have been more thoroughly born out in many of the comments that have thus far been posted.

We live in a world that has been thoroughly shaped by white supremacy (and, yes, patriarchy, heterosexism, etc) and, frankly, unless we white people (I am speaking for myself) explicitly take steps to combat this not just systemically, not just rhetorically, but in our behavior, we constantly risk alienating others with whom we really ought to be allies. And, I don't think, any of us will achieve liberation unless we do develop relationships between our struggles and our communities that supersede our differences. So, to dismiss the lived experience and criticism of people who have been affected by what they percieve to be real problems within our movement is in my view to shoot ourselves in the foot. Which is not to say that their view on things is necessarily correct, but it at least warrants thoughtful consideration.

Like I said, we all need to speak and act with some humility.
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: hereandelsewhere on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 01:50 PM UTC
Long time Infoshop reader, first time poster....

I registered in order to comment on this thread, but I will just second all of what Cornelius said rather than repeating that.

Even for a few anonymous internet comments, it's sad that the defensive responses to this open letter are all foreseen within the open letter itself:

  • Accusations of reverse racism ( ScavengerType: "it is racist" );
  • Calling racism a "single-issue" (Why: "this one sided 'issues only' viewpoint which is why the movement is completely shattered into pieces");
  • The demand for qualifiers about white people not all being the same (Positive_anarchy: "assumptions that we are all the same isnt positive").
  • The denial that white anarchists are given power/privilege by their whiteness (Chuck0: "there isn't any power in the anarchist movement.")

Speaking as a white anarchist, I think we have a looooooooong way to go in our discussions of race, as the above comments make evident.

It is high-time white anarchists step up in anti-racist ways, and stop letting the burden fall to APOC to always have to be the ones raising the importance of race. White anarchists are good at boxing nazis (e.g. ARA), but we really lack the larger institutional analysis - its time we began a discussion of what that analysis means for action, as Cornelius does above.

Furthermore, the culture of progressive/leftist "white anti-racism" (which is big in my city) needs a more radical analysis; as white anarchists, we can't keep allowing white liberals in government and non-profits to have a monopoly on the discussion of "white anti-racism."

An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: Admin on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 04:07 PM UTC
"The demand for qualifiers about white people not all being the same (Positive_anarchy: "assumptions that we are all the same isnt positive")."

All white people aren't the same and this is especially the case with white anarchists. First of all, "white people" includes women, who experience different levels of oppression and violence and disempowerment based on facotrs ranging from their class to their education and work lives. Then there are queer white anarchists. Plenty of white anarchist men have to deal with forms of oppression, most commonly in the workplace, or from families who expect them to be the principal breadwinners.

"The denial that white anarchists are given power/privilege by their whiteness (Chuck0: "there isn't any power in the anarchist movement.") "

See my above comments. I stick by my words, mainly because there isn't much power in the anarchist movement.

"Speaking as a white anarchist, I think we have a looooooooong way to go in our discussions of race, as the above comments make evident."

I agree, but my way of talking about this will be different.

"It is high-time white anarchists step up in anti-racist ways, and stop letting the burden fall to APOC to always have to be the ones raising the importance of race. White anarchists are good at boxing nazis (e.g. ARA), but we really lack the larger institutional analysis - its time we began a discussion of what that analysis means for action, as Cornelius does above."

I agree that anarchists need to step up their anti-racist ways, if there is some kinf of general problem with this (we are making assumptions based on any quantifable evidence), but I disagee that white anarchists have been deficient in bringing up the importance of race. To argue that white anarchists aren't doing this ignores the vast quantity of evidence that proves otherwise. White anarchists have been constantly bringing up issues of race--this can be seen on Internet forums, magazine articles, books, movies, solidarity work, and a shitload of activism.

Chuck0
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: ScavengerType on Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 11:12 PM UTC
"Your society
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: Why on Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 08:24 PM UTC
Hmm, you're misrepresenting what I'm saying. I'm saying focusing on one issue, in this case, 'race,' is dissuading the authors from actually creating dialog about the actual issue here (authoritarianism) which just so happens to supersede 'race.' And that in other cases, focusing on the environment and such, will result in a similar single issue focus without any desire for extended dialog.

I corrected the authors concept of "white supremecy." I think others need to think real hard about what the author is saying and how it doesn't apply to the actual and real authoritarianism that exists around the world.
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: veranasi on Wednesday, June 04 2008 @ 11:08 PM UTC
I know this is old news. I'm trying to write an essay and I'm looking for alternative viewpoints. I came across this one and saw my friend positive_anarchy called out. The most interesting part about calling out positive_anarchy is that you don't know the person at all. From an anti-oppression standpoint, to generalize any experience is oppressive. Generalizing the white experience, which is something many white folks do from instinct is severely frowned upon. But, if someone is going to play the identity politics game, it's really important that you realize there are many identities.

You can't frame race in the debate of white, latino, black, etc. You can't do this because at it's very nature it marginalizes cultures, including "white" cultures marginalized within white society. That's not a justification for white supremacy, it's a matter of fact. It's actually one of those places where oppressed peoples can meet.

Does white supremacy exist? Yes. Where does this whole debate go wrong? P_a, my close friend, is a "person of color." He is considered an HIV risk by the government, to the white nationalist he is a product of race mixing, and yes, he's poor as dirt. He shares hallway to and a laundry room with 2 other brothers. And one of his brothers literally sleeps on an ironing board. So why does he deny his person of colorage? Because despite who he is, his experiences and whatever, he's light skinned. Too dark for the white nationalist, too light for anyone else. Is this wrong?

I think people should identify as what they wish. But, there's an issue people have to deal with.

I have no doubt that if P_a wore his race on his sleeve, he would recieve common tokenage (like a caucus set up by swell allies) and a small bit of power among white middle class anarchists who are desperate to find themselves rid of their guilt. But he won't. And he'll probably remain anonymous on that part of himself. And there lies the overall problem. The critique asks for power because of their oppression and demands that tokenization is improper. The worst part is that almost all of the critique is based on large generalizations of individuals with their own individual experiences, identities, etc.

I have my own experiences, I'm anglo-saxon, have ridiculous privilege and I believe in collective liberation, but it has nothing to do with the rest of the anarchists in the "community" but very personal interests. If we don't figure out a way to stop fighting and examine our common interests then we won't get anywhere. This means we can't throw racist around like a simple pejorative. In my opinion, that initiative lies on both side of this debate.
This is not my society ...
Authored by: Marja on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 02:21 PM UTC
Race isn't everything. I happen to be of European descent. I am a trans woman. I face more severe discrimination, and potentially violence, than most black people. The suggestion that this inwindatha is my society is so wrong it's offensive.

This society hardly glorifies Europeans anyway. It glorifies certain cultures, notably ancient Mediterranean and modern Western European cultures, and condemns other cultures, including ancient northern, central, and eastern European cultures.

I don't take offense when someone, African, European, south Asian, east Asian, Native American or Australian Aborigine, or mixed, points out discrimination against his/her people, his/her biological ancestors, or his/her cultural forebears (who may not be the same people). I take offense when someone insults me or insults almost any cultural group. And I take offense when someone blames those of us who face discrimination for that discrimination.

When one of your premises is 2+2=5, and you predict that your opponents will say 2+2 does not =5, and your opponents say 2+2 does not =5, they are right and you are wrong.

When you begin with insults and falsehoods, and say people will take offense at your statements, and people take offense at your statements, they are right and you are wrong.

This letter is not helping us fight racism. It is calling for discussion with one hand while poisoning the discourse with the other.
This is not my society ...
Authored by: Admin on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 04:41 PM UTC
Excellent points.

"This letter is not helping us fight racism. It is calling for discussion with one hand while poisoning the discourse with the other."

I think that the above letter is important, in that is demonstrates that some people are upset about racism within the movement and want to wake people up about their concerns. We can take issue with their style of articulating their concerns, but I think we should all respect that the authors have concerns and feel connected enough to our movement to share their thoughts and analysis.

You do make an interesting point about "poisoning the discourse," which is very descriptive, but perhaps a bit strong. You have put your finger on the dynamics of how these discussions within the movement go into a highly artificial and dogmatic direction. Instead of having a heart-to-heart, organic discussion about race and racism in the movement, we reify the discussion and overvalue one way of conducting the discussion. This is what I'm reacting against in my above comments, this idea that there are only certain methods of having these discussions. Those of us who object are then identified as being part of the problem. What we need to understand is that anarchists have different ways of talking about the problem of racism.

Chuck
This is not my society ...
Authored by: Marja on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 04:55 PM UTC
Some further thoughts:

I may have strayed too far in comparing my oppression with others' oppression. We each face different kinds and degrees of oppression. These are subjective, so that some forms may clearly be more oppressive than other forms, while some forms may be more oppressive to one person and less oppressive to another. These are each worth fighting. These affect all people involved: the oppressors, the oppressed, and those indirectly affected.

Speaking of privilege does not help. It hints at benefiting the hardest-hit groups at the expense of the "privileged" groups, many of whose members may not be privileged at all, and most of whose members already have their own problems. Speaking of rights, equality, etc. may seem liberal/reformist, but it speaks of creating alternatives for all people, particularly, but not exclusively, those hardest-hit.
This is not my society ...
Authored by: Why on Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 08:31 PM UTC
This is *exactly* why I pointed out that authoritarianism is the culprit for these basic behaviors. You can find examples like this everywhere, even within the same race. By blaming all the problems on one single spurious issue, we *neglect* people like you.

I *admit* that as a white male things are far far easier for me. But by the same token I don't "blame" "white people" for the problems I see with our society. I blame a self-perpetuating culture of authoritarianism.
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: rechelon on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 06:02 PM UTC
To focus on one aspect of the above discussion:

"True power is never having to wonder how the world is perceived by someone different than you"

What gets my goat is just how little those who play various identity cards are usually interested in putting themselves in other people's shoes and examining different viewpoints beyond the most superficial characterizations.

Indeed, as the above quote shows, seeing things from other people's perspectives has been framed as an assault on the sanctity of one's own viewpoint. A horrible thing that POC must suffer, while those with white privilege can get off "scott free."

To the contrary, as anarchists empathy and the drive to understand one another must be front and center or everything we claim to support is impossible. Trying to understand other perspectives is a GOOD thing. It's what many white activists have been arrogantly refusing to do. That's the problem. And framing the language to portray it the other way around really pisses me off. Just because an activist has white skin doesn't mean that she hasn't deeply investigated, immersed herself in, and sought to reconcile with other viewpoints. Similarly just because someone is of color doesn't mean that they inherently have a better understanding of the various perspectives or of that of the white activist. It should not be the end of the world or a horrible demand if the white activists asks the POC to consider or investigate her/someone else's perspective further.

Yes, it's outrageous that most people with white skin choose not to wonder how the world is perceived by others. Just as it is outrageous that POC are in many ways to some degrees FORCED to recognize and work around other perspectives. But the end goal is to abolish both that coercion AND to increase such investigative empathy on all sides. And just because our horrific hierarchical society has forced POC to constantly deal with certain overarching racist perspectives endemic throughout the presumptions that underlie our society in no way means that there is nothing more to learned regarding other perspectives.

Certainly in our society people of color are forced to subsume themselves in systems predicated on certain racist perspectives, but recognizing those social perspectives does not equate understanding the actual perspectives of people on the ground--that is to say those who "benefit" from such systematic perspectives.

The system's effective perspective does not equate its constituents perspectives, which are usually far deeper (and more diverse) in structure and nuance (although not for the better). Addressing and thinking you understand such perspectives from a systematic analysis is really weak tea.

"White privilege" is no such absolutist or simple a thing. And addressing issues of such importance in such shallow and dismissive/aggressive broad strokes does violent disservice to any hope for liberation.


...Oh noes, I responded to an attack on white privilege with a call for greater nuance! Horrors!

I must obviously mean to hamhandedly deflect any imperative for internal and external growth on the part of white activists, mire the discussion in meaningless shallow exceptions, and generally dumb down the potency of our response to power, hierarchy, smug presumption, and defensive power.

Obviously. Because who knows what would happen if calling for greater nuance was a legitimate action in proactive investigations/dialogs.
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: Cornelius on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 06:21 PM UTC
That "lust for power" phrase was a piss poor choice of words, so accept my apology and retraction. I was trying to point to the baggage that white people bring to the table as a result of the colonial traditions most of us were raised with. Some of that baggage can include an over inflated expectation of decision making authority.

I don't believe I ever spoke for people of color. If I did, please point me to where.

I do take issue with Chuck's use of "PC" to deride some of my remarks. "Politically correct" is a term adopted by the Right to discredit and dismiss the demands of traditionally marginalized communities when they challenge language they see as contributing to their marginalization. I don't think the pejorative language of our enemies fits our dialogue well. I think the "white guilt" thing is along the same lines. Nothing I said was intended to elicit guilt, and I think that is just another loaded term our enemies use to ridicule white anti-racists. But that IS all semantics.

Also, I tend to agree with Anony Mouse's description of power and how it manifests itself. I think Chuck is essentially talking about the same thing when he says "the problems that are being described *within* the movement aren't as much about racism and sexism, as they are about people bringing in the whole smorgasbord of bad ways of relating from capitalist society." I would contend that when we bring that baggage (in whatever form it takes) in from outside the movement, I has the potential to infect the movement, unless we are all vigilante about confronting it in all its subtle and not so subtle forms.

What makes us anarchists is that we don't just confront racism or sexism, but that we recognize the all ways that race, class, gender, sexuality, age, nationality, etc. intersect to create a thoroughly stratified society that affects all of us. Some of us have privileges in a lot of different areas. Some may be marginalized in a lot of different areas. And some may be marginalized in some ways, and privileged in other ways. Acknowledging privilege does not nullify marginalization. Unfortunately, since we can't all write extensive anthologies and post them online, individual essays can usually only focus on one or two threads at a time. Rather than attacking the focus of a particular essay for only focusing on race, we should plug that essay into the world view/analysis that most of us generally share, and use it to write the next essay. For example, I'd like to read about what Chuck has to say about age discrimination in our movement (more than just one liners below some other article) because I don't think I've ever read anything on the topic. Or what Marga has to say about trans oppression. Or what so and so has to say about such and such.
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: J Brandon Loberg on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 06:38 PM UTC
Apparently your answer to racism is to emphasize divisions&mdash;effectively saying "It's a black/brown/Asian/etc. thing...you wouldn't understand. In fact, you <i>can't</i> understand...because you're white." That, my opinionated friend, is the worst kind of impotent cynicism there is, and i don't see how you ever expect anything to change with that mentality. Forgive my audacity in saying so, but i think i'm quite capable of empathising with someone else's plight, thank you very much. i am very much aware of the white domination of Western society. i abhor it just as much as you do, but i was born into this&mdash;i don't spend my time planting flags and crosses, or passing out 'smallpox blankies'. i could apologise to you profusely for what someone else's ancestors wrought, but you're lying to yourself if you think that's going to make any difference in your life. i'll do what i can in my lifetime to help leave the world a bit better than i found it, but from what i read of your open letter, you're basically telling me "Fuck off, whitey&mdash;i don't want your help."

Furthermore, i rather enjoyed the supposed 'failsafe' you so cleverly included in your essay:

"You
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: crudo on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 07:28 PM UTC
I think people looking at race as an "issue" is problematic, just like looking at gender and class as an issue is problematic.

1.) Because as revolutionaries, we want to look at the system for strategic points where we can work against it to bring it down. In doing so we understand that the world system is a class society, in which white supremacy and settlerism (or 'racism') and patriarchy (or 'sexism') are parts of keeping this class society in place. Which brings me to...

2.) You can't seperate race, gender and class. If you are poor and working class in this country, you are more likely to be of color. If you are a working single mother you are more likely to be of color. If you are a young person of color living in a school mostly of kids of color then you are more likely to attend study in an impoverished area and institution. If you are native american, afro-american, latin@ etc, you are more likely to live in an area with a heavy police presence and have a much higher chance of ending up in prison.

It is my understanding that white supremacy has been a system in which non-elite whites gain power by enforcing the laws of the commodity system of those of color. This manifests itself in whites attacking blacks in the south and making sure that they didn't gain political power, guns, or move out of their position as sharecropper farmers. This manifests itself in south africa where whites act as policing agents to make sure that africans stay working in mines. This manifests itself through white 'missionaries' helping to destroy and displace tribes and indigenous groups; with guns on the border watching out for 'illegal' economic migrants, and so on. Just look at maps of the highest rates of incarceration of black men (mainly the south) and it almost looks like a blow by blow of slave vs. non slave states. Racial segregation in schools is actually worse than before Brown v. Board of Ed (check out Peter Iron's book). Indigenous people the world over are displaced, fall into poverty, sickness, lose their land, etc, because of capitalist development and 'progress.' The system remains the same, albeit changed. Whites, by and large, often unknowingly buy into the idea that their skin color aligns them with the power structure.

Being that I live around, and interact with mainly white working class people (although many of my close friends and anarchist comrades are people of color), I'm almost always in an environment where race is the principle agent of importance. For middle class whites who don't understand this or haven't experienced this; go work at a construction site. At almost all of my jobs have had a high level of 'racial counciousness' where as the class consciousness is almost nil. Thus, the "lazy Mexicans" at work, or the "N----" that doesn't do anything is replaced as the enemy in the workplace as opposed to the boss who is fucking us over everyday and making us wake up at 4:30am in the morning. I believe white supremacy is part of the make up of class society because that has been my experience as someone within the white working class. I wish it was as easy to scream 'class war' into a crowed room of poor people - but in this country based on so many groups hating, displacing, and competing with those above or bellow the other, it is not that simple.

My last quib is that often discussions like these seem to behave in similar patterns. Some white anarchists get pissed at conversations like these and simply don't want to listen. Other white anarchists almost passively just except these arguments without understanding them or thinking about them; feeling sorry for being born white and concentrating more on hating themselves than on doing something about destroying class society. Out of conversations out of these we need to push for action and change - and hopefully, for a untied anarchist movement that can participate in the destruction of class society and the liberation of all oppressed and exploited people.
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: Nil on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 07:33 PM UTC
It's an angry essay. If you ignore the anger (if you have to to hear the contnet) the fundamental point that I see in it is white activists incredible _defensiveness_ and _fear_ when issues of racism or white-centricness are brought up. The comments here are certainly examples.

When a comrade brings up a criticism, do you focus on the _worst_ points they make, to "win", or do you focus on the _best_ points they made, choosing to interpret it charitably, to grow together? When a comrade with really different experiences from yours brings up a point that is negative toward you, do you immediately start thinking of ways to refute them before they're even done, or do you take a moment to listen and consider what elements of truth might be there, what is in there that you can act upon--or at the very least respect that they have a different perspective that there's probably something you can learn from?

To be sure, these are problems in many parts of our movement in general (and ESPECIALLY on the internet) not just when it comes to race. But they are especially flagrant with race, and it has especially disastrous consequences to our movement. And to be sure, this essay and the responses are not the BEST example, _because_ it is so angry and accusatory and don't-give-a-fuck. But I'm confident the author arrived at this point after being treated similarly when s/he DID approach people with respectful critiques--because I've seen it happen over and over again.

It's not about winning an argument, it's about winning the planet.
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: crudo on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 08:55 PM UTC
the fundamental point that I see in it is white activists incredible _defensiveness_ and _fear_ when issues of racism or white-centricness are brought up. The comments here are certainly examples. -

Yeah, I totally agree.
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: Admin on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 09:43 PM UTC
"The comments here are certainly examples. "

This is total, absolute bullshit.

The reason why these discussions in the anarchist movement go around in circles is that whenever people start freely discussing these issues, people ALWAYS come along and ACCUSE the people who DISAGREE with points in some article, or other comments, of being DEFENSIVE.

This never changes and it automatically closes down debates, so more often these days, people just don't participate in these discussions. I've seen this same debate play itself out in the same format over and over and over again for the past 10+ years. The article above is the set up. It is framed in such a way that anybody who disagrees with it can be attacked for being defensive. It also sets up an authoritarian discussion that reinforces the groupthink leftism that underlies the arguments in the piece about "problem anarchists." Let's remember that the operative methodology of American leftism is that the shit of POC doesn't stink, in fact, it has to be elevated and put on a pedestal.

So here we are. Again having a meta-discussion about the discussion. And not doing anything to fight the white supremacy and racism that permeate American society. I can tell you one thing, the people in this society who have the real power and privilege don't give a shit about our discussions.

Chuck0
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: anony mouse on Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 12:02 AM UTC
Disagreement, Chuck0, is different from dismissiveness. There have been some articulate disagreements posted in the above thread but a whole heap of dismissiveness which DOES drive home the point the author of the letter was trying to make - basically that white anarchists are unwilling to take an honest look at themselves and aknowledge that privilege might exist and affect their behavior - let alone do anything about it.

Unfortunately, by this thread, this allegation seems far too correct. We really ought to be holding ourselves and each other to higher standards. And, as I said above, when someone in our movement (or in this case, presumably a group of people) comes forward with such a critique, associated with what seems like alot of anger rooted in experience, we owe it to them and to ourselves to at least offer their statements thoughtful consideration.

And then, if we disagree, it will probably lead to a much more constructive dialogue, strengthen our movement, etc.. rather than, yes, a defensive reaction, which seems to have been a common response to this letter in this forum, and is inherently circular (as you mention) because such reaction is not capable of leading anywhere.

We all have alot of work to do.
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: Admin on Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 03:04 AM UTC
"Disagreement, Chuck0, is different from dismissiveness. There have been some articulate disagreements posted in the above thread but a whole heap of dismissiveness which DOES drive home the point the author of the letter was trying to make - basically that white anarchists are unwilling to take an honest look at themselves and aknowledge that privilege might exist and affect their behavior - let alone do anything about it."

I'm not being dismissive of the original article, but I'm being dismissive of the way these discussions are most commonly framed.

The author of this piece is going to be dismissed and ignored if they stick to generalizations about "white anarchists." How in the world is this group supposed to collective look at itself? We are really talking here about a grouping of individuals who have a variety of experiences and who are doing the same and different things about these issues. What the author should be saying is that *some* white anarchists need to do XYZ, because evidence suggests otherwise.

Blanket generalizations about a class of people is just going to antagonize many people who fit into that category and who ARE doing things.

Chuck
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: Why on Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 08:52 PM UTC
No doubt white people are better off in our society. That's indisputable really. But if we are going to really get down to the nitty gritty as to why, we must accept that "f(x) = x" is a false delimma. White people are certainly better off, but that doesn't make the authoritarian culture of our society "white."

You go to Africa and look at the social dynamics there, you will see that they have their own conceptions of race even though most would classify them all as "black." You look at one of the worst genocides in history and you can see that it was perpetuated by British colonialism, by "classifying" the people into different categories for profit. Before that point the cultures there had *no idea* about race (though sure they had tribal designiations which may be why it was so easy to categorize them into "races"). Now you can blame "the whites" for this or you can accept that there's a level of authoritarianism at play here that goes a lot further than that. Perhaps it was early globalization and profiteering that created situations where one 'race' manipulated another 'race' into being its workers.

In the USA black people have been segregated into ghettos or poorer areas because of real estate discrimination. Once upon a time black people were actually dissuaded from owning houses via government loans, they couldn't buy houses, thus while the white people spread out and urbanized they were forced to live in their own little areas. It created wealth inequality right there.

In that instance who do we blame? The profiteering capitalists or the white people?

No one here would make the same proclimations about Jews even though they had similar economic dealings within their culture. During the German depression the Jewish people in Germany had a lot of assets and only dealt with other Jewish people (so they fared better than most other Germans). This created a racism within the German people which is highly documented. If it's justified in their case, then is it justifed here?

I blame the capitalists and the culture of authoritarianism. I don't blame groups of people who do what they can to better themselves even if it is inequal in the end. The culture creates the inequality, not the genes or the skin color.
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: rechelon on Wednesday, May 07 2008 @ 10:08 PM UTC
"When a comrade brings up a criticism, do you focus on the _worst_ points they make, to "win", or do you focus on the _best_ points they made, choosing to interpret it charitably, to grow together?"

None of the above. I focus on the worst points in order to have a fucking dialog. So that they can defend and help me understand the things I wasn't getting or and improve their argument to deal with my critique. It's called basic fucking communication. It's how ideas are made. If we sit around congratulating each other on the things they said we agree with we'd never get anywhere!

I'm sick of this mamby-pamby bullshit about how debate is so evil and how we need to come together. Conflict is awesome, when people engage honestly it's intimate and it's the only way progress can be made. What's important is above all else not CUTTING OFF dialog through either using populist/unfair tactics (to "win") or seeking cohesion/peace ("togetherness"). THAT's what always gives rise to power structures.
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: afxgrin on Thursday, May 08 2008 @ 11:30 PM UTC
Are you A Person of Colour? Do you need a white friend or ally?

Well today is your lucky day!!

If you respond to jitterybit <at> gmail <dot> com within the next day, you can have your own white bourgeois semi-radical suburban ideological slave!!! ***

Keep in mind - this is a limited time offer - and supplies are limited - so email now!

Basically I'll let you be right about anything you say, and will largely act on your opinion. I will limit counter arguments to ideas of people of colour only. I need a coloured friend (or master, however you wish to be referred to as) anyhow, as I don't even have a token one. (not like I have lots of friends, I consider maybe 10 people my friends, the rest are family, and they're all a bunch of crackers. plus the idea of a token POC friend bothers me. So I'll just give myself up instead.)

Is this comment offensive to you? Please don't be offended. There's just nothing for me to say otherwise about the article. I just felt like I had to write something because this one part was golden:

"You
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: alta fuoco on Friday, May 09 2008 @ 02:40 AM UTC
There's really not much to say on the topic, is there? 'Sure are a lot of cry baby white anarchists and people with different ideas about how a total transformation of society happens.

I personally think it happens through exploited and oppressed folks seizing the means to produce existence, not a peculiar identity becoming human. Although any examination of the history of the US will reveal that capitalism, the structure that arranges our relations, was impossible without slavery and was more efficient with racial power-dynamics, both structures appropriated one another and will continue to do so until there is more cost than benefit. "Race" may be the linchpin of social struggle in the US; the particular foci point for ineducable rebellion but that does not mean there is a singular methodology of anti-racism, nor that any practice of anti-racism puts us anywhere closer to utopia than say a prison riot, a strike, or a night of looting. The latter, may in fact be more likely to emerge real communication between white folks and black folks. The point is, that for the majority of US society, there remains a subtle and gratuitous line drawn in the sand manifested as the production of black death. And I don't think any crackers can do anything motivated by "others' suffering" or any other moral/ethical dilemma to "do the right thing" into a genuine communication that describes that line. It is more likely than not that those who live at line and are magnets for bullets because of it are the only ones who have the capacity and desire to produce affective relationships that can destroy it. Still though, this is a matter of if that desire is powerful enough to produce those relationships not as an identity , but as a force of history. Instead white folks can act not with urgency and morality but strategically and intentionally with the use of theory and experiment to gesture towards and become disciplined to the diffuse and thin portals of social conflict where the interests of anti-whitesupremacy and the interests of anti-capitalism are aligned.

"It
An Open Letter to White Progressives and Radicals
Authored by: ansel on Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 05:35 PM UTC
Why did my comment disappear?
Moderation
Authored by: Admin on Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 07:21 PM UTC
Don't insult the moderators.

Chuck
Moderator
Moderation
Authored by: Admin on Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 08:36 PM UTC
If we delete a comment, you don't get to re-post it. That's not how things work around here. If you are going to make a point, you can do it without insulting the intelligence of the moderators, or other readers.

Chuck
Moderation
Authored by: ansel on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 04:18 AM UTC
"If you are going to make a point, you can do it without insulting the intelligence of the moderators, or other readers."

Which is exactly what I did when I posted an edited version of my comment, Chuck. I understand you take offense and I'm trying to offer a positive contribution to the discourse. Please post the comment.