From: Mneillft-AT-aol.com
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 17:11:19 -0500 (EST)
Subject: RE: race



--PART.BOUNDARY.0.5692.emout10.mail.aol.com.854997907
Content-ID: <0_5692_854997907-AT-emout10.mail.aol.com.24584>

Reply to Harald from Monty re: race:


--PART.BOUNDARY.0.5692.emout10.mail.aol.com.854997907
Content-ID: <0_5692_854997907-AT-emout10.mail.aol.com.24585>
	name="HAR-RACE.ASC"

Harald.  I'm torn between a quick reply and taking more time for a more thoughtful reply --
really, comment -- on your remarks on "race" -- but will take the quick route because I am
not sure when I will next reply. The following seem to be the key remarks in your two posts
re: the issue of race/racism:
=0D
-- And one thing more, if you don't manage to make this into a movement that crosses the
"racial" barriers, it most likely will hit you like a boomerang. In my opinion "the left" in the
US is far to "race" sensitive.
=0D
-- When I travelled around the U.S. back in 1992, I was often told from different quarters that
the racial issue could not be overstated. I believe it can. If you always emphasise what
divides us (what makes THEM different from US) you end up spending little thought on what
connects us, and you perpetuate the racial categorisation you are claiming to oppose. 
=0D
-- I found in general a reluctance against crossing not only the spatial barriers, but also those
of real communication which always involves a criticism. To respect people on the grounds
that they are oppressed is not respect at all. And you can never trust such people (what are
they saying behind your back?).
=0D
I think you do raise a critical issue: how to address the continuing racism which African
American, Latino, Asian-American, American Indian activists continue to point to as existing
not simply in general but within and among activists/movements, including those that purport
to be anti-racist [and thus potentially "emphasize what divides us"]; and at the same time find
the things that unite us. I do not think the former is "perpetuat(ing) the racial categorisation
you are claiming to oppose" -- that happens all the time and cannot be resolved by searching
for agreement, which often times in the US has taken the form of 'black and white unite and
fight' -- under that or myriad similar slogans -- that failed to address racism among the whites
as the cause of the inability to unite and fight. 
=0D
Let me point to a concrete issue, as briefly as I can.  I am part of a coalition/network
involving "education activists" which takes as probably its central (but not only) imperative to
attack racism in education. For a number of reasons the coalition has a hard time moving
beyond sponsoring an annual conference, but there are financial problems, so last summer
(immediately before the Chiapas encuentro) a subset of this coalition (~40 people) met to
discuss its future. In substantial part, what happened was an intense raising of the issue of
racism within the very meeting, charges of racial arrogance by European-Americans, of not
listening, etc. The final stages of this meeting were thus spent addressing these issues, and not
directly discussing other issues about the survival and direction of the coalition. My point
here is not to try to dissect the many issues and complexities of that particular, but to use it
to highlight a few basic points.
=0D
=46rom the perspective I read you as posing, this could be a case in which the emphasis on the
problems of racism prevented a discussion that would have focused more on the areas of
agreement and on how to move. The discussion instead focused on internal problems
(racism), in effect saying, I think, two things: unless the internal is sufficiently cleaned up, the
organization cannot move on other fronts (or, we people of color will not let it); and, if it
cannot be cleaned up, then it should perhaps not exist, or alternatively, we people of color
may well not want to be a part of it. 
=0D
Obviously any given individual or group has to decide if any organization is worth being a
part of. But beyond that is a political question about how to do politics in the US. If one
struggles for/waits for "perfection" or purity within the organization (or movement), not only
will one probably wait a very long time and in the meantime many other things may not be
done, but also it may be that moving (however impure) itself increases the possibility of
addressing better the issues of racism -- but, nearly circular, if one is not open to deal with
the problem, then it won't be dealt with. That is, racism has to be addressed and battled with
rather continuously (I think things erupted at this meeting because they had not be
deliberately raised for a number of years because no "crisis" happened). But I do think it
cannot successfully be done in an insular fashion only -- there has to be some kind of a
dialectic that simultaneously addresses racism withint the organization or movement or class,
and struggles around what is common. In this case, the commonality is being working class
within capitalism and under attack by capital.  I do fear at times that the justified anger of the
black working class at the continued racism within the white working class can create a
situation where commonality is harder to find -- again, the prime problem is white racism, but
among activists in the US we must find a means of exploring opposition to capitalism as well
as racism (both together). 
=0D
I fear that in particular the African American population is increasingly isolated -- again, not
mostly their cause, but sometimes the emphasis on race and not on anti-capitalism reinforces
that isolation. If the only condition on which unity is possible is first to be rid of racism, then
I think unity will not happen. If whites don't deal with racism (and here I include 'whites'
within the Latino population, which is also often a class relation among Latinos), then of
course no unity is possible. The main problem is white racism, but white activists within the
movement have to be willing to raise issues such as these for serious discussion: on what
terms can a tentative unity be found that allows combatting both racism within the group and
combatting capitalism and racism in society.
=0D
Your final comment (that I quoted) I think does approach a key element of the problem, the
unwillingness among whites to be willing to engage in serious debate with people of color.
Even in the discussion I describe above, most all the talking was done by people of color, and
the white folk tended to say little. I think there are a number of reasons for this, but part of it
is that unwillingness, probably due in part to a desire not to say something that would appear
as racist. But as you say, failure to engage that discussion is racist. 
=0D
Anyway, long enough. I don't know that we have a disagreement, but wanted to comment
given your initial brief comment. 
=0D
Monty Neill
<mneillft-AT-aol.com>
--PART.BOUNDARY.0.5692.emout10.mail.aol.com.854997907--



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---