Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 04:03:31 -0600
From: rahul-AT-peaches.ph.utexas.edu (Rahul Mahajan)
Subject: Re: RAHUL: CLUTCHING YOUR PEARLS


Ralph:

>Rahul, now that we have gone through your views on "n" and "f"
>words, I'd like to know what _you_ think of bell hooks.  Even
>more, I can't wait to feast upon the chitlins of Stanley Aronowitz
>which you have promised to prepare for us.


I have been hiding my light under a bushel, haven't I? Problem is, I have a
dozen things I want to write, so none get done. I tried to reply to all the
points you raised, but found it impossible to be coherent, so I'll start
with a few baby steps.

First, to finish off a subject I'm sure we're all bored to tears with.

You said:

>Finally on this issue:  I do not approve even when black people
>call each other "nigger", and the presence of that word in many
>rap lyrics turns my stomach.  Secondly, I have heard that in the
>UK East Indians, Pakistanis, and others are also referred to as
>"black" and not just West Indians or other people of African
>descent.  However, in the USA, the situation is rather different.
>I think I know why Rakesh jumped on you.  Rakesh is also of Indian
>descent, and he knows as I do that East Indians in the USA are the
>worst racists when it comes to black Americans, sometimes even
>more rabid than the nastiest backwoods crackers.  Hence when you
>show a flippant attitude on this matter, you hit Rakesh's last
>nerve.  But I'm not going to be sanctimonious about the matter.  I
>prefer not to use the word because it has 400 years of bad karma
>behind it.  But to answer Rakesh as to who deserves to be called
>one, I've met many.  Every time I see my ex's hoodlum teenage son,
>I'm tempted to call him one, but I don't, because his problem is
>that, contrary to his upbringing, he _already_ thinks of himself
>as one, which is why he will never amount to anything.

Unfortunately, I know exactly what you're talking about. The racism I've
encountered among Indians (I hate the term East Indians, but I'm hardly in
a position to complain, am I?) is truly disgusting. Rakesh has undoubtedly
encountered all kinds of such idiots, considering how many Indians live in
the Bay Area. That's why, in my abject apology, I felt the need to mention
I hate Dinesh D'Souza. Calling them "the worst racists" is a bit hard,
though: I'd like to distinguish between simply thinking people of another
race are subhuman and actually beating them up or killing them for it.
Indians in the US never do that. Actually, in that vein, while the racism
of Indians against blacks is obviously of no great import to anyone, the
unbelievable prejudices of Hindus against Muslims and of caste Hindus
against untouchables dwarf anything you see over here. (I just read
Rakesh's post in the middle of this. Great minds think alike, I guess.)

That's not all there is to be said, though. I don't know if you saw the
execrable Mississippi Masala, but there's an interesting scene where two
sharp Indian motel owners are befriending an easygoing amiable black guy
(Denzel Washington) (so he won't sue them for whiplash), so they say
something like "You know, it doesn't matter that you're black and we're
brown. The point is we're not white." Denzel is gratified to find
transracial solidarity among oppressed people of color, never guessing the
existence of an ulterior motive. Later, when he and the Indian woman who is
the heroine get involved with each other, we repeatedly see the most
appalling bigotry shown by every Indian around, even the woman's father,
who was portrayed as a wonderful liberal guy. On the other hand, we barely
get a hint about prejudice from the other side. From what I can see, black
people are as bigoted as any other people. The most stomach-turning
experience I ever had with bigots was not an encounter with any neonazi
group (not that I seek them out), but with some wacko black group in Times
Square who claimed that they're the true children of Israel and that
everyone else, brown, white, and yellow, is vermin to be exterminated. Of
course, I might not have had such a visceral reaction if they were just
attacking white people.

As to the objectionable word in question, I have to say I've had the same
reaction as you to hearing black people use it. Of course, it's not the
same as a non-black person using it, and yes it can be used oppositionally,
to make a point ironically, etc. What I think is the reason for your and my
reaction is not simply the appropriation of a word that has been used as a
deadly insult, but what it embodies in this particular case. There are many
people, especially the young, who use it in a defiant way, but their use of
it signifies that they construct their defiance along the same lines as the
oppressors do (if I don't watch it, I'm going to start sounding postmodern.
If I do, send me a letterbomb. I'll give you the address.) What I mean is,
the white majority arrogates to itself traits like rationality,
self-control, intellect, and assigns to blacks brute emotionalism, lack of
restraint, physicality. Many blacks unfortunately (now helped along by all
kinds of pomo hired guns) show their defiance not by saying we're just as
capable of these desirable traits as white people, but rather by agreeing
with the racists about the division of traits and simply disagreeing about
which are more desirable. Of course, now I'm starting to sound like D'Souza
but just because he's pseudointellectual scum who is being paid his 30
pieces of silver to help make racism palatable again doesn't mean he's
always wrong. Anyway, all of that is what I think of when I hear one black
call another "nigger." I don't think it's the word itself, though.



Next, bell hooks. You know, I'm totally blanking on her, even though I've
read two books by her. All I remember is that the last one, yearnings, was
highly forgettable. The other one, Feminism: from margin to center is, as
Lisa and I said back and forth, creditable as an antidote to radical white
feminism. She has strong theoretical weaknesses, such as reading race for
class. Of course, there are Marxists who commit the opposite sin, which
creates just as much of a distortion with regard to US history. What you
say about her attitude toward religion is consonant with my hazy memory of
her, and is, of course, as damning as you'd want, Cornel West and Leo Casey
notwithstanding. It would seem, though, that any honest black intellectual
who genuinely cares about political progress on a mass level would have to
have a love-hate relationship with the church, just as we leftist Indians
do with Gandhi. I'm constantly attacking him to Gandhians, members of the
new antirational left, and former statist leftists turned nativist, while I
defend him to Hindu bigots and idiots whose only idea of politics is that
making money is really important. Just as with Gandhi, the church could
have influenced the movement in a much more progressive and meaningful
direction, but, without the church, no movement. It's bad enough to induce
schizophrenia in a lot of decent but not very analytical Indians. Does it
do the same with any black people you know of?

Apropos of your remarks about the Panthers, there's a much more interesting
author to talk about. You said:

I think we cannot predict the organizational form the next upsurge
in revolutionary movement will take.  It will probably be
something totally unexpected like the Black Panthers.

I was a little surprised, because I would have guessed that you weren't
exactly a fan. So anyway, how about Eldridge Cleaver? I read Soul on Ice
about 10 years ago, I guess, but it's stayed in my mind a lot better than
bell hooks could. At the time, I thought it was a remarkable book, and not
just because it was written by a rapist who had had no formal education. As
politics, I thought it was pretty much for shit, although even in the midst
of building a nonsensical structure he had some penetrating local insights.
And what a marvelously succinct way of putting things. To wit:
Homosexuality is a disease, just like baby rape and wanting to be president
of General Motors. I presume nobody on the list would agree with more than
two thirds of that, but I wish I could write like him. His observations on
transracial sexual dynamics also seemed rather acute to me. The book is
great as poetry, although lousy as sociology. Like Blake, he blurs the
distinctions between his what some Marxists would call internal
contradictions and the forces that drive society. As I see it, Blake often
stayed just on the sensible side of the line (I've only read his lesser
works), and Cleaver definitely crossed it. I understand he went even
further off the deep end after the Panthers broke up.

I'll serve up Stanley's tripes as soon as I can find the right sauce.

Rahul

Come to think of it, you seem to share that with Blake and Cleaver, at
least a little bit.




     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

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