Reverse racism

152 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rommon's picture
Rommon
Offline
Joined: 23-03-17
Mar 16 2018 11:55

So what do you suggest .. other than not going around calling poor whites "white privileged males" when you're talking to them about politics and organizing ... which I don't think People really do.

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Mar 22 2018 21:20

My fellow anarchist from NY was one of the active participants in Occupy-Wall- Street. And I know from him and from communicating with US anarchists is that many of them are infected with bias against white men against the white working class, against the Jews (especially religious Jews). I have repeatedly encountered direct manifestations of anti-Semitism.

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Mar 22 2018 21:21

Two main currents of anarchism
https://libcom.org/forums/history/two-main-currents-anarchism-02092017

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Mar 23 2018 16:43
meerov wrote:
My fellow anarchist from NY was one of the active participants in Occupy-Wall- Street. And I know from him and from communicating with US anarchists is that many of them are infected with bias against white men against the white working class, against the Jews (especially religious Jews). I have repeatedly encountered direct manifestations of anti-Semitism.

So what you're saying is that they are liberals; and typically, when you scratch a liberal, there is a bigot underneath. The anti-Semitism part I am not surprised at at all; that particular racist ideology is surprisingly strong.

Then again, your anecdotes still does not mean that the "white working class" is in any way, shape or form persecuted or oppressed systemically like the black working class.

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Mar 26 2018 09:52

So anti-Semitism is an anecdote?! ...

Systematically or not systematically oppressed white people - it has little to do with the subject of my note.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Mar 26 2018 12:12

Meerov, the point here is that racism is inherently systematic.

Sure, there can be individual bigotry, but as anarchists and communists we need to break with the conservative notion that racism is just about individual beliefs or actions. Instead, we need to focus on the social basis and structural uses of racism. This is really basic stuff, dude.

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Mar 26 2018 16:42

Meerov, the point here is that racism is inherently systematic.

No. Left-wing politically correct liberals manipulate words, replace the meaning of words. I don't have to use your definitions. Besides, I am interested, first of all, in class liberation and joint struggle of workers (black, white, Jews, Arabs, Latinos, does-not-matter-whom) from the power of management, business, official. For this black racist as bad as white racist. I am not a liberal and I am not going to play their game with definitions.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Mar 26 2018 17:15
meerov wrote:
So anti-Semitism is an anecdote?! ...

No, if you actually bothered to read rather than making immediate interprative assumptions, you should have understood that I am saying that anti-Semitism is a particularly strong racist-systemic ideology. The fact that you are still encountering direct manifestations of anti-Semitism, even after the Holocaust and centuries of anti-Semitism, points to how systemic it is. It's not simply of just saying bad names to you, but there are particular systemic tropes that are put fort (Jews control the media, Jews control money, Jews' allegiance is to Jews and no other) sometimes even as being self-evident.

meerov21 wrote:
I am not a liberal and I am not going to play their game with definitions.

But the very definition of liberal anti-racism is to reduce it to be something that individuals do to one another rather than treating it as something systemic. And let me tell you, it wasn't white liberal in the academy that first identified racism as something systemic. This has nothing to do with being politically correct, but more to do with how can racism actually be fought. Sure, being nice to each other individually is something we should all do, but all of us being nice to each other won't change how hard it is for people to, for example get a job if their name is non-white sounding, not getting shot by the po-po because black skin has come to signify dangerous thugs and so on.

So in essence: if anyone's a liberal when it comes to racism, it is you meerov.

Cooked's picture
Cooked
Offline
Joined: 6-04-10
Mar 26 2018 18:36

I have felt that there is a disconnect in much of the "identity politics" discussion. It is not made clear if the theories/practices are focused on issues internal to smallish organisations or state/world questions. It seems to me, not very well read, that it's critical to make clear if it's directed at either of these scales and that much of the wierdness of the debates are due to talking past each other on that basis.

Extremely few seems capable of understanding and sticking to a good definition of class, in the past even on libcom. There are similar problem with lots of other 'leftist' terms and ideas. Racism is one of them. Most people understand racism as being individual bigotry and when we then say strange shit like that people can't be racist against white people they blow a fuse and can't ever make it through our long and very good argument about structural this or that.

So back to topic. Individual bigotry is disastrous in smaller contexts regardless of who bears the brunt of it. This we probably all agree on. So in some ways the discussion is about words and our use of the word is pretty niche (getting less so though).

I'm so sick of having different definitions of words than everyone else sad

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Mar 26 2018 20:19

But the very definition of liberal anti-racism is to reduce it to be something that individuals do to one another rather than treating it as something systemic.

I'm happy with the definition of the Oxford dictionary, and I don't understand why I have to put some other meaning in the word "racism." And I have seen many times attempts to change the meaning of this word from American left-wing liberals.

If someone wants to talk about racist systems, it can be done without changing the meaning of the word.

Also, I'm not sure that black racism directed against white workers (including) is not systematic. Organization of Farrakhan is a racist, isn't it? It's an organization of black racists. I think there are a lot of other black racist radio stations and organizations, aren't them?

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Mar 26 2018 20:29
Quote:
I'm happy with the definition of the Oxford dictionary, and I don't understand why I have to put some other meaning in the word "racism."

And the Oxford dictionary definition is highly ideological given how liberal it is. Just because it's in the dictionary doesn't mean that settles once and for all the meaning of a word. It is kind of strange than an anarchist is so accepting of the letter of the word just because it's in a dictionary and written by some invisible authority. After all, the meaning of words is never inherent, otherwise there would be no point in writing dictionaries in the first place.

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Mar 26 2018 22:03

And the Oxford dictionary definition is highly ideological given how liberal it is.

I do not deny the existence of bourgeois cultural hegemony in society. But I refuse to see politics in any definition from the dictionary. It's not proven by anyone. The Oxford dictionary uses the word racism in exactly the same way as it has been used by generations of people, including social revolutionaries. Similarly, in Russian, racism meant a sense of racial superiority and humiliation, not necessarily a system.

At the same time, this definition from the dictionary does not interfere with the conversation about the repressive racist system of the U.S. police (if you want).

And finally, there are racist black organizations as the organization of Farrakhan so we can say that black racism is probably can also be organized.

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Mar 26 2018 22:03

And the Oxford dictionary definition is highly ideological given how liberal it is.

I do not deny the existence of bourgeois cultural hegemony in society. But I refuse to see politics in any definition from the dictionary. It's not proven by anyone. The Oxford dictionary uses the word racism in exactly the same way as it has been used by generations of people, including social revolutionaries. Similarly, in Russian, racism meant a sense of racial superiority and humiliation, not necessarily a system.

At the same time, this definition from the dictionary does not interfere with the conversation about the repressive racist system of the U.S. police (if you want).

And finally, there are racist black organizations as the organization of Farrakhan so we can say that black racism is probably can also be organized.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Mar 26 2018 22:22
meerov21 wrote:
But I refuse to see politics in any definition from the dictionary. It's not proven by anyone.

well thats liberal as fuck, how are you calling other people liberal when you coming out with shit like this?

Hieronymous's picture
Hieronymous
Offline
Joined: 27-07-07
Mar 27 2018 05:10

Meerov21, O.K. I call bullshit. You’re a hypocrite, because if you were truly concerned with overcoming race divisions and uniting the class towards anti-capitalist struggles you would have simply written “racism.” Which all of us are against, but I’m not so sure about you.

“Reverse” added to the expression is a reactionary Trumpite dog whistle (think the Bakke Supreme Court case here), making whites victims in the mainstream zero-sum-game where Black gains mean loses to whites. Which we all know is fucking bullshit.

I’ll limit myself to referring to white supremacy in the U.S., which was literally codified into state law (first to do so was Virginia) after the second phase of Bacon’s Rebellion in 1677. Ted Allen did wonderful archival research digging this shit up. As other posters noted above, it’s systemic, structural and written into laws — which have continually been reaffirmed by court decisions.

Here are some:

— Naturalization Law of 1790 granted citizenship to “free” white persons alone

— Equality under the law was given lip-service with the 14 Amendment in 1868 (an act of Reconstruction), only to be undone with the Plessy vs Ferguson doctrine of “separate but equal” & de jure segregation in 1896

— The Geary, or Chinese Exclusion, Act of 1882; the first immigrant ban in the U.S., and the anti-Asian model for all subsequent “Yellow Peril” laws that followed

— During World War II, the Bracero Program allowed 4.6 million Mexican guest workers to come to the United States to work in agriculture. By the 1950s, the labor market no longer needed them, and the U.S. Border Patrol started implementing “Operation Wetback” to deport them (some were U.S. citizens) back to Mexico. This created a dual system during the twentieth century where a Latina/o labor force without citizenship rights was allowed into the country during times of political stability, labor shortages and economic prosperity; but once the economy contracted, legal measures were taken to extradite them (like now, but due more to racism and the ideology of economic nationalism than labor market requirements)

— Executive Order 9066, where in 1942 FDR locked up 120,000 people of Japanese ancestory, citizens and legal residents alike, for their mere crime of being of Japanese descent

— The federal government’s Indian Termination Policy, from the 1940s to the 1960s, where Native Americans were driven off their land, often relocated to cities, in an attempt to destroy their culture and force them to assimilate and proletarianize.

And I’ll finish with an anecdote about Baltimore in 2015 (further riffing on what was mentioned above): when Freddie Gray was beat to a pulp and then tossed in a cop van with a broken spine, 3 of the 6 cops who murdered him were black. Were they racist? We don’t really know, but their duty is to uphold the white supremacy that’s systemically codified into U.S. society, which began with chattel slavery being made state law after Bacon’s Rebellion, was again strengthened with the Fugitive Slave Laws of 1793 (and again in 1850), and carries on today Trump’s attempted Muslim ban and with the daily actions of cops and border patrol agents across the country.

Meerov21, please stop trying to peddle your reactionary ideas on libcom. You’ve yet to substantiate a thing you’ve said, except with nonsense.

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Mar 27 2018 07:14

I'm a bit tired of left-wing hysteria. It's very monotonous. When left-wing does not agree with something, he immediately begins to insult the interlocutor, and it is always the same: "fascist-Nazi-racist-sexist-ageist". Before even called opponents like "Trotskyite spies", but now it is some kind of misery. Just like the right wing: if something goes wrong, the "Jewish conspiracy" is remembered immediately. And then some dude changed the meaning of the word, and for some reason I have to accept its definition, not the definition of the Oxford dictionary. Yeah, right now, I'm on it )).

“Reverse” added to the expression is a reactionary Initially I simply used terms black and white racism but moderator censored my the text and writing himself about Reverse racism.

Mike Harman
Online
Joined: 7-02-06
Mar 27 2018 09:03

The original title was "Black and White racists, both are disgusting".

If we look at the dictionary definition that meerov is so fond of, it explicitly notes the structural imbalance:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reverse_racism

The Nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party (which has no relationship to the original BPP) are both reactionary racist groups, but they're not in a position if power anywhere and they're universally hated even (in some cases especially) by people who might describe themselves as black nationalists. For example the New Afrikan current that developed out of the BPP/BLA is very different from Farrakhan. So the idea that this proves structural anti white racism is outlandish.

Reminds me, the SPLC inflates the numbers of 'black supremacist' groups in the US by counting every local chapter of he NOI as a separate group which is very, very ropey behaviour I think. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/black-nationalist

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Mar 27 2018 10:47

Mike Harman The original title was "Black and White racists, both are disgusting".

Exactly. Mike Harman tells the truth. Moderator of this site uses censorship and arbitrarily changed the title of the article. Now you see how ridiculous censorship is in the modern world. You can't hide the truth, and your desire to shut another person's mouth becomes obvious. (I heard Laura Akay was accusing the moderator of censorship before, am i right?)

If we look at the dictionary definition that meerov is so fond of, it explicitly notes the structural imbalance:

No. I am talking just about definition of racism. Look at this. "Racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior" (Oxford dictionary). https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/racism

Mike Harman The Nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party (which has no relationship to the original BPP) are both reactionary racist groups,

Ya. So you call them "racist". Me too. This is it.
I did not say Black and White racists are the same. I say they both are disgusting.
Actually, this was the message of my note, and I could end there.
But I'll add a few more words.

The Nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party (which has no relationship to the original BPP) are both reactionary racist groups, but they're not in a position if power anywhere

Ok. So what? They carry out systematic (organized, structured) racist propaganda against whites and Jews. Their racism and anti-semitism are structurally organized.

P.S. Do we have to wait until they take over some neighborhood and start killing Jews? Don't you think their racist propaganda could have affected those who attacked the Jews?

R Totale's picture
R Totale
Offline
Joined: 15-02-18
Mar 27 2018 12:27
meerov21 wrote:
I'm a bit tired of left-wing hysteria. It's very monotonous. When left-wing does not agree with something, he immediately begins to insult the interlocutor, and it is always the same: "fascist-Nazi-racist-sexist-ageist".

Would you be able to point out who on this thread has called you those things? And if it turns out that, in fact, no-one has called you those things, do you think that might undermine the claim you're making here at all?

ETA: "Their racism and anti-semitism are structurally organized" - what do you understand by the term "structure" or "structural"?

Mike Harman
Online
Joined: 7-02-06
Mar 27 2018 13:31
Meerov21 wrote:
I'm a bit tired of left-wing hysteria. It's very monotonous.
meerov21 wrote:
Moderator of this site uses censorship and arbitrarily changed the title of the article. Now you see how ridiculous censorship is in the modern world. You can't hide the truth, and your desire to shut another person's mouth becomes obvious

Changing a title of a forum post is 'censorship, you can't hide the truth', but you are tired of 'left wing hysteria'. OK.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Mar 27 2018 13:59
Quote:
Left-wing politically correct liberals manipulate words, replace the meaning of words.

What's liberal is to view social relations through the lens of 'free individuals' who make free choices and then the sum-total of these choices constitutes society.

It's a communist perspective that seeks to seeks to understand the wider social and economic forces that underpin society.

Would anti-white bigotry be a problem in some hypothetical class struggle situation? Of course.

But to equate that with the fact that the domination and oppression of people of color is a fundamental part of the social architecture of global capitalist society - in a word, racism - that's just insane.

Further, it's liberal to assume that mainstream sources of information aren't influenced by dominant social narratives.

I've just checked the OED definition of anarchism and it doesn't mention capitalism at all. Should we then divorce the class basis for anarchism from our beliefs because the OED doesn't mention it? Of course not.

All words have context and all dictionaries have implicit ideology. To assume some unchanging, fixed definition of language is....guess what...liberal.

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Mar 27 2018 22:01

Would anti-white bigotry be a problem in some hypothetical class struggle situation? Of course.

Yeah, and my note is written about it, and it's not a hypothetical situation at all. The working class is divided on national and racial issues since the strikes of the early 20th century then massive clashes broke out between black and white workers. In addition, I wrote that if anarchists use racist rhetoric insulting the white working class (insulting all white men, calling them all "privileged," including millions of white poor and precarious workers), it is harmful to anrachists.

But to equate that with the fact that the domination and oppression of people of color is a fundamental part of the social architecture of global capitalist society - in a word, racism - that's just insane.

First, millions of people with white skin are also oppressed, while among people with dark skin color there are a huge number of businessmen and officials, i.e. oppressors.

Second, I do not deny that racism against blacks in a country like US plays a more important role than racism against whites. I already wrote here: "I did not say Black and White racists are the same. I say they both are disgusting."

If you can't read, it's not my fault.

And that has nothing to do with the definition of racism. I don't have to accept new definitions made up by left-wing liberals. For example as Mike Harman i think "The Nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party (which has no relationship to the original BPP) are both reactionary racist groups". Actually, I don't know anything about modern Panthers, but I agree with him about the Nation of Islam.

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Mar 27 2018 22:04

Mike Harman Changing a title of a forum post is 'censorship, you can't hide the truth', but you are tired of 'left wing hysteria'. OK.

Yes, it is. The moderator changed the title without my consent. It's censorship for sure.
And Yes, I am tired of the left hysteria, when people, instead of reacting adequately, pass to insults. These two things are not mutually exclusive.

Mike Harman
Online
Joined: 7-02-06
Mar 27 2018 22:17

On the NBPP, this from BlackAgendaReport is a decent summary, with details of their attack on former Black Panther and Black Liberation Army founder, later political prisoner Dhoruba Bin Wahad.

https://www.blackagendareport.com/reactionaries_thugs_new_black_panthers

They also appeared early on in the Ferguson Mike Brown protests - trying to control protestors. You can see them at the end of this RT video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8XckAaEiys

Riverfront Times wrote:
Malik Zulu Shabazz If there's anyone really angling to become the leader of the Ferguson protests, it's Malik Zulu Shabazz, the former leader of the New Black Panther Party and current head of the Black Lawyers for Justice. He's been all over the protests. With megaphone in hand, he has urged rowdy demonstrators to to resist engaging with riot cops, and even encouraged crowds to go home before curfew. Riverfront Times reporter Ray Downs spotted him on Saturday hugging young protesters and telling them that he's their "big brother."

https://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2014/08/21/whos-who-of-ferguson-protests-leaders-activists

So the NBPP are much more of a risk to black proletarians than any random white people. They're in the tradition of Ron Karenga's US Organisation which fought against the Black Panthers.

The existence of these incredibly fringe groups does not in any way make you right about this though:

meerov21 wrote:
In addition, I wrote that if anarchists use racist rhetoric insulting the white working class (insulting all white men, calling them all "privileged," including millions of white poor and precarious workers), it is harmful to anrachists.

It just sounds like you've been watching Sargon of Akkad youtube videos or something.

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Mar 28 2018 11:16

Chilli Sauce #52

‘All words have context and all dictionaries have implicit ideology. To assume some unchanging, fixed definition of language is....guess what...liberal.’

I agree with all of Chilli’s post, though I would not label the above definition of language ‘liberal’. Indeed, it could be seen as totally illiberal in that it seeks to dictate what words mean - it is in fact ‘authoritarian’.
This rather bears out Chilli’s main point that we decode words rather than have meanings carved in stone.

R Totale's picture
R Totale
Offline
Joined: 15-02-18
Mar 28 2018 10:54
meerov21 wrote:
And Yes, I am tired of the left hysteria, when people, instead of reacting adequately, pass to insults. These two things are not mutually exclusive.

By this, are you talking about the people in this thread who are characterising your argument as liberal because of your inability to distinguish between social structures and personal attitudes/irrelevant fringe groups, or are you talking about the people are supposedly calling you a "racist/nazi/fascist", or something similar? If the latter, I'd ask once again, can you show anyone here actually calling you that, and if not, could you maybe stop writing every post as a response to something that no-one here is actually saying?

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Mar 28 2018 15:47
meerov21 wrote:
Quote:
Would anti-white bigotry be a problem in some hypothetical class struggle situation? Of course.

Yeah, and my note is written about it, and it's not a hypothetical situation at all.

Okay, here's the challenge Meerov:

First, find me a single example of anti-white bigotry undermining a particular strike, social struggle, etc.

Then find me an example of a situation where anti-white sentiment expands beyond simple personal animus or fringe groups to actually constitute an integral part of an overarching racialized system of social control and division.

You can't because we all live under a white supremacist, patriarchal capitalist system. Anti-white bigotry can't exist as part of a racist social structure precisely because white supremacy forms a fundamental part of the social and economic apparatus of global capitalism.

This is the point people are making to you which you seem unable to understand and accept.

Quote:
I wrote that if anarchists use racist rhetoric insulting the white working class (insulting all white men, calling them all "privileged," including millions of white poor and precarious workers), it is harmful to anrachists.

Now here's the thing Meerov, I'm not actually sure that "privilege" is the most useful linguistic device. However, you must agree that power imbalances exist within the working class and that women and people of color and migrants and LGBT people are on the losing end of these imbalances.

So it's relative privilege, fine. But I think if you actually listen, you'll see that most class struggle anarchists who employ the term "privilege" aren't using it as an insult - that's some weird strawman you've created in your head. Instead, they use the term as a tool to analyze, understand and overcome divisions within the class.

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Mar 28 2018 16:20

First, find me a single example of anti-white bigotry undermining a particular strike, social struggle, etc.

I'm not very informed about the latest strikes in the US. However, I know that a huge part of the black proletariat in NY are anti-white racists. And I can't believe this isn't a problem for the social class movement. It can't be unimportant. Such things are a problem at all times.

Anti-white bigotry can't exist as part of a racist social structure

In any case, organized structures of black racists exist and conduct their structured work. And I can't figure out how anyone would think that's irrelevant. When Farahan insults the Jews, it is a reason at least to criticize this anti-Semite and racist. When a representative of the black movement says that white people should give the house to black (as happened recently), this is a reason to conflict with this black racist.

However, you must agree that power imbalances exist within the working class and that women and people of color and migrants and LGBT people are on the losing end of these imbalances.
So it's relative privilege, fine. But I think if you actually listen, you'll see that most class struggle anarchists who employ the term "privilege" aren't using it as an insult

First, this imbalance resembles the average temperature of patients in the hospital. The average figures may be relevant for the analysis of the situation. But with the millions of white poor who live below the poverty line, their situation needs to be addressed first, not that they are "privileged." Otherwise, it is necessary to tell the black worker that he is rich privileged in comparison with black Africa. Second, I've talked enough with American and European anarchists to know that many of them use reasoning about "privileges" as an insult, or at least as a way to emphasize that "white men" are responsible for oppressing black people. This attitude is absolutely unacceptable. I didn't say all American anarchists say that, but many do.

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Mar 28 2018 16:23

people are supposedly calling you a "racist/nazi/fascist", or something similar? If the latter, I'd ask once again, can you show anyone here actually calling you that,

Hieronymous
Meerov21, please stop trying to peddle your reactionary ideas on libcom. You’ve yet to substantiate a thing you’ve said, except with nonsense.

This is a typical example of the dirty left speech I'm talking about.

Mike Harman
Online
Joined: 7-02-06
Mar 28 2018 16:31
meerov21 wrote:
However, I know that a huge part of the black proletariat in NY are anti-white racists.

Do you have anything to back this up? It's amazing you get worked up because someone calls your ideas reactionary, but you're quite happy to accuse millions of black people in New York of being racists.