DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Multiculturalism, Equal Opportunities, and all that Bollocks

160 posts / 0 new
Last post
georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
May 29 2007 10:19

She said black. Why would she say whack. It was in the context of her arguing that race was socially constructed and could be applied to people without black skin. I'm black.

And jack fuck off you racist. I'm an irish speaking ginger black man. You hate it, you white middle class* english imperialist. I'm soooooooo much more oppressed than you.

*I might also .... ahem ... errr... no fuck off I'm black, that means I can't be middle class.

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
May 29 2007 10:21
revol68 wrote:
georgestapleton wrote:
Also before GDID comes on I know I'm not from the northside. But fuck off the quote wouldn't have worked otherwise. Anyway an american did tell me I was black once.

never have guessed.

Tch, what do you know about dublin. Go back to your own country foreigner.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
May 29 2007 10:28

George Stapleton

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
May 29 2007 10:28

One of his nicknames, "Red," derived from the reddish tinge of his hair. He was described as having, at birth, "ash-blonde hair ... tinged with cinnamon," and at four, "reddish-blonde hair." His hair darkened as he aged, but resembled the hair of his paternal grandmother whose hair "turned reddish in the summer sun."

ronan
Offline
Joined: 26-06-05
May 29 2007 16:00

shouldn't you be studying?

Deezer
Offline
Joined: 2-10-04
May 29 2007 16:06

But here, that just so is not a picture of you george... "Reddish" hair or not. Or are you trying to say that as you're black Malcolm X mighta actually been white...

Fuckin white, ginger, black man, confusing the fuck outta me... oh and that usin' your ethnicity to claim you aren't a privileged middle class kid well, thats just soooo Oirish American.

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
May 29 2007 18:07

No the quote underneath is from Malcolm X's wiki entry. He was a ginger. A ginger black man just like me.

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
May 29 2007 18:08

oh and yes I should be studying

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
May 29 2007 18:11

deaniel: have you thought aboput cheacking out meanwhilatthebar (.com?),. they're quite into this as i understand.

JoeMaguire's picture
JoeMaguire
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
May 29 2007 22:35
georgestapleton wrote:
Although you are right that there has been problems with affirmative action benefitting the middle class more than intended. But from studying affirmative action in a labour economics course I took I was surprised to learn that this was not as big a problem as I would have expected. Maybe we've been reading different things. I remember reading bits of Barbara R Bergman's book and that being interesting and I read a few other articles which I could probably dig up if you wanted.

I thought Joseph K's post summed up my points on race quite well.

Lets surrender health, schooling, housing, welfare, in fact any kind of rationing to affirmative action then you have allowed race to become the central point of focus, and not class. As working class militants our duty should be to resolve issues through posing class answers, potentially throwing up race issues shows that none of those problems can be resolved but will only spill out into every other aspect of our lives.

Think for a moment that a white family loses out on a program which as been designated for blacks under AA, the entire process would have been to racialise them and yet again liberal methods ensure the establishment remains safe while competing elements of our class turn against each other.
And its common experience that AA benefits higher positioned blacks who then surrender quite a few concepts of solidarity with their black peers.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
May 30 2007 00:29

George is obviously a black albino, who are commonly ginger, light skinned and freckled. Charlie Parker took a white ginger trumpet player touring thru the then-segregated south in the 50s and passed him as black by calling him Red Rodney and claiming he was albino. Made him sing the blues to black audiences too.

tastypudding
Offline
Joined: 16-05-07
May 30 2007 01:00
Joseph K. wrote:
tastypudding wrote:
i don´t like this logic one bit. if you see the bnp gaining support as a valid reason to dislike these measures, then you´re already giving in to the demands of the bnp. i guess you wouldn´t say that immigration should be regulated more strongly because if not the bnp will get stronger?

the point is that in racialising issues that have nothing to do with race, we've already surrendered the terms of debate to the liberal-fascist spectrum by abandoning class analysis.

ok, maybe i misunderstood that sentence in october´s post that i originally quoted.

mk12
Offline
Joined: 29-12-04
May 30 2007 08:33

This is true - some form Red Action types on there, and IWCAers.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
May 30 2007 12:57
MJ wrote:
I don't know if you keep repeating this because you think it's some kind of amazing outsider insight but the whole "all white anti-racists are just acting out middle class guilt" thing is a really worn out path of a conversation here, and is definitely a page out of the same book as "how ironic, anarchists forming an organization?" and "she says she's against capitalism, but she works at one of the most unethical factories there is!".

People weren't talking about "all white anti-racists" though, were they? Nice slur by implication though.

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
May 30 2007 17:36
october_lost wrote:
georgestapleton wrote:
Although you are right that there has been problems with affirmative action benefitting the middle class more than intended. But from studying affirmative action in a labour economics course I took I was surprised to learn that this was not as big a problem as I would have expected. Maybe we've been reading different things. I remember reading bits of Barbara R Bergman's book and that being interesting and I read a few other articles which I could probably dig up if you wanted.

I thought Joseph K's post summed up my points on race quite well.

Lets surrender health, schooling, housing, welfare, in fact any kind of rationing to affirmative action then you have allowed race to become the central point of focus, and not class. As working class militants our duty should be to resolve issues through posing class answers, potentially throwing up race issues shows that none of those problems can be resolved but will only spill out into every other aspect of our lives.

Think for a moment that a white family loses out on a program which as been designated for blacks under AA, the entire process would have been to racialise them and yet again liberal methods ensure the establishment remains safe while competing elements of our class turn against each other.
And its common experience that AA benefits higher positioned blacks who then surrender quite a few concepts of solidarity with their black peers.

Oh it got serious again. To be honest I don't know how far you can run with this argument. Race is a question of class so you can't say AA allows race to become the central point of focus, and not class.

I mean you could also think for a moment that a setttled family loses out on a program which as been designated for travellers under AA, the entire process would have been to racialise them and yet again liberal methods ensure the establishment remains safe while competing elements of our class turn against each other.
And its common experience that AA benefits higher positioned welfare-scamming travellers who have no concept of solidarity with their settled peers.

Or you could say think for a moment that a nuclear family loses out on a program which as been designated for single parent families under AA, the entire process would have been to demonise them and yet again liberal methods ensure the establishment remains safe while competing elements of our class turn against each other.
And its common experience that AA benefits higher positioned single parent families who then surrender quite a few concepts of solidarity with other single parent families.

Or you could say think for a moment that a ordinary decent family loses out due to funding being given to a program which as been developed for junkies, yet again liberal methods ensure the establishment remains safe while competing elements of our class turn against each other.
And its common experience that these programmes benefit anti-social elements who have no concept of solidarity with their peers.

Its a dodgy road to go down. The truth is the are divisions in the working class. And in the states racial divisions are very real and need to be dealt with as racial divisions in the working class. Ignoring them achieves nothing positive.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
May 30 2007 21:48
georgestapleton wrote:
Race is a question of class

eh?

georgestapleton wrote:
The truth is the are divisions in the working class. And in the states racial divisions are very real and need to be dealt with as racial divisions in the working class. Ignoring them achieves nothing positive.

i said:

Joseph K. wrote:
areas should not get money because they're inhabited by brown people, white people, blue people - we should fight for resources on the basis of need. now if there is systematic racism then the people most in need will happen to be working class people of a minority ethnicity, but so what? the colour of someones skin is of absolutely no importance.

that doesn't mean ignoring racist divisions, it means not entrenching them by instead making need the basis of demands, not skin colour. obviously somewhere like the US this would likely mean ethnic minorities would get disproportionate resources because of historic racism etc, but in asserting demands based on need we lay the basis for class solidarity, and eliminate the risk carried by AA of simply handing resources to the savvy upwardly mobile 'community representatives' set

Deezer
Offline
Joined: 2-10-04
May 30 2007 22:30

Um, just like to point out that its equal opportunities thats referred to in the title, and while that is certainly very vague in its definition it is certainly NOT the same thing as Affirmative Action.

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
May 30 2007 22:37
Joseph K. wrote:
georgestapleton wrote:
The truth is the are divisions in the working class. And in the states racial divisions are very real and need to be dealt with as racial divisions in the working class. Ignoring them achieves nothing positive.

i said:

Joseph K. wrote:
areas should not get money because they're inhabited by brown people, white people, blue people - we should fight for resources on the basis of need. now if there is systematic racism then the people most in need will happen to be working class people of a minority ethnicity, but so what? the colour of someones skin is of absolutely no importance.

that doesn't mean ignoring racist divisions, it means not entrenching them by instead making need the basis of demands, not skin colour. obviously somewhere like the US this would likely mean ethnic minorities would get disproportionate resources because of historic racism etc, but in asserting demands based on need we lay the basis for class solidarity, and eliminate the risk carried by AA of simply handing resources to the savvy upwardly mobile 'community representatives' set

When you put it like that yeah I agree with you. But if minorities get disproportionate resources because of historic racism or whatever than thats the same thing as affirmative action.

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
May 30 2007 23:06
Boulcolonialboy wrote:
Um, just like to point out that its equal opportunities thats referred to in the title, and while that is certainly very vague in its definition it is certainly NOT the same thing as Affirmative Action.

Yep.

I also wonder how one goes about supporting monoculturalism.

Deezer
Offline
Joined: 2-10-04
May 30 2007 23:24

I can see the difficulty with that.

Yeah,

Maoism springs to mind for some reason.

On equal opportunities legislation, well where I'm from it applies mostly to white folks and really doesn't have fuck all to do with race (separate legislation). Yeah, sure, the legislation and the debate framing it is blind to divisions of class, and it would appear that the main beneficiaries of this type of legislation, along with earlier reforms, have been a now pretty much established 'catholic' middle-class.

Where things have gotten more 'equal' for working class people thats basically based on a ballix argument that doesn't account for the changing nature of employment (ie terms and conditions, rates of pay, job security, pensions are by and large worse across the board) or the disproportionate (devastating is appropriate for some of these communities) impact of de-industrialisation on working class 'protestant' communities. In short we may well be more equal but its equaly worse off while the top 15% are better off by comparison than at any time in the past.

In this context the only case of 'affirmative action' practiced in NI, in relation to 50/50 police recruitment has came in for criticism from unionists. Apparently 700 prods who would have got in on the basis of merit and equal opportunity have been denied places as PSNI recruits. It can/is be(ing) presented or represented back as discrimination against protestants and it could have potential to reinforce sectarianism and sectarian division in the working class. My attitude, fuck its the cops I don't really give a fuck - and given that any stupid fucker who joins actually believing they'll be helping anyone tends to end up a fucked up alcoholic I reckon a fair whack of those 700 prods probably had a lucky escape from a really bad career move.

But really at the end of the day the major impact on peoples lives and work has emanated from shifts in global capital - not the only ever affirmative action scheme to be introduced in the north.

Solidarity;

boul

Deezer
Offline
Joined: 2-10-04
May 31 2007 00:21

Could I also ask why this thread is in history???

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
May 31 2007 08:29
georgestapleton wrote:
When you put it like that yeah I agree with you. But if minorities get disproportionate resources because of historic racism or whatever than thats the same thing as affirmative action.

i don't think it is, even though the outcome may be similar. AA allocates resources based on skin colour, and i don't think racial discrimination is ever 'positive' or is anything but divisive, whatever the intentions.

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
May 31 2007 13:34
Jack wrote:
Flint wrote:
I also wonder how one goes about supporting monoculturalism.

You know multiculturalism means a specific, right?

It's roughly synonymous with (current) British (and I think general European) bourgeois anti-racism.

Or is that just the folks you notice in the bourgeois media talking most about it? Multiculturalism hardly has a well-defined meaning. Like how "feminism" could be regarded as "bourgeois anti-sexism" if you just went by the corporate media; all about puncturing the glass ceiling and getting more women into office. Except, there is a working class feminism. Sometimes a working class feminism and and a bourgeois feminism share some common issues; for instance say opposition to the prevalence of rape in society. Other times they are opposed... a working class feminism internationalism and opposition to war against whatever it is Condoleeza Rice wants to do as Secretary of State.

The author of this thread decided to tie a lot of unrelated concepts in policies in together. It's sloppy and doesn't really help folks understand what the dynamics are or what positions to take. For instance, the use of different languages or the maintenance and celebration of particular cultural practices seems like something that no anarchist should have problem with. Celebration of gender and sexual diversity sounds fine and dandy to me. Celebrating cultural diversity seems like it can actually break down the power cultural institutions have of control; I'd much rather see a bunch of little churches vying for folks souls, than one church--if you catch my meaning; makes it easier to be an atheist or at least have secularism as the standard.

Sure, they are bourgeois civil rights, but they also represent important social gains by oppressed minorities of the working class (women, certain ethnic groupings, etc...) ; and those demands for equal treatment by bourgeois state is coming from a place where people are demanding equal treatment. Seems like something we'd want to encourage; and unequal treatment of some elements of the working class by the bourgeois state and employers allows the bourgeois to pit elements of the working class against each other.

While the focus on affirmative action and equal opportunities programs appeal to the "talented tenth" that is, in bringing up some members of sexually, racially, ethnically oppressed folks into the ranks of skilled labor or the bourgeois--that doesn't mean that's something we should oppose. If you really hate nationalism... then you should understand that the over all effect is actually to break down those sexist and racist divisions in society--it can turn the black proletariat against the black bourgeois for example. It's still a thing in progress. About the only negative is that some of the previously privileged groups might fear the loss of their privileges and make a bid for fascism to get them back. That very thing has been the biggest problem for working class unity in the U.S., and it won't be solved by wishing the U.S. had a ethnically homogeneous population or a monoculture.

To be clear, I'm not arguing for affirmative action programs, but I also don't see any point in arguing against them. They have very little to do with the struggle of the working class except in that they undermine a sense of racist entitlement whites have, and a sense of sexist entitlement that men have. I do think what we need to be fighting for is social gains that benefit the working class (in all it's variety) and that often means confronting racism and sexism head on... both the policies of the bourgeois and where it impinges on the solidarity of the working class.

Al this shit about the poor rednecks being blamed for social ills is just nonsense blather. At most, they are blaming them for being poor not because they are white. The bourgeois media has always attacked the poor and tried to blame the poor for their situation. The bourgeois media always will.

What's en vogue in the U.S. right now is not attacking crackers, it's attacking "illegal immigrants" which is a code word for brown people; particularly ones that speak a primary language other than English. Interestingly enough, some of the racist groups are making a particular point about going after by definition... the most precarious workers in the proletariat, for example: daylaborers.org. The bourgeois state, in the name of protecting the physical well being and jobs of the U.S. working class, uses this sentiment to control all workers in the U.S., immigrant or otherwise. Elements of the white working class also support this because they wish to enforce their culture on new immigrants, that is through language (English Only campaigns) and are sometimes the most vocal proponents of assimilation. Racism, white supremacy and privilege are often cloaked in "cultural" terms.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
May 31 2007 14:02
Flint wrote:
the maintenance and celebration of particular cultural practices seems like something that no anarchist should have problem with.

sounds like relativist bollocks, i'm sure you don't mean it that way but there's all sorts for anarchists to object to in say female genital mutilation, enforced burkha wearing, or that time honoured anglo tradition of wife beating

another problem with multiculturalism as a term is that it's used as a euphemism for 'multicoloured' - culture has little to do with skin colour. it's not like if you kicked out all the 'immigrants' everyone would dress the same, listen to the same music etc (unless of course they were forced to by the government which kicked out al the immigrants, who'd probably have a bit of a thing for uniforms). often 'multiculturalism' is simply a case of reifying (sorry, but it's the right word) culture based on ethnicity. i think keenan malik did a good (uk) documentary on it actually, anyone remember what that was called so i can search youtube?

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
May 31 2007 14:09
Joseph K. wrote:
Flint wrote:
the maintenance and celebration of particular cultural practices seems like something that no anarchist should have problem with.

sounds like relativist bollocks, i'm sure you don't mean it that way but there's all sorts for anarchists to object to in say female genital mutilation, enforced burkha wearing, or that time honoured anglo tradition of wife beating

Don't be daft, I'm also opposed to Aztec Human Sacrifice. It just makes you look like an idiot.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
May 31 2007 14:27
Flint wrote:
Don't be daft, I'm also opposed to Aztec Human Sacrifice. It just makes you look like an idiot.

presumably me being daft makes me look like an idiot, rather than me opposing aztec human sacrifice?

why's it daft to point out that generic endorsement of 'cultural practices' can be taken as relativism?

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
May 31 2007 14:33
Joseph K. wrote:
Flint wrote:
Don't be daft, I'm also opposed to Aztec Human Sacrifice. It just makes you look like an idiot.

presumably me being daft makes me look like an idiot, rather than me opposing aztec human sacrifice?

why's it daft to point out that generic endorsement of 'cultural practices' can be taken as relativism?

You're engaging in hyperbole. You might think you are very clever, but I have no tolerance for it.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
May 31 2007 14:34

eh? what am i exaggerating?

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
May 31 2007 14:57
lem wrote:
^^ the grim dirty reality of pluralism is human sacrifice grin

please expand??

Let's not forget that allowing homosexuals to marry only strengths bourgeois institution of marriage, encourages the dependence on the state and clergy to condone monogamous sexual unions, and further solidifies homosexuality as a distinct identity and thus enshrines it as "the other", stigmatizes bisexuals and supports the lie that sexuality is a matter of binary extremes rather than much more fluid and individually specific. Plus, if you let queers marry, then it's the same as condoning adults marrying children, or human beings marrying animals. This is no way advances the international proletarian summer camp. We should be abolishing marriage and families (Engels said so!), not letting homosexuals get married or letting them adopt children. All children should be raised in communal creches with matching jumpsuits.

^ Hyperbole ^

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
May 31 2007 15:01

and i did that where?

you said:

Flint wrote:
the maintenance and celebration of particular cultural practices seems like something that no anarchist should have problem with.

i pointed out that there are in fact many examples of "the maintenance and celebration of particular cultural practices" which anarchists should have a problem with. that was all.