[Peace-discuss] Anti-racism

Sat Mar 7 21:09:38 CST 2009

"Frame"?  Do you mean "argument"? I think G. Lakoff has done a lot of damage to 
liberal thought in America.

"Sectarian"? What sects did you have in mind?

Racism and sexism, in the sense of prejudice based on race and gender, are 
wrong. (It goes without saying that so is any legal embodiment of them). They 
are used, although probably decreasingly, by the US elite to divide workers from 
one another.  But CEOs don't want competent managers to be excluded from their 
companies because of race, nor do they want barriers placed in the way of their 
daughters' career advancement.

Thirty years ago, the Left in this country turned away from criticizing 
capitalism, out of despair that anything could be done about it.  They opted 
instead for group solidarity -- "identity politics."  The result was that they 
were co-oped by the business parties, culminating in the Obama campaign -- a 
conservative apologist for the elite completed the neutralization of the Left.

Many sincere people think that "fighting against racial and sexual inequality is 
at least a step in the direction of real equality," instead of a substitute for 
it.  I hope they're right.  But they tend to ignore the difference between 
conflicts about race or gender and conflicts about class.  The former can in 
principle be solved by reconciliation; the latter, not by reconciliation 
(exploiter and exploited cannot reconcile) but by the elimination of 
exploitation -- i.e., the elimination of the social role of the exploiter.

Robert Naiman wrote:
> This frame seems to me needlessly and counterproductively sectarian.
> 
> Is it the case that "racism and sexism" are still important problems
> in our society, and that they are an important source of economic
> inequality? Surely it is.
> 
> If so, what is the point of going after "liberals" who "carry on about
> racism and sexism"? Is it likely to advance the goal of directing
> effective action to other forms of economic inequality?
> 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 8:35 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu> wrote:
>> Thank you for the kind words, David.  I appreciate them particularly because
>> they come from as competent and insightful an activist as yourself.  People
>> should see your recent essay from "News from Neptune/TV Edition," (soon to
>> be) posted on the website <www.newsfromneptune.com>.
>>
>> I think in fact the issue at stake in this discussion is the tendency in
>> American liberalism to substitute diversity for (economic) equality as the
>> goal of progressive politics.  The Obama candidacy looks like the apotheosis
>> of this trend.
>>
>> The argument is sharply set out by Walter Benn Michaels in "The Trouble with
>> Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality" (2006).
>>  And it's been argued that the real story of Tom Frank's "What's the Matter
>> With Kansas?" (2004) is that the working class abandoned the Democratic
>> party when the Democrats abandoned economic equality (insofar as they ever
>> embraced it) in favor of diversity.
>>
>> Benn Michaels summarized his argument in a recent issue of the British
>> journal "New Left Review":
>>
>> "...the answer to the question, ‘Why do American liberals carry on about
>> racism and sexism when they should be carrying on about capitalism?’, is
>> pretty obvious: they carry on about racism and sexism in order to avoid
>> doing so about capitalism. Either because they genuinely do think that
>> inequality is fine as long as it is not a function of discrimination (in
>> which case, they are neoliberals of the right). Or because they think that
>> fighting against racial and sexual inequality is at least a step in the
>> direction of real equality (in which case, they are neoliberals of the
>> left).  Given these options, perhaps the neoliberals of the right are in a
>> stronger position -- the economic history of the last thirty years suggests
>> that diversified elites do even better than undiversified ones. But of
>> course, these are not the only possible choices."
>>
>> <http://www.newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2731>
>>
>>
>> unionyes wrote:
>>> Ricky, et al,
>>>
>>> Carl and his wife live a comfortable middle class life.
>>>
>>> I don't think they should have to appologize for that,
>>>
>>> They have had the blessings of the perfect triad ; hard work,
>>> intelligence,
>>> and luck.
>>>
>>> What makes them special, is that they could easily take the attitude that
>>> anyone not like them are losers !
>>>
>>> Carl's wife works MANY hours at the Catholic Worker  House helping and
>>> feeding the poor ( which could be any of us and many of us if economic
>>> conditions deteriorate badly enough ). Carl and his wife are NOT just about
>>> advocating charity, but ENPOWERMENT as well !
>>>
>>> I must say though, Carl is a " class traitor ", that is, a traitor to the
>>> ruling class ! And I love him for it !
>>>
>>> It is admirable that Carl is not ashamed of his Irish working class roots,
>>> who ( the Irish ) were exploited and worked to death for little
>>> compensation,
>>> like African Americans, Eastern Eurpopeans, and multitudes of others in
>>> the
>>> plantation they call America.
>>>
>>> If Carl was like many people in this society, he would cover-up his
>>> working
>>> class heritage, but instead he acknowledges it and learns from it, to
>>> critique the current remnants of the plantation mentality / imperialist
>>> institutional structure in this society. Even if we may disagree at times
>>> with some of his views, we should respect him for the time and effort he
>>> puts
>>> into ;  articulating, analyzing, and advocating for a better country and a
>>> better world, for ALL of us.
>>>
>>> My hat is off to Carl and his wonderful wife for being who they are and
>>> doing
>>> what so few are willing to do in contemporary America.... " walk it like
>>> they
>>> talk it " !
>>>
>>> They can't help the way they are, and I am honored to know them !
>>>
>>> David Johnson
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "C. G. Estabrook"
>>> <galliher at illinois.edu> To: "Ricky Baldwin" <baldwinricky at yahoo.com> Cc:
>>> "peace-discuss"
>>> <peace-discuss at anti-war.net> Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 8:06 PM Subject:
>>> Re: [Peace-discuss] Anti-racism
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ricky Baldwin wrote:
>>>>> Carl,
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been to your house, seen your car in the lot. When it comes to the
>>>>> reckoning you get diddly squat.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss