[Peace] Identity politics (IP)

Thu May 11 20:31:22 UTC 2017

Carl, who is “concentrating” on IP? We’re simply lending our name in support of their issues. Some of which maybe IP, some is not.

One could say “war in Asia” is IP for me, because my daughters are half Asian, because my husband was Asian. Its not, given that I was anti-war long before I met him or had them.

 Is IP, when someone who is of Muslim origin, should not be protesting against war in the Middle East because for them that would be IP?

I understand very well, why IP is a “problem,” when it becomes a distraction from the larger issues.

As far as I’m concerned this conversation is a distraction. An all day discussion in relation to AWARE support for a student group on campus in relation to issues most of us support?

If they were Nazi’s or the KKK, then it might be worth this much discussion or attention……

I’m finished.

On May 11, 2017, at 13:00, Carl G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu<mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:

Many of my ancestors were Puritans.

IP is 'the left wing of neoliberalism’ - capitalism’s protean disguise.

In order to have the appearance of credibility, IP must in fact attack real, existing evils (e.g. racial discrimination)  - but it displaces "the critique of the invidious outcomes produced by capitalist class power [including war] onto equally naturalized categories of ascriptive identity that sort us into groups supposedly defined by what we essentially are rather than what we do.” Thus the root of the problems is thought to be ‘white supremacy’ or ‘Islamic terrorism’ - rather than class struggles. (Reread the hundred-year-old “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.”)

In short, concentrating on identity (a position we choose - see the current debate over the Hypatia article) interferes with understanding why the governmnet we’re responsible for has killed more than 20 million people in 37 nations since the end of WWII - and what we might do about it.

—CGE

On May 11, 2017, at 1:58 PM, Karen Aram <karenaram at hotmail.com<mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com>> wrote:

That will be fun.

I have spoken of it, but I meant to say “success” not “support” below.

I get IP, but if we reject everything that appears to be IP in contrast to that which maybe a priority, we become “purists.”

Harry, and the student group isn’t asking for our “first born grandchild,” they’re not even asking us for “monetary contributions.” They are simply asking us to support, with our name, their concerns and issues. Most of which we support.

See you Saturday at the market.

On May 11, 2017, at 11:37, Carl G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu<mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:

You should plan to talk about it on AOTA.

I’ll attack IP. —CGE

On May 11, 2017, at 1:27 PM, Karen Aram <karenaram at hotmail.com<mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com>> wrote:

Then we can remain our own little clique of anti-war activists known as AWARE?  If we don’t grow, if we don’t recruit new people, young people who will inherit the mess that further war creates, then what is the point, other than making us feel good about ourselves.

If after so many years, we aren’t making progress, then its time to try something else. We have been ineffective in countering the growing, perpetual war, machine. By we, I mean the national anti-war movement.

The only real reason to demonstrate, protest, educate, speak out is to build mass movements, to frighten our elected Representatives into supporting the will of the people, not the corporations lining their pockets.

If that means supporting some with their IP issues, then so be it. Though as I said, I really like #13, it highlights an issue I have been attempting to make for the past couple years with much effort and little support.

On May 11, 2017, at 11:13, Carl G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu<mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:

I thought airing his views distracted from AWARE’s purpose.

I think endorsing identity politics does, too.

—CGE

On May 11, 2017, at 12:53 PM, Karen Aram <karenaram at hotmail.com<mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com>> wrote:

We set a precedent last year, when a person approached us to be on the program, someone on this list who has made his views known, that of anti-semitism, holocaust denier, blames the Jews for everything. I openly was opposed to having a known racist on the program.

Ron, Stuart, Karen M. in their support for “freedom of speech” disagreed with me, Carl wasn’t sure given he supports freedom of speech, but the program has limited time.

I, given I was alone on this issue, insisted on bringing David Johnson, and David Green into the picture, and they agreed with me. Karen M. then took the position that we weren’t preventing this person from his freedom of speech, he could get his own program.

So, from my perspective the vote, majority rules, set a precedent. We need not always be in agreement on every issue.

On May 11, 2017, at 10:23, Harry Mickalide via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net<mailto:peace at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:

So that's Harry Mickalide, David Johnson, Karen Aram, Stuart Levy, and Karen Medina all for having AWARE sign on as officially supporting the demands. What is AWARE's policy on organization-wide decisions? Do we need consensus or a majority vote?

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Carl G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu<mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:
Harry—

I and I’m sure other members and friends of AWARE support those three points (and perhaps stronger versions, including free tuition and a universal basic income.)

But the bulk of the 13 demands - containing some legitimate complaints - constitute identity politics as Reed describes them.

That’s separate from and at worst a distraction from the politics that have animated the "Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort” of C-U.

AWARE members may support the demands, but I think it’s outside the purpose of AWARE as an organization to do so.

I hope members of both groups will cooperate in combatting war and racism.

Regards, Carl

On May 11, 2017, at 10:13 AM, Harry Mickalide <mickalideh at gmail.com<mailto:mickalideh at gmail.com>> wrote:

Carl, here is my frustration. You continue to assert that BSFR (Black Students for Revolution) is engaging in identity politics at the expense of being anti-capitalist and anti-war when multiple people have told you that BSFR is very much anti-capitalist and anti-war.

Here are some quotes from their list of demands to prove it.
https://www.bsfruiuc.com/our-demands

From demand 1
"While students are being handcuffed with loans, private lenders are making a profit and the federal government is spending public funds on wars, drones, wall street bailouts, and corporate subsidies. Situated at the intersection of white supremacy, capitalism, and patriarchy, today’s education model marginalizes and excludes both the working class and students of color. As a first step towards a tuition-free and debt-free reality within higher education, we demand that tuition hikes come to an immediate and permanent end, and that MAP Grants, regardless of state funding, should continue to be issued to recipients."

From demand 8
"We believe adequate shelter, food, water, and health care are human rights owed to all workers, and that a living wage is a first step in ensuring that for all people."

From demand 13
They call for divestment from "corporations which actively support or enable states currently carrying out human right’s abuses (e.g., Israel, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar), all private prison corporations, and all private military contractors and weapons manufacturers."

Despite this clear overlap between the goals of AWARE and BSFR, you refuse to support them because they are also choosing to rally around their shared blackness? That seems hella racist to me.

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net<mailto:peace at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:
More useful than Google (not, perhaps, the most revolutionary organization...) is the ‘Search’ function on the Peace-discuss archives, Karen.

This is from six months ago, re <https://www.bsfruiuc.com/our-demands>:

...The list certainly raises (once again) questions of the nature and provenance of identity politics (the mainstay of the Clinton campaign).
See Adolph Reed's mordant description … :

"[Identity] politics is not an alternative to class politics; it is a class politics, the politics of the left-wing of neoliberalism. It is the expression and active agency of a political order and moral economy in which capitalist market forces are treated as unassailable nature.
"An integral element of that moral economy is displacement of the critique of the invidious outcomes produced by capitalist class power onto equally naturalized categories of ascriptive identity that sort us into groups supposedly defined by what we essentially are rather than what we do. As I have argued, following Walter Michaels and others, within that moral economy a society in which 1% of the population controlled 90% of the resources could be just, provided that roughly 12% of the 1% were black, 12% were Latino, 50% were women, and whatever the appropriate proportions were LGBT people.
"It would be tough to imagine a normative ideal that expresses more unambiguously the social position of people who consider themselves candidates for inclusion in, or at least significant staff positions in service to, the ruling class” <http://bennorton.com/adolph-reed-identity-politics-is-neoliberalism/>.

It’s difficult to see how a serious critique of US war-making can arise from identity politics. (Not enough blacks and women among Special Forces killers?)
It would seem that US war-making arises from domestic and foreign class conflicts; given that we’ve killed more than 20 million in 37 nations since WWII, we should be clear about causes.
<https://www.popularresistance.org/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-in-37-nations-since-wwii/>.

AWARE has seen as its task for 15 years to encourage awareness of how and why the US government is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.
And to do that we must tell the truth and shame the devil, as Hotspur says.

I’m not convinced that endorsing these demands contributes to that effort. —CGE

Six months on, and as worthwhile as some of the goals of the demands seem, that still seems right to me.

Regards, Carl

On May 11, 2017, at 9:06 AM, kmedina67 via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net<mailto:peace at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:

Carl, Google it.

Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

-------- Original message --------
From: "Carl G. Estabrook"

Send me their list of demands (and read Reed…)

> wrote:

Point to items on their list that are identity politics

-------- Original message --------
 e.g. Adolph Reed’s critique:

<http://bennorton.com/adolph-reed-identity-politics-is-neoliberalism/>.

AWARE was founded to foster local opposition to US war-making and racism - and, by implication, capitalism, the source of both.

We should be willing to cooperate with others who have effective ways to do that as well.

But as Reed explains, identity politics is a defense of capitalism - and therefore at best only accidentally useful in an anti-war anti-racism effort.

—CGE

Carl,

It is online. I can't copy and paste the url from my cell phone. But you can Google their demands.
-karen medina

_______________________________________________
Peace mailing list
Peace at lists.chambana.net<mailto:Peace at lists.chambana.net>
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace

_______________________________________________
Peace mailing list
Peace at lists.chambana.net<mailto:Peace at lists.chambana.net>
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace

_______________________________________________
Peace mailing list
Peace at lists.chambana.net<mailto:Peace at lists.chambana.net>
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/attachments/20170511/68469878/attachment-0001.html>