A frank discussion about feminist, marxist and racist *ahem* race ideology etc.

[Pickman's model]

I've got nothing to be sorry about.

oh, you do

The part where there remains a feminist belief that men cannot truly be considered ‘feminsists’, due to the movement being founded by women and for the advancement of women. Pickman’s model spent a considerable amount of time trying to discredit my own recollection of this fact, whilst also trying to bolster his argument by referencing Wikipedia. Lol!

perhaps you could say why you disagree with my quote from wikipedia. but if you don't like wikipedia, perhaps you'll like the oed:

Advocacy of equality of the sexes and the establishment of the political, social, and economic rights of the female sex; the movement associated with this

Only a moron of the highest order would liken the forced commodification of black peoples into wholesale slavery as comparable to a HR recruitment drive.

perhaps so. but i didn't, as well you know. i said that everyone is now seen as a commodity.

 

[winifred]

I have an opinion. You have a problem with that.

No, but I feel that a lot of what went on with that thread was fueled by media speculation and sensationalist reporting. It also doesn't help that a lot of the media reports appeared to regard ethnicity and race as being one in the same.

You were not alone in speculating about the possible reasons.

I already acknowledged that when I posted up, "mine was one of a few dissenting voices", only for me to be told to effectively stfu within that thread as I was seen to be acting as an apologist for Dolezal's actions.

Eh? Your definition of 'victim' seems to be completely different to mine. Do victims in your world speak up for themselves and challenge others? Seriously, don't even dream me your 'victim'.

No you came across with what appeared to be a 'victim' mentality because you completely misinterpreted my posts when you posted the following:

She was not being 'villified' she was being held accountable for her actions and disceptions. The discussion went into detail about the implications of those actions and what the real life consequences are for people. Just because you didn't want to engage with those facts and still don't, proven by your redacted repesentation of that thread and what she has done doesn't make you an optimistic martyr.

However, I have covered and engaged with those themes to a small extent when posting the following with the OP:

And I get that people are outraged by a 'white' person identifying herself as being 'black'.

*snip* …despite the fact that some have argued recently that the term 'transracial' has largely been misrepresented in recent times *snip*

I also went on to elaborate in an earlier post with the following:

*snip* …the experience of class is not some dry definition but one's everyday experience, which if one were able to take a sliver of would not explain to an observer what one's experience of class was like. it's the same with race, gender etc etc.

*snip* It's often through reading peoples' own narratives that we begin to gain a better appreciation of others' lived experiences, but we'll never really get it completely.

Of course, I only touched on some of the issues that you raised/alleged that I'd "redacted", but I had already made my comments in the other thread re: the issues that you wanted me to cover within this thread. But why should I rehash them within this thread, when what I'm trying to examine are wider issues and concepts that aren't necessarily related to the Dolezal case?

And in that sense, by 'crying foul' you are effectively acting like a victim when you take into consideration the following definition of 'victim': "A person who is tricked or duped"

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/victim

I do not wish to silence you. What I am asking for is honesty. My 'beef' is with the dishonest way you have characterised that thread, the discussion and the voices within it. Why should I ignore the fact you have misrepresented it? Surely if I did and didn't feel like I could speak up I would be a 'victim'?

I've already covered why I disagree with you on the basis for this thread, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. If you can't believe that I haven't come to it with honest intentions, then there's not much I can do about that.

 

[Pickman's model]

Of course, I only touched on some of the issues that you raised/alleged that I'd "redacted", but I had already made my comments in the other thread re: the issues that you wanted me to c

tell you what, why don't you read my posts and then read them again and read them once more for luck and then maybe you'll understand them.

 

[winifred]

tell you what, why don't you read my posts and then read them again and read them once more for luck and then maybe you'll understand them.

I wouldn't because you're basically full of shit, and it's a complete waste of my time.

Also, fuck knows what's happening with my previous post, but it's coming up with all sorts of additional shit that I've continually tried to delete/edit out from my post.

 

[Pickman's model]

I wouldn't because you're basically full of shit, and it's a complete waste of my time.

the issue you have is you don't understand what i am saying. everyone else is understanding it but you don't. you haven't understood the post you quoted just now. you haven't understood that the accumulation of wealth among a minority is not a defining characteristic of capitalism. you look at the words - you do not read them.

and it's not just me. you're having immense difficulty with Rutita1's posts to. fuck knows why.

Also, fuck knows what's happening with my previous post, but it's coming up with all sorts of additional shit that I've continually tried to delete/edit out from my post.

that'd be the bit that makes sense then.

 

[winifred]

Race, racism and slavery all pre-date any form of organised capitalism. All of them have existed for at least 3,000 years. What they have in common isn't capitalism, but the machinations of a ruling class desiring and exercising power over others, and searching for and finding excuses (not reasons) for doing so.

I agree, but what you're talking about is pretty much semantics. Whether the ruling classes were regarded as feudal lords or elite capitalists is neither here nor there, the fact of the matter is that it still pertains to a small minority who exploited the masses for their own ends.

The reason I'm relating the transatlantic slave trade and wholesale racsim to the development of modern capitalism, is because it is very much founded on the 'rape' and exploitation of non-white populations through colonialisation = the foundation for creating the so-called 'great British empire'.

 

[winifred]

the issue you have is you don't understand what i am saying. everyone else is understanding it but you don't. you haven't understood the post you quoted just now. you haven't understood that the accumulation of wealth among a minority is not a defining characteristic of capitalism. you look at the words - you do not read them.

I'm not saying that the accumulation of wealth among a minority is a defining characteristic of capitalism, but it does play a part in explaining the subjegation of people based on their race, gender and class. If you weren't such a pedant, then you'd see that already, and avoid having to get into the protracted shit that you so clearly enjoy arguing the toss about.

and it's not just me. you're having immense difficulty with Rutita1's posts to. fuck knows why.
that'd be the bit that makes sense then.

I have as much difficulty in her one-sided/biased representation of me as I do to your often baseless shit. In fact, I don't know why I even bother with replying to you because you're so obviously full of shit that it really beggars belief. You seem to want to come across as a know-it-all within your posts, but all you really do is show that you basically know fuck-all about anything that's worth posting about, whilst being devoid of having/showing any online courtesy and politeness to others. You basically try to bully people into submission by relentlessly droning on and on, which is the tactic of a complete imbecile imho.

 

[winifred]

Oh well, I have to go now. Hope you have a great weekend everyone!!

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm not saying that the accumulation of wealth among a minority is a defining characteristic of capitalism, but it does play a part in explaining the subjegation of people based on their race, gender and class. If you weren't such a pedant, then you'd see that already, and avoid having to get into the protracted shit that you so clearly enjoy arguing the toss about.


I have as much difficulty in her one-sided/biased representation of me as I do to your often baseless shit. In fact, I don't know why I even bother with replying to you because you're so obviously full of shit that it really beggars belief. You seem to want to come across as a know-it-all within your posts, but all you really do is show that you basically know fuck-all about anything that's worth posting about, whilst being devoid of having/showing any online courtesy and politeness to others. You basically try to bully people into submission by relentlessly droning on and on, which is the tactic of a complete imbecile imho.

when you compare the verbosity of your indifferent contributions to my more concise posts it's clear who's droning on. and worse, when you deny what you have previously claimed it shows you to be a dishonest little shit.

 

[toggle]

I agree, but what you're talking about is pretty much semantics. Whether the ruling classes were regarded as feudal lords or elite capitalists is neither here nor there, the fact of the matter is that it still pertains to a small minority who exploited the masses for their own ends.

The reason I'm relating the transatlantic slave trade and wholesale racsim to the development of modern capitalism, is because it is very much founded on the 'rape' and exploitation of non-white populations through colonialisation = the foundation for creating the so-called 'great British empire'.

have you read any of the debates arguing that a lot of the british landgrabbing of the mid-late victorian era was driven by influence of the anti-slavery movements?

 

[Pickman's model]

have you read any of the debates arguing that a lot of the british landgrabbing of the mid-late victorian era was driven by influence of the anti-slavery movements?

i mentioned above the investment of the compo slave owners received in the uk...

 

[butchersapron]

I tried.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I agree, but what you're talking about is pretty much semantics. Whether the ruling classes were regarded as feudal lords or elite capitalists is neither here nor there, the fact of the matter is that it still pertains to a small minority who exploited the masses for their own ends.

It's hardly "semantics" to draw attention to the fact that your point confined slavery and racism to 300-400 years of human development, when in fact those issues stretched much further back,and are engraved much more deeply on human experience.

The reason I'm relating the transatlantic slave trade and wholesale racsim to the development of modern capitalism, is because it is very much founded on the 'rape' and exploitation of non-white populations through colonialisation = the foundation for creating the so-called 'great British empire'.

The development of modern capitalism was founded on technology (until technology allowed mass production, industry was necessarily of the small-scale "cottage" type). Until then, most exploitation (even the slave trade) was of the sort that accrued wealth to individuals, not to an economy. Its' use of people was little different to feudal serfdom, except in the source of human material.
As for the empire's exploitation of "the other", it started with the exploitation of the Irish and the Scots through systems of impossible-to-fulfill indentured servitude (slavery in all but name, as forced labour killed as many indentured whites in the Americas and West Indies as it did enslaved blacks), before moving on to enslaving non-white populations.
As for your linking the slave trade to colonialism, they're not the same thing.Please apprise yourself of the difference.

 

[toggle]

i mentioned above the investment of the compo slave owners received in the uk...

i was thinking more in terms of the promotio9n of the idea that the british had to grab otherwise someone who wouldn't run the place using good liberal government would do so

 

[ViolentPanda]

double post

 

[MochaSoul]

butchersapron Thank you for that link.

 

[ViolentPanda]

i was thinking more in terms of the promotio9n of the idea that the british had to grab otherwise someone who wouldn't run the place using good liberal government would do so

Yep. They were able to use the semi-canard of pointing at Spain, Portugal and France (as well as, later, Germany) and others, and saying "we treat our colonial possessions better than they do/did" (even if the "good liberal" governance was relative!).

 

[winifred]

Wouldn't you agree that your personal optimism has little place in analysing issues that require critical thinking? Always searching for positives risks loading values - your personal values - onto your analysis of an issue.

I don't think ciritical analysis and personal optimism are mutually exclusive concepts. If you're not optimistic about improving a particular situation, then there's really no point in trying to make a positive change is there?

And yes, I take your point that my personal values could possibly skew my analysis of an issue, but then you could also argue that personal sentiment or even 'knee jerk" reactions could also amount to the same. Proper analysis requires maintaining reasoned objectivity imo, and this is obviously difficult to do in the case of an emotive and potentially incendiary issue.

 

[winifred]

The structure and institutions of power determine the forms through which that power is exerted. A simple query as to who has historically controlled the structure and institutions of power, and who have historically controlled the discourse around "gender and racial identity" and many other important discourses leads us to the same culprits over and over again - the ruling classes. Given the control they still exercise over education - from nursery to academe - and the media, how could you arrive at any other conclusion?

I agree. And let's not forget the influence that patriarchy plays in all of the above as well.

 

[winifred]

I would strongly urge winifred - or anyone else who wants a clear historical materialist view (and it is only one view, most from this tradition tend not to be so heretical) on the issues in the OP - to read this brilliant article by the always excellent Adolph Reed, Jr. which covers pretty much everything. I know most people won't read it so i'm going to pull out the key parts:

Marx, Race, and Neoliberalism

I didn't have time to reply the other day so apologies, as I'm trying to reply to others' posts as I go along. In any case, what particularly resonated with me was the following:

Finally, the adamant commitment to a race-first perspective on inequalities that show up as statistical disparities has a material foundation. The victories of the civil rights movement carried with them a more benign and unavoidable political imperative. Legal remedies can be sought for injustices understood as discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or other familiar categories of invidious ascription; no such recourse exists for injustices generated through capitalism’s logic of production and reproduction without mediation through one of those ascriptive categories.

All politics in capitalist society is class, or at least a class-inflected, politics. That is also true of the political perspective that condenses in programs such as reparations, antiracism, and insistence on the sui generis character of racial injustice. I submit that those tendencies come together around a politics that is “entirely consistent with the neoliberal redefinition of equality and democracy along disparitarian lines.”

That politics reflects the social position of those positioned to benefit from the view that the market is, or can be, a just, effective, or even acceptable, system for rewarding talent and virtue and punishing their opposites and that, therefore, removal of “artificial” impediments to functioning like race and gender will make it even more efficient and just. This is the politics of actual or would-be race relations administrators, and it is completely embedded within American capitalism and its structures of elite brokerage. It is fundamentally antagonistic to working-class politics, notwithstanding left identitarians’ gestural claims to the contrary

Thanks for those gems butchersapron.

 

[butchersapron]

Get in there! Three people (at least) bothered. (Took me ages to do that too).

 

[butchersapron]

Benn Michaels piece reffed is here btw

I think it's a brave piece of writing.

 

[Buckaroo]

Benn Michaels piece reffed is here btw

I think it's a brave piece of writing.

"If, for example, you are looking to promote someone as Head of Sales in your company and you are choosing between a straight white male and a black lesbian, and the latter is in fact a better salesperson than the former, racism, sexism and homophobia may tell you to choose the straight white male but capitalism tells you to go with the black lesbian. Which is to say that, even though some capitalists may be racist, sexist and homophobic, capitalism itself is not."

 

[butchersapron]

That's all you got?

The stuff you bolded. That's the point.

apols: agreeing with

 

[Buckaroo]

That's all you got?

What? Not racism, not sexism, not homophobia, it's neo-liberalism, it's the economy stupid!

 

[butchersapron]

What? Not racism, not sexism, not homophobia, it's neo-liberalism, it's the economy stupid!

Hard week, sorry.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't think ciritical analysis and personal optimism are mutually exclusive concepts.

I haven't said that they're mutually exclusive. I've said that optimism may colour how you think so that critical thinking isn't as critical as it might be.

If you're not optimistic about improving a particular situation, then there's really no point in trying to make a positive change is there?

Why not? Just because you're not personally optimistic about something, that doesn't mean you should try to bring about change. Do you only do things that you're "personally optimistic" about?

And yes, I take your point that my personal values could possibly skew my analysis of an issue, but then you could also argue that personal sentiment or even 'knee jerk" reactions could also amount to the same. Proper analysis requires maintaining reasoned objectivity imo, and this is obviously difficult to do in the case of an emotive and potentially incendiary issue.

Not true. As you managed the first two years of your sociology degree, no doubt you were introduced to the idea that a person can achieve a degree of objectivity, through divorcing yourself as far as possible from your personal feelings, opinions, prejudices, preconceptions etc and then, bearing them in mind, observing and analysing. Because you "bear them in mind", you're less likely to find them cropping up in your analysis. You can never achieve full "value neutrality", but you can be objective enough that what you have to say doesn't present as an emotional tirade rather than an analysis.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Get in there! Three people (at least) bothered. (Took me ages to do that too).

I read it, but I know how much you dislike "likes", so...

 

[Buckaroo]

I read it, but I know how much you dislike "likes", so...

.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Benn Michaels piece reffed is here btw

I think it's a brave piece of writing.

Good article.

Made me think about what information there is out there about racial differences wrt social mobility in the US.

I found information that black people born into the bottom quintile by income are more likely than white people in that quintile to remain there for life, but that might be an artefact of the division - of the people in the bottom quintile, black people will certainly on average be disproportionately towards the bottom of it, so the main causal factor might still primarily be income in this instance.

I also found this, which has more nuanced and therefore interesting results, I think. It finds that of those born into the middle classes, black men are more likely to drop down into lower income than their white counterparts, but black women aren't. And the single most important difference they could identify that might explain this was educational achievement.

So possibly a similar story in the US to the UK, where black boys are comparatively failing in school and this is affecting their life chances, but black girls aren't. It is of course still relevant to look at race and race differences and see how and why certain groups are failing, but yeah, to do that within a context that doesn't acknowledge capitalism is to miss a very large number of points. That's where the article is right, even if it's not perhaps the full story - discussing inequality without discussing capitalism is absurd.

ETA:

This finding reminded me of a thought about the effectiveness of various positive discrimination measures such as the bursary Rachel Dolezal appears to have fraudulently obtained. They are not being targeted at the right place to make any meaningful difference. If you really want to address underachievement by black kids in education, you need to go much further back in the process and ensure that they are not falling behind at primary level. You don't identify the 'brightest' at a later stage and help them. You identify the stage at which problems start and help everyone at that stage.

And ETA again:

These bursaries are, of course, often set up by bequests. Someone does well and wants to 'give something back', but however well-meaning it might be it's really a pretty empty gesture, and it may be indicative of something worse than that - a 'we need to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps like I did' attitude that self-made people often have, where they may see underachievement in education at lower levels as something that makes you in some way 'undeserving': 'work hard at school, lad, because if you don't you can't expect any help, certainly not from me'; such rich benefactors may be the last people who want to really tackle inequality - they may be actively seeking to reproduce it.