White civil rights leader has pretended to be black for years

[8ball]

The problem being that her actions - and the present and future consequences of her actions - may feed into the arguments of racists.

Doesn't take much Googling to see it happening.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Identity politics (in the post-modern sense the term has been used for the last 35 years, anyway) can only logically conclude in such a way, where identity becomes purely a matter of interpellation - of identifying with, and taking on - of facets of identity, regardless of whether one actually meets any structural qualifying criteria for that facet.

The problem being that her actions - and the present and future consequences of her actions - may feed into the arguments of racists.

....Because amongst other things, her actions and appropriation of a 'Black' identity, draws on racist ideology to validate her deceptions. Keep fighting the good fight Rachel.

 

[Lurdan]

The problem being that her actions - and the present and future consequences of her actions - may feed into the arguments of racists.

Every last black person could be exterminated tomorrow and there would still be racists complaining about the mess they'd left behind.

This shithead has unwittingly created opportunities of all kinds good and bad. The discourse that's been generated about her actions and beliefs isn't all negative and some of the wider questions she's unwittingly raised are questions that needed asking.

I'm not a fan of the "objectively progressive role" school of historical apologism but sometimes it does take a sewage overflow to draw attention to the disgusting state of the toilet.

(Or is that just my flat ?).

 

[MochaSoul]

That being said, white supremacy can only maintain itself with the collusion of coloured business and property owning classes (and in the worst case, the petit-bourgeoisie.)

Ah! Straight to a heart of the matter. I, rightly or wrongly, also place instances of black on black micro-aggression and even self-hatred within the white supremacy continuum - e.g. black people absorb the one drop rule and then proceed not just apply it but to impose it on each other. The pin started to drop for me when looking at interactions within my own [mixed race] family but I have found more compelling cases like the way social hierarchies of countries like Brazil are, (almost, one could say, unashamedly) persistent colour coded despite efforts in raising people's awareness of white supremacy and their pervasiveness could not be solely blamed on the ruling classes even if that's where it's emanated from.

They are actively involved in shaping a world where white supremacy exists at the moment, but, say, if it was in their interests to dismantle this relation they would and capitalism would remain relatively in tact.

Yes, I do see that, which is why I look at white supremacy as an aspect of and not an explanation. I find it particularly useful in that it allows me to, I suppose, let go, be more forgiving and less angry and, above all, keep my faith in human nature. But I don't let it that particular aspect blind me to what goes on.

There is nothing more becoming of the new liberal bourgeoisie than race/gender/religion based identity politics.

So ultimately we have to be very nuanced about this. The idea that a PoC can't be racist (see the recent bahar mustafa case) is utterly nonsensical given that race is not the driver of capitalism, although it can augment the capital-labour relation. Capitalism isn't white privilege and didn't necessarily arise in the world as such.

Agreed! Thank you for this. It's much appreciated.

 

[Orang Utan]

So ultimately we have to be very nuanced about this. The idea that a PoC can't be racist (see the recent bahar mustafa case) is utterly nonsensical given that race is not the driver of capitalism, although it can augment the capital-labour relation. Capitalism isn't white privilege and didn't necessarily arise in the world as such.

oddly, many people (including, surprisingly some people here) contend that bahar mustafa is white.

 

[MochaSoul]

oddly, many people (including, surprisingly some people here) contend that bahar mustafa is white.

Wow! You serious?

 

[Orang Utan]

Wow! You serious?

yep.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ah! Straight to a heart of the matter. I, rightly or wrongly, also place instances of black on black micro-aggression and even self-hatred within the white supremacy continuum - e.g. black people absorb the one drop rule and then proceed not just apply it but to impose it on each other. The pin started to drop for me when looking at interactions within my own [mixed race] family but I have found more compelling cases like the way social hierarchies of countries like Brazil are, (almost, one could say, unashamedly) persistent colour coded despite efforts in raising people's awareness of white supremacy and their pervasiveness could not be solely blamed on the ruling classes even if that's where it's emanated from.



Yes, I do see that, which is why I look at white supremacy as an aspect of and not an explanation. I find it particularly useful in that it allows me to, I suppose, let go, be more forgiving and less angry and, above all, keep my faith in human nature. But I don't let it that particular aspect blind me to what goes on.



Agreed! Thank you for this. It's much appreciated.

Everything you've said about this has made sense to me. And you make good points above, as you have throughout the thread. I still don't like the term, though. We may have to agree to disagree about that.

I misunderstood your use of it at first, and I think a lot of people will, and you'll also be lining up alongside others who mean different things by the term. It's inflammatory, which is not necessarily a bad thing (sometimes it's good to be a bit inflammatory - a bit of anger and passion can be all too appropriate) but it's also, I think, misleading and not a particularly accurate or useful way to describe all the phenomena you have described when expanding on your use of it. One ends up having to introduce so many caveats to explain it that the original term just doesn't look or sound correct to me.

You say this, and I think it's a good point:

e.g. black people absorb the one drop rule and then proceed not just apply it but to impose it on each other

But that's what I feel about a term such as 'white supremacism'. It implies a binary white/non-white. I understand that you're arguing against that, but at best it's a description that has massive problems applied outside of a North American context. In many circumstances where the term is applied, I think that isn't really what is going on - the real process is often something else.

 

[Belushi]

oddly, many people (including, surprisingly some people here) contend that bahar mustafa is white.

Yes I thought of her as white mainly because the only Turks I'd ever talked about the subject with described themselves as white.

Then I thought about it and realised we were at an overwhelmingly white school..

 

[Orang Utan]

Yes I thought of her as white mainly because the only Turks I'd ever talked about the subject with described themselves as white.

Then I thought about it and realised we were at an overwhelmingly white school..

a friend of mine is half maltese and considered a 'paki' by his school 'friends' in the west country

 

[MochaSoul]

littlebabyjesus Fair enough!

 

[ManchesterBeth]

oddly, many people (including, surprisingly some people here) contend that bahar mustafa is white.

Well it's a bit of a diversion from the main issue isn't it? Can non-white people be institutionally racist? Of course they can. Can white working-class people be institutionally racist (prejudice and bigotry aside?) no, they cannot, although I'll unequivocally grant that they do, in some/many cases, have it a lot easier to their fellow coloured w/c counterparts.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well it's a bit of a diversion from the main issue isn't it? Can non-white people be institutionally racist? Of course they can. Can white working-class people be institutionally racist (prejudice and bigotry aside?) no, they cannot, although I'll unequivocally grant that they do, in some/many cases, have it a lot easier to their fellow coloured w/c counterparts.

I'm not sure what you mean by that really. For institutional racism to exist, you first need an institution, no? Is the working class an institution? Not sure - seems to me you're diluting the term 'institution' so much as to render it meaningless. But certainly there are working class institutions, and sure they can be racist.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

I'm not sure what you mean by that really. For institutional racism to exist, you first need an institution, no? Is the working class an institution? Not sure - seems to me you're diluting the term 'institution' so much as to render it meaningless. But certainly there are working class institutions, and sure they can be racist.

Um no. Even trade unions are solidly bourgeois.

Lenin didn't *necessarily* deny this, though he advocated working in them... (something I take issue with, but that's for another thread...)

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Um no. Even trade unions are solidly bourgeois.

Depends which trade union you're talking about. London's couriers recently formed a trade union. They are not in any way bourgeois in their membership, aims or practices.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

Depends which trade union you're talking about. London's couriers recently formed a trade union. They are not in any way bourgeois in their membership, aims or practices.

They are bourgeois in formation.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

They are bourgeois in formation.

I don't see any sense in that idea. Bourgeois in what way?

If you band together with your fellow workers to give yourselves a collective voice in a struggle for better conditions, you're doing a bourgeois thing?

That sounds like nonsense to me.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

I don't see any sense in that idea. Bourgeois in what way?

If you band together with your fellow workers to give yourselves a collective voice in a struggle for better conditions, you're doing a bourgeois thing?

That sounds like nonsense to me.

Well if you don't see sense in the idea I don't really think I can clarify it for you. I don't mean to antagonise but the way you're looking at this is emotionally, not in terms of the magnates and imperatives of capital. I.E: in russia there wasn't a bourgeoisie, as such, but it existed in the interstices of the economy, as a class in formation. Likewise newly formed unions are bourgeois unions in formation, not necessarily bourgeois at this present day and time.

And anyway, that's not what the anti-union position entails. But it is often an argument wheeled out by careerist and reformist Trots. Are you one of them, by any chance?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't mean to antagonise but the way you're looking at this is emotionally

No it's not. I'm genuinely puzzled by your use of words and at a loss as to the meaning you are attaching to them. What you say sounds like nonsense on stilts.

 

[butchersapron]

No it's not. I'm genuinely puzzled by your use of words and at a loss as to the meaning you are attaching to them. What you say sounds like nonsense on stilts.

This is the theory:

...after WW1 (and the german rev specifically showed this) the unions as whole passed into integrative bodies for the state and capital as capital itself moved from a position where it could offer compromises and buy-offs without threatening its own stability into one where any such moves would undermine its own continued existence and therefore that of the unions themselves (this is decadent capital, no longer in an ascending phase) which explains their counter-revolutionary behaviour in moments of social revolution - behaviour which is only possible to undertake on the basis of carrying on with ordinary non-threatening union behaviour, acting as the economic left-wing of capital.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This is the theory:

...after WW1 (and the german rev specifically showed this) the unions as whole passed into integrative bodies for the state and capital as capital itself moved from a position where it could offer compromises and buy-offs without threatening its own stability into one where any such moves would undermine its own continued existence and therefore that of the unions themselves (this is decadent capital, no longer in an ascending phase) which explains their counter-revolutionary behaviour in moments of social revolution - behaviour which is only possible to undertake on the basis of carrying on with ordinary non-threatening union behaviour, acting as the economic left-wing of capital.

Pretty much a theory of despair if it's taken to mean that merely by forming a union you are colluding with capital. That's why it sounds like nonsense on stilts.

Taking my real-world example, London's couriers have started a campaign to shame clients into asking the courier companies how they treat their workers. They are taking direct action to try to improve the lot of couriers, and risking their jobs to do so in many cases. To call that bourgeois is just plain daft.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

Pretty much a theory of despair if it's taken to mean that merely by forming a union you are colluding with capital. That's why it sounds like nonsense on stilts.

Taking my real-world example, London's couriers have started a campaign to shame clients into asking the courier companies how they treat their workers. They are taking direct action to try to improve the lot of couriers, and risking their jobs to do so in many cases. To call that bourgeois is just plain daft.

So it's emotional then. Good shout mate. I didn't know I had to oppose capitalism on emotional grounds. I'll go back to being a liberal.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Bourgeois scum?

At best it's a theory that requires massive caveats.

 

[butchersapron]

Pretty much a theory of despair if it's taken to mean that merely by forming a union you are colluding with capital. That's why it sounds like nonsense on stilts.

Taking my real-world example, London's couriers have started a campaign to shame clients into asking the courier companies how they treat their workers. They are taking direct action to try to improve the lot of couriers, and risking their jobs to do so in many cases. To call that bourgeois is just plain daft.

The argument is about the union form itself, not the content of each individual one( The other directly related historical example is of the party-form itself being bourgeois under contemporary capitalism, or capital after WW1 anyway - a historicised understanding). And, given that they (unions not parties) rely on the continued existence of capital for their own existence they must necessarily take on those non-revolutionary forms or cease to be unions. That's the theory - there's nothing in it that says people shouldn't join or try to change unions and the way they relate to these forms or capital or engage in various struggles. It's just standard left-communist tradition.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So it's emotional then. Good shout mate. I didn't know I had to oppose capitalism on emotional grounds. I'll go back to being a liberal.

In that example, the couriers are not necessarily opposing capitalism, or at least not directly. What they are doing is trying to improve the lot of workers who are massively exploited. Calling that bourgeois is laughable.

 

[butchersapron]

You're misunderstanding what bourgeois means here - it doesn't mean 'bourgeois scum' - it means formations historically and functionally tied to the existence of both capital and the state. Like the NHS. It's a politically analytical concept, not abuse.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

In that example, the couriers are not necessarily opposing capitalism, or at least not directly. What they are doing is trying to improve the lot of workers who are massively exploited. Calling that bourgeois is laughable.

Spare me the emotional polemicising, thanks. I know what the function of unions are and it is not a proletarian function. And I did not say that the couriers union is bourgeois in this specific period. I said that it is succumbing to a bourgeois form, that of the union coordinating the sale of labour power meaning that in revolutionary situations it will side with capital or cease to be a union.

 

[tufty79]

You're misunderstanding what bourgeois means here - it doesn't mean 'bourgeois scum' - it means formations historically and functionally tied to the existence of both capital and the state. Like the NHS. It's a politically analytical concept, not abuse.

Ah - so was i. Cheers for the explanation.

 

[Citizen66]

Spare me the emotional polemicising, thanks. I know what the function of unions are and it is not a proletarian function. And I did not say that the couriers union is bourgeois in this specific period. I said that it is succumbing to a bourgeois form, that of the union coordinating the sale of labour power meaning that in revolutionary situations it will side with capital or cease to be a union.

Despite their obvious faults, unions are useful. And you appear to characterise unions as some monolith whilst disregarding the sum of its parts.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Spare me the emotional polemicising, thanks. I know what the function of unions are and it is not a proletarian function. And I did not say that the couriers union is bourgeois in this specific period. I said that it is succumbing to a bourgeois form, that of the union coordinating the sale of labour power meaning that in revolutionary situations it will side with capital or cease to be a union.

The function of uunion can vary. One function is to provide a collective voice for workers in a struggle for better conditions. And in its formation that is all the courier union is about. So does your theory stand up to this real life example? I say it doesn't, that calling such actions bourgeois is meaningless.