RE: [Marxism] White Skin Privilege

["Mark Lause" <MLause@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I had no intention of writing anything more on this subject, but one of
Carlos' last posts provides material worth discussion...so this one is
going to be longer than most....

Anyone reviewing these exchanges will note that proponents of the w.s.p.
idea alternately de-emphasize it as a distinct theory (smudging it into
a general awareness of race and racism) and then defend the w.s.p. idea
of the 1960s as a great theoretical breakthrough...   I pointed out that
awareness of racism long predated the "theory," and asked what the idea
of "w.s.p." contributed.  Carlos' answer implied that it was a
theoretical breakthrough comparable to Marxism itself:  "Awarness of
class and class privilege was around for a long time before the 1840s
(albeit among non-academics and workers), so those this means that
Marxism has no value?"

If Marx and Marxists claimed credit for discovering class awareness or
class consciousness, they'd simply been wrong.  Marxism certainly did
add something to the way people not only thought about class but
approached the active construction of movements.  It changed what we
organized, how we organized it, and what we saw as our goal.  Which
brings us back to the still- question about what the idea of w.s.p.
actually added to our understanding and our movement?

Yet, to his great credit, Carlos proposes two innovative aspects of this
theory.  These provide some hope that a discussion might be possible on
this....

Starting with his second point, Carlos suggests that the theory of the
1960s "exposes the objective existence of a whiteness system that must
be not transformed, but destroyed."  He defines this with a very good
discussion of the inadequacy of "integration," a liberal and CP slogan
we've long since bypassed.

There's nothing objectionable in his argument, though the institutional
implementation of "integration" included LBJ's presidential directive
establishing "affirmative action."  As the government backed off the
"liberal" politics of the 1960s, Nixon actually tightened and expanded
the "affirmative action" solution.  Indeed, they've rather successfully
focused these sweeping issues of race and racism on this singular
policy, which is based on an entire series of integrationist
assumptions.  Where does the w.s.p. theory leave us on this subject?

In Carlos' first and more complex point on this subject, he writes
(among other things), "it [the w.s.p. theory] switches the revolutionary
subject of racial liberation from only self-determination of non-white
nations to the need for whites to be 'race traitors', to destroy from
within the structure of white privilege, to refuse to exercise that
privilege, and to politicize and problematize their whiteness to the
point of destroying it."

Race treason isn't particularly new.  The very first uniquely American
capital crime, introduced in the Virginia colony, was the crime of
running away to live with Indians, and the long tradition of the maroons
have provided an alternate model of race relations right alongside the
formalization of "whiteness."

However, any idea of "whiteness" and its privileges as something that
any white person can simply "refuse" understates the institutional
pervasiveness of racism in modern America and assumes a white right of
refusal.  The imperatives of the marketplace permit no right.  Whites
buying a home in a city characterized by white flight to the suburbs are
going to get a cheaper house because of white flight, aren't they?
Short of not buying a house or suicide, where's the right of refusal?

Events since the formulation of the w.s.p. theory have not confirmed the
assertion that it has assisted us to politicalize the issue.  I wouldn't
say the theory is politically worthless just because it's not been used
in this way, but I don't have a sense of how we would or could go about
mobilizing people on this.

What would be the demands?  When we march on City Hall, what sort of
things would our signs and banners demand?  In fact, we've marched on
city halls many times since the 1960s, so what has the w.s.p. theory
contributed?  I don't ask these things rhetorically, but would be
seriously interested in an answer.

Solidarity!
Mark L.

PS: The archived exchanges just won't sustain the utterly silly
mischaracterizations of how I personalized this, and raising the issue
this way is simply an invitation to a he-said/he-said argument.  I won't
take the bait.  If anyone feels I've abused them, write me and we'll
"talk"....   As to Carlos' assertion that it is I--not they--who raised
the idea of "white skin privilege" from the 1960s, the subject line
itself (which isn't mine) refutes it.   His assertion that I advocate
"abstention" from fighting racism because I remain unimpressed by an
academic pet "theory" of his is just silly.





_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism