[PEN-L:8692] RE: Left Racism 1968/69 - 1999

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> "Max B. Sawicky" <sawicky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 06/30/99 08:08PM >>>
> The standard posture seems to be: we are against racism, but let's not
discuss
> it, because it is divisive, it turns people off, it make the poster sound
> frenzied, let just oppose it quietly but not draw attention to it.

I haven't followed most of this thread -- in self defense I am deleting at
random over 50% of the posts I receive, and less randomly another
50%+ of those remaining.
>>

NOBODY has said we shouldn't discuss racism for any of those
reasons.

(((((((((((((((

Charles: Part of what Yoshie, Henry and I are saying is that it is  a "posture", as said above, meaning it is unspoken.   There is a pattern of when racism comes up to avoid it. This is true even without accusations that any e-mail poster is racist. It is more often the denial that racism is a factor in explaining some politicaleconomic subject being discussed on a thread. For example, some people ( not all) denied that there was any significant racist factor in the Littleton killings. Of course, there were other things going on, but one of them reportedly yelled "Heil Hitler" while shooting. I had people trying to tell me that there is a new non-racist Nazism. To me , that is serious denial. As I said earlier :

"The irony comes in with the post-Reagan ,liberal-" lefts" who turn the new gravity of the charge of racism into a basis for suppressing most charges of racism. In effect they say, "I am so respectful of the importance of the problem of racism that I think to say someone or action is racist is a very serious charge, so you , Black person or other person of color, are irresponsible in making the charge so much." In practice, including a lot on these "left" lists, the main thing that happens is criticism of misuse of the serious charge of racism, and almost no criticism of racism. "

(((((((((((((

Max:
 Yoshie said it was hard to have a serious discussion,
in view of the atmosphere, and I said I would not discuss it
with anyone whose mode of argument is to call me a racist.

Charles: She will correct me if I am wrong, but I think when Yoshie refers to"atmosphere" she is talking about  the RESPONSE to claims of racism, not the claims of racism.

I would differentiate between saying you are a racist and saying something you say is racist. Saying something you say is racist should be as allowable ( and debatable) as you saying something someone says is "Leninist spam" or "Stalinist".  You can't declare any use of the criticism  "racist" as unfair.

((((((((((((

Max:
We disagree pretty strongly on the issue, I am aware.
For instance, I'd say the 'new left' was if anything
too uncritical of nationalism, and typically swallowed
anything from minority radicals.  Not that the latter
were more prone to errors than anyone else.

Charles: You can hold that position. But you can't enforce your opinion by establishing a rule of e-mail discourse based on your opinion on that. You can't rule out any claims of racism on the lists; or get super indignant as if it is some extraordinary foul.

In my opinion, on balance, the New Left had a better anti-racist consciousness than today's Left, such as it is, as Doug Henwood would say. Part of the "such as it is" of today's left is that it has a weaker anti-racism.

And it is exactly your opinion - that the white New Left put up with too much colored nationalism -  that prevails on left lists, not mine.


Charles Brown

(((((((((((


Criticism of nationalism, some well-taken, some not,
in my recollection was limited to some of the M-L cadre
groups (e.g., PLP).

The idea of any 'treason' is ridiculous.  "Kent State" is
the TIME magazine reconstruction.  At the time, the left
was quite anxious to make the Kent-Jackson connection.

I wish the BRC well too, FWIW.

mbs