A reply to an excerpt from Jensen's "The Fears of White People"
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=30&ItemID=8698rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.eduby Chris Kaihatsu,
ckaihatsu@gmail.comhttp://chicago.indymedia.org/newswire/display/72983/index.phpThe main point of my response is to say that any examination of race cannot take place out of the context of class. Race and class are inextricably interrelated and to speak of one without the other is analogous to discussing an object without mentioning what material it's made of.
Certainly our society today is based on a legacy of white supremacy of genocidal proportions, but -- counter-intuitively -- it would be a mistake to see this history as racially motivated. Class interests rise out of societies, whether old or new, that are able to develop a surplus of wealth. The initial white settlers at Jamestown were neither racially motivated, nor could they manifest a surplus -- indeed, there was much starvation among them. U.S. history since then is another matter, however.
Our existing reality *is* one of general white privilege, but it is based on wealth. Today there is more of a black and Latino middle class, but studies show a massive disproportion of wealth ownership -- approximately 10-to-1 -- in the majority population (whites) versus the minority populations, particularly blacks and Latinos.
While social ills continue to persist, our contemporary society has been able to provide more of the basics of modern life for many more people than just a few decades ago. In fact, the main material existential issues of the day now focus more on countering the mass destruction of hard-won gains, rather than a struggle from 'square one' to realize the necessities of life for disenfranchised minorities.
In our current period of abundant (though misappropriated) resources the main political question is more about what direction the process of globalization should go in. That is, as scarcity of resources for human needs decreases, the issue becomes one of management on a mass scale: Do we want life-destroying, hegemonic imperialism at the wheel, or can we fight for and realize a truly mass, worker-based management which, through democratic processes, would be incompatible with racism?
At this point in the discussion, addressing power in simply racial terms is to diverge from the true make-up of society. This path can only result in inaccurate and problematic conclusions, as Jensen demonstrates. Certainly Latinos are a growing force, demographically, but just how exactly can these numbers be translated into political gains?
Given an uprising of an ethnic minority, as with the recent, historic immigrants' rights mobilizations, would we want Latinos to put (justifiable) vengeance and retribution on their agenda? Certainly minorities of all stripes have burning issues of justice that should not be side-stepped -- how can we, as politically enlightened participants, correctly address these needs for justice while plotting a constructive path for society as a whole?
To answer this question I would like to start by making a clear distinction between power and culture. The main source of power is (material) wealth, which facilitates the construction of social reality, and/or culture. Culture is secondary, and dependent on, power relations of wealth. Wealth expropriates surplus labor value, pays salaries, greases political machines, and makes unassailable claims to land -- that is, private property backed by the organized, violent forces of the state.
In the absence of a viable, class-based revolution we are left with race-based dynamics that can -- and have -- led to circumstances where a previously oppressed minority later becomes the majority, and then exercises the same types of brutality that they themselves had suffered. The early populations of immigrants to the United States come to mind as an example.
To pick apart the race-based component of our repressive society, I'd like to raise another key distinction, that of racism "versus" prejudice. In a society dominated by Western traditions and white-supremacist power relations every child born into society is immediately conditioned by this institutional racism. Those few who rise to positions of socio-economic power will find it "natural" to exercise a continuation of this racist legacy.
For the (class-) majority of us, however, we have the means -- especially in the Internet age -- to choose between enlightenment or not -- the "personal revolution."
While, being human, we will make mistakes, we are still left with the choice of honestly tackling the realities of race and class. For someone who is anti-racist there should be no doubt. Either someone has a proven record of anti-racist words and actions, or they don't. To be "apolitical" is to have made peace with the existing order, the status quo, and its continuous brutality against the poor and/or people of color.
Those who are not consciously anti-racist are much more likely to be prejudiced, but prejudice itself does not equal racism. For example, a person in the public sphere, outside of an institutional relationship, may express prejudice towards someone, but -- without a direct threat to their immediate well-being or material position -- they cannot hurt them. I do not mean to apologize for incidents of prejudice -- which includes the all-too-common uses of all kinds of stereotypes (misapplications of generalizations to individual cases, or missing the trees for the forest) -- but I mean to distinguish individual prejudicial attitudes from institutionally racist systems.
Racism is seen in the numerous cases of white people -- though not necessarily white -- in institutional positions, summarily denying jobs, homes, and adequate schooling to people of color. Those instances make unwarranted, material differences in people's lives and is correctly termed racism.
The mistake of blurring the distinction between racism and prejudice leads to a myriad of avoidable misunderstandings, thus causing destructive splits within the working class that hamper the full realization of its potential force.
Moreover, there is another, equally destructive realm of misunderstandings that result from a primarily race-based worldview. Jensen's own case is a prime example of the pitfalls of relying on a race-based analysis.
His lack of a realistic (class-based) strategy for the future means that his vision for society hits a brick wall and necessarily turns inward. It leads to a certain kind of paranoia based on the internalization of a skewed worldview, as displayed in his self-image.
He expresses uncertainty about his own anti-racist principles. Can a stranger really "see through" Jensen, and, if so, what is it exactly within Jensen that they would be seeing?
There is a saying that one sees the world in terms of their own oppression, and that saying is aptly manifested in Jensen's reflections.
He sees the world in terms of his own relationship to blacks, and winds up chastizing himself on the perception that he is somehow collaborating in racism against blacks. I will presume to say that Jensen is not in a position to enact any harmful power, and apparently is more caustic to himself than to anyone else.
I would encourage the reader to reconsider your worldview in regards to race and class. This is more than a standard appeal for reason -- it's a reminder that a person's mis-alignment with the world at large, as it really is, can wreak havoc on one's own perceptions and actions, with dire consequences for one's life-path.
___
YFIS Discussion Board
http://discussion.newyouth.com/search.php?s=&action=finduser&userid=598Favorite web sites: chicago.indymedia.org, wsws.org, marxist.com, rwor.org, fightbacknews.org, laboraction.org, ifamericansknew.org, substancenews.com, socialismandliberation.org, whatreallyhappened.com, plenglish.com, moneyfiles.org/temp.html, informationclearinghouse.info, blackcommentator.com, narconews.com, truthout.org, raven1.net
Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
http://community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/MySpace:
www.myspace.com/ckaihatsu
Logged
