Re: Nader's Big Chance

Hi Dave,

Thanks very much for reading and responding to my article. I'll try to
address some of your points and concerns below.

On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Dave Rolsky wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> 
> >    he wants to help bridge the gap between (white, often racist when
> >    not "merely" racially insensitive) Greens and Blacks, he needs to
> 
> I know its terribly fashionable in progressive circles to call all white
> people racist whenever possible.  Its doubly fashionable when you yourself
> are white (or of a race/background that is fairly oppression-free).

Is it? I haven't really noticed. Anytime I allude to white racism I tend
to get bashed, even in progressive circles.


> Now, fashionable or not, I will agree that there is much truth to this.

Ok, can we assume that I expressed this for the truth part and not the
fashionable part? I certianly *believe* that's why I did it. Oh, also, I
believe there are good reasons to express that truth at this point of the
article (though perhaps it could be better put, I'll think about it as I 
work through this note). 

> Many (most? all?) progressives believe that racism is more than just the
> use of the N word or other such things.  Its a fundamental element of many
> of our instutitions such as government, the police, etc.  White folks are
> generally not victimized by these institutions and are generally given
> preferred treatment by them, leading to an imbalance in power whether it
> is wanted or not.

Yes.

> But, what value is there in throwing out off-handed comments alleging that
> the Greens are racist?

I sincerely believe that many Greens are not racially sensitive. Of those
who are not *merely* racially insensitive, many are more or less overtly
racist. The mere fact that many Greens are willing to uncritically ally
themselves with Pat Buchanan seems good prima facia evidence of that.

(I.e., I think that you cannot go with Pat *without* being very public
about his racism. It may preclude working with him at all.)

But I do have other evidence. Kendall Clark was heavily involved with the
Tx Greens and had a terrible time with the brute racism present there (not
to mention sexism and homophobia). Of course, it's improper to generalize
from there, but there is a notable lack of focus on racial issues among
the Greens. Note that I do try to dicuss Nader's early avoidence as a
matter of tacital foolishness rather than deep racism or racial
insensitivity.

Finally, and this is somewhat unclear, I want Nader to work to bridge the
gap between *that subset of the Greens* who are white and racist when not
merely racially insensitive. Greens who are committed anti-racists (like 
Kendall), even if white, don't need that bridging. But Kendall finds
himself needing to *leave* the Greens for anti-racism work.

>  You certainly offer no proof.  There's not even
> any allegations.

No, not in this article. We've (i.e., kendall and me) been debating how to
present the problem of racism in the Greens. Clearly, this
requires a broader investigation, for which we haven't pulled ourselves
together to do. Limited resources, y'know :)

We still may do one focusing on the Tx Greens, for which we have ample
evidence (including documentation).

>  If you honestly believe that the Greens, in their
> capacity as a political party and an activist movement, are racist, then
> support your claims.

Do you mean beyond institutionally? Beyond what I've given above? Is there
really a way to fit that into the article?

The alternative is to drop that line, but that misses some of the point of
this being a call to whites (and to the white insitution, the Green
parties). I confess to have struggled some with this with difficulty. I'm
(culturally at least) white and it's very difficult to craft such a call
to arms that isn't actually patronizing to the Black community, or,
which is almost as bad, seems to be. If I err, I'd rather err on the side
of ticking off whites.

Also, in my readings, it seems that a preponderence of Black writers don't
see the Greens as any sort of *actual* natural allies. This is surely
troubling.

If you have a clean way to rephrase this, please let me know!

>  If its just the fact that the Greens are mostly
> white, and thus benefit from the current system, is this even worth
> saying?

Yes, I think so. That's part of the point: The Greens aren't just mostly
white they are a White institution. Nader's started to fix some of this,
but there's a hell of lot more to be done.

You may be interested, perhaps, to know that we've been kicking around
starting a "rainbow Greens" mailing list/organization, to discuss how to
start building the kind of coalition I hint at in my article.

So, given that the Greens tend to *presume* that they're non-racist, I
think it's worth saying.

> It often seems to me that people adopt this style of rhetoric as a way to
> establish themselves as "real progressives".  As if to say, "look at how
> progressive I am.  I can off-handedly call people, including myself,
> racist.  I am _so_ damn progressive."

Yes. But also, saying that is important. That people do it *self*
importantly is a problem, but is it as severe a problem as not saying it
at all?

>  Bijan, I am not saying this is your
> motivation.  This is just what goes through _my_ head when I see things
> like this.

I understand. And through many others. It's largely a consequence, afaict,
of the anti-PC movement.

> And also let's consider the possible negative consequences of this.  Some
> people feel offended when they are labelled as racist (or sexist, or
> homophobic, or whatever).  Their taking offense may seem quite silly.
> After all, if the shoe fits, right?

Not just silly. It's part of what perpetuates the oppressions. Indeed,
it's a deep part of the structure.

>  Actually, wrong.  That's irrelevant.

No, it is relevant, because of what I say above. There are tactical
issues, but they need to be put in a strategic context.

> This is an issue of tactics, not truth.  If you want to convince someone
> that they are acting a racist manner, you will not achieve this simply by
> calling them racist.

Of course not, but surely you can't accuse me of doing that in this
article? I don't accuse *Nader* of being racist (or, at least, not
"simply" so). Nor do I accuse the Greens of being racist (or, at least,
not simply so). I'm arguing that this is a great way to be *less* racist,
or to fight against racism. And it's a way that may well work even for
overtly racist types.

>  Far better would be to point out some action or
> actions that they did that were racist, explain the negative impact it
> had, and let them draw their own conclusions.

I've not found this to be the case. If someone is going to dodge their
racism, dancing around it doesn't help. It's very easy to avoid making
negative conclusions about oneself. (Marilyn Frye has some good stuff
about these epistemic tricks.)

>  If its a matter of inaction
> (complicity with a racist system) then explain that with a specific
> example.  Don't bludgeon them over the head with your righteousness as
> this only leads to defensiveness.

Slide. I'm not using my righteousnes. At least, we're presuming that. The
problem is that some section of my audience will *claim* that that's what
I've done (or seem to have done). Some, like you, will then argue that I'm
tactially misguided. Others (unlike you) will claim that I've wronged
them.

However, I've found that actual explicit confrontation seems to work more
often than the "letting it slip in" technique, particularly if you
persistently follow up. Which I do.

>  Rather, engage them as individual human
> beings with failings and gently lead them to see how they contribute to
> racism.

Individual human beings have the failing of racism. But, in any case, I'm
not engaging individual human beings one on one.

My reaction to this line is akin to your reaction to "progressiver than
thou" folks: Sure, sometimes these tactics are useful, but to prescribe
them generically is to say that people who's institutional, and often
personal, position is to be coddled, should be coddled more. I disagree.


>  Share with them how you've acted in the same way in the past (and
> may continue to do so), thus showing that you're not judging them more
> harshly than you've judged yourself.

I judge people who've done more wrong than me to have done more wrong than
me. I judge people with varying circumstances varying. But I try to be
straight up about it. If an explanation doesn't help I don't see that I
shoudl *avoid* the behavior that got them all riled up. Being riled up and
made *uncomfortable* is often a good thing.

>  This creates a feeling of
> solidarity, which is better than righteousness any day.

Is it? Is it better for me to feel solidarity with whites who don't think
they're racist? Or whites who don't think they're racists (when they
*are*) should feel solidarity with me? I don't *want* to feel solidarity
with them, not because I'm righteous, but because it's 1) *wrong* ;) and
2) makes it very difficult to *be* in solidarity with Blacks.

I take Malcom X's dictem that whites should work with whites against
racism (including their own), but surely he didn't mean we should do so in
a manner that harms or distressed blacks (at least generically). Of
*course* if there is a *specific* situation where a softened tone will
reap *large* benefits, then I'll go with it. I just don't see that the
*generic* posture of softness does so. Indeed, I think it's dangerous.

I hope this helps. 

I also hope you join our Bonobos mailing list, if you haven't already.
We're hoping to thrash through this sort of thing there.

Thanks again for your thoughtful and careful note, even if I firmly
disagree with it ;)

Cheers,
Bijan Parisa