Re: Nader's Big Chance

On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Bijan Parsia wrote:

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

Well, I'm not bashing you, just disagreeing with your style of delivery.

> 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

Yes, we can definitely assume that.  Sorry I led off with the fashionable
comment, as that makes it seem like I accuse you of that.  What I meant
was I see this pop up among progressives in general and this may or may
not be an example.

> > 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.

[snip stuff about racist Greens]

Including one or two sentences along these lines in the article would have
satisfied me, at least.

> >  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?

If you can't fit it into the article then I think your other comment
wasn't worth putting in either.  I'm quite obsessed with the idea that all
potentially controversial statements should have some sort of backup.
Even a footnote to another article or something would have been helpful.

> >  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.

Oops, my sentence up there wasn't clear.  The thing I thought wasn't worth
saying was the statement in your article re: Greens being racist not my
statement above.

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

If its worth saying, its worth backing up.

> > 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?

Are the two mutually exclusive?  If its worth saying its worth saying in a
way that people are willing to listen to.

> >  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.

I really don't think so.  I have some problems with the concept of PC, but
they're not related to this issue.

> > 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.

My point is that the people you're offending with your choice of tone are
ones who would otherwise be open to your message.  Its worth sacrificing
some righteousness to convince them that they're part of the problem.

> >  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.)

Coming from the animal rights movement, I've found that the more directly
we confront people the less effective we are.  Calling a meat-eater a
murderer, while perhaps true to me, doesn't seem to get very far.

> >  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.

My point was that you create solidarity in both being people who've done
things wrong.  The people you're trying to convince are more likely to
listen to you if they think that you were once like them.

Re: your other message saying we've talked about this before.  Yes, we
have.  To some degree this is where we left off.  We didn't agree with
each other last time either ;)  However, I figured it was worth restating
since presumably this mailing list has a larger audience than the IRC chat
room.


-dave

/*==================
www.urth.org
We await the New Sun
==================*/