Re: Nader's Big Chance

On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Dave Rolsky wrote:

> 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.

I didn't say, imply, or suggest that you were. I pointed this out as
counterevidence to your suggestion (or implication) that "hip
progressives" liking to "casually throw around racism claims" is somehow
common or pervasive. Or simply standardly unopposed. Or whatever it is
that allows it to flourish so that your 'obsessive' opposition is a
reasonable response.

> > 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 you said that it *isn't* an example, thus it's not *possible* for it
to 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.

Yes, but you haven't at all shown that satisfying you in this way is
necessary, prudent, or even vaguely worth keeping in mind. Surely you
don't think that a bit of evidence will console the people you're
concerned with?

> > >  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.

Why? That's silly. 

>  I'm quite obsessed with the idea that all
> potentially controversial statements should have some sort of backup.

Clearly.

> Even a footnote to another article or something would have been helpful.

To you personally maybe. If you were interested personally in my backup,
you could always just write me. I would then provide sources or evidence
or pointers.

Or you could do a little research and present me with contrary evidence,
if that's what you found, or find the evidence that I did.

This ain't rocket science.

Lemme tell a little story:

In a intro to philosophy class, one year, I was doing some stuff for which
oppression theory and racism theory were relevant. I was trying to make an
argument for asymetric responses from oppressed and oppressors. My
particular example was that Blacks get to be more suspicious and demand
higher levels of proof of good will of whites than the reverse. This, I
argued, was because most white people hate Blacks (in one of the important
senses), and Blacks typically learn from bitter experience to being on
their guard is necessary to their survival.

Boy, did the eyes bulge! I thought this was and obvious and
uncontroversial observation. I still do. The responses were interesting.

One of my better (and, coincidently, more progressive) students asked me,
"Isn't that kind of a sweeping statment?" I replied that 1) if it was, why
would that impugne the *truth* of it and 2) it certainly seems that the
*contrary* statement "Most US Whites do *not* hate blacks" is equally a
sweeping generalization, and one that is a lot more tendentious.

The second point struck her deeply. She'd only ever considered the
sweeping generalization in it's "critical" form (i.e., to deny
racism). That we are a majority racist culture wasn't *thinkable* to
her! How on earth could we expect her to have a good grip on racial issues
if that wasn't a *possibility* for her? Now she does *plus* she's more
sensitive to the epistemological blinders of privaledged types.

Note that I didn't say, nor suggest, nor imply that *any* of my white
students hated blacks. It was totally compatible with my claim that they
were all pure as the driven (and quite white) snow. But it wasn't
sufficient for them to rest with their "knowledge" that they weren't
racist, they had to *deny* it and to do so by denying that most whites
were racists. This is standard. At least they didn't do the other trope of
claiming that *I* was racist (not because I was *white* but because of my
*claim*).

(And let me mention the fellow who wrote on a discussion board that he
didn't think most whites hate blacks, but rather, like him, they
*cautiously disapproved* of them. So tell me, do you think his racism
would have been revealed *even to himself* without my claim and the
confrontation it produced?)

There are many lessons to be drawn from this, but I want to highlight
one: So called tactically adjusting everything you say to preserve the
sensibilities of "good" whites is just not clearly the right thing to
do. If anything, the consequences of being a "brash" white are way less
than being a "brash" Black. So, arguably, we should *take advantage* of
our position to make things uncomfortable for complacent whites, if simply
because we can take the backlash easier.

Of *course* if a specific situation would result in massive harm to Blacks
we should be ready to kiss racist ass (well, if those Blacks want us
too!). But surely that's a case by case situation. *None* of the places
where you've advanced these tactical arguments were *remotely* like this.

Hell, my current article isn't *even targeted at the people you think I'd
offend*. *Nader* is the direct target, and he's not a Green and I go out
of my way to say that I don't think he's particularly racist.

So the best you can do is that I'll somehow "damage my effectiveness" or
"credability" and that I should *horde* that credibility. Bull. You have
to use it at some point. This is where I choose to use it. Isn't there
room for the meek *and* the brash? Why do you perpetually criticize the
brash for their brashness instead of simply *being* meek -- interpreting,
softening, explaining, etc. Why are *we* having this talk rather than you
and someone I've upset? Who *have* I upset, btw? Do you have a *shred* of
evidence that I, me, the actual person, has "scared off" someone who'd
have been so valuable to "convert" that it's a true loss?

I thought you were *obsessed* with backing up your claims? Or is this just
how *you* feel. If it's just *you* that are turned off you'll need to show
me that you're important or valuable enough not to turn off in this way,
and that you can't work through it on your own. I mean, were you *so*
turned off that you missed the rest of the article (which you didn't
mention)?

Where is the *evidence*?

> > >  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.

You still aren't clear. I *was* responding to your claim about the Greens
being racist.

> > 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.

Perhaps, but not in every context, for pete's sake. You still haven't
remotely justified singling out this class of statments for
hyperjustification.

Sarah Hoagland wrote that she just refuses to debate whether women deserve
rights. It's insane to have to start from the beginning in everything one
does.

> > > 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.

Which people? I never said that they're mutually exclusive
(whatever "they" are). This "worth saying" stuff is beginning to get on my
nerves -- *no one* is obliged to weigh *everything* they say to see if
it's "worth it". Do I think it's worth worrying about hypothetical folks
who might be "convinced" if I soften my tone? Clearly not. There are loads
of folks I just won't reach. KKK members for example. Die hard
republicans. I don't see that trying to "reach" some nebulous category of
people that I don't even know are *worth reaching* is any kind of duty,
tacitical or otherwise.

[snip]
> > > 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.

Time to name some names or list some percentages. You still haven't
address the fact tha soft-pedaling may be harmful in numerous ways, and
offensive to Blacks.

>  Its worth sacrificing
> some righteousness to convince them that they're part of the problem.

Now you've slide from my *seeming* righteous to my *being*
righteous. Again. Putting aside the fact that you don't seem to know the
audience of the article, I find it very worrisome to sacrafice some
*rightness* (i.e., *correctness*) for the sake of some sort of dubious
conversion. Specific people might respond well to this specific tactic,
and I, myself have used it. But people respond well (in the sense of
*learning*) to the other one as well.

The mere expansion of the range of discourse is a worthy goal (as I've
pointed out above)>

> > >  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.

Maybe it's just you. Seriously. You don't seem open to the idea that
different people might be more effective with a tactic that neither works
for or on you.

>  Calling a meat-eater a
> murderer, while perhaps true to me, doesn't seem to get very far.

Well maybe because it's not *true*. Being "true to you" doesn't cut it,
eh?

Besides, the situations are differnt: I've pointed out the fact of racism.
You made the claim that meat eating is a specific kind of action, namely
murder. A very, very tendentious and difficult to prove claim. It requires
very strong premises (at *least*, something like that animals have a right
to life akin to that of adult, competant humans in certain
circumstances). Even among animal rights theorists who *endorse* this sort
of claim, there is consensus that it's a *difficult* position to support.

(And, frankly, unnecessary, IMHO, since cruelty arguments are way
effective and, in these times, achieve much the same result.)

Thus we're in very different positions: To resent being called a murderer
for meat eating is perhaps proper -- at least it can stem from *many*
principled positions. To claim that U.S. whites aren't, by and large,
racist requires deep delusions and denial of easily abounding evidence.

Furthermore, it doesn't have the risk of causing direct harm to animals
*not* to call meat eating murder, whereas to dodge calling racism racism
is, at *best*, to conceal your solidarity with Blacks. I won't do that
without a *big* and *fairly certain* and rather *immediate* gain at hand,
and with the cognizence of those with whom I've allied myself. To do
otherwise is to "know best" in a deeply objectionable way. Indeed, it is
a pernicious aspect of racism.

> > >  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.

Wow, now *this* is victim mentality in a bad way. I'd rather "create
solidarity" in both being people who want to do *right*. Justice is not a
12 step program. Shared shame *isn't* solidarity. I certainly am willing
to share my experiences of wrong-doing, and it's often a good tactical
move, but to harp on it relentlessly, in a bizarre effort to reel in other
sinners is *exactly* to act in that "fashionable" way you dislike.

I don't see that it's generally tactically wise, either. Strategically, to
adopt that as an absolute tactical rule is absurd.

>  The people you're trying to convince are more likely to
> listen to you if they think that you were once like them.

You really do need to provide some shred of evidence for the *general*
case, and even more for my particular case. In general, I'm *not* like
most of the people you seem to target and have never been. (This doesn't
mean I'm not or have never been racist, just that I'm a very different
person and the patterns of my wrongdoings and experiences just don't
apply.)

After all, I don't want folks to put on sackcloth and ashes, I want them
to 1) as far as they can to stop doing wrong, and 2) as far as they can
help fight wrongs.

> Re: your other message saying we've talked about this before.  Yes, we
> have.

Ad nauseam. You really are obsessed, and with little ground as far as I
can tell.

>  To some degree this is where we left off.

Well you sure didn't *mark* it as such.

>  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.

Well, so much for trying to convince *me* then. Wow, I'm boggled by how
sleazy that is, espeically given your little "preretracted" insinuations
that I'm "over-righteous", "more concerned with my own righteousness than
being effective", "wanting to look 'fashionable' and hip", etc. I really
have to conclude that you have little experience *writing*, or just
haven't followed the kind of mail we've been getting. People opposed to
one's view by and large don't carefully scrutinize what one's
written. That is surely why proBushies missed my Gore criticism (even
those who read it *TWICE*) *in the very article they were objecting
to*. No, "obviously" (and this was said a number of times) I'm a diehard
Gore supporter.

So, what would such an audience be likely to make of *your* notes? Nothing
very flattering, I'd say. More importantly, nothing that would make them
more likely to get out of their complacentcy. *This* is tactical
*shrewdness*? *For* anti-racism?

Imagine you had just written, "Bijan, do you have any pointers to info
about racisim in the Greens that you could post for me?" Ever hear of
"good cop/bad cop"?

One of the big victories of racism is to move everything into code. You're
suggesting that we *acquiese* to that. Indeed that we *adopt that
wholesale*. Forget it.

While I'm *oh* so glad that you stand ready and vigilent to scruitinize my
work for "unsupported" (but, damnit, it *was* supported in the
article; not directly or particularly explicitly, but if the Greens were
heavily *anti* racist I don't think their presidential candidate -- a man
who seems pretty strongly anti-racist -- would have been able to, or felt
the need to, downplay racial issues *ever*), I'd much rather have a reader
who stood ready and vigilant to scruitinize my work for *racism* or
racially *offesive* stuff or things which might, by their *appearence*,
contribute to racism. Kendall and I spent a good deal of time worrying
over that (for example, I don't want to include, *by default*, Black
Greens; I don't think *they've* a special duty to help bridge the
gap; plus, I don't think the (white) Greens should come in to somehow
"save the day" for "poor, helpless" Blacks, and I'd never want to
suggest it; I think we (whites, espeically Greens) should stand with
Florida's Blacks and offer whatever political/organizational/etc. clout
we might have to their cause; we should do this because it's *right* and 
because it's part of what it is to build coalitions).

Finally, of all the things to be obsessed over, tactics, espeically
*these* tactics, seem precisely the *wrong* thing. Put some of that energy
into *using* your tactics instead of mindlessly envangilizing them, *ad
nauseam*.

Bijan Parsia.