I’ve read Settlers and Fanon (and The Counter-Revolution of 1776, and I’m working on Black Reconstruction in America right now).
comparing a random Black supremacist, someone on the social, political, and economic fringe, with the deeply entrenched and omnipresent system of colonialism is utterly ludicrous
Besides reactionaries and overt racists, no one is claiming there is hegemonic, systemic, or structural racism against white people. I’ve never even heard this from libs, let alone leftists. Instead, the argument is that insulting or harming someone based on the color of their skin still fits the definition of racism, even if it is not aligned with a larger superstructure of racism.
I’m convinced this whole discourse could be resolved with “there is no structural racism against white people, even though individuals may be racist against them.” The disagreement stems from arguing that only structural racism is really racism, which strikes me as an odd semantic battle to pick.
Instead, the argument is that insulting or harming someone based on the color of their skin still fits the definition of racism, even if it is not aligned with a larger superstructure of racism.
it’s a recuperation of the term which is specifically what people are trying to resist. what term could we use to separate the superstructural violence from interpersonal prejudice that won’t itself be recuperated? I remind you that the term itself began life as what the white supremacists called themselves. it fell out of favor with them when people caught on that it meant white supremacist.
the notion that it today means “interpersonal prejudice on racial lines” is a weakening of the notion that provides cover to white supremacists, giving them space to complain about the racism being done to them.
there’s no such thing as racism against white people because whiteness and racism are intrinsically linked.
I’m looking at how most people use the word “racism” today, because I think we should talk to people using terms they understand. If we think it’s worthwhile to redefine a word from its common usage we have to actually teach people, not just spring it on them and berate them for not reading our minds.
I’ve read Settlers and Fanon (and The Counter-Revolution of 1776, and I’m working on Black Reconstruction in America right now).
Besides reactionaries and overt racists, no one is claiming there is hegemonic, systemic, or structural racism against white people. I’ve never even heard this from libs, let alone leftists. Instead, the argument is that insulting or harming someone based on the color of their skin still fits the definition of racism, even if it is not aligned with a larger superstructure of racism.
I’m convinced this whole discourse could be resolved with “there is no structural racism against white people, even though individuals may be racist against them.” The disagreement stems from arguing that only structural racism is really racism, which strikes me as an odd semantic battle to pick.
it’s a recuperation of the term which is specifically what people are trying to resist. what term could we use to separate the superstructural violence from interpersonal prejudice that won’t itself be recuperated? I remind you that the term itself began life as what the white supremacists called themselves. it fell out of favor with them when people caught on that it meant white supremacist.
the notion that it today means “interpersonal prejudice on racial lines” is a weakening of the notion that provides cover to white supremacists, giving them space to complain about the racism being done to them.
there’s no such thing as racism against white people because whiteness and racism are intrinsically linked.
I’m looking at how most people use the word “racism” today, because I think we should talk to people using terms they understand. If we think it’s worthwhile to redefine a word from its common usage we have to actually teach people, not just spring it on them and berate them for not reading our minds.