I want to discuss the widely-held belief that the antiquated government programs of the last 25 or so years, dubbed "Affirmative Action", constitutes an example of "Reverse Racism".
This is an accusation that relies on a few assuptions:
1. That nonwhite people enjoy privilege over whites in American society.
2. That nonwhite people are responsible for their lack of privilege compared to whites in American society.
As you can see, the two statements are contradictory: If I have privilege over white people, how could I be responsible for a disadvantage that doesn't exist? Conversely, if I am to blame for my disadvantage in American society, how, then, could I have an advantage? I would agree that class privilege can be bought, but not to any institutionalized extent; individual rich blacks serve only to exist as "examples of how racism is no longer an issue", when the issue is still very real, as a trip to prison will tell you.
This is only the first in a series of logical errors that mainstream people, white and black, have come to accept.
Back to assumption 2: Nonwhite people are to blame for their disadvantage.
This statement relies on another assumption:
3. That nonwhite people were given, from the start, an equal opportunity to gain the same privilege that white people enjoy.
Unless you count slavery and degradation as "equal opportunity", clearly this assumption is not based in any way on fact.
So, what's the end result? Legions of people, white and black, who truly believe that they should not even acknowledge, much less take responsibility for, their race/class privilege.
Yes, there are scores of black liberals/conservatives that believe that their success is solely a product of their hard work and dedication; not realizing that the price they and their ancestors had to pay to even be considered human by a white power structure, was an unnecessary one.
Why take the scraps from their plates, and then call it your birthright?
Let's be realistic here.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
The Sliding Scale of White Privilege
I've gotten through the hump of generalized theory, and today resolved to sit down and sort out the minute trappings of this menacing shadow we know of today as "white privilege".
Remember, we know that all privilege is insidious, as it places an advantage or disadvantage upon a person or group simply for being born a certain way. But what is it in particular about the system of white privilege that makes it so utterly absurd, but only if you can even get your mind wrapped around it?
Unlike hetero-male privilege, white privilege is not based on any solid, definable characteristic that makes it simple to discern. You're easily quantifiable by gender, less so by sexual identity, but with race, the definitions become considerably more hazy.
What is "whiteness"?
Whiteness is the degree of race privilege you have in Western society. While not expressly based on skin color (it can also be bought, to an extent), it follows the guideline of what I like to call "Anglo-Normativity", which is the specific degree to which you appear similar to the "white" ideal - blond, straight hair, blue eyes, and, of course, pale skin.
This creates an unwritten and unspoken-of hierarchy that has permeated into every facet of our social interaction - from labor to government, in nearly every country (including those where no "Anglo-Normative" people exist), people have ranked themselves according to this sliding scale of white privilege.
In Latin America, those with lighter skin have more, and can do more than those that look more indigenous.
In East Asia, those with lighter skin have more, and can do more than those that look more Indonesian or Guinean.
In North America, there are "whites" -- which includes everyone that isn't visibly African to any degree (including some Arabs and "Latinos"), and there are "blacks"; and within black culture there still exists a white privilege, as those with lighter skin and "better" hair are simultaneously rewarded and envied by other black folks, and enjoy favorability among whites as well.
It doesn't take a sociologist to see the same recurring pattern of unexposed and institutionalized white power, among people who have less to gain from being considered "white" in the first place!
So, what do we do about it?
Regardless of how Anglo-Normative you are, it is your responsibility to actively seek out and expose all manifestations of white supremacy in our society.
Regardless of how much intensity you are comfortable with in resisting white power, you, and everyone else, have to do something; whether it consists of forcing liberals to talk about race and their appropriation and tokenization of minorities, or it consists of getting a crew to spread literature, single out and beat down Nazis and Klansmen in your area, something needs to be done.
This cannot be put more simply: Systems of power and privilege need to be countered at all turns. Don't let anyone get away with "nigger" and "bitch" and "pussy" and "fag", it is in your interest not to participate in that nonsense, and silence IS participation.
And if you really think about it, it really is very, very absurd.
Remember, we know that all privilege is insidious, as it places an advantage or disadvantage upon a person or group simply for being born a certain way. But what is it in particular about the system of white privilege that makes it so utterly absurd, but only if you can even get your mind wrapped around it?
Unlike hetero-male privilege, white privilege is not based on any solid, definable characteristic that makes it simple to discern. You're easily quantifiable by gender, less so by sexual identity, but with race, the definitions become considerably more hazy.
What is "whiteness"?
Whiteness is the degree of race privilege you have in Western society. While not expressly based on skin color (it can also be bought, to an extent), it follows the guideline of what I like to call "Anglo-Normativity", which is the specific degree to which you appear similar to the "white" ideal - blond, straight hair, blue eyes, and, of course, pale skin.
This creates an unwritten and unspoken-of hierarchy that has permeated into every facet of our social interaction - from labor to government, in nearly every country (including those where no "Anglo-Normative" people exist), people have ranked themselves according to this sliding scale of white privilege.
In Latin America, those with lighter skin have more, and can do more than those that look more indigenous.
In East Asia, those with lighter skin have more, and can do more than those that look more Indonesian or Guinean.
In North America, there are "whites" -- which includes everyone that isn't visibly African to any degree (including some Arabs and "Latinos"), and there are "blacks"; and within black culture there still exists a white privilege, as those with lighter skin and "better" hair are simultaneously rewarded and envied by other black folks, and enjoy favorability among whites as well.
It doesn't take a sociologist to see the same recurring pattern of unexposed and institutionalized white power, among people who have less to gain from being considered "white" in the first place!
So, what do we do about it?
Regardless of how Anglo-Normative you are, it is your responsibility to actively seek out and expose all manifestations of white supremacy in our society.
Regardless of how much intensity you are comfortable with in resisting white power, you, and everyone else, have to do something; whether it consists of forcing liberals to talk about race and their appropriation and tokenization of minorities, or it consists of getting a crew to spread literature, single out and beat down Nazis and Klansmen in your area, something needs to be done.
This cannot be put more simply: Systems of power and privilege need to be countered at all turns. Don't let anyone get away with "nigger" and "bitch" and "pussy" and "fag", it is in your interest not to participate in that nonsense, and silence IS participation.
And if you really think about it, it really is very, very absurd.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Featured!
I'm featured in, and a new member of, an autonomous media collective known as The Positive Punx. This means that you can find posts from this blog, in addition to lots of other grade-A material ranging from short story fiction to art, photography, and music.
As for this blog, some things to expect:
-Ideas
-Further ideas
-By this point, my not posting is a good thing, because it means I'll be out there doing something.
But whatever goes down, at my next chance I'll be able to report.
My intention is not only to inspire myself to action, but you, the reader, as well. So if you read something that gives you an idea, by all means, I fully support your action, assuming it doesn't involve anything that negates the very reasons that I'm here writing in the first place.
So basically, if I'm posting here often, good. If I'm not, even better!
As for this blog, some things to expect:
-Ideas
-Further ideas
-By this point, my not posting is a good thing, because it means I'll be out there doing something.
But whatever goes down, at my next chance I'll be able to report.
My intention is not only to inspire myself to action, but you, the reader, as well. So if you read something that gives you an idea, by all means, I fully support your action, assuming it doesn't involve anything that negates the very reasons that I'm here writing in the first place.
So basically, if I'm posting here often, good. If I'm not, even better!
Monday, March 9, 2009
Why am I an "Angry Black Anarchist"?
As the first post of what might be a comprehensive blog about race, politics, anti-fascism and solidarity, I must make the rather pretentious assumption that there is someone reading this that either doesn't know or isn't fully understanding of the politics in question.
What, exactly, is an anarchist?
At the most basic level, anarchists and social libertarians (or libertarian socialists) contend that hierarchy, or the compulsory stratification of a society, is the enemy of freedom. War, famine, genocide, rape, slavery, all of these things are considered to be the end result of various forms of caste systems that encourage ignorance and hate, usually centered around belief in a higher authority that makes all of these injustices right and acceptable: God (meaning religion, a perversion of spirituality), the State, and/or Capital.
It's not, however, only political. Anarchists also resist commodification of humanity; the things that make us complex and interesting, we believe, can never be mass-produced, marketed, bought or sold. The things that make us happy - including the concept of happiness itself - must be defined by what exists now, and not by images and representations of a false reality. The things that enrich us - like art, music, and education - must exist for everyone to share and build for their own sake, and not as privileges for a few industrialized nations.
Lastly, and most importantly, it is a realization of not only the hierarchies and privileges that exist, but of our own personal role in maintaining them, and dealing with either being accountable for our privileged status, or resisting the oppression of those with privilege in the applicable power dynamic. Usually, it's both. Few people are totally privileged or totally disadvantaged, and we all have a stake in creating a non-hierarchical alternative to the destructive society that exists now.
That's the theory, at least. Applying it as a unified group, creating before we destroy, vigilantly destroying the tendency to dominate and oppress within all of us - "Killing the cop inside you" - is quite another thing. Even the act of writing this can serve as a replacement for action, and I would never claim that it doesn't sometimes.
Why are you "Angry"?
The anger comes from this realization about the nature of our society, and how, time and time again throughout recorded history, we have essentially repeated the same mistakes as a species in solving the problems that we created in the first place.
It also comes from experiencing oppression firsthand and witnessing it, marvelling at the inhumanity we are capable of, myself included.
Eventually I came to the realization that I was born into a system that uses the desire for survival as leverage to push people into forming institutions that systematically humiliate and dominate others; that confronting these institutions directly will very likely result in death or prison, and also that behind the masses of people who complacently accept and enable this, there are still those who specifically wish to preserve the status quo and make hierarchy more hierarchical, oppression more oppressive, and brutality more brutal.
Add to this the frustration among those who are like-minded when they have to be accountable for their own privilege as either heterosexual, white, male, and/or upper-class people, and for changing their tactics accordingly.
And what does your "Black" identity mean in terms of resistance?
As a nonwhite person in the United States, it means that I have an obligation to counter the inherent pro-whiteness of this society, and a very real stake in destroying and discouraging white supremacy and other forms of fascism.
It also means that I can and should organize with other nonwhite people, anarchist or not, to do what is necessary to ensure the safety and empowerment of black communities, which are currently falling victim to poverty, media-perpetuated self-loathing, and, most recently, class division.
It means that the black bourgeois has a very pressing obligation to use their newfound privilege to create institutions based on liberty and respect for all life, instead of institutions that repeat the same tired oppressions based on class privilege, "lightskinnedness", homophobia and sexism.
Lastly, it means that I should align myself with all who are frustrated with even the most seemingly trivial social injustice, and try to use identity not to alienate, but to foster understanding.
What, exactly, is an anarchist?
At the most basic level, anarchists and social libertarians (or libertarian socialists) contend that hierarchy, or the compulsory stratification of a society, is the enemy of freedom. War, famine, genocide, rape, slavery, all of these things are considered to be the end result of various forms of caste systems that encourage ignorance and hate, usually centered around belief in a higher authority that makes all of these injustices right and acceptable: God (meaning religion, a perversion of spirituality), the State, and/or Capital.
It's not, however, only political. Anarchists also resist commodification of humanity; the things that make us complex and interesting, we believe, can never be mass-produced, marketed, bought or sold. The things that make us happy - including the concept of happiness itself - must be defined by what exists now, and not by images and representations of a false reality. The things that enrich us - like art, music, and education - must exist for everyone to share and build for their own sake, and not as privileges for a few industrialized nations.
Lastly, and most importantly, it is a realization of not only the hierarchies and privileges that exist, but of our own personal role in maintaining them, and dealing with either being accountable for our privileged status, or resisting the oppression of those with privilege in the applicable power dynamic. Usually, it's both. Few people are totally privileged or totally disadvantaged, and we all have a stake in creating a non-hierarchical alternative to the destructive society that exists now.
That's the theory, at least. Applying it as a unified group, creating before we destroy, vigilantly destroying the tendency to dominate and oppress within all of us - "Killing the cop inside you" - is quite another thing. Even the act of writing this can serve as a replacement for action, and I would never claim that it doesn't sometimes.
Why are you "Angry"?
The anger comes from this realization about the nature of our society, and how, time and time again throughout recorded history, we have essentially repeated the same mistakes as a species in solving the problems that we created in the first place.
It also comes from experiencing oppression firsthand and witnessing it, marvelling at the inhumanity we are capable of, myself included.
Eventually I came to the realization that I was born into a system that uses the desire for survival as leverage to push people into forming institutions that systematically humiliate and dominate others; that confronting these institutions directly will very likely result in death or prison, and also that behind the masses of people who complacently accept and enable this, there are still those who specifically wish to preserve the status quo and make hierarchy more hierarchical, oppression more oppressive, and brutality more brutal.
Add to this the frustration among those who are like-minded when they have to be accountable for their own privilege as either heterosexual, white, male, and/or upper-class people, and for changing their tactics accordingly.
And what does your "Black" identity mean in terms of resistance?
As a nonwhite person in the United States, it means that I have an obligation to counter the inherent pro-whiteness of this society, and a very real stake in destroying and discouraging white supremacy and other forms of fascism.
It also means that I can and should organize with other nonwhite people, anarchist or not, to do what is necessary to ensure the safety and empowerment of black communities, which are currently falling victim to poverty, media-perpetuated self-loathing, and, most recently, class division.
It means that the black bourgeois has a very pressing obligation to use their newfound privilege to create institutions based on liberty and respect for all life, instead of institutions that repeat the same tired oppressions based on class privilege, "lightskinnedness", homophobia and sexism.
Lastly, it means that I should align myself with all who are frustrated with even the most seemingly trivial social injustice, and try to use identity not to alienate, but to foster understanding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
