So there was a bit of a heated discussion recently on the topic of "anti-white" or "reverse" racism and we (some of the mods) figured we would clarify some rules for this community:
- "White people" is a very vague term. Having low expectations of people in the imperial core is understandable for someone in the Global South, but it's better to be specific. Saying "I'm racist against white people" when you mean "I don't trust the average person in " is going to cause misunderstandings
- People who were racist in the past are not necessarily racist in the present. Many of us were liberals before becoming Marxists, and there's a significant overlap between liberals and racists
- No matter your ethnicity, don't use terms like "subhuman" or "orc" to describe yourself and your group; it may make others uncomfortable
- Don't call for violence (particularly against ethnic groups, but it's best to avoid it in general so the instance doesn't get in trouble)
- Stick to Lemmygrad's rules of good-faith discussion
that's all, folks
I am not sure I understand your statement, while I agree that we should no longer have divisions based on race, and that race should not be a thing, I do not think the solution is calling a group of people, orcs or sub-humans, or calling for execution squads to commit mass genocide, as was commented on the thread and has prompted this post.
I do not think I have heard any comrade arguing that white people should be feeling personaly guilty or be self flagellating, as we need to work together arm in arm to help tare down capitalism, but putting any effort into racism, or any other discriminatory practice only seeks to further divide us, and take us farther from that goal.
I have and always will be a supporter of the colonized standing up to their oppressor, I would agree that when they stand up for their humanity it is a right and just cause, however I do not see how this has to do with discussion at hands.
Lastly, as communists we fight for the liberation of all people, for an end to opression, I do not understand your insentience that the "white people" should be oppressed, as this only contenues in the same mindset as the capitalist, that there is always a bigger fish, that oppression is alright so long as I am the one doing the oppression. We stand here and profess an ideology of equality, one where every person is treated as a person, and the idea that we should opress another group for any reason, is anthietical to this idea, to reuse a quote I used early, when Fidel Castro talked about the United States, after they had to fight a revolution to get out from under their control, and then got slapped with an economic blockade that can be defined as a genocide in and of itself, “In Cuba we have never cultivated hatred against the American people or blamed them for the aggression perpetrated by the governments of that country. That would have run contrary to our political doctrines and our internationalist conscience, both well-proven throughout many years, and increasingly rooted in our ideas.” or that Dr Ernesto "Che" Guevara once said "If you tremble with indignation at every injustice then you are a comrade of mine." and I can only speak for myself here, but I find oppression, and blind hatred based on a characteristic a person cannot change, and was born with, and injustice, no mater who it is happening to, I would much rather judge a person on their actions, and on what they fight for, as I agree with Dr. Che Guevara, anyone who trembles with indignation at every injustice is my comrade, reguardless of who they are.
Not that I disagree with your broad points but race is such a contradictory concept, I'd like to raise some challenges. I'm not asking these questions as a 'gotcha', either (although I do make some claims that contradict your argument), and they're not necessarily for you to answer alone, although you may have some thoughts, which I'd be glad to hear.
Does the answer change if the identification of whiteness requires accepting a racial hierarchy? Of which self styled white people are at the top?
A personal anecdote: I've always been uncomfortable with ticking the 'white' box on forms. It's very existence is to put me into one category and exclude me from others, which might more accurately reflect my origins. I don't fill in that box on any form any more. Or I put 'other' or 'NA'. Not because I'm not white; to the people asking, I would be. I just reject the category itself. It shouldn't exist. I see being white as a choice, to agree with the government's view of who deserves rights and who doesn't. If I was born twenty years earlier, they'd have another box for me. I'm not letting them include me now, just because they have decided to 'include' me by their graciousness.
If white is a political category (as is black, Asian, or any other race), and is not, in fact, based on skin colour, can one be racist against 'white people'? Stuart Hall calls race a 'floating signifier', which is a useful concept.
If so, who does 'white' refer to? What is it's content? Southern Europeans might be white in North Western Europe but not in the US, for example. On the basis of skin colour alone, someone from North Africa might be white, until their interlocutor placed them as African rather than 'Mediterranean'/Southern European. Someone from Eastern Europe might not be white in North Western Europe but they might be white in North America, depending on their accent. And this turns upside down depending on wars within Europe.
Then, a broader question, can there be hate crime but not racism against white people?
The same wouldn't naturally apply the other way around even if all racial categories are political. I'm being quite broad here because white people have at one time or another labelled anyone who isn't 'white' as black and the powers that be are constantly changing who they count as white.
Is whiteness an inherent trait if it's content changes all the time and depends on location? Fanon argued, 'to be rich is to be white, to be white is to be rich'. Revolutionary organising means working, from the beginning, to abolish whiteness; it cannot survive a revolution because capitalism is racial capitalism. As soon as someone recognises the need for revolution they must at once recognise the need for and begin to undermine the category of whiteness.
From this perspective, I can see how one could commit (racially motivated) hate crimes against white people, but is it racist in the same way as it is to be racist against 'other races'?
I have two questions about the Castro quote. First, does 'American people' not include several 'races'? Second, is it a problem to equate 'American people' with white people? Then, for the Che quote, is it not an injustice to show support for the concept of a white race, given that it is inseparable from white supremacy?
(I'm not saying white people should be oppressed, I'm saying revolutionaries must seek to abolish whiteness. I'm unsure if it really means anything to say that white people 'should be oppressed' because as soon as that becomes a possibility, there would be no such thing as whiteness, which requires a hierarchy of which it is at the top.)
I think the distinction between "hate crime" and systemic racism might be useful, but it discounts the numerous "hate crimes" that forms a natural part of the oppressed peoples experience, like Indigenous people in the Americas or Chinese people in Southeast Asia.
That is what I am trying to say in my original comment but just with rhetorical flourishes.
Race is such a tricky topic to talk about. We Marxists can get a bit carried away in both directions but at least we can talk things through. Talking about race with liberals? Forget it! Unless you like everything you say twisted into a pretzel.
Alright I will try to answer all of your questions to the best of my ability and understanding.
First I am going to jump right to the quotes, I had no intention of making it seem like I was refering to the People of The United States as white, as you correctly pointed out there are many races in The United States and the quote was made in reference to all of them, and I at the time I used it did not think about it being interpreted in a different context. I was using it in context of Cuba was collinized by the United States, then once it got its freedom got put under a blocade that can be defined (and I do) as genocidal. There where over 600 attempts by the United States on Castro's life, there is no doubt that The United States is the opressive force on the nation, but even then, there is no hatred being spread or cultivated about the people, going so far as to say “Once demagoguery and lies are definitely exposed and defeated, the world will find excellent allies in the American people”. Again this is not a one to one comparison but showing that, a nation that has been under constant siege by an oppressive force is able to keep from demonizing all the people their, and they do it through understanding the lies, and showing their revolutionary spirit. I ment it only to show that in atleast one AES country hate for the opressive force does not trickle down into a group the class also is a part of IE the people of the United States.
As for the Che Quote it was meant in reference to oppression is injust in all its forms, and we should not be advocating anyone oppress anyone else. I agree that sporting the status quo is unjust, and supporting the ideas of races is unjust, That being said hating or oppressing someone based on something they are born with, and cannot change is also unjust.
I will be completly honest I do not 100% understand what you are asking with the higherarchy question however I will do my best to answer it, and you can tell me if I did not understand it. As we know race does not really exist, and so because of that it is always a moving target, and thoughout history, white has been termed to mean the people with the most power, and I understand that historical context, and understand that reluctance to mark that box. The argument that prompted the clarification is one more so about is, even with the hierarchy is unabashed hatred due to this ok, is the call for genocide, ok, and no, as mentioned above, it does not matter if it is for something a person cannot control, it should not be an object of hate, as we saw the other day.
I mean I am not a lawer, and so I cannot get into the nitty gritty on what counts as a hate crime, so again I will try my best but please understand I am no expert in this area, I am going to say it is much harder to find a pure example of a hate crime to "white people" than it is to any other group because often it will be a group fighting for their freedom, but it also is not impossible.
Your race is normally something you are born with, again its not being a real thing means that the powers at be can redefine, as we see with Ukrainians now, or Irish in the past, but it is still a thing that you are assigned when you are born, you cannot change it, and is not something someone should deserve hate over, again any arguing we spend over this only ends to divide us, we cannot let it do that. We cannot form an effective coalition if we divide ourselves.
I am and this clarification of the rules is in no way an attempt to "uphold whiteness" I think that race agian, does not really exist and is a silly thing that was made up, that being said it not being a real thing does not mean that it does not have a real effect on people, or that they cannot change it themselves, and not a valid reason for hate. I think that we should move beyond race, because it is a thing that does not really exist and is a silly thing that was made up.
I hope I answered all your questions, please do comment below or reach out if you have any more or if I missed something.
Thanks for replying. It's a well-thought out reply, too. I'm still in broad agreement with you.
I see what you mean about the Che and Castro quotes. I didn't mean to suggest that you had meant to equate American with White. It just seemed to be an implication of applying that framing in this context.
I'd say that race is as real as capitalism, money, or some other concepts. I don't think we disagree about this, though, as you also say:
I'll only add that I see race, like other concepts, as historically contingent. So while it may not exist in another epoch and while it has not always existed (at least in the way we understand the term today), it exists in capitalism and as you say, can be seen in the real effect that is has on people.
I just wanted to clarify something wrt to this point. While I don't like ticking the box, it's more of a subtle (and probably pointless) attempt to undermine the power of 'whiteness'; i.e. if it only exists so long as we give it credence, then by not supporting its use, I might bring about its end sooner. This is a bit of a liberal way of looking at it because race is very much material (again, as you point out). But it's also very easy not to tick a box, so why not? More importantly, though, I must clarify that I acknowledge my own white privilege. And by not ticking the box, I'm not trying to do that liberal 'I don't even see race' thing!
I wonder whether it is? I don't mean to be pedantic. But if it can change throughout a lifetime, I'm unsure if race itself is an inherent trait. Having white or black skin might be more-or-less unchosen and permanent but is this the same as race? Stuart Hall describes his light-skinned privilege as child in Jamaica became the opposite when he went to England (in Familiar Strangers). IIRC, Fanon (Black Skin, White Masks) speaks of realising that he could not be fully French only after he arrived in France. The thought was impossible before that. It was in France that he became black. The relevant concept might be 'interpellation'.
I'm not saying race is something that people can choose, either; I don't think it works like that. As to your point about the clarification of the rules—I understand. I also think it's okay to be strict on how we discuss some things that people do choose as well as about criticising things that they are born with.
Again, I don't think we disagree significantly. So this is mainly just food for thought.
The "self-flaggelation" was in reference to the person who called White people orcs, because they were White themself. I was hoping to explain that self-hatred will get no where and falls into the liberal trap and reifies the power structures of Racial Capitalism.
It is relevant because some people here in lemmygrad in the past stopped posting because they said something similar to "White people are evil" (i don't remember exactly) and got mass downvoted. It is relevant because the Global South (and oppressed people generally) isn't by default morally Good nor are noble savages. We are humans. Many also still have resentment against White People, I am explaining the material basis of this expression.
The oppressed hating the oppressor is a GOOD thing. There's no such thing as "reverse racism" because it is completely ahistorical.
One individual's personal hatred does not discount the global imperialist system. Just as some African nations benefiting from the slave trade did not discount the untold damage that slave trading did to Africa.
What I mean by "insentience that the “white people” should be oppressed" is explained by the sentence just prior to it:
What would oppression of white people even entail? It doesn't make sense. It's all rhetorics. That's my point. Racism against white people doesn't exist in reality.
It's isn't white bodies piling up in the Mediterrenean sea. That is the material reality. There is no systemic discrimination against White people, and there is no material basis for it. On the contrary, there is a global material basis of exploitation that benefits White-Global North countries.
When I say we should oppress White people, it is the admittance that it isn't actually possible in reality because it isn't the Global South that controls the definition of White, nor has the power to materially effect White countries (as of currently). It is the Global North that is imperializing and neo-colonizing the Global South.
It is the oppressed against the oppressor. There is no equivalence.
To be internationalist is to reject the racist world capitalism system. This is something revolutionaries in my country understood by rejecting Race and forming their own multiethnic proletarian coalition against the comprador classes and the European colonizers with their toxic racial ideology but ultimately failed.
That's how current and past AES nations handle minority ethnicities and nations.
Race is not biological. However it does exhibit a peculiar characteristic of exhibiting base and superstructural features, although ultimately being superstructural in the end. It changes definition person to person, area to area, nation-state to nation-state. That is why we must reject this clearly immaterial basis of dividing the global proletariat.
If that is what you where refering to as self-flaggelation I feel like you are underselling what happened to a large extent. I agree whole heatedly with you that self hatred and focusing on race, will get us no where but farther divided, and will keep us in our capitalist system as we are unable to unify arm in arm. And that is why we felt it necessary to clarify the rule in reguards to racism and racist comments.
I agree it is only natural for the oppressed to dislike and hate their oppressors, it is the human condition and I can not wrong anyone for doing so or feeling that way. I feel like the statement touched on this point mentioning "Having low expectations of people in the imperial core is understandable for someone in the Global South, but it’s better to be specific. Saying “I’m racist against white people” when you mean “I don’t trust the average person in ” is going to cause misunderstandings". We cannot reasonably expect to form a international group, or dismantle the concept of race when we are going around saying things like "we SHOULD be racist aganst 'white people'!" We cannot say in one breath to be "racist" against "white people" and in the next say that is because it cannot exist, these 2 statements are in direct contradiction with each other. If you where to ask me, I think the idea of race is silly, and should be done away with, but we do not get to that point by continuing a circle of hate, or by pretending that right now this genuinely made up and fluid concept, does not truly effect people in a real and tangible way.
When talking about reverse racism, we have no illusions that there is no systemic structure of racism against white people, as a whole specific group does not exist, however this does not stop individual prejudice against white people, as we saw in the incident that caused this clarification of the rules.
We are in no way dismissing or understating the damages done by the global north, onto the global south, and an individuals hatred of a group of people does not some how equate to the centuries of colonization, exploitation.
you cannot say "...'white people' should really be the ones oppressed (lol)." and then when it is brought up that that is not what we fight for, and any opression is an injustice, we fight for the working class, we fight for the liberation of the opressed, seem suprised anyone would take you at your word then back track with "What would oppression of white people even entail? It doesn’t make sense. It’s all rhetoric." Your advocation was for opressing a group of people, not only does this play right into the fears of reaction.
I feel you misunderstand the reason for my inclusion of the quote. Cuba has been colonized by the United States, and when it broke free of the United States almost immedatly the United States put a genocidal blockade on the island nation. The United States sent over 600 assasination attempts to Castro. The United States being one of the most propogandized people in the world, does not know Cuba as anything more than an athoritarian dictatorship, and only been told stories from the Borgiouse class that flead Cuba and the US State Department, to the point where Havana Syndrome was able to be accepted without much pushback from the general public. Even in these situations Fidel said "In Cuba we have never cultivated hatred against the American people or blamed them for the aggression perpetrated by the governments of that country. That would have run contrary to our political doctrines and our internationalist conscience, both well-proven throughout many years, and increasingly rooted in our ideas." Even with Cuba they have not and will not cultivate or hold hatred to the American People, and yes it is because of their political ideals, that being Marxism-Leninism, and their International Conscience. I would like to believe that all of us here strive for the same goals, and we cannot acomplish them by hating a person based on their race. I agree that to complete their goal we must reject racism and capitalism, hence the clarification on the rule.
as with your last point I agree that race is not a real thing, and so cannot be biological, and because race not being a real thing, the definitions are not consistent, and fusing on this made up division, only devides us, and does not in any way unify us, again the reason for the clarification of the rules.
My thoughts on this aren't that well put together yet but I still think I want to add some things to the discussion.
To me this is just the class struggle of decolonization and national liberation of the third world. Much like in the class struggle of proletariat vs the bourgeoisie in the imperial core where the goal absolutely is for the proletariat to oppress the bourgeoisie by way of the dictatorship of the proletariat (in the long term, of course the goal is achieving communism). That same concept applied to race and colonial relations is solved not by putting the colonized on the same level as the colonist but by putting the previously oppressed on top. As Frantz Fanon says in The Wretched of the Earth: 'Decolonization, therefore, implies the urgent need to thoroughly challenge the colonial situation. Its definition can, if we want to describe it accurately, be summed up in the well-known words: "The last shall be first."'
I think the situation is different before and after the revolution and when considering the particular circumstances. Look at what Che said in 1954:
'Given this background, with American reality being what it is, it’s not difficult to suppose what will be the attitude of the working class of the North American country when the problem of the abrupt loss of markets and sources of cheap raw materials is definitively posed. (...) Let us prepare, then, to fight against the entire people of the United States...'
The ultimate goal is no division by race but that cannot be achieved simply and quickly as currently racialized people (by the very fact that they're racialized) are still not fully accepted into the category of people into which white people are fully accepted (white men specifically).
Again to quote Fanon: 'This compartmentalized world, this world divided in two, is inhabited by different species. The singularity of the colonial context lies in the fact that economic reality, inequality, and enormous disparities in lifestyles never manage to mask the human reality. Looking at the immediacies of the colonial context, it is clear that what divides this world is first and foremost what species, what race one belongs to. In the colonies the economic infrastructure is also a superstructure.'
And: 'It is not the factories, the estates, or the bank account which primarily characterize the "ruling class." The ruling species is first and foremost the outsider from elsewhere, different from the indigenous population, "the others."'
I think that to truly be against racial divisions we must be anti-white, just as to build a communist world we must first have a revolution and oppress the bourgeoisie out of existence. The concept of "white" presupposes and necessitates the existence of the other "black, or colored in general". The whole concept of "white", we know, comes from the colonial exploitation of the world by the imperial countries of Europe and North America so I think we as Marxists should be "anti-white" and not talk dismissively about race as it currently exists.
I am not saying you're chauvinistic but when talking like this about colonized and racialized people I think we can easily fall close to what Domenico Losurdo warns about in his book Class Struggle with regards to internationalism: 'This is a general rule: when it ignores the national question, internationalism turns into its opposite. The repression of national particularities in the name of an abstract ‘internationalism’ facilitates things for a nation intent presenting itself as the embodiment of the universal; and this is precisely what chauvinism—in fact, the most fanatical chauvinism—consists in.'
🏆 🏆 🏆 🏆 🏆 🏆 🏆 o7