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
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.