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
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.