Subject: Re: On interracial relationships, or anything
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 18:34:29 GMT
Paco Valiente (sweetf@pcfl.net) wrote:
(( cuts ))
: Of course racism exists. Racism continues to be a monstrous evil
: (though I think it closer to 200 years old than 500 since, IMHO, racism
: and slavery are different things). I do not deny racism or its
: malevolence. I simply deny that racism was ever grounded in any real
: differences between people, then or now. As an example:
This is nonsense, clearly. The fact is there are differences.
You *hypothesize* that the differences are not "real". Your
*hypothesis* may or may not be correct, depending, I suppose,
on your definition of "real". If you consider those characteristics
which society deems to be racially defining not to be "real",
I suppose that is your right. It would not however change the
clear reality that whenever I take a walk down the street it
is my clear observation that people are classifiable by race.
And the error rate is so small that it may safely be ignored.
For sure, the Rodney King's and the Abner Louima's of the
world do not escape the unerring classification of those who
would abuse them based on race.
: I would add that there is a variant of white supremacy that we see in
: Brazil, and I think also in PR, in which Black people are persuaded
: that they are anything *but* Black. This stratagem has succeeded
: brilliantly up until now. Stirrings of Black Consciousness of course
: threaten the white supremacist status quo. Therefore, there will be
: attempts to advance the argument that race does not exist. After all,
: if race does not exist, then racial discrimination and all forms of
: racial injustice cannot exist either, and the white supremacist, racist
: status quo may continue undisturbed.
: Paco Valiente:
: True, many Latin American societies are maldistributed, with a few
: supremacists crushing everyone else underfoot. We saw this first-hand
: when we lived in Brazil at the height of its military dictatorship
: (1969-1976). But we noticed that the top dogs were as genetically mixed
: as the underdogs. Hence, I dispute only your phrasing. You say,
: "brown-skinned oppressors are traitors to their race." I say,
: "oppressors of any flavor are traitors to humanity."
There is something more going on that you failed to see.
Abdias do Nascimento broke it down very clearly in
"Mixture or Massacre". It exploded the carefully constructed
and nurtured myth in Brazil of the happy blending of the
races, and the unimportance of race, when in fact this
myth was crafted and propagated precisely to provide the
cover under which white power and control could be maintained
even in a situation where the whites were a minority. In
such a set-up, the fact that one or two Blacks and many
more mixed-race individuals are allowed to rise to apparent
power and privilege is an essential part of the white
supremacist con game. For sure, no such privileged Blacks
or Browns get to such positions unless they first accept,
and submit to, those values which place white on top,
and non-white below. And surely you must concede that
the maldistribution is strongly correlated with race and
skin color, with black on the bottom, and white on top.
: This is the program at work, I think, when the same kind of white folk
: who stood in the school-house door 35 years ago to prevent Blacks from
: getting in, start talking about a "color-blind" society and quoting
: Martin Luther King Jr. in an effort to defeat Affirmative Action.
: Paco Valiente:
: Nah, racists 35 years ago did not quote MLK. They jailed him. Then they
: killed him. The schoolhouse-door stuff was unadorned racism, pure and
: simple. You give Southern bigots of 1960 too much credit. They did not
: insincerely advocate a color-blind society. On the contrary, they
: murdered at least 40 of our CR workers while loudly vowing to keep
: blacks in their place and to keep the white race pure. Their brand of
: racism was distinguished by its reptilian stupidity, not by subtle
: word-twisting. You give them way too much credit.
You completely missed my point, which perhaps was my fault.
The ones who talk color-blind *today* are the same, or of
the same mind-set, as those who stood in the school-house
door *then*. I am saying that the Euro-program of domination
and control is still the same in their hearts, and only
the tactics and modalities change. I assert that one of
those tactics precisely is to deny race itself as a "false
premise", and to accuse Blacks who speak of Africentricity,
as being the ones who now are racist, based on the "false
premise" which they so magnanimously gave up 35 years ago.
It is that *idea* that I attack. I have noticed that
many Black folk are taken in by it, including for example
Ukali Mwendo, who appears otherwise to be a conscious
brother.
: Also, in one paragraph, you accuse Hispanics of being "Black people ...
: persuaded that [we] are anything but Black" and, in a later paragraph,
: of being "the same white folk who stood in the schoolhouse door." Come
: now, you cannot have it both ways.
No. You have misunderstood. Clearly the "morenos" of PR
or Brazil had nothing to do with the civil rights struggle
in the US. My point was quite different. It is that white
supremacy may remain constant in terms of its program of
dominance and control, but it changes its tactics and
modalities to adjust to the contingent changing realities
it faces. Mr. Bobo of 35 years ago standing in the schoolhouse
door may morph into the Mr. Bobo of today supporting Prop 209
and preaching the virtues of a "color-blind" society. THe
morenos of Brazil and PR may talk about happy mixture, while
contributing to the cultural massacre of that part of
themselves which is African, and while not realizing the
extent of the white supremacist manipulation that has gone on
that makes them look down on their African heritage while
being unable to face up to that fact, and disguising it
with talk of being raceless folk who acknowledge only
culture. I object to that, and I call you on it, because
I recognize that that sort of nonsense, high-minded though
it sounds, just makes it that much easier for white supremacy
to maintain its hold on the planet.
: Must each Hispanic produce a numeric
: estimate of his African percentage so you can judge him as either Black
: traitor or White enemy? Would you line us against a wall and sort us
: into two races by eye, dragging husbands from their weeping families,
: dragging crying children from their mothers? Be reasonable.
I see your problem. You feel you are being forced to choose
between Black and white. And rather than face that choice,
you retreat into rhetoric about the non-existence of race,
hoping that that would make the problem go away. Well, I
do not have a solution for you. All I can say is you are who
you are, and to suggest that you should be happy with who you
are. If you do right and live right, then you contribute to
making this place a better world, and I can certainly admire
and respect that. What you cannot do, because untrue, is
to deny that which is palpably real, namely the existence
of race. As far as I'm concerned, you are not required to
choose between Black and white; mixed would do just fine.
What I do hope is that your moral choices are not guided
by cultural, or racial identification with the oppressor.
: Today's affirmative action controversy is a different topic entirely,
: and I would love to discuss it with you. But may I suggest we start a
: separate thread for it, since it is irrelevant to interracial personal
: relationships? If you choose to discuss it,
Nah, let it drop. It has been a perennial on this group,
and I'm bored with it.
: between means and goals. A man who I deeply respected (dead now for
: many years) once stopped an argument between those of us who advocated
: eye-for-eye strategy and those who proposed unwavering nonviolence. He
: did it by asking the question "What do you really want? Do you want to
: go down heroically in a just cause? Or do you want to get the job
: done?"
I submit to you that is the wrong question. Sometimes,
going down heroically is exactly what one must do if one
is to save one's soul. There *are* some things worth
dying for. Conversely, "getting the job done" can be a
snare and a delusion if in the process you compromise your
spiritual integrity. "What does it profit a man if he
gain the whole world, but lose his own soul?"
Having said that, I do not mean to imply that I support
*stupid* confrontation. The art of war can be very subtle.
In fact, the biggest war of all, also the most subtle, is
the one in which the battleground is the African mind.
For the oppressor knows, that the true condition that would
spend the end of white supremacy is the liberation of the
African mind. (It might explain the apparent fascination
of white folk for this newsgroup: they consider it in their
vital interest to know what Black folk are thinking, and
to attempt to control it if they can.)
: I think it is the same program at work when light-colored Puerto Ricans
: and Brazilians, among other Latin American types, assert the primacy of
: "culture" and the non-existence of race (especially of the Black sort).
: Paco Valiente:
: You think wrong. Enthocentrism is the bane of all peoples, of course,
: and bigots of any group look down on others. I am not immune. Deep
: down, as you notice, I believe that Puerto Ricans (black, brown, tan,
: and pink) are the most civilized and compassionate people on earth.
So what happened to the original Tainos? Look, I have no doubt
that Puerto Ricans can have beautiful souls, and that these come
in all shades of external skin color. That, though, is not the
issue. The issue is the global, unjust system of racism (white
supremacy) to which they and we are subject. I am fond of
quoting Neely Fuller as saying "if you do not understand white
supremacy, every thing else that you understand will only confuse
you." *That* is the issue. Having a beautiful soul and wanting to
be one with all mankind is admirable; when the myth of happy mixture
though is but tactic to advance the ugly reality of white
supremacist hegemony, however, what I say is "get real". Let's
submit to truth, however harsh.
: Nevertheless, not everyone of African descent who refuses to consider
: himself AA is your enemy. Some of us share your goals. I understand
: that trusting an outsider risks betrayal. But seeing evil motives in
: every outsider merely breeds bitterness within yourself.
I can see the "Pilgrim Fathers" making a similar speech to the
Indians at Plymouth Rock, and Columbus protesting the purity
of his motives when he landed on Hispaniola...
To me the matter is simple: bitter truth is better than sweet lies...
In any case, as to "seeing evil motives", I am like the card
player: I play what I see. I have debated the issue of race
before with people whose motives I have no doubt are quite
pure. But when they are wrong, I hammer them just as hard as
I have hammered you, and I really do not need to speculate on
individual motives, although I have become used to some of the
tricks the white supremacists get up to. One I particularly
resent is the one that asserts as an article of faith that
there is no "real difference" between the races, which
carries the corollary of strict moral equivalence between
oppressor and oppressed. I don't think so.
: Paco Valiente
: sweetf@pcfl.net
"From the time that Shango first condemned his
Muntu to suffer under an alien yoke in alien
lands, to this day, centuries have passed and
your fists have not yet carried out his command
to set yourselves free!"
--Zapata Olivella
Contents | Previous | Next