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
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.