Postmodern Racism and OWS: The myth of non-hierarchy

Radical Potential in Every Community
by Brett Farmer


Most current academic discussion of radical movements populated by whites is devoted to understanding ultra-right movements based largely on demands for less government intervention and nostalgia for a lost time in the United States. Amy Sonnie and James Tracy in Hillbilly Nationalists, Urban Race Rebels, and Black Power challenge this norm. Surveying radical left-wing movements from the early 1960s to the late 1970s, the authors demonstrate the importance of multiracial activism and the role of poor and middle-class whites in it. This vital text not only shakes up the academic prejudice that assumes poor whites to be racist, it also offers a wide range of examples of the movements' successes and failures, equipping readers with a large body of information on how to do effective activism.

Telling the stories of whites (specifically the poor) involved in the struggle for equality (racial, gender, and economic justice) in the United States is a difficult and complex task. It is not the case (as it is oftentimes assumed) that poor whites were simply not interested in racial equality; rather the benefits that the system of white privilege afforded them have historically created obstacles to winning lasting revolutionary gains. By publicizing the stories of those whites who resisted the call to submit to racial politicking, this book makes visible what has long been invisible, in particular a strong current of white consciousness that developed in a similar fashion to the consciousness of nationalist movements of black, Puerto Rican, American Indian, and Asian communities in the 1960s (9). The consciousness of those whites working for justice arose out of class consciousness, but not of a vulgar Marxist kind that simply identified the elites as the problem and advocated an impersonal class struggle. Rather, this book chronicles how they went about building communities and developing links between minority power movements and the demands for recognition of working-class whites.

The book encourages its readers to realize the importance of the struggle for the heartland as integral to racial justice in the United States, as well as to recognize the struggle in the heartland as ongoing and powerful even if rarely noticed (172-3). This struggle for change forcefully reminds us that movements who seek to radically change the status quo must start with their own communities, developing ties to broader groups as part of systematically connected demands for change. That is also part of a larger task for movements to remain practical and develop real action.

One of the most poignant points of this book is the portrayal of the tension between the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and radical community movements. Sonnie and Tracy depict the difficulty of middle-class SDS activists: merely discussing how radicalization might happen gained little traction (37). Those interested in just talking about the theory of revolution were simply left behind as the needs of communities dictated the actions of movements. Highlighting the importance of theory becoming action makes this book an essential reading not only for academics but also for activists looking to create change in the world around them. In other words, this book is a clarion call to root movements in practice, rejecting both pontification about revolutionary theory and sporadic action without focus.

The book presents many examples of movements rooted in practice. One of them is how a combination of Marxist theory and Panther anti-drug action created a framework for a white radical group called White Lightning to challenge heroin use in New York during the 70s (156). Unification of theory and practice enabled the group to change the conditions surrounding drug in their local community.

Radical left-wing movements do not always strike the right balance between theorizing (which can provide a unifying message as well as intellectual sustenance) and actual doings. Achieving the right balance, as the authors show, can link national and international issues (113), increase the chances for class solidarity to create change (80), and create a radical change by putting the power to make change in the hands of the people who need it the most (69). By pushing readers to synthesize the power of movements' doing and theorizing, the authors also create another challenge for them: to comprehend the power of diversity in the face of tensions between groups. This is where the book really shines as one of the most important texts on radical politics today.

The authors elegantly demonstrate the ways that diversity actually became strength for movement participants, instead of assuming its importance as a theoretical premise. Rather than inventing a new theory of race relations in the United States, the authors show that the movements connected and supported each other when they were most effective.

The sharing of power among many radical factions, however, was not a simple task. As the Black Panthers moved toward "Black Power," liberal whites were forced to take notice just as much as those on the right (53). Moreover, Sonnie and Tracy do not shy away from confronting how the power of diversity rapidly declined as the movements fell into massive disarray due to infighting. What also emerges from the text is a firsthand account of the power of institutions to use diversity as a divisive tool and a warning to future activists about the dangers of succumbing to paranoia, infighting, and institutional trickery.

For all the book's accomplishments, it also has a few shortcomings. First, there is little direct discussion about our current political situation. This is not to say that the authors do not directly address the movements today at all, but the book's "Epilogue" is unsatisfying in its brevity. I say this knowing full well that this book was never meant to be a theoretical tome that would explicitly guide movements step-by-step toward revolution. Still, I think the "Epilogue" could have been better developed with a view to offering a theoretical guide for activists in the future. Second, the description of the infiltration of the movements, while vivid and gripping, does little to warn future activists of what to watch out for, facing those who would seek to disrupt our contemporary movements. While records of the COINTELPRO operations are referenced and there is also a discussion of possible "rats," there is little in the book for readers who want to learn how to resist attempts to destroy the movements today.

Despite the few shortcomings mentioned above, Hillbilly Nationalists, Urban Race Rebels, and Black Power overall provides a strong reading of the movements that have long been neglected. It continues the important and truly radical archival and historical scholarship that has been uncovering movements of the "long sixties." This book is a must read for those who wish to develop radical politics with the benefit of the lessons of the past, which adds a greatly needed new understanding of diversity to debate among activists as well as scholars who have often overlooked the fact that radical potential exists in every community.

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/farmer111211.html

This isn't exactly "counterpoint" but more like an attempt to direct the discussion in a more constructive way than "Wah Kill Whitey Wu Tang"

shennong posted:
BF have you read that book? can you elaborate on some of the arguments re: achieving the right balance of theory and practice and also how "that the movements connected and supported each other when they were most effective"?

No I haven't, but I want to

Two days later, at the Outreach meeting we were brainstorming what to put on our first flyer. Adbusters’ idea had been that we focus on “one key demand.” This was a brilliant idea from a marketing perspective, but from an organizing perspective, it made no sense at all. We put that one aside almost immediately. There were much more fundamental questions to be hashed out. Like: who were we? Who did want to appeal to? Who did we represent? Someone—this time I remember quite clearly it was me, but I wouldn’t be surprised if a half dozen others had equally strong memories of being the first to come up with it—suggested, “well, why not call ourselves ‘the 99%’? If 1% of the population have ended up with all the benefits of the last 10 years of economic growth, control the wealth, own the politicians… why not just say we’re everybody else?” The Spanish couple quickly began to lay out a “We Are the 99%” pamphlet, and we started brainstorming ways to print and distribute it for free.

nobody had any idea about what was going to happen from there. it was complete contingency. nevermind that though, there has been endless pontificating about the accurateness of some representation imposed From Above as if it somehow creates what it designates

Lessons posted:

I don't disagree with your assessment of Occupy Oakland, Occupy Oakland falls under the local variations that I was talking about. At Oakland, the white populist demands come after demands like reversing the racist closure of several Oakland schools. While Occupy Wall Street doesn't have any official demands regarding undocumented workers, around 1/4 of Occupy Oakland's chants are in Spanish.

Occupy Oakland shows the strength and vitality of having a POC-centered focus, but it's clearly an anomaly caused by the local conditions in Oakland. However, just because those repressive conditions exist doesn't mean it translates into a POC-centered movement, take Occupy Philly as an example:

http://complex-brown.tumblr.com/post/11275788186/black-out-at-occupy-philadelphia-we-had-a-black

Saturday, two sisters were called Niggers by two of the volunteers at Occupy Philadelphia at the cell-phone charging stations. They were also told to go back to Africa, and that each white man should own a slave. When the sista’s called security, security asked them to leave the premises because they thought they were apart of the UHURU movement. Even if they were a part of that movement, they should not have been asked to leave. Especially without any mention of their verbal and spiritual abuse.

So a small collective formed a drummer’s circle on Sunday and started a rally, only to be met with on-lookers who didn’t understand why there was a Pan-African flag at an “American” event. We were called racist. Many of the people there to support Occupy Philadelphia came to us to tell us that all of us are people and that race is behind us! They told us that we were being divisive.

Bullshit.

When we circled up to come up with a constructive way to address the people, we were constantly interrupted by white people who could not respect our safe space. These people said that it was a public space, and we couldn’t have a group that excuded them. Why is it when black people want to get together to work out our issues in our community we are called out? Sadly, one of the black women who came up to our group suggested we move to another location away from city hall, since we were having a private group. What?!!

When we wanted to address the people at the people’s assembly, we had to beg to get a spot on the program. They wanted us to wait until afterwards and get on the open mic. Also, we had two people come up to the group and ask if we were going to be violent. Why would be violent?? Because we are black? We eventually told the gate-keepers that we were going to be given the mic, or we were going to take the mic. We eventually got our spot.

As the sister was talking about her experience, there were some members in support, and there were even members who came up to us afterwards to show support. But many of the people were asking us to hurry up, calm down and finish. One white guy used signals to get us to hurry up.

We spoke out about RACISM IN THE 99 percent.

We spoke out about how nobody was talking about the racist foundation of corporate greed.

How do we talk about classim without taking about racism?

American wealth can not be discussed without mention of free African slave labor, the rice, tobacco, sugar and cotton industry.

We were called racist because we empowered ourselves and stood up for what was right.

I'm not dismissive of the occupations in general, but I am dismissive of any occupation that is centered on broad American populism, because that brand of populism is absolutely poisonous to the chances of a Left revival.

Glen Ford put it well:

Only time can validate that assessment, and we shall see if there is still magic in the invocation of the “99%” in the spring and summer. One thing is certain: Occupy can only fulfill its promise to build on the contributions of previous movements if it decisively confronts the overarching issue of race, the Great Contradiction at the heart of American life and history that has always thwarted the development of an enduring Left movement.

The ultimate measure of Occupy’s capacity to combat white supremacy and privilege, is the degree to which the movement is seen as relevant to people of color – especially Black America, historically the nation’s most dependably progressive constituency and the group situated at the bottom of the economic heap in the current crisis. Black activists and the general African American public are keenly aware that OWS’s essential whiteness was key to its success in establishing encampments of borderline legality, and to the relatively favorable press coverage the movement has garnered. It is axiomatic that immediate and massive police repression would have been deployed to crush any such initiative by Blacks and browns.

The Occupy movement’s “99%” mantra seems inclusive on its face, but can also subsume the aspirations and grievances of the darker constituencies within the super-majority. Therefore, Blacks are compelled to interrogate the movement’s relevance to their own conditions, including gross racial imbalances in relationships of power. At every juncture of the movement’s development, African Americans must be substantively assured of OWS’s relevance to them.

Lessons posted:
i agree with most of that, and also think it's important to struggle against settler politics. none the less i'm still convinced a settler left would be a good thing overall,

right, as long as it's an all-white left you don't care about it's other characteristics. we get it.