tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post8185778400291116178..comments2023-12-29T18:13:21.495-06:00Comments on pink scare: WBM Strikes AgainUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-50081539144969886162010-10-10T18:36:13.753-05:002010-10-10T18:36:13.753-05:00here's an interesting article on Benn-Michael&...here's an interesting article on Benn-Michael's favorite social movement:<br /><br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/10/english-defence-league-tea-partyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-65859857350632021062010-10-10T16:03:10.120-05:002010-10-10T16:03:10.120-05:00"how can an anti-capitalist be a right-wing p..."how can an anti-capitalist be a right-wing populist?"<br /><br />I think I'll retract that one, actually. I'll ask instead, how can a remote, smarmy, elite anti-capitalist professor be construed as a populist?Roachbeardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03033475100639839488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-27991829830226760102010-10-10T14:55:06.380-05:002010-10-10T14:55:06.380-05:00Roachbeard, to go one step further, I think those ...Roachbeard, to go one step further, I think those white moneyed men are looking to diversify their heirs, but not their society, so they welcome the Rices and Obamas to the 1% club, and their children will intermarry, and capitalism will not weaken a whit.<br /><br />At least, that's their plan.<br /><br />I've started to read Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism. So far, there's nothing that contradicts WBM and a good bit that supports him. From the first page of the first chapter: "The founding figures of neoliberal thought took political ideals of human dignity and individual freedom as fundamental, as 'the central values of civilization'."Will Shetterlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08539053268352597627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-51452328037799976672010-10-10T14:36:34.283-05:002010-10-10T14:36:34.283-05:00t, thanks for your comments. But can you clear up ...t, thanks for your comments. But can you clear up for me what WBM "almost gets right"? For me, this thought (speaking of gay marriage) is quite strikingly true: "And it is on one hand a completely admirable shift, I don’t think there is any doubt that you have a freer, more just society if you allow same-sex marriage, but on the other hand it is a shift that is in no sense oppositional to capitalism."<br /><br />Can you put me on to some literature on intersectionality that would put lie to Michaels' logic here? Is it a matter of activating large scale, broad-based civil rights movements for social justice, which socialists and capitalists both can get behind, and THEN focusing on the bosses? I'm not being cheeky - I'm genuinely confused about this stuff. MLK and Malcolm X both became more universalist, class-conscious figures later in their careers, which suggests that they envisioned the limits of civil rights. The enduring poverty of blacks in the U.S. testifies to those limits, doesn't it, when full equal rights are enshrined in law and affirmative action programs have diversified a lot of American institutions? <br /><br />You speak of the Panthers who were anti-capitalist, and when you do, I am reminded of the FLQ (this being October) here in Quebec who were an identitarian, socialist-revolutionary group. What troubles me about the latter (this may be true of the Panthers - I'm not sure) is that in their very righteous struggle, they painted all Quebec Anglos as moneyed elites, when most of us are poor, exploited, working people. We do (or did - past tense provincially, present tense federally) enjoy an illegitimate privilege because of our cultural identity, but it seems incoherent not to reach out to natural class allies. Those potential allies may be, by and large, reactionary bigots, but can't they be shown how their interests coincide with your own? And once that coincidence of interests is articulated, does it make sense for there to be a dispersed (atomised?) network of groups who acknowledge mutual solidarity rather than a mass movement?<br /><br />Also, I must say I find the hyper-ventilating about WBM’s comments on Glenn Beck and the Tea party – “SEE!?! SEE!! He’s a bigot!” – to be totally misrepresentative of what he actually says about them. His analysis may be shoddy, but he isn’t painting them as heroes. t., you keep pointing to “what he says about Beck and the Tea Party” as some conclusive evidence that he is this crypto-bigot of some kind. He clearly finds Beck and his ilk to be fools, but ones that are reacting to the injuries of neoliberalism's advent. Again, how can an anti-capitalist be a right-wing populist? <br /><br />He troubles me, but I'm still compelled by the argument that full social equality for all is entirely amenable to capitalism. So, where can I find his argument nuanced by the idea that capitalism's inequalities depend on other sorts? Again, I'm not being smarmy. I'm a relative neophyte, and I want to read up on this problem. At present it seems to me that institutional sexism, racism, and homophobia are vestiges of the white, straight, male cabal that still runs things, but that their (the straight, white, males, that is) resistance to sharing out the spoils is basic, primal, (tribal) fear of the other and protection of one's own. As things advance and progressive forces make gains (for the good, as WBM freely admits), these old boys are dying off or having their eyes opened to the fact that business as usual can proceed unimpeded. For the very fact that previously disenfranchised groups (other than fringe, anti-capitalist, activist elements) are not actually working against capitalism. This is not to say that fighting racism, sexism, or homophobia is a waste of time - it does make life better for everybody. But to associate it with the struggle to get the bosses off our backs is only appropriate insofar as socialists almost always insist on this equality. Am I making any sense?Roachbeardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03033475100639839488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-29405388378159842922010-10-09T15:00:14.468-05:002010-10-09T15:00:14.468-05:00in his interview wbm says: "it’s hard to find...in his interview wbm says: "it’s hard to find any political movement that’s really against neoliberalism today, the closest I can come is the Tea Party. The Tea Party represents in my view, not actually a serious, because it’s so inchoate and it’s so in a certain sense diluted, but nonetheless a real reaction against neoliberalism that is not simply a reaction against neoliberalism from the old racist Right."<br /><br />are you shitting me? how can he think that the tea party is anti-neoliberal, when they are dedicated to the destruction of the welfare state, "minimal government", etc. and how can he think that there are no other anti-capitalist politics out there? it seems to me that he's just aloof and misinformed here- hasn't he just internalized the stupid lamestream narrative that the tea baggers are the only political game in town right now? hasn't he simply given more weight to the lie that this is a "center right nation" with no left groups whatsoever? <br /><br />way to pull for the left, there, buddy! screw this guyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-67482969435413071462010-10-09T14:56:49.491-05:002010-10-09T14:56:49.491-05:00I just got Harvey's book on Neoliberalism and ...I just got Harvey's book on Neoliberalism and haven't begun it yet, so my argument may change.<br /><br />But I've never seen WBM suggest that the struggle against racism began in the 1970s and '80s with the rise of neoliberalism. He knows very well that feminism and civil rights struggle predate neoliberalism.<br /><br />And this is a fact: The gap between rich and poor has grown during the time that many governments have instituted diversity policies. Diversity is good for many things, but under capitalism, it's not good for fighting poverty. What was true in King's day is true today: there are twice as many white folks in poverty as black folks. Only the ruling class has become more diverse.<br /><br />Something else I was meaning to ask: Isn't 'marxist-feminist' redundant?Will Shetterlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08539053268352597627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-89099708038524894782010-10-09T14:46:42.139-05:002010-10-09T14:46:42.139-05:00Perhaps you should read more closely. You're t...Perhaps you should read more closely. You're tiring me out with these sorts of questions. <br /><br />See his interview for instance:<br />"But if you look at the history of the idea of neoliberalism you can see fairly quickly that neoliberalism arises as a kind of commitment precisely to those things [i.e. anti-racism, anti-sexism, etc.]."<br /><br />The content of the indexical "those" is specified by the previous sentence, and it is "anti-sexism, anti-racism, etc."<br /><br />Elsewhere--and I leave it to you to do your own homework here (read my previous posts on WBM if you like)--he's argued that the struggles against racism in the 60s contributed to and helped increase inequality. <br /><br />That's his view: anti-racist struggle is causally implicated in the production of income inequality, hence anti-racism "is not left-wing politics". That's bullshit, and proof (if anything is) that he's no Leftist. The BNP in the UK also has a weak-sauce critique of (white) inequality, but their explanation, of course, is all of those "foreigners" are the problem. WBM isn't Nick Griffin, to be sure. But his position is not so different from far-Right populism. That he should be so glad to use kid-gloves with the Tea Baggers is especially troubling on this score.thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05268192967377248928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-84684641478526601342010-10-09T13:59:56.688-05:002010-10-09T13:59:56.688-05:00s his "anti-racism causes neoliberalism"...<i>s his "anti-racism causes neoliberalism" argument</i><br /><br />Cite? I read him very differently: Neoliberalism exploits anti-racism.Will Shetterlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08539053268352597627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-30497351180042994792010-10-09T13:07:08.695-05:002010-10-09T13:07:08.695-05:00Roachbeard-
I agree with you that the tone of the...Roachbeard-<br /><br />I agree with you that the tone of the post was, perhaps, a bit too vitriolic or, as you put it, jerky. <br /><br />That said, I think WBM is deserving of much of the scorn he's acquired from leftists. I'm not sure about the sense in which you see him as an Althusserian. Though I have my problems with the Althusserian project, at least Ol' Louis had a sophisticated analysis of capitalist social relations, the complicatedness of social formations, etc. I see none of that in WBM's "critique" of neoliberalism. Everything I've read where he makes his "anti-racism causes neoliberalism" argument, his own critique of neoliberalism is weaksauce. He complains about income disaprities in typical clueless liberal fashion, with literally no analysis of how such patterns are produced, how neoliberalism was a global phenomenon that was in part a class project, etc. Moreover, though he goes on about class, he has no rigorous understanding of it. He doesn't work with relations of production or structural definitions of class... he just whines moralistically about income inequality. I don't count that as "getting it right", though I do, of course, think that income inequality is a problem. But it is basically epiphenomenal and not an explanation of anything- on the contrary it is a social fact in need of explanation. WBM gives us little to work with here- so I don't see that his complaints about inequality are helpful for Leftists whatsoever. <br /><br />As far as whether to place WBM on the Left, here's my somewhat polemical view. WBM is a mere academic who seems intent on complaining about, and slandering, struggles against oppression that have never really mattered to him. He is not in the business of building anti-capitalist struggle, he is not in the business of theorizing a way out of the present. He is not a vocal socialist or Leftist in his own right. Instead, he's made a career for himself by taking tepid forms of identity politics and throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's as though he's never read a single marxist-feminist, or hasn't read ANY of the literature on intersectionality. It's also extremely clear that the man really just doesn't know history. And worse yet, he blames victims and gives creedence to typical Rightist populism, by claiming that anti-racist and anti-sexist struggles, AS SUCH, have produced and helped to create neoliberalism. That is both false and politically toxic. That is not far from the Tea Bagger inference that "since I am very badly off in contemporary capitalism it must be because of all this anti-racist stuff or it must be because people with brown skin are taking the jobs". And WBM's comments on the Tea Baggers and Beck reinforce this proximity. And seriously- if those inept reflections on Beck and the Tea Baggers don't evince deep political confusion, I don't know what does. <br /><br />I'm not really interested in his intentions. Perhaps he means well, in some strange way. But the manifest content of his view is false, and politically reactionary. And worse still- it inhibits the capacity of dis-empowered working people to band together in a struggle against capitalism itself. It inhibits our ability to discover how capitalism and, say, racism are deeply intertwined. His toxic blame-the-victim line muddies the waters, and makes it even more difficult to get things right than before. <br /><br />So, my view is that socialists and leftists should categorically reject his arguments. Everything that he almost gets right, others have said more effectively, more clearly, without the "anti-racism isn't left-wing politics" garbage.thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05268192967377248928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-59485964704465326752010-10-08T22:07:48.878-05:002010-10-08T22:07:48.878-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Roachbeardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03033475100639839488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-84329957287882423162010-10-08T22:06:38.804-05:002010-10-08T22:06:38.804-05:00I will leave off entering into the main argument h...I will leave off entering into the main argument here since I'm not sure where I ultimately stand on WBM. I'm thankful to all of the commenters for providing me with as many perspectives as they have.<br /><br />I must say, however, that calling WBM a rightist and claiming that his critique of anti-racism and anti-sexism is ‘vitriolic’ is patently incorrect. In fact, I think it’s his matter-of-factness that drives people nuts. And the little jab at the conclusion of the post that in his native domain of literary criticism Michaels is reductively anti-theoretical is just wrong-headed. His work in literary studies is not facile. Even those who violently disagree with him will concede his importance in the field. He is contentious–perhaps unnecessarily provocative at times–but he is ruthlessly intelligent. And consistently Althusserian. He works very hard to show how (American) narrative fiction, consciously or not, in its representation of desire, is thoroughly beholden to capitalist logic. In his reckoning, capitalism structures desire. In books and in life. And there is no escaping that. He is a bit total in that conclusion, but it ain’t a right-wing conclusion.<br /><br />I do think he’s intellectually dishonest in his insistence that he wants to be able to point up the injurious relation of identity and ideology without declaring any definite political stance other than being for the redistribution of wealth. That seems like an empty, intellectual position, even if it is an instructive one. However, I still think his points that class is not an identity category and that the aim is not to respect the poor but to work to end their poverty are very strong ones.<br /><br />He may be something of an intellectual snake charmer, but it wouldn't hurt to say where he gets things right. You seem convinced of his crypto-rightism in a way that is eerily similar to the shrill insistence of some others that Obama is a socialist. <br /><br />To characterize his argument as "'soft' complaints about capitalist inequality coupled with a vitriolic hatred for struggles against racial or sexual oppression" is just that, a characterization. He is principally concerned with inequality; and his intellectual reservations regarding the blithe liberalism of mainstream anti-sexism and anti-racism movements don't seem to be hateful.<br /><br />For the record, I still think he's jerky. I just find the tone of the original post a little on the jerky side as well.Roachbeardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03033475100639839488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-39851553756421244912010-10-02T17:05:10.056-05:002010-10-02T17:05:10.056-05:00This might help. Tony Blair has been called a neol...This might help. Tony Blair has been called a neoliberal. Would you call him a liberal instead, or something else?Will Shetterlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08539053268352597627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-36243843432307276242010-10-02T17:02:55.665-05:002010-10-02T17:02:55.665-05:00t, it's true that sometimes the water gets sta...t, it's true that sometimes the water gets stagnant, so I stir it up. I don't know another way to seek clarity. I get very tired of people making arguments that were refuted decades or, in Marx's case, centuries ago. Heck, in terms of prophets who spoke about sharing resoruces, millennia ago.<br /><br />Capitalism evolves, and so does neoliberalism. Neoliberalism's focus is on limiting the government's role in capitalism. What the government does to pacify the people is much less important to neoliberals. In the US, neoconservatives and neoliberals are the right and left of global neoliberalism, what WBM calls right and left neoliberalism. They're fighting over the best way to rule us.Will Shetterlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08539053268352597627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-19140605813757646202010-10-02T16:53:40.918-05:002010-10-02T16:53:40.918-05:00There's an important distinction between the w...There's an important distinction between the way "liberal" gets used in the US and neoliberal. Paul Krugman is a liberal: that is, he is for welfare-state capitalism. He has a Keynesian angle on how to solve the problem of effective demand, he wants to ease some of the pain of workers with redistributive measures, etc. He's no neoliberal. In fact, neoliberal is supposed to pick out precisely that set of ideas and practices that emerged in a reaction to the Keynesian "managed capitalism" of the Postwar era. So calling everyone a neoliberal who isn't a socialist isn't very helpful; it just muddies the waters here. <br /><br />But muddying the waters seems to be a pastime of yours.thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05268192967377248928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-54624160900873274442010-10-02T15:20:07.832-05:002010-10-02T15:20:07.832-05:00Anonymous, argue about Tim Wise with Adolph Reed J...Anonymous, argue about Tim Wise with Adolph Reed Jr. I suspect Reed would say that it's precisely Wise's liberal approach to class that makes him a neoliberal.<br /><br />As for Obama, yeah, he's a neoliberal doing his bit to keep capitalism healthy for the sake of rich folks of all hues. The man comes from expensive private schools, and left a million-dollar home to enter the White House. Why did anyone expect anything more?<br /><br />Well, because people need to hope. But in this case, they were looking too much at his race and too little at his class.Will Shetterlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08539053268352597627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-732075236511213322010-10-02T14:48:20.388-05:002010-10-02T14:48:20.388-05:00"they carry on about racism and sexism in ord..."they carry on about racism and sexism in order to avoid doing so about capitalism."<br /><br />WHO? Who does? Where are the people talking bluntly about racism in the establishment? Where are they?!<br /><br />Are you telling me that Obama is an anti-racist? Well, that's news to me. My man hardly mentions the word race. He sits by while black people take this crisis on the chin and basically does nothing. He refuses to do anything remotely progressive on the racial justice front. He's a mainstream Democrat!!! I don't know anybody that is serious about anti-racist struggle in this country would buy the claim that Obama is the be-all-end-all of racial justice, even the folks who would offer "critical support" of him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-41349198054541202932010-10-02T14:42:37.218-05:002010-10-02T14:42:37.218-05:00I resent what was said about Tim Wise. The guy is ...I resent what was said about Tim Wise. The guy is not a committed socialist: fine. But it's bullshit to say that he doesn't talk about class. He talks about it all the time: his schtick is that various forms of oppression are interconnected and reinforce one another. That's basically right. I might take issue with his coziness with the Democrats (though he definitely is willing to be critical at times)... and I might take issue with his naivete about the possibility of working for justice within capitalism... but let's be honest here: he's no different than other left-liberals in the US on that score. So it's kind of ridiculous to single him out because he's a liberal, and he works mostly on anti-racism. If you want to condemn liberals for being naive, wedded to being politically marginal, whatever.. then fine. But don't single Wise out because his main focus is anti-racism. He does good work and his anti-racist politics are absolutely class conscious, if only in a liberal way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-54893814648500404692010-10-02T11:09:30.550-05:002010-10-02T11:09:30.550-05:00., if your goal is to be in solidarity with upper ...., if your goal is to be in solidarity with upper and middle-class people of color, anti-racism theory is for you. But if your goal is to be in solidarity with working class people of all hues, it's about class, not race.<br /><br />Yes, there is an overlap between the concerns of anti-racism and anti-capitalism. But you have to remember that many of the proponents of anti-racism, whether famous ones like Tim Wise or the Ivy League neoliberals who took part in the Racefail 09 flamewar, are working to strengthen capitalism, to convince people that communism is still bad and capitalism is better than it used to be. Socialists may be able to work with neoliberals on a few issues, but if they're allies, they're dangerous ones.Will Shetterlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08539053268352597627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-10361471702886971682010-10-02T10:45:40.013-05:002010-10-02T10:45:40.013-05:00This is what solidarity means to me:
If what you ...This is what solidarity means to me:<br /><br />If what you face concretely is not what I face concretely, then I don't get to pretend that it is. Yet, if I know that our struggles are linked, that what oppresses me cannot be undone without the undoing of what oppresses you, then I have to be your ally. Every time I try erase or hide what oppresses you concretely, I am not only working to main your oppression, I am also working against my own liberation.<br /><br />For us to be able to work together against the structuring process of class, which we face together, I have an obligation to support you in your struggle against the oppression in your life, which may look and feel and operate very differently than the oppression I face in my life. But I also have to muster the courage to struggle against my own oppression and not simply ignore or erase that either. And I hope that at the times that I do rally myself to such confrontation, that you will support me and not tell me that I am wasting my time with little things like my own life..https://www.blogger.com/profile/01549084642883369527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-42481657594810750982010-10-02T10:34:07.680-05:002010-10-02T10:34:07.680-05:00Anonymous, the interviewer is picking up from a po...Anonymous, the interviewer is picking up from a point WBM has made before. Here's an example from "Against Diversity" at New Left Review: "For the answer to the question, ‘Why do American liberals carry on about racism and sexism when they should be carrying on about capitalism?’, is pretty obvious: they carry on about racism and sexism in order to avoid doing so about capitalism. Either because they genuinely do think that inequality is fine as long as it is not a function of discrimination (in which case, they are neoliberals of the right). Or because they think that fighting against racial and sexual inequality is at least a step in the direction of real equality (in which case, they are neoliberals of the left)."<br /><br />WBM seems to be trying to distinguish between neoconservatives like Michael Steele, Michelle Malkin, Lloyd Marcus, etc. and neoliberals like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Oprah, etc.Will Shetterlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08539053268352597627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-54229791223077443472010-10-02T10:05:30.999-05:002010-10-02T10:05:30.999-05:00WBM's first sentence in the interview is folly...WBM's first sentence in the interview is folly:<br /><br />"The differentiation between Left and Right neoliberalism doesn’t really undermine the way it which it is deeply unified in its commitment to competitive markets and to the state's role in maintaining competitive markets."<br /><br />Leaving aside the stupidity of the concept of "left neoliberal", since when has neoliberalism EVER really been about competitive markets? And even if we take the moronic language of neoliberalism at face value, it's own ideologists talk so frequently of the "minimal state" that it looks as though they wouldn't even agree that the state should maintain competition. Isn't the idea that competition must be maintained by something other than markets a thought that is tension with neoliberal ideology?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-70438453122639127492010-10-02T10:00:03.233-05:002010-10-02T10:00:03.233-05:00WBM's first sentence in the interview is folly...WBM's first sentence in the interview is folly:<br /><br />"The differentiation between Left and Right neoliberalism doesn’t really undermine the way it which it is deeply unified in its commitment to competitive markets and to the state's role in maintaining competitive markets."<br /><br />Leaving aside the stupidity of the concept of "left neoliberal", since when has neoliberalism EVER really been about competitive markets? And even if we take the moronic language of neoliberalism at face value, it's own ideologists talk so frequently of the "minimal state" that it looks as though they wouldn't even agree that the state should maintain competition. Isn't the idea that competition must be maintained by something other than markets a thought that is tension with neoliberal ideology?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-79156224725314319052010-10-02T10:00:00.754-05:002010-10-02T10:00:00.754-05:00And who says racism isn't persistent?
The que...And who says racism isn't persistent?<br /><br />The question is whether anti-racism theories understand the problem or offer the solutions. In "An Examination of Anti-Racist and Anti-Oppressive Theory and Practice in Social Work Education", Macey and Moxon pretty much demolish the assumptions and note its failure in real-life experience. Their conclusion is devastating. They say its approaches "are theoretical and thus closed to the canons of scientific evaluation and because the discourse itself prohibits the open, rigorous and critical interrogation which is essential to theoretical, professional and personal development."<br /><br />Here's a bit from an Australian study that found essentially the same thing: "In 1997 the Council of Europe coordinated a year of anti-racism campaigns and activities throughout Europe. A survey at the end of the year, conducted in European Union countries by the polling organisation Eurobarometer, found that rather than a decline in racism, it had been marked by a growing willingness on the part of Europeans to openly declare themselves as racist. Twenty-two per cent of those surveyed in December 1997 in Belgium, 16 per cent in France, and 8 per cent in Britain declared themselves to be 'very racist'. Thirty-four per cent of those surveyed in Germany, 30 per cent in Italy, and 24 per cent in Britain admitted they were 'quite racist'. As the primary goal of the Year's activities was, presumably, to reduce racist attitudes, rather than to encourage honesty and self disclosure, the campaigns run in European countries in 1997 would appear to have failed, if not backfired."Will Shetterlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08539053268352597627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-73023848662388151532010-10-02T09:31:24.457-05:002010-10-02T09:31:24.457-05:00Kimberle Crenshaw on the persistence of racism<a href="http://www.tavissmileyradio.com/100110/kimberle_crenshaw.html" rel="nofollow">Kimberle Crenshaw on the persistence of racism</a>.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01549084642883369527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6058072377999486184.post-49954417887424355042010-10-02T01:19:35.563-05:002010-10-02T01:19:35.563-05:00Hey, I'm in Tucson, and before that, I was in ...Hey, I'm in Tucson, and before that, I was in Bisbee, six miles from the Mexico border. That's why I see the brown folks who want to expel brown folks. "I've got mine, Jack" is a political philosophy that crosses all races. Sure, there are racists in the Tea Party. But the reason the Tea Party is scary is it includes a lot of folks whose fear isn't about race.Will Shetterlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08539053268352597627noreply@blogger.com