Australia's no longer accepting British riff-raff; in fact, the process is now arguably the other way around.
Supporters are older and more educated than many assume: 28 per cent are over 30; 30 per cent are educated to university or college level; and 15 per cent have a professional qualification. There are far more male supporters than female: 81 per cent are male and 19 per cent female...
A significant percentage of supporters are unemployed – although this is especially true of older supporters. Among 16–24-year-old EDL supporters, 28 per cent are unemployed, compared with a national average of 20 per cent for the same age group. Among 25– 64-year-olds, 28 per cent of EDL supporters are unemployed, compared with a national average of 6 per cent.
Recently, there was a very useful analysis of the BNP and the 'white working class' by James Rhodes in the Sociology journal. It took issue with the idea, circulated by politicians and journalists alike, that the BNP's support comes from the most deprived among whites. In this respect, he points out that while the BNP have made real inroads into working class areas, there is no natural affinity between the BNP and white workers, and nor is it the poorest they appeal to. The two class fractions most likely to be represented among BNP supporters are 'skilled workers', and the lower middle class.
The interesting part of this that often is overlooked is the entitlement-to-a-job double standard - when POC are disproportionately left without jobs, there's all kinds of "meritocracy" reasons bandied about- when the white people are without jobs, suddenly people are "stealing" jobs and ruining the country.That's because to many people, non-white (though these days with the fear and hatred of Polish immigrants, non-English? I'm sure Americans and Australians are fine though.) people are still guests, always and forever guests, even if you or your parents or grandparents were born here. So it's always the "ethnics" (example 1 2). And then they will turn around and say, But I don't understand, why do they keep themselves to themselves? Why don't they feel a sense of belonging? Why won't they integrate?
Which really shows the mentality - it's never about anything resembling meritocracy or fair shake, it's really the expectation that of course white people should have an easier time than other people - including fellow citizens of the country who happen to not be white.
The second issue is also the fact that integration means having to see people who are different than you and perhaps encounter music, languages, or food different than your own. Seeing public areas that aren't all white and being upset by it, tells you exactly how backwards people like this are. The sorts of double think that goes around this stuff, "Well, it's our country, there's too many of them" etc. but if you ask them if they supported segregation, (most) would say "No! No!, I'm not racist or anything!"
"We have found no discernible statistical evidence to suggest that [eastern European] migration has been a contributor to the rise in claimant unemployment in the UK."*Rhetoric such as that spouted by this young woman often goes unchallenged, is echoed by opportunistic populist politicians or (less cynically) is at least not challenged too harshly by elected officials because so many people believe the myth of the job-eating immigrant; to tell so many angry people that they are wrong about their anger is seen as political suicide by many of these officials. And no one wants to be seen as "taking the side of people not even born here".
"Research for the US and other European countries finds, with very few exceptions, modest or zero effects of immigration on employment and wages of residents."*
"This graph shows the employment rate for those born in the UK and those born out of the UK. The employment rate for those not born in the UK is materially lower but the gap has reduced over the period, from some 10 percentage points to about 5."*
North Korea. I don't think they have much of an immigrant issue and one can hardly call them "racist" for the terrible things they say about South Koreans.North Koreans are huge racists.
So if we criticise her for being stupid, we're guilty of discrimination just as the racists are.Stupidity is not a protected class. You can't fire someone for their race, but you can certainly fire them for being an idiot.
Having seen one or two drunk/mentally ill people yelling girl-hate obscenities at woman on London busesWell, next time tape them, since apparently you can get arrested for it.
"However, this does not mean that white people who go around saying dumb things such as "I am not white! I am a human being!" or, "I left whiteness and joined the human race," or my favorite, "I hate white people! They're stupid" are not structurally white."The essay is called 'The White Anti-Racist Is an Oxymoron'. That, in itself, is profoundly racist, and it appears to confirm the worst stereotypes of racists who can then use this deeply miss-judged rhetoric to confirm that anti-racists 'just hate white people'.
So I am writing this open letter to white people who engage in any activist work that involves or affects non-whites. Given that the US social structure is founded on white supremacy, and that there is a global order in which white supremacy and European domination are at large, I would challenge any white person to figure out what movement or action they can get involved in that will not involve or affect non-white people.I think it's pretty much OK for us to assume that many of these movements or actions are not avowedly anti-racist, however. So let's concentrate on the ones which are, as she does. There is then a detour into what "white" means, taxonomically and socially.
What I want to point out is that, while I do not condone police violence and harassment, there is a way in which white people will not be viewed as inherently criminal or suspect unless they are perceived as doing something that breaks particular norms.4. For this and other reasons, people who are benefiting from white privilege destabilize any multi-racial group or assembly by joining it. One cannot have white privilege and at the same time demand to be treated as an equal partner in an anti-racist movement or group, even if that cause has as its ultimately goal the destruction of white privilege . Likewise ostentatiously identifying as "not-white" while continuing to enjoy white privilege.
So what does this mean for the future of white anti-racists? This might mean to first, figure out ways in which whiteness needs to die as a social structure and as an identity in which you organize your anti-racist work. What this looks like in practice may not be so clear but I will attempt to give some suggestions here. First, don't call us, we'll call you. If we need your resources, we will contact you. But don't show up, flaunt your power in our faces and then get angry when we resent the fact that you have so many resources we don't and that we are not grateful for this arrangement. And don't get mad because you can't make decisions in the process. Why do you need to? Secondly, stop speaking for us. We can talk for ourselves. Third, stop trying to point out internal contradictions in our communities, we know what they are, we are struggling around them, and I really do not know how white people can be helpful to non- whites to clear these up. Fourth, don't ever say some shit to me about how you feel silenced, marginalized, discriminated against, or put in your place. Period. Finally, start thinking of what it would mean, in terms of actual structured social arrangements, for whiteness and white identity--even the white antiracist kind (because there really is no redeemable or reformed white identity)--to be destroyed.So, you know, when you say:
And don't assume that when I see how grateful non-white people are to you for being there, for being a "good white" person that this doesn't hurt me. And don't assume that when I get chastised by non-white people because I think your presence is unnecessary that it does not hurt me.However, it feels pretty messed up to say that the response to the existence of extreme white racists should be all the non-white people whose opinions might give them ammunition should shut up and look unthreatening - especially when their utterances can simply be lied about by those extremists anyway (as Dworkin's regularly were, of course, by opponents of feminism, as Obama's regularly are by those who are unhappy to see a black man as President).
There are plenty of white people who are anti-racist. There are plenty of rich people who are for progressive taxation. There are even plenty of black people who are against affirmative action.But that is clearly not supported by the text.
I received an annoying e-mail about white people and their struggle to do anti-racist work. I keep reading and hearing white people talk about their struggle to do anti-racist organizing, and frankly it gets on my nerves. So I am writing this open letter to white people who engage in any activist work that involves or affects non-whites.English is a versatile language, and I think this is one of the multitudes it contains. The letter goes on to talk at length about white people in the context of anti-racist organizing, so I think it's OK to go with that meaning. There is some ambiguity - in particular in the statement:
Now, for one to claim whiteness, one also is invested in white supremacy. Whiteness itself is a political term that emerged among European white ethnics in the US. These European ethnics, many of them reviled, chose to cast their lot with whiteness rather than that with those who had been determined as non-white. In short, anyone who claims to be white, even a white anti-racist, is identifying with a history of European imperialism and racism transported and further developed into the US.So, anyone identifying as white is invested in white supremacy - like the pale Europeans who were reviled in Europe and then set themselves up as dominant upon arrival in America, and I imagine also the later pale European immigrants (Poles, Irish Catholics) who were at first excluded from and then assimilated into white American society.
Of course, legal cases such as the Dred Scott Decision along with many different naturalization cases involving Asian individuals, has helped to encode a state-sanctioned definition of whiteness. But there are other ways in which white people can be racialized as white by the state. They are not stopped while driving as much as non-white people. Their homes and businesses are not raided and searched as much by police officers, INS or License and Inspections (L&I). White people's bodies are not tracked and locked up in prisons, detention centers, juvenile systems, detention halls in classrooms, "special education" classes, etc. White people's bodies are not generally the site of fear, repulsion, violent desire, or hatred."Inherently marginalized" isn't a phrase she uses, and it's not hugely useful. She does describe whiteness as a social construct; you seem to think that if things are described as social constructs that means they are being represented as mercurial, which is not the case. Nopper specifically says that it is not easy to unlearn whiteness. Fausto-Sterling suggests that gender is socially constructed, but that doesn't mean people hop effortlessly across genders. This is, or at least should be, evident.
Now some might point out to me that white people are followed, tracked and harassed by individuals and state agents such as the police. This is true. Some white women get sexually harassed and experience state-sanctioned discrimination. Queer whites are the subject of homophobia, whether by individuals or by the state through laws and the police. Some queer whites are harassed by cops. Activist whites are stopped by police. White people who play rap music and wear gear are stopped by cops. Poor whites can be criminalized, especially by the state around welfare issues. What I want to point out is that, while I do not condone police violence and harassment, there is a way in which white people will not be viewed as inherently criminal or suspect unless they are perceived as doing something that breaks particular norms.
So what does this mean for the future of white anti-racists? This might mean to first, figure out ways in which whiteness needs to die as a social structure and as an identity in which you organize your anti-racist work.The rush to generalize from the particular is odd: you seem to want to be arguing with Fanon rather than Nopper. She's talking about the impact of white privilege on anti-racist activist movements. Now, I realize (increasingly) that being quiet and letting other people take the lead - being prevented from flapping your gums, to use your words - must seem like an unendurable privation to you, but that's what Nopper is positing as what she wants as the entry price to anti-racist activism for white people. If you want to imagine that she wants white people to shoot actual guns at her command, that's your choice, although I'd suggest asking her first.
« Older A new perspective on crime scenes. (warning: panor... | November is not just about Mov... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by mippy at 3:49 AM on November 29, 2011 [66 favorites]