in response to WALTER BENN MICHAELS' "AGAINST DIVERSITY" in the New Left Review #54
____________________
it is no surprise that the political performances of the democratic primaries pander to an empty politic. anyone who would assert that clinton or obama's rise to fame on their upwards of $150 million election expenditures constituted some sort of victory for social justice would be sadly misguided.
in this article michaels uses the current american election, and some under-analyzed figures, to paint a picture of poverty in america as having little to do with race or gender. moreover, he polemically suggests that any introduction of race or gender into debates over inequality in america suggests a clear sign of a) false consciousness or b) unwavering support of neo-liberalism. i think this is the worst kind of social analytic work and one that perpetuates an over simplistic understanding of history and materiality.
in his article michaels neglects to mention what the demographic of that bottom fifth of wage earners looks like. not surprisingly, statistics show that women of colour largely make up the lowest income earners in the united states. in 1953 the median income for male workers (overall) in the US was $20,000 while for women (overall) it was less than $7, 000. in 2005 the median income of female hispanic workers has just now equaled that of males in 1953, sitting in the lowest economic income bracket at $20, 000 annually. black women are next sitting at about $25, 000 in 2005. michaels also leaves out any historical context regarding the history of capitalism in america - rooted in the imperial expansion projects of spain and britain which forcefully annexed indigenous land, further expanded through the trans-atlantic slave trade and the installation of slavery, the continued depedency of the economy on the backs of undocumented and illegal workers, many who are from mexico, as well as the prison industrial complex which contributes to the national economy by forcibly confining 1 in 9 black men aged 20 to 34 - which has lead to very different experiences of capitalism (historically and in a contemporary context) for racialized people (albeit, not all racialized people).
sure poor people are getting fucked but who are these poor people that michaels is so desperate to lump together in order to start the revolution? how have they been fucked in different ways and why? his politics of solidarity align so forcefully with class that he neglects to address the complex and intersectional ways that gender and race are at once at play with class in the composition of the underclass majority. even if we concede to agree with michaels that capitalism is the root of inequality, his denial of any serious theoretical engagement concerning the complex ways in which it has affected subjects differently based on their respective gendered, racialized, classed, sexed or corporeal identities is testament to a privileged perception of oppression that does not have to include these factors. for people who experience the historical materiality of colonial-capitalism that masks enduring legacies of white supremacy, these considerations are integral to any radical reimagining of the world.
____
check out "black wealth/white wealth" by oliver and shapiro for their take on the "racialization of state policy," the economic detour," and the "seditmentation of racial inequality" in america.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Sunday, September 21, 2008
durban revisited
It has recently been brought to my attention that my name has risen to blogosphere-fame after an article appeared in the Jewish Tribune on September 3, 2008 written by Brian Henry claiming that I see Israel as "Satan incarnate" and hope that the next Durban conference on Anti-Racism will be an "antisemitic circus." This article comes as a result of a letter I wrote to Mr. Jack Layton, leader of the New Democratic Party (NDP), on March 5, 2008, as a former federal candidate for the riding of Scarborough-Agincourt. In the letter I criticize the party for supporting Harper's decision to boycott the Conference on Anti-Racism, and ask Jack to reconsider the party's stance especially given what was at the time, a severe escalation of violent Israeli-lead attacks in Palestine.
Reducing my letter, which includes criticism of Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai's well documented threat of a "holocaust" of Palestinians if they didn't surrender to Israeli force, and the apartheid wall which was deemed by the International Court of Justice to be illegal and ordered to be removed in 2004 (and yet, has remained and grown larger), to an anti-Semitic tirade is a bit overly simplistic for my taste. Please forgive my invocation of the patriarchal and colonial hierarchy which glorifies rationality, but Brian Henry's - nor his blog-ocessors' - accounts of my stance seem like the kind of well thought out, sophisticated discussion of racism that I would like to be engaging with. However, as a result of this article there have been a plethora of other postings, mostly made by right wing ideologues who try to pass themselves off as objective and neutral reporters (if calling Iran and Syria "luminaries of repression" as if that is a self-evident fact doesn't count as ideological coercion, I'm not sure what does), that assert that my ruminations on Durban have landed me a seat on the party curb. In other words, it has been falsely asserted that I was "fired," "let go," and otherwise "dumped" for vocalizing my thoughts on the NDP's position on Durban.
All of these claims are incorrect. In response, I would like to say three things.
First of all, I would like to state for the record that I approached the party to let them know that I had to, unfortunately, back down from my position in Scarborough as I was starting a PhD in England in September 2008 and could no longer serve as a potential candidate. The party supported my decision and has since successfully replaced me with a fantastic local candidate - Simon A. Dougherty. Simon will be a great force in Agincourt fighting for social and environmental justice in the face of 20 years of the Liberal status-quo...which has proven to be less than adequate for many in Scarborough.
Secondly, regardless of who the candidate is, the party's stance has been made clear. On May 28, 2008, the New Democrats' Advocate for Multiculturalism and Human Rights, Wayne Marston, addressed a letter to Jason Kenney, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism and Identity), urging the Canadian government to reconsider their decision to boycott the Conference on Anti-Racism. In the letter Mr. Marston makes the astute point that "Canada should participate constructively" to "battle against discrimination in all its forms", which includes not only denouncing anti-Semitism, but also ensuring that the conference itself is hate free. They have taken proactive steps to address what some perceive to have been the problems with the first conference. Instead of boycotting the event and foregoing all international discussion on racism, the New Democrats have been working with Louise Arbour, the United Nations' High Commissioner for Human Rights and other conference organizers to ensure that Durban II provides productive discussion for all who choose to attend. The New Democrats should be applauded for their committment to engaging in important global discussions on racism and violence as well as internal debate over their own policies and issues. Indeed, in response to my letter, Mr. Layton called me to discuss the issue and my concerns at length. That is the type of democratic leadership that I support, whether as a candidate or otherwise.
Lastly, it is too bad that the real heart of the matter - the ongoing practices of racism which are entangled with colonial and imperial projects of which both Israel and Canada are so deeply inculcated - are further decentered by this kind of useless mudslinging. My hope in writing the original letter to Mr. Layton was to raise awareness of the lives of Palestinians who are increasingly subject to violent practices of segregation, implemented and maintained by a powerful military force, and to consider the ways in which Canada is also implicated through global markets, international relations, and our own ongoing project of colonialism. It is disappointing to think that the entire discussion - at least among Brian Henry and his blogophiles - has turned to an oversimplified, defensive reaction that, much like the practice of boycotting Durban II, comes off as a sad and unfortunate plugging of the ears.
Reducing my letter, which includes criticism of Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai's well documented threat of a "holocaust" of Palestinians if they didn't surrender to Israeli force, and the apartheid wall which was deemed by the International Court of Justice to be illegal and ordered to be removed in 2004 (and yet, has remained and grown larger), to an anti-Semitic tirade is a bit overly simplistic for my taste. Please forgive my invocation of the patriarchal and colonial hierarchy which glorifies rationality, but Brian Henry's - nor his blog-ocessors' - accounts of my stance seem like the kind of well thought out, sophisticated discussion of racism that I would like to be engaging with. However, as a result of this article there have been a plethora of other postings, mostly made by right wing ideologues who try to pass themselves off as objective and neutral reporters (if calling Iran and Syria "luminaries of repression" as if that is a self-evident fact doesn't count as ideological coercion, I'm not sure what does), that assert that my ruminations on Durban have landed me a seat on the party curb. In other words, it has been falsely asserted that I was "fired," "let go," and otherwise "dumped" for vocalizing my thoughts on the NDP's position on Durban.
All of these claims are incorrect. In response, I would like to say three things.
First of all, I would like to state for the record that I approached the party to let them know that I had to, unfortunately, back down from my position in Scarborough as I was starting a PhD in England in September 2008 and could no longer serve as a potential candidate. The party supported my decision and has since successfully replaced me with a fantastic local candidate - Simon A. Dougherty. Simon will be a great force in Agincourt fighting for social and environmental justice in the face of 20 years of the Liberal status-quo...which has proven to be less than adequate for many in Scarborough.
Secondly, regardless of who the candidate is, the party's stance has been made clear. On May 28, 2008, the New Democrats' Advocate for Multiculturalism and Human Rights, Wayne Marston, addressed a letter to Jason Kenney, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism and Identity), urging the Canadian government to reconsider their decision to boycott the Conference on Anti-Racism. In the letter Mr. Marston makes the astute point that "Canada should participate constructively" to "battle against discrimination in all its forms", which includes not only denouncing anti-Semitism, but also ensuring that the conference itself is hate free. They have taken proactive steps to address what some perceive to have been the problems with the first conference. Instead of boycotting the event and foregoing all international discussion on racism, the New Democrats have been working with Louise Arbour, the United Nations' High Commissioner for Human Rights and other conference organizers to ensure that Durban II provides productive discussion for all who choose to attend. The New Democrats should be applauded for their committment to engaging in important global discussions on racism and violence as well as internal debate over their own policies and issues. Indeed, in response to my letter, Mr. Layton called me to discuss the issue and my concerns at length. That is the type of democratic leadership that I support, whether as a candidate or otherwise.
Lastly, it is too bad that the real heart of the matter - the ongoing practices of racism which are entangled with colonial and imperial projects of which both Israel and Canada are so deeply inculcated - are further decentered by this kind of useless mudslinging. My hope in writing the original letter to Mr. Layton was to raise awareness of the lives of Palestinians who are increasingly subject to violent practices of segregation, implemented and maintained by a powerful military force, and to consider the ways in which Canada is also implicated through global markets, international relations, and our own ongoing project of colonialism. It is disappointing to think that the entire discussion - at least among Brian Henry and his blogophiles - has turned to an oversimplified, defensive reaction that, much like the practice of boycotting Durban II, comes off as a sad and unfortunate plugging of the ears.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)