Reply With Quote
First of all, the only way to accomplish what the person quoted by the OP posits is revolution.
Second of all, the warning about not being limited to socially acceptable means of protest is code language for violent revolution.
Third of all, the language about overturning ins utions is straight Marxist rhetoric, only "bourgeoisie" is replaced by "white people" and "proletariat" is replace by "nonwhite people."
So what I see clear as day as the emerging left-wing ideology of race in the United States is just warmed-over Marxism. Just because Marxism always failed everywhere it was tried doesn't matter, because of course only white people tried it, so let's reinvent the wheel.
Of course the rhetoric expressed in the quoted essay either demonstrates "not getting it," or it simply does not put all its cards on the table. The ins utions which confer "white privilege" do not do so because unconsciously they evaluate skin color. They do so because they exist within a cultural framework which is familiar to whites and unfamiliar in varying degrees to nonwhites. The reason it is unfamiliar to nonwhites is because they were excluded from participating in the building of these ins utions, regardless of whatever putative access they are granted now. The skin-color component is when the disparities in results due to relative cultural unfamiliarity vaguely correlate to concepts of "race," and therefore appear to the unsophisticated to be supported empirically, which in turn reinforces them.
American history contradicts the notion that skin color defines "whiteness." Originally only Anglos in American were "white." Over time the other Germanic and Scandinavian groups got grafted in. In 1850, no Celtic, Slavic, or southern European person would have been considered "white," irrespective of their complexion, but in modern times that has changed and they too have been grafted in. People intermarried and the lines did not merely blur, but outright disappeared.
The same thing is happening today with Latinos. The rhetoric about Latino immigrants closely mimics what one would have heard about the Irish and Italians in the Gilded Age. The Census Bureau already considers mestizos to be "white," even if the culture has not yet caught up.
But two problems remain -- the grafting in of black Americans according to this process is unacceptable because 1) it happens so much more slowly due to the legacy of ins utionalized segregation (the effects of which I place as much more significant to the present situation than 19th-century slavery), and 2) the legacy of slavery wiped out for blacks the cultural foundation upon which other "nonwhite" people groups can build and synthesize the efficient and successful aspects of dominant "white" culture. On the latter point, the only foundation left for black people then is the experience of slavery and oppression inflicted by the dominant white culture, which would make the process of synthesizing that culture into their own an act of self-hatred, totally unacceptable.
From that standpoint, the seemingly self-defeating revulsion in that community towards empirically successful cultural at udes in white society regarding education, the economy, systems of government both local and national, even standards of decorum, at least becomes coherent. It is not so much a rejection of those ideals themselves as a rejection of them within the current system, a system which simply must be destroyed in order to achieve any meaningful kind of liberation, any kind that is not simply a kind of domestication.
On a side point, this wave provides a means for long-discredited Marxist fellow-travelers to climb back into respectability. Just ten years ago, there appeared to be no possible way to true socialism in America. Now, the social fabric is unraveling quickly enough that the opportunity is as prime as it has been -- at least for a part of the country -- since the 1930's.
The good news for those of that bent is that this system is in fact coming to an end. Along those lines, what would appear to be incompetence by those currently in power (and many of those not in power) with regard to enacting their reform agenda, or even maintaining a forum in which sufficient decorum remains for anything to be debated, starts to make sense from the perspective of a radicalism which seeks to delegitimize the existing system in the minds of the masses, and speed up its implosion.
The bad news of course is that in the chaos which comes following the collapse of the existing system nobody really knows what will emerge. In my opinion, what comes next will be the greatest terror in history.
This all fits into my vision of America fifty years from now where the heart of blue-state America along the Eastern seaboard has devolved into neo-Stalinism while the Southeast has split off and become the Fourth Reich, as the rest of the country splinters into various states and fiefdoms, and they all fight a nuclear war against one another and destroy everything and kill themselves, so that the Mexicans can come in afterward, rebuild everything, and rule it all for at least a few centuries. Of course I must be a kook, because those sorts of things never happen, the Theodosian Walls will keep us safe forever, the Khalifate will never fall, the Triple Entente is just for deterrence, the Maginot Line will hold, there will be Peace in Our Time.
That would make me like the Obama democrats.
