Race Theory

Fuck, meant to link to

Marx poster always deliver!

Good post

someone hack or whatever the page and edit out the "muh"s and rescreencap

Thanks, I should use google scholar instead of being a retard.

Absolutely. And I think that there is an interesting connection between middle-class (or at least academia) politics attitudes and the politics of muh privilege:

(Excerpted from Steven Brint , ""New-Class" and Cumulative Trend Explanations of the Liberal Political Attitudes of Professionals," American Journal of Sociology 90, no. 1 (Jul., 1984): 30-71.)

Which leads me to this point:

- Ralph Miliband, Socialism For a Sceptical Age

In short, what identity politics activists want seems to be greater access to the corridors of power, and not a fundamental restructuring of the systems of power per se.

I've already plugged it elsewhere, but the book Listen Liberals has a pretty good explanation I think. According to the author sometime in the '70s liberal white-collar professionals entered the Democrat party in increasing numbers (prior to which they were usually staunchly Republican).

As these liberal professionals were inevitably high-achieving graduates from top-tier schools (and often from middle-class families) they held a pretty meritocratic view of society, which informed their opposition to things like racism/sexism/homophobia etc (i.e. as a hindrance on meritocracy). It also ties into their worship of celebrities and the "creative classes", in that the professional class sees them as equals

That's a very basic summary and I don't know what the Marxist take on any of it would be, but I think it's worth a read regardless.

That looks interesting. Thanks for the recommendation. Similarly, I'd recommend The Trouble With Diversity by Walter Benn Michaels. I think you (and most of Holla Forums) would enjoy it, as it's a principled critique of identity politics from a left-wing perspective.

Good posting, Marxposter

Being told that whites have had and still have a much easier time in this country than non-whites makes you angry?

How do you think a typical black or queer identitarian American would react to someone telling them that they benefit from "First World muh privilege" compared to Afghans, Congolese, etc.? Not well, I expect.

Im looking into the story and i cant find anything about her making up the story.

I think they would say 'yes we do have it easier than 3rd world people living in war torn countries'.

jeez user, just fucking google it

Where does it say she made it up?

It says "now she insists she was a victim", so what was she saying before? If her story is the same story she told before then she didnt make anything ul, she just changed her stance on it.

consumerist.com/2013/08/13/swiss-shop-clerk-denies-telling-oprah-she-couldnt-afford-38000-handbag/

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2391880/Oprahs-racist-handbag-Swiss-store-owner-brands-star-sensitive.html

nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/oprah-winfrey-apologizes-switzerland-racism-incident-blown-article-1.1425378

I suspect that many, perhaps most, would interpret is as an attempt to derail attempts to address their own problems. I don't see any difference between telling a black American how good they have it compared to Afghans, and telling a white American how good they have compared to black Americans. It's understandable why each person would find it annoying.

Of course I don't deny its existence, it's history.
But casting sin upon all Caucasian people because of events centuries ago that they had no control over is ridiculous

Deny was a poor word to use, should have said anger

i dont think modern white muh privilege as a concept has much to do with slavery or whatever

In most conversations it would be.

Well afghans and african americans do not live in the same society while european americans and african americans do.

Dont look at it that way, most proponents of white muh privilege dont claim that european americans have inherited the evil of their ancestors, only their wealth, and that because the other people in positions of power are also white, european americans have a much easier time in this country than other non-white groups.

The store clerk saying 'nuh uh that didnt happen!' is not prood that Oprah made the story up

That doesn't seem particularly relevant to me, especially when the problems of Afghanistan are substantially the result of American policy. In both cases, it's a race to the bottom that disrupts actual attempts to improve the situation of the working class, and I really suspect the motives of those who engage in it.

The fact that the store owner stood behind their employee's actions, and that Oprah apologised for bringing it up, certainly cast significant doubt on the whole affair. If she really been the victim of racism, as she originally claimed, then I can't see any reason for her to apologise for bringing it up. Oprah had most news sources on her side, after all, so it's not like she was facing a significant backlash.

Regardless, the example of "racism" faced by black billionaires was being impolitely treated while attempt to purchase a $38,000 handbag. And NPR, CNN, etc. were all too happy to lambast the store assistant for her alleged lack of respect to her betters. That's the absurdity of the situation, that a racial politics is being used to distract from the obscene wealth of the bourgeoisie, and even legitimise their wasteful spending.

No, she's apologized for the story blowing up the way it did. Did you even read your own links?

C'mon dude, you're splitting hairs at this point. By sharing it with the media she knew it would become a story, so to be "sorry" for one is to be sorry for the other.

Again, I'm not trying to make an argument focused on Oprah's personal character. She may have sincerely felt herself to be the victim of racism. Personally I suspect that she's just a porkie with a sense of entitlement. But that's beside the point.

What I'm getting at is how the idea of "racism" directed against black capitalists distracts from the reality of their status as capitalists, and supports this stupid notion that blacks are all in it together, across class boundaries.

???
The implication is that upon inheriting that wealth European Americans also have the blood on their hands that derives from how that wealth was acquired via exploitation (whether it was driving Native Americans off their land or profiting directly/indirectly from slavery). Apologising for the sins of the "ancestors" makes up for a significant component of white muh privilege

But ultimately there's nothing in it about upending the class structures behind any kind of muh privilege in . Its utilised mostly so the kind of activists mentioned in can advance their careers in NGOs and academia

Of course it doesnt, because it's much easier to just brush away all of the nuance and context and just say 'but it all stems from the same thing, we're all oppressed xD!'.

It's like someone saying to a walmart worker 'yea i know you work 9 hours a day, and yea i know you bately make enough money to live i your small 1 bed room apartment, but why are you bitching about being paid an unfair wage when there are people in south east asia that work 11 hours a day and make only a fraction of what you make??'

Or a slave owner to his abolitionist brother 'yea it's bad that they have to work 10 hours a day in this southern heat but why are you complaining? Dont you know that there are negroes in the congo that are getting their hands chopped off??'

I'm not sure you understood my post. My point is not that all oppression is equally severe. It's that the concept of white muh privilege, as it is used, serves to disrupt attempts by white workers to express their concerns. Much as vulgar Third Worldism is detrimental to class struggle in the first world.

Yes, in the same way a gangster's son that inherits his father's wealth has blood on their hands.

There is a huge line between 'the wealth that you currently posses was obtained through the oppression of other groups' and 'YOU are just as bad/guilty as your ancestors because you have inherited their wealth!'

Im not entirely sure about this, there are some crowds that are deeply triggering and problematic guilt that only want whites to admit instead of lying to themselves and everyone else about 'muh boot straps!' in hopes that this can get a conversation going about how to right the wrongs of the past

And then there is the crowd that wants white guilt and other symbolic shit that doesnt actually accomplish anything.

Ah okay, my mistake, i did misundtand you.

As others have indicated, the problem with identity politics is not that they point out ethnic minorities, gender and sexual minorities, etc are treated differently in American society (they are), but that it's completely divorced from structural analysis. Hence their critique is liberal rather than radical.

This fucking thread.

To be fair, they needed filters in Flint, Michigan.

Assuming they can filter out lead.