Chris replied:
> I agree there are reservations about boxing. It is dangerous.
I don't actually remember mentioning its danger to the health of
boxers as a reason to oppose it (perhaps CB did). If people want to
beat each other to a pulp then IM(liberal)O they are in most
circumstances perfectly free to do so (just as I would support the
recent victims of the arrest of a group of local men involved in S&M).
I would perhaps rather they didn't do it and would prefer not to have
to watch but it is hardly of world shattering importance (except where
it shatters their mental or physical world).
> It is true it is invariably about working class people fighting. But
> so are most mass spectator sports.
My argument could be extended to include all major commercial sports.
Boxing was just one of the most obviously problematic.
> It was not mentioned but I would agree there have to be reservations
> about the ideological significance of black islam. That was not
> mentioned last week.
Oh, I did mention it on Fri, 17 Dec 1999 12:23:20, if rather
hesitant as to the extent of my reservations.
You go on to say that 'images of positive role models are
important.' This seems to be at the heart of you enthusiasm for this
poll. This sounds very much like bourgeois race relations speak to me.
Without raising the whole rather complex and long-winded issue of the
nature of racism for marxists (unless someone's determined I do),
surely racism is more than just an ideological issue of white people
having 'incorrect' views and black people having low self-esteem.
Racism is - as you hinted at - more than an ideological question
for a Marxist. It should be an economic question and for some of us a
question which lies at the very heart of the nature of imperialism (or
at least the context of the global economy for those who oppose the
term imperialism).
The idea that black role models (a racially conceived version of the
individualist idea of the Great Men theory of history) is one pursued
by the British Conservative government and its Commission for Racial
Equality (CRE) following the uprisings in predominantly black
inner-city communities in the early and mid 1980s.
The creation of 'community leaders' (funny how there is no equivalent
mouthpieces for white communities) with their paid jobs who can
afford to move out of the areas they are supposedly to be speaking
for. The division of the black community into respectable role models
and evil role models (a 20th century racial equivalent of the
deserving and un-deserving poor). Your argument in the form you have
put forward so far seems not to be very different. It reminds me
(dare I say it) of the sort of thing LM would raise (apologies for
any offence).
> Like Hugh, (who essentially agrees with me apart from having to take
> a customary swipe at reformism) I also remember the black power
> salute at the Olympics. That took courage.
Can you explain in greater detail how this historical event manifests
itself in a BBC poll which in itself amount to a revolutionary change?
What is the actual mechanism Where by one can go from what I admit was
a significant and courageous action to a material effect in present day
society? What REAL individual, significant (however small)
revolutionary change has occurred? What sort of minor individual
changes does Gramski refer to? Isn't it, at best, all part of the ebb
and flow of politics (ripple across the ideological superstructural
pool? Or is it, in fact, politically insignificant or down right
reactionary?
As I have said before and I think is worth reiterating, I am not
opposed the the importance of the actual event or the courage of the
individuals mentioned I just honestly cannot for the life of me see
how this specific poll actually manifests itself as a revolutionary
(not merely progressive) change. Or is it's effect on you and CB a
significant change in itself?
> I really know nothing about boxing but the BBC expert sportsreporter
> claimed his skill and ability reached new heights. Certainly he
> trained hard enough. And was fighting fit within a short space of
> coming out of prison.
What on earth has his skill and ability got to do with anything? And
surely his dedication to training is indicative of the fact that his
dedication to politics - both inside prison and on his release - was
not interfering with his boxing (or eventually his income from it!).
> Nelson Mandela also used pride about boxing to make links with the
> black community in the USA.
I've attacked nice Mr Mandela in another post, so I won't do it again.
Your statement that:
> In England there has been a fight over 20 - 30 years against racism
> in sport. The fascists particularly tried to recruit at football
> matches. That battle has been largely won, although we should not be
> complacent. The BBCvote clinched it.
Seems to indicate that this one vote (which the media has now long
forgotten in the time since you originally mentioned it) has
'clinched' the battle to rid football of racism. This raised the whole
issue of the fact that football is (and always has been) based on
rivalry between different largely working class communities (eg.
Manchester vs Liverpool) and between nations (eg. Britain vs
Germany). Also it is not the cause of racism it is just a venue for
it to be fought out (literally). One can see from a long time back
the whole of the irish question fought out on the football pitch
whether its Celtic vs Ranger, City vs United or Everton vs Liverpool;
for a sport like this fitting anti-black racism in is simple.
> What happened last
> week at the BBC ceremony was important for the consciousness of
> white English people. …. When you see a hall of mainly white men
> standing up and applauding three black men, shall we say it is
> better that it happens than it does not. It is a liberation for the
> white people, quite apart from more obvious benefits.
Well if this is your solution to the question of racism then I feel
sorry for the black community, as they are going to need a lot more of
that courage. The idea of white liberation spoken in those terms I
find deeply disturbing from anyone on the left. Will these liberated
white people paternalistically liberate their black brothers? And
what of the white Scots and Welsh and all the others who voted in a
B(ritish)BC poll?
> It is worth a hundred lectures against racism and a thousand
> lectures in praise of proletarian internationalism. It is itself a
> concrete act of proletarian internationalism.
How? Surely the idea of BBC Xmas lectures against racism and a 1000
programme series on proletarian internationalism might just have some
effect? That I could imagine would have a real effect on one or more
people who in turn would contribute significantly to revolutionary
change. I know I wouldn't object to it.
> If we abolish boxing, let us do it together, but meanwhile let us
> respect skill, courage, and dignity in the face of great difficulty.
> That is the real revolutionary significance.
I wasn't arguing for a campaign against boxing I was analysing the
nature of the practice as it is conducted under capitalism and the
effect that its existence has on the working class involved and those
capitalist who make money (I don't think it is productive of surplus
value - but that another question) out of it. I have no respect for
their activities - except as I said at the start in relation to their
personal freedom. I do not notice anyone praising the skill and
courage of prostitutes, hard working burglars or the many other
physical jobs which can be equally dangerous.The act of facing
difficulty is not in itself of any real revolutionary significance.
Absolutely astonished & bemused,
John
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
