On 23rd December John wrote:
>My problem is that part of this enforced celebration means that I no
>longer have access to a computer over this period, so I will just
>have to save up all my posts until everything reopens. I look forward
>to reading everyone else when I return.
>
On 21/12/99 GMT, John wrote:
>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.
Yes. I think racism is a form of national oppression (but that is indeed a
big question). Yes 'positive role models' is liberal speak but more than
that. It is not restricted to "a racially conceived version of the
individualist idea of the Great Men theory of history".
An awareness of class and national oppression is absorbed in childhood.
A child notices whether their mother or father is treated with respect
and by whom; what is talked about where, and what is not talked about.
Much of this is subconscious or only semi-conscious.
>> 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?
It is all part of the ripples across the ideological superstructural pool.
But when a gathering of mainly white men stand in respect for a black
sportsman, that is a ripple worth noticing.
>> 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.
.....
>Absolutely astonished & bemused,
>John
Well we are obviously approaching this question from very different
subjective, practical, and theoretical positions. That could be creative
but the gap is wide at the moment and we will not bridge it if we get
irritated with each other, which I suspect we would if we tried to force
each other to agree.
I feel your remarks above assume that the way forward in revolutionary
change is through clear-sighted marxists becoming more clear sighted. I am
in favour of this but I think the process of revolutionary change, spread
out over several decades, involves the subconscious of the masses. They
need to experience in practice the issues that marxists
think they can see clearly in consciousness.
BTW my piece was concerned about the consciousness of the mainly white male
audience that voted Ali BBC sportsperson of the century.
Since then I have been struck by watching a video of Ali standing up
against the Vietnam war and in favour of black assertiveness. He achieved
what Paul Robeson did not succeed in doing - turning the black population
of the USA against an imperialist war. He was less educated than Robeson,
and rougher in his language. He did not communicate in educated diction.
There will also be political differences that I suspect Charles Brown knows
in much more detail than I do. But his mind was extraordinarily nimble and
intelligent in asserting the justice of his position. He risked prison,
risked never being able to fight again in any country of the world, risked
isolation from his community.
Not the foremost marxist theoretician of his decade but a brave
internationalist. Because when it came down to it his nationalism was
internationalist. No Vietnamese ever called me a nigger. What is the
abstract concept of proletarian internationalism if it cannot express
itself in concrete deeds like this?
So when he accepted the gift in person of the BBC title and made a joke in
front of the mainly white audience, from his shaking mouth, he was once
again expressing his internationalism.
A brave and intelligent man.
Chris Burford
London
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
