https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/toward-a-global-idea-of-race

Rachel O'Reilly
Artist | Writer | Curator | Research
Curatorial Advisor, Ex-Embassy http://ex-embassy.com/en/
Seminar Leader, How to Do Things with Theory, Dutch Art Institute
https://dutchartinstitute.eu
Current Phone:  +49 15771670587 <+49%201577%201670587>
 www.racheloreilly.net





On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 5:54 PM Alice Yang <[email protected]> wrote:

> Trust me, race and gender are not social ghosts. They have extremely
> material consequences.
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 12:48 AM Alexander Bard <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Justin
>>
>> Was Karl Marx an idealist or a materialist? I'm perfectly happy to leave
>> that for you and others to decide. Because I'm a pragmatist and my ideas
>> are pragmatist and the rest is just wordplay to me. I'm interested in
>> factual truth and in whether something works or does not work. I'm also
>> interested in opinion being challenged on its own merit. Therefore I
>> radically separate person and opinion. The whole idea that who speaks
>> affects the value of what is being said is just value relativism of the
>> worst kind. I know this is a popular kindergarden game among identitarians
>> of both the extreme right and the extreme left (as if "being seen and
>> heard" must be divided equally among some five-year-olds). Because I can
>> see no other value in this habit than infantile attention-seeking. Which
>> means it is in itself victim-seeking and therefore victimhood-encouraging
>> and certainly not heroic and empowering for anybody. And I can't think of
>> anything less Marxist than that. As I said, identitarianism is Rousseau
>> through and through. How it even sneaked into "The Left" beats me.
>>
>> Everybody should radically be allowed to speak and each argument should
>> be judged on its own merits, not according to who forwards it. That
>> strengthens the overall the debate the most. That is if you're interested
>> in debates having successful and productive outcomes. At least I am.
>> Anything else is just a waste of valuable time. So does race exist? Yes, it
>> does, undeniably, but only as a social ghost. My brother and I had no idea
>> one of us was black and of us was white until we where 14. We had no idea
>> we ought to have cared. Now we can spend our entire lives going on and on
>> about social ghosts and, like David pointed out, end up being the very
>> people who defend and keep the social ghosts the most and the longest.
>> However I find that tragic. I want to move on. And class being firmly tied
>> to capital and power is therefore the factual overarching category under
>> which we can then deal with minor issues like race and gender. Effectively.
>> Now if that is not a materialist argument as much as an activist one, then
>> I don't know what is. If anything is idealist and not materialist it must
>> certainly be the obsession with social ghosts. But sure, the I and the M
>> labels are yours to decide. I could not care less.
>>
>> Best intentions
>> Alexander
>>
>> Den fre 2 nov. 2018 kl 04:00 skrev Justin Charles <
>> [email protected]>:
>>
>>> Coming in late to this thread but the anti-identity current that's
>>> growing more and more prevalent on the left lately seems to be somewhat in
>>> opposition to contrary to materialism. To say that "class is class and
>>> only class has universal validity" strikes me as pretty idealist, not
>>> materialist. OneWhile race may not exist to Alexander Bard and Candace
>>> Owens, I'd argue that maybe it doesn't exist for them because materially it
>>> need not. Alexander is a white man. Candace Owens, while a black woman, has
>>> a class position that allows her to skip some over much of what it looks
>>> like to be black for most black people, who aren't well-compensated
>>> conservative (or liberal) commentators. Most black people's class position
>>> is deeply intertwined with the color of their skin. I don't think I need to
>>> go into the historical reasons for this. I'd also say that Asad
>>> Haider's book was in no way championing victimhood. If that's what one
>>> takes away from it then they've read an entirely different book than I did.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 12:05 PM tbyfield <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ian, this idea of 'civility' should be unpacked a bit, because the
>>>> ~word
>>>> lumps together a disparate range of concerns. At its worst, a lot of
>>>> babble about civility boils down to is tone-policing, which relies on
>>>> etiquette as an all-purpose tool for micromanaging rhetoric — and in
>>>> doing so, limiting and even delegitimizing positions of every type
>>>> (subjective, relational, political, whatever). In other contexts —
>>>> notably, in 'centrist' politics in the US — it serves as a rationale
>>>> for institutionalist pliability: 'bipartisan' cooperation, etc. But
>>>> those two uses are very different from its function as a foil for the
>>>> frightening prospect of outright political violence. These different
>>>> strands, or layers if you like, are hopelessly tangled, and that
>>>> confusion in itself has serious consequences — hence the culturalist
>>>> use of the word 'strategy,' which often is used to get at the nebulous
>>>> realm in which individual behavior aligns with (or 'is constitutive
>>>> of')
>>>> abstract, impersonal forces. That's a very roundabout way to get at the
>>>> obvious problem, which is the direct way that increasingly uncivil
>>>> political discourse foments violence. And, in a way, that's the
>>>> problem:
>>>> the left's path for translating ideals into political practices is
>>>> hobbled and misdirected at every stage, whereas for the right it's
>>>> becoming all too direct.
>>>>
>>>> My gut sense is that Land is symptomatic of the left's repudiation of
>>>> force — violence — as a legitimate form of politics. Some, like him,
>>>> sense that and embark a theoretical trajectory that tacitly accepts or
>>>> even actively embraces violence. I'll leave that there, because I don't
>>>> want to debate it or even to see a debate about it on this list.
>>>> Nettime
>>>> is fragile, and decades of accumulated effort could be poisoned with a
>>>> few, um, 'uncivil' messages. There was a time when the solution was
>>>> widely said to be more speech, but at a time when 'more speech' means
>>>> trollbot networks that systematically and strategically subvert civil
>>>> contexts I think that rule is more problematic than ever.
>>>>
>>>> As for Bard, whenever his mail appears in inbox my first reaction is
>>>> "When's the new book coming out?" But that's a rhetorical question —
>>>> no answer needed, thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Ted
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 28 Oct 2018, at 10:48, Ian Alan Paul wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Brett - I don't think that the problem of the Left is that we don't
>>>> > spend
>>>> > enough time with people who think it's worthwhile to discuss the
>>>> > potential
>>>> > virtues of "Candace Owens, Nick Land and/or Adolf Hitler." If
>>>> > anything, the
>>>> > Left needs to thoroughly rid itself of the liberal and depoliticizing
>>>> > notion that we should all simply get along in the name of preserving
>>>> > civility, esp. in a historical moment while fascist gangs are
>>>> > literally
>>>> > roaming the streets beating up migrants, synagogues are being shot
>>>> up,
>>>> > and
>>>> > pipe bombs are being mailed to politicians.
>>>> >
>>>> > I don't think Alexander's ideas are worth engaging with or even
>>>> > refuting to
>>>> > be entirely honest, as I hope is obvious to most people on Nettime by
>>>> > this
>>>> > point. We live in times that are too extreme and urgent to expend any
>>>> > attention or energy dialoguing with disingenuous apologists for the
>>>> > Right .
>>>>   <...>
>>>> #  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
>>>> #  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
>>>> #  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
>>>> #  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
>>>> #  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]
>>>> #  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Justin Charles
>>> 862.216.2467
>>> #  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
>>> #  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
>>> #  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
>>> #  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
>>> #  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]
>>> #  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
>>
>> #  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
>> #  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
>> #  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
>> #  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
>> #  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]
>> #  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
>
>
>
> --
> Alice
> www.alicesparklykat.com
> insta: @alicesparklykat <http://instagram.com/alicesparklykat>
> #  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
> #  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
> #  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
> #  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
> #  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]
> #  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:

Reply via email to