outline of argument to be posted the class discussion list as a critique of frederickson, as soon as we get the group paper done

1. frederickson argues that white supremacy was borne out of large scale global forces of capitalist accumulation of capital & subsequent industrialization, and that white supremacy was a byproduct of this. therefore, the case can be made that if white colonizers were not operation under a capitalist mode of exploitation/production, they would not have engaged in policies of white supremacy. (white supremacists happen to be victims of capitalism) hence, comes the argument that fighting capitalism is the first “stage” or more “fundamental” than engaging gender or race discrimination, as they are all byprodructs thereof.

2. jesse interprets robinson to follow frederickson’s line of thought. “Robinon … complements… Frederickson.. and deeper theoretical background” (Goldman, 2005 freedommovements.blogspot.com/2005/02/linking-racism-and-capitalism-robinson.html) I disagree with this reading. What Robinson engages in is the kind of practice encouraged by Malcolm X’s prison mentor ( in the film) where all texts produced by white men (including dictionaries, bibles and encyclopedias) are to be reinterpreted/recontextualized and used against them.

Robinson is being careful in handling the material, as in the 80’s, when the book “Black Marxism” was published, to talk about differentiating class and race was a contentios political issue (e.g. how should labor unions respond to outsourcing and/or the new influx of colored immigrants under the 1965 IIRRA reform and the early signs of the rise in competitive edge of the service industry over manufacturing ones)

The first point of departure is the spatiality of the first bourgeois in european mercantislim and the european civilization manifesting itself through capitalism. Traditional marxist discourse as used by Frederickson claims that the bourgeoisie rose up as a new class that engaged in a power struggle with the existing feudal aristocracy during the late mercantislit and early industrialist periods.

It also claims that the bourgeoisies constituted a continuation of the old world order – they did not form as a response to late middle age economic and environmental crises, but rather survived the 14th/15th century crises of the state. ” the bourgeoisies of the sixteenth century accumulatied in the interestices of the state. (Robinson, 20)

Robinson argues that external labor – able bodies coming from outside national, city or racial borders constituted a core part of european economic structure: “there has never been a moment in modern european history (if before) that migratory and/or immigrant labor was not a significant aspect of european economies” (Robinson, 22)

The bourgeoisie thatled the development of capitalism were drawn from particular ethnic and cultural groups; the European proletariats and the mercenaries of the leading states from others; its peasants from still other cultures; and its slaves from entirely different worlds. The tendency of European civilization through capitslim was thus not to homogenize but to differentiate – to exaggerate regional subcultural, and dilaectical differences into “Racial” ones. (robinson 26)

In the first sentence, Robinson is emphasizing the need for capitalism to draw upon labor from the big pool of “other”, be it peripheral, rural or black.

He also criticizes Immanuel Wallerstein for engaging in studies that only advanced his particular agenda of the core and periphery as nationally defined boundaries:
“Wallerstein … can devote a mere page to this phenomenon, including a single paragraph on the ethnic division of sixteenth-century immigrant labor.” (Robinson, 22)

A second point of departure is to claim that european civilization did not rise up as a result of capitalism, but the other way around: european civilization created capitalism in order to fullfill its needs of targetted ethnic/racial hierarchization within

so there’s all this tendency towards generalizing, right?

the art prof (forgot name) says that you desire to “own” the space/idea represented in the space. so maybe generalizing is a manifestation of how individuals in a capitalist society try to “own” more ideas than their immediate experiences. thus, you generalize and extend your knowledge (a property according to sheller, or without going so far, just use “cultural capital”) over entire societies or epistemic dimensions. even though it might a rhetoric device for your own jouissance.

now isn’t racism a form of particularized “knowledge” about racial hierarchies and relations in a given society? so the racist individual is trying to expand upon your individualized white supremacist prejudices over a more generalized theory (trying to orthodoxize it, following Bordieu) that you can apply over subaltern discourses as well. so that you can override alternate knowledges with your racistalized knowledge. so, racism is a manifestation over how the white man in society feels this unending need to keep on “owning” more and more material and intellectual artifacts. if your motivation driving racism is thirst for property, isn’t this another aspect of how capitalism and white supremacy are intrinsically intertwined in the syntactics of public discourse? or, a reactionary measure to the impending “disowning” or “disenfranchisement” of the wages of whiteness among whites? (so in this second sentence my argument becomes middle-class specific)

now, my argument is generalizing as well. so, you can deconstruct it and say that all I am trying to get at is to engage in a power grabbing struggle against the white supremacist orthodoxia with just another competing heterodoxia. or, catching on Gramsci, just another privileged hegemonic discourse. this is true, but I don’t think deconstructig my argument (or any) disproves an argument, but rather contextualizes it giving it a more critical focus. you can’t criticize a discourse by just pointing out the outer edges, without engaging directly with it .

(based on a memo at the principles of art class feb 22)

first, I read this

If you’re too much of an impressionable idiot to watch “Sideways,” then don’t.
thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sideways

Now every idiot who has seen the movie has suddenly become a wine expert, and Pinot sales have shot through the roof. NPR interviewed a guy who said, and I quote:

I used to drink merlot, and after I saw the movie, they say “don’t drink merlot,” so [now] I’m drinking pinot noir…
Click here to listen (226k mp3):

You shallow idiots, get your own opinion.

then, this

43things.com (via salon.com/tech/feature/2005/02/08/tagging/index1.html gatorlog.com/linked/archives/2005/02/eeeee_ieeeeii_i.php gatorlog.com/mt/archives/002158.html#comments 그리고 실마리를 놓친 별주부뎐 글)

ahem.

Oblivio. Laws.
oblivio.com/archives/04122101.html

me. The Defects and Imperfections of my School
b.yokim.net/145

news. Macalester College Trustees Approve Financial Aid Changes
macalester.edu/whatshappening/press/2004/011105.html

I’ve been afraid of actually implementing (or advising for) change, wherever I belonged. When I wrote the harsh (and well founded, to my immediate experiences at least) critique of high school education, my teachers discussed it in the faculty meeting and brought it back to me enthusiastic about new opportunities and seeking for advice on how to improve upon it. (How do you foster creatvitiy?) Back then, I was shocked/afraid of their reaction. My critique was an angry rant at a very real social fact. Why are our 40 hours/week of high school life draining to waste? Because you chop off their creativity, I said. How do you encourage it? I don’t know.

Criticizing institutions close to yourself (family, school, work) is a dilemmatic choice. There’s more meat you can slash at, but because it’s a bilateral relationship, you also owe things to them. Last year, late at the DNBAM, I started feeling a deep guilt towards my own academic performance (read: low grades – or, 1.5 GPA) and my activism. Can I really criticize the institution at which I am doing poorly? If someone says, “oh, but you’re just making a big fuzz to avoid tihnking about how you suck at classes”, isn’t she right?

RE: Intellectual Diversity at Macalester. Joseph Schultz, Mac Weekly Feb 18
themacweekly.com/article.php?article=72

Good call, Mr. Schultz. Let’s promote “political diversity”, and you lay it out by splitting the entire 1,800 of the Macalester population into democrats and republicans. I’m not even talking about international spectrum of political ideas, I’m just saying, hey, what ever happened to the 5% that voted green in 2000 (of course they abstained in 2004 because Kerry supporters scared the hell out of them), who in themselves were not purely Green but consisted of a conglomerate of commies, socialists, nazis and the like? What is it with assuming class-elite transnational students are “liberals”? What is it with assuming the opposite of liberalism is conservatism? When you pull a bunch of people you don’t know, observe what they do, and give them a label according to your own heterodoxic understanding of the world, it’s called ethnocentrism. Or, ignorant white suburban tolerance.

Brushing personal, everyday formations of political ideas aside, I’m the ultra-right, and these U.S. “new” conservatives are just a joke. What’s the deal with getting nonwhites in office? What’s the deal with assuming capitalism is “the thing to do” for conservatives? What’s all this rambling on your BIPOLAR diversity? Excuse me, did Fukuyama said that history was ended, well back in 1990?

Dude.

Repeat after me:

Fucking do fucking not fucking classify fucking nonresident fucking aliens fucking with fucking your fucking categories.