Where are the black anarchists?
- Thread starter sacx
- Start date
what has anarchism got to do with colour?
kropotkin said:
Are you referring to that other thread? If so, what's the point of asking for my definition without giving your's? After all, it isn't as if you didn't make it clear you disagreed with me.
I find it hard to believe that you don't think that people's perceptions have a bearing on reality.
Yeah I wonder. So what if there are no black anarchists?
But anyway I'll try to give some reasons. One thing is maybe the reason there aren't more black anarchists because 'radicalised' blacks tend to turn to nationalism and ethnocentrism. They turn to that kind of politics more than whites anyway. So the space for 'radical' or 'left' politics is reduced. Smaller slice of the pie.
I think also that the socio-economic status of many blacks has an impact on the politics. More blacks are unpriveleged and working or underclass than whites. Anarchism tends to attract people from comfortable sectors of society (I'm saying on average, I know there are working class a's) who can afford to speculate about the kind of things anarchists speculate about. Read a lot of books for example such as Kroptokin says of himself.
Working class people are more attracted to pragmatic solutions and politics and find it easier to fit into a 'movement'. Middle class people are more egocentric and don't fit into groups as easily. So more working class (and on average more blacks) will turn towards Labour, marxist groups or other 'problem solving' (eg community) kind of groups with no official ideology.
Same thing with Asians probably. The religion side (for Pakistanis etc) reduces the political opportunity for lefty type stuff, and also being on average more working / underclass have less time for politics and the kind of politics that (stereotypically) involves lots of discussion, reading texts by obscure people etc.
But anyway I'll try to give some reasons. One thing is maybe the reason there aren't more black anarchists because 'radicalised' blacks tend to turn to nationalism and ethnocentrism. They turn to that kind of politics more than whites anyway. So the space for 'radical' or 'left' politics is reduced. Smaller slice of the pie.
I think also that the socio-economic status of many blacks has an impact on the politics. More blacks are unpriveleged and working or underclass than whites. Anarchism tends to attract people from comfortable sectors of society (I'm saying on average, I know there are working class a's) who can afford to speculate about the kind of things anarchists speculate about. Read a lot of books for example such as Kroptokin says of himself.
Working class people are more attracted to pragmatic solutions and politics and find it easier to fit into a 'movement'. Middle class people are more egocentric and don't fit into groups as easily. So more working class (and on average more blacks) will turn towards Labour, marxist groups or other 'problem solving' (eg community) kind of groups with no official ideology.
Same thing with Asians probably. The religion side (for Pakistanis etc) reduces the political opportunity for lefty type stuff, and also being on average more working / underclass have less time for politics and the kind of politics that (stereotypically) involves lots of discussion, reading texts by obscure people etc.
kropotkin said:
What's your accent like?
Epicurus said:
Are these people unconscious of their anarchist politics or are they so ashamed they don't want to own up to being anarchists? Also what are ethnics?
Neither, placing people in little boxes with a name on it is not something that goes on everywhere, most people I Know just get on with whatever project they are involved in and couldn’t give a shit about labels.Chuck Wilson said:
It is what you do not what you call yourself that defines a persons politics’ not some label that very few people would agree what it meant.
You would need to explain what you mean by “Anarchist” if you want a fuller answer as I have met many people who discribe themselves as Anarchists and they were very different indeviduals.
kropotkin said:
It has been my experience that many lefties and anarchists tend to get a bit petulant and/or impatient with anybody who disagrees with them about something. You do nothing to convince me that you don't share their fundamental intolerance (although I know a lot of anarchists are keen on getting as many 'working class' "fuckings" into their vocabulary as possible, as well as adopting a 'working class' confrontational stance.)
However, to get back to the subject, as I said above, your definition might be technically correct in an economic sense. It counts for very little in actual fact though. Cultural factors still count for very much - as do people's perceptions of themselves or others, however unfortunate or otherwise this might be.
For example, in my mid-twenties I went from being a manual worker to doing a degree at university. There, the majority of students on my course recognised me for something they were not, and that was working class. Upon getting to know about some of them, most of them came from a background where their relationship to capital was, technically speaking, the same as mine and my parents (all of us manual workers, while the parents of most of the students were salaried professionals.) Yet their experiences, in terms of what kind of neighbourhoods they lived in, schools attended, places visited on holiday, purchasing power etc etc) were a world away from my own at their age. We saw each other quite differently: they were middle class and I was working class, to put it bluntly, and this applies even though probably almost all of us ended up in waged employment.
Significantly, they differed with me quite strongly when it came to political views. The odd (sometimes very odd....) middle class leftie aside, they knew what side their bread was buttered on. Even under the most ideal conditions for radical change- conditions of the type that could drag large numbers of the middle class leftwards - many of these people would inevitably, and for cultural reasons, see themselves as being 'on the other side of the barricades.' They identify, whether you like it or not, with capital, not labour. (As would many working class people no doubt - but that is a different, if related, discussion.)
Well, that is just it, Lletsa (again, i'm ignoring the snidey shit at the beginning)- all you are essentially saying is that there are groups of workers who identify with capital. Yes, and?
I think that it is very related. The cultural forms that surround these people are what pressure them to identify with capital, and against their interests as part of a class- the class of waged labourers (whatever the content of that labour is). There are backwards cultural forms in the part of this class that you call working class, are there not?
what separates these in a meaningful way?
I don't have an answer- I am inclined to agree that there are three classes (this thread on libcom goes into it a bit), but haven't figured out whether this is something real or not.
I think that it is very related. The cultural forms that surround these people are what pressure them to identify with capital, and against their interests as part of a class- the class of waged labourers (whatever the content of that labour is). There are backwards cultural forms in the part of this class that you call working class, are there not?
what separates these in a meaningful way?
I don't have an answer- I am inclined to agree that there are three classes (this thread on libcom goes into it a bit), but haven't figured out whether this is something real or not.
Please don't hotlink to messageboards which ban some members from here from having their say.
I would have thought that most Anarchist work with-in their own local community and I would therefore expect “Black” anarchist to do the same, so unless you live or work closely with the “Black” community you may never meet one, but as most anarchist don’t wear a badge saying I’m an anarchist how would you know?
kropotkin said:don't tell me what to do, babylon
fucking coon 'ave some of that!
Ryazan said:
London -ish I have been living in Manchester for 18 years now , and you?
Epicurus said:
Couldn't make head or tail of your middle sentence .
What are ethnics ?
It is what someone does not what they call themselves that defines their politics’Chuck Wilson said:
In the context which I have used the word Ethnics in this thread (post No 30) I think it is clear what I mean; someone who is not white or considered black. I am using it as a generic term for all others groups.
Epicurus said:
Don't disagree.
Crap use of the word.Might have escaped you but the far right and racists like to use the word as well.
Whereas you want to make it as narrow and exclusive as possible? And thus the middle class bigger?LLETSA said:
I find that a bit weird... I mean if you use the sociological definitions then yeah the middle class is the majority of the population now, so if you think the working class should run society you'll be arguing for minority rule no? Which is a bit weird...
And it does seem to contrast with you saying this on another thread:
LLETSA said:
What word would you have used?Chuck Wilson said:
It seems to me to be the correct word for my intension, I'm not going to have my English dictated to be by some nazi.
eth·nic
adj.
Of or relating to a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage.
Being a member of a particular ethnic group, especially belonging to a national group by heritage or culture but residing outside its national boundaries: ethnic Hungarians living in northern Serbia.
Of, relating to, or distinctive of members of such a group: ethnic restaurants; ethnic art.
Relating to a people not Christian or Jewish; heathen.
n.
A member of a particular ethnic group, especially one who maintains the language or customs of the group.
You know the politics’ of all the black people in Hackney? How many Predominately Black projects are you involved in?catch said:
I am happy to pm you with the names of a number of projects where you would meet people whose politics’ could easily come under the umbrella of Anarchism, but the politics’ would come after the objective in the people I know.
catch said:
How many of these people are born and bred in Hackney, and how many are students passing through?
Epicurus said:
This is what you originally said. I'm not a hyper-activist by any means, so don't claim to know all of the people in Hackney, I simply pointed out that as someone living and working in my local community, which has a high proportion of black people, I'd not come across any black anarchists. That's my experience, no judgement implied in that.
I work at my local sixth form college, 90% of the students are 'BME' (their statistics for OFSTED), and I'm the only white person in my department, it's only 10 minutes up the road so I very much consider it a part of my local community, I don't determine community by ethnicity like you seem to.
With Hackney Independent, I've gone and done surveys/newsletter drops, and recently canvassing around Haggerston and Hoxton, there are a large number of black (and Turkish, Vietnamese, etc.) people opening their doors, but that's not reflected in the make-up of HI. I'd be interested in discussing why that happens, most of HI are male as well, but I don't think cajoling me for not being involved in a number of "Predominantly Black" projects is very helpful is it? As a white person, I reckon it'd be fairly patronising for me to go out looking for them to get involved with depending on the circumstances.
I'm not saying that black people aren't active in libertarian communist politics, but white people working in their local communities, which include plenty of BME people, aren't necessarily finding them. I'd be very interested in hearing about the projects though
ernestolynch said:
I don't know about born and bred, but most of the people in HI have lived here for some time, I've not been a student since 2001 fwiw. I've lived in Hackney for four years, although I'm moving a mile east to Walthamstow in a month - can't afford to rent a similar place in Hackney it seems. How long have you lived in Sutton (or wherever it is)? Or are you just passing through?
Similar threads
