Loading ...Anti-Racism Rally in Glasgow: Why Not More in the U.S. ?
By JessieHundreds marched in Glasgow, Scotland yesterday in a rally (opens short video, 1:17) to call for an end racism. According to this report, the march and rally were organized to remind people of the dangers of allowing prejudice and discrimination to go unchallenged, and was organized by the STUC, a labor union. Reading the news about this anti-racism rally in Glasgow got me wondering, why aren’t there more of these in the U.S.? While I recognize that a rally is not the same thing as a social movement, but it is noteworthy that the only time there’s an anti-racism rally here, it’s in response to a KKK (or other white racist group) rally, and there’s not a sustained anti-racist movement in the U.S.
There’s some recent research by sociologists Jill McCorkel and Jason Rodriguez that may shed some light on this question (recently highlighted in Contexts). McCorkel and Rodriguez explored the experience of those who participate in movements dominated by people of other races, specifically, they used multi-year participant observation to study how white people become accepted in civil rights organizations dominated by African Americans (e.g., “pro-black” abolitionism and “conscious” hip hop). They found that white people are rarely recruited into such organizations and, when a white person seeks membership, they’re often relegated to “supporter” roles rather than given full membership. In order to move into the core of the movement, white people had to prove their “realness”— that is, their commitment to political struggle. But regardless of their efforts to “fit-in,” white participants in black social movements never could become full members. (You can read the entire article in the journal Social Problems, March 2009).
While McCorkel and Rodriguez’s research is focused more on the challenges that an influx of progressive, anti-racist whites posed to two racially progressive movements, their research also suggests a few speculative explanations for why there’s not a robust anti-racist movement in the U.S. First, it suggests that whites are rarely seen as natural allies by people leading organizations focused on racial equality. Further, it suggests that anti-racist whites are not organizing among themselves to form a movement against racism, but rather are seeking out organizations dominated by African Americans. Yet, once in those organizations, anti-racist whites must do the work of proving their “realness” to others rather than engaging work that might change structural inequality, dismantle institutional racism, or raise the consciousness of other whites. Perhaps anti-racist whites who want to see real social change should work on doing something to change the school-to-prison pipeline, as just one example, rather than trying to get demonstrate how “real” they are.
Or, maybe like whites in Glasgow, whites here in the U.S. could organize an old-fashioned anti-racism rally.
No1KState says:
“In fact, race as a social construct in its present form came about principly to keep European indentured servant and African slaves from forming rebellions. The stopped the rebellions by freeing the Europeans and giving them higher social status than black slaves solely on the basis of the color of their skin.”
Stated like that, I dont disagree with much you say here. Racism was used that way in that time frame. The concept of race was elaborated and stated with “scientific” certainty, using the “science” of its time, much as Aristotle and Poleman elaborated and stated it according to the science of their time. But it did not originate in the 1600’s, nor was that the first time it was used. The 1600 thing was a disagreement I had with a statement Joe made that carried on with you.
Fundamentally, it is the same game humans have been playing with each other for thousands of years. The actors change, the rationalizations change, but the fundamental game does not change. The game is simple self interest. An “us and “them” mentality. “We” are special, more important, our need or entitlement is greater, and “you” are somehow deserving of our exploitation or mistreatment. The things used to justify the idea that the persons being mistreated or exploited changes with the circumstances. If two groups of the same skin color are playing the game, then you find something else to justify it, religion, nationality, you subdivide the same skin color into “races” and attribute innate inferiority or “barbarism” to those not in YOUR group. If the two groups in question are of obvious difference, such as skin color, it just makes it that much easier to play the game of “them and us.” But the fundamental principles of the game are consistent. It is not new, unique to this time frame, other than the fact that it was more recent, and that it was well documented, and the fact that the technology used to implement it and continue it was more advanced, it is exactly the same game.
No1KState says:
“It’s one thing to say, “Oh, he must be from Kush. Look at his dark skin.”
It’s another thing to say that darker pigment is indicative of some inferiority. That’s the historical distinction I’m making.”
Then apparently you either did not note that Poleman, “noted differences between Greeks and the people of the north, believing that Greek superiority was visible in their medium skin tone, as opposed to pale northerners and dark Africans. He claimed that blue eyes were a sign of a cowardly nature, and that they indicated poor eyesight.[10]” or you are willfully ignoring it because it doesn’t suit you. It simply isnt a historical distinction. People have been finding reasons to justify their acting on their own self interest most likely as long as their have been anything that could be called people. I would be willing to bet that when the Cro-Magnon ran across a Neanderthal, there was some comment about the difference in appearance. And that when they competed for the same resources, I am sure either side likely felt justified in killing the other simply because they were, “other.” Which is why I disagree that there is any historical distinction to be made to make this some “special” case or instance.
No1KState says:
“But the use of race as an excuse and even the idea that you’re doing the oppressed some good by oppressing them, that’s historically recent.”
I disagree. I think that line of reasoning was used prior to the time frame we are discussing. Aristotle seemed to feel that those “naturally slaves” were no better off free. And as Christianity spread northward into Europe, any number of people were violently subjugated “for their own good.”
No1KState says:
How do you explain the disparity in both opportunity and outcomes we see in the US? The disparities in the criminal justice system, public education, even healthcare. What’s your explanation for what’s going on RIGHT NOW?
Thats fodder for a whole new thread, and if you want to begin it, I would love to participate. The short answer is, “the same sad game we have been playing forever.” Only now, the actors and the justifications are morphing again. And my prediction is that it would take an incredible stroke of luck, a miracle, to get people to see that it is the game itself we need to examine, rather than just put new players into the same sad old roles.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I willfully ignored it because I don’t recall Greece expanding farther northward and either killing or enslaving the inhabitants as a favor to the inhabitants on the basis of their blue eyes. I could be wrong. I’m not as familiar with ancient European history as I am with US history.
But it really doesn’t matter, does it? Cause the issue on this particular thread is the game (racism) here today (in the US) and why more American whites aren’t anti-racists. American whites showed more outrage about Michael Vick than they did Sean Bell.
So . . . race as a social construct the way it is now was invented by European settlers. Right? So, what is the error you find with the original post or anti-racism altogether?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
>But it really doesn’t matter, does it? Cause the issue on this particular thread is the game (racism) here today (in the US) and why more American whites aren’t anti-racists. American whites showed more outrage about Michael Vick than they did Sean Bell.
Being ‘anti-racist’ means being pro-democracy and in the historical context of the USA both never has been reality in America. In the understanding of ‘white’ America it was always assumed to be necessary to oppress certain groups to have a free [white] America.
Democracy and sharing human rights, living without the emotional need of domination and socially disrespecting and excluding an ‘other’ is behavior that must be learned.
Already the OP here indicates, how difficult this seems to be:
There seems to be a normalcy to ignore PoC and their efforts and successes and struggles against white supremacy and ‘white’ is still so much the norm in American thought and behavior. The entire first paragraph of the OP doesn’t mention the term “white people” but we can assume that the OP wants to talk about a white anti-racist movement that does not exist in America. But because there is no such thing as it seems the OP wants to claim that the US doesn’t have an anti-racist movement at all and among all the possible reasons for this, that there is no white anti-racist movement in the US the most important (because mentioned) reason is: Because whites cannot be in the CENTER, but only as SUPPORTERS, and actually have to be honest…
this is an odd reason not to be pro human rights for all
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
jwbe – Sorry, I’m confused. Sorry. Just so I understand . . .
You’re saying that Jessie in the original post wants to discuss why there isn’t a white anti-racism movement? Why more whites don’t participate in anti-racism activism?
Jessie suggests whites participate in ways that will have results, and I do know that local school boards have an enormous amount of power and just 1 white member who’s willing to challenge white social norming, it can make a tangible difference for children.
So, you’re saying that just because whites would have to be supporters in a group like, for example, a local chapter of the NAACP doesn’t mean they should neglect the movement altogether. I agree with you and I think Jessie would agree as well.
Am I reading you correctly? Also, are you commenting about someone else and just responding to my comment?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Kstate,
no, it wasn’t a direct response to you.
From the OP:
>While I recognize that a rally is not the same thing as a social movement, but it is noteworthy that the only time there’s an anti-racism rally here, it’s in response to a KKK (or other white racist group) rally, and there’s not a sustained anti-racist movement in the U.S.
and the next two paragraphs are looking for an explanation that blames POC that there is allegedly no sustained anti-racist movement.
The US has an anti-racist movement, but white people are missing and for this white people can only blame themselves. Jena for example.
The rally in Glasgow didn’t come ‘out of the blue’ but is also a reaction to the growing power of the BNP and rising right-wing extremism in Europe in general, the Swiss referendum just as a ’symbol’ of what is truly going on throughout Europe, banning minarets in Switzerland is or can be just the start, because it reflects what Europeans as a collective believe about Islam. Those who initiated the referendum in Switzerland consider the ban as an important step to prevent Switzerland from becoming a ‘Muslim-country’ with Sharia-Law etc. They consider minarets as symbols of domination of Islam over Christianity and as symbols of ‘taking over’ Switzerland (and Europe).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@No1KState wrote: just because whites would have to be supporters in a group like, for example, a local chapter of the NAACP doesn’t mean they should neglect the movement altogether. I agree with you and I think Jessie would agree as well.
Yes, I’d agree with that.
@jwbe wrote: “the next two paragraphs are looking for an explanation that blames POC that there is allegedly no sustained anti-racist movement.”
No, that’s not what I was saying at all in the original post. I don’t blame POC for the lack of a sustained anti-racist movement here in the U.S. I was questioning why whites aren’t creating and/or more involved in such a movement.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
>No, that’s not what I was saying at all in the original post. I don’t blame POC for the lack of a sustained anti-racist movement here in the U.S. I was questioning why whites aren’t creating and/or more involved in such a movement.
If you are able, re-read your OP from another perspective and you will see my point.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I just wanted to leave a quick comment on white antiracism not so long ago in the U.S. for white folks in particular, as I don’t think we see this approach today (we here more whites wondering why it is oppressed groups of color refuse to become educated when they have all the opportunities to do so…then of course all these great antiracist discussions too often take place in the walls of ivory towers…the voices that need to be heard most are invisible and silenced, as well as pretty much damned anyway)–Myles Horton is a person we all should be familiar with. He did much to empower oppressed groups, stimulate and promote contagious collective action, and so on, even though he was never assigned a role in the Civil Rights Movements. He worked with Rosa Parks for example. But I think serious antiracism among whites would reflect the approach of Myles Horton (including the Highlander school, which expanded throughout the nation and slowly died out) and mindset that involves direct empowerment, support, organizing, and active involvement with the oppressed sectors. This is fundamentally different from the approach of the segregated education of today. In addition, with his approach there are no concerns regarding conflict of interests in terms of profiting off of the oppressed, be it for symbolic or monetary value…. This approach means giving more than you take or earn or profit or what have you, and stepping aside to let the voices of the oppressed being heard and be central…. Just my own thoughts on white antiracism in the U.S. and part of why we have no movements or action today. Segregation between the privileged/power sources and knowledge and the oppressed groups, as well as the discussions on racism and antiracism remaining largely segregated. Even online–those who most need to be heard often don’t have access to the Internet (here I am referring to both race/ethnicity and class), let alone even know how to use many sources online, including engaging in blogs. Then there’s the elitist aspect where they are blocked from engaging in dialogue due to vocabulary, etc., and then even commentors will insult those who don’t have good grammar, use different language to express themselves, and so on. There’s a serious and quite insensitive gap in many respects. There are some scholars/elites who do go out and get their “hands dirty”…but by and large, segregation in almost every respect reigns in this society.
Anyway, here’s a little bit on Myles Horton for anybody interested (Hallmark of an honest white antiracist in my humble opinion):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myles_Horton
Like or Dislike:
2 
0