Paul Stott and white privilege

Published: October 25, 2011 13:51 by Reaction watch

If you look in the comments on the piece as well it gets worse. Check out 'Internationalist':-

>The same applies to other identity politics. That is why, >for example, our old friend Rasta is constantly on the >look out for anti-black racism and talks as though there >is still a slave trade, calling white people "crackas". >Unless he can find evidence of widespread racism his >ideology is pretty well bankrupt.
>
>Likewise radical feminists get upset whenever there is >evidence that actually, most men are NOT rapists. This is >a threat to their carefully crafted identity as "victims".
>
>Of course all of this is divisive and alienates white >working class people in particular.

This reads like a BNP pamphlet and pretty much admits that the aim is to get the white working class onside at the expense of everyone else.

I love the fact that these white Big Men call out anyone who challenges their patriarchal authority for engaging in 'identity politics'. Who gave them that identity exactly?

Published: October 25, 2011 14:27 by UKF

The first people colonised, dispossessed, taxed and oppressed by the British Empire and British State were the British poor. The State did so well out of this, that later they started oppressing people overseas as well. People the State / Empire did this to overseas, and their descendants, sometimes think their own treatment was primarily to do with ethnicity - to an extent it was, but it's much more complex or more simple than that, depending how you look at history. Of course race is an issue (in fact many issues), but throwing stupid phrases like "White Privilege" at underprivileged and angry people is an act of pointless provocation which in this case got exactly the response it deserved. If you want a dialogue, start by not putting people's backs up.

Cultural identity politics are best left to the BNP.

Published: October 25, 2011 14:29 by london anarchist

....including the one where someone talks about "demolishing" ideologies, including "the lesser identity-based ideologies (pan-Africanism, Rastafarianism, Gay Liberation ...)"

wtf? someone else who is completely clueless about what the proponents of gay liberation were actually about (the sexual and other liberation of everyone, not just the gay people, the destruction of capitalism as well as patriarchy and binary gender)

if "all identity politics is reactionary" as someone else claims, it's little wonder that so many of us have reacted - against the ignorance and generally shite politics displayed by paul and his mates - by doing our politics differently to them.

Published: October 25, 2011 14:39 by Janice

Class War, for all its (many) faults, was massively influenced by black American Anarchist Lucy Parsons, but, quite rightly, never trumpeted her ethnicity. With the obvious proviso that many Anarchists have made immense, largely unsung, contributions to anti-racist struggles, it is true that British Anarchism has had something of a blind spot for race issues, but to be honest I think this was a case of erring on the safe side, because it's more valuable for Anarchists of different races to work together constructively than for them to sit around bitching about who's more oppressed. As it happens, the first serious Anarchist I met as a young man (no I won't mention his name) was / is British Chinese, and the first Anarchist meetings I attended contained all the usual 1980s punks, plus an Iranian doctor. Neither of these people ever talked about white "privilege".

Published: October 25, 2011 15:36 by Jack

This writer is misinformed. The EDL do NOT have "anti-Asian rhetoric", at least not at an organisational level - they're very careful not to, instead the EDL make great play out of having an Asian like Guramit Singh as an EDL leader and out of other Asian supporters like "Abdul" from Glasgow. It goes without saying that those twerps are being used in much the same way that European far-right groups always use their non-white allies, but if you're going to make pronouncements like this, please make sure they're accurate.

Published: October 25, 2011 15:47 by Just sayin

Guramit Singh has left the EDL. The previous commenter is clearly misinformed. If you're going to make pronouncements like this, please make sure they're accurate.

Published: October 25, 2011 16:44 by Nottingham anarchist

@UKF
"Of course race is an issue (in fact many issues), but throwing stupid phrases like "White Privilege" at underprivileged and angry people is an act of pointless provocation which in this case got exactly the response it deserved."

I don't think white privilege is a stupid phrase. I think it's quite an apt one for the system that maintains racial divides in this country. Of course, it shouldn't be considered in isolation and other factors like social class and gender certainly contribute to people's privilege and lack of it.

"If you want a dialogue, start by not putting people's backs up."

This sounds, once again, like putting white people's "need" to not be criticised for their prejudice, before people of colour's need to not be discriminated against. Isn't this just a modern equivalent of asking massa nicely? And why would theories about the perpetuation or racism put people's backs up? Anyone who's actually looked seriously at white privilege as a concept would know that it's not about guilt and moral judgements but the systemic valuation of people based on their race.

"Cultural identity politics are best left to the BNP."

I agree. But I think anti-racist politics is something we have to engage with as anarchists, otherwise we are doomed to failure.

@Janice
"it is true that British Anarchism has had something of a blind spot for race issues, but to be honest I think this was a case of erring on the safe side, because it's more valuable for Anarchists of different races to work together constructively than for them to sit around bitching about who's more oppressed."

In the original post I posed the question: why is the anarchist bookfair (and movement) so white? I would love it if it really was the case that anarchists of different races were just sat around working together but it doesn't seem to be happening. I want to join other people who are working to change that, not people who want to ignore it and pretend everything's OK.

"As it happens, the first serious Anarchist I met as a young man (no I won't mention his name) was / is British Chinese, and the first Anarchist meetings I attended contained all the usual 1980s punks, plus an Iranian doctor. Neither of these people ever talked about white "privilege"."

I'm not sure what your point is here. The two anarchist people of colour you've met didn't talk about white privilege to you so you can ignore the idea? Just about every single anarchist person of colour I have spoken to about race in the movement in the last 10 years has talked about it, or the differential treatment they receive, so I assume we must just have friends in different places.

@Jack
"The EDL do NOT have "anti-Asian rhetoric", at least not at an organisational level"

Yes - you're right there. I was referring to the numerous individual instances of it from members, but I should have been clearer.

Published: October 25, 2011 17:02 by Stott spotter

Manchester No Borders called out Stott as one of the "English anarchists" and a "labour movement nationalist" in their 'On Class and Migrant Solidarity' article: http://northern-indymedia.org/articles/309

Which kind of makes me doubt his anti-identity politics stance.

Stott also slagged off the feminist No Pretence intervention at the Anarchist Movement Conference in 2009. He claimed to have been "harangued by masked activists" and proceeded to lay into their video. He didn't address the underlying issue of sexism in the movement.

Published: October 25, 2011 19:18 by Reposter

http://kasamaproject.org/2011/05/12/white-skin-privilege-its-place-in-revolutionary-politics/

Published: October 25, 2011 20:01 by Charlie Kerins

It's not much of a secret that Paul's partner's black and that therefore the twins Paul refers to on his blog (http://paulstott.typepad.com/i_intend_to_escape_and_co/2011/10/some-anarchist-bookfair-comments.html) are mixed race. Given this, it's clear that Paul does know something about the subject of race and racism in Britain. In addition, the long, proud and well-known record of Class War in opposing and fighting - literally and metaphorically - racism and fascism should have registered on "Nottingham Anarchist"'s radar.

NA claims that the meeting 'provided a space where the issue of race could be discussed rather than dismissed, where anarchist people of colour could raise awareness of some of the issues they face and the ways in which race affects anarchist organising could be discussed'. This seems to me somewhat at odds with the blurb in the Bookfair Programme, which says it is 'Aimed at white people prepared to challenge themselves and their privilege, but all are welcome.' The paragraph in the Programme makes it seem to me that Paul was right, that this is a load of liberal guilt-tripping.

Frankly, the notion of 'white privilege' doesn't seem to me to cut the mustard. What about anti-Irish racism in the UK, for example? The meeting as it's described in both the article above and the Programme blurb seems to suggest that racism is one way only, and that all white people benefit from this 'white privilege'. Unfortunately, life's somewhat more complicated than either author seems to think. In any case, the working class are all black to the ruling class, as we saw during and after the riots when the most dreadful language was used to describe people from our communities. Anarchists recognise the role of racism in dividing the working class. Anarchists oppose racism in all its forms. And it's my belief that the anarchist movement is far less racist than wider society. Certainly I can't recall seeing an instance of racist behaviour within the movement over the many years I've been involved.

That's not to say that the movement is perfect - far from it. For one thing we've too many bleeding heart liberals involved, whose activity all too often seems dictated by their need to salve their consciences over the way Mater and Pater made their way in the world.

If the racial composition of people attending the Bookfair was supposed to reflect the area in which it's held, then it's no wonder that the majority of the people there were white - given that for many years it was held near Holborn, Kings X, Holloway Road and only gravitated to Mile End three or so years ago. Since the racial composition of the country's in the region of 90% white, it should not really come as any surprise that the anarchist movement reflects this proportion. Tower Hamlets, whatever "Nottingham Anarchist" might want to think, is not overrun with anarchists, more's the pity.

Turning from "Nottingham Anarchist" to "Stott spotter", there were a lot of people at the Anarchist Conference who damned the No Pretence intervention, not least the members of that group who refused to take part. The conference participants had spent the entire conference debating things like sexism in the movement; for a group who had refused to participate to turn up - interrupting a female member of the AF, by the by - and, yes, harangue those present was to me something of a disappointment. If anarcha-feminists have a point to make - and they usually do - then it's a point which can be made in debate instead of by hijacking an otherwise productive event.

Published: October 25, 2011 20:16 by Simon

"Frankly, the notion of 'white privilege' doesn't seem to me to cut the mustard. What about anti-Irish racism in the UK, for example? The meeting as it's described in both the article above and the Programme blurb seems to suggest that racism is one way only, and that all white people benefit from this 'white privilege."

What is the point of racism if not to give white people privilege. Go try to spread the rightness of equal treatment and ways of ensuirng that happens among 'under-privileged' whites (let's leave 'white monkeys' as Irish people were described in the Victorian era out of this) and see how far you get. Try it in South Africa. Even white descendants of slaves in the US and the Caribbean regard themselves as superior to black people.

As a black person, I can't take your nonsense seriously.

Published: October 25, 2011 20:32 by Charlie Kerins

"What is the point of racism if not to give white people privilege. Go try to spread the rightness of equal treatment and ways of ensuirng that happens among 'under-privileged' whites (let's leave 'white monkeys' as Irish people were described in the Victorian era out of this) and see how far you get. Try it in South Africa. Even white descendants of slaves in the US and the Caribbean regard themselves as superior to black people.

As a black person, I can't take your nonsense seriously."

In a country in which more than 90% of people have a white skin, what privilege does it bring?

Published: October 26, 2011 07:07 by Nottingham Anarchist

"In a country in which more than 90% of people have a white skin, what privilege does it bring?"

Urm... a better status than the other 10%?

Bear in mind that most of the UK's ethnic minorities live in the cities, so in localised terms there is a much greater ethnic minority population than that for the whole UK and whites are actually a minority in some neighbourhoods. And guess who ends up disproportionately represented in the lowest waged jobs, over-policed and with worst services...

The privileges that are being spoken of here are everyday things, not things that in themselves are of crucial importance, but which all add up to a system of supremacy for the dominant ethnic group. These privileges are invisible to most people, because we are conditioned to believe they are natural behaviours and we are also conditioned to believe that we're not racist. See for example: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html
which although quite US-centric and perhaps a little dated, still rings true in a lot of places.

Why is it always white men who find it hardest to accept these ideas? Feminism has been on the ball a lot longer than the white male dominated anarchist movement.

Published: October 26, 2011 08:22 by Charlie Kerins

NA

According to you, all white people have a better status than the 10% of non-white people in this country. Are you honestly saying that someone like Ian Wright, late of Arsenal Football Club, or Keith Vaz, the famous MP, has a lower status than a white man living in poverty in Aberdeen?

You seem to believe that all white people have a higher status than all people from other races, which is, I think, utter bollocks. Your argument, which was initially against Paul Stott, really doesn't seem to have received the consideration you might have wished to give it. I don't give a damn about 'white privilege' in the US, in South Africa, in the Caribbean for the purposes of this thread. I don't live there, nor do about 98% or more of the people who came to the Bookfair. I can see how there's a meaningful advantage to be gained from the colour of your skin in a colonial society or one in which people with darker hued skin form the majority but those with lighter skin rule. We don't live in a country where either context applies. I don't deny there is widespread 'soft' racism in the UK (as opposed to 'hard' racism, racist attacks, which I believe the vast majority of people in the UK would oppose). However, despite my question about what privilege it brings - and I was hoping for something concrete, like preferment in the job market - there's nothing there. You talk about people in the lowest paid jobs. What about people on the dole? There are frequently stories in the papers about jobs going to foreigners, while British people languish on the dole. Where's the privilege in that? As for places which are 'over-policed', those are likely to be working class communities, 'over-policed' probably for that reason and not for some other cause. There is, though, scope for more research about whether Hackney is more policed than eg Barking and Dagenham or Bromley.

It seems to me that you're putting a lot more emphasis on racism within society than on class. And I believe this undermines the valid facts you point to. It's interesting that you've effectively conceded the argument as regards Paul, given the absence of rebuttal in your post.

Incidentally, I wonder what thought you've given to skin hue in other cultures beyond the 'western'. For example, I'm told that in India a lighter colour skin is often considered more desirable than darker skin, and that this phenomenon precedes European involvement in the subcontinent. Have you any feelings on the matter?

Published: October 26, 2011 08:33 by Charlie Kerins

By 'British people on the dole' it should be remembered that 90% of the country's white, so assuming this is reflected in the dole figures 90% of people on the rock will be white, while the other 10% will also be British - I do not intend to set up a British = white situation. It seems to me, to reiterate, that this substantial portion of people on the dole who NA thinks have some form of 'white privilege' compared to minorities in low-paid work in fact don't.

Published: October 26, 2011 10:16 by Ellenor

It’s simplistic to assume someone on the dole has no privilege relative to a low paid worker.
In London the jobs market is very much stratified by race and nationality, with the lowest paid work often taken up by people who would be precluded by immigration status from receiving benefits.
Working class British nationals meanwhile are often in “benefits trap” where taking low paid work would leave them worse off (high rents and harsh housing benefit rules make this inevitability)
People in this position are not “privileged” in the sense of belonging to an elite, but are undoubtedly better off than the migrant working poor, who are often working three jobs to maintain a benefits level lifestyle.
(I acknowledge this is London-centric perspective and may not be recognisable to comrades in other parts of the country where unemployment is structural and entrenched.)
As an aside: It’s worth examining closely any rhetoric about “Jobs for British Workers.” What the ruling class mean when they promise this is an erosion of the benefits system with the aim of replacing the casualised and low paid migrant workforce with a British workforce on the same conditions. This would actually amount to a removal of, rather than an increase in, privilege for this group.

Published: October 26, 2011 10:23 by Internationalist

@Reaction Watch ... the BNP (and EDL) represent another form of identity politics, based on a white caucasian and (largely) heterosexual identity.

This is in part an only-to-be-expected reaction to black/muslim/gay/gender identity politics.

All identity politics is a form of "nationalism" and all nationalism is based on a common misunderstanding of history and a common dislike of other nations.

This is why I am against ALL identity politics.

Moreover, after a day of alienation at work I do not exactly welcome the idea of attending poltical meetings where I am made to feel that I am an "oppressor" because I was born English, white and male.

You are driving people away from radical politics.

Once anarchism was a tendency in the internationalist class movement. But since the sixties it has - like most of the left - been corrupted by American race and gender-based liberalism.

This may have been intended to be "inclusive" but it has the opposite effect.

Published: October 26, 2011 10:29 by Nottingham Anarchist

"According to you, all white people have a better status than the 10% of non-white people in this country."

That's not what I said and it's certainly not what I meant. I meant that when class, gender and other factors are accounted for, you're worse off if you're not white than if you are. I don't think anyone has ever suggested that race exists in a vacuum, but to deny that it has any effect is fairly ridiculous.

"However, despite my question about what privilege it brings - and I was hoping for something concrete, like preferment in the job market - there's nothing there."

Did you read the link I posted? There's plenty of concrete examples there. Try this as well:
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/whiteness08.htm

You talk about unemployment. Well the statistics for unemployment in London show that it is highest for blacks then Asians, and lowest for whites. In 2009, unemployment was around 11% for blacks, around 7% for South Asians and around 5% for whites.

In 2010, black people were 26 times more likely to be stopped and searched by police under S60 than white people. Asians were 6 times more likely to be searched.

Here's one from today's news - young black men make up 40% of prison population: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/oct/26/young-black-men-youth-jails

Or take this recent study of poverty and ethnicity in Scotland which found that Pakistanis/Bangladeshis and black households had higher rates of poverty than other ethnic groups and found:
- high unemployment rates in certain minority ethnic groups;
- mismatches between educational qualifications and types/levels of employment, and the potential for employment discrimination;
- high incidences of homelessness and housing need in certain groups;
- links between disadvantaged economic status, ethnicity and poor health; and
- fear of racial harassment in certain areas.
http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/review-poverty-and-ethnicity-scotland

I could go on and on but I would have thought that in this day and age people would have some awareness of these very concrete racial disadvantages.

Of course class is intimately involved. But there is an aspect that cannot be explained by class alone.

"Incidentally, I wonder what thought you've given to skin hue in other cultures beyond the 'western'. For example, I'm told that in India a lighter colour skin is often considered more desirable than darker skin, and that this phenomenon precedes European involvement in the subcontinent. Have you any feelings on the matter?"

Absolutely and there's a similar phenomenon in the black community around darkness of skin and perceived attractiveness. As well as hierarchies in Latin America based on those who pass as white and those who look more indigenous. I would say that these examples demonstrate how pervasive the phenomenon of white supremacy is.

Published: October 26, 2011 10:44 by Ellenor

The anarchist movement is white dominated.
It is also male dominated and middle class dominated.

This is a fact. Any attempt to deal with this is a good thing in my view.

However, the anarchist movement is almost uniquely unprepared to seriously tackle the issue due to our faulty understanding of political power and our insistence that “non hierarchical” organising is either possible and desirable.

I recommend the dated but still relevant “Tyranny of Structurelessness” for a through debunking of these myths.

Strategies used by other groups on the left and in the mainstream of society to increase non-white participation and leadership are closed to us.
For example: We can’t introduce reserved officer seats because if we’re opposed to officer posts.

There is a fantastic course, originating from the Black Members caucus of the entertainment unions.

It is called “Changing the Face of your Union” and it combines discussion of racism at work and within the union with practical training in how to caucus, run for office and influence votes within a trade union branch.

In other words, it lets participants in on the strategies that the (white) leadership are already using to keep hold of power.

In the anarchist movement, we will never let our marginalised groups in on the strategies the leadership are using to keep hold of power, because we are too busy pretending there is no leadership and there is no power.

The workshop was a good start, but realisticly, we cannot educate dominant groups to let go of their power voluntarily. We have to also give marginalised groups the tools to make a decent assualt on that power and we will not do this while we are pretending that political power does not exist.

Published: October 26, 2011 10:52 by Nottingham Anarchist

"It's not much of a secret that Paul's partner's black and that therefore the twins Paul refers to on his blog... are mixed race. Given this, it's clear that Paul does know something about the subject of race and racism in Britain."

Well I didn't know that. I certainly apologise if I have offended him and his family - it was not my intention. Given that Paul and his partner must talk about race I am genuinely interested to know, since he clearly thinks the concept of white privilege is crap, how he does theorise racial inequalities. Surely he can't ascribe it all to class?

"This seems to me somewhat at odds with the blurb in the Bookfair Programme, which says it is 'Aimed at white people prepared to challenge themselves and their privilege, but all are welcome.' The paragraph in the Programme makes it seem to me that Paul was right, that this is a load of liberal guilt-tripping."

I don't see why challenging yourself amounts to liberal guilt-tripping. Please explain?

"The meeting as it's described in both the article above and the Programme blurb seems to suggest that racism is one way only, and that all white people benefit from this 'white privilege'."

Are you suggesting that 'racism cuts both ways', like the BNP did? Racism is a structure that facilitates white supremacy.

I do think that all white people benefit from white privilege even though there may be a whole raft of other privileges those people do not have access to.

"Anarchists recognise the role of racism in dividing the working class. Anarchists oppose racism in all its forms. And it's my belief that the anarchist movement is far less racist than wider society. Certainly I can't recall seeing an instance of racist behaviour within the movement over the many years I've been involved."

I'm afraid that, given your denial of white privilege I'm a little sceptical about your ability to spot the subtle exclusions and racist instances that occur within the movement. I have seen plenty of instances of this behaviour and, whilst white anarchists are certainly more well-meaning in this regard, it hasn't stopped good friends of mine leaving the movement in disgust.

"If the racial composition of people attending the Bookfair was supposed to reflect the area in which it's held, then it's no wonder that the majority of the people there were white - given that for many years it was held near Holborn, Kings X, Holloway Road and only gravitated to Mile End three or so years ago."

I meant London, rather than the specific areas within London. And given that anarchism is a largely urban movement, I don't think your 90% white figure holds up.

"If anarcha-feminists have a point to make - and they usually do - then it's a point which can be made in debate instead of by hijacking an otherwise productive event."

So we're back to the old argument that people should ask those in a position of dominance nicely rather than rocking the boat. Come off it! Direct action all the fucking way.

Published: October 26, 2011 12:27 by Charlie Kerins

Nottingham Anarchist

You said:
""According to you, all white people have a better status than the 10% of non-white people in this country."

That's not what I said and it's certainly not what I meant. I meant that when class, gender and other factors are accounted for, you're worse off if you're not white than if you are. I don't think anyone has ever suggested that race exists in a vacuum, but to deny that it has any effect is fairly ridiculous."

And you also said, to which I responded:

""In a country in which more than 90% of people have a white skin, what privilege does it bring?"

Urm... a better status than the other 10%?"

So, er, you DID say that all white people have a higher status than non-white people. It's this sort of dishonesty which, for me, has characterised your contributions on this thread. And this dishonesty continues when you assert that I've denied racism has any effect; in fact I said that there was widepread 'soft' racism - by which I meant discrimination in a range of forms - in the UK.

I didn't read your first link because you said it was focussed on the United States. And conditions here and in the US are by no means the same, whether you are talking about race or whatnot. I did look at your second link, which is interesting though still concentrates on the US. I wonder why you are apparently unable to produce a link which covers the same topic in a British context. Nonetheless it was not uninteresting. I see your second link is from an American university. There are 1,920 hits for a search for 'white privilege' in British universities; there are, by contrast, well over 100,000 hits from American institutions. This could be because we're behind the times in the UK; it could be (and I wouldn't be surprised if you argued this) that 'white privilege' is so engrained in UK life that no one's looked at it; or it could be that this American import does not resonate with, does not match, the reality that British-based academics and students find. Indeed, the only places I have previously encountered the phrase have been in American books and magazines, and only over the past couple of years. Its exposure in British groups seems virtually non-existent if my own experience is anything to go by.

As I've already pointed out your error about what I've said about the effects of racism, I won't go into the examples you've dredged up. On the issue of 'white supremacy' in Indian society, I'd just point out that lighter skin has been considered more attractive since well before the French and British started colonising the subcontinent. It doesn't seem therefore to be a product of European society.

Turning to your second post, you should address your questions on Paul's views to him at his blog; I've posted the URL above, if you've forgotten it. As for the liberal guilt-tripping, it is implicit in the sentence from the blurb I posted that those people who don't attend will clearly not have felt able to challenge their 'white privilege'. It is an example of trying to induce guilt - those who attend are saved because they can confront their inner demons, those who don't are damned because they have the demons in them but cannot bear to face them: that's the conclusion I took from what the blurb said. As for 'racism cuts both ways': yes, it does. You would like to see all racism emanating from white people and being applied to people of other hues. Sadly, that isn't the case. There is anti-white racism, there is racism among black people (one need only recall Rwanda), there is racism among Asian people - for example, Cambodian and Vietnamese people do not, I've heard, get along - and there is racism between black and Asian people. It's not all the fault of whitey, as far as I can see. If racism's a structure which facilitates white supremacy, how do you explain these other racisms? Seems to me that you've not considered the construction of whiteness to the degree necessary to make it meaningful in the British context. I've alluded to the Irish above - how does anti-Irish racism facilitate white supremacy? How does racism against eastern Europeans facilitate white supremacy? Up your game!

Your experience and your friends' experiences of racism within the movement do not accord with my own. I appreciate that things may be different in the Midlands, but I'm not aware of anyone in groups I've been involved with who have departed due to racism. Why have you remained? Was it because you thought that you could solve the difficulties better from within? Finally, the No Pretence intervention. I don't suppose you read the bit where I said that the intervention occurred at the end of a conference in which the NP people had refused to take part? But now you're saying (and I want to be clear about this) 'that people should ask those in a position of dominance nicely rather than rocking the boat' to confront their patriarchal dominance. Does that include all the women who were at the conference? To reiterate what I've said, they had a choice. They could have taken part in the conference and raised their points where they could be discussed and where they could have had a good chance of influencing people - their own 'comrades' - but they chose not to use that route and decided to act otherwise. My own view, and I've pointed out I'm not alone on this one, is that the stunt did them more of a disservice than a favour.

Published: October 26, 2011 12:32 by Charlie Kerins

Racism cuts both ways: yes, I believe it does, but to expand on that it is obviously most frequently from the dominant group in society towards minority groups. So, while there is qualitatively racism from eg white people to black people and vice versa, quantitatively there is a greater flow from white people to black people than vice versa - there are more incidents of racist behaviour from white people than there are to white people. I don't agree with the BNP, but it is an uncomfortable truth for those who like their societies simple that it's not only white people who can be racist.

Published: October 26, 2011 14:39 by glamista

what makes you think that the no pretence people didnt take part in the conference?
no pretence people did take part in the anarchist movement conference. Many of the women were there the whole time, in the sessions, the opening and closing plenaries etc.
If there were discussions at the conference aroud male supremacy, perhaps it was because no pretence women initiated it?

Published: October 26, 2011 17:20 by Nottingham Anarchist

I got well into another response and just thought 'Fuck it. What's the point?' There's few things more depressing than seeing exchanges of ideas degenerate into a tiresome battle of who's got the biggest anarchist cock. When you are being called "dishonest" and misrepresented and are probably guilty of having misrepresenting the other person as well.

It is emotionally draining defending something you feel passionate about and I'll freely admit that I can't hack it. The experience gives me renewed respect for the people who have to call out bullshit every day and a deeper understanding of the need for safe spaces and No Pretence's masks.

For those who are interested I do have a link to a UK publication that is delving into all of the muck around privilege and can put it out there much more articulately than me. Race Revolt is the name and the link is to the issue on whiteness but all of the issues are well worth a read: http://www.racerevolt.org.uk/issues/issue%20four/home.html

Published: October 26, 2011 17:40 by Charlie Kerins

Glamista - it's my recollection from what I was told at the time. The discussions which happened in the group I was part of were, to the best of my knowledge, not initiated by NP who only made their mark at the end. If I'm wrong I'm sorry to have misrepresented the members of NP who felt driven to take direct action

NA - If you think this is about who has the biggest anarchist cock, fair enough. But that's not a competition I've tried to engage in.

Published: October 27, 2011 07:42 by Bystander

...I think Kerins and NA actually agree.

Kerins says that there's widespread "soft racism" in society and that "there are more incidents of racist behaviour from white people than there are to white people". I would say (and hate crime stats back me up) that there is an overwhelming ratio of racist behaviour from whites to others to racist behaviour against whites. This means, in practice, that white British people don't have to worry about racism here (except in exceptional circumstances - read on!) - that is what is theorised as white privilege.

Kerins quite rightly points out anti-Irish and anti-East European racism as exceptions to the white privilege rule. But theories of privilege are not unipolar. There are multiple intersecting systems of privilege at work in this society and some kind of Anglo-Saxonism or Britishness dimension is certainly at play as well as anti-traveller and anti-migrant racisms.

I also had to include these links because I like them:
https://network23.org/dangerousconversations/2011/04/15/privilege/
https://network23.org/dangerousconversations/2011/04/15/for-the-privileged-ones-moving-on/

Published: October 28, 2011 16:21 by Anna

I just wanted to say a huge thanks to NA for taking all that energy/time to write the original post, and then try so hard to constructively explain what I see as a completely reasonable set of ideas to other people, eg. Charlie. The basic fundamentals of understanding and accepting the privilege that each person has, in terms of education, class, wealth, access, ability, health, gender, sexual orientation AND race/colour, are what I see as the first step to an anti-oppression politic. How can we go on spouting rhetoric about egalitarianism and shedding hierarchy, without acknowledging existing inequalities in the first place? This discussion about whether it applies to the UK or not is superfluous. Every person has their own set of privileges to analyse in order to work positively from said perspective. This has nothing to do with guilt. Guilt is a natural response, and the quicker people overcome the paralysis of guilt, the more effective they can be at becoming allies.

Charlie, it was quite frustrating for me reading your posts, because you showed you were quick to comment, without giving time to reading (Peggy McIntosh's list is definitely very relevant to those in the UK!) or considering NA's perspective with more care.
I hope you can take the time to consider mine.

Published: October 28, 2011 18:25 by Rasta

I haven't read through all the comments, nor was I at the bookfair to have any direct experience of it, but some people's comments clearly show that they don't even begin to get what the concept of "white privilege" is getting at. It seems people are having a knee jerk reaction to the word "privilege" thinking it implies that you were born being fed from golden spoons and live in a palace. It is implying no such thing. It's just stating the blatantly obvious (to me anyway) fact that the social construct of "race" is part of the hierarchical nature of society, along with economic class, gender and other factors. Stott and similar-minded people seem to saying that, because "race" is not quite so much, or so obviously, a dominant factor in U.K. society as in some other societies, it is not important at all; only class matters and everything else is fluffy "identity politics" (although these criticisers of "identity politics" often seem to paradoxically embrace an "english" identity, whatever the hell that means). That is, to use one of Stott's favourite words, "nonsense". The concept of "white privilege" is not saying that Trevor McDonald is "more oppressed" than a homeless destitute white person sleeping on the streets. It is saying that, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, Trevor McDonald is likely to get more shit thrown at him in his life than a white person of a similar economic, educational etc. background; and that a homeless destitute black person sleeping on the streets is likely to get that little bit more shit thrown at him in his life than the homeless destitute white person. True, the UK is not Mississippi, Australia, South Africa or Palestine/"Israel"; at least in the urban multi cultural areas like large parts of London there is, in my experience, less overt personal racism than exists in societies that have apartheid-style racial/ethnic classifications built into them historically. That certainly doesn't mean that racism isn't an important issue to consider; of course it is! the system of white supremacy is as universal as the system of capitalism and male supremacy. It may apply differently in different places but it does apply everywhere you go (definitely including majority black/brown countries where it manifests as internalized self hatred and skin colour discrimination where the minority of lighter skinned and/or mixed race people like myself tend to be accorded higher status than the majority of darker skinned people). To live in a society where black people are 8 times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people (across class, gender etc) and say that racism is a moot point that doesn't need to be discussed is just rubbish. And fuh chrissake - having a black partner and mixed race kids does NOT automatically make you an expert on racism. I'm a mixed race kid and it's me who grew up being called "nigger" every god damn day in school when we moved from a majority black environment to a majority white one - me, not my white parent, who didn't even know about that cos I was embarrassed to tell my parents - you know how kids don't like to be seen to be begging parents for help in front of their peers. btw another manifestation of white privilege internationally is that (*all other things being equal - are you getting that, simple minded people out there?) a white person will tend to get better treatment not just from their "fellow" white people in majority white countries but also from black people in majority black countries. Anyone who's seen shopkeepers in the caribbean sucking up to white tourists whilst treating their countrymen/women with barely disguised contempt will know what I'm talking about!
btw Internationalist, whilst no BNP supporter, is definitely racist in my view even though he would vehemently deny it and I'm sure does not realise it. It's been clear to me since I started interacting with him on first Ian Bone's and then Stott's blog, which is why some of the language I use to him on there might seem extreme to people who haven't been following our discussions from the beginning. Doctrinaire 19th century type marxists like him who view societies on some fictional evolutionary continuum where "1st world" industrialized nations are inherently more "advanced" than "3rd world" nations (to the extent that he appears to think that 21st century Guyana is somehow equivalent to early-19th century worcestershire) are just as much enemies as capitalist exploiters in my view. They both look on us as primitive "undeveloped" people whose role is to follow - whether to follow orders from a capitalist boss or from a self proclaimed proletarian vanguard of "the revolution".

Published: October 30, 2011 23:38 by Old Woman

Read thru whole thread (but not most of the 'improving' literature, sorry) and beautifully well argued all the points!

But but but we've been thru all this navel-gazing schtick for donkeys years and we're no nearer to ... well ... anything.

I remember going to anarchist conferences twenty odd years ago and being made to feel guilty for being white, guilty for being middle class [sic] and, oh yes, a victim for being a woman.

What a waste of time. Where has it got us?

Meanwhile the rest of the world moves on ... while we're all a-debating about "white privilege" "cock privilege" and whatever, we're all getting royally screwed, whatever our race, gender or sexuality!

By the time we actually get out there and listen to the rest of ordinary folks it'll be too f'ing late.

Published: October 31, 2011 14:01 by romanticanarchist

I think that it's important for people who call themselves anarchists to reflect upon how and why they do what they do. That's part of what the Bookfair is all about. If doing that makes anarchists feel a bit 'guilty' then maybe they're a pretty fragile bunch - maybe further help needs to be sought??? Obviously, if theory and discussion starts to replace direct action, then it all becomes pretty pointless anyway, doesn't it? But what really irritates me is all of these white/middle class/males trying to set the parameters of how other people should respond to their own oppression. They're like shit in a field...

Published: October 31, 2011 14:08 by Unimpressed

It is depressing but not surprising to see white people lining up to defend their privilege and call for race to be swept under the carpet once again.

The only substantial objection here seems to be that white people feel guilty when the issue of race gets brought up. This is deemed to be far more important than the silencing and margnialisation of the views of people of colour and so we should all "get out there and listen to the rest of ordinary folks", "stop putting people's backs up", stop making people feel like "an oppressor", stop "guilt tripping".

This is just bullshit and shows what a white dominated movement we're in.