Black nationalism

I was just wondering what our thoughts are on black nationalism and how it could or couldn't be useful to a left-wing nationalist movement. A problem presents itself when we see that class is hardly the main topic of discussion when speaking of revolution within many (if any at all) of these groups. It is also worrying how many of them seem to desire living in the shadow of the furthest corner of the earth, hidden away from the evil energies of the white devil.

The problems with black nationalism are the same as with white nationalism.

I reject racial nationalism as a viable and ethical ideology. Now, I harbor a considerable amount of sympathy for the old black power movements, such as the Black Panther Party, which sought to combat racial oppression, but I do not support contemporary expressions of racial chauvinism, which include white and black nationalist currents.

I also reject racial chauvinism, but even if that could somehow be thrown to the side I don't think they would necessarily oppose a left-wing nationalist movement. Going into battle with people like that around wouldn't change anything after a revolution as they would likely still hold their racist/segregationist opinions.

I too reject racial nationalism. The national question will not be solved in the United States (or anywhere else) by simply demarcating territories along racial lines. There are certain individuals for whom no standard racial category applies, and many people just wouldn't stand for such a policy. I presume that we're all in agreement with the notion that the only just manner by which to solve the national question is democratic; and if addressed democratically, I don't believe racialist sentiments pervade throughout the working class to the extent that there would be enough support for the formation of rigid ethnostates.

Nevertheless, I am in agreement with Harry Haywood's 1948 thesis in Negro Liberation—still espoused by black Marxists like Nelson Peery—that African-Americans constitute a legitimate nationality unto themselves. How they choose to express their nationhood (e.g., self-determination for the Black Belt region or national personal autonomy) is a matter for them to determine, in negotiation with the wider community following the revolution.

Black nationalism is reactionary, though obviously less dangerous as WN because black people are a minority here and can not carry out systematic oppression or genocide.

Basically msot black nationalism did not come out of visions of superiority or black supremacy but rather were reactions to slavery, colonialism, neo colonialism and white supremacy, the good amongst the black nationalists soon dropped the reactionary politics and became revolutionary, though from my Anarchist POV still reactionary in a statist authoritarian sense.

Huey Newton
Malcolm X
Frantz Fanon

Are examples of people oppressed by white supremacist governments and started as black nationalists but became more socialist with anti capitalist and proletarian politics.

Anyone who says WN and BN are the same is being disingenuous at best and racist at worst.

From the whitest man on the planet.

SalfordAnarchist

Just because it doesn't have as much power as the WN movement, the BN movement shouldn't be free from or experience less criticism. I don't care if you're ". . . the whitest man on the planet." That doesn't make any difference in whether or not BN is reactionary or racist. I've read plenty of black superiority articles and historical bs.

Can you show me one of these articles, because BN is not the same political ideology as WN just with the opposite colour, it is a totally different political persuasion.

Black nationalism was about self determination for a black community, dominated by a white minority, not about racial purity or race or nation like WN but rather about self determination and fighting the unemployment, housing, lynching, colonialism and daily discrimination most black people faced in the US and in the homelands.

saying the two are anything alike is just a blatant lie.

Saying that do i support black nationalism? No, do i see it as the same as WN, no because it is nothing like it.

SalfordAnarchist.

Red Aegis wrote:Just because it doesn't have as much power as the WN movement, the BN movement shouldn't be free from or experience less criticism. I don't care if you're ". . . the whitest man on the planet." That doesn't make any difference in whether or not BN is reactionary or racist. I've read plenty of black superiority articles and historical bs.

Care to respond to any actual points?

SalfordAnarchist

SalfordAnarchist wrote:Can you show me one of these articles, because BN is not the same political ideology as WN just with the opposite colour, it is a totally different political persuasion.

Black nationalism is a heterogeneous ideology. Some black nationalist groups (e.g., the Black Panthers) indeed eschew racial supremacism and even separatism, but there are also quite a few explicitly racist black nationalist organizations in existence. For example,

The New "Black Panther" Party (Khalid Muhammad):


Afrikan Liberation Philosophy (Kamau Kambon):


Black Israelites:

Saying that do i support black nationalism? No, do i see it as the same as WN, no because it is nothing like it.

As evidenced above, some of them are ideologically indistinguishable from neo-Nazi organizations.

Again even them, are they coming from a place where their race is dominating another and has state power or are they coming from a place where they are systematically oppressed for the colour of their skin?

Their politics might be disgusting, however I think your being a bit false if you act like they come from the same place as a neo nazi.

SalfordAnarchist wrote:Again even them, are they coming from a place where their race is dominating another and has state power or are they coming from a place where they are systematically oppressed for the colour of their skin?

Their politics might be disgusting, however I think your being a bit false if you act like they come from the same place as a neo nazi.

There is a legitimate parallel in the extreme racism advocated by the aforementioned black nationalist organizations and neo-Nazis. Recall that you wrote, "Black nationalism was about self determination for a black community, dominated by a white minority, not about racial purity or race or nation like WN." That is incorrect, as I demonstrated in my previous post.

As for 'racial domination,' that's nonsense. We are dominated by capital, not a cabal of white racists. The reason black people are suffering at a disproportionate rate today is primarily attributable to the impoverished environments they're raised in and the culture of poverty they inherited after slavery. Institutions discriminate against them because, statistically speaking, they are more prone to criminal, and generally undesirable, behavior—where racists err is in attributing this to their genetic endowment. Innocent black people are obviously affected by this system of discrimination, but that's unavoidable given the manner by which institutions operate. Notice that Chinese, Japanese, and Korean immigrants are thriving throughout North America and Europe despite the racial barrier; if a racist agenda was being pursued from the top-down, this wouldn't occur.

I actually agree with your post mate, however the bit where we differ is, while we are dominated by a ruling class, most of the third world remains dominated by white rich western businessmen and a settler class in many instances.

And you are totally right and this is where we distinguish ourselves from liberals, white men are not the problem or the reactionary force in society but there is another aspect to oppression you are not being totally truthful about.

Look at housing conditions, crime rates, incarceration lengths for a white and black man convicted of the same crime, police presence, stop and searches, unemployment, you can clearly see a divide not based on class but on racial supremacism.

Go to a football match and you will likely hear a national or racist pun aimed at a player.

In a lot of places people are hounded because of their dress being middle eastern, refusal to serve people and so on, it is rampant.

To deny that racial oppression is a big problem is a lie, I have been walking down the street and heard white people refer to the family down the street as niggers and apes, it is so fucking prevalent in society.

A shining example is white people saying everyone should stop going on about the Steven Lawrence case, white people are murdered all the time and no one goes on about that!

And when you explain it is different because it was racially motivated they say there are tonnes of racially motivated black on white murders too, but can never give me examples.

Hell even anti Irish rhetoric, it is really bad in some places in the south, violently so and I stand up against that the same as I do for immigrants and black British people, I do however hate identity politics and liberals making everything racial and taking away from a class analysis, I just recognise the racial oppression too.

SalfordAnarchist

SalfordAnarchist wrote:Again even them, are they coming from a place where their race is dominating another and has state power or are they coming from a place where they are systematically oppressed for the colour of their skin?

Their politics might be disgusting, however I think your being a bit false if you act like they come from the same place as a neo nazi.

Who cares if they "come from the same place" or not? I don't give a self-righteous fuck about why someone would want to kill me unless I could do something about it and dialogue probably wouldn't help. The same goes for Nazis. What are you trying to do in this thread exactly?

Several people have already indicated that they simply don't like race-based politics and you went on a holier-than-thou, quasi-liberal rant that had the general tone of, "it's okay since their ancestors were slaves and they still have a hard time." No one here is saying that every BN is the same as every WN, just as there are many types of WN. What people here are saying is that some BN are the same as the worst WN and the proof is shown above.

In your post after the one that I quoted you criticised liberals for their tendency for white-guilt and immediately went into how many businessmen are white; indicating that their actions reflect on the legitimacy WN or BN. Some people are racist, even many people. This is a problem for all races, so stop trying to justify BN because some whites are assholes.

SalfordAnarchist wrote:Look at housing conditions, crime rates, incarceration lengths for a white and black man convicted of the same crime, police presence, stop and searches, unemployment, you can clearly see a divide not based on class but on racial supremacism.

That there is a racial bias in the criminal justice system is undeniable. However, the racial disparity in the rate of criminal behavior isn't solely a result of black individuals being wrongfully arrested; they are actually committing crimes at a rate higher than other racial groups. The disproportionate amount of frisking and searches certain races undergo is merely an epiphenomenon of aggregate crime rates—e.g., a black man is more likely to be searched than a mestizo, who is more likely to be searched than a Caucasian, who is more likely to be searched than an East Asian.

Go to a football match and you will likely hear a national or racist pun aimed at a player.

In a lot of places people are hounded because of their dress being middle eastern, refusal to serve people and so on, it is rampant.

Indeed. But if you're a Caucasian living in a majority black neighborhood, for instance, you will experience much the same harassment. There is a lot of resentment between races, which derives from economic competition and a history of abuse and injustice.

To deny that racial oppression is a big problem is a lie, I have been walking down the street and heard white people refer to the family down the street as niggers and apes, it is so fucking prevalent in society.

I've never denied that racial discrimination is rampant in society, I've only argued against the notion of it being a state-sanctioned policy.

And when you explain it is different because it was racially motivated they say there are tonnes of racially motivated black on white murders too, but can never give me examples.

In the United States, according to the FBI's 2009 hate crime statistics, "16.5 percent were victims because of an anti-white bias." This obviously pales in comparison to the 71.5% of victims who were targeted for being black, but minorities who assault Caucasians explicitly over their race are seldom charged with hate crimes. For example, my best friend was murdered by a gang of mestizo and black youths when he was 19, and while it's impossible to know if race was a factor in their decision to target him, I think it's a strong possibility. I realize this is also anecdotal, but I've witnessed dozens of fights over the years in which minorities attacked Caucasians over their race and yet weren't charged with a hate crime.

I do however hate identity politics and liberals making everything racial and taking away from a class analysis, I just recognise the racial oppression too.

I understand.

Why do more people commit crime, maybe because of conditions, where did your scientific analysis go?

SalfordAnarchist

SalfordAnarchist wrote:Why do more people commit crime, maybe because of conditions, where did your scientific analysis go?

I've emphasized that fact throughout our exchange, have you not been paying attention? If you'd like to get specific, we can discuss the myriad environmental factors which hinder cognitive development and increase impulsivity, thereby increasing the likelihood of committing crimes (lead exposure, nutritional deficiencies, fetal conditions in utero, etc.). I assure you that I've researched this subject extensively over the years, and I frequently draw upon that research in order to provide concrete explanations for why racial disparities in crime rates exist.

Celtiberian wrote:I've emphasized that fact throughout our exchange, have you not been paying attention? If you'd like to get specific, we can discuss the myriad environmental factors which hinder cognitive development and increase impulsivity, thereby increasing the likelihood of committing crimes (lead exposure, nutritional deficiencies, fetal conditions in utero, etc.). I assure you that I've researched this subject extensively over the years, and I frequently draw upon that research in order to provide concrete explanations for why racial disparities in crime rates exist.

Was just making sure, always good to know where the other person is coming from, you did not expand on the reason, which I think is the key factor to distinguish what your saying from what a racist would say. Was not implying anything matey.

SlfordAnarchist

I think black nationalism, along with any other racial nationalism, can be a very positive force. Unfortunately, it has been implemented incorrectly by all races more often than not.

There are 2 major problems with blanketed racial nationalism:
1. It ends up superseding specific nationalism. Just because someone shares your skin color does not mean his national ethics, ideals, and culture will be those of your own. This leads to the watering down of specific cultures within an ethnic group and/or conflict among the national movement.
2. It leads to racial chauvinism to the point that fellow revolutionaries are unable to unite due to a difference in skin color.

However, I believe it vital that our unique racial characteristics be preserved. It is possible for people to be racial nationalists without exhibiting the negative aspects I stated. I for one could be considered a white nationalist (even though I wouldn't label myself as such) and I have been able to work fine with different revolutionaries from all racial backgrounds, even other racial nationalists.

I think if a group of people wish to preserve their racial character then they should be allowed to form autonomous communities or cantons that are racially homogeneous.

Both racial nationalism and multiculturalism have led to racial conflict and oppression. There has to be a balance and individual choice in the matter.

Why identify with race at all? I don't really see why it should matter to anyone.

It is natural to identify with one's race. People generally do instinctively, with or without knowing it. If no one places an importance on heritage, then peoples' cultures will be lost. If people do decide to mix with each other, then that is up to them. However, those that don't should be free to live free from multicultural influences.

easttnskin wrote:It is natural to identify with one's race. People generally do instinctively, with or without knowing it. If no one places an importance on heritage, then peoples' cultures will be lost. If people do decide to mix with each other, then that is up to them. However, those that don't should be free to live free from multicultural influences.

Race is not equivalent to culture. The norms and mores that you are brought up with or adopted have nothing to do with your genetic make-up. When you start saying that things are "instinctual" you must provide evidence for such a claim, but you cannot since all the examples that you could possibly use would be within the context of culture.

Firstly, I don't define race as just white, black, brown, etc. Whites are made up of multiple races, as are other races.

Where do you think these norms and mores originate? They come from millennias of a tribe's/race's history and ancestry to the point where it becomes ingrained in their national spirit. It is near impossible for a white man to fully adopt the culture of the Apaches because their culture does not come just from something that is taught, but from the spirit of their ancestors. Granted, some white men have been able to assimilate into American Indian tribes, but the exception only proves the rule.

The American Indians are a good example of the need for racial/tribal preservation. Imperialism coupled with multiculturalism has decimated their people to the point that within this century numerous tribes stand a real chance of extinction.

You still have not provided any reasoning for your statements, let alone evidence. Could you be more explicit in your response so that I can address your points?

easttnskin wrote:If people do decide to mix with each other, then that is up to them. However, those that don't should be free to live free from multicultural influences.

People already have the liberty to engage in or abstain from miscegenation, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who opposes that freedom of association. The notion that multiculturalism is responsible for exponentially increasing the rate of miscegenation is overstated (interracial relationships remain on the margins of society) and usually employed by white nationalists in order to foment ethnic tension (they begin by claiming 'white genocide' is being committed, and then typically attribute this to covert Jewish plots for world domination).

Firstly, I don't define race as just white, black, brown, etc. Whites are made up of multiple races, as are other races.

In that case, the term 'ethnicity' is more appropriate.

Where do you think these norms and mores originate? They come from millennias of a tribe's/race's history and ancestry to the point where it becomes ingrained in their national spirit.

Cultures are in a constant state of flux, so that is an erroneously view to take. No contemporary nation's culture is identical to that practiced by their ancestors. Even Basques, who have experienced an atypical degree of ethnocultural isolation, practice a culture which is distinct from that of their forebears'. I'm not suggesting that efforts shouldn't be taken to ensure certain cultural elements are preserved, but rather that we accept the reality of cultural transmission and allow the masses to democratically decide the manner by which citizenship is granted and their culture maintained.

As for the ethnic dimension of culture, unless you can empirically prove that each ethnic population is endowed with unique biological traits which manifest themselves in cultural mores, you're merely speculating. I assure you that if, for instance, a Prussian child was to be reared in Florence, Italy by Italian parents, he would display many of the mannerisms common to that region upon reaching adulthood.

It is near impossible for a white man to fully adopt the culture of the Apaches because their culture does not come just from something that is taught, but from the spirit of their ancestors. Granted, some white men have been able to assimilate into American Indian tribes, but the exception only proves the rule.

The reason Caucasians may experience difficulty assimilating into Apache society is because of the sordid history between the two populations. Apache's likely resent individuals who descend from the group which nearly annihilated their people attempting to join their community, and therefore treat them in more of a hostile manner than would otherwise be the case. Another factor may well be ethnic, in that they may fear an inclusive cultural policy would result in the Apache ethnicity becoming extinct. Much of this behavior is irrational, of course, but certainly doesn't represent a fundamental incompatibility between the "spirit" of both populations. Mysticism doesn't qualify as a valid hypothesis, in my opinion.