Why Abolitionists Are Not Anti-Racists

[Ricardo Fuego]

Why Abolitionists Are Not Anti-Racists
by Chris Niles, Editor


Abolitionism is not synonymous with anti-racism. Indeed, the theoretical and practical differences between abolitionism and anti-racism are, to say the least, critical.

Over the years, various abolitionists have taken care to elucidate and qualify those differences. Yet, many people, from academics to activists, continue to conflate the two traditions. This situation needs to be rectified. So I'm going to attempt, as briefly and as clearly as possible, to distinguish abolitionism from anti-racism.

In order to understand anti-racism, one obviously must have a clear understanding of what "racism" is. Here's how the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it: "a belief that some races are by nature superior to others; discrimination based on such a belief."

This definition is similar to any that you might find in any other dictionary in any other language. But there is one very serious problem here: against all scientific knowledge and common sense, this definition of racism clearly assumes that there are such things as biologically identifiable races. That is, the term racism implies that there is not one human race but a plurality of races - a "white race," a "black race," a "yellow race," a "red race," etc.

Immediately, we can see that anti-racists have a very serious problem: They do not perceive race as a fiction. Since they do not clearly perceive race as a fiction, they cannot clearly perceive the forces that made the creation of the fiction "necessary" in the first place. Since they do not clearly perceive the forces that made the creation of the fiction "necessary" in the first place, they cannot ascertain how that fiction is maintained. If they cannot ascertain how that fiction is maintained, then they cannot precisely determine the central role that the fiction of race plays in reinforcing entrenched, authoritarian power. If they cannot precisely determine the central role that the fiction of race plays in reinforcing entrenched, authoritarian power, then their ability to develop effective strategies and tactics to challenge that power is seriously diminished. If their ability to develop effective strategies and tactics to challenge that power is seriously diminished, then so is any hope of changing this society, much less building a new world.

Abolitionists, on the other hand, do perceive race as a fiction. We believe that the so-called white race is a uniquely destructive social construct that emerged from the material and psychological "requirements" of the international slave trade and plantation slavery, and that the "white race" is the raison d'etre for racial mythology. We believe that it is not "racists" (or "racism") but the behavior of "white people" - white as in "race," not skin color - that is the root of the world's greatest evils for the last 500 years.

Abolitionists believe that to not see the creation of the white race is to not see history clearly. To not see history clearly is to repeat it in one dreary form or another. We are not interested in fighting for "racial justice" because we believe that such a thing is, by definition, impossible and, hence, absurd. For similar reasons, you will not find abolitionists working to build a "multi-racial" movement or advocating "racial harmony." Abolitionists believe that the only way to for humanity to liberate itself from the deadly logic of race is to abolish the white race. Not to eliminate racism but to abolish the white race. Not to attack racists but to attack the white race. Not to deconstruct the white race but to destroy the white race. Not to create safe spaces for white people to contemplate their guilt or complicity with evil but to expose the relative privileges, entitlements and power available to members of the white race.

We also believe that the abolition of the "white race" is central to any struggle against capitalism, patriarchy, ecological degradation, homophobia, etc. Any movement that claims to be doing the "Lord's work" but fails to highlight the need for the abolition of the white race may win some temporary victories, but in the long term is it is doomed. Some might protest that there are certainly people who identify as anti-racist who understand that race is a social construct. True enough. But to see race as a social construct while continuing to use the language of anti-racism is confusing, not to mention unnecessary. For example, the other day a friend of mine who is sympathetic to abolitionism called Jefferson a "fucking racist." I objected to her characterization of "our" third president and pointed out that "Jefferson was not a fucking racist but a fucking white man." Indeed, in many of his writings, Jefferson waxed eloquent about how wonderful it was to be a member of the superior white race. He was not a racist but a white romantic, and, of course, an unabashed white supremacist. By calling Jefferson a racist, my friend both naturalized Jefferson's white racial identity and called Jefferson out of his name, so to speak. She asked for more examples of what I meant so I gave them: American slavery was maintained in the interests of white people, not racists; Andrew Jackson did not break 132 treaties with various Native American tribes to advance the interests of racists but those of white people; President McKinley did not conquer the Philippines for the greater glory of the racists but for the white race; agents of the British Empire saw themselves acting in the interests of the queen and the white race, not the racists; the signs in the segregated South did not read "Racists Only," they read, "Whites Only"; when a neighborhood is gentrified, white people move in, not racists; Trent Lott, Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and Jerry Brown are not racists but self-identified white men, each who, in a more or less conscious way, are working for the interests of white people.

In short, the language of anti-racism has dulled our sense of history to the point that we forget that most white people, be they politicians or paupers, have to one degree or another seen themselves as unproblematically white and acted, more or less overtly, more or less consciously, in the interest of the white race, not, it must be emphasized, in the interests of racists or racism.

At the New Abolitionist, we do not believe that the language of anti-racism is adequate to the politics of abolitionism, not to mention securing the deepest understanding possible of the political, social and economic history of race. So, we've developed some new language:

First, the term racism, besides the problems noted above, has spawned all kinds of wacky, misleading constructs, e.g. "white racism," (implying that Black people can be racist, too, thereby missing the whole point of race), "reverse-racism" (implying that Black people's nasty attitudes towards whites is socially, politically or economically equivalent to white people's nasty attitudes toward Blacks), or "in-house racism" (implying that people who are racially assigned as black can be racist to one another). Instead, the New Abolitionist will use the term "whiteism" (first coined by Malcolm X) which we believe speaks much more precisely to the destructive logic that is "white" people. We will also use the term "whiteness" to refer to the expression of that logic, that is, any behavior that can be characterized as protecting or benefiting the white race.

Second, instead of characterizing white people or their politics and behavior as "racist" we will identify white people as simply "white" - a slanderous-enough term, we think - and the politics and behavior of white people as "whitist," pro-white, anti-Black, etc.

Third, since there is no evidence that we live in anything close to a democracy (democracy being what I consider, maybe erroneously, roughly equivalent to a society of freely associated human beings) but plenty of evidence that we live in a society that continues to benefit white people quite disproportionately, we shall frequently refer to this nation (and other nations where white rule is more or less central to the nations political and social economy) as a "whiteocracy."

Thank you for subscribing to or picking up the "new look" New Abolitionist. We hope that you find this publication challenging and inspiring.

http://www.racetraitor.org/antiracist.html

[birthday pony]

I agree, for the most part. I understand why abolitionist is a more suitable title. I don't think anti-racists necessarily perceive race as real though.

PS I didn't read the whole thing.