I have two points to make. They were supposed to be super short, but I got carried away.

1) Are Discussions of Classism Really Less Alienating? I think that, in this thread, there is an accepted assumption that condemning oppressive policies along the lines of class rather than race is less alienating to dominant groups and, as a result, provides an increased opportunity for collaboration between privileged people and underprivileged people. I don't agree.

Let's tweak Kipp's scenario: what if, that night at the event, instead of a glorified janitor, Kipp was a trustfund baby, albeit equally as down for the cause as the real Kipp. What if the speaker had instead disparaged all rich people as greedy and oppressive? I'm not sure that rich-Kipp would have felt any less alienated or unfairly stereotyped. I guess my point is that I am not convinced that there is a 'unifying' way to speak about oppression in the presence of people that are members of oppressive groups. While real-Kipp wouldn't have been as offended by the substitution of wealth for whiteness in that scenario, that has everything to do with the fact that he does not see himself as rich.

I think that the idea that talking about bad policies in terms of class is any less divisive than talking about these issues in terms of race is refuted by the political reactions that we've seen to the Occupy Wallstreet Movement (remember all that talk about 'class warfare'?). No one ever wants to be the bad guy whether he is characterized as such by the fact that he is rich or white.

Anyway, maybe I'm being unimaginative, but I can't think of a way to talk about racism (better expressed White Supremacy) or classism (better expressed Aristocracy) in a way that is not divisive, and doesn't run the risk of alienating Kipps--which brings to me to my next point:

2) Why Assume that the Most Productive Discussions are the Least Divisive Ones? First, let me say that in terms of healing racist feelings, I agree that unity between members of privileged and underprivileged groups is definitely the answer. To heal feelings of animosity and prejudice you need integration, social interaction, and dialogue.

However, I felt that--and I hope I'm not mischaracterizing you guys because it's hard to figure out which racism we're talking about (psychological or structural)--this discussion contained the assumption that the best (or most likely successful) way to fight White Supremacy or Aristocracy is "unity" between oppressive groups and oppressed groups. I don't think that the assumption that social change is catalyzed in this way is supported by history. I think that the majority of revolutions (or shifts in socioeconomic power) have necessitated, first and foremost, unity within the oppressed group.

Such unity is power. We can see evidence of this in recent American history. The Civil Rights Movement and the strides in social and economic policy that we see today were catalyzed by the unification of people of color both internationally and domestically. The result was integration, but the impetus was power. The boycotts, the riots, the marches--were all demonstrations of unified power that the American government responded to.

In conclusion... The sum of my two points is this: I think that sometimes the means for the necessary unification of underprivileged people will result in divisions along the lines of oppressed and privileged groups. If you are a member of a privileged group that is down for the cause, sometimes this unification will be at your expense. In saying that, I don't want to discount or silence justifiable feelings of alienation. I agree that on an individual level, sweeping characterizations are totally unfair. However, I do think most would agree that the success of the cause is bigger than you.

-- GechiNzewi - 12 Apr 2012