Why are parts of the left like this? Seemingly caring more about courting the psychopath incel who wants a white ethnostate rather than stand in solidarity and antiracism with POC?

i always get disgusted and disillusioned when i come upon it

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] _pi@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Okay, so Fanon talks about how white French nationals were able to smuggle guns to Algerian patriots because the French colonial police wouldn’t search their belongings. That’s a concrete example of what “betray” meant in that context.

Cool, what does a concrete example of "betray" look like for Amerikkka and why does it matter. Fanon's work cannot even be simply applied to Algeria anymore because the context is so different.

Once a white French national understood the Algerian struggle (or was made to understand it) they disposed of racialized colonial paternalism and, in effect, become Algerian. That’s where our agitation comes in within our own settler-colonial context.

Okay so, I'm again frustrated by the lack of everything except reading Fanon back to me. The most charitable case I can make here for how this applies to Amerikkka, is you're going to claim that there are and there are Amerikkkans and you're going to explain to Amerikkkans how they need to be .

This is the strategy of the Lincoln Project.

But I do think that we can’t have a workers’ struggle until the settler-colonial situation is dealt with.

The problem here is that ultimately this is the same struggle with different rhymes. "dealing" with settler-colonialism is actually an even more difficult struggle because the workers struggle is postmodernist (e.g. workers are a newly manufactured unified people, the proletariat) in nature where the settler-colonial struggle is modernist because it must deal with a moralistic re-alignment of a caste system of preexisting peoples.

In fact Fanon is much more loosey goosey with this shit than Maoist Thirdworldism is because under Maoist Thirdworldism there is no "becoming Algerian" there is no permanent alliance based on culture/ethnicity. Even the JDPON is not a permanent alliance because material reality and the advance of a Thirdworldist may disqualify people previously in the JDPON from continuing to be in the JDPON, and through the uplift the society must peacefully transcend the JDPON without recreating the need for it again in order to actually achieve communism.

Not only that but you'll find it really hard to explain to your average Amerifat how they're settler colonists in 2024 without them saying "Get away from me weirdo".

Lastly in general one of the reasons that I do not really think a whole lot about "settler colonialism" focused work is because it's incredibly hard to apply it to the modern world. Fanon talks about colonialism and the Algerian revolution. Algeria cast off colonialism in 1962 a year after Fanon's death. In 2 years Sartre releases Colonialism and Neocolonialism (prefaced by Wretched of the Earth) a book explaining how the systems of colonial control in Algeria were reimposed through the market created a new system of neocolonialism.

The abstraction of these problems into market problems inherent changes the equation because there's no "people" to fight. There's no French Colonist to turn into an Algerian.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 26 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Cool, what does a concrete example of “betray” look like for Amerikkka and why does it matter.

Nice try FBI.

Kidding. But seriously, I think I was pretty clear about what it takes for crackkkers to become traitors to the settler-colonial project.

Okay so, I’m again frustrated by the lack of anything except reading Fanon back to me. The most charitable case I can make here for how this applies to Amerikkka, is you’re going to claim that there are and there are Amerikkkans and you’re going to explain to Amerikkkans how they need to be .

There are internally colonized peoples within the US who have been racialized as an inferior caste and there are whites that have benefited from that colonization and racialization, but have no actual historical or material understanding of their own place within settler-colonialism.

Unless a cracker is a direct agent or beneficiary of colonialism, a cop or finance bro or some shit, they can actually be made to understand the colonial situation.

And it's happening. Whites in the US are awakening to the colonial situation in Israel, and that's not far removed from awakening to the colonial situation in the US.

In fact Fanon is much more loosey goosey with this shit than Maoist Thirdworldism is because under Maoist Thirdworldism there is no “becoming Algerian” there is no permanent alliance based on culture/ethnicity.

There is no permanent alliance when settlers are nationalized either, this only makes sense in the stage of the struggle against colonialism. This is merely the recognition of the primary contradiction and the struggle against it, and once the colonial situation is dealt with the situation changes. Mao had the same position.

The problem here is that ultimately this is the same struggle with different rhymes. “dealing” with settler-colonialism is actually an even more difficult struggle because the workers struggle is postmodernist (e.g. workers are a newly manufactured unified people, the proletariat) in nature where the settler-colonial struggle is modernist because it must deal with a moralistic re-alignment of a caste system of preexisting peoples.

Do you think settlers aren't a manufactured unified people? Racialization into castes is a project of settler-colonialism, it's not a preexisting part of society that must be realigned and it's certainly not moralist. That's why a settler can betray colonialism and become Algerian in the national struggle.

You can't build a workers' movement until you deal with the contradictions between colonized and colonizers, because white workers will work against the international workers' movement for their own special interests. A union that shuts down the ports for all commercial traffic except for Israel is a fucking problem, because colonized people see that shit and conclude union isn't for them.

Not only that but you’ll find it really hard to explain to your average Amerifat how they’re settler colonists in 2024 without them saying “Get away from me weirdo”.

That's why you heighten the contradictions and make the reality of colonial conflict an unavoidable and undeniable reality. Again, Israel is doing the hard work for us. It is making the contradictions easy for everyone to see. Our job is to agitate and stop Zionists from obscuring or occluding the contradictions again.

It's why I'm not pessimistic.

[–] sweet_pecan@hexbear.net 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

this should be an effort post

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago

Gosh I just listen to audiobooks at work 😅

[–] Murple_27@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

There are internally colonized peoples within the US who have been racialized as an inferior caste and there are whites that have benefited from that colonization and racialization, but have no actual historical or material understanding of their own place within settler-colonialism.

Unless a cracker is a direct agent or beneficiary of colonialism, a cop or some shit, they can actually be made to understand the colonial situation.

And it’s happening. Whites in the US are awakening to the colonial situation in Israel, and that’s not far removed from awakening to the colonial situation in the US.

Different person here, but I have my own issues with what you're arguing about here.

My main point of contention with this whole line of reasoning, is that I don't think that they United States actually properly qualifies as a Settler-Colony anymore. That isn't an argument against the existence of a racialized hierarchy within the US, but specifically what I'm getting at is that the material circumstances of Israel & America are not comparable in 2024.

The United States is the world financial-capital hegemon, it is a wholly independent & (potentially) self-sufficient nation-state. It does not have a Metropole that it relies on to guarantee it's security, or that it has to funnel imperial super-profits to, in 2024 the United States is THE Metropole. It also does not have the national composition of the kinds of countries in which Fanonist Anti-Colonial struggles were applicable & successful; but which does exist in Israel.

In the United States the people who make up the descendants of Settlers comprises the absolute majority of the population, and likely also the majority of the proletariat (if only narrowly) as a consequence. Of those people who are not the descendants of Settlers, they are also themselves, for the most-part, not indigenous to the territory either. They do not have pre-extant social structures, or a genuinely solid national identity independent of the existing Settler state to draw from when trying to resist it.

The single largest non-white ethnic group in the country are African-Americans/ADOS people; who are both a highly dispersed diaspora population that do not make up a majority of most of the places that they live in, and who's identity while hostile to the current US State (for very good reason) doesn't generally have a strong articulation towards forming any kind of alternate independent State. Most of the other remaining "Non-Settler" Americans are primarily immigrants of one-form-or-another who are not actually here to try to supplant the existing American State or nation. They would be broadly willing to integrate into the US as it currently exists if they were actually allowed to. Of the remaining actually indigenous population of the country, they consist of somewhere between 1-2% of the population of the entire country, and they struggle to retain even a semblance of autonomy on the insultingly limited reservation land that they have been granted.

Ultimately what I'm getting at here is that there is no real evidence that the strategies of Fanonist Anti-Colonial resistance have any actual material applicability to the United States in the way that they do for Israel; regardless of their ostensible common origin as Settler-Colonies, largely because the modern US has developed past the point that it can even be described as a Colony in the first place.

[–] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 9 points 1 week ago

Do you think there could be a colonial relation that exists across the US spatially? You claim Black people are very dispersed across the US but within a city, there generally is a segregation that places them on one side while settlers are on another. I definitely agree that the Colony as Fanon described it doesn't map 1:1 to the US, but there is still a spatial separation between a settler group and a colonized group which could form the basis for anti-colonial struggle.

[–] frauddogg@hexbear.net 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Just because the crackers have infested the land from sea to sea over generations doesn't mean they're not still settlers to this day. As long as there's still even one unhonored treaty, as long as there's still even one unreparated subject of empire, Native or Black, these crackers are still settlers and I will not hear a counter to this point. Settlerism is an ongoing, eternal process until the settler is removed, like a splinter from the skin-- it doesn't end just because a couple generations went by.

You might as well be preaching for those colonized by crackers to "just lay down and let them finish what they started since we're so outnumbered". I hope you understand why I spit on that take.