No, this is just silliness. It would be very dangerous (as they claim our whole structure of the society is racist, which means to combat racism we need to destroy it and rebuild anew, along the lines prescribed by these guys - and every attempt I know to do this in history ended in disaster) if anybody would take them seriously, but I don't think anybody does.
Where did any statement like "our whole structure of the society is racist" appear? What attempts are you referring to? Noel Ignatiev is still stationed as a professor at a university, as are many of his colleagues in the same vein of thought like David R. Roediger.
This statement does not appear exactly as such, but if you read the article, that is the conclusion you would make. It is a useful habit - thinking about texts you read and not just picking direct quotes. I highly recommend trying it.
>> What attempts are you referring to?
Attempts to reform societies from ground up according to abstract "fairness" principles, such as Bolshevik revolution in Russia, Cultural Revolution in China, etc. They did not end well.
>>> Noel Ignatiev is still stationed as a professor at a university
Which means the only harm he could do is inflicted on his students, who should have known better than enrolling in his courses. Which is fine with me.
That's not the conclusion I made at all, mostly because "our whole structure of the society is racist" doesn't mean much to me, or Ignatiev, someone who has criticized the unilateral use of the word "racist" as a stand-in for actual discussion of specific sociological phenomena and conditions. Ignatiev calls for a destruction of whiteness as he frames whiteness; where does he talk about what "society" should be like after? He seems explicitly against "reform".
Your last line indicates that you already have a staked-out emotional attitude, so I'm more writing this for anyone watching than to actually try to have discourse with you.
Just as the capitalist system is not a capitalist plot, so racial oppression is not the work of "racists." It is maintained by the principal institutions of society
etc. etc. If you would nitpick that I said "racist" but he says "racial oppression" - OK, I'm fine with changing it as "our whole structure of the society is racially oppressive", doesn't change the main point.
>>> where does he talk about what "society" should be like after
I don't think many Marxists every had clear vision of that, and it is certain it never came to look like they envisioned, however vaguely. The society Ignatiev strives for has no "white privilege", but it means as much as "communism" would mean for somebody in 1917 - a dream, no more. In any society where inequality exists one could attribute "privilege" to those who are better off, and you could call them "white". So I would have hard time describing the society where it is not possible - but I'm pretty certain it would have little to do with what we have now.
>>> so I'm more writing this for anyone watching than to actually try to have discourse with you.
I'm sorry my low esteem for Ignatiev offends you. You do not have to suffer the indignity of debating opposing opinion, of course. Ignoring unpleasant opinions is always an option.
