Jump to content
Moten121

White people and wilderson

Recommended Posts

Hi! I've heard there is some evidence out there about how white people shouldn't argue afropessimism/how that is a performative contradiction. I was wondering if anyone had anything on that and if they were willing to tell me about it.

 

Help a freshman! 

 

Thanks in advance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's in the Wilderson evidence the white kids themselves are reading; for instance say X teams reads a performative aff where they talk about gender issues, then the negative comes up and reads 1 off Wilderson and they start reading a bunch of evidence about how civil society is defined in opposition to black life, which renders it socially dead (as Wilderson extends on Fanon's "absolute dereliction"). If the white kids took the time to actually READ their evidence they'd see that Wilderson very well denounces pretty much all white activity as being anti-black, so a white kid coming up and talking about the suffering of black life is only done to get the judge to vote for them. The thing with Wilderson is that he's making a sort of meta-statement about the ontological underpinnings of Civil Society as being sustained by anti-blackness, as such everything is anti-black (so that Aff that curtails surveillance is necessarily anti-black because it's defined by the blackness that sustains it; this is a loose example, but Browne's new book on Surveillance can sort of help you understand how modern technologies of surveillance are developed thanks to the treatment of the slave in the plantation). 

 

This then means that the act of reading blackness as a critique when you're not black means that you're using the suffering of the black body as a means to propel your victories because it's very hard to win against Wilderson since the issues are ontological (literally just read Blackness isn't ontological and everything Wilderson is saying no longer has an impact, or rather can be solved by the State). Wilderson very well denounces the long history of groups saying "oh yeah we'll help black struggles, but will you help us first on this..." effectively footnoting blackness where it becomes something we never address.

 

The biggest issue is that Wilderson extrapolates on the fungibility of black life in an anti-black world; the slave-master was the one who decided when and where the slave died, functionally turning the slave into an object, or a commodity in Marxist terms. As such, the ability to use slaves as a commodity, as a tool for white life, is something that can be traced back to the plantation; and can manifest itself in debate rounds as white kids (the slave-master) reading blackness (the slave as a fungible commodity). 

 

Edit 1: Wilderson is speaking very specifically to black life; other groups such as Latinos and Asians can be blackened via the injection of blackness into their subjectivity but what separates those groups from black life is that those groups can resist against structures of oppression because they're not ontologically bound to the condition of blackness but merely afflicted by it; literally all they have to do is position themselves away from blackness. But this isn't possible for black life since they are born dead, born ontologically marked. White kids have never experienced this; think of it like a rich white kid protesting at UC Berkeley against capitalism from 11am - 5pm, then going back to their dorms but on the way back they stop at a McDonalds to order some food, then stop by the local market to buy some drinks; simply put, hypocrisy of the highest order. 

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's in the Wilderson evidence the white kids themselves are reading; for instance say X teams reads a performative aff where they talk about gender issues, then the negative comes up and reads 1 off Wilderson and they start reading a bunch of evidence about how civil society is defined in opposition to black life, which renders it socially dead (as Wilderson extends on Fanon's "absolute dereliction"). If the white kids took the time to actually READ their evidence they'd see that Wilderson very well denounces pretty much all white activity as being anti-black, so a white kid coming up and talking about the suffering of black life is only done to get the judge to vote for them. The thing with Wilderson is that he's making a sort of meta-statement about the ontological underpinnings of Civil Society as being sustained by anti-blackness, as such everything is anti-black (so that Aff that curtails surveillance is necessarily anti-black because it's defined by the blackness that sustains it; this is a loose example, but Browne's new book on Surveillance can sort of help you understand how modern technologies of surveillance are developed thanks to the treatment of the slave in the plantation). 

 

This then means that the act of reading blackness as a critique when you're not black means that you're using the suffering of the black body as a means to propel your victories because it's very hard to win against Wilderson since the issues are ontological (literally just read Blackness isn't ontological and everything Wilderson is saying no longer has an impact, or rather can be solved by the State). Wilderson very well denounces the long history of groups saying "oh yeah we'll help black struggles, but will you help us first on this..." effectively footnoting blackness where it becomes something we never address.

 

The biggest issue is that Wilderson extrapolates on the fungibility of black life in an anti-black world; the slave-master was the one who decided when and where the slave died, functionally turning the slave into an object, or a commodity in Marxist terms. As such, the ability to use slaves as a commodity, as a tool for white life, is something that can be traced back to the plantation; and can manifest itself in debate rounds as white kids (the slave-master) reading blackness (the slave as a fungible commodity). 

 

Edit 1: Wilderson is speaking very specifically to black life; other groups such as Latinos and Asians can be blackened via the injection of blackness into their subjectivity but what separates those groups from black life is that those groups can resist against structures of oppression because they're not ontologically bound to the condition of blackness but merely afflicted by it; literally all they have to do is position themselves away from blackness. But this isn't possible for black life since they are born dead, born ontologically marked. White kids have never experienced this; think of it like a rich white kid protesting at UC Berkeley against capitalism from 11am - 5pm, then going back to their dorms but on the way back they stop at a McDonalds to order some food, then stop by the local market to buy some drinks; simply put, hypocrisy of the highest order. 

t i ended up losing to wilderson and it was a white person. in cx, it was kinda established that they really didn't know the lit or the argument that well, but i wasnt confident enough in my knowledge of the argument to argue that they were "commodifying" blackness for a ballot. i was looking for the specific evidence that articulated the commodification argument. Im pretty knew to this kind of argumentation so thanks so much for the help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

t i ended up losing to wilderson and it was a white person. in cx, it was kinda established that they really didn't know the lit or the argument that well, but i wasnt confident enough in my knowledge of the argument to argue that they were "commodifying" blackness for a ballot. i was looking for the specific evidence that articulated the commodification argument. Im pretty knew to this kind of argumentation so thanks so much for the help

furthermore, if it is condo--performative enactment of the fungibility of the black body, which is p bad. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not saying i agree or disagree but here is the arg 

 

Evans 15 (Rashad, debate god, "On Flipping Aff & Being Black," July 31 2015, http://www.rwesq.com/on-flipping-aff-being-black/

Afropessimism is nothing if not an affirmation of blackness.  It includes a negation of the world, but it is principally an affirming argument.  For Black people.  A white afropessimist makes no senseWhite afropessimism is just anti-blackness.  If you are a white afro-pessimist you should understand that your existence is complicit in violence against Black people and/or that your non-existence is a necessity to Black liberationUnder no circumstances should you understand your role to be to spread the gospel of pessimism furtherYour engagement with the argument will always be theoretical (you have no relevant experience), redundant (you can never be additive to this conversation) and objectifying (reducing black people to objects of study).  Afropessimism is an argument about why Black people should be the the subjects of the the debate.  It is about how Black people are always already the subject of all debates but excluded from them as such.  It is not about white people.

All of this assumes that we are taking the argument seriously and not speaking in metaphorical terms, something Eve Tuck warns against in the context of settler colonialism.  Both the Settler Colonialism and Black Nihilism arguments rely significantly on Fanon.  And Fanon’s main point is that the native/colonialist and/or black/white cannot coexist.  In practical terms, this meant that Black liberation in Africa required a violent war to the end.  It’s an either/or life or death choice for both sides.  But, understanding that anti-black violence is foundational is to understand that you have to fight back in literal terms.  To end the world is to end the world.  I am not certain that debaters fully understand the implications of such.  If the students in my lab understood this they would have found the Black Nihilism argument as difficult as the Settler Colonialism argument.  But they did not, partially because they were introduced to the argument from the perspective of Gramsci and a theory of civil society and not from Fanon and everyday anti-Black violence, but also because I didn’t take the time to explain the argument fully.  Under no circumstances should non-Black debaters be taught to advocate for afro-pessimism from a non-Black person.  And under no circumstances should two white boys think they have a better shot flipping negative and running afropessimism than reading their own Aff (something I had to explain before a quarters debate at the camp tournament).  When that happens something has gone wrong.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in the interests of opensource

here is an answer to that agument 

 

Wilderson 8 (Frank, “Biko and the Problematic of Presence,” in Biko Lives!: Contesting the Legacies of Steve Biko, p. 102)

Even if these White radicals had been persuaded by Biko and Black Consciousness that the essential nature of the antagonism was not capitalism but anti-Blackness (and no doubt some had been persuaded), they could not have been persuaded to organize in a politically masochistic manner; that is, against the concreteness of their own communities, their own families, and themselves, rather than against the abstraction of “the system”—the targetless nomenclature preferred by the UDF. Political masochism would indeed be ethical but would also bring them to the brink of the abyss of their own subjectivity. They would be embarking upon a political journey the trajectory of which would not simply hold out the promise of obliterating class relations and establishing an egalitarian socius (what less articulate and more starry-eyed White activists in the United States refer to as “vision”), but they would be embarking upon a journey whose trajectory Frantz Fanon called “the end of the world.”22 The “new” world that class-based political “vision” is predicated on (i.e., the dictatorship of the proletariat) isn’t new in the sense that it ushers in an unimaginable episteme; it is really no more than a reorganization of Modernity’s own instruments of knowledge. But a world without race, more precisely, a world without Blackness, is truly unimaginable. Such a world cannot be accomplished with a blueprint of what is to come on the other side. It must be undone because, as Biko, Fanon, and others have intimated, it is unethical, but it cannot be refashioned in the mind prior to its undoing. A political project such as this, whereby the only certainty is uncertainty and a loss of all of one’s coordinates, is not the kind of political project Whites could be expected to meditate on, agitate for, theorize, or finance. And though it might not be the kind of project that Blacks would consciously support, it is the essence of the psychic and material location of where Blacks are. Caught between a shameful return to liberalism and a terrifying encounter with the abyss of Black “life”— caught, that is, between liberalism and death—some White activists took up the banner of socialism, others espoused a vague but vociferous anti-apartheidism, and most simply worked aimlessly yet tirelessly to fortify and extend the interlocutory life of “the ANC’s long-standing policy of deferring consideration of working class interests . . . until after national liberation had been achieved.”23

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not saying i agree or disagree but here is the arg 

 

Evans 15 (Rashad, debate god, "On Flipping Aff & Being Black," July 31 2015, http://www.rwesq.com/on-flipping-aff-being-black/

Afropessimism is nothing if not an affirmation of blackness.  It includes a negation of the world, but it is principally an affirming argument.  For Black people.  A white afropessimist makes no senseWhite afropessimism is just anti-blackness.  If you are a white afro-pessimist you should understand that your existence is complicit in violence against Black people and/or that your non-existence is a necessity to Black liberationUnder no circumstances should you understand your role to be to spread the gospel of pessimism furtherYour engagement with the argument will always be theoretical (you have no relevant experience), redundant (you can never be additive to this conversation) and objectifying (reducing black people to objects of study).  Afropessimism is an argument about why Black people should be the the subjects of the the debate.  It is about how Black people are always already the subject of all debates but excluded from them as such.  It is not about white people.

All of this assumes that we are taking the argument seriously and not speaking in metaphorical terms, something Eve Tuck warns against in the context of settler colonialism.  Both the Settler Colonialism and Black Nihilism arguments rely significantly on Fanon.  And Fanon’s main point is that the native/colonialist and/or black/white cannot coexist.  In practical terms, this meant that Black liberation in Africa required a violent war to the end.  It’s an either/or life or death choice for both sides.  But, understanding that anti-black violence is foundational is to understand that you have to fight back in literal terms.  To end the world is to end the world.  I am not certain that debaters fully understand the implications of suchIf the students in my lab understood this they would have found the Black Nihilism argument as difficult as the Settler Colonialism argumentBut they did not, partially because they were introduced to the argument from the perspective of Gramsci and a theory of civil society and not from Fanon and everyday anti-Black violence, but also because I didn’t take the time to explain the argument fully.  Under no circumstances should non-Black debaters be taught to advocate for afro-pessimism from a non-Black person.  And under no circumstances should two white boys think they have a better shot flipping negative and running afropessimism than reading their own Aff (something I had to explain before a quarters debate at the camp tournament).  When that happens something has gone wrong.

This card lacks one thing warrants that make a real arguements tbh the part underlined in green is just like lol its him having one big critic of something he taught at camp ..........mmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Edited by JaredCroitoru
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok that rashad evans has some large context that people miss out. From what i have for  have heard this is a piece of salt from when a white man could teach black nihslim well meanwhile his lab had issues learning the arguement dont read this if you need this look into noppers - where the warrants arent bashing debaters of color

 

no shade but

1. rashad isn't white you idiot do you even have any idea who this guy is? educate yourself he won CEDA and coached emporia state to unite the crowns clearly you don't know what you are talking about

2. he's not bashing debaters of color - his argument is that white people involved in reading an argument about STRUCTURAL ANTIBLACK RACISM is a double turn, clearly his argument is the opposite

3. Tamara Nopper has a similar argument but not contextualized to DEBATE which is what OP talked about

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some cards from Hartman about the commodification of black suffering:

 

TURN: The ballot is offered to the judge as a means for the judge to identify or experience black suffering. A Neg ballot allows the judge to take pleasure in the suffering of the black body. The investment in the ballot is dependent on the notion of the black body as fungible – turns the case

Hartman 1997 (Saidiya, Associate prof of English at Cal Berk. Scenes of Subjection p. 25-6. SPP)

 

Rankin was not alone in his desire to slip into blackness and experience the¶ suffering of slavery "firsthand," so to speak. On the contrary, the popularity of¶ Uncle Tom's Cabin and The Octoroon indicates the willingness of others to suffer,¶ too. The elasticity of blackness and its capacious affects enabled such flights and¶ becomings. Moreover, in this case, the figurative capacities of blackness and the fungibility of the commodity are directly linked. The fungibility of the commodity, specifically its abstractness and immateriality, enabled the black body or blackface mask to serve as the vehicle of white self-exploration, renunciation, and enjoyment.¶ 22 Therefore, the ability to put on blackness must be considered in the context¶ of chattel slavery and the economy of enjoyment founded thereupon. Antebellum ·¶ formations of pleasure, even those of the North, need to be considered in relation to¶ the affective dimensions of chattel slavery since enjoyment is virtually unimaginable¶ without recourse to the black body and the subjection of the captive, the diversions¶ engendered by the dispossession of the enslaved, or the fantasies launched by the¶ myriad uses of the black body. For this reason the formal features of this economy of¶ pleasure and the politics of enjoyment are considered in regard to the literal and¶ figurative occupation and possession of the body. This reading attempts to elucidate¶ the means by which the wanton use of and the violence directed toward the black body come to be identified as its pleasure and dangers-that is, the expectations of slave property are ontologized as the innate capacities and inner feelings of the enslaved, and moreover, the ascription of excess and enjoyment to the African effaces the violence perpetrated against the enslaved. In light of these issues, the¶ schematic analysis of minstrelsy and melodrama that follows focuses on the convergence¶ of violence and pleasure, which is identified as one of the primary attributes of¶ this economy of enjoyment, rather than providing a close reading of the texts of¶ minstrelsy and melodrama. Scant attention is paid to the white spectator's identification¶ with blackface characters. Instead, the major issue explored is the relation¶ between pleasure and violence-that is, the facility of blackness in the other's self-fashioning¶ and the role of pleasure in securing the mechanisms of racial subjection.¶ In other words, this economy of enjoyment is interrogated through a consideration¶ of the dynamics of possession and close scrutiny of the object of property and its¶ uses.

 

TURN: Black suffering is always spectacularized and consumed by a white audience

-- They commodify black suffering. White Supremacy finds pleasure in the pain of the black body and also in the attempt to solve for the black body. That reifies hierarchies and perpetuates antiblack violence.

Hartman, 97 [saidya Hartman, Saidiya Hartman is a professor at Columbia University specializing in African American literature and history. She grew up in Brooklyn and received her B.A. from Wesleyan University and Ph.D. from Yale University, Scenes of Subjection, Accessed: 4/25/14, NC]

 

What concerns me here is the spectacular nature of black suffering and, conversely, the dissimulation of suffering through spectacle. In one respect, the combination of imagined scenes of cruelty with those culled from the unquestionable authority evidences the crisis of witnessing that results from the legal subjection of slaves. At the same time, the spectacular dimension of slavery engender the crisis of witnessing as much as the representation of black testimony since to the degree that the body speaks it is made to speak the master’s truth and augments his power through the imposition and intensification of pain. All of this is further complicated by the “half-articulate” and “incoherent song” that confounds the transparent of testimony and radically complicates the rendering of slavery. In light of these concerns this chapter wrestles with the following questions: Does the extension of humanity to the enslaved ironically reinscribe their subjugated statues? Do the figurative capacities of blackness enable white flights of fantasy while increasing the likelihood of the captive’s disappearance? Can the moral embrace of pain extricate itself from the pleasure borne by subjection? In other words, does the scene of the tyrannized slave at the bloodstained gate delight the loathsome master and provide wholesome pleasures to the upright and the virtuous? Is the act of “witnessing” a kind of looking no less entangled with the wielding of power and the extraction of enjoyment? Does the captive’s dance allay grief or articulate the fraught, compromised, and impossible character of agency? Or does it exemplify the use of the body as an instrument against the self? The scenes of subjection considered here– the coerced spectacles orchestrated to encourage the trade in black flesh; scenes of torture and festivity; the tragedy of virtuous women and the antics of outrageous darkies all turn upon the simulation of agency and the excesses of black enjoyment. The affliction of performance and blackness can be attributed to the spectacularization of black pain and racist conceptions of Negro nature as carefree, infantile, hedonistic, and indifferent to suffering and to an interested misreading of the interdependence of labor and song common among the enslaved. The constitution of blackness as an abject and degraded condition and the fascination with the other's enjoyment went hand in hand. Moroever blacks were envisioned fundamentally as vehicles for white enjoyment, in all sundry and unspeakable expressions; this was as much the consequence of the chattel status of the captive as it was of the excess enjoyment imputed to the other, for those forced to dance on the decks of slave ships crossing the Middle Passage, step it up lively on the auction block, and amuse the master and his friends were seen as the purveyors of pleasure. The amazing popularity of the "darkies" of the minstrel stage must be considered in this light. Contending variants of racism, ranging from the proslavery plantation pastoralism to the romantic racialism of abolitionists, similarly constituted the African as childish, primitive, contented, and endowed with great mimetic capacities. Essentially, these characteristics defined the infamous and renowned Sambo. This history is of central importance when evaluating the politics of pleasure, the uses of slave property, the constitution of the subject, and the tactics of resistance. Indeed, the convergence of terror and enjoyment cannot be understood outside it.

 

Edit: Also, look at Hartman's 2002 article titled "Scenes of Subjection" for some more great lit about the spectacularization of black suffering.

Edited by SagarB123
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok that rashad evans has some large context that people miss out. From what i have for  have heard this is a piece of salt from when a white man could teach black nihslim well meanwhile his lab had issues learning the arguement dont read this if you need this look into noppers - where the warrants arent bashing debaters of color

Here are some of those Noppers cards:

 

There is no such thing as a white anti-racist

Nopper 93 (Kamara, http://racetraitor.org/nopper.html, Winter 1993 “The White Anti-racist is an Oxymoron: An Open Letter to “White Anti-Racists”)

 

I received an annoying e-mail about white people and their struggle to do anti-racist work. I keep reading and hearing white people talk about their struggle to do anti-racist organizing, and frankly it gets on my nerves. So I am writing this open letter to white people who engage in any activist work that involves or affects non-whites. Given that the US social structure is founded on white supremacy, and that there is a global order in which white supremacy and European domination are at large, I would challenge any white person to figure out what movement or action they can get involved in that will not involve or affect non-white people. That said, I want to begin with what has become a realization for me through the help of different politically conscious friends. There is NO SUCH THING AS A WHITE ANTI-RACIST. The term itself, "white anti- racist" is an oxymoron. In the following, I will explain why. Then, I will begin to detail how this impacts non-white people in organizing work specifically, along with how it affects non-white people generally. First, one must realize that whiteness is a structure of domination. As such, there is nothing redeemable or reformable about whiteness. Intellectuals, scholars and activists, especially those who are non- white, have drawn our attention to this for years. For example, people such as Malcolm X, W.E.B. DuBois, Marcus Garvey, James Baldwin, Toni Morrison, Ida B. Wells, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, and many, many others who are perhaps less famous, have articulated the relationship between whiteness and domination. Further, people such as Douglass and DuBois began to outline how whiteness is a social and political construct that emphasizes the domination, authority, and perceived humanity of those who are racialized as white. They, along with many other non-white writers and orators, have pointed to the fact that it was the bodies who were able to be racialized as "white" that were able to be viewed as rational, authoritative, and deserving. Further, and believe me, this is no small thing, white people are viewed as human. What this means is that when white people suffer, as some who are poor/female/queer, they nevertheless are able to have some measure of sympathy for their plight simply because they are white and their marginalization is considered an emergency, crisis or an issue to be concerned about. Furthermore, even when white people have been oppressed by various dimensions of classism, homophobia and heterosexism, they have been able to opt for what DuBois, in his monograph "Black Reconstruction" brilliantly called "the psychological wage of whiteness." That is, whites that are marginalized could find comfort, even if psychological, in the fact that they were not non-white. They could revel in the fact that they could be taken as white in opposition to non-white groups. The desire for this wage of whiteness was also what drove many white people, albeit marginalized, to engage in organized violence against non-whites.

 

White people cannot act on their own behalf and not be structurally racist at the same time. Their form of “resistance” to whiteness just masks the fact that it is engrained within them psychologically. You can’t unlearn whiteness. 

Nopper 93 (Kamara, http://racetraitor.org/nopper.html, Winter 1993 “The White Anti-racist is an Oxymoron: An Open Letter to “White Anti-Racists”)

 

Conversely, other racial groups, particularly Blacks and Native Americans, are considered inherently criminal no matter what they do, what their sexual identity is or what they wear. Further, it has always struck me as interesting that there are white people who will attempt to wear what signifies "Blackness," whether it is dreadlocks (which, in my opinion, should be cut off from every white person's head), "gear," or Black masks at rallies. There is a sick way in which white people want to emulate that which is considered "badass" about a certain existential position of Blackness at the same time they do not want the burden of living as a non-white person. Further, it really strikes me as fucked up the way in which white people will go to rallies and taunt the police with Black masks in order to bring on police pressure. What does it mean when Blackness is strategically used by whites to bring on police violence? Now I know that somewhere there is a dreadlocked, smelly white anarchist who is reading this message and who is angry with me for not understanding the logic of the Black masks and its roots in anarchism. But I would challenge these people to consider how they are reproducing a violence towards Blackness in their attempts to taunt and challenge the police in their efforts. Now back to my point that white anti-racism is an oxymoron. Whiteness is a social and political construct rooted in white supremacy. White supremacy is a structure and system of beliefs rooted in European and US imperialism in which certain racialized bodies (non-white) are selected for premature negation whether through cultural, physical, psychological genocide, containment or other forms of social death. White supremacy is at the heart of the US social system and civil society. In short, white supremacy is not just a series of practices or privilege, but a larger social structure and system of domination that overly-values and rewards those who are racialized as white. The rest of us are constructed as undeserving to be considered human, although there is significant variation within non-white populations of how our bodies are encoded, treated and (de)valued. Now, for one to claim whiteness, one also is invested in white supremacy. Whiteness itself is a political term that emerged among European white ethnics in the US. These European ethnics, many of them reviled, chose to cast their lot with whiteness rather than that with those who had been determined as non-white. In short, anyone who claims to be white, even a white anti-racist, is identifying with a history of European imperialism and racism transported and further developed into the US. However, this does not mean that white people who go around saying dumb things such as "I am not white! I am a human being!" or, "I left whiteness and joined the human race," or my favorite, "I hate white people! They're stupid" are not structurally white. Remember, whiteness is a structure of domination embedded in our social relations, institutions, discourses, and practices. Don't tell me you're not white but then when we go out in the street and the police don't bother you or people don't ask you if you're a prostitute, or if people don't follow you and touch you at will, act like that does not make a difference in our lives. Basically, you can't talk, or merely "unlearn" whiteness, as all of these annoying trainings for white people to "unlearn" racism will have you think. Rather, white people need to be willing to have their very social position, their very relationship of domination, their very authority, their very being...let go, perhaps even destroyed. I know this might sound scary, but that is really not my concern. I am not interested in making white people, even those so-called good-hearted anti-racist whites, comfortable about their position in struggles that shape my life in ways that it will never shape theirs. I recently finished the biography of John Brown by DuBois. The biography was less of a biography and more of an interpretation by DuBois about the now-legendary white abolitionist. Now while John Brown's practice was problematic in many ways--he still had to be in control and he had fucked-up views that Blacks were still enslaved because they were too "servile" (a white supremacist sentiment)--what I took from Brown's life was that he realized that moral persuasion alone would not solve racial problems. That is, whites cannot talk or just think through whiteness and structures of white supremacy. They must be committed to either picking up arms for other people (and only firing when the people tell them so), dying for other people, or just getting out of the way. In short, they must be willing to do what the people most affected and marginalized by a situation tell them to do.

Edited by SagarB123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok that rashad evans has some large context that people miss out. From what i have for  have heard this is a piece of salt from when a white man could teach black nihslim well meanwhile his lab had issues learning the arguement dont read this if you need this look into noppers - where the warrants arent bashing debaters of color

if you want to see a good application of this evidence, watch this video (the 1AR is where it shows up)

 

NOTE: audio does get better 3 mins in

Edited by Moten121
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no shade but

1. rashad isn't white you idiot do you even have any idea who this guy is? educate yourself he won CEDA and coached emporia state to unite the crowns clearly you don't know what you are talking about

2. he's not bashing debaters of color - his argument is that white people involved in reading an argument about STRUCTURAL ANTIBLACK RACISM is a double turn, clearly his argument is the opposite

3. Tamara Nopper has a similar argument but not contextualized to DEBATE which is what OP talked about

Y'all some fufu ass people 

 like one like this rashad evidence is like yo people don't fully understand afropess and thats shit af 

 its for when they suck ass at doing that 

Edited by JaredCroitoru
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol their is a larger context left out - look at what i highlighted green bruh . calm down - mistyped what i ment lol. 

This thing is about how when kids learn stuff like afropess and have issue with settler colonialism and how they cant see the diffrences and how thats problematic........

bruh like teams have read this rashad card against me enough to know the warrants are an slay it - like noppers is not as easy to answer .....

 

 

 Seeing it from another side this is just not an arguement that is going to always be a round winning . Instead of focusing on the people who argues skin color actually debate them tbh. 

lol no, this justifies rando rich white people reading antiblackness against black debaters from massively underfunded leagues-- that is literally the performative logic of anti-blackness

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cross-x has an interesting ways of taking arguments and philosophy, pretending that they know it, and getting everything completely wrong.

 

Wilderson is a purely structural analysis and criticizes those who focus on certain identity categories. Anti-blackness is not simply violence against black people. It is not JUST a structure surrounding the black body. It is the global super structure that shapes the institutions and relations that form modernity. White people, in Wilderson's opinion, are just as implicated in anti-blackness as black people. A focus on one individual obscures the foundations of violence that created the world itself. Wilderson is also a kritik of identity politics where someone can assert their race as a justification for their analysis.

um no, WIlderson would definitely agree with black experiential analysis, he even utilizes it in Red, White, and Black. Maybe if you're talking about other race that could be true, but even then Wilderson agrees that people can assert their race as a justification for recognition that they are junior partners/senior partners/just white people. 

 

Pablo, you seem to be the most informed on this, but a lot of what you said is just blatantly false based upon Wilderson's writing. It is true that white people are foundationally structured and implicated by anti-blackness. Every action a white person takes that doesn't call for the end of the world is complicity. Not reading Wilderson as a white person is the retreat to the comfort zone of whiteness where one doesn't have to challenge their unethical standing in the world. You correctly identify that Wilderson talks about the fungibility of the slave and black commodification. Where you're wrong in this analysis is that Wilderson believes fungibility is a constant state of being and that commodification must be utilized as a way to reach the end of modernity. Many afro-pessimists call this the grammar of suffering where civil society must confront the anti-humanity of blackness and therefore can't be ethical in the face of gratuitous violence. Wilderson criticizes the notion that white people should center their whiteness in their political projects. So your statement about white people helping black people is a complete mischaracterization of everything afro-pessimists say. Once again, blackness is always already commodified which means its only a question of what happens with that commodified status. A lot of what you've stated also rests on the assumption that the affirmative team is black. I agree, it is questionable for white people to read afro-pessimism against black people. However, this isn't based upon Wilderson's literature. Wilderson has a white wife and has frequently stated that he is the slave and she is the slave-master because the structure of anti-blackness is ontological. Individual white people aren't the embodiment of anti-blackness but rather subjects determined by civil society. Wilderson hates the notion of political correctness. i.e. how white people are comfortable with saying "negro" but not with saying the n-word. White people refusing to call black people "slaves" is a part of anti-blackness.

Um, Wilderson is the comfort zone for a lot of white people-- the "comfort zone" of white kids is to utilize black experience to win ballots and performatively enact the fungibility of blackness, even Wilderson makes the claim that this is the goal of whiteness- this means that in a debate context, all the analysis of white people performatively making black people fungible is correct. 

 

Also I promise you that Wilderson nowhere says that white people should be saying the n-word. Please, point me to a line. Don't try to say "that's not what I was saying", because this is the EXACT implication of what you are defending Wilderson as saying, which is just painfully reductive. 

 

None of you are correct on what Rashad is writing about. You have cherry-picked and mis-interpreted his writing. The entire article is describing his experience at debate camp and the difficulties in teaching students how to run settler colonialism versus anti-blackness/black nihilism. Rashad found that students struggled with running settler colonialism but picked up black nihilism super quickly even though the links and alt to the colonialism K were hyper specific. Rashad then goes on to explain how he had to talk a pair of white boys out of flipping negative against a black team in the quarters of the camp tournament because they wanted to run black nihilism. The part of that article everyone cites occurs right below this. Rashad is outlining certain implications and conditions to white people reading anti-blackness arguments. He never says white people shouldn't read the argument. Instead, he says white people shouldn't be taught be a white coach to run anti-blackness, they shouldn't read it against black people, they shouldn't flip negative just to run it, and that they need to understand every speech act, including the ones occurring when running anti-blackness, are implicated in the structure of anti-blackness. I'll try to find the link, but there is a Youtube video of Rashad Evans and Jonah Feldman (white guy) debating against Elijah and Chris from Rutgers. Rashad was aff, Rutgers was neg. Jonah, the 1A, read a Wilderson affirmative. Rutgers read a one off argument about how white people shouldn't read Wilderson. Rashad then goes through the entire debate defending how white people should be willing to let their world be disrupted and must read anti-blackness. Yes, he believes there are conditions to reading it, but he certainly doesn't believe no white person ever should read anti-blackness arguments. Yes, there's no such thing as a white afro-pessimist because afro-pessimism is a structure where white people can't position themselves to be blackened. This doesn't mean white people shouldn't do anything against white supremacy.

Lol quit trying to act like you're an expert above the knowledge of all others, that's Rashad's introduction- a lot of claims people have made about the article are just true. Rashad is using the experience with white kids as a broader discussion of white engagement, otherwise this quote wouldn't exist: 

 

"If you are a white afro-pessimist you should understand that your existence is complicit in violence against Black people and/or that your non-existence is a necessity to Black liberation.  Under no circumstances should you understand your role to be to spread the gospel of pessimism further.  Your engagement with the argument will always be theoretical (you have no relevant experience), redundant (you can never be additive to this conversation) and objectifying (reducing black people to objects of study).  Afropessimism is an argument about why Black people should be the the subjects of the the debate.  It is about how Black people are always already the subject of all debates but excluded from them as such.  It is not about white people."

 

The Wilderson 8 card posted above is probably the most accurate reading of his actual beliefs. If you read the entirety of the Nopper article, she also comes to the same conclusion. White people need to be active in a stance against racism and the world. Abandoning traditional white practices is one way to accomplish this.

 

Once again, Hartman taken WAY out of context. Her entire book is about how we shouldn't use visceral descriptions of black people suffering. She gives the example of how a black man was forced to eat his own genitals and then killed. This scene, in her opinion, feeds into the libidinal economy of anti-black violence where white people find pleasure at their pain. She then goes on to clarify that descriptive analysis of anti-black violence is critical to confronting systems of oppression. 

Congrats- the white masochist should be willing to suffer the pain of losing every single debate round against people of color and specifically black people, and find celebration in this-- anything that isn't a performance of white masochism = bad white person/definitively indebted to anti-blackness, either way, they should still lose. 

 

The last comment is 100% opposite to Wilderson's belief system.

 

You all have legitimate opinions on whether or not white people should be able to read Wilderson. However, stop attributing those opinions to philosophers and black writers who completely disagree with you. You are trying to be an ally and call other white people out which means you are just as bad as the white anti-racist. 

 

I do believe running anti-blackness as a white person can be incredibly problematic, however, misreading and misrepresenting black authors is inexcusable. I don't ever post because of this very reason. The butchered analysis of critical literature is obscene on this website. 

"Other white people" presumes that everyone else who reads this is white-- probably problematic, I know I'm not, but thanks I guess. 

Edited by CapitalismIsNotCool
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, you're shockingly wrong again. Here's a quote from Wilderson that explicitly says you're wrong about him liking identity ptx

 

Instead, the academy’s ensembles of questions are fixated on specific and “unique” experience of the myriad identities that make up those structural positions. This would fine if the work led us back to a critique of the paradigm; but most of it does not.

 

Here's another one

 

Without this gratuitous violence, a violence that marks everyone experientially until the late Middle Ages when it starts to mark the Black ontologically, the so-called great emancipatory discourses of modernity—marxism, feminism, postcolonialism, sexual liberation, and the ecology movement—political discourses predicated on grammars of suffering and whose constituent elements are exploitation and alienation, might not have developed.xi  

 

Oh wait, there's more!

 

For the Black, freedom is an ontological, rather than experiential, question. There is no philosophically credible way to attach an experiential, a contingent, rider onto the notion of freedom when one considers the Black—such as freedom from gender or economic oppression, the kind of contingent riders rightfully placed on the non-Black when thinking freedom. 

 

Just in case you still think you're right ...

 

Clearly, the coherence of Whiteness as a structural position in modernity depends on the capacity to be free from genocide, not, perhaps, as an historical experience, but at least as a positioning modality.  

 

Only one more (although if you want me to provide more evidence, just hmu)

 

The second approach is rare because it is best suited for a straightforward historical drama, such as Roots; and because deep within civil society’s collective unconscious is the knowledge that the Black position, is indeed a position, not an identity; and that its constituent elements are coterminous with and inextricably bound to the constituent elements of social death—which is to say, that for Blackness, there is no narrative moment prior to slavery 

 

You're misunderstanding "comfort zone" in the context of afro-pessimism. Being comfortable is having your subject location as the assumed norm and not being forced to engage your complicity in structures of anti-blackness. It's absurd to say all white people run Wilderson just to run Wilderson. Why would running Wilderson make white people more comfortable than running things like politics or post-modern theory? 

 

Wilderson says we need to humanize discourse so that blackness is the anti-human. Political correctness tries to integrate antagonistic blackness into modernity through that humanization which is violent. Oh yeah, I totally said Wilderson would be cool with white people saying the n-word. Oh wait, no I didn't. He criticizes the notion of humanizing language. Here's the portion where he makes the difference between negro and the n-word. Although Judy talks more extensively about it, which is why he quotes him here.

 

The libidinal economy of modernity and its attendant cartography (the Western Hemisphere, the U.S., or civil society as a construct) achieves its structure of unconscious exchange by way of a “thanatology” (Judy 89) in which Blackness overdetermines the embodiment of impossibility, incoherence, incapacity. Furthermore, political economy achieves its symbolic (political/economic) capacity and structure of preconscious exchange by way of a similar “thanatology.” Judy goes so far as to say that at the crux of modernity’s crisis is the dilemma “how to represent the Negro as being demonstrably human within the terms of the law” (84). Here, of course, he does not mean “law” in a juridical sense but rather “law” as a portal of intelligibility through which one can be said to have the capacity to access “Reason” and thus be recognized and incorporated as a bona fide subject. Through Judy’s analysis of the Negro (the slave) as modernity’s necessity (the Other that humanity is not: “simple enough one has only not to be a nigger”), that which kick-starts and sustains the production of the Western Hemisphere, we can begin to make the transition from the parasitic necessity of Whiteness in libidinal economy to its parasitic necessity in political economy. Whiteness is parasitic because it monumentalizes its subjective capacity, its lush cartography, in direct proportion to the wasteland of Black incapacity. By “capacity” I have meant something more comprehensive than “the event” and its causal elements and something more indeterminate than “agency.” We should think of it as a kind of facility or matrix through which possibility itself—whether tragic or triumphant—can be elaborated: the ebb and flow between, on the one hand, “empty speech,” racist actions, repressive laws, and institutional coherence and, on the other hand, “full speech,” armed insurrection, and the institutional ennui. This is what I mean by capacity. It is a far cry from Spillers’ state of “being for the captor” (2003: 206) and Judy’s “muted African body” ((Dis) Forming 89); a far cry from pure abject- or object-ness: without thought, without agency, “with no capacity to move” (89). In short, White (Human) capacity, in advance of the event of discrimination or oppression, is parasitic on Black incapacity (Judy 89): without the Negro, capacity itself is incoherent, uncertain at best. 

 

Although I love your un-warranted generalizations of text, maybe you can find a single part of the text that agrees with you. That would be nice.

 

Oh trust me, I'm not an expert. I'm just more experienced than you in the context of the theory of afro-pessimism. Granted, you might have experiential knowledge about being a person of color; that's not for me to say. However, I can say that I know this literature much better than you.

 

In your hasty attempt to prove yourself right and me wrong because you were challenged (God forbid) on your knowledge of the subject, you completely ignored WHY Rashad wrote what he wrote. He was mad at white people centering black people when black people were in the round. That's why he says black people should be the subject of the debate and why, yes, white people shouldn't read Wilderson against black people. Every white person is complicit in anti-blackness. White people should be listening in conversations about anti-blackness, not leading them. This does not mean white people have the right to ignore race whenever people of color aren't in the room. Btw here's the link I was referring to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzmZg49qHig&index=5&list=PLX3fmJjZ1k2ANFCg9r7qhcwLHRivUemdM

 

Once again, you're spinning all of Wilderson's writing incorrectly and trying to apply it to debate. Wilderson says white people need to attack the very foundations of their subjectivity through confrontations with white institutions. He says white people should be confronted with the grammar of suffering all the time.

 

Lmao, ok, call out tactics ain't gonna work and aren't substitutes to you being wrong. That was in reference to white people responding if there are any in this thread. 

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, you're shockingly wrong again. Here's a quote from Wilderson that explicitly says you're wrong about him liking identity ptx

 

Instead, the academy’s ensembles of questions are fixated on specific and “unique” experience of the myriad identities that make up those structural positions. This would fine if the work led us back to a critique of the paradigm; but most of it does not.

 

Ok???? You've got a pretty bad K of identity politics, congratulations, but you ignore literally every argument Wilderson makes about the existence of the 2 identities that have to be forefronted in discussions of violence, aka white and black. In this case, we aren't talking about "our identity to justify args", we're talking about white people being REFUSED the right to make the arg, which Wilderson would agree with but is also distinct from utilizing an identity to JUSTIFY an arg.

Also if the title of his main work is literally "red, white, and black" you begin to wonder if there is identitarian analysis happening... 

 

 

Here's another one

 

Without this gratuitous violence, a violence that marks everyone experientially until the late Middle Ages when it starts to mark the Black ontologically, the so-called great emancipatory discourses of modernity—marxism, feminism, postcolonialism, sexual liberation, and the ecology movement—political discourses predicated on grammars of suffering and whose constituent elements are exploitation and alienation, might not have developed.xi  

Yep, point me to anything saying that white  identity does not exist as a positionality indebted to violence... oh wait... a huge part of Wilderson's analysis is in and of itself premised in this, you haven't shown me anything contextual to whitey. 

 

Oh wait, there's more!

 

For the Black, freedom is an ontological, rather than experiential, question. There is no philosophically credible way to attach an experiential, a contingent, rider onto the notion of freedom when one considers the Black—such as freedom from gender or economic oppression, the kind of contingent riders rightfully placed on the non-Black when thinking freedom. 

Uh-huh, stiill waiting 

Just in case you still think you're right ...

 

Clearly, the coherence of Whiteness as a structural position in modernity depends on the capacity to be free from genocide, not, perhaps, as an historical experience, but at least as a positioning modality.  

OH WOW WHAT DO YOU KNOW ITS ANOTHER BAD K OF IDENTITY POLITICS IN WHICH WILDERSON IDENTIFIES whiteness as a structuring institution, but then again recognizes white identity a litany of other times as a positionality tied to freedom, the existence of which is intrinsic to black oppression- waiting for specifics. 

Only one more (although if you want me to provide more evidence, just hmu)

 

The second approach is rare because it is best suited for a straightforward historical drama, such as Roots; and because deep within civil society’s collective unconscious is the knowledge that the Black position, is indeed a position, not an identity; and that its constituent elements are coterminous with and inextricably bound to the constituent elements of social death—which is to say, that for Blackness, there is no narrative moment prior to slavery 

Yeah glhf finding a quote for me that says the existence of white identity should not be included in the analysis of suffering- this doesn't mean include white voices, but Wilderson agrees that white identity exists, which means that all of your "people using their ID to justify reading the arg" offense doesn't apply, because it's also about black people who can read the arg, hence the structural antagonism. 

 

Also, you've conceded from the beginning a differential- it's white people being DENIED the ability to read an argument, not others JUSTIFYING reading the arg based on their race. 

 

You're misunderstanding "comfort zone" in the context of afro-pessimism. Being comfortable is having your subject location as the assumed norm and not being forced to engage your complicity in structures of anti-blackness. It's absurd to say all white people run Wilderson just to run Wilderson. Why would running Wilderson make white people more comfortable than running things like politics or post-modern theory? 

Lol, this is an excellent example of white defensiveness, "NOT ALL WHITE PEOPLE READ IT JUST TO READ IT"11!!!11111" ... you have performed that logic - even if you win that white people participating is bad, this proves that your performance of justifying white participation is wrong. 

Also, this is an example of white people creating comfort zones within black theory, see all of Wilderson's discussion of negrophilia. 

 

Wilderson says we need to humanize discourse so that blackness is the anti-human. Political correctness tries to integrate antagonistic blackness into modernity through that humanization which is violent. Oh yeah, I totally said Wilderson would be cool with white people saying the n-word. Oh wait, no I didn't. He criticizes the notion of humanizing language. Here's the portion where he makes the difference between negro and the n-word. Although Judy talks more extensively about it, which is why he quotes him here.

I agree with the humanizing language argument, my point is that white people shouldn't be appropriating blackness and talking from that position at all- congrats, this is non-responsive. Although, white people reading antiblackness from their intrinsically humanized perspective probably links net more to this arg, congrats on double turning yourself. 

 

The libidinal economy of modernity and its attendant cartography (the Western Hemisphere, the U.S., or civil society as a construct) achieves its structure of unconscious exchange by way of a “thanatology” (Judy 89) in which Blackness overdetermines the embodiment of impossibility, incoherence, incapacity. Furthermore, political economy achieves its symbolic (political/economic) capacity and structure of preconscious exchange by way of a similar “thanatology.” Judy goes so far as to say that at the crux of modernity’s crisis is the dilemma “how to represent the Negro as being demonstrably human within the terms of the law” (84). Here, of course, he does not mean “law” in a juridical sense but rather “law” as a portal of intelligibility through which one can be said to have the capacity to access “Reason” and thus be recognized and incorporated as a bona fide subject. Through Judy’s analysis of the Negro (the slave) as modernity’s necessity (the Other that humanity is not: “simple enough one has only not to be a nigger”), that which kick-starts and sustains the production of the Western Hemisphere, we can begin to make the transition from the parasitic necessity of Whiteness in libidinal economy to its parasitic necessity in political economy. Whiteness is parasitic because it monumentalizes its subjective capacity, its lush cartography, in direct proportion to the wasteland of Black incapacity. By “capacity” I have meant something more comprehensive than “the event” and its causal elements and something more indeterminate than “agency.” We should think of it as a kind of facility or matrix through which possibility itself—whether tragic or triumphant—can be elaborated: the ebb and flow between, on the one hand, “empty speech,” racist actions, repressive laws, and institutional coherence and, on the other hand, “full speech,” armed insurrection, and the institutional ennui. This is what I mean by capacity. It is a far cry from Spillers’ state of “being for the captor” (2003: 206) and Judy’s “muted African body” ((Dis) Forming 89); a far cry from pure abject- or object-ness: without thought, without agency, “with no capacity to move” (89). In short, White (Human) capacity, in advance of the event of discrimination or oppression, is parasitic on Black incapacity (Judy 89): without the Negro, capacity itself is incoherent, uncertain at best. 

 

 

Although I love your un-warranted generalizations of text, maybe you can find a single part of the text that agrees with you. That would be nice.

Maybe you could stop misrepresenting the text to an extreme and actually read the portions I discuss-- I don't have time to waste responding to args that are the equivalent of "WHITE PEOPLE MATTER TOO11!!1!". 

 

Oh trust me, I'm not an expert. I'm just more experienced than you in the context of the theory of afro-pessimism. Granted, you might have experiential knowledge about being a person of color; that's not for me to say. However, I can say that I know this literature much better than you.

10/10 you are so wise, especially when justifying white infiltration, you are supreme 0verl0rd of race theory clearly. 

 

In your hasty attempt to prove yourself right and me wrong because you were challenged (God forbid) on your knowledge of the subject, you completely ignored WHY Rashad wrote what he wrote. He was mad at white people centering black people when black people were in the round. That's why he says black people should be the subject of the debate and why, yes, white people shouldn't read Wilderson against black people. Every white person is complicit in anti-blackness. White people should be listening in conversations about anti-blackness, not leading them. This does not mean white people have the right to ignore race whenever people of color aren't in the room.

Btw here's the link I was referring to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzmZg49qHig&index=5&list=PLX3fmJjZ1k2ANFCg9r7qhcwLHRivUemdM

 

Congrats, see the line quoted above about white people having no right to instantiate discussions of violence, EVER: "Under no circumstances should you understand your role to be to spread the gospel of pessimism further." White people introducing Wilderson is laughable, this round is distinct because Rashad WANTED to have Jonah introduce the issue, Jonas didn't randomly do it. 

 

 

 

Once again, you're spinning all of Wilderson's writing incorrectly and trying to apply it to debate. Wilderson says white people need to attack the very foundations of their subjectivity through confrontations with white institutions. He says white people should be confronted with the grammar of suffering all the time.

Yep, debate is an institution of civil society, also yeah white people have to confront it-- through white masochism nonetheless, which you have not answered, meaning that their only role should be to revel in their inevitable loss. 

 

Lmao, ok, call out tactics ain't gonna work and aren't substitutes to you being wrong. That was in reference to white people responding if there are any in this thread. 

Haha, "call out tactics"... someone is low key performing the logic of whiteness more and more. 

 

At the end of the day, you've conceded the argument that white people introducing the argument is bad, meaning that they shouldn't be the one's initiating these discussions in debate EVER for the purposes of winning a round. 

You've also constantly performed the defensiveness of whiteness... 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cross-x has an interesting ways of taking arguments and philosophy, pretending that they know it, and getting everything completely wrong.

 

Wilderson is a purely structural analysis and criticizes those who focus on certain identity categories. Anti-blackness is not simply violence against black people. It is not JUST a structure surrounding the black body. It is the global super structure that shapes the institutions and relations that form modernity. White people, in Wilderson's opinion, are just as implicated in anti-blackness as black people. A focus on one individual obscures the foundations of violence that created the world itself. Wilderson is also a kritik of identity politics where someone can assert their race as a justification for their analysis.

 

Pablo, you seem to be the most informed on this, but a lot of what you said is just blatantly false based upon Wilderson's writing. It is true that white people are foundationally structured and implicated by anti-blackness. Every action a white person takes that doesn't call for the end of the world is complicity. Not reading Wilderson as a white person is the retreat to the comfort zone of whiteness where one doesn't have to challenge their unethical standing in the world. You correctly identify that Wilderson talks about the fungibility of the slave and black commodification. Where you're wrong in this analysis is that Wilderson believes fungibility is a constant state of being and that commodification must be utilized as a way to reach the end of modernity. Many afro-pessimists call this the grammar of suffering where civil society must confront the anti-humanity of blackness and therefore can't be ethical in the face of gratuitous violence. Wilderson criticizes the notion that white people should center their whiteness in their political projects. So your statement about white people helping black people is a complete mischaracterization of everything afro-pessimists say. Once again, blackness is always already commodified which means its only a question of what happens with that commodified status. A lot of what you've stated also rests on the assumption that the affirmative team is black. I agree, it is questionable for white people to read afro-pessimism against black people. However, this isn't based upon Wilderson's literature. Wilderson has a white wife and has frequently stated that he is the slave and she is the slave-master because the structure of anti-blackness is ontological. Individual white people aren't the embodiment of anti-blackness but rather subjects determined by civil society. Wilderson hates the notion of political correctness. i.e. how white people are comfortable with saying "negro" but not with saying the n-word. White people refusing to call black people "slaves" is a part of anti-blackness.

 

None of you are correct on what Rashad is writing about. You have cherry-picked and mis-interpreted his writing. The entire article is describing his experience at debate camp and the difficulties in teaching students how to run settler colonialism versus anti-blackness/black nihilism. Rashad found that students struggled with running settler colonialism but picked up black nihilism super quickly even though the links and alt to the colonialism K were hyper specific. Rashad then goes on to explain how he had to talk a pair of white boys out of flipping negative against a black team in the quarters of the camp tournament because they wanted to run black nihilism. The part of that article everyone cites occurs right below this. Rashad is outlining certain implications and conditions to white people reading anti-blackness arguments. He never says white people shouldn't read the argument. Instead, he says white people shouldn't be taught be a white coach to run anti-blackness, they shouldn't read it against black people, they shouldn't flip negative just to run it, and that they need to understand every speech act, including the ones occurring when running anti-blackness, are implicated in the structure of anti-blackness. I'll try to find the link, but there is a Youtube video of Rashad Evans and Jonah Feldman (white guy) debating against Elijah and Chris from Rutgers. Rashad was aff, Rutgers was neg. Jonah, the 1A, read a Wilderson affirmative. Rutgers read a one off argument about how white people shouldn't read Wilderson. Rashad then goes through the entire debate defending how white people should be willing to let their world be disrupted and must read anti-blackness. Yes, he believes there are conditions to reading it, but he certainly doesn't believe no white person ever should read anti-blackness arguments. Yes, there's no such thing as a white afro-pessimist because afro-pessimism is a structure where white people can't position themselves to be blackened. This doesn't mean white people shouldn't do anything against white supremacy.

 

The Wilderson 8 card posted above is probably the most accurate reading of his actual beliefs. If you read the entirety of the Nopper article, she also comes to the same conclusion. White people need to be active in a stance against racism and the world. Abandoning traditional white practices is one way to accomplish this.

 

Once again, Hartman taken WAY out of context. Her entire book is about how we shouldn't use visceral descriptions of black people suffering. She gives the example of how a black man was forced to eat his own genitals and then killed. This scene, in her opinion, feeds into the libidinal economy of anti-black violence where white people find pleasure at their pain. She then goes on to clarify that descriptive analysis of anti-black violence is critical to confronting systems of oppression. 

 

The last comment is 100% opposite to Wilderson's belief system.

 

You all have legitimate opinions on whether or not white people should be able to read Wilderson. However, stop attributing those opinions to philosophers and black writers who completely disagree with you. You are trying to be an ally and call other white people out which means you are just as bad as the white anti-racist. 

 

I do believe running anti-blackness as a white person can be incredibly problematic, however, misreading and misrepresenting black authors is inexcusable. I don't ever post because of this very reason. The butchered analysis of critical literature is obscene on this website. 

 

Yeah I'll admit that what I posted above is a heavily reduced interpretation of what Wilderson is saying (but OP isn't well versed in the literature so a nuanced post concerning an extensive analysis of blackness is not what OP wanted); however, I don't recall every saying that blackness is only a condition that affects black people exclusively, what I was saying is more of an extrapolation on Wilderson's argument that the ontology of the world writ large can be described through niggerness (blackness) and non-niggerness (anti-blackness); when I say that everything in the world can be traced back to being anti-black I'm saying that actions people do in a world undergirded by antiblackness means that every action is in itself antiblack since it is parasitic upon the subjugation of the black body. The oppression other racial groups experience is something Wilderson attributes to the pathological condition of blackness, what I was saying was that varying degrees of oppression that specific groups experience are characterized by their proximity to (and from) blackness. I think I very well included that in the analysis I posted above; the reduction of other racial groups to Civil Societies junior partners is something characteristic of anti-blackness, and Wilderson very well explains how groups not ontologically marked as black have the capacity for resistance because their blackness isn't attached to their ontological positionality (but is rather structural in this case as they're afflicted by blackness as a pathology). Now, I understand what you're saying about the commodification of blackness as being something non-unique as it always already happens but what I'm saying is that for white people to truly become "part of the movement" so to speak, is for them to put their lives on the line; much how in the early days of the Civil Rights movement, a bunch of white people in the South would willingly help out black people even if it meant their lives would be at risk. This is what I feel Wilderson is talking about in terms of having white people help black bodies out; I don't think white debaters reading blackness as a means to a ballot is what he had in mind when he talked about a moving away from the fungibility of black life. I think your analysis is more concerned with the way in which blackness needs to be addressed outside of the debate space, but doesn't assume the way in which white debaters are using Wilderson as a means for victory; this redirects back to the fungibility argument, to me, when white kids read Wilderson it seems also like a performative replication of anti-blackness. 

 

Funny you should link a video from the UCI RR; although not entirely Wilderson, here's a round where Towson denounces white kids talking about racism: 

 

Disclaimer: I personally love the way John Spurlock debates and I have no problem with him, the round posted above is just an example of a team criticizing Spurlock for his predisposition to talk about racism when he's white.

 

Edit 1: I think I included Wildersons critique of identity politics in my first post, the ruse of analogy and his analysis of the contingent rider are perfect examples of groups using the metaphor of slavery to propel their resistance. 

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cross-x has an interesting ways of taking arguments and philosophy, pretending that they know it, and getting everything completely wrong.

 

Wilderson is a purely structural analysis and criticizes those who focus on certain identity categories. Anti-blackness is not simply violence against black people. It is not JUST a structure surrounding the black body. It is the global super structure that shapes the institutions and relations that form modernity. White people, in Wilderson's opinion, are just as implicated in anti-blackness as black people. A focus on one individual obscures the foundations of violence that created the world itself. Wilderson is also a kritik of identity politics where someone can assert their race as a justification for their analysis.

 

Pablo, you seem to be the most informed on this, but a lot of what you said is just blatantly false based upon Wilderson's writing. It is true that white people are foundationally structured and implicated by anti-blackness. Every action a white person takes that doesn't call for the end of the world is complicity. Not reading Wilderson as a white person is the retreat to the comfort zone of whiteness where one doesn't have to challenge their unethical standing in the world. You correctly identify that Wilderson talks about the fungibility of the slave and black commodification. Where you're wrong in this analysis is that Wilderson believes fungibility is a constant state of being and that commodification must be utilized as a way to reach the end of modernity. Many afro-pessimists call this the grammar of suffering where civil society must confront the anti-humanity of blackness and therefore can't be ethical in the face of gratuitous violence. Wilderson criticizes the notion that white people should center their whiteness in their political projects. So your statement about white people helping black people is a complete mischaracterization of everything afro-pessimists say. Once again, blackness is always already commodified which means its only a question of what happens with that commodified status. A lot of what you've stated also rests on the assumption that the affirmative team is black. I agree, it is questionable for white people to read afro-pessimism against black people. However, this isn't based upon Wilderson's literature. Wilderson has a white wife and has frequently stated that he is the slave and she is the slave-master because the structure of anti-blackness is ontological. Individual white people aren't the embodiment of anti-blackness but rather subjects determined by civil society. Wilderson hates the notion of political correctness. i.e. how white people are comfortable with saying "negro" but not with saying the n-word. White people refusing to call black people "slaves" is a part of anti-blackness.

 

None of you are correct on what Rashad is writing about. You have cherry-picked and mis-interpreted his writing. The entire article is describing his experience at debate camp and the difficulties in teaching students how to run settler colonialism versus anti-blackness/black nihilism. Rashad found that students struggled with running settler colonialism but picked up black nihilism super quickly even though the links and alt to the colonialism K were hyper specific. Rashad then goes on to explain how he had to talk a pair of white boys out of flipping negative against a black team in the quarters of the camp tournament because they wanted to run black nihilism. The part of that article everyone cites occurs right below this. Rashad is outlining certain implications and conditions to white people reading anti-blackness arguments. He never says white people shouldn't read the argument. Instead, he says white people shouldn't be taught be a white coach to run anti-blackness, they shouldn't read it against black people, they shouldn't flip negative just to run it, and that they need to understand every speech act, including the ones occurring when running anti-blackness, are implicated in the structure of anti-blackness. I'll try to find the link, but there is a Youtube video of Rashad Evans and Jonah Feldman (white guy) debating against Elijah and Chris from Rutgers. Rashad was aff, Rutgers was neg. Jonah, the 1A, read a Wilderson affirmative. Rutgers read a one off argument about how white people shouldn't read Wilderson. Rashad then goes through the entire debate defending how white people should be willing to let their world be disrupted and must read anti-blackness. Yes, he believes there are conditions to reading it, but he certainly doesn't believe no white person ever should read anti-blackness arguments. Yes, there's no such thing as a white afro-pessimist because afro-pessimism is a structure where white people can't position themselves to be blackened. This doesn't mean white people shouldn't do anything against white supremacy.

 

The Wilderson 8 card posted above is probably the most accurate reading of his actual beliefs. If you read the entirety of the Nopper article, she also comes to the same conclusion. White people need to be active in a stance against racism and the world. Abandoning traditional white practices is one way to accomplish this.

 

Once again, Hartman taken WAY out of context. Her entire book is about how we shouldn't use visceral descriptions of black people suffering. She gives the example of how a black man was forced to eat his own genitals and then killed. This scene, in her opinion, feeds into the libidinal economy of anti-black violence where white people find pleasure at their pain. She then goes on to clarify that descriptive analysis of anti-black violence is critical to confronting systems of oppression. 

 

The last comment is 100% opposite to Wilderson's belief system.

 

You all have legitimate opinions on whether or not white people should be able to read Wilderson. However, stop attributing those opinions to philosophers and black writers who completely disagree with you. You are trying to be an ally and call other white people out which means you are just as bad as the white anti-racist. 

 

I do believe running anti-blackness as a white person can be incredibly problematic, however, misreading and misrepresenting black authors is inexcusable. I don't ever post because of this very reason. The butchered analysis of critical literature is obscene on this website. 

Thank you for saying what i attempted to point out but fail at wording it better 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I'll admit that what I posted above is a heavily reduced interpretation of what Wilderson is saying (but OP isn't well versed in the literature so a nuanced post concerning an extensive analysis of blackness is not what OP wanted); however, I don't recall every saying that blackness is only a condition that affects black people exclusively, what I was saying is more of an extrapolation on Wilderson's argument that the ontology of the world writ large can be described through niggerness (blackness) and non-niggerness (anti-blackness); when I say that everything in the world can be traced back to being anti-black I'm saying that actions people do in a world undergirded by antiblackness means that every action is in itself antiblack since it is parasitic upon the subjugation of the black body. The oppression other racial groups experience is something Wilderson attributes to the pathological condition of blackness, what I was saying was that varying degrees of oppression that specific groups experience are characterized by their proximity to (and from) blackness. I think I very well included that in the analysis I posted above; the reduction of other racial groups to Civil Societies junior partners is something characteristic of anti-blackness, and Wilderson very well explains how groups not ontologically marked as black have the capacity for resistance because their blackness isn't attached to their ontological positionality (but is rather structural in this case as they're afflicted by blackness as a pathology). Now, I understand what you're saying about the commodification of blackness as being something non-unique as it always already happens but what I'm saying is that for white people to truly become "part of the movement" so to speak, is for them to put their lives on the line; much how in the early days of the Civil Rights movement, a bunch of white people in the South would willingly help out black people even if it meant their lives would be at risk. This is what I feel Wilderson is talking about in terms of having white people help black bodies out; I don't think white debaters reading blackness as a means to a ballot is what he had in mind when he talked about a moving away from the fungibility of black life. I think your analysis is more concerned with the way in which blackness needs to be addressed outside of the debate space, but doesn't assume the way in which white debaters are using Wilderson as a means for victory; this redirects back to the fungibility argument, to me, when white kids read Wilderson it seems also like a performative replication of anti-blackness. 

 

Funny you should link a video from the UCI RR; although not entirely Wilderson, here's a round where Towson denounces white kids talking about racism: 

 

Disclaimer: I personally love the way John Spurlock debates and I have no problem with him, the round posted above is just an example of a team criticizing Spurlock for his predisposition to talk about racism when he's white.

 

Edit 1: I think I included Wildersons critique of identity politics in my first post, the ruse of analogy and his analysis of the contingent rider are perfect examples of groups using the metaphor of slavery to propel their resistance. 

 

     Wait, how did Aff win that debate? No way! Thoughts?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...