Jump to content
Greg45865734

Anti-Blackness performance and the N-word

Recommended Posts

1) neither u or ur partner are black your already in a tough spot here by reading AB

2) DONT EVER SAY THE N WORD IDC WHO U ARE DONT EVER SAY THE N WORD 

3) also you saying the n word can spin as u linking in to your own k 

DONT EVER READ ANTIBLACKNESS 

Edited by misrap354
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

You aren't black.
Your partner isn't black.
Don't even bother READING anti-Blackness because it already assumed your libidinal desire to say the N-word, which means you don't have an understanding of it, including the cultural schemas behind your performance.

Fuck out of here.

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some clarity we weren't planning on saying the word but playing the song on a speaker, this is because neither me and my partner would be at all comfortable saying the n word.

 

Regardless, the point was well taken and I don't plan on doing this.

Edited by Greg45865734
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can i ask why ur reading Ab if neither of yall are of african american orrigin?

 

I'm gonna paraphrase Wilderson on this one, in his AMA he said he finds nothing wrong with non-blacks reading his critique if their motives are to genuinely understand that paradigm of blackness for the purpose of deconstructing it and their own paradigm of whiteness,

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna paraphrase Wilderson on this one, in his AMA he said he finds nothing wrong with non-blacks reading his critique if their motives are to genuinely understand that paradigm of blackness for the purpose of deconstructing it and their own paradigm of whiteness,

At the same time, in that AMA, he said take his opinions with a grain of salt because he has to answer as fast as possible, although, he did write about political masochism, which is essentially, although, not purely deconstructing their whiteness and antagonisms within civil society.

 

But at the same time, how do we determine if non-Black people are genuinely critiquing anti-Blackness, vs. doing it just for the W?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the same time, in that AMA, he said take his opinions with a grain of salt because he has to answer as fast as possible, although, he did write about political masochism, which is essentially, although, not purely deconstructing their whiteness and antagonisms within civil society.

 

But at the same time, how do we determine if non-Black people are genuinely critiquing anti-Blackness, vs. doing it just for the W?

 

I agree with the grain of salt, but he did say at two points that white people have something to learn from afropessimism with 0 to the opposite and I think that's enough to give it a lot of weight.

 

As for your last question, we unfortunately don't: in a similar way as we don't know if narrative LGBT affs are legitimate. I think it should be treated like most other arguments in that context, simply because there's no other workable approach. To prove it's commodified you would need some other link to what they did or read in round, for example one time a team read afropessimism conditionally and I made sure to give them hell for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They'll just read the Evans evidence which is a) better than the AMA in terms of warrants, B) is super contextual to white people reading it in debate, and c) makes generalized claims about antiblackness debates as opposed to one claim about a specific author. It probably isn't a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They'll just read the Evans evidence which is a) better than the AMA in terms of warrants, B) is super contextual to white people reading it in debate, and c) makes generalized claims about antiblackness debates as opposed to one claim about a specific author. It probably isn't a good idea.

 

Do you have a copy of that specific card, that would be much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They'll just read the Evans evidence which is a) better than the AMA in terms of warrants, B) is super contextual to white people reading it in debate, and c) makes generalized claims about antiblackness debates as opposed to one claim about a specific author. It probably isn't a good idea.

actually there's a super good Wilderson card I used to read when I went for AfroPess a lot that wasnt from the AMA about what Wilderson called "white masochism" where wilderson explains the dff between whites advocating for the destruction of their own racial positionality (i.e: "yeah we're white but as long as we recognize that we can still interrogate racial antagonisms") and coopting blackness (i.e: "lol i'm a white guy but i'm doing XXX as my performance because Kendrick is dope"). one is totally cool and something he even encourages to a degree, the other is a big no-no. if I find that card I'll post it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually there's a super good Wilderson card I used to read when I went for AfroPess a lot that wasnt from the AMA about what Wilderson called "white masochism" where wilderson explains the dff between whites advocating for the destruction of their own racial positionality (i.e: "yeah we're white but as long as we recognize that we can still interrogate racial antagonisms") and coopting blackness (i.e: "lol i'm a white guy but i'm doing XXX as my performance because Kendrick is dope"). one is totally cool and something he even encourages to a degree, the other is a big no-no. if I find that card I'll post it.

 

This is the card in question:

 

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 thiswhereby the only certainty is uncertainty and a loss of all of one’s coordinatesis 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

Edited by Greg45865734

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the card in question:

 

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 thiswhereby the only certainty is uncertainty and a loss of all of one’s coordinatesis 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

yeaaaaaaaaah thats it but I had a longer differently cut version

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is kind of a dead thread but i was just wondering about the implications of this given the situation. I was up against an anti-blackness team at camp and they were doing a performance. One of our opponents was African-american and the other one was an asian-american. They both read it at the same time which felt odd. Would it have been justified to run something about the commodification of black culture in the performance? Performances are supposed to express personal experience with an issue but not being african-american excludes the ability to do a performance right? This feels like they did the wrong thing, but is there a more concise way to say that in a debate round?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is kind of a dead thread but i was just wondering about the implications of this given the situation. I was up against an anti-blackness team at camp and they were doing a performance. One of our opponents was African-american and the other one was an asian-american. They both read it at the same time which felt odd. Would it have been justified to run something about the commodification of black culture in the performance? Performances are supposed to express personal experience with an issue but not being african-american excludes the ability to do a performance right? This feels like they did the wrong thing, but is there a more concise way to say that in a debate round?

 

I wouldn't argue that since you're arguing against a team not a specific team member. I think it would be hard to argue that the part-black team is commodifying black experience by running a performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't argue that since you're arguing against a team not a specific team member. I think it would be hard to argue that the part-black team is commodifying black experience by running a performance.

The weird part was that they both read the performance at the same time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The weird part was that they both read the performance at the same time

I think I may have seen a performance like this before. We're they saying the same words/did they have a reason for why they did whatever it is that they did?

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...