Finding the Mean between Extremes

In speaking of a philosophy of race, time and time again, we have been made aware of the importance of considering the significance of historical/environmental contexts in shaping reality. We cannot adopt a color blind stance because color exists as a social concept/construct. It is a part of our social reality regardless of personal desires/intentions.

  

In his lecture on the "Ethics of Appropriation", Anderson spoke about the significance of history and cultural/context. He positioned himself as a medium between two extremes in regards to the ethics of appropriation. For Anderson, the Cosby view is too strict in that it grants too much power to language and the environment by making us a slave to the historical use of the word. This view argues that it is because of its historical/cultural context that the interpretation of the word can never be positive. On the flip side, there is the more liberal stance that seeks to completely redefine the word as a word of endearment (transforming hate into love) and remove it from its past. However, this stance gives too much control to the individual. Meaning and language are collective facts; they are socially understood and maintained. The relationship between language and the individual is one of reciprocal influence. Language is objective in that its exits despite the fact of the individual; it both pre-dates and will post-date each one of us. But, at the same time, we influence the transformation of language over time. It is not static and immune to change. thus, Anderson argues for a middle view in terms of appropriation. Attempts at neutralization only work to hide the reality of history. What needs to happen for this word as well as for the concept and reality of race within society as a whole is a recognition of the reality of both the historical and the current contexts/meanings. People need to become actively engaged in subverting underlying oppressive structures and meanings, but this can only be done when the actors involved can reasonably be expected to accept and understand this as the ultimate aim.
More generally, the meaning which has been attached to race in the past necessarily affects our understanding of race in the present and in the future. Mills' argument in Revisionist Ontologies: Theorizing White Supremacy testified to the same power of history and cultural meaning. Mills speaks about the notion of White Privilege and the existence of global white supremacy. In justifying his claims about its significance he states, "even if global white supremacy were completely a thing of the past, it would still be a political system of historical interest." Furthermore, the extent and power of global white supremacy, its scope and recent reality, make its abolition regardless of the existence of a (hypothetical) complete and unanimous desire to abolish the existence of global white supremacy highly unlikely. The effects would (and do) continue to affect our own reality and daily experiences. In terms, of history, we can never un-know/un-do something that has already occurred. Time does not allow for any movement other than forwards. Though de jure white supremacy may no longer exist in its original form, this does not mean that a transformation of the same principles do not continue to exist in the form of a new de facto global white supremacy. This becomes most evident when we look at capitalism and who suffers/benefits under the current patterns of consumption, production, and exploitation.

I do not know if it is just me, but whenever I think about the process of globalization and its relation to capitalism, I find myself thinking about Marx's theory. He believed that the capitalist mode of production was bound to fail due to ever increasing exploitation of laborers. His predictions did not, however, take into consideration the possibility of the effects of globalization granting longevity to the mode which he could not have accounted for. I wonder what would happen if this capitalist system which upholds, reifies, and normalizes global white supremacy came to end because of some sort of revolution? What type of revolution would it be? Would it be a unification of all oppressed workers regardless of race, sex, nationality, religion, etc. Or would it be upper class academics? How inherently linked are our economic operations and social/political structures which are so strongly linked to our historical and cultural past? Can the transformation within one domain occur without a similar transformation within all the rest? Where is the middle ground?