to those who felt stung by the "stuff white people like" blog

...I didn't mean you any harm, but i think the blog communicates a point about racism very effectively that probably can't be made in a gentle or abstract way.

Many of you have heard, i'm sure, of Jane Elliott's "Brown Eyes/Blue Eyes exercise," and other similar seminars and exercises, designed to give white people a taste of what racial discrimination and stereotyping is like. Many who have participated in these exercises describe feeling rage, sadness, and considerable upset lasting for years, even though they know it's only an exercise that lasts a few hours and that they can go back to their lives and everything will be the way it was before.

We white folk don't have any callouses when it comes to racial stereotyping, and so even a little bit of it stings very much.

But i'm certain a person of color would tell me that it doesn't sting them any less than it stings me... and worse, for them there's no "going back to your life" after the exercise in stereotyping is over.

I talk a lot about racism, sexism, classism, transphobia, and other kinds of discrimination, and it's easy to start to think of these in abstract ways, especially where i get into things like terminology and misappropriation and other kinda esoteric aspects. But at the heart of it, always, always, is the neverending sting. You can take the sting you felt with you whenever you read a discussion about racism, and perhaps it will all be more clear.

meta-neo-

A while ago i offered "a meta-neo-marxian semiotic principle" but left sorta fuzzily undefined what i meant really by "meta-neo-Marxian." What i wrote then, was:

"Neo" because we have progressed quite a bit in the last 150 years, in understanding the sociology of oppression and the intricacies of economics, and "meta" because i am not a subscriber to a philosophy, but merely a critic whose views are inspired by the trajectory which Marx played a role in laying out.

It dawned on me yesterday that i have to take this to its logical conclusion. I have to. And so, i offer for your consideration, meta-neo-. I will define this more fully in a moment, but for now i will leave it sorta fuzzily undefined and let you ponder what i mean by it.

I make no claims to originality or uniqueness. In fact i hope there are a million other people out there with similar but not exactly identical ideas.

Meta-neo- is not a philosophy. One does not become a subscriber or an adherent to meta-neo-, but merely perhaps, i dunno, a listener. Meta-neo- is an affinity, not an identity. I'm sick and tired of identity politics ruining my friendships and threatening my relationships and demolishing my political coalitions and causing me to lose sleep.

Let's throw all this crap out the window: "You're not 'X' enough." "You're not a true 'X'." "I want to do W, but if i do, i'm not an 'X' anymore and my X friends will reject me." "I'm not X, but i'm Y, let's call this the 'XY' coalition." "Hey, i'm a 'Z,' you left me out."

Meta-neo- is analogue, not digital. There's no "Meta-neo- vs. non-meta-neo-." You can be a little meta-neo-, you can be a lot meta-neo-, your affinity with meta-neo- can vary from subject to subject or even from mood to mood or day to day.

The prime directive of meta-neo- is simple: When it becomes widely recognized that there is a need for a meta-neo-meta-neo-, those who pay any attention to it at all are urged to declare it dead and come up with something else.

Still need me to define meta-neo- or should we just leave it there and run with it?