|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Start-class)|
I'm confused here. I didn't think Anarchism appreciated Racists. But this article IS racist.
rac·ism (rā'sĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
Vote for Deletion
It seems to me that the claim that anarchism has been 'white centered' is simply historically innacurate. Almost all of the predominant anarchists of the first wave were russian, italian, and spanish - none of which would have been viewed as white at the time. Indeed, anarchism in the US was viewed as an immigrant movement. Furthermore, three of the most succesful anarchist movements were in Korea, Japan, and South Africa. There's also no lack of theorists from every continent; though it's no surprise that european anarchsists texts have been preserved and are more accesable in english. It seem to me that the author has more of a grudge with contemporary anarchism, and is trying to back it up with sloppy historical claims. --Shevek
- What you're describing is US centrism; sorry, but Spanish, Russian and Italian, when outside of the stupidity of American race relations, are and were white.
- Umm what? US centrism? Anarchism has always been a minimal movement in the US. Even the IWW was stronger in south africa than in the US. Your history is fucked.
Actually anarchism in the US is the only radical tendency that has shown staying power in a culture that has for the most part rejected social liberalism(ie socialism). Also it is silly to reduce anarchism to people in the 18th and 19th century. To understand anarchy fully you have to look at it in an ontological way which incorporates such thinkers as Lao Tzu. The tendencies of anarchy are timeless. Primitive hunter-gatherer existence is fairly definitive in this regard.
what is the point of this article?
I see this article has undergone a vote about deletion, but still: it's very poorly written, the main definition gives no information other than this "Black Anarchism" begin employed by negoroes, adding just two quotes, which aren't very informative too. I have nothing against covering "Black Anarchism" here, but if you insist it should be covered, plz make this article worth the space it takes. Another thing is that black is a color much associated with anarchism in general - the use of black flag by anarchists dates back at last to the times of russian revolution; take Black Star's for example - they had nothing to do with "Black Anarchism" as described here. 220.127.116.11 19:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Ashanti Alston Quote (please cite this)
Hello. The following quote, from a transcript of a talk given by Ashanti Alston Omowali at Hunter College in 2003 helps further explain his idea of Black anarchism; could someone include with the proper citation(I am unsure how to cite things and have included it without for now):
"Black culture has always been oppositional and is all about finding ways to creatively resist oppression here, in the most racist country in the world. So, when I speak of a Black anarchism, it is not so tied to the color of my skin but who I am as a person, as someone who can resist, who can see differently when I am stuck, and thus live differently."
Taken from http://www.anarchistpanther.net/node/17 (18th paragraph on the page I believe). This transcript may be a good place to pull more information for the article as well. 1/24/08
This is not black anarchism, this is black nationalism.
The main interest of this movement seems to be to better the situation, specifically, for the black race. Not only that, but anarchism has historically been anti-racist, which opposes racial notions such as the ones expressed in this so called black anarchism.
I might've missed something, but I don't see any reason whatsoever for why this should be called black anarchism. If black anarchism is a thing, then <insert race here> -anarchism exists aswell, but I don't see any articles for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The second paragraph makes no sense
It literally reads:
which is functionally the same as