[Marxism] What's behind the heated exchanges on the thread, "The cost of being Black"?

[Joaquin Bustelo]

Carrol: "As long as the discussion is cast in the terms of this subject line
there can be no useful discussion."

Ah, c'mon Carrol. "The Cost of being Black" is just the subject I gave my
original one-sentence note pointing to the column about the study that
showed a group of white folks thought an average of $5,000 was sufficient
compensation at the time of birth for the disadvantages of being Black in
this society. I think it reflected the subject matter of the column well,
albeit with something of an ironic twist.

My ultra brief intro said, "A columnist for the Washington Post has written
a really useful piece, really about the invisibility of white skin privilege
to white people."

This set you off: "White-skin privilege theory is seriously fucked up," and
so on,	Mark Lause backed you, Mike Friedman threw a couple of pretty
sharply worded posts in there and so did "Ruthless." It seemed pretty heated
to me. 

I wanted to raise a bunch of things that went beyond the immediate
exchanges, so I started a new subject line "What's behind the heated
exchanges on the cost of being Black?" meaning, what's behind the heated
exchanges in the thread called "The cost of being Black." 

Now you retort, 

"The subject line is misleading.

"There has been NO 'heated exchanges on the cost of being Black': there has
been no exchange of _any_ kind on the cost of being black. There is complete
agreement on that."

But "The Cost of being Black" was not AT ALL my description of the point
about which there was disagreement. It was simply the thread on which the
debate arose. Maybe you forgot that detail --God knows there are enough
different subjects here at any one time to drive someone to distraction--
but there was no intention on my part to suggest that there were any
disagreements here on the substance of the issue of whether or not Blacks
are tremendously disadvantaged. The discussion is on how to conceptualize
and analyze that reality, and specifically the concept of "privilege."

I find concepts like white privilege, male privilege, etc., useful. You and
Mark Lause seem to find them not just wrong, but offensive, even odious.
Fine. But there was no attempt on MY part to impute to you or Mark views
like that Blacks really AREN'T all that disadvantaged and so on, which is
what you seem to have taken offense at, I guess because you forgot that was
the subject line of my original post.

Indeed, your very first sentence, "The subject line is misleading" is a
recognition that the *substance* of my recent "What's behind ... etc." post
didn't suggest any such thing. 

However, to assuage your concerns I've modified the subject so there can be
no possible misunderstanding, hoping this will now make it possible for you
to consider that there CAN BE a useful discussion on this matter. I look
forward to reading what you and Mark have to say (as well as others, of
course). 

Joaquín