Read on Twitter
Been following some of the controversy re: @VaushV and black nationalism on and off and it seems like at least some of the terms of the debate are too vague at least in the way I& #39;ve seen things framed so far. So for example:
Is "preserving culture" an important goal or a hopelessly reactionary idea or just sort of neutral? I& #39;d say it depends on what you& #39;re trying to preserve it *from* and how you hope to preserve it.
Like, preserving books and paintings from Nazis rampaging around burning "degenerate art" is certainly a mitzvah but worrying about culture being erased through a normal cosmopolitan process of cultural mixing and intermingling is reactionary as hell.
So while I& #39;m sure many people mean things by "black nationalism" that should in no way be equated with "white nationalism" (i.e. Naziism) I do get why anyone talking about culture as if it were something that could be preserved in a jar raises a few eyebrows.
It& #39;s not like history (and current global realities) aren& #39;t riddled with examples of communitarian guardians of cultural purity playing super-reactionary roles even within very oppressed communities.
Read Bobby Seale& #39;s "Seize the Time." The original Black Panthers--hardly apologists for white domination--were very hostile to "cultural nationalism."
But to the extent that what& #39;s at issue is preserving the *right* to various forms of cultural expression against everyone from book-burning Nazis to capitalist economic tyrants banning deadlocks from the workplace I totally get the "preserving culture is a progressive goal" view.
