Exchange on “coconuts”

11 July 2024

Dear comrades,

I write to you referring to the endorsement of the phrase ‘coconut’ as satire in Workers Hammer no. 253. I have encountered the usage of this phrase across my adult life at work and at college and argued against it each time. It’s not used just in politics but as a criticism of attitude and behaviour: too friendly with them (white colleagues/students) and not us at college, interests too ‘white’ (rock music). It often, if not always, portrays whiteness as somehow morally tainted, a betrayal. It is the flipside of the racist phrase, “play the white man”, that suggests whites play by the rules in business and life in general, while brown skinned people are devious, underhanded, and not to be trusted. The woman in question, Marieha Hussain, should be defended by WH against cop attacks on the pro-Palestinian demonstrators all the while arguing against her liberal messaging. Did she want Sunak to be more like Modi or Rajapaksa? The ‘coconut’ term to me is straight out of the BLM handbook and the endorsement of it as satire seems to run counter to the thrust of the latest Spartacist.

Comradely,
Paul C.

Workers Hammer replies:

22 January 2025

Dear Paul,

Thank you for your letter, which I really appreciated. Growing up in the Asian diaspora, I am no stranger to this term. However, until reading your letter, I thought of it as a generally harmless way to make fun of Asians who have become so assimilated into Western society that they only have white friends, or no longer know how to speak their parents’ language, or can only cook Western food, etc. In other words, those who have veered “too far” from their “mother culture” towards that of the “white people”.

Approaching this now from your point of view, I can see how it implies that “whiteness [is] somehow morally tainted, a betrayal”. I would, however, like to qualify this slightly. While I now agree with you that this term is not mere satire and its usage must be opposed, I think we need to see that the sentiment behind this term embodies a certain contradiction. On the one hand, it expresses the desire on the part of immigrants and immigrant-derived people to preserve an aspect of their national (or subnational) identity against the pressures of assimilation. It is a desire on their part to hold on to certain aspects of their culture, which is a good thing.

At the same time, it has its regressive side. The diaspora upholds all manner of conservatism precisely under the guise of “holding on to culture”. This is especially oppressive to youth and women — for example, not being allowed to date, go out, drink, or marry outside the religion or race. And this is when this sentiment gets expressed against “whiteness”. This side must be rejected.

Not only is this oppressive to minorities within the diaspora, it is also a complete obstacle to building unity in the multiracial working class. It tells brown-skinned workers that they are traitors if they reject certain regressive aspects of their culture, and it tells white workers that their culture is somehow inferior and undesirable. It displaces class divisions in society, which communists want to bring to the fore, and reinforces racial divisions, which communists want to overcome.

I will conclude by noting that when we wrote our defence of Marieha Hussain, we were not endorsing this term uncritically, but in fact, we were unconscious of its political implications. So, I thank you for rendering it conscious.