1. It's for middle class white people who want to enlighten their own culture, and be rebellious by stealing from opressed culture. The ruling class has historically stolen the culture of the opressed and used it for it's own enlightenment, entertainment, and weapons.
Rock music was middle class white boys mocking the rebellious style of poor blacks in blues, and rock'n roll, because they thought poor black men made cool music, and envied their style. So you get shit like Cream, The Rolling Stones, Elvis, and The Who. Yet what they do is they make millions for corporations, tons of teenage girls falling at their knees, and race riots at their concerts where people of color are made known they are unwanted.
Same with punk, punk was basically white males who think the lifestyle of poverty is "cool". They basically colonized the culture of impoverished people of color, where do you think they got all the spiked attire, piercings, mohawks, tattoos, patched jackets, all that shit was how poor colored people dressed in gangs, and traditionally indigenous cultural aesthetic that was stolen by whites to enlighten the ruling class culture. They were angry white boys who were upset yet wanted express it.
Punk is racist because it's white people stealing black culture and poverty to their own advantage and self righteousness without permission or understanding.They are bored with their own culture, so they believe they are entitled to steal from those below them and create a subculture where they can do do whatever they want or feel less guilty. They think poverty and being black is fun or a game, minus being harassed by cops, mass incarceration, low self esteem, negative representation in the media, or all the other shit that comes with being in the class.
Punk was constructed by white males for the strengthening of the white male identity.
2. It's liberal nonsense.Not only does punk not centralize or mention the issues of people of color and a lot of the times women, it's always from the privileged white male liberal perspective. They seek to solve the world's problems through white ways. Dropping out of the system, hopping trains, and dumpster diving. Or for the middle class punks eating local, and joining a collective. And all this ultra-liberal left ideology which is based off of white worldview.
It's methods to bring down capitalism and liberate everyone, is counter-effective and is actually just protects the privilleges of those that created it.
Punks operate off of the white conceived notion that everybody can just jump out of the system, drink 40s, and dumpster dive willingly. When unfortunatley many non-privilleged people are forced to, and they are not happy about it.
Not only is dropping out of the system absolutely ineffective at bringing about change, and a declaration of white male privileged supremacy, but who the fuck actually wants to do that?
Another thing about punk, is how it stresses alienation and individualism. They want to shock and anger their parents, and socially outcast theirselves from society, by spiking their hair and being as lazy as possible.
Then want people to take anarchism seriously?
Then there are the straight-edge punks, who seem to be slightly more responsible than everybody else. But they still are white male-centered, and their withdrawalist beliefs just don't make sense.
Plus, white people exclude everybody from the issues they talk about in punk as if it's some big secret, that people of color are to stupid to care about.
Like I said, the punk movement is ultra-liberal and ultra ineffective. It's a youth subculture, it's not a resistance culture.
These are serious problems that effect the black and poor community everyday, and it is a straight up failure when you see white people trying to embrace it.
Alcoholism is not cool, and reckless behavior is foolish and juvenile.
Black people do not need to be getting drunk with a bunch of whites, and partying. Neither do the whites. That does nothing for their self esteem issues. They need freedom, not hedonism and stupidity.
And they don't need to be a part of a movement that isn't determined to solve their problems, but is just a form of escapism for whites. That's why we have to have so many divisions within the see for women, and then people of color, because the punk is so white male centered.
All in all, Afro-Punk may be a nice space for blacks to freely incorporate punk and african influence together, without having to face in your face racism. But this division is really just a division as to how punk really is white male centered, and we as people of colour should rethink the music we listen to, and the people who make it, and it's audience.
Angry loud white music, may strike within us anger that we feel, but the anger is not the same. It may romanticize isolation and outcasts, but when they say that they are talking to white males.
Conclusively, punk is a youth subculture. It's not a radical movement for change or culture of resistance. I do not condone any of the behavior that it suggests. Drinking, paganism,drugs, travelling, and being reckless is totally juvenile and colonized behavior.
People of color need to be fighting colonization not joining a culture built for white males that enables them to party under it. Liberalism applied to blacks is not liberation for blacks. We've been oppressed for 500 years and opting for the acceptance and sympathy with white patriarchal power is pro-racism, anti-indigenous.