Wokesters will woke

They just can´t help themselves. 

Europe by definition doesn´t exist

Lord Dunmore: The Great Emancipator?

 

Some American leftists are confused by the fact that the British emancipated Black slaves and armed some of them to fight the Patriots during the War of Independence of the latter. For instance, the colonial governor Lord Dunmore in Virginia, who had been a Jacobite in his youth and later became a Toryesque "Bedford Whig". 

Emancipating the slaves of the enemy (or at least able-bodied male slaves willing to be cannon fodder) was standard practice during the Early Modern Period, so it´s not clear why Dunmore´s emancipation of slaves owned by "rebels" should be seen as any different? Or why on earth the old reactionary should be seen as some kind of Abraham Lincoln? Unless the point is the opposite: smear Lincoln. Not sure if these two agendas are compatible! Aren´t there any relevant differences between the oldest military tactic in the book, and Radical Reconstruction? 

The link below goes to a blog post by (the late) Louis Proyect, an independent Marxist who supported the 1619 Project, plus a commentary thread. The 1619 Project are a group of mostly Black activists who take the line that the American Revolution was really pro-slavery.   

Lord Dunmore and the Ethiopian Regiment

Revelation on the road to 1619

Victoria Woodhull 

The late Louis Proyect, an independent Marxist in the United States, still has a blog presence. In the links below, he defends the 1619 Project from criticism. The 1619 Project argues that the American revolution was a conservative reaction against abolitionism. I previously reviewed several books arguing a similar position. The project is (or was) supported by the New York Times. 

Several historians critical of the 1619 Project sent an open letter to NYT protesting the paper´s endorsement. Proyect believes that the letter is actually part of a campaign organized by a far left group, the small but notorious Socialist Equality Party (SEP), often known as World Socialist Web Site (WSWS). Other opponents of the 1619 Project turn out to be Hillary Clinton supporters, Republicans and perhaps racists.

The links below go to Proyect´s exposés of the SEP, and to an article on the early history of Marxism in the United States, where Proyect seemingly supports the faction around Victoria Woodhull, who was expelled by the orthodox Marxists around Sorge. 

I´m not entirely convinced by the arguments concerning the American revolution, tbh, and Proyect never reflects over the Black pop front with the New York Times, but the contributions are nevertheless interesting. 

Marx, Lincoln and Project 1619

Behind the attack on New York Times Project 1619

Project 1619 and its detractors

Britannia's Beefy Blacks

I'm somewhat disappointed by Gerald Horne's "Negro Comrades of the Crown". The subject-matter is interesting, but unfortunately the book is badly written and the detailed arguments often hard to follow. The notes are super-dense and could have needed a better editor. The author, a professor, frequently employs a rather strange language. On the one hand, Horne uses rare words not even I have seen before (and I had a straight A in English). On the other hand, he often cracks expressions which sound as if taken from a hard-boiled Hollywood flick. Thus, he refers to an execution as a "well-attended necktie party". Killing somebody is imaginatively called "sending him south of purgatory". He also informs us that African-American soldiers guarding Euro-American POW's in Jamaica were "beefy". Another problem is the confusing terminology. While an A-level student of U.S. history might understand the difference between "republicans" and "Republicans", the general reader might not. And what does it mean that the crew of a certain British vessel off Bermuda consisted of "Africans"? Where they recent arrivals from Africa, Black Americans, Jamaicans, or what?

I consider these deficiencies unfortunate, since the subject matter is intrinsically interesting (I wouldn't have bought the book otherwise). Horne argues that the British Empire was a better ally of oppressed and enslaved Blacks in the Western hemisphere (and beyond) than the United States. Armed Blacks in redcoats fought the American "revolution" in 1776, and again supported Britain in 1812. Both Mexico and Canada abolished slavery and made Blacks equal before the law long before the United States. The expansion of the United States was mostly an expansion of the slave system. This expansionism was opposed by an alliance of the British, Blacks and "indigenes" (American Indians).

Blacks who reached Canada and liberty naturally supported it against filibusters from the "republic". Abolitionists opposed colonization schemes that would send free Blacks to far-away Liberia, but *supported* similar schemes to resettle American Blacks in nearby British possessions such as Guyana, Trinidad or Belize. The White slave-owners, naturally, took the opposite position!

The author is apparently a Marxist, perhaps even a CPUSA member or fellow traveler. This makes his book pretty piquant, since Marxists traditionally support the American War of Liberation. In 1848, Marx expressed support for the U.S. in its war against "the lazy Mexicans who didn't know what to do with California". Yet, if we are to believe Comrade Horne, Africans (beefy or not) were better advised joining the Royal Army! Of course, Horne doesn't believe that humanitarian philanthropy was the guiding principle of British politics, but rather a combination of great power politicking (abolition hit the United States where it hurt the most) and pragmatic adaptation to the ever-increasing slave rebellions in the British dominions themselves. Still, the redcoats rather than the "patriots" emerge as the better side.

As I said, interesting. For that reason, and for that reason only, I give this work three stars. Otherwise, I think it only deserves two.

The "Amerikan" Revolution

Gerald Horne's book "The Counter-Revolution of 1776" is a kind of prequel to his previous study of the early United States, "Negro Comrades of the Crown". Horne, a maverick Marxist historian and African-American activist, argues that the issues of slavery and slave resistance are central to an understanding of U.S. origins. The 13 colonies, or rather their White settlers, rebelled against the British motherland when abolitionism became a political force in Britain and slave resistance threatened to engulf the Caribbean. Thus, the American "revolution" was really a counter-revolution, a conservative reaction in defense of Black chattel slavery. White settler colonization of Native American land was another factor. Small wonder most Blacks and Natives supported the British during the War of Independence! Conceived in sin, the American republic have never been able to mend its terrible "race relations", forcing Blacks to seek support from alien powers, including Britain, Japan, China or the Soviet Union. Despite being a Marxist, Horne doesn't believe in "workers' unity" across racial barriers. Rather, he wants Blacks to form an independent *international* movement against the United States. It's not clear what foreign power Brother Horne wants to lobby for support this time around, but China is implied.

I don't deny that "The Counter-Revolution of 1776" is interesting. Horne paints a picture of a slave system which, despite its seeming "success" (for the slave-owners, slave-traders and consumers of tropical brands in Britain), was nevertheless inherently unstable. In a very real sense, the slavocracy was creating its own grave-diggers. At a certain point, slave resistance made abolitionism inevitable. The geopolitical picture is also interesting. Both France and Spain, especially Spain, encroached on the British possessions by promising freedom to Black slaves who absconded from British-owned plantations. Able-bodied Black men had to serve in the Spanish Army to gain their freedom, something they probably didn't mind doing! Black freedmen guarded the borders of Spanish Florida against British punitive expeditions. When the Anglo settlers became strong enough, they challenged Britain with the aid of their erstwhile enemies France and Spain. In return, the British played the abolitionist card, arming Blacks who fled from "Patriot" slave-owners. This created the (seemingly anomalous) situation that Loyalist Canada moved faster towards abolition (and had more Native rights) than the United States, that supposed beacon of freedom and enlightenment, where many of the Founding Fathers were actually slave-owners themselves. To Horne, the real beacon of freedom in the Western hemisphere was the Haitian revolution!

Horne's tack is, presumably, unusual among Marxists, who support the American Revolution, although they tend to emphasize the more radical Civil War and Reconstruction ("the Second American Revolution"). I first encountered the anti-"Amerikan" position in a very obscure work, J Sakai's "Settlers: The Myth of the White Proletariat". The otherwise unknown Sakai is an ultra-left Maoist, while Horne (a history professor of some standing) works with the more "main line" CPUSA. It would be interesting to know how common his complete alienation from the United States is among Black activists today? Yes, the United States may have been conceived in sin, but don't Reconstruction and desegregation prove that integration eventually became possible even in "Amerikkka"? Indeed, doesn't Loyalist Canada (hardly a paragon of Afro-centricity and ebonics) prove that Blacks can win their freedom in a Western nation?

Final complaint. While the subject matter of this book is interesting, Horne is - quite frankly - a terrible writer. I actually stopped reading about half-way through, and started skimming instead. I had the same problem with his previous book on the Loyalist-Black interface (which I *did* read very carefully, including the notes). I have decided to give "The Counter-Revolution of 1776" three stars because of its contents, and despite of its style.

Blacks against Amerika

A review of "The Negro in the American Revolution". 

Benjamin Quarles published this book already in 1961. This is a new edition from 1996 with a introduction by Gary Nash.

Nash believes that Quarles' book was among the first to tell the truth about the role of Blacks in the American Revolution. Previous books usually concentrated on the Patriotic Blacks, those who fought on the American side against the British. There were about 5,000 Patriotic Blacks used in various capacities by the revolutionary forces.

There is just one little problem.

The number of Blacks working for the British was 100,000.

I'm pretty well read, and I had no idea until a few years ago, when I read a book about the Sierra Leone settlement. But even then, I didn't realize the sheer magnitude of it. The British were no abolitionists, but they realized that a victorious war against the colonies called for unorthodox measures. By promising Black slaves owned by Rebel masters their freedom, the British excited a mass exodus of Blacks in the South to the British lines. Even some of Jefferson's and Washington's slaves absconded. A few of the freed Blacks were armed and saw combat, but most were employed as pilots onboard ships, scouts, drummers or manual labourers. Apart from the freed Blacks, there were also thousands of still enslaved Blacks behind the British lines. These were owned by Loyalists.

The fate of the "Loyalist" Blacks was varied. The slaves were shipped to the West Indies and often re-sold. Even a few free Blacks ended up being slaves in Jamaica. Most of the free Blacks moved to Canada, and were eventually resettled in Sierra Leone in West Africa. The capital of that nation is still called Freetown.

The American Revolution is virtually always portrayed as a glorious event and as the opening shot in the battle for liberty. Perhaps it was - for the Whites. Blacks saw things differently. The Southern states didn't abolish slavery. The Northern states eventually did, but there, the number of Blacks was smaller, and slavery seems to have been abolished mostly because White skilled workers saw the slaves as dangerous competitors.

The British didn't abolish slavery until long after the war in America, but at least they promised freedom to the Blacks in the thirteen colonies. Small wonder most of them absconded to enemy territory, rather than continuing being slaves under Washington, Adams or Jefferson.

The really interesting question, of course, is what this tells us about the American Revolution. At least from a Black perspective, Britain and the United States were birds of a feather. Obviously, however, the Blacks preferred the empire that was willing to grant them freedom.

And that empire was...Britain.

Small wonder this has been covered up for so long!

Under the North Star

Leon F. Litwack's "North of Slavery" was originally published in 1961. The book deals with the position of Blacks in those US states that had abolished slavery.

It's not a very pretty story.

Blacks in the North were, of course, free. Despite this, their freedom was limited by racist legislation, negative public opinion and adverse economic conditions. In many states, Blacks weren't considered citizens. They were not allowed to testify against a White person in court, which meant that Whites could mistreat Blacks with impunity. Only a few Northern states allowed Blacks to vote. When the franchise was extended to all White males, Blacks were often stripped of their right to vote. Even the free states had "Jim Crow" legislation segregating street cars, railway carriages or steamers. De facto, most of Northern society was segregated in this fashion. White mob violence was frequent, educational opportunities slim to non-existent, and it was often impossible to find other than menial jobs. White labour unions saw Blacks as competitors, enemies and scabs, and often refused to co-operate with them. Even churches segregated or excluded Blacks, eventually leading these to form their own denominations. Some Blacks escaped racist oppression in the United States by moving to Canada.

Interestingly, Blacks tended to support the more "patrician" political parties: Federalists, Whigs and Republicans. The more plebeian Democrats were associated with the slave-holding South, popular racism and disenfranchisement of Blacks. However, no White political party was consistently anti-racist. Many Northern opponents of slavery wanted the new Western states to be "free" in the sense of being reserved for Whites! Lincoln, who eventually became the Great Emancipator, originally called for the total separation of the two races and the removal of all Blacks (or all free Blacks?) to Central or South America.

"North of Slavery" tells the story of life under the North Star in great detail, and the book is filled with appalling examples of racism, including bizarrely prejudiced quotes from various contemporary White sources. Naturally, Southern politicians used the racist sentiments in the North as proof of Northern hypocrisy. They had a certain point, although it's less clear in what way this justified their own conduct (which was even worse).

The author ends his story shortly before the Civil War, when the tide had begun to turn. The Dred Scott decision led to an upsurge of pro-Black, anti-Southern sentiment in the North. The Civil War inaugurated a new period in the history of American race relations, albeit one that would prove to be short-lived: Radical Reconstruction.

But that is another story.

Lumpen rage at Harper´s Ferry

"Race Traitor", edited by Noel Ignatiev and John Garvey, is a disturbing book.

What's disturbing is not the authors' call to "abolish the White race". Those who accuse Messrs. Ignatiev and Garvey of calling for genocide have obviously never read the book. The authors argue (correctly) that there is no such thing as a White race, that the idea of Whiteness is a social construct connected to oppression based on purported racial differences, and that "the White race" in *this* sense must therefore be abolished. Ignatiev doesn't know exactly what kind of identity should replace Whiteness, but he does have a few suggestions: Germanic and Celtic identities, Blackness or some kind of "melting pot" identity (his preferred option).

Only a racist could find this part of the book disturbing.

Personally, I think the problem is the rest of this volume!

Ignatiev and Garvey romanticize the lumpen proletariat, and seem to consider those with a lumpen lifestyle as the real force for revolutionary change in American society. Ignatiev even suggests that White lumpens attracted to neo-Nazi groups might be a revolutionary force, provided they are suitably converted and become race traitors instead. He also regards Whites drawn to militia groups as a potential base for recruits, criticizing the anti-racist Southern Poverty Law Center for tracking such groups.

"Race Traitor" contains one article expressing some kind of sympathy with Colin Ferguson, the man responsible for the Long Island Rail Road massacre. There is an interview with an ex-Nazi who claims to have been voluntarily homeless, and who related to drug addicts "by shooting up with them". Another article, apparently written by anarcho-surrealists, claim that looting during riots is great fun! And so it goes on, sometimes making you wonder whether the editors are really serious or simply want to strike a militant pose. Ignatiev, after all, is a Jewish Harvard professor. I can't picture him in upstate Idaho, recruiting ex-Nazis at some trailer park. But, then, I never met Noel, so who knows?

It's also unclear how "Race Traitor" really wants to abolish the White race (i.e. racism). They seem to place heavy emphasis on a kind of purely personal statements, such as refusing to move to the suburbs, declaring yourself to be non-White in public, listening to Black music, wearing dreadlocks, etc. I get the impression that "Race Traitor" vacillates between purely symbolic acts of defiance and desperate violence. It's difficult to see how any of this could "abolish the White race"?

I'm not saying this is a "bad" book. It's hard-hitting, provocative and somewhat insane, and it sure makes you think outside the box. Still, I would advise people to stay clear from the Harper's Ferry Organization, or whoever is behind this hit piece of agit prop.

One day, the so-called White race will indeed be "abolished", but probably not using then methods described in "Race Traitor"...

The mythology of Maoism-Ultraleftism

J. Sakai is a Japanese-American Maoist activist whose main claim to fame is this book, "Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat". The book is something of an underground classic among the more peculiar Maoist groups in North America. Sorry, I mean Amerika! It's also available free on-line.

Sakai argues that the entire White working class in the United States is reactionary rather than revolutionary, and that this has always been the case. Working-class unity between Whites, Blacks, Hispanics and Asians is therefore impossible. Instead, Sakai calls for a kind of nationalist separatism, with each non-White ethnic group creating its own independent organizations. But how should these movements take power in an overwhelmingly White nation? I have "only" read two thirds of this book, but at least in those sections, Sakai never really gives an answer.

Sakai rejects virtually every event or movement considered progressive by the traditional left: the American Revolution, Radical Reconstruction, the Populist movement, the IWW, the CIO, and in practice even the Allied war effort against the Nazis. He wavers a bit on *that* issue, however, since his political heroes Stalin and Mao fought on the Allied side. To the author, all these movements were doomed to defeat from the start, due to the complete impossibility of creating workers' or peoples' unity in the settler nation of "Amerika". While he's at it, he also attacks the Irish and the Boer, two important enemies of the British Empire usually supported by socialists and some liberals during the period in question. The author's positions are so far out, that they are frankly difficult to take seriously. It's also unclear why he *supports* the Union in the Civil War. Logically, he should oppose both the Union and the Confederacy, especially since he views Reconstruction as "neo-colonialist", considers the Republicans racist, etc.

Sakai's ultraleft Maoism is, in effect, a form of despair. I'm not a Maoist, but Chairman Mao could certainly teach this Japanese-American admirer a thing or two about "striking the main enemy first", "win over the centre to isolate the right", analyzing the "main contradiction" etc. I wonder what Sakai thinks of Mao's on-off alliances with Chiang Kai-Shek or the anti-fascist popular fronts?

Another annoying trait of "Settlers" is the strange spelling and terminology: "Amerika" instead of "America", "Afrikans" instead of "Black Americans", etc. It's unclear why the letter "k" is used in both "Amerikan" and "Afrikan". In the first instance, the "k" presumably stands for the KKK. But what does it stand for in "Afrikan"? No idea.

I'm not saying "Settlers" is uninteresting. It belongs to the same genre as Ignatiev's and Garvey's "Race Traitor". In fact, it's more extreme! It could be read as a kind of extended, alternative history of the United States. Even I got a few interesting ideas from this book. It's overall perspective, however, is deeply flawed and it probably won't convince anyone outside a very narrow circle of neo-Maoists and ethnic nationalists.