[Marxism] IWW and anti-imperialism

Calvin Broadbent calvinbroadbent at hotmail.com
Tue Aug 16 04:40:37 MDT 2005

Sakai does not, I think, make assumptions. Did the fact that a few Cherokees 
owned slaves entail the Cherokees' occupying the upper echelons of the 
slaveocracy? Obviously not. Some Africans sold slaves (although the ethnic 
origin of some of these 'African' slave traders is controversial). Does that 
mean that the slave trade was a joint 'black-white' effort in 'racial' terms 
(Carroll Cox's pertinent points withstanding)? Of course not. It is no great 
surprise that some black civil rights leaders oppose immigration. Lots of 
middle class leaders oppose immigration. The fact that black Americans, or 
even American indians, may have racist attitudes does not negate the fact 
that America's racial order has always historically benefited white people 
over and above any other 'racial' group.

As for the white working class being essential to American revolution- I 
don't disagree. Meltdown will need to occur before that *ever* happens.

over and out.


>Sakai seems to make a facile assumption that the victims of the "settler" 
>white population with its aristocracy of labor is a homogenous. American 
>history is far more complex. The Cherokees owned slaves, while Black 
>"Buffalo Soldiers" participated in the slaughter of American Indians. When 
>anti-immigration legislation was proposed in the California legislature, 
>some civil rights leaders said it was a good thing. Meanwhile, in my wife's 
>classes at a predominantly Black and Latino college in NYC, Jamaicans rail 
>against other immigrants like the Dominicans who are supposedly stealing 
>jobs from Americans. In the final analysis, we can't make a revolution in 
>the USA without coming to terms with the white working class that Trotsky 
>referred to as a monster in his remarks on Black nationalism in the 1930s.

Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now!  

More information about the Marxism mailing list