[Marxism] Behind the attack on New York Times Project 1619 | Louis Proyect

John Edmundson johnedmundson4 at gmail.com
Fri Dec 27 12:41:22 MST 2019


"In a more general sense, how North America developed would have been a lot
more similar to the development of India/Pakistan or Nigeria - or even
Ireland - than it was, with the difference being that outright slavery
would have been woven into the overall fabric of US society and the US
economy even more than it was."

I would have thought more like Australia. In Nigeria, Ireland and
India/Pakistan, there were millions of people who were ruled over by a
British minority. In Australia, with the obvious exception of slavery, the
pattern of colonisation (convict colonies, free European settlers) was
similar to that of America. The principle of terra nullius - ie extinguish
any "native title", drive off or kill the prior inhabitants and settle the
country as though it were empty - was applied in both cases. Similarly in
New Zealand, except Maori proved too difficult to simply eliminate with the
resources Britain was willing to commit, so a treaty was implemented
instead and the land still subsequently confiscated in many cases. In
Ireland too, the Irish were widely deprived of their land but they still
remained as a potential workforce. In America, the indigenous population
were not seen as such, by and large, hence the importation of slaves, which
is the main factor that makes America different.

On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 7:56 AM Louis Proyect via Marxism <
marxism at lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

> ********************  POSTING RULES & NOTES  ********************
> #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
> #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
> *****************************************************************
>
> On 12/27/19 1:17 PM, John Reimann via Marxism wrote:
> >   (As far as the Native
> > Americans - they were the ones who truly had no interest in the outcome
> of
> > the Revolution since British troops would have been used to slaughter
> them
> > like the American troops were after the Revolution.)
>
> It's more complicated than that. The British tended to be more
> supportive of native land claims because they had no vested interest in
> their removal. It was the colonists who were far more threatening for
> the simple reason that they coveted Indian lands.
>
> Joseph Brant, the Mohawk leader, fought alongside the British in the
> same manner that some slaves signed up with Lord Dunsmore. When
> Washington was victorious over the British, the consequences for the
> Mohawks was disastrous. Their villages were burned to the ground and
> their women and children slaughtered along with the men. General
> Sullivan carried out this attack. My village in upstate NY is in
> Sullivan County, named after this war criminal and racist.
>
> As for the British and slavery, this article is worth reading:
>
>
> https://www.counterpunch.org/2011/05/23/was-the-american-revolution-fought-to-save-slavery/
> _________________________________________________________
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at:
> https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/johnedmundson4%40gmail.com
>


-- 
The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
But leaves the greater villain loose
Who steals the common from the goose



More information about the Marxism mailing list