Your argument against the tendency amongst liberals and some leftists to think of racism and racial categories as unchanging in their meanings throughout history is spot on.
My question is - as per Michael’s quip - should we really move away from an investigation into the historical interplay between racism and capitalism in this country, just because many liberals have done a shoddy job with the recounting? Surely what differentiates the left from liberal thought is, in part, our focus on how class power is concentrated and promulgated through social institutions. And these social institutions have a history that needs interrogation.
You have to take Michael's comment in context. Again, it's not that we shouldn't investigate the relationship between capitalism and racism at different historical junctures; it's that doing so is irrelevant to rectifying contemporary injustices. Studying history as a pedagogical or explanatory tool is different from studying history to explain why a present-day injustice *deserves* rectification. The history of how you became poor, for instance, is irrelevant to whether you should be poor. We can debate the former—namely the historically specific political-economic structures and accompanying cultural institutions that, taken together, caused you to be poor. There are numerous historians—Judith Stein, James Oakes, Barbara Fields, Toure Reed, Eric Arnesen, Robin D.G. Kelley (I have mixed feelings his work), Paul LeBlanc, and Clayborn Carson, to name a few—who've analyzed the dynamic between race and political economy without lapsing into the reifying narratives of the 1619 Project, The New Jim Crow, How to Be an Antiracist, White Fragility, etc. But those debates should be left to academic history, not public policy, the journosphere, or the book-sales lecture circuit.
Thanks for taking the time to reply so thoroughly! I think I am mostly in agreement. Certainly for expedient political communication, expounding at length about the myriad ways racism and capitalism have reinforced one another throughout American history is less compelling and motivational than speaking to people’s immediate material interests. I do, however, wonder if the political message - “racism is encouraged by the ruling class to divide the power of workers, across racial lines, and hurts the prospects of workers black and white alike” - can be helped by a mention or two of the historical precedents of this strategy.
Thanks for the recs on historians to check out - I’ve read a few but need dig deeper.
I don't think invoking historical precedent as an organizing mechanism is insidious per se. The problem is that people are quick to jump from "[insert historical situation] is similar to now" to "[insert historical situation] is identical to now, so we should harness the strategies and tactics of the past without taking into the account the historically specific dynamics that structured the options people had available, and the decisions they made as a result." I also think we need to be careful about substituting history lessons for meeting people where they are. If you can't get someone on board with your policy platform, feeding them progressive historical narratives isn't going to cut it. Political and historical education has its place, especially in the labor movement, but you have to start with people's immediate material needs. Making intellectual appeals without prioritizing concrete organizing is a recipe for wish-fulfillment, really.
How is it possible to write on the 1619 Project without once mentioning the sustained and excoriating critique of the Times's falsification of history by the World Socialist Web Site, which not only interviewed many of the authors you cite, but also exchanged views with the editors of the American Historical Review and conducted a political campaign with meetings all over the US to take on the identarian "left."?
I didn't want to have to speed through the various historiographical debates—over the Revolution, Lincoln, etc.—in a short piece like this. But I've been meaning to write a more sustained critique of the 1619 Project that incorporates the WSWS interviews, the pamphlet they released in response, the NYT letters exchanges, Lichtenstein's AHS debate, and several new articles on capitalism and slavery (John Clegg at UChicago put one out recently).
Your argument against the tendency amongst liberals and some leftists to think of racism and racial categories as unchanging in their meanings throughout history is spot on.
My question is - as per Michael’s quip - should we really move away from an investigation into the historical interplay between racism and capitalism in this country, just because many liberals have done a shoddy job with the recounting? Surely what differentiates the left from liberal thought is, in part, our focus on how class power is concentrated and promulgated through social institutions. And these social institutions have a history that needs interrogation.
You have to take Michael's comment in context. Again, it's not that we shouldn't investigate the relationship between capitalism and racism at different historical junctures; it's that doing so is irrelevant to rectifying contemporary injustices. Studying history as a pedagogical or explanatory tool is different from studying history to explain why a present-day injustice *deserves* rectification. The history of how you became poor, for instance, is irrelevant to whether you should be poor. We can debate the former—namely the historically specific political-economic structures and accompanying cultural institutions that, taken together, caused you to be poor. There are numerous historians—Judith Stein, James Oakes, Barbara Fields, Toure Reed, Eric Arnesen, Robin D.G. Kelley (I have mixed feelings his work), Paul LeBlanc, and Clayborn Carson, to name a few—who've analyzed the dynamic between race and political economy without lapsing into the reifying narratives of the 1619 Project, The New Jim Crow, How to Be an Antiracist, White Fragility, etc. But those debates should be left to academic history, not public policy, the journosphere, or the book-sales lecture circuit.
Thanks for taking the time to reply so thoroughly! I think I am mostly in agreement. Certainly for expedient political communication, expounding at length about the myriad ways racism and capitalism have reinforced one another throughout American history is less compelling and motivational than speaking to people’s immediate material interests. I do, however, wonder if the political message - “racism is encouraged by the ruling class to divide the power of workers, across racial lines, and hurts the prospects of workers black and white alike” - can be helped by a mention or two of the historical precedents of this strategy.
Thanks for the recs on historians to check out - I’ve read a few but need dig deeper.
I don't think invoking historical precedent as an organizing mechanism is insidious per se. The problem is that people are quick to jump from "[insert historical situation] is similar to now" to "[insert historical situation] is identical to now, so we should harness the strategies and tactics of the past without taking into the account the historically specific dynamics that structured the options people had available, and the decisions they made as a result." I also think we need to be careful about substituting history lessons for meeting people where they are. If you can't get someone on board with your policy platform, feeding them progressive historical narratives isn't going to cut it. Political and historical education has its place, especially in the labor movement, but you have to start with people's immediate material needs. Making intellectual appeals without prioritizing concrete organizing is a recipe for wish-fulfillment, really.
A good piece. Insightful academics thinkers who take into account class issues and the capitalist economy are unfairly maligned
How is it possible to write on the 1619 Project without once mentioning the sustained and excoriating critique of the Times's falsification of history by the World Socialist Web Site, which not only interviewed many of the authors you cite, but also exchanged views with the editors of the American Historical Review and conducted a political campaign with meetings all over the US to take on the identarian "left."?
I didn't want to have to speed through the various historiographical debates—over the Revolution, Lincoln, etc.—in a short piece like this. But I've been meaning to write a more sustained critique of the 1619 Project that incorporates the WSWS interviews, the pamphlet they released in response, the NYT letters exchanges, Lichtenstein's AHS debate, and several new articles on capitalism and slavery (John Clegg at UChicago put one out recently).
I hope you will! It was one of the major events in the development of Marxism last year. It dealt a fatal blow to racialism.