Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Review of the Redneck Manifesto
... because white is a color.
Towards a non-liberal analysis of race and class in the United States.
Towards a non-liberal analysis of race and class in the United States.
Review: The Redneck Manifesto
Jim Goad, Simon and Schuster, New York 1997
by Richard Tate, Nov 1997
The purpose of this book is to challenge the anti-white racism of the American media. It explains how racism has gradually been turned upside down, so the media and the liberal establishment in general perpetrate racist slurs against the white working class population. The author isn't a redneck, but an articulate advocate of working class unity.
He refutes the myth at the origin of anti-white racism, the idea that all white people arrived voluntarily in luxury liners. In fact, most white people arrived in the holds of ships with a mortality rate similar to that of slave ships from Africa, and their arrival was a product of: a) actual slavery - he argues that there were at least as many white slaves as black
b) transportation of various kinds
c) economic force - move or starve.
When they got to America, white immigrants were sometimes treated worse than black slaves. Jim explains why with an analogy. Many whites were temporary servants, bound to their masters for seven or ten years. Black slaves were usually a man's property for life. A white servant was like a rented car: you thrash the hell out of it while you've got it. It didn't matter if a white servant died of exhaustion a day after his term of servitude ended. Masters could murder or rape their servants or slaves with impunity. Through the school system and the media, Americans are taught the horrors of black slavery over and over again, but white "indentured servitude" is hardly mentioned.
This is a polemical book, not a scientific treatise. All the history needs to be checked, but there is enough authentic research in it to assert that the origin of the white working class in America was no tea party. Discussing the origins of the slave trade, Jim notes: "Africans were imperialistic; they just weren't very good at it." This is simplistic to the point of inaccuracy, but makes a good point. Most Africans were hunters a small-scale agriculturalists, but among them were empires such as Ethiopia, which was good at imperialism. See The Race to Fashoda by David Levering Lewis, for an account of how Ethiopia defeated Italy and played off Britain and France against each other during the big carve-up of the mid-19th century. In any case, there were indigenous slave-traders in Africa. Most of them were Muslims, like Louis Farrakhan.
It might be asked, what does all this history prove? The barrage of anti-white racism puts its opponents in a difficult position. Most of what it claims is both false, and strictly irrelevant. It is not true that most white people's ancestors benefitted from slavery, and even if it were true, no-one should have to pay for the crimes of their ancestors. Most whites in America today are working class, and have far more in common with their black neighbors than their white bosses. Or as Jim puts it, "if the niggers and rednecks ever joined forces, they'd be unbeatable".
It could be said, and often is, that poor whites may be poor, but they defend their relative privileges, and thus the system as a whole. Some of them do, but so do latter day carpetbaggers like the Southern Poverty Law Center and all those who try to hold all white people responsible for the state of blacks today. Jim shows that the history of poor white/poor black antagonism in the South is not as simple as we are taught to believe; a clear cut case of poor whites ferociously defending their meager advantages against any black advancement. There are examples of the political system using black people to keep the white workers down, for instance immediately after the Civil War. In any case, it's always the bosses pitting one section against another, divide and rule at its crudest. Blaming the white working class, as liberals do, is part of this policy. The professional anti-white racist demagogues are far more effective than the Ku Klux Klan.When they can't find hate crimes, they just make them up.
In 1996, there was a lot of fuss made about white racists setting fire to "black" churches. A little-noticed item in USA Today looked at the statistics, and it turned out that arson of churches was distributed fairly evenly across the ethnicity of their congregations. Numerous other hate crimes were faked. These range from outrageous provocations to clumsy stunts which backfire on the liberal establishment which encourages them. A black woman claimed to have been raped by white men, and was gleefully paraded in front of the liberal media by politicians like Al Sharpton. It turned out to be a fantasy. A black lesbian in Portland even pretended to be disabled, and planted a burning cross on her own front lawn, attempting to get a triple dose of sympathy from the liberals ("Hate Crimes That Weren't", Willamette Week, July 3, 1996). When blacks make racist attacks on white people, you won't hear a squeak about it.
Campaigners for racial and sexual equality do not challenge capitalism at all. On the contrary. If companies hired people solely on the basis of ability, they would do better. There would be just as much inequality, but it would be an inequality of ability, an inequality which benefits the economy. Anti-racism is simply racism in reverse. Its purpose is to distract us from the real issues. For example, we are told that an average black person's income has risen from 50% to 59% of the average white's in the last 25 years. The reaction is supposed to be that we still have a long way to go. What they don't tell us is that this increase has been achieved by reducing real income for whites. Since 1973, average income has slumped more than 10%. Eventually, perhaps the entire working class will live in the same abject povery. Then the anti-racist liberals will be happy. "Average" usually means "mean", a meaningless figure. It only takes a few white multi- billionaires to greatly increase the mean income of the entire white population. If a man who earns a million dollars a year walks into a room with nine people who earn $30,000, the mean income in that room would more than quadruple, to $127,000. Are you feeling privileged yet? There are few, if any, black billionaires. So the disparity between black and white working class income is not as great as the figures suggest.
The facts you discover follow from the categories you classify them into. The racist media assume that all white people, or all women, or all members of various other categories, have something in common, and then produce statistics which apparently prove just what they have assumed. One response to this is to reject their categories altogether, and defend the interests of the one category they never use: the proletariat. They do talk of "Labor" or "working people", but these categories divide the proletariat, which includes many people who aren't in unions or don't work. But it is sometimes effective to counter the media by pointing out that even if their assumptions were true, their conclusions would not follow. This will only work if we remember that we are on enemy ground from the outset.
Guilt is a powerful instrument of social control. There is a constant barrage of propaganda trying to make white people, and particularly, white men, feel guilty for the accidents of their birth. One effect of this is that white working class people are blackmailed into keeping quiet about their own condition. Another is to provoke a racist reaction to the anti-white racism of the media. The different varieties of racism reinforce each other.
Do you answer the ideologues by "fist-fucking them with the facts", to cite Jim's purple prose again, or by pointing out that their claims are red herrings? I think you need to do both. Jim generally chooses the first, and occasionally this leads him into a liberal trap. Explaining in great detail where poor whites came from, and how they've been used and exploited, almost gives the impression that he's competing with the liberals on their own terms: here's another oppressed group to whine about. Hey, white boy, it's ok! You're descended from victims, not oppressors! He even talks about his own origins, as if, like an American leftist, he needs to say where he comes from before telling us what he thinks. His overdone explanation of his white trash "roots" could be read as a parody: "Speaking as a half-Irish redneck...", instead of "as a gay Mexican...", or whatever. But eventually, it becomes clear that he really does identify with white trash.
Jim's identity politics is akin to the workerism of the late British anarchist paper Class War. But Class War never whined: they glorified working class victories, not complained about their defeats. In America today, there are precious few successes to brag about, particularly among the congenital losers Jim champions.
Occasionally, Jim even defends blue-collar conservative resentment against college kids and foreigners coming over here and taking "our" jobs. But his description of the working class he lives and works with tends to undermine his pride in them. A moron in Jim's local bar sums it up: "Working people built this fuckin' country, and they don't give a damn about us." It's difficult to avoid the thought that, if the working class is stupid enough to swallow patriotism, it deserves to lose. At least, until it sees through this trash, it is bound to stay at the bottom of it. Class pride is not the same as class consciousness. Being proud of the accident of being born working class is as ridiculous as being proud of your skin color. And you can change your class, if you're clever and ruthless enough.
It takes courage to stand up against the liberal establishment, and despite its faults, you should support Jim by obtaining this book. "Being called a racist can ruin a career just like communist blacklisting could destroy someone in the fifties." In the current anti-right, anti-white political climate, The Redneck Manifesto is an important addition to the arsenal of anyone who wants to puncture the liberal concensus with a few salvoes of sarcasm.
Jim Goad, Simon and Schuster, New York 1997
by Richard Tate, Nov 1997
The purpose of this book is to challenge the anti-white racism of the American media. It explains how racism has gradually been turned upside down, so the media and the liberal establishment in general perpetrate racist slurs against the white working class population. The author isn't a redneck, but an articulate advocate of working class unity.
He refutes the myth at the origin of anti-white racism, the idea that all white people arrived voluntarily in luxury liners. In fact, most white people arrived in the holds of ships with a mortality rate similar to that of slave ships from Africa, and their arrival was a product of: a) actual slavery - he argues that there were at least as many white slaves as black
b) transportation of various kinds
c) economic force - move or starve.
When they got to America, white immigrants were sometimes treated worse than black slaves. Jim explains why with an analogy. Many whites were temporary servants, bound to their masters for seven or ten years. Black slaves were usually a man's property for life. A white servant was like a rented car: you thrash the hell out of it while you've got it. It didn't matter if a white servant died of exhaustion a day after his term of servitude ended. Masters could murder or rape their servants or slaves with impunity. Through the school system and the media, Americans are taught the horrors of black slavery over and over again, but white "indentured servitude" is hardly mentioned.
This is a polemical book, not a scientific treatise. All the history needs to be checked, but there is enough authentic research in it to assert that the origin of the white working class in America was no tea party. Discussing the origins of the slave trade, Jim notes: "Africans were imperialistic; they just weren't very good at it." This is simplistic to the point of inaccuracy, but makes a good point. Most Africans were hunters a small-scale agriculturalists, but among them were empires such as Ethiopia, which was good at imperialism. See The Race to Fashoda by David Levering Lewis, for an account of how Ethiopia defeated Italy and played off Britain and France against each other during the big carve-up of the mid-19th century. In any case, there were indigenous slave-traders in Africa. Most of them were Muslims, like Louis Farrakhan.
It might be asked, what does all this history prove? The barrage of anti-white racism puts its opponents in a difficult position. Most of what it claims is both false, and strictly irrelevant. It is not true that most white people's ancestors benefitted from slavery, and even if it were true, no-one should have to pay for the crimes of their ancestors. Most whites in America today are working class, and have far more in common with their black neighbors than their white bosses. Or as Jim puts it, "if the niggers and rednecks ever joined forces, they'd be unbeatable".
It could be said, and often is, that poor whites may be poor, but they defend their relative privileges, and thus the system as a whole. Some of them do, but so do latter day carpetbaggers like the Southern Poverty Law Center and all those who try to hold all white people responsible for the state of blacks today. Jim shows that the history of poor white/poor black antagonism in the South is not as simple as we are taught to believe; a clear cut case of poor whites ferociously defending their meager advantages against any black advancement. There are examples of the political system using black people to keep the white workers down, for instance immediately after the Civil War. In any case, it's always the bosses pitting one section against another, divide and rule at its crudest. Blaming the white working class, as liberals do, is part of this policy. The professional anti-white racist demagogues are far more effective than the Ku Klux Klan.When they can't find hate crimes, they just make them up.
In 1996, there was a lot of fuss made about white racists setting fire to "black" churches. A little-noticed item in USA Today looked at the statistics, and it turned out that arson of churches was distributed fairly evenly across the ethnicity of their congregations. Numerous other hate crimes were faked. These range from outrageous provocations to clumsy stunts which backfire on the liberal establishment which encourages them. A black woman claimed to have been raped by white men, and was gleefully paraded in front of the liberal media by politicians like Al Sharpton. It turned out to be a fantasy. A black lesbian in Portland even pretended to be disabled, and planted a burning cross on her own front lawn, attempting to get a triple dose of sympathy from the liberals ("Hate Crimes That Weren't", Willamette Week, July 3, 1996). When blacks make racist attacks on white people, you won't hear a squeak about it.
Campaigners for racial and sexual equality do not challenge capitalism at all. On the contrary. If companies hired people solely on the basis of ability, they would do better. There would be just as much inequality, but it would be an inequality of ability, an inequality which benefits the economy. Anti-racism is simply racism in reverse. Its purpose is to distract us from the real issues. For example, we are told that an average black person's income has risen from 50% to 59% of the average white's in the last 25 years. The reaction is supposed to be that we still have a long way to go. What they don't tell us is that this increase has been achieved by reducing real income for whites. Since 1973, average income has slumped more than 10%. Eventually, perhaps the entire working class will live in the same abject povery. Then the anti-racist liberals will be happy. "Average" usually means "mean", a meaningless figure. It only takes a few white multi- billionaires to greatly increase the mean income of the entire white population. If a man who earns a million dollars a year walks into a room with nine people who earn $30,000, the mean income in that room would more than quadruple, to $127,000. Are you feeling privileged yet? There are few, if any, black billionaires. So the disparity between black and white working class income is not as great as the figures suggest.
The facts you discover follow from the categories you classify them into. The racist media assume that all white people, or all women, or all members of various other categories, have something in common, and then produce statistics which apparently prove just what they have assumed. One response to this is to reject their categories altogether, and defend the interests of the one category they never use: the proletariat. They do talk of "Labor" or "working people", but these categories divide the proletariat, which includes many people who aren't in unions or don't work. But it is sometimes effective to counter the media by pointing out that even if their assumptions were true, their conclusions would not follow. This will only work if we remember that we are on enemy ground from the outset.
Guilt is a powerful instrument of social control. There is a constant barrage of propaganda trying to make white people, and particularly, white men, feel guilty for the accidents of their birth. One effect of this is that white working class people are blackmailed into keeping quiet about their own condition. Another is to provoke a racist reaction to the anti-white racism of the media. The different varieties of racism reinforce each other.
Do you answer the ideologues by "fist-fucking them with the facts", to cite Jim's purple prose again, or by pointing out that their claims are red herrings? I think you need to do both. Jim generally chooses the first, and occasionally this leads him into a liberal trap. Explaining in great detail where poor whites came from, and how they've been used and exploited, almost gives the impression that he's competing with the liberals on their own terms: here's another oppressed group to whine about. Hey, white boy, it's ok! You're descended from victims, not oppressors! He even talks about his own origins, as if, like an American leftist, he needs to say where he comes from before telling us what he thinks. His overdone explanation of his white trash "roots" could be read as a parody: "Speaking as a half-Irish redneck...", instead of "as a gay Mexican...", or whatever. But eventually, it becomes clear that he really does identify with white trash.
Jim's identity politics is akin to the workerism of the late British anarchist paper Class War. But Class War never whined: they glorified working class victories, not complained about their defeats. In America today, there are precious few successes to brag about, particularly among the congenital losers Jim champions.
Occasionally, Jim even defends blue-collar conservative resentment against college kids and foreigners coming over here and taking "our" jobs. But his description of the working class he lives and works with tends to undermine his pride in them. A moron in Jim's local bar sums it up: "Working people built this fuckin' country, and they don't give a damn about us." It's difficult to avoid the thought that, if the working class is stupid enough to swallow patriotism, it deserves to lose. At least, until it sees through this trash, it is bound to stay at the bottom of it. Class pride is not the same as class consciousness. Being proud of the accident of being born working class is as ridiculous as being proud of your skin color. And you can change your class, if you're clever and ruthless enough.
It takes courage to stand up against the liberal establishment, and despite its faults, you should support Jim by obtaining this book. "Being called a racist can ruin a career just like communist blacklisting could destroy someone in the fifties." In the current anti-right, anti-white political climate, The Redneck Manifesto is an important addition to the arsenal of anyone who wants to puncture the liberal concensus with a few salvoes of sarcasm.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
although jim goad is questionable personally, this article makes some excellent points that would go a long way towards educating wealthy liberals. also to educate idiots like SmashTheLeft who seem to think that anarchists and communists are "lefty liberals," which fundamentally reflects his ignorance of what those philosophies are about. However, SmashTheLeft is not all to blame because a lot of anarchist/communist shit is distorted by the liberal media, the liberal establishment, etc. We should not see ourselves as friends of liberals. And we need essays like this to help us articulate the differences between us (working people everywhere) and them (rich people who parasitically sap our potential to off these rich fucks once and for all).
what a "great" book. it's "great" to see that someone has finally come up with ways to "justify" treating other humans inhumanley based on skin color.
it deftly lays out why white people should be allowed to lynch black people, or deny them a job they are more than capable of handling. using a really clever economic analysis, it condones slavery by saying that white people were "slaves" too. this is some "really good" logic. psychopaths use a similar logic when asked why they killed someone or conned someone out of some money: "other people do it. that makes it o.k. for me to do it."
what "brilliant" thinking. in fact, if i were a black person in america, i would oh so thankkkful for this book. it shows that white people "had a hard life" and it gave them an excuse for holding black people in cages, lynching them, bombing their churches, and denying them jobs. wow. that "really" justifies it.
in fact, how could any african american, liberal, or "leftist" be against the flawless rightist logic and superior aryan racist thinking found in this book?
it deftly lays out why white people should be allowed to lynch black people, or deny them a job they are more than capable of handling. using a really clever economic analysis, it condones slavery by saying that white people were "slaves" too. this is some "really good" logic. psychopaths use a similar logic when asked why they killed someone or conned someone out of some money: "other people do it. that makes it o.k. for me to do it."
what "brilliant" thinking. in fact, if i were a black person in america, i would oh so thankkkful for this book. it shows that white people "had a hard life" and it gave them an excuse for holding black people in cages, lynching them, bombing their churches, and denying them jobs. wow. that "really" justifies it.
in fact, how could any african american, liberal, or "leftist" be against the flawless rightist logic and superior aryan racist thinking found in this book?
wow, you missed the entire point of this book (last comment). this is an anti-capitalist book that looks to have an honest critique of what whiteness is and what blackness is. get a grip, you kneejerk liberal.
it's not sarcasm, and its not funny.
Have you actually read the book?
... i'd rather not.
in fact, "anarchist" or "curious", i won't recommend this "book" to anyone i know.
gotta love this logic: "we're all slaves under capitalism. so racism is alright, in the past and even today!"
mind game time.
you play with fire, you get burned.
in fact, "anarchist" or "curious", i won't recommend this "book" to anyone i know.
gotta love this logic: "we're all slaves under capitalism. so racism is alright, in the past and even today!"
mind game time.
you play with fire, you get burned.
I read his book 5 or 6 years ago when it came out. I was in college and I sent him a request for an interview for the college newspaper, but he never responded, I think, because he had the troubles with being in jail at the time. Anyway, you're totally right that he clearly and bluntly lays out the problem with upper class liberals who don't have the slightest clue about economics and class, even to the point where they aren't familiar with the basic vocabulary for speaking about class in a political sense, and they only hold opinions on the environment, gender, a few general social issues, and a bit about race. He is pretty effective in this, with his free use of typing in all capital letters in so forth so it seems like he is screaming. In his 'angry white man' tour, which he has been doing the last couple of years, I hear he does actually scream a bit.
My biggest criticism is that he acts as though the ideas he is describing, which come from a very long intellectual lineage, and that actually goes far beyond just marxism&socialism, are really all his own. He writes as though he was the first person to originate the idea of class. Although, I guess it's fairly understandable that one might feel somewhat isolated when only mild yuppie liberal ideas and voices even start to get into the media (I mean, name *anyone* who gets on those Sunday morning or CNN or FOX news talk shows who talks about class from a left perspective), and the only alternative ever presented is that of communism - schools always present society and history as a fight between two polar systems - capitalism and communism. The democrats totally roll over and play dead with regards to populism. My boyfriend's family are farmers in south Dakota, and the center part of the country are *not* a bunch of rich conservatives. His uncles all refused to serve in Vietnam because it is against their religion to kill, and they definitely are socially conservative. I think they mostly vote for democrats, but they and their neighbors are not benefitted by republican economic policy at all, and the democrats are totally stupid for not taking the minimal steps required to gain these naturally populist voters who should be the base of their party.
My biggest criticism is that he acts as though the ideas he is describing, which come from a very long intellectual lineage, and that actually goes far beyond just marxism&socialism, are really all his own. He writes as though he was the first person to originate the idea of class. Although, I guess it's fairly understandable that one might feel somewhat isolated when only mild yuppie liberal ideas and voices even start to get into the media (I mean, name *anyone* who gets on those Sunday morning or CNN or FOX news talk shows who talks about class from a left perspective), and the only alternative ever presented is that of communism - schools always present society and history as a fight between two polar systems - capitalism and communism. The democrats totally roll over and play dead with regards to populism. My boyfriend's family are farmers in south Dakota, and the center part of the country are *not* a bunch of rich conservatives. His uncles all refused to serve in Vietnam because it is against their religion to kill, and they definitely are socially conservative. I think they mostly vote for democrats, but they and their neighbors are not benefitted by republican economic policy at all, and the democrats are totally stupid for not taking the minimal steps required to gain these naturally populist voters who should be the base of their party.
this thing here: you are deliberately misrepresenting what is said here. it does not say what you put in quotes, thats a flat-out lie. why dont you specifically respond to what is being said in the article rather than shoot off sarcastic one-liners that arent even true?
to chp: Yeah, the idea about communism being the only alternative and so it is rejected, I think this is the basic reason behind people who try to say that contemporary anarchism is "post-left" ... to a large degree this is true if you take the traditional concepts of left/right as they come out of the british parliament. Anyway, Jim Goad himself is also pretty weird on a personal level, there are tons of stories out there so I wont gossip on here because you can find them on your own. Needless to say he is kind of infamous. And he isn't even the first person to talk about this critique of race identity politics from a poor white perspective. But he is a damn fucking funny writer and some of the shit he says and the way he says it is great. I think sometimes he downplays issues facing people who arent white, but I think he is also trying to show why white people have these seemingly intense racist viewpoints when really it is more reactionary defense mechanism (based in "well i'm not well off either"). Some of the stuff crosses the line for me.
to chp: Yeah, the idea about communism being the only alternative and so it is rejected, I think this is the basic reason behind people who try to say that contemporary anarchism is "post-left" ... to a large degree this is true if you take the traditional concepts of left/right as they come out of the british parliament. Anyway, Jim Goad himself is also pretty weird on a personal level, there are tons of stories out there so I wont gossip on here because you can find them on your own. Needless to say he is kind of infamous. And he isn't even the first person to talk about this critique of race identity politics from a poor white perspective. But he is a damn fucking funny writer and some of the shit he says and the way he says it is great. I think sometimes he downplays issues facing people who arent white, but I think he is also trying to show why white people have these seemingly intense racist viewpoints when really it is more reactionary defense mechanism (based in "well i'm not well off either"). Some of the stuff crosses the line for me.
IF WE'RE ALL SLAVES, WHAT'S RACE GOT TO DO WITH ANYTHING? THIS IS A FUCKING MIND GAME. PLAYING BLACK OFF WHITE.
>Black slaves were usually a man's property for life. A white servant was like a rented car: you thrash the hell out of it while you've got it. It didn't matter if a white servant died of exhaustion a day after his term of servitude ended. Masters could murder or rape their servants or slaves with impunity.<
yeah, the poor white "servants" whose masters were also white...
>Through the school system and the media, Americans are taught the horrors of black slavery over and over again, but white "indentured servitude" is hardly mentioned.<
it wasn't even close to slavery. here it is again, playing black off white. trying to meet in the middle, indentured servitude was really bad, slavery wasn't so as bad.
>Discussing the origins of the slave trade, Jim notes: "Africans were imperialistic; they just weren't very good at it." This is simplistic to the point of inaccuracy, but makes a good point. Most Africans were hunters a small-scale agriculturalists, but among them were empires such as Ethiopia, which was good at imperialism. See The Race to Fashoda by David Levering Lewis, for an account of how Ethiopia defeated Italy and played off Britain and France against each other during the big carve-up of the mid-19th century. In any case, there were indigenous slave-traders in Africa. Most of them were Muslims, like Louis Farrakhan.<
yeah, because africans sold themselves off to white europeans, well, slavery wasn't so bad. the africans are responsible for it. the africans were imperialistic too... what the fuck is this point trying to make?
>In 1996, there was a lot of fuss made about white racists setting fire to "black" churches. A little-noticed item in USA Today looked at the statistics, and it turned out that arson of churches was distributed fairly evenly across the ethnicity of their congregations. Numerous other hate crimes were faked. These range from outrageous provocations to clumsy stunts which backfire on the liberal establishment which encourages them.<
what statistics? but more importantly, here it is again, this sick logic. other churches were burned, so it's not so bad that kkk members did it to black churches down south, right, becuase they weren't really black churches. and it was all kinda fake, anyway too. what?
>Anti-racism is simply racism in reverse. Its purpose is to distract us from the real issues.<
yeah o.k. some more of the mind game logic here. don't be against racism, because you'll completely miss what's really important. it's all fucking important, creeps. fighting racism too.
>For example, we are told that an average black person's income has risen from 50% to 59% of the average white's in the last 25 years. The reaction is supposed to be that we still have a long way to go. What they don't tell us is that this increase has been achieved by reducing real income for whites.<
oh, so the white man's pay check went down because of... what? capitalism and evil bosses. i'll bet that's true. but the black man's, well he doesn't live in an capitalist society or face evil bosses. he has a different set of pressure from the white man. what the fuck is this trying to say? that african americans are stealing money from white paychecks?
>Then the anti-racist liberals will be happy.<
by the time you get to the bottom of the piece, anti-racists are some kind of evil group. again, mind game logic.
>In the current anti-right, anti-white political climate, The Redneck Manifesto is an important addition to the arsenal of anyone who wants to puncture the liberal concensus with a few salvoes of sarcasm.<
anti-right, anti-white. ah, so if you're anti-right, then you hate white people and by fighting against racism you are a racist. o.k. sure.
IF WE'RE ALL SLAVES, WHY DOES RACE COME INTO THE PICTURE? WHY LACE THIS PIECE WITH WHITE EXPERIENCE VS. BLACK EXPERIENCE? WHO THE FUCK WOULD COMPARE INDENTURED SERVITUDE, WHITE ON WHITE, TO RACIST, EVIL SLAVERY, WHITE ON BLACK AND TRY TO SAY THEY ARE SIMILAR?
THIS ENTIRE ARGUMENT FURTHERS RACIST THINKING AND RACIST RATIONALIZING. I'M NOT FALLING FOR THE MIND GAME. AND I'M NOT GOING TO LET THE THINKING FOUND IN THIS DISINGENUOUS "REVIEW" STAND WITHOUT COMMENT. FORGET THE BOOK.
>Black slaves were usually a man's property for life. A white servant was like a rented car: you thrash the hell out of it while you've got it. It didn't matter if a white servant died of exhaustion a day after his term of servitude ended. Masters could murder or rape their servants or slaves with impunity.<
yeah, the poor white "servants" whose masters were also white...
>Through the school system and the media, Americans are taught the horrors of black slavery over and over again, but white "indentured servitude" is hardly mentioned.<
it wasn't even close to slavery. here it is again, playing black off white. trying to meet in the middle, indentured servitude was really bad, slavery wasn't so as bad.
>Discussing the origins of the slave trade, Jim notes: "Africans were imperialistic; they just weren't very good at it." This is simplistic to the point of inaccuracy, but makes a good point. Most Africans were hunters a small-scale agriculturalists, but among them were empires such as Ethiopia, which was good at imperialism. See The Race to Fashoda by David Levering Lewis, for an account of how Ethiopia defeated Italy and played off Britain and France against each other during the big carve-up of the mid-19th century. In any case, there were indigenous slave-traders in Africa. Most of them were Muslims, like Louis Farrakhan.<
yeah, because africans sold themselves off to white europeans, well, slavery wasn't so bad. the africans are responsible for it. the africans were imperialistic too... what the fuck is this point trying to make?
>In 1996, there was a lot of fuss made about white racists setting fire to "black" churches. A little-noticed item in USA Today looked at the statistics, and it turned out that arson of churches was distributed fairly evenly across the ethnicity of their congregations. Numerous other hate crimes were faked. These range from outrageous provocations to clumsy stunts which backfire on the liberal establishment which encourages them.<
what statistics? but more importantly, here it is again, this sick logic. other churches were burned, so it's not so bad that kkk members did it to black churches down south, right, becuase they weren't really black churches. and it was all kinda fake, anyway too. what?
>Anti-racism is simply racism in reverse. Its purpose is to distract us from the real issues.<
yeah o.k. some more of the mind game logic here. don't be against racism, because you'll completely miss what's really important. it's all fucking important, creeps. fighting racism too.
>For example, we are told that an average black person's income has risen from 50% to 59% of the average white's in the last 25 years. The reaction is supposed to be that we still have a long way to go. What they don't tell us is that this increase has been achieved by reducing real income for whites.<
oh, so the white man's pay check went down because of... what? capitalism and evil bosses. i'll bet that's true. but the black man's, well he doesn't live in an capitalist society or face evil bosses. he has a different set of pressure from the white man. what the fuck is this trying to say? that african americans are stealing money from white paychecks?
>Then the anti-racist liberals will be happy.<
by the time you get to the bottom of the piece, anti-racists are some kind of evil group. again, mind game logic.
>In the current anti-right, anti-white political climate, The Redneck Manifesto is an important addition to the arsenal of anyone who wants to puncture the liberal concensus with a few salvoes of sarcasm.<
anti-right, anti-white. ah, so if you're anti-right, then you hate white people and by fighting against racism you are a racist. o.k. sure.
IF WE'RE ALL SLAVES, WHY DOES RACE COME INTO THE PICTURE? WHY LACE THIS PIECE WITH WHITE EXPERIENCE VS. BLACK EXPERIENCE? WHO THE FUCK WOULD COMPARE INDENTURED SERVITUDE, WHITE ON WHITE, TO RACIST, EVIL SLAVERY, WHITE ON BLACK AND TRY TO SAY THEY ARE SIMILAR?
THIS ENTIRE ARGUMENT FURTHERS RACIST THINKING AND RACIST RATIONALIZING. I'M NOT FALLING FOR THE MIND GAME. AND I'M NOT GOING TO LET THE THINKING FOUND IN THIS DISINGENUOUS "REVIEW" STAND WITHOUT COMMENT. FORGET THE BOOK.
"IF WE'RE ALL SLAVES, WHY DOES RACE COME INTO THE PICTURE? WHY LACE THIS PIECE WITH WHITE EXPERIENCE VS. BLACK EXPERIENCE? WHO THE FUCK WOULD COMPARE INDENTURED SERVITUDE, WHITE ON WHITE, TO RACIST, EVIL SLAVERY, WHITE ON BLACK AND TRY TO SAY THEY ARE SIMILAR?"
The answer is that slavery is fundamentally class discrimination. It is the definition of class discrimination. Rich people own poor people.
You are right to say there is another historical component, which is race. In the US, white people have owned black people.
What Goad is pointing out is that white people have also owned white people. But that this is hardly talked about. Indentured servitude *is* slavery, however you want to look at it. It is a different kind of slavery, and Goad speaks to some of the differences -- perhaps it is worse, like the rental car analogy.
I don't understand your reaction. And I also don't understand why white slaves should consider themselves lucky to be owned by white masters. Would southern slavery had been better if plantation owners were black?
I think Goad's ideas are so provocative because he forces us to re-examine class in such a blunt way. It is easy to put out "class" as yet another identity but it doesn't have much meaning, especially since many poor white movements (consider militias) are deemed racist simply because they originate in the poor white community and the demographics reflect that. If anything, the reason that *some* poor white resistance groups gravitate towards susceptibility of entry-ism by Aryan groups is that liberal groups won't touch them with a 10 foot pole. Indeed, in the mid-90s, it was liberal groups who were at the forefront of an anti-gun campaign that landed a lot of these people in prison for nothing. But you won't find them in any leftist political prisoner causes.
The key here is being able to find a class analysis that is authentic, as a necessary complement to anti-racist activism.
At the core, Goad's attack is not directed at black people. It is directed at white liberals who dominate activism in the USA to such a degree that any attempts at doing anything real is sapped by them. This goes all the way down to white, college-edudcated union bureacrats who have destroyed effective unions for working people of all colors.
As Goad says, if "niggers and rednecks got together, there'd be no stopping them." How can we do that if every attempt at authentically expressing what it means to be poor and white in the USA is assaulted as racist?
The answer is that slavery is fundamentally class discrimination. It is the definition of class discrimination. Rich people own poor people.
You are right to say there is another historical component, which is race. In the US, white people have owned black people.
What Goad is pointing out is that white people have also owned white people. But that this is hardly talked about. Indentured servitude *is* slavery, however you want to look at it. It is a different kind of slavery, and Goad speaks to some of the differences -- perhaps it is worse, like the rental car analogy.
I don't understand your reaction. And I also don't understand why white slaves should consider themselves lucky to be owned by white masters. Would southern slavery had been better if plantation owners were black?
I think Goad's ideas are so provocative because he forces us to re-examine class in such a blunt way. It is easy to put out "class" as yet another identity but it doesn't have much meaning, especially since many poor white movements (consider militias) are deemed racist simply because they originate in the poor white community and the demographics reflect that. If anything, the reason that *some* poor white resistance groups gravitate towards susceptibility of entry-ism by Aryan groups is that liberal groups won't touch them with a 10 foot pole. Indeed, in the mid-90s, it was liberal groups who were at the forefront of an anti-gun campaign that landed a lot of these people in prison for nothing. But you won't find them in any leftist political prisoner causes.
The key here is being able to find a class analysis that is authentic, as a necessary complement to anti-racist activism.
At the core, Goad's attack is not directed at black people. It is directed at white liberals who dominate activism in the USA to such a degree that any attempts at doing anything real is sapped by them. This goes all the way down to white, college-edudcated union bureacrats who have destroyed effective unions for working people of all colors.
As Goad says, if "niggers and rednecks got together, there'd be no stopping them." How can we do that if every attempt at authentically expressing what it means to be poor and white in the USA is assaulted as racist?
Racism is NOT just about classism -- that's bullshit. Racism occurs on all levels of class, on the same ones, not just in between.
I read a little of this book years ago, and tho it was a while back, I don't recall ever coming across the term "white privilege" once. Oh, so white people got it bad too, these days? CRY ME A FUCKING RIVER! No matter how many times a person of color can call the NAACP, a team of lawyers, the Equal Employment Opportunity center or affirmitive action committees, they will never recieve an equal amount of benefits as white people.
The reason "poor white movements" (anarchist says, "Consider militias") are dubbed 'racist' is NOT because they originate out of the poor white communities. Does poverty imply racism? There's a connection, of course, but that's not an answer. These militias are considered racist BECAUSE THEY ARE. Ever met anyone from one? Ever met several people from one, or from different militias? They are some racist, sexist, old-fashioned motherfuckers. Do your homework -- research them, find out information about them, meet a few members, know their personalities. You'll see that while it may just be about owning guns and hating the gov't and shit, there's a background of racist thought that exists in that culture, and I believe you're overlooking it.
I mean, great, so Goad has pointed out a common enemy here, but anyone down with anarchy and all that should realize that he is only serving his own culture thru this book and doing NOTHING for our community of trying to build equal, non-biased, non-racist society. Niggers and rednecks will never work together -- only white and black people will work together. And pretty soon, I'd like to not even have to mention skin color any more. This book is pretty dangerous, but I don't know for sure, because I haven't fully read it. It's just that anything which looks to minimize the wreckage of slavery and downplay racism in amerikkka is dangerous becuase it's so believable for white poeple.
I read a little of this book years ago, and tho it was a while back, I don't recall ever coming across the term "white privilege" once. Oh, so white people got it bad too, these days? CRY ME A FUCKING RIVER! No matter how many times a person of color can call the NAACP, a team of lawyers, the Equal Employment Opportunity center or affirmitive action committees, they will never recieve an equal amount of benefits as white people.
The reason "poor white movements" (anarchist says, "Consider militias") are dubbed 'racist' is NOT because they originate out of the poor white communities. Does poverty imply racism? There's a connection, of course, but that's not an answer. These militias are considered racist BECAUSE THEY ARE. Ever met anyone from one? Ever met several people from one, or from different militias? They are some racist, sexist, old-fashioned motherfuckers. Do your homework -- research them, find out information about them, meet a few members, know their personalities. You'll see that while it may just be about owning guns and hating the gov't and shit, there's a background of racist thought that exists in that culture, and I believe you're overlooking it.
I mean, great, so Goad has pointed out a common enemy here, but anyone down with anarchy and all that should realize that he is only serving his own culture thru this book and doing NOTHING for our community of trying to build equal, non-biased, non-racist society. Niggers and rednecks will never work together -- only white and black people will work together. And pretty soon, I'd like to not even have to mention skin color any more. This book is pretty dangerous, but I don't know for sure, because I haven't fully read it. It's just that anything which looks to minimize the wreckage of slavery and downplay racism in amerikkka is dangerous becuase it's so believable for white poeple.
All the whiny, anarcho-liberal, 2pc, challenging white supremecy types who inject their white guilt into radical politics should be forced read this book. An excellent contribution to injecting CLASS into the discussion about American Society. The writer may well be a major asshole but so the fuck what. Good intentioned liberals pave the way to hell. Great review as well -- i believe the writer is from the wildcat group of London.
"Does poverty imply racism? There's a connection, of course, but that's not an answer. These militias are considered racist BECAUSE THEY ARE. Ever met anyone from one? Ever met several people from one, or from different militias? They are some racist, sexist, old-fashioned motherfuckers. Do your homework -- research them, find out information about them, meet a few members, know their personalities. You'll see that while it may just be about owning guns and hating the gov't and shit, there's a background of racist thought that exists in that culture, and I believe you're overlooking it."
These statements show what I am talking about. I do know a lot of people in a number of different militias, some of them are really close friends of mine. Many of them are explicitly anti-racist, and some of them shared membership with Anti-Racist Action, one of the few leftist groups that I experienced with entry-ism into the militia movement (besides some marijuana activism groups).
I won't deny that Aryan Nation-type groups *do* have representation there too. More representation, but certainly not as much as you make it out to be, and definitely not as much as the corporate media made it out to be. I agree with Goad that the dominant reason for this is the white liberal establishment's dynamic with poor white communities.
I do agree that Goad's stuff needs to be rounded out with white acceptance of the idea of white privilege... flat-out, there are examples where white people benefit from white privilege. This is missing from what he wrote and it would be good to explain this in a way that doesn't make every poor white person instantly defensive.
This book isnt about downplaying slavery or racism. And it isnt saying that racism is just about classism. I think it moves the discussion forward in ways that the classic liberal take on identity politics cannot. I guess it begs the question of what do people mean by classism? What is classism's role in the historical anti-capitalist tradition? What is that role today? etc
Any attack on Goad's book needs to start by at least providing some answers to those questions.
These statements show what I am talking about. I do know a lot of people in a number of different militias, some of them are really close friends of mine. Many of them are explicitly anti-racist, and some of them shared membership with Anti-Racist Action, one of the few leftist groups that I experienced with entry-ism into the militia movement (besides some marijuana activism groups).
I won't deny that Aryan Nation-type groups *do* have representation there too. More representation, but certainly not as much as you make it out to be, and definitely not as much as the corporate media made it out to be. I agree with Goad that the dominant reason for this is the white liberal establishment's dynamic with poor white communities.
I do agree that Goad's stuff needs to be rounded out with white acceptance of the idea of white privilege... flat-out, there are examples where white people benefit from white privilege. This is missing from what he wrote and it would be good to explain this in a way that doesn't make every poor white person instantly defensive.
This book isnt about downplaying slavery or racism. And it isnt saying that racism is just about classism. I think it moves the discussion forward in ways that the classic liberal take on identity politics cannot. I guess it begs the question of what do people mean by classism? What is classism's role in the historical anti-capitalist tradition? What is that role today? etc
Any attack on Goad's book needs to start by at least providing some answers to those questions.
Never though I'd see the day when White people who are always complaining about supposed Minority "victimology" decided to play the Victim themselves. Next thing you know, White people will assert that the Slaveowners were actually victims and not oppressors of slaves.
The original article and the many responses made by Rednecks and Anarchists alike boil down to another feeble attempt to justify White Supremacy and domination in America--this time under the disingenous cover of critiquing Class and Capitalism.
What all you clowns don't understand is the fact that Capitalist class exploitation and White Racism go hand in hand.
These White whiners--whether they be Anarchists or your usual Redneck Cracker--ignore the fact that White people (of whatever class) have supported White oppression of Colored people because they have benefitted from it relatlively speaking.
No matter how 'oppressed' white people were in terms of class, they would always support the American capitalist system and the American way because they understood they were always better off than the vast majority of Niggas and other non-white people.
The original article and the many responses made by Rednecks and Anarchists alike boil down to another feeble attempt to justify White Supremacy and domination in America--this time under the disingenous cover of critiquing Class and Capitalism.
What all you clowns don't understand is the fact that Capitalist class exploitation and White Racism go hand in hand.
These White whiners--whether they be Anarchists or your usual Redneck Cracker--ignore the fact that White people (of whatever class) have supported White oppression of Colored people because they have benefitted from it relatlively speaking.
No matter how 'oppressed' white people were in terms of class, they would always support the American capitalist system and the American way because they understood they were always better off than the vast majority of Niggas and other non-white people.
Much of the debate on this thread is over whether race or class is more fundamental. This is in some sense a pointless discussion since you can redefine your terms in such a way to pretty much say the same thing from either side. The class structures in Latin America and even India have a racial component. The reason for some upper class racism in the US is classism but the reason for the race/class relationship is racism.
The other half of the debate on this thread is a divisive one over the guilt of poor racist whites in the US. The divisive part of the debate is that it is focused on a negative aspect of culture assuming that people consciously choose their culture. Overt racism by the poor is obviously bad but it is weird that this tends to be focused on much more in mainstream culture (and on the left) than more hidden (but more destructive) racist views by the educated and upper classes.
As for debates on the treatment of slaves vs. indentured servants, it’s interesting but again kind of pointless. On this thread it seems to just be creating division with half of those posting treating any comparison as belittling the horrors of slavery. I would like to know more about the legal status of indentured servants but it seems like it avoided some of the worst aspects of slavery. That said the tendency for people to treat slavery as unique is also a little weird. Eastern European serfs were still being bought and sold (with families being broken up on some sales) as late as the 1860s. The main difference in that case(at least in Russia) would be that many of the communes formed to “aid” in the payback of the serf owners by the former serfs acted as a basis for some of the later Communist movements. While the former Russian serfs were able to take back much of what was taken from them during the Russian Revolution there has not been a similar redistribution in the US.
The current politics of victimhood on the Left is a little disturbing. It creates a sense of competition where one person’s historical problems are belittled by other groups in an effort to increase one’s own status. The worst part about it is that it’s a psychological dead end. Movements don’t get built on people feeling sorry for themselves, they get built on people feeling that they can achieve things. Perhaps much of this tendency to tout victimhood comes from the focus of the New Left in the US on nonviolence. Some forms of civil disobedience have at their core the desire to make the public feel sorry. Even direct action can have this as its core goal when the result is a focus on the treatment by the police of the protesters. This attitude is so entrenched in the US that people don’t even bother to notice its destructive nature. If being a victim is a goal and one gains by one’s status, isn’t it risky to actually achieve anything since this jeopardizes one’s main tactic. If the main focus of the Left at protests is on the police beating up protesters and this is touted to gain support for Leftist causes, what will be the public’s response if we gain strength and start beating up the police at the protests? We shouldn’t ignore groups that are getting attacked but we should never feel proud about a group’s status as a victim.
There are racial inequalities in the US. What can we do to change that? There is economic inequality. What can we do to change that? We get beat up at protests. What can we do to defend ourselves better?
The other half of the debate on this thread is a divisive one over the guilt of poor racist whites in the US. The divisive part of the debate is that it is focused on a negative aspect of culture assuming that people consciously choose their culture. Overt racism by the poor is obviously bad but it is weird that this tends to be focused on much more in mainstream culture (and on the left) than more hidden (but more destructive) racist views by the educated and upper classes.
As for debates on the treatment of slaves vs. indentured servants, it’s interesting but again kind of pointless. On this thread it seems to just be creating division with half of those posting treating any comparison as belittling the horrors of slavery. I would like to know more about the legal status of indentured servants but it seems like it avoided some of the worst aspects of slavery. That said the tendency for people to treat slavery as unique is also a little weird. Eastern European serfs were still being bought and sold (with families being broken up on some sales) as late as the 1860s. The main difference in that case(at least in Russia) would be that many of the communes formed to “aid” in the payback of the serf owners by the former serfs acted as a basis for some of the later Communist movements. While the former Russian serfs were able to take back much of what was taken from them during the Russian Revolution there has not been a similar redistribution in the US.
The current politics of victimhood on the Left is a little disturbing. It creates a sense of competition where one person’s historical problems are belittled by other groups in an effort to increase one’s own status. The worst part about it is that it’s a psychological dead end. Movements don’t get built on people feeling sorry for themselves, they get built on people feeling that they can achieve things. Perhaps much of this tendency to tout victimhood comes from the focus of the New Left in the US on nonviolence. Some forms of civil disobedience have at their core the desire to make the public feel sorry. Even direct action can have this as its core goal when the result is a focus on the treatment by the police of the protesters. This attitude is so entrenched in the US that people don’t even bother to notice its destructive nature. If being a victim is a goal and one gains by one’s status, isn’t it risky to actually achieve anything since this jeopardizes one’s main tactic. If the main focus of the Left at protests is on the police beating up protesters and this is touted to gain support for Leftist causes, what will be the public’s response if we gain strength and start beating up the police at the protests? We shouldn’t ignore groups that are getting attacked but we should never feel proud about a group’s status as a victim.
There are racial inequalities in the US. What can we do to change that? There is economic inequality. What can we do to change that? We get beat up at protests. What can we do to defend ourselves better?
I think what he's trying to say , or argue against, is the class reductionism idea that comes up under marxism quite frequently. Marxists often put forth that economic class is the *only* issue, and that if we achieved class equality, racism would just disappear because it is essentially imaginary. But - this isn't true, any more than the libertarian/capitalist argument that invalid racism cannot exist because it is illogical for bosses and landlords to deny qualified people jobs and apartments in order to give them to less qualified people of their own race. I kind of like the Michael Albert (of Z magazine) unified field theory of leftism idea it's inappropriate to focus on just one identity sphere on its own - such as gender/race/class, but all have to be considered at the same time.
"Much of the debate on this thread is over whether race or class is more fundamental."
I disagree that this is the focus of the debate. I think the debate is about: what role does class play in identity politics? Is it ok for Goad to explore the aspects of white class issues in the way that he does? Deciding whether race or class is "more fundamental" (whatever that means) would be nothing but semantics, I agree with that.
"As for debates on the treatment of slaves vs. indentured servants, it’s interesting but again kind of pointless."
Why is it pointless to talk about indentured servitude vis-a-vis slavery? As you said, you would "like to know a little more" ...
"The current politics of victimhood on the Left is a little disturbing. It creates a sense of competition where one person’s historical problems are belittled by other groups in an effort to increase one’s own status. The worst part about it is that it’s a psychological dead end. Movements don’t get built on people feeling sorry for themselves"
And again, I don't think this debate is about who gets better victimhood pissing rights. See:
"There are racial inequalities in the US. What can we do to change that? There is economic inequality. What can we do to change that? We get beat up at protests. What can we do to defend ourselves better?"
The answer is: anarchist/communist revolution. That's a given, to Goad and to me. The Goad article is getting at a facet of that solution: *who* can participate and what role do they play? Goad's answer to your question is for "niggers and rednecks" to get together. Is that true? If so, how? And why? If anything is reductionist it is taking that question and reducing it to "victimhood competitions" or whatever.
I disagree that this is the focus of the debate. I think the debate is about: what role does class play in identity politics? Is it ok for Goad to explore the aspects of white class issues in the way that he does? Deciding whether race or class is "more fundamental" (whatever that means) would be nothing but semantics, I agree with that.
"As for debates on the treatment of slaves vs. indentured servants, it’s interesting but again kind of pointless."
Why is it pointless to talk about indentured servitude vis-a-vis slavery? As you said, you would "like to know a little more" ...
"The current politics of victimhood on the Left is a little disturbing. It creates a sense of competition where one person’s historical problems are belittled by other groups in an effort to increase one’s own status. The worst part about it is that it’s a psychological dead end. Movements don’t get built on people feeling sorry for themselves"
And again, I don't think this debate is about who gets better victimhood pissing rights. See:
"There are racial inequalities in the US. What can we do to change that? There is economic inequality. What can we do to change that? We get beat up at protests. What can we do to defend ourselves better?"
The answer is: anarchist/communist revolution. That's a given, to Goad and to me. The Goad article is getting at a facet of that solution: *who* can participate and what role do they play? Goad's answer to your question is for "niggers and rednecks" to get together. Is that true? If so, how? And why? If anything is reductionist it is taking that question and reducing it to "victimhood competitions" or whatever.
>I don't understand your reaction. And I also don't understand why white slaves should consider themselves lucky to be owned by white masters. Would southern slavery had been better if plantation owners were black?<
but i don't understand the whole attack on the "left" this entire piece seems to be. to take the evils of class war to the extreme that racism isn't an important issue seems absolutely misguided. watch, members of the "right", members of WAR, as the "left" destroys itself from within...
>And I also don't understand why white slaves should consider themselves lucky to be owned by white masters. Would southern slavery had been better if plantation owners were black?<
WHY. history allows this question about why things went down the way they did to be asked. take advantage of it...
with all the supply of poor, white european immigrants in the early centuries of america, why DIDN'T indentured servitude continue on into the 19th. century and build the plantation economics of the southern states? WHY were africans from africa shackeled and brought to america?
i am trying to get at the fact THAT INDENTURED SERVITUDE ENDED. IT STOPPED. IT CEASED. BUT SLAVERY CONTINUED ON AND ON UNTIL THE EMANCIPATION PROCLOMATION. AND THEN RACISM ITSELF CONTINUED ON AND ON WITH JIM CROW AND VOTING RIGHTS BEING DENIED AND THE EVENTS OF THE 1950'S and 60's AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS. AND INSTITUTIONALIZED RACISM, THE SO-CALLED "FRIENDLY" FORM, CONTINUES ON TODAY. "I DIDN'T WANT TO GIVE HIM THE APARTMENT. I COULD TELL THAT HE WAS A BLACK MAN ON THE PHONE."
i question the extent of indentured servitude as well. was jamestown full of indentured servants? was the philadelphia that benjamin franklin knew full of an indentured service class, and a wealthy white class? or was it more like it is today?
i think it was more like it is today. a city full of different classes. i do not believe that ship after ship of shackeled white people arrived in america, and homestead after homestead of shackled white slaves were spread accross the american landscape, building the new america. the extent and practice of racist white on black slavery, was much, much greater and more absolutely an almost common place sight compared to indentured servants on homesteads. i'm not a history major, so i can't prove this. but what i remember from high school about indentured servitude was that it was not a massive institution, nor was it a situation where EVERY SINGLE white european immigrant coming to america HAD NO CHIOCE ABOUT THEIR LIVES AND WERE FORCED TO UNDERGO SLAVERY.
so why did indentured servitude just dry up, while racist slavery continued on and on? could it be that america was supposed to be a place where all were free? where the shackles of sovereinty and religious restrictions had been thrown off after a revolution? wasn't it a new land, where human rights were inalienable, and given at birth? how could white on white indentured servitude continue in such an environment?
well, it didn't. european immigrants couldn't keep doing it to other european immigrants. not in america.
so how can wealthy land owners find cheap labor? ahh, the slave trade. africans were "not really human." they were considered "sub-human", an "inferior human". the rights that european immigrants enjoyed in the new land did not apply to africans. essentially, they were perfect slaves. they had "no right" to question their masters. and their masters did not have to deal with a guilty conscious.
there never would have been black slave masters running plantations in america. it wasn't a possibility. JUST LIKE INDENTURED SERVITUDE WASN'T GONNA LAST FOR LONG. but racism, well, that was employed effectively. some poeple get all the rights, and some get none. just 'cause they looked different.
I REFUSE TO EQUATE INDENTURED SERVITUDE WITH SLAVERY. IT'S A BULLSHIT, WEAK, GROUNDLESS ARGUMENT. WE'RE ALL SLAVES TO A GREATER OR LESSER EXTENT UNDER CAPITLAISM. BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT ANYONE CAN SIMPLY TURN A BLIND EYE TO RACISM AND HOW IT INFLUENCED THE CREATION OF MODERN DAY AMERICA.
I THINK THE ARGUMENT IN THE ORIGINAL PIECE COULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN IN A MUCH, MUCH BETTER WAY IF IT HADN'T DECIDED TO EQUATE EXPERIENCES, TO RE-WRITE HISTORY, AND TO MISS THE POINT.
WHY NOT WRITE A BOOK AND A REVIEW THAT SAYS WE'RE ALL SLAVES IN TODAY'S MODERN, SYSTEMATIC CAPITALISM? KEYWORD: TODAY'S. AND AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT BOOK ABOUT THE HISTORY OF INDENTURED SERVITUDE AND RACIST SLAVERY THAT LAYS OUT THE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT HISTORIES OF THE TWO, COMPARES AND CONTRASTS THEM, BUT DOES NOT EQUATE THE TWO AS "THE SAME THING" IN ORDER TO EXTEND AN IDEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. THERE'S GOTTA BE BETTER WAYS TO SAY CAPITALISM SUCKS.
but i don't understand the whole attack on the "left" this entire piece seems to be. to take the evils of class war to the extreme that racism isn't an important issue seems absolutely misguided. watch, members of the "right", members of WAR, as the "left" destroys itself from within...
>And I also don't understand why white slaves should consider themselves lucky to be owned by white masters. Would southern slavery had been better if plantation owners were black?<
WHY. history allows this question about why things went down the way they did to be asked. take advantage of it...
with all the supply of poor, white european immigrants in the early centuries of america, why DIDN'T indentured servitude continue on into the 19th. century and build the plantation economics of the southern states? WHY were africans from africa shackeled and brought to america?
i am trying to get at the fact THAT INDENTURED SERVITUDE ENDED. IT STOPPED. IT CEASED. BUT SLAVERY CONTINUED ON AND ON UNTIL THE EMANCIPATION PROCLOMATION. AND THEN RACISM ITSELF CONTINUED ON AND ON WITH JIM CROW AND VOTING RIGHTS BEING DENIED AND THE EVENTS OF THE 1950'S and 60's AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS. AND INSTITUTIONALIZED RACISM, THE SO-CALLED "FRIENDLY" FORM, CONTINUES ON TODAY. "I DIDN'T WANT TO GIVE HIM THE APARTMENT. I COULD TELL THAT HE WAS A BLACK MAN ON THE PHONE."
i question the extent of indentured servitude as well. was jamestown full of indentured servants? was the philadelphia that benjamin franklin knew full of an indentured service class, and a wealthy white class? or was it more like it is today?
i think it was more like it is today. a city full of different classes. i do not believe that ship after ship of shackeled white people arrived in america, and homestead after homestead of shackled white slaves were spread accross the american landscape, building the new america. the extent and practice of racist white on black slavery, was much, much greater and more absolutely an almost common place sight compared to indentured servants on homesteads. i'm not a history major, so i can't prove this. but what i remember from high school about indentured servitude was that it was not a massive institution, nor was it a situation where EVERY SINGLE white european immigrant coming to america HAD NO CHIOCE ABOUT THEIR LIVES AND WERE FORCED TO UNDERGO SLAVERY.
so why did indentured servitude just dry up, while racist slavery continued on and on? could it be that america was supposed to be a place where all were free? where the shackles of sovereinty and religious restrictions had been thrown off after a revolution? wasn't it a new land, where human rights were inalienable, and given at birth? how could white on white indentured servitude continue in such an environment?
well, it didn't. european immigrants couldn't keep doing it to other european immigrants. not in america.
so how can wealthy land owners find cheap labor? ahh, the slave trade. africans were "not really human." they were considered "sub-human", an "inferior human". the rights that european immigrants enjoyed in the new land did not apply to africans. essentially, they were perfect slaves. they had "no right" to question their masters. and their masters did not have to deal with a guilty conscious.
there never would have been black slave masters running plantations in america. it wasn't a possibility. JUST LIKE INDENTURED SERVITUDE WASN'T GONNA LAST FOR LONG. but racism, well, that was employed effectively. some poeple get all the rights, and some get none. just 'cause they looked different.
I REFUSE TO EQUATE INDENTURED SERVITUDE WITH SLAVERY. IT'S A BULLSHIT, WEAK, GROUNDLESS ARGUMENT. WE'RE ALL SLAVES TO A GREATER OR LESSER EXTENT UNDER CAPITLAISM. BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT ANYONE CAN SIMPLY TURN A BLIND EYE TO RACISM AND HOW IT INFLUENCED THE CREATION OF MODERN DAY AMERICA.
I THINK THE ARGUMENT IN THE ORIGINAL PIECE COULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN IN A MUCH, MUCH BETTER WAY IF IT HADN'T DECIDED TO EQUATE EXPERIENCES, TO RE-WRITE HISTORY, AND TO MISS THE POINT.
WHY NOT WRITE A BOOK AND A REVIEW THAT SAYS WE'RE ALL SLAVES IN TODAY'S MODERN, SYSTEMATIC CAPITALISM? KEYWORD: TODAY'S. AND AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT BOOK ABOUT THE HISTORY OF INDENTURED SERVITUDE AND RACIST SLAVERY THAT LAYS OUT THE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT HISTORIES OF THE TWO, COMPARES AND CONTRASTS THEM, BUT DOES NOT EQUATE THE TWO AS "THE SAME THING" IN ORDER TO EXTEND AN IDEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. THERE'S GOTTA BE BETTER WAYS TO SAY CAPITALISM SUCKS.
... i'm just trying to emphasize things. if there was some way to emphasize words or paragraphs in the comment box without resorting to all capital letters, (an italics option? bold face? underline? indy tech guys?...) i would use it.
Now the last comment on this by 'this thing here' does start to turn it into a "victimhood competition" match.
... which is exactly the trap Goad wants you to fall into. All Goad is saying is:
1) Most black people were brought here as slaves. Same with most white people.
2) White people's ancestors in the USA did not benefit from slavery.
He is trying to rehabilitate the white working class as a revolutionary class, instead of allowing them to be the butt of every joke and the scorn of every white liberal.
To find such offense at contrasting indentured servitude with black slavery shows your revile for that little thing called "class" and maybe this bourgeois interpretation of life is why we are so ineffective in this country, whereas in other multicultural societies they are close to getting rid of their bosses.
Read:
"The normal contract term was four to seven years, but women were particularly vulnerable to having more years added. Additional years could be assessed as punishment if a servant ran away from service before completing the contract, or in the case of many women, because they became pregnant. The extra time was said to compensate her master for time she spent being pregnant and during childbirth. The punishment could be as severe as two years and include a whipping. Convicts also became indentured servants -- but not voluntarily."
"For a poor person during all of the seventeenth century, indentured servitude was practically the only method available of getting to the Colonies. One-half to two-thirds of all people to emigrating to American Colonies from Europe were indentured servants. Among them were French, German and Swiss Protestants fleeing from religious persecution, Irish starving because of poor crops, and Scottish farmers driven out by high rents. Many people of all ages were enticed to relocate in to Colonies by advertising used by people hired to recruit workers by painting an overly optimistic portrait of what the Colonies could offer. Others went by force or coercion. Kidnapping became commonplace."
"Children 12-years-old and upward, were favorite targets for snatching. They were easy prey, particularly if they were homeless and hungry, and sometimes were better servants than convicts were. Many served as apprentices, learning trades necessary to the survival of the plantations, and were bound to their masters until they reached age 18. The girls at 18, or sometimes younger, were of marrying age -- so were useful for both labor and breeding."
Sounds like slavery to me.
"i do not believe that ship after ship of shackeled white people arrived in america"
That is just historical revisionism. Of course they did. Do you think poor people in the 18th century just hopped on the next transatlantic flight or something? Your ignorance of this subject only proves Goad point even more.
"so why did indentured servitude just dry up, while racist slavery continued on and on? could it be that america was supposed to be a place where all were free?"
It did go on. Servitude under that name was phased out as immigration from Europe dropped off. (As it did with black slavery, you only need so many slaves to satisfy a rich class.) The rest of the history is the history of the labor struggle in this country, which routinely involved murder, lynch squads, death squads, etc.
"european immigrants couldn't keep doing it to other european immigrants. not in america."
More revisionism. What changed was not some white solidarity realization on the part of the ruling class. What changed was a militant, white working class that first went to war to abolish slavery, and then went to war to abolish wage-slavery.
"there never would have been black slave masters running plantations in america."
Maybe not in America's southern plantations, but there are and were certainly black slave masters. Certainly many of them sold thousands of other black people to southern USA. And, today, you have black people in positions that exploit other black people. You are trying to merge two different things: "race interest" and "class interest" ... and somehow I think money is more important than racial unity in a hell of a lot of instances.
I really just find it so interesting that this topic cannot be discussed without some liberal going off about it. Goad is really right.
... which is exactly the trap Goad wants you to fall into. All Goad is saying is:
1) Most black people were brought here as slaves. Same with most white people.
2) White people's ancestors in the USA did not benefit from slavery.
He is trying to rehabilitate the white working class as a revolutionary class, instead of allowing them to be the butt of every joke and the scorn of every white liberal.
To find such offense at contrasting indentured servitude with black slavery shows your revile for that little thing called "class" and maybe this bourgeois interpretation of life is why we are so ineffective in this country, whereas in other multicultural societies they are close to getting rid of their bosses.
Read:
"The normal contract term was four to seven years, but women were particularly vulnerable to having more years added. Additional years could be assessed as punishment if a servant ran away from service before completing the contract, or in the case of many women, because they became pregnant. The extra time was said to compensate her master for time she spent being pregnant and during childbirth. The punishment could be as severe as two years and include a whipping. Convicts also became indentured servants -- but not voluntarily."
"For a poor person during all of the seventeenth century, indentured servitude was practically the only method available of getting to the Colonies. One-half to two-thirds of all people to emigrating to American Colonies from Europe were indentured servants. Among them were French, German and Swiss Protestants fleeing from religious persecution, Irish starving because of poor crops, and Scottish farmers driven out by high rents. Many people of all ages were enticed to relocate in to Colonies by advertising used by people hired to recruit workers by painting an overly optimistic portrait of what the Colonies could offer. Others went by force or coercion. Kidnapping became commonplace."
"Children 12-years-old and upward, were favorite targets for snatching. They were easy prey, particularly if they were homeless and hungry, and sometimes were better servants than convicts were. Many served as apprentices, learning trades necessary to the survival of the plantations, and were bound to their masters until they reached age 18. The girls at 18, or sometimes younger, were of marrying age -- so were useful for both labor and breeding."
Sounds like slavery to me.
"i do not believe that ship after ship of shackeled white people arrived in america"
That is just historical revisionism. Of course they did. Do you think poor people in the 18th century just hopped on the next transatlantic flight or something? Your ignorance of this subject only proves Goad point even more.
"so why did indentured servitude just dry up, while racist slavery continued on and on? could it be that america was supposed to be a place where all were free?"
It did go on. Servitude under that name was phased out as immigration from Europe dropped off. (As it did with black slavery, you only need so many slaves to satisfy a rich class.) The rest of the history is the history of the labor struggle in this country, which routinely involved murder, lynch squads, death squads, etc.
"european immigrants couldn't keep doing it to other european immigrants. not in america."
More revisionism. What changed was not some white solidarity realization on the part of the ruling class. What changed was a militant, white working class that first went to war to abolish slavery, and then went to war to abolish wage-slavery.
"there never would have been black slave masters running plantations in america."
Maybe not in America's southern plantations, but there are and were certainly black slave masters. Certainly many of them sold thousands of other black people to southern USA. And, today, you have black people in positions that exploit other black people. You are trying to merge two different things: "race interest" and "class interest" ... and somehow I think money is more important than racial unity in a hell of a lot of instances.
I really just find it so interesting that this topic cannot be discussed without some liberal going off about it. Goad is really right.
yo dude, don'tcha know if you wanna stand up for whiteys you gotta
make a whole helluvalotta apologies beforehand and then after...
and then duck for cover? sheesh. but of course you do, we all know
that. racism is racism is racism. i wish people (lefties) would just
realize how self-defeating it is to the causes they purport to fight for
to indulge in white-bashing... there's better ways to assuage your
guilt.
anyway... time to do something about that so-called USA PATRIOT act...
http://www.gjf.org/NBORDC/
"The reason Americans can't make good cars is that they are a mongrel race."
Ejia Toyoda, chairman of Toyota Motor Corp. Quoted in the Los Angeles Times, April 11, 1992.
Ejia Toyoda, chairman of Toyota Motor Corp. Quoted in the Los Angeles Times, April 11, 1992.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network