Yes, insofar as the bourgeois revolutions were about securting the right of property, they are about slavery . . .
But what that has to do with specifically with why the American Revolution took place to avoid the British elimination of slavery remains a tad smudged. On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 7:26 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > [Edited Message Follows] > Please excuse the rather glaring date mistake--I wrote those lines when > preparing for a colonoscopy and there was evidently some leakage. > > The actual discussion of the 1619 project has AFAIK a fair number of key > points, some of which turn on points of history whereof I have to remain > silent. > > At the very least it seems to me that we are challenged in going beyond > narrow Eurocentric traditions, to rethink the value of the > ideology--chattel property of every Ku Kluxer and cracker-barrel crackpot > in the USA--of "individual liberty." This operation must necessarily also > challenge familiar US left-wing perspectives, which usually include a hefty > dose of raw romantic individualism along with whatever socialist honey they > may employ to disguise the flavor. > > As far as "liberty" is concerned, the term has appeared and been misused > in the revolutionary context since Roman times (assuming we can still refer > a historical timeline running through ancient Rome). Spartacus used the > Latin term as did his diametrical opposite in most respects Sergius > Catilina, who rebelled against the Roman Republic in Cicero's time as a > throttle on the liberties of the then-declining patrician class. Surely > the forebears of "Anglo-Saxon" America can have been no less ambiguous in > their use of the term. > > Samuel Johnson, who--except for his intelligence--was the archetypal > British Tory, spoke with scorn in his pamphlet "Taxation No Tyranny" (1775) > of the would-be colonial planter gentry: “We are told, that the > subjection of Americans may tend to the diminution of our own liberties; an > event, which none but very perspicacious politicians are able to foresee. > If slavery be thus fatally contagious, how is it that we hear the loudest > yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?” For all his monolithic > perversity, Johnson has a point. The "liberties" referred to of course > included the unquestionable superiority of real Englishmen from England > over mere colonials. We tend to forget that among the English gentry and > their apologists until quite recently, rank hypocrisy was no vice but a > positive and active system of pure morality. This had to rankle. > > In this sense at least there can be little doubt that at least for a > substantial number of those supporting the Floundering Bothers the point of > revolution was to defend slavery, if in no other way than by throwing off > what to them had become the foreign yoke of British governance and > taxation--and the hypocritical tendency of English ruling class to look > down on the "drivers of negroes" as not only far less wealthy but less > aristocratic or less worthy of admiration than the great English families > of the day. > > I pass over the anxiety that must have been caused by slave revolts in the > new world; not only in what would become the US but in Haiti leading up to > the successful revolution of 1791. There was also Lord Dunsmore's > proclamation of liberty for slaves in Virginia in exchange for their > support of the British cause. > > It doesn't take a 1619 Project to see the potential effect of these > well-known factors. As for us, can we adopt a democratic perspective > without genuflecting at least to Emerson, Thoreau, and Whitman as well as > Madison and Jefferson (and Hamilton, who tolerated slavery even in > denouncing it--while laying the foundations of modern US capitalism)? > > The challenge is perhaps to understand at once the systemic character of > the American ideology of race, which relies for its power to convince on > the illusion of naturalness apart from social or economic factors. This > makes racism an ideal vehicle for the theodicy of capitalism, but not a > function of it. As Louis Proyect has pointed out, It's entirely possible > to have racism, sexism, and Eurocentricity under the form of some really > existing socialism. It's happened before. > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#8390): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/8390 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/82563203/21656 -=-=- 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. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
