A Critique of Noel Ignatiev's "Introduction to the United States"

1. My critiques of this article are not so much in arguing the points raised, but rather the inevitable downward spiral of such points in the manner they are raised. I’ll say up front I’m somewhat surprised that the driving force of Ignatin’s American history is the betrayal of white workers who “choose” their whiteness and thus desert the anti-racist struggle & black folks in general. It reminds me somewhat of a debate I had with this cat a few years back, he was a self-described anarchist who said that the pulse of all of world history has been the apocalyptic battle between whites and blacks (apparently all people in all time periods of world history have conceptualized themselves in this same duality of white vs. black, or so said this dude). It would seem a more accurate characterization of history as driven by working people’s instincts for liberation, and their struggles to achieve such in the face of unfavorable odds. Sometimes this has taken the form of national liberation and anti-colonial struggles; whatever form it has taken it has never been purely race war or an economic struggle (in class reductionist fashion) but has generally revolved around the intersection of economic, political, and social relations.

Let me first state, definitively, unequivocally, I am disgusted by, and do not dispute, the catastrophic consequences of white supremacy on a national and international scale throughout history and continuing in our society today. Nor do I mean to understate the urgency and necessity of our resistance to it. White supremacy is the denial of the self-government of people of color; it seeks to dehumanize non-white people and assert the superiority of whiteness. This takes many forms, from a national scale of institutionalized racism in the workplace, education, housing, police brutality, etc., and on an international scale through the auspices of empire and its rhetoric of the supremacy of “Western” civilization over the so-called barbarism of non-western nations and people of color.

Despite the survival of traditional forms of white supremacy such as old boy networks that dominate the ruling elite of many U.S. towns & cities, we cannot underestimate the changing of the times, and the resilience of white supremacy to adapt to the political upheavals that have sprouted in recent decades, particularly the civil rights and black power movements of the mid-20th century. Faced with a formidable enemy in the form of mass urban rebellions and rural civil disobedience (both armed and unarmed), the state has made certain concessions and adapted itself to the tides of history: affirmative action, minority business loans (i.e. under Nixon), etc. are some examples of those concessions. This has essentially served to diversify the ruling class, in a “rainbow coalition” collaboration to subjugate working people of all colors, and justify its existence rather than destroy it. [***For some excellent histories/critiques of these concessions see Earl Ofari’s “Myth of Black Capitalism” as well as E. Franklin Frazier’s “Black Bourgeoisie”…Adolph Reed has also written some important critiques, though not without his own pitfalls]

Unfortunately, the STO article doesn’t adequately assess these adaptations of white supremacy and their implications for working class struggle [granted, this piece was originally written in 1980 before the consequences could fully solidify], nor does it give due justice to everyday folks’ agency & self-activity in the face of w.s. The most dangerous result of this oversight is a depiction that there is some monolithic, essential political sensibility based upon identity, and a static pre-determination of social relations based on historical conditions.

Any history that prioritizes the betrayal of a sizable portion of the working class [in this case white folks], or conversely that points to another sizable portion as the infallible vanguard in fomenting revolution [in this case black folks], based on their identity, says two things to me, as a reader: one, the author has no faith in the self-managing capacities of white working people to overcome the brutality of their ancestors or of contemporary society; and two, the author believes essence rather than experience dictates one’s revolutionary potential and thus identity rather than character decides who must lead anti-racist struggle and who must follow.

So what does this mean in real time? In the same way that STO says that white workers of yesteryear sold out working class solidarity with black folks in order to enjoy the few privileges awarded them for having white skin, people use that same argument today to argue the inherent counter-revolutionary nature of white workers in the U.S. [For an example of the byproduct (if an extreme one) of this line of ideas, see “The White Antiracist is an Oxymoron” http://www.nathanielturner.com/whiteantiracistsopenletter.htm ] Or it’s used to say that “first world” workers are less politically inclined toward revolution because of the economic breadcrumbs that the monopoly of empire brings home from raping “third world” communities. It’s the classic privilege line, supposing that the handouts given under capitalism hold more sway over working people than do their instincts towards rebellion against the alienation, stagnation, and starvation [both psychological & physical] that capitalism fosters. No doubt, at various junctures in history white workers have acted in racist fashion towards their fellow workers of color and have served as the reactionary force that stifled budding revolutionary struggles. Yet, the assumption here is that white people are inherently locked into their whiteness and racism by their very bodies, by their histories, and by the structures of white supremacy; that they benefit from white supremacy because of the privileges it gives them, and thus they find no reason to oppose it. So some say that if white workers simply reject their whiteness, a victory will be won for anti-racism. All well and good, the whole damn social construction of race should be thrown into the trash heap of history. Yet rejecting their whiteness usually isn’t intended to mean principled organizing and direct action by white folks as equals with people of color against white supremacy; rather, it’s intended as the subservience of white folks to people of color, while whites grovel in repentance for the sins of their ancestors and take cues from people of color as to the meaning and direction of anti-racism; they must defer and subordinate themselves to representative or “authentic” people of color in the struggle. Fanon had much to say on this topic, and he said it eloquently. He wrote that we are not the slaves of the slavery that dehumanized our ancestors. Hell, even Saul Williams hit it on the head when he said, I’m not the son of Sha-clack-clack, I am before that.

So the privilege critique becomes a justification for all types of organizational nonsense. I’ve been to community meetings where white people were instructed not to speak because there were people of color present. I’ve seen people of color activists have all sorts of authoritarian and contradictory politics in leftist circles and go unchallenged because it was assumed that their race afforded them political immunity. Conversely, then, this type of privilege argument still dehumanizes people of color because it’s founded on two bases: a) that people of color have adopted so much false consciousness, have been so damaged by racism, that they are unable to speak up for themselves in the presence of whites without some extenuating policy of white subservience or separation; so people of color then, it is assumed, cannot be self-governing, cannot represent themselves, cannot take up space, and cannot assert their own agency in the presence of whites. b) To take an uncritical eye towards (specifically) the black radical tradition or black working class politics is to say there is an essential blackness that defines people. There is no human nature, no given “race,” no human “essence” or purpose outside of how we bring values into being through our actions. Any tendency that looks to people of color as the gatekeepers of anti-racism without us having actually proven it in practice is downright insulting, at best.

In reading the article I had to ask, why is there no critique of “rainbow coalition” style politics in the article? Why is there no examination of how white supremacy usurped black power tendencies (which is also a testament to certain flaws within black power)? Again perhaps it was the time factor. But there was no argument against black collaboration with the state or ruling class during any historical era. So do I think there needs to be a tirade against “black betrayal”? No. But today’s “rainbow coalition” IS white supremacy, it is the progressive veil used to justify the continued existence of racism and capitalism, and thus it must serve as a focal point for any sincere anti-racist politics and organizing. Moving on up to the east side ain’t an accomplishment for people of color if it means becoming the new manager at work, the mayor, the police chief, or secretary of state.

2. Granted, Ignatin’s is an overview of American history and by no means an all-encompassing study, there still seem to be a couple historical inaccuracies, particularly towards the end where Ignatin discusses the 20th century. I’m no expert but it would seem that prior to Rosa Parks doing her thing in Montgomery there were a number of movements which either a) stressed/built a multi-racial character or b) were people of color-led: first examples that pop to mind are radical white abolitionism (the racism of white northern liberal abolitionists aside); the populist movement of the late 19th century (which I know only scant details about so please correct me if I’m wrong here); sharecroppers’ struggles in the south; and the CIO movement (particularly, prior to its cooptation by union bureaucrats such as john lewis).

3. One point on organization. Someone more informed than myself may be able to comment on the following: what was STO’s conception of itself as an organization? Towards the very end of the article it states something to the effect of it having a character of an organization of white people—was that a conscious organizational choice? I know some groups like the White Panther Party [& the Patriot Party if I remember correctly] chose to organize whites only because as white people they felt their duty and only authority was to speak to their white brethren about white supremacy. I bring this up partially because I’ve heard it argued before that there should be black-only and white-only, etc. organizations rather than multiracial organizations, as that will best allow space and security to people of color to rediscover our own strength and leadership and revolutionary potential. That point alone is not invalid, but some folks take it to the extreme to say that any involvement in multiracial organization is a sign of the false consciousness of the people of color involved (because how can we possibly be self-governing leaders around white people whose inherent nature it is to suppress those instincts) and the egotism of white folks (because they won’t give people of color that space to organize autonomously).

I think it’s important to examine and take some direction on this issue from CLR James & Trotsky’s 1939 discussions in Coyoacan, Mexico on black struggle in the U.S. During these discussions, CLR is debating the validity of American Trotskyists advocating black self-determination. He says, well black folks by and large in the U.S. want their freedom and humanity but aren’t dead set on separation from white folks in order to enjoy that freedom. So he says, yes, black-only organizations are ok, brown only, red, yellow, and blue only if people want, but it has to be granted that folks can and must be self-governing and thus their choice to organize in multiracial collectives is as valid as a choice for race/identity based groups. I’m wondering what STO’s take on this was/would’ve been.

by LBoogie