I dedicate these words to the black ancestors who suffered a lot and sacrificed for our lives today in 2020. The debate about the New York Times' 1619 Project continues. The creator of the project is Sister Nikole Hannah-Jones. I disregard the conservatives' critique of the project, because many of them believe in the myth that the Framers were saints, black people never suffered a specific form of slavery and racism, and that any progressive analysis of history should be ignored. The criticism getting attention deals with some historians and the WSWS or the World Socialist Web Site. The WSWS (which is a sectarian group that claims to be the primary arbitrator of socialist values which is ludicrous) believes in the ideology called class reductionism. This view teaches that all forms of oppression is a result of class forces causing these things to occur. They believe that capitalism primarily contributed to the rise of racism, sexism, etc. in order for the capitalist elites to divide workers of all backgrounds against each other. That is wrong, because sexism existed since the start of human history long before modern capitalism was established. Racism has existed long before the Maafa too. While class issues are very important on why things that they are (we have to study class issues), a class majority approach is limited for many reasons. Many racists are poor, eliminating classism and class oppression won't eliminate all racism or sexism, and systematic oppression is not just a product of class alone. It is also a product of international forces of racism, xenophobia, and other structural injustices.
Statistics prove that racial discrimination is not just an individual or class affair (though class is part of these things). Racial discrimination disproportionately harms black Americans in America in dealing with job opportunities, school suspension, and to the criminal justice system itself. Michelle Alexander wrote about the mass incarceration state in her eloquent book entitled, "The New Jim Crow." That is why I don't agree with class reductionism, but class issues are very important to recognize and understand in order to get things done. In order words, richer African Americans suffer less economic oppression than poorer African Americans. Class stratification does exist in the black community. That's a fact. You can't ignore the issue of race either. WSWS criticizes Sister Hannah-Jones, because WSWS believes that she wants to condemn white people collectively, and they believe that she maintains that the DNA of America is by virtue of its existence is irredeemable. WSWS is wrong on all accounts. In fact, Hannah-Jones said explicitly said that she wants America to be better.
Nikole Hannah-Jones has criticized WSWS as misinterpreting her position. I agree with her. It is obvious that Nikole-Hannah-Jones doesn't believe that America is irreversibly unchangeable. She said that black people in America contributed heavily in enhancing democracy which is true. She believes that black people have experienced an unique, specific form of white racism including slavery (like being stripped of our culture, creeds, languages, and social mores via being kidnapped thousands of miles from Africa plus illegally sent to the Americas, Asia, etc.) that can only be eliminated by systematic change. She is right on that position. On certain details, people have the right to critique her analysis (especially on the issue of imperialism and how her work doesn't mention Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. or Frederick Douglass in a detailed fashion). I don't believe that she is insincere in her goal in trying to outline the imperfections of American society. I disagree with some of the views of historian James M. McPherson on his views on abolitionism.
McPherson on his views of abolition equated abolitionism to racial egalitarianism when many white abolitionists didn't believe in equality for black people. Some of them just hated slavery. Some didn't want women to have equal rights. Other abolitionists believed in racial equality like Frederick Douglas and Sojourner Truth. The abolitionist movement was a diverse movement. McPherson ignores the fact that even after the Civil War, Lincoln didn't want universal suffrage for black people, but only a select number of black people given the right to vote. McPherson didn't read all of the 1619, but he skimmed through it.
For WSWS to assume that she or Hannah-Jones is some puppet of middle class Democrats to advance some racialist narrative to divide Americans is highly wrong and inappropriate. Nikole Hannah-Jones never wrote about any biological basis for racism either. The biggest slander against her is that some accuse her of saying that racism has a genetic basis, which isn't the case at all. Outlining the truth on racism is real. Diminishing the impact of racism and economic oppression against African Americans (and assuming that it is just mostly an example of class issues) as done by many class reductionists is an affront to history. For example, the Great Migration included millions of black people escaping the South for better economic opportunities (that is a class issue), but many African Americans in the North still experienced racism, discrimination, police brutality, and other injustices (which is a racial issue). While the 1619 Project does merit legitimate critiques on certain issues (I will not deny that), I don't view Sister Nikole Hannah-Jones as some bigot who wants tensions. Also, WSWS has criticized the Metoo movement collectively as violating the concept of due process (which is silly), and they have defended the perverted criminal Roman Polanski. See, I know my tea now. WSWS is a sectarian group that promotes the idea that anyone who deviates from their views is somehow not a true revolutionary.
That is incorrect as socialists and non-socialists alike can be just as dedicated to freedom as anyone else. WSWS supports Sean Wilentz's criticizing the 1619 Project. Sean is a Princeton professor. The problem is that WSWS hypocritically praises Sean Wilentz when Sean is a Clinton supporter (while WSWS has articles criticizing both Bill and Hillary Clinton). Wilentz (who defended Bill Clinton's war in Yugoslavia) wrote an adoring biography of Andrew Jackson when Jackson was a slave owner, a racist, an pro-austerity extremist, an abuser of Native Americans, and a stone cold reactionary extremist. WSWS's glamorizaiton of outright slave owners, racists, and abusers like George Washington (who wanted escaped slaves to be kidnapped and brought back to slavery) and Thomas Jefferson (who never freed a slave and believed in the myth of black intellectual inferiority) is just plain wrong (and it outlines their goals). WSWS claims that Lincoln wasn't a racist. We have quotes of Lincoln saying that he doesn't believe in equality for black people, but he opposed slavery. WSWS cites no evidence that Lincoln wasn't a racist or never said racist comments. Lincoln didn't even want all black adults to vote in 1865. WSWS says that Hannah-Jones claims that African Americans have fought alone in the fight against racism. That is incorrect. We know that African Americans never fought alone in this struggle for freedom. WSWS denies that racism and slavery were key parts of American exceptionalism. The Missouri Compromise, the Dred Scott decision, and even America's imperialism in Cuba outline that American exceptionalism had a great deal to do with racism, imperialism, and the conquering of the lands of Native Americans (in violation of treaties and the human rights of the indigenous peoples).
WSWS said that Hannah-Jones believes that American history is a struggle between black and white people which is wrong on WSWS's part. We know that American history is a product of complex factors that deal with class, other socioeconomic factors, race, gender, and other realities. It isn't just about conflicts between black and white people, and I don't believe Hannah-Jones implied that. Also, many historians want to glamorize the British Empire which is wrong as a means for them to criticize early America. Just because early America had massive imperfections, doesn't mean that the British Empire was heroic. During the Revolutionary War, the British Empire maintained slavery in the Caribbean, Africa, and other places of the world. The British Empire never banned slavery worldwide until 1833. The British Empire continued imperialism and colonialism well into the 20th century. The 1619 Project should have cited that information. The American Revolutionary War existed as a rebellion by many colonists against policies of the British Empire. The rebellion resisted the actions of the Monarchy. Slavery does have a role in the war as many colonists supported slavery and others didn't. The British Empire had Caribbean plantations that continued slavery throughout the Revolutionary War. Even the Dunmore proclamation of 1775 (which wanted black soldiers to fight for the Redcoats in exchange for emancipation) allowed slavery among loyal British subjects. Many Framers claimed to want liberty, but they denied it from black people, women, the poor, and other oppressed people. So, while WSWS wants to minimize the wickedness of some Framers, the 1619 Project minimized the wickedness of the British Empire.
They or folks in the WSWS want class determinism to be the order of the day instead of realizing that life is complex and intersectional. Not even Lenin or Trotsky (who wrote in favor of black self-determination) believed in total class reductionism. It is a historical fact that European imperialism plundered the non-European world, instituted the Maafa, organized the genocide of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, and carried out other crimes that WSWS has minimized. While I don't omit the imperfections of the 1619 Project (i.e. It doesn't talk about how capitalist exploitation contributed to social problems that we face today in America. It doesn't go into detail about the labor movement, the Pan-African movement, and other movements for change. The 1619 Project doesn't mention information about the Harlem Renaissance, the Black Power movement, A. Philip Randolph, and the Great Migration), I do believe that she or Nikole sincerely wants a discussion in favor of legitimate social justice. It is also important to mention that combating racism must be done by combating imperialism as Malcolm X has mentioned (in other words, you have to unite African Americans with Africans along with everyone in the African Diaspora in getting solutions. Uniting the oppressed people of the world to solve problems makes sense). So, I have a more nuisance view of the 1619 Project. I reject the 2 extreme views of everything in it being wrong and everything thing in it being right. Nikole Hannah-Jones is brave to take on this quest in showing the journey of African Americans. I admire her bravery. She is right that the legacy of slavery continues in our generation in 2020. This doesn't mean that America can't be better to redeem itself fully. It is just that we have to understand history in order to make a better world. She is right to say that, "The truth is that as much democracy as this nation has today, it has been borne on the backs of black resistance." Therefore, this is my take on the 1619 Project.
Black Lives Matter.
By Timothy
