St.
John’s University Professor Roderick Bush has offered a very thought-provoking
and challenging examination of the construction of racial capitalism
(in the USA and globally) and the Black radical currents
that have risen in response. As such, this book is one that not
only must be read, but must be contemplated. Bush counters many
views regarding the history of social movements in the USA, but he also places before the reader issues
that must be considered when envisioning a truly emancipatory movement
for social transformation.
Central
to Bush’s framework is the notion that racism cannot be separated
from capitalism. This thesis, while certainly not new, is internationalized
by Bush. Bush describes the emergence of capitalism as, from the
outset, a global phenomenon and one that could never have been successful
had it not been for the combination of the African slave trade and
the invasion and conquest of the Western Hemisphere.
This framework is critical and distinguishes his analysis from those
who tend to look at capitalism as an abstraction to which matters
of race and gender are added like bits of silly putty.
The
practical implications of this framework are significant. If race
is not an add-on to capitalism but, instead, is central, then a
progressive politics that is not explicitly anti-racist should be
inconceivable. Further, that efforts to construct a progressive,
if not Left, politics that fail to appreciate the significance of
race are doomed to failure.
US history, and indeed that of the Western
Europe, demonstrates that Bush’s thesis is more than correct. Efforts
at building progressive politics that ignore race tend to encounter
a crisis. US history is littered with
such examples, including the Populist Movement of the late 19th
century/early 20th century. Yet, as Bush explains, the phenomenon
is not only one within the USA.
Insofar as one understand “race” as a social/political construct
that has no relationship to science, but is related to colonialism
and the expansion of capital, Bush’s analysis helps one understand
the challenges, indeed crises, that have been encountered by progressive
social movements in European countries that were also hubs of colonialism.
European
communist and socialist movements that downplayed the importance
of challenging colonialism and racism often found themselves complicit
in colonial oppression. One notorious example of this was the French
Communist Party that was quite late in recognizing that the struggle
for Algerian independence was one that it needed to actively support.
What
intrigued me about the book, however, was the framework that Bush
lays out for understanding Black radicalism. In using the term “Black
internationalism” Bush suggests, not so much a separate political
current, but rather an approach to the struggle for Black freedom
that has been a component part of much of what has come to be known
as Black radicalism. In reading the book I was trying to understand
the difference between Pan Africanism and Black internationalism,
at first not sure whether this was a distinction without a difference.
Actually, Pan Africanism represents a certain ideological current
within the Black freedom struggle whereas Black internationalism
represents an approach that contextualizes the Black freedom struggle
internationally. As Bush illustrates, looking at the career of both
Malcolm X and the later Martin Luther King, one sees their efforts
to place the struggle for Black freedom not in the context of a
minority fighting for rights, but rather in the context of the struggles
that were underway globally for national liberation and against
colonialism and neo-colonialism. What Bush offers is a way of understanding
that such an approach was not unique to Malcolm and King, nor to
the 1960s, but represented an approach that went back at least to
the early 19th century.
A
Black internationalist approach is not a romantic framework. Bush
helps the reader to understand Black internationalism as a combination
of the result of the enslavement of Africans, brought to the Western
Hemisphere, on the one hand, and the reality of our - Black people
- conducting a freedom struggle in the heart of an empire, on the
other. Black internationalism means confronting imperialism, whether
one emerges from a nationalist, Pan Africanist, socialist, communist,
or some combination of each, tradition. It is to be distinguished
from those who have seen the Black freedom struggle as unique and
apart from other global struggles for justice.
While
I overwhelmingly recommend this book, I found that I had differences
with Bush on a few matters. Substantively, while Bush demonstrates
the connection between modern racism and capitalism, he seems to
downplay the manner in which it was constructed in the USA as a method of social
control. In that sense I was surprised that he did not reference
the work of Theodore Allen whose two volume work, The Invention
of the White Race (Volume
One, Volume
Two), examines the development of modern racism beginning
with the invasion and occupation of Ireland by the English. This is not an insignificant
point. While racism develops in conjunction with capitalism and
is used by the capitalists to help to explain and justify colonialism
and slavery, it is critical to recognize that the 17th century contained
various experiments in social control, a period during which the
colonial ruling elite had great difficulty subordinating the working
population. White supremacy comes to be hard-wired into the system,
not something in any way apart from the racial capitalism of the
thirteen colonies and eventually the USA.
A
second substantive concern I had revolved around the entire question
of nationalism. Bush gives a passionate defense of nationalism as
a mechanism that logically emerges in the face of national oppression
and racism. I am in agreement. Yet there is little contained in
the book that is a developed critique of the evolution of nationalism,
not only in the USA
among African Americans but globally. Nationalism, as a political
current, has always had two aspects: one that united a specific
people and helped them to achieve their identity, often in the face
of ridicule and oppression from a more powerful nation or empire;
and, on the other hand, one that excludes “others.” Nationalism,
for much of the 20th century was overwhelmingly progressive, if
not revolutionary, in its fight against colonialism and empire.
But it was also a nationalism that tended NOT to restrict itself
to a particular ethnic group. Vietnamese nationalism, for instance,
was inclusive of various ethnic groups within Vietnam. The nationalism of
the revolutionary forces of Guinea-Bissau was not limited or defined by one
tribe, but was a nationalism that was attempting to be a force for
the construction of a new nation, one that included different ethnic
groups.
In
the face of what Egyptian theorist Samir Amin calls the crisis of
the national populist project, nationalism in the global South (and
Eastern Europe for that matter) has become
far more complicated. It has tended in the direction of ethno-nationalism
where the nation comes to be identified with a particular ethnic
group or nationality rather than being defined by the people on
a territory who have come to share a common history and experience.
Consider, for instance, Hutu nationalism in Rwanda
which saw itself as flourishing only through the subordination and
eventual extermination of the Tutsi.
While
nationalism among African Americans continues to have a mainly progressive
character, it is certainly the case that matters have become more
complex over the last twenty to thirty years. Ethnic
nationalism has emerged within Black America in which, for instance,
“Black” is no longer the inclusive category used in the 1960s and
1970s, but for many people means African Americans native to the
USA who are the descendents of slaves brought to
the shores of North America. Further, among
some sections of Black America, our interests have come to be defined
not so much vis-à-vis white supremacist national oppression, but
rather against other oppressed groups of color. A deeper examination
of this might have been useful. This may be an unfair criticism
in light of other work by Bush, but given the nature of the material
he was addressing, both this point regarding nationalism and the
earlier one concerning social control probably needed a place in
this otherwise excellent book.
My
final point is one that I raise reluctantly. The
End of White World Supremacy is a well-researched and documented
book. Of this, there is no question. Yet Bush tends to present his
material very often through the voices of others. In that sense
the book tends toward a literature survey. While it is useful to
know what other authors are writing concerning the same subject,
I kept finding myself wanting to know, much more explicitly, the
thinking of the writer whose book I had in front of me. In that
sense, I wanted more of Bush’s own, original thinking, rather than
commentary on the insights of others.
That
said, this is a very important book to read. I was excited by the
fact that Bush was prepared to push the limits and raise approaches
and analyses that are other than mainstream. It did not stop there
for me. Not only was the book thought-provoking, but it was equally
inspiring, in part because Bush recounted the contributions of Black
radicalism to the Black freedom struggle. In so doing Bush made
a serious effort to continually demonstrate the manner in which
the theories for liberation were internally constructed rather than
brought to the Black freedom movement from others.
Any BlackCommentator.com article may
be re-printed so long as it is re-printed in its entirety and full
credit given to the author and www.BlackCommentator.com. If the
re-print is on the Internet we additionally request a link back
to the original piece on our Website.
Your comments are always welcome.
eMail re-print notice
If you send us an eMail message
we may publish all or part of it, unless you tell us it
is not for publication. You may also request that we withhold
your name.
Thank you very much for your readership.
Your comments are always welcome.
September17
, 2009
Issue 342
is
published every Thursday
Executive Editor:
Bill Fletcher, Jr.
Managing Editor:
Nancy Littlefield
Publisher:
Peter Gamble
Est. April 5, 2002
Printer Friendly Version
in resizeable plain
text format or pdf
format.