The World Socialists'
Tom Mackaman is back in form as he interviews a black political scientist about the
1619 Project. It turns out, to no one's surprise, that Adolph Reed was no more aware of the New York Times' pet project until its publication than white historians were…
Adolph Reed, Jr., is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at
the University of Pennsylvania. He is the author of numerous books and
articles dealing with race and class in American society and writes
regularly for the New Republic.
… Q. Let me ask a little bit about your initial reaction to the 1619
Project. I have spoken to several historians who concentrated their
criticism on Nikole Hannah-Jones’ lead essay, which is meant to frame
the whole thing, and also Matthew Desmond's claim that American
capitalism is basically the direct descendent of chattel slavery. Maybe
you can help us to understand the rest of the magazine, which is being
pushed as a curriculum for school children. It seems to me that what the
rest of the essays do is focus on a particular social problem—traffic
jams in Atlanta, lack of national healthcare, high sugar in the American
diet, and so on—and argue by implication that that's all coming out of
slavery.
The dominant tendency in academia is to attribute all social
problems to race, or to other forms of identity, but the 1619 Project
goes farther still, saying that they are all rooted in slavery.
A. I didn’t know about the 1619 Project until it came out, and
frankly when I learned about it my reaction was a big sigh. But again,
the relation to history has passed to the appropriation of the past in
support of what whatever kind of ‘just-so’ stories about the present are
desired. This approach has taken root within the Academy. It's like all
bets are off.
… What are the stakes that people imagine to be bound up with
demonstrating that capitalism in this country emerged from slavery and
racism, which are treated as two different labels for the same
pathology? Ultimately, it’s a race reductionist argument. What the
Afro-pessimist types or black nationalist types get out of it is an
insistence that we can’t ever talk about anything except race. And
that's partly because talking about race is the things they have to
sell.
If you follow through the logic of disparities discourse, and watch
the studies and follow the citations, what you get is a sort of bold
announcement of findings, but finding that anybody who has been reading a
newspaper over the last 50 or 70 years would assume from the outset:
blacks have it worse, and women have it worse, and so on.
It’s in part an expression of a generic pathology of sociology, the
most banal expression of academic life. You follow the safe path. You
replicate the findings. But it’s not just supposed to be a matter of
finding a disparity in and of itself, like differences in the number of
days of sunshine in a year. It’s supposed to be a promise that in
finding or confirming the disparity in this or that domain that it will
bring some kind of mediation of the problem. But the work never calls
for that.
Q. You make important points about the way social problems are
approached. As an example, we have a scourge of police violence in this
country. Over 1,000 Americans are killed each year by police. And the
common knowledge, so to speak, is that this is a racial problem.
The
reality is that the largest number of those killed are white, but blacks
are disproportionately killed. But if the position is that this is
simply a racial problem, there is no real solution on offer. We have a
militarized police force operating under conditions of extreme social
inequality, with lots of guns on the streets, with soldiers coming back
from serving in neocolonial wars abroad becoming police officers. And
all of this is excised in the racialist argument, which if taken at face
value, boils down to allegations about racial attitudes among police.
A. Cedric Johnson [3] has made good points on this and I’ve spoken
with him at considerable length about the criminal justice system. To
overdraw the point, a black Yale graduate who works on Wall Street is no
doubt several times more likely to be jacked up by the police on the
platform of Metro North than his white counterpart, out of mistaken
identity. And that mistaken identity is what we might call racism. But
it’s a shorthand. He’s still less likely to be jacked up by the police
than the broke white guy in northeast Philadelphia or west Baltimore.
… So that’s kind of natural enough and you don’t need to have a devil
theory like the crack epidemic to explain it—all of this pointless
back-and-forth about how the cultural and political authorities are
responding to the opioid crisis compared to how they responded to the
crack epidemic. I mean, it’s all beside the point.
Q. I was remembering your response to Hurricane Katrina. New Orleans is your hometown, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Maybe you could say something about that because I think you made a
strong critique of identity politics in the context of that disaster.
A. First of all, the narrative that only black people lived in the
most flood-prone areas was false. The Lakeview section of the city,
which was built on reclaimed marshland on the lakefront when I was too
small to remember, in the first decades after World War II, was every
bit as much below sea level as the Lower Ninth Ward and flooded as
completely.
I guess we owe something to Anderson Cooper and Soledad O'Brien for
when they began to recoil from, and then eventually to rebel against,
the victim-blaming in the aftermath of the hurricane. But what was
unfortunate about that moment was that, even though they were moved by
it, the power of the iconography, of the disproportionate representation
of poor black people on the overpasses in the Convention Center and the
Superdome, fed this idea that “nothing has changed,” that there is this
insoluble race problem.
Well the first question is, where do you think that the people who
brought you those tropical drinks and turned down your bed in the hotel
lived? I mean how do you think they lived? Did it never occur to you to
wonder what their wages were or anything like that?
Of course it’s a poor city. But it turns out that, proportionally,
blacks weren't displaced at a higher rate than whites. It's just that
there are a lot more blacks in the city. And also blacks actually didn't
die at a higher rate than whites. But the best predictor, or a better
predictor than race, of who was able to evacuate first of all, who was
able to survive the period of evacuation under relatively decent
circumstances, and who was able to come back to the city
afterwards—every step along the way, class was a better predictor than
race. Class as in a sociological sense, class as access to
resources—both monetary and other resources; your lack of dependence on a
job, your access to social networks. But it didn't appear to be that
way so there becomes this narrative that the story of Katrina’s
displacement proves the continuing significance, or new significance, of
race.
Well, it turns out that the concrete version of the story is that it
shows the power of class and the impact of neoliberalism. Before Mitch
Landrieu was elected mayor in 2010 there hadn't been a white mayor since
his father left office in 1977. So you had a black government all the
way through. But now even with the coming back to the city, for a year
or two afterwards, when you’d drive around the city—and granted this is
informal observation, but I did it on every trip there and kept tabs—but
following the recovery it's not only that the more affluent
neighborhoods recovered without regard to race, but that even within the
better-off neighborhoods and more affluent blocks, the bigger houses
came back first.
But where it really gets corrosive is this narrative that the city
was being depopulated of blacks so that whites could take it back. And
the first few weeks after the inundation you could certainly find people
saying, “We’ll get rid of the crime. Let it all go to Houston.” But it
was also pretty clear after a few weeks that the governing elite didn't
really have any interest in altering the political regime. Now
post-Katrina, and this is a big irony given the race line of arguing, if
anything the ruling class in the city is now more seamlessly
interracial and biracial than it had been previously.
Q. I think identity politics makes for some strange bedfellows.
There's some agreement between the likes of Hannah-Jones and the far
right, for example the neo-Confederates you were mentioning when we sat
down, who oppose the concept of equality. But she, in the 1619 Project,
also calls the Declaration of Independence a “founding myth.”
A. Every state is going to have its founding myths, if you think of them as ideals. But what is so important about Jim Oakes’ book, Scorpion’s Sting,
is that you can see this tension about human equality that was rooted
in the founding documents and debates. It’s especially ironic to
consider, for instance, the three-fifths compromise to the Constitution,
which was an expression of exactly the opposite political value that
the people who invoke it as part of an Afro-pessimist discourse claim.
These people are kind of just making it up as they go, or reinventing
the past to suit the purposes of the present.
Right from the outset. Those first 20 people weren't slaves. There
wasn’t chattel slavery yet in British North America. But the 1619
Project assumes, in whatever way, that slavery was the natural condition
of Africans. And that’s where the Afro-pessimist types wind up sharing a
cup of tea with the likes of James Henry Hammond. [James Henry Hammond was a Democratic Party Senator from South Carolina
(1857-1860) and leading proponent of slavery in the lead-up to the Civil
War]
Q. Let me ask you about what in academia is called “critical race theory” and how you see it at work in the 1619 Project.
A. It’s another expression of reductionism. On the most pedestrian
level it’s an observation that what you see is a function of where you
stand. At that level there's nothing in it that wasn't in Marx's early
writings, or in Mannheim. But then you get an appropriation of the
standpoint theory for identity that says for example, all blacks think
the same way. It’s taxonomic, a reification. So the retort to that
critique has been “intersectionality.” Yes, there’s a black perspective,
but what you do is fragment it, so there are multiple black
perspectives, because each potential—or each sacralized—social position
becomes discrete. That's what gives you intersectionality.
But listening to how people talk about intersectionality, it just
seems like dissociative personality disorder. How do you carve out when
your male is talking, and your black is talking, and when your
steelworker is talking? It seems like the kind of perspective that can
work only at a level of abstraction at which no one ever asks to see
something concrete. Herbert Butterfield, in The Whig Interpretation of History,
back in 1931, had this great criticism of what he calls concepts that
are incapable of concrete visualization. But we have this world of
theory where big cultural abstractions kind of cross-pollinate and
relieve the theorists of historical work.
Herbert Butterfield
Q. We’ve spoken to a number of leading historians, including
James McPherson,
James Oakes,
Gordon Wood and
Victoria Bynum,
and
Hannah-Jones launched into a Twitter tirade against them,
dismissing them as “white historians.” She
is not a historian, but she
is the recipient of a MacArthur Foundation “genius grant,” just like
Ta-Nehisi Coates and Ibram X. Kendi have been in recent years.
A. I have spent most of my adult life trying to avoid the kind of
old-fashioned Stalinist conspiracy theory, but it’s getting hard. My dad
used to say that in one sense ideology is the mechanism that harmonizes
the principles that you want to believe with what advances your
material interest.
And so I understand that the people of MacArthur, for instance, think
they're doing something quite different. But when they look for voices,
the voices that they look for are the voices that say ultimately, “Well
it's a tragedy that's hopeless. We have to atone as individuals. Do
whatever you can do to confront disparity.”
I've been joking for a number of years that here at Penn the
university administration has three core values: Building the endowment,
already at $16 billion. Buying up as much on the real estate as they
can on both sides of the Schuylkill River. And diversity. And they're
genuinely committed to all three of those because they think that part
of their mission is to make the ruling class look like the photo of
America.
I made a reference once to Coates being an autodidact, and what I
meant by that was that he did not know history, that he’s not a
historian. Kendi’s book, I don’t know anyone who has actually read it.
Q.
Stamped from the Beginning is the title. There couldn’t
be a more anti-historical title. In just four words it mixes biblical
and genetic metaphors. He’s now on a national speaking tour.
A. It’s a career path. A number of years ago Ken Warren at the
University of Chicago and I ran a seminar, and what we noticed is that a
lot of students of color were applying to PhD programs saying that they
wanted to get a credential to help them become public intellectuals.
And it's only gotten more and more normalized. I mean at this point like
if you look at faculty home pages, or even graduate student pages, they
read like they're prepared by the William Morris Agency, for example
assistant professors claiming 15 subfields of expertise. It's like the
bios are written for MSNBC.
Q. I think one element of it is that there's this presumption that
it's somehow all “left.” But then you look, and well it's funded by the
MacArthur Foundation, and the
New York Times loves it, and the Ivy League boards of trustees loves it, so how left can it be? How could it possibly be radical?
A. I've seen some students take umbrage to describing slavery as a
labor system, that that is somehow demeaning. I don’t know if you
remember this, but there was a controversy a few years ago where this
textbook made a reference to the transatlantic slave trade, and then, in
the context of the transatlantic slave trade, made a statement that
Africans were brought to the New World to work, or were brought as
workers. There was a big to-do about this. But the simple structure of
the paragraph makes clear that whoever wrote this text was not claiming
that African workers weren't slaves, since they were brought here
through the transatlantic slave trade. My son Touré Reed, who is a
historian at Illinois State University, puts it this way, “There is a
tendency to think of slavery as a permanent sadistic camp.” And that’s
what comes through in the movies, too.
Q. Right. The idea, and I think the 1619 Project very much promotes
this, that slavery was created as a form of racial oppression, rather
than a form of labor exploitation that ultimately became rationalized
ideologically by racism.
Even when slavery existed, its form of exploitation was so
conspicuous, and so brutal, that it obscured other forms of
exploitation, including wage labor. But now it’s 2019, and you have the
New York Times
arguing that every social ill that we have today is descended directly
from slavery. As if wage labor exploitation hasn’t happened, as if it’s
not happening at the
Times itself. As if the great majority of African Americans today are not exploited today as wage laborers, alongside whites.
A. Right. I’ve had this argument with the proponents of reparations.
And my question for them all along has been, how can you imagine putting
together a political alliance that would be broad enough so that you
win on this issue? And if you can’t imagine it, then what are you really
doing? And their answer is, “Well, don't you think black people deserve
something?” Well, a lot of people deserve a lot.
Q. I agree. The people behind the 1619 Project would of course deny
they're advocating a race war. But if blacks and white have immutable,
intrinsic, and supra-historical differences, that’s the logic of the
position.
A. That's also the punchline of Afro-pessimism, that racism is
ubiquitous. That everybody hates blacks or embraces anti-blackness. It's
everywhere and there’s this global condition of whiteness.
Q. Hannah-Jones writes that anti-black racism is stamped in the national DNA.
A. The only place that can lead, if it’s impermeable, if it’s immutable, is race war.
The “legacy of slavery” construct is also one I’ve hated for as long
as I can remember because, in the first place, why would the legacy of
slavery be more meaningful than the legacy of sharecropping and Jim Crow
and the legacy of the Great Migration? Or even the New Deal and the
CIO? But what's ideologically useful about the legacy of the slavery
trope is that it can mean two seemingly quite different things. One is
that it can be invoked as proof that blacks are inferior, because
slavery has forged an indelible mark. Or it can be invoked as a cultural
pathology argument. But it's a misunderstanding to assume that there's a
sharp contrast between cultural arguments about inequality and
biological arguments. They're basically the same. …
… Q. I have not tried to search out a historical linkage to this
before, but it seems to me that
going all the way back to the antebellum
it has been the Democratic Party that has done the heavy lifting in
promoting racial identity. Of course, there’s a division of labor with
the Republicans since the late 1960s and Nixon’s so-called “southern
strategy.” Not so long ago, people referred to Republican politicians
using “dog whistles” for racism. With Trump it’s become a bullhorn. But
the Times’ 1619 Project reflects the agenda of the
Democratic Party today. They’re trying to cobble together an electoral
coalition based on identities.
A. Absolutely. It’s fascinating to watch Hillary Clinton in 2016
because I remember very well 1992, when the cutting edge of Clintonism
was showing there was a new Democratic Party that was going to make Wall
Street grateful. It wasn’t a party that was going to coddle black and
poor people. And Bill Clinton was very clear about that. That’s what the
Crime Bill and Welfare Reform were all about. To see the Clintons
presenting themselves as the avatars of racial justice against Bernie
Sanders in 2016 was really extraordinary.
Q. Thank you for speaking with us. Before we conclude, let me ask you what you are working on now.
A. Well I’ve started doing a column every month in the New Republic,
but I'm trying to finish a book that actually started at the beginning
of the Obama era. I was approached by Verso to do a book on Obama and I
said no, but I would consider doing a book on Obama-mania, by which I
mean the phenomenon that people who should have known better got so
excited about him.
Q. You had a really prescient essay on Obama way back in 1996, when
he was in Illinois state senator. You referred to him as “a smooth
Harvard lawyer with impeccable do-good credentials and
vacuous-to-repressive neoliberal politics,” and predicted he was the
wave of the future. …
RELATED:
1619, Mao, & 9-11: History According to the NYT — Plus, a Remarkable Issue of National Geographic Reveals the Leftists' "Blame America First" Approach to History
• Wilfred Reilly on 1619:
quite a few contemporary Black problems have very little to do with slavery
NO MAINSTREAM HISTORIAN CONTACTED FOR THE 1619 PROJECT
• "Out of the Revolution came an anti-slavery ethos, which never
disappeared": Pulitzer Prize Winner James McPherson Confirms that
No Mainstream Historian Was Contacted by the NYT for Its 1619 History Project
• Gordon Wood: "The Revolution unleashed antislavery sentiments that led to the
first abolition movements in the history of the world" —
another Pulitzer-Winning Historian Had No Warning about the NYT's 1619 Project
• A Black Political Scientist "didn’t know about the 1619 Project until it came out";
"These people are kind of just making it up as they go"
• Clayborne Carson: Another Black Historian
Kept in the Dark About 1619
• If historians did not hear of the NYT's history (sic) plan,
chances are great that the 1619 Project was being deliberately kept a tight secret
• Oxford Historian Richard Carwardine: 1619 is
“a preposterous and one-dimensional reading of the American past”
• World Socialists:
"the 1619 Project is a politically motivated falsification of history" by the New York Times, aka "the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party"
THE NEW YORK TIMES OR THE NEW "WOKE" TIMES?
• Dan Gainor on 1619 and rewriting history: "To the Left elite like the NY Times,
there’s no narrative they want to destroy more than American exceptionalism"
• Utterly preposterous claims: The 1619 project is a cynical political ploy,
aimed at piercing the heart of the American understanding of justice
•
From Washington to Grant, not a single American deserves an iota of gratitude, or even understanding, from Nikole
Hannah-Jones; however, modern autocrats, if leftist and foreign, aren't "all bad"
• One of the Main Sources for the NYT's 1619 Project Is
a Career Communist Propagandist who Defends Stalinism
• A Pulitzer Prize?! Among the 1619 Defenders Is
"a Fringe Academic" with "a Fetish for Authoritarian Terror" and "a Soft Spot" for Mugabe, Castro, and Even Stalin
• Influenced by Farrakhan's Nation of Islam?!
1619 Project's History "Expert" Believes the Aztecs' Pyramids Were Built with Help from Africans Who Crossed the Atlantic Prior to the "Barbaric Devils" of Columbus (Whom She Likens to Hitler)
•
1793, 1776, or 1619: Is the New York Times Distinguishable from Teen Vogue? Is It Living in a Parallel Universe? Or Is It
Simply Losing Its Mind in an Industry-Wide Nervous Breakdown?
• No longer America's "newspaper of record,"
the "New Woke Times" is now but a college campus paper, where kids like 1619 writer Nikole Hannah-Jones run the asylum and determine what news is fit to print
• The Departure of Bari Weiss:
"Propagandists", Ethical Collapse, and the
"New McCarthyism" — "The radical left are running" the New York Times, "and no dissent is tolerated"
• "Full of left-wing sophomoric drivel": The New York Times —
already
drowning in a fantasy-land of alternately running pro-Soviet Union
apologia and their anti-American founding “1619 Project” series — promises to narrow what they view as acceptable opinion even more
• "Deeply Ashamed" of the… New York Times (!),
An Oblivious Founder of the Error-Ridden 1619 Project Uses Words that Have to Be Seen to Be Believed ("We as a News Organization Should Not Be Running Something That Is Offering Misinformation to the Public, Unchecked")
• Allen C Guelzo: The New York Times offers bitterness, fragility, and intellectual corruption—
The 1619 Project is not history; it is conspiracy theory
• The 1619 Project is an exercise in religious indoctrination:
Ignoring,
downplaying, or rewriting the history of 1861 to 1865, the Left and the
NYT must minimize, downplay, or ignore the deaths of 620,000 Americans
• 1619: It takes
an absurdly blind fanaticism to insist that today’s free and prosperous America is rotten and institutionally oppressive
• The MSM newsrooms and their public shaming terror campaigns — the "bullying campus Marxism" is
closer to cult religion than politics: Unceasingly searching out thoughtcrime, the American left has lost its mind
•
Fake But Accurate: The People Behind the NYT's 1619 Project Make a
"Small" Clarification, But Only Begrudgingly and Half-Heartedly, Because
Said Mistake Actually Undermines The 1619 Project's Entire Premise
THE REVOLUTION OF THE 1770s
• The Collapse of the Fourth Estate by Peter Wood: No
one has been able to identify a single leader, soldier, or supporter of
the Revolution who wanted to protect his right to hold slaves (A declaration that
slavery is the founding institution of America and the center of
everything important in our history is a ground-breaking claim, of the
same type as claims that America condones rape culture, that 9/11 was an
inside job, that vaccinations cause autism, that the Moon landing was a
hoax, or that ancient astronauts built the pyramids)
• Mary Beth Norton: In 1774, a year before Dunmore's proclamation, Americans had already in fact become independent
• Most of the founders, including Thomas Jefferson, opposed slavery’s continued existence, writes Rick Atkinson, despite the fact that many of them owned slaves
• Leslie Harris: Far
from being fought to preserve slavery, the Revolutionary War became a
primary disrupter of slavery in the North American Colonies (even
the NYT's fact-checker on the 1619 Project disagrees with its
"conclusions": "It took 60 more years for the British government to
finally
end slavery in its Caribbean colonies")
• Sean Wilentz on 1619: the
movement in London to abolish the slave trade formed only in 1787,
largely inspired by… American (!) antislavery opinion that had arisen in
the 1760s and 1770s
• 1619 & Slavery's Fatal Lie: it is more accurate to say that what makes America unique isn't slavery but the effort to abolish it
• 1619 & 1772: Most of
the founders, including Jefferson, opposed slavery’s continued
existence, despite many of them owning slaves; And Britain would remain the world's foremost slave-trading nation into the nineteenth century
• Wilfred Reilly on 1619: Slavery was legal in Britain in 1776, and it remained so in all overseas British colonies until 1833
• Not 1619 but 1641: In Fact, the American Revolution of 1776 Sought to Avoid the Excesses of the English Revolution Over a Century Earlier
• James Oakes on 1619: "Slavery made the slaveholders rich; But it made the South poor; And it didn’t make the North rich — So the legacy of slavery is poverty, not wealth"
• One of the steps of defeating truth is to destroy evidence of the truth, says Bob Woodson; Because
the North's Civil War statues — as well as American history itself —
are evidence of America's redemption from slavery, it's important for
the Left to remove evidence of the truth
TEACHING GENERATIONS OF KIDS FALSEHOODS ABOUT THE U.S.
• 1619: No wonder this place is crawling with young socialists and America-haters — the utter failure of the U.S. educational system to teach the history of America’s founding
• 1619: Invariably Taking the Progressive Side — The Ratio of Democratic
to Republican Voter Registration in History Departments is More than 33 to 1
• Denying the grandeur of the nation’s founding—Wilfred McClay on 1619: "Most of my students are shocked to learn that that slavery is not uniquely American"
• Inciting Hate Already in Kindergarten:
1619 "Education" Is Part of Far-Left Indoctrination by People Who Hate
America to Kids in College, in School, and Even in Elementary Classes
• "Distortions, half-truths, and outright falsehoods": Where does the 1619 project state that Africans themselves were central players in the slave trade? That's right: Nowhere
• John Podhoretz on 1619: the idea of reducing US history to the fact that some people owned slaves is a reductio ad absurdum and the definition of bad faith
• The 1619 Africans in Virginia were not ‘enslaved’, a black historian points out; they were indentured servants — just like the majority of European whites were
• "Two thirds of the people, white as well as black, who crossed the Atlantic in the first 200 years are indentured servants" notes Dolores Janiewski; "The poor people, black and white, share common interests"
LAST BUT NOT LEAST…
• Wondering Why Slavery Persisted for Almost 75 Years After the Founding
of the USA? According to Lincoln, the Democrat Party's "Principled"
Opposition to "Hate Speech"
• Victoria Bynum on 1619 and a NYT writer's "ignorance of history": "As dehumanizing and brutal as slavery was, the institution was not a giant concentration camp"
• Dennis Prager: The Left Couldn't Care Less About Blacks
• The Secret About the Black Lives Matter Outfit; In Fact, Its Name Ought to Be BSD or BAD
• The Real Reason Why Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, and the Land O'Lakes Maid Must Vanish
• The Confederate Flag: Another Brick in the Leftwing Activists' (Self-Serving) Demonization of America and Rewriting of History
• Who, Exactly, Is It
Who Should Apologize for Slavery and Make Reparations? America? The
South? The Descendants of the Planters? …
• Anti-Americanism in the Age of the Coronavirus, the NBA, and 1619
Edmund Morgan
Sharecroppers’ children
Black and white coal miners in Helen, West Virginia
Albion W. Tourgée
A. Philip Randolph (1963)
King holding image of murdered civil rights workers (1964)
Ku Klux Klan in Gainesville
