******************** 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. *****************************************************************
Jeff: " We could have a more productive discussion if people don't make such charges, and especially if differing takes on historical questions are not automatically taken to reflect different world views or political positions on current issues. I know we all are tempted to do that during a heated argument. But to make such a valid charge, you would need to show how that person's conclusion flowed from the evil ideology or from flawed historical records, for instance. Let's try to keep the discussion more civil." Two points:First, I think we should avoid calling for "civility" in our discussions given what that connotation has recently meant within the democratic struggle around academic freedom surrounding U of Ill. firing of Steven Salaita. If someone is demonstrating some ignorance based on seen or unseen notions of "White supremacy", such individuals should be called on it. Example abound, and just because it is revolutionaries of color who may be the most attuned to such constructions--of history or discourse--does not require "us" to be "civil". Indeed, everyone should just pay attention. After all, are revolutionaries and Marxists the one group of people who must be able to learn from our mistakes and mistaken notions? Having said that, Second, I disagree completely with the idea that one's assessment that the Texas war for "independence" (otherwise known as the war promulgated by reactionary bourgeois interests in the early U.S., especially those interests based on bringing one additional slavery supporting state into the nascent Union) was not about slavery but about other things is somehow "defending white supremacy". In the case of the white colonists of Texas--these were known as "TexiANs"--and the fruits of Spanish colonialism--known as "TexiCANs" or "Tejanos"--both forces had very different reasons why they wished to fight and overthrow Mexican rule. That a tacit "coalition" existed--along with the historical might of the bourgeois-democratic revolution--and resulted in the defeat of Mexican rule over Texas does not confer some utter "progressivism". History, and the Truth, are concrete. The results are what we have. The "Mexicanos/Tejanos" did not benefit from the war for "independence" except perhaps in the minds of some Marxists that somehow bourgeois revolution is "historically" progressive. History and how society progresses is NEVER a foregone conclusion--yesterday or today--it simply is "what it is" and people live with or overcome the consequences. Who could reasonably argue that Mexicanos/Tejanos/Now Chicanos actually benefitted from the Texas war for "independence"; actually or "historically"? I am reminded of the slaughter by the Texas Rangers--the historical continuators of those "Texians"--on the Rio Grande border in response to the struggle to regain stolen land by Mexicano/Chicano peasants/ranchers influenced by the Mexican Revolution of 1910 dubbed as the first "war against terrorism" (cf. Johnson, 2005, http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300109702). In any case, Mark's commentary seemed a little unclear as to whether the "constitution" he was referring related to Mexico's constitution and, therefore, the Mexicans fighting to keep Texas within its purview was more progressive because of the clear intents of White "rebels" to grab Texas for the Union or if he meant that the U.S. Constitution was inherently more progressive and thereby the racist White "rebels" were working "historically" in progressive interests. This latter view--if indeed it is Mark's view--seems wholly ridiculous since we know exactly what the White "rebels" actually accompished. The former interpretation (again, I am still unsure which he meant), while plausibly progressive "historically" speaking simply did not really apply to the Mexicano/Tejano population were viciously oppressed by Mexico. Hence, the key sector of the population--"latifundistas", campesinos Tejanos/Mexicanos (most at the time considered themselves Mexicans)--were NEVER going to come out al right by this inter "pre-imperialist" "bourgeois-demoocratic revolutionary" war for "Independence". In my view, Clay is not only wrong about his estimation of Mark's "defense of white supremacy", but further reflects a wholly ill-considered understanding of this pretend "war for independence" seemingly gleaned from a visit to the Alamo! I am not sure of Mark's points completely, but I would categorically disagree that a Marxist historian known for his work in his hometown in supporting and working for civil rights, Black rights in general, and activism on such issues. Civility is not what is called for here but simple, let's say, contextual understanding of individualss discourse; otherwise known as being sure you know what you are talking about. Oh, and just so you know how I see my commentary, I am decidedly NOT being "civil", but striving for everyone to seek clarity. Civility can work sometimes but in the end it will be "incivility" that will produce the revolutionary results we require. _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
