******************** 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.
*****************************************************************
(Forwarded from Manuel Barrera.)
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 alright 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
