Review- Sonnie and Tracy, “Hillbilly Nationalists, Urban Race Rebels, and Black Power”

Amy Sonnie and James Tracy, “Hillbilly Nationalists, Urban Race Rebels, and Black Power: Community Organizing in Radical Times” (2011) – This is a history of several groups of white working class radicals in the 1960s and 1970s, most of whom were part of a genealogical tree going back to the Students for a Democratic Society’s efforts to organize among poor whites in the slums of Chicago. The most spectacular of these groups was the Young Patriots Organization, the titular “hillbilly nationalists.” They adapted the Black Panthers’ analysis of oppressed groups as internal colonized nations to poor white Appalachians (both those in Appalachia and those who moved to cities) and formed a key part of the short-lived original “Rainbow Coalition” with the Chicago Panthers and the Puerto Rican nationalists in the Young Lords. Lacking some of the charismatic dimensions of the Patriots but lasting longer were groups like Rise Up Angry, the October 4th Organization in Philadelphia, and White Lightning in the Bronx. Sonnie and Tracy chart all of these groups in less than two hundred pages, including undergrad-friendly explanations of well-trod historical territory such as the breakup of SDS and the rise of black power as a frame for action.

This is a very interesting and little-known history, though impressionistically it seems that accounts of the Young Patriots, at least, have entered radical lore since 2011, probably in no small part due to this book. Then and now (one wonders what the hillbilly nationalists in YPO would make of “Hillbilly Elegy,” or maybe one doesn’t), there was significant doubt about whether the white working class can radicalize or whether it’s worth anyone’s time to try. People have developed whole theories, from “Settlers” to certain applications of privilege-thought (maybe not that far of a range, now that I think of it), to answering in the negative.

The groups in this book were determined to prove the nay-sayers wrong and to doing so on their own terms. Just as the radical end of the civil rights movement was debating what to do with white middle-class student organizers, white working class organizers in Chicago were debating the same thing, and came to a similar decision- they needed to go it alone. At first, this led to a more-or-less mutually agreed-upon take over of Jobs or Income Now (JOIN), originally an SDS organizing project, by the poor whites it was meant to mobilize. JOIN spun off and/or inspired the other groups in the book.

These groups faced similar arrays of problems, from the practical to the conceptual. Assuming they weren’t a lot of racist yokels and/or Archie Bunkers, just what was the relationship between white working class radicals and the larger movement? The YPO, which coalesced from local youth gangs that had been involved in JOIN, provided one answer- they would be emulators of groups like the Panthers, and provide backup for them. By most accounts, the Patriots did pretty well at the latter. This despite their cringe-worthy name and even more cringe-worthy decision to try to redeem the Confederate flag! Fred Hampton, Cha Cha Rodriguez and the other Rainbow Coalition leaders accepted the Patriots at a time when they had every reason — other than effective organizing — not to. The YPO did its own community projects to go with the berets and the guns. A favorite of mine was “Hank Williams Village,” a model community for Appalachian migrants to replace the slums they lived in. They even raised funds for it before the city reneged on their promises and shut the whole thing down.

The other groups profiled had their own approaches — October 4th’s focus on workplace organizing in the industrial Kensington neighborhood of Philadelphia, White Lightning’s organizing of addicts against both the heroin trade and dehumanizing treatment approaches — but I want to concentrate on the conceptual issues they shared and to which the YPO provided the most extreme answers. Ok, emulate the Panthers: serve the people, take no shit, wear cool outfits. The Panthers and groups like them — increasingly, the Black Power movement as a whole — was based on a theory of revolution adapted from Mao, Fanon, and other sources. What it amounted to was an application of the politics of decolonization — the big change between the end of the Second World War and the rise of neoliberalism — to the American scene. Oppressed nationalities were to be the vanguard of the revolution. American groups like the Panthers (mostly) underplayed the territorial aspects of nationalism — most of them weren’t looking for borders, a capital, an Olympic team, etc — in favor of political self-determination within the larger polity.

No one definitively answered how exactly this would work. They also didn’t answer who exactly counted as an oppressed nationality and why, or what the relationship between oppressed nationalities and the oppressed within privileged nationalities (i.e. the poor) would look like. Somewhere between the confusion on the latter two questions you got answers like “hillbilly nationalism,” which seems to our ears (well, mine anyway) on first hearing like a baroque way of not making sense. People have been trying this from the right lately, after all. You can see other gradations of solution to the question of who is the revolutionary subject in the efforts to get at a way to define the white poor and working class by some kind of identity tag- White Lightning and its efforts with those living with and around the effects of the heroin trade come to mind.

Fred Hampton, chief architect and theorist of the Rainbow Coalition, seemed to have been working his way towards a theory of revolution that placed capitalism at the center, rescuing unified working class organization from the student groups and the big complicit labor unions of the time. But then the Chicago police assassinated him. That’s another thread that runs through the whole thing, and they’re related. Massive police violence derailed all attempts to work through the questions of organizing the one way that works- through organizing. That’s hard to do when your people are getting killed, jailed on trumped-up charges, and endlessly surveilled.

We know that the Rainbow Coalition concept in specific scared J. Edgar Hoover and the Chicago red squad, and they came down on its constituent parts, including the white parts, like a ton of bricks. The same thing with less severity occurred in Philadelphia and New York. What the police didn’t do, urban renewal did, like through the destruction of much of neighborhood Bronx and Uptown in Chicago, the Appalachian neighborhood. Sonnie and Tracy don’t exactly put it this way, but for kids learning the ABCs of radicalism, wrestling with knotty questions of interracial solidarity that still bedevil movements, and facing massive repression, that they did anything at all was an accomplishment. This book is an accomplishment, too, for raising questions if not necessarily for answering them. *****

Review- Sonnie and Tracy, “Hillbilly Nationalists, Urban Race Rebels, and Black Power”

Review- Burke, “A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origins of Our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful”

Edmund Burke, “A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful” (1757) – This is an interesting text that Burke wrote in his twenties, before he became one of the fathers of modern conservatism in the wake of the French Revolution. It sits astride the Enlightenment and Romanticism, with a foot in both. In classic Enlightenment fashion, Burke goes systematically through the questions of beauty and sublimity, including discussions of 18th century ideas of how the eye and brain functioned. But he rejects such Enlightenment notions of the origins of beauty, such as proportionality and utility. Moreover, he placed an ineffable, terrifying sublime over beauty. Included in the sublime are mountains, storms, abandoned ruins, and other things that would take a prominent role in romantic (to say nothing of gothic) imagery. The beautiful, in Burke’s scheme, is small, bright, pleasant, relaxed- we’d probably say “cute.” The sublime is big, gloomy, scary, charged with energy. It’s clear Burke thinks the latter is higher than the former. I read this because I’m co-leading a reading group in reactionary thought for socialists, and we’re doing Burke (and de Maistre) next. You can definitely see the point Corey Robin makes about Burke seeing the Old Regime that fell to the sans-culottes as beautiful — ornamental, pleasing — whereas what he thought was needed wasa regime that inspired the sublime. Part of his distinction between the two, after all, is that the sublime is imbued with power where the beautiful is not. Interesting stuff, though hard to rate given the usual anachronisms. ***’

Review- Burke, “A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origins of Our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful”

Review- McCurry, “Confederate Reckoning”

Stephanie McCurry, “Confederate Reckoning: Power and Politics in the Civil War South” (2010) – The entire point of the Confederate project was to create a polity that excluded black people and, to a lesser extent, women (women being formally excluded from the polis in the US as well). But in an ironic turn, historian Stephanie McCurry argues, the war that inevitably (in her telling- I’m less sure but she’s probably right) followed wound up creating conditions for women and slaves to agitate for themselves, making them political actors in spite of it all.

There are two main stories here. Both were made possible by the strain of the war and the massive reach the Confederate government developed to deal with it, the taxation and conscription policies unlike anything the US would see until the period of the world wars, with some unique characteristics like the rule saying men with more than twenty slaves were exempt from the draft. McCurry makes clear the stakes of internal conflict in the CSA, including domestic counterinsurgency (avant la lettre) against unionists and deserters that involved brutal massacres against civilian populations in the mountain south.

One story is the rise of the soldier’s wife as a political subject in the CSA. Farm families faced the dire double squeeze of their men being conscripted away and their reduced agricultural output being taxed more heavily than ever before. Women found themselves acting in the political sphere out of sheer desperation, writing their political representatives and groping towards the most effective framing of their grievances- they were the wives of the soldiers risking their lives for the Confederacy, much of the rhetoric of which was about protecting women and children, and here were both going hungry. This politics culminated in at least a dozen food riots throughout the CSA, where well-organized groups of women seized grain from merchants and speculators and forced the Confederacy to spare scarce men to protect the markets.

The other story is that of what was supposed to be one of the great strengths of the Confederacy, its millions of slaves, becoming a massive liability. As it turned out, there was no way to mobilize the slaves in such a way to bolster Confederate military efforts that worked politically. Masters and slaves both resisted slaves being torn from their homes to do dangerous military labor, and the military wasn’t crazy about their troops treating spadework as beneath them, the realm of slaves, either. Being close to the line, slaves working in war zones had more opportunity to escape to the north, especially once the US instituted the contraband rules that freed slaves who made it across to them. Moreover, slave resistance spiked as the war went on, especially after the Emancipation Proclamation, once again forcing the CSA to dilute its strategic resources to keep the home front in line. It all culminated in a debate over enlisting slave soldiers, which the CSA ultimately steered away from doing in any systematic way- protecting the racial caste system was more important to the Confederate leadership than southern nationalism, states rights, or any of that crap.

This is a very interesting book that raises a lot of questions about how the Confederacy negotiated with the strains that defined modern politics in the nineteenth century. Is there a version of the Confederacy that could have survived? Signs point to no, at least not against really determined northern opposition- the strains of war is really what did the CSA in, domestically arguably more than militarily. I don’t know whether that means states organized around the systematic exclusion of much of its population from political decisionmaking is always doomed, but the Civil War prefigured the total wars of the 20th century and the mass mobilization those entailed, which always meant a negotiation between state and society. This was something the Confederacy couldn’t manage. *****

Review- McCurry, “Confederate Reckoning”

Review- Naipaul, “A Bend in the River”

V.S. Naipaul, “A Bend in the River” (1979) – Naipaul looked to hit nerves, and he hit few nerve clusters more sensitive more often than the raw bundle around colonialism. It must have been an irresistible target for a man who, say what you want about his talents, was a vicious asshole.

But he wasn’t just any asshole and it wasn’t just asshole-ery that made the postcolonial world such a compelling target. He was a postcolonial subject himself, hailing from the Asian middle classes (which were still pretty poor by our standards) in Trinidad. This put him in an odd and uncomfortable dual place that Fanon-inflected anticolonialism doesn’t account for: not with the colonizer and not really the subject that anticolonialism has in mind. He clearly resents those more clearly placed communities, the poor black majority of Trinidad and the Indians of the subcontinent, with their more straightforward relationship to colonialism, their anticolonialism into which they can easily slot, the sloppiness and complacency of thought Naipaul perceived coming with that surety.

Naipaul wasn’t sloppy and he wasn’t complacent, in thought or prose. He didn’t do the easy thing of trucking in imperial nostalgia, at least not in what I read. What he did, and what many will never forgive him for (not that he ever condescended to ask), was plainly state what was in front of him, regardless of who it embarrassed (this included himself, depicted as an obnoxious little swot who exploits his father in “A House for Mr. Biswas,” and I’d say many of his more boorish public utterances fall into that category too). He cuts no slack, except possibly (and crucially) in where he puts his camera- he never wrote a novel mocking the eminently mockable literary Tories who made his career. This made for some interesting contrasts, to put it politely, in places where many of us — people who aren’t vicious assholes — would tend to cut some slack… like in the world emerging from colonialism in the mid-20th century.

I guess I should talk about what this book is about! It’s about Salim, an Indian from a family of traders in East Africa. He ups sticks and moves up an unspecified river that’s almost surely the Congo and sets up shop at the titular bend. From here, he sees the comings and goings among his fellow expatriates and with those Africans with whom he deals. He’s partially responsible for a descendant of his family’s half-Asian, half-African slaves, and for the son of one of his African customers who comes to town to go to school. He’s drawn in to the life of intellectual expats and has an affair with a young Belgian woman married to an aging white court intellectual now out of court with the Big Man, the Mobutu-figure who rules the country.

All of these figures and situations provide ample room for Naipaul’s depiction of human folly, all in his usual sharp, smooth, gom-jabbar prose. The young men he takes care of reflect the hope and failures of Africa’s time of optimism in the 1960s, all admirable growth paired with adolescence arrested by external factors. They can never work out what to make of Salim, and vice-versa. The other merchant expats deploy various strategies of keeping it together through instability but none of them do — maybe none of them can — really join the country, they just make burger franchises there. Yvette, the Belgian woman, was drawn to Africa by the false promise of her husband the intellectual, who in turn was lured by the false promise of what the life of the mind could offer the developing world. Even allowing for the slack decent people might cut, it all feels all too real, including Salim’s inability to relate to women and Africans as equals (wonder where Naipaul drew that from, hmmmm).

There’s a good amount of incident but the book isn’t plot-driven even to the extent of the cyclical activity of “A House for Mr. Biswas.” So it’s the characters, the scene, and above all the prose that carry the reader through. In the end, Salim finds himself without a place in the world he lives in and goes in search of somewhere else. The end, no moral! ****’

Review- Naipaul, “A Bend in the River”

Review- Bujold, “Shards of Honor”

Lois McMaster Bujold, “Shards of Honor” (1986) – This is probably the closest thing to a romance novel I’ve read, unless some of the more courtship-heavy bourgeois novels count. Cordelia comes from a relatively chill spacefaring culture and Vorkosigan comes from a militaristic one. They meet when the latter takes the former prisoner but they come to rely on each other during a long trek across an alien planet and a plunge into confusing and deadly intrigue among the Barryarans, the militaristic culture. You can call Vorkosigan Mister Too Damn Honorable as he constantly gets involved in schemes to undermine less honorable Barrayarans out to do him in. The two cultures get in a war due to dishonorable machinations and Cordelia keeps on getting captured and separated from Vorkosigan and…

Honestly, I wasn’t paying attention for a lot of this. The writing is pedestrian. The characters are flat. The action isn’t bad, in some places. But between the lack of ideas or compelling prose and having read it during a dry period in my reading life, I didn’t get much out of this. The good news is that apparently this is all a prequel and the vaunted Vorkosigan Saga is actually about the main characters kid or grandkid or something. So maybe I’m not missing much if the rotation insists I revisit this particular scifi touchstone series? Who knows? **

Review- Bujold, “Shards of Honor”

Review- West, “Miss Lonelyhearts”

Nathanael West, “Miss Lonelyhearts” (1933) – This is a sixty-ish page novella by the author of the great Hollywood novel “The Day of the Locust.” Miss Lonelyhearts (we never learn his real name) is an advice columnist for a contemporary — that is, Depression-era — New York newspaper. He’s assailed by the woes of his correspondents and by his own impotence to help them, and also his boss, Mr. Shrike, trolls him all the time. He tries various things — booze, country getaways, affairs — but nothing helps. The consequences of his coping mechanisms catch up with him, in the end- an ironic Christ figure, Christ but a incapable sinner who gets owned all the time, he does get his martyrdom in the end. Wikipedia describes this as “expressionist” and if this means work that’s a thinly-described bummer, that sounds about right. It’s not bad but “The Day of the Locust” is better and more fleshed out. ***

Review- West, “Miss Lonelyhearts”

Review- Gay, “The Education of the Senses”

Peter Gay, “The Education of the Senses” (1984) – When you think “psychoanalytic history of the Victorian period” you think “let’s get a load of these repressed freaks,” right? Well, that’s not what Peter Gay provides in this, the first of his five volume psychoanalysis-inspired cultural history of the “bourgeois century.” Instead of Victorians having freakouts because table legs were too sexy, we have Gay excavating the diaries and letters of bourgeois Europeans and Americans and finding them surprisingly frank about sexual matters- euphemistic, “proper,” but not neurotically avoidant… in private, anyway.

Gay emphasizes that many of the insistences of the bourgeois at that time were coping mechanisms directed towards anxiety over rapid social change. The ideology of separate gendered spheres of activity, as both a societal and a medical necessity, was the keystone of these. Along with it came the divide between the public and private sphere. So did idealism- Gay discusses pornography (in classic Freudian fashion dismissing it as essentially immature) but doesn’t touch on sex work extensively, or really any kind of sexuality that doesn’t have love attached to it, even where it’s extra-marital. His Victorians are forever searching out a higher, perfect love, which is expressed physically as well as emotionally.

In short, Gay’s Victorians are good Freudian patients, with plenty of issues to chew on analytically but essentially in agreement with what I understand to be the psychoanalytic definition of what makes a whole person. There’s an overdetermined quality to Gay’s portrait here. For one thing, focusing solely on the bourgeoisie robs us of the perspective of that class’ interaction with those outside, which I think would make things look altogether different and cleaner than the picture of sensuality Gay gives us. Maybe that comes in later volumes? But it also seems like a weakness of “inner history.” Where does the inner end and the navel begin, as far as the gaze goes?

I came to this several years after reading Gay’s two-volume history of the Enlightenment, which is considered pretty dodgy these days but is a classic of its type and much less psychoanalytic than his Victorian work. I appreciate Gay’s historical spadework and sympathetic depth analyses of cultural figures. That said, this took a lot to get through, in part due to stuff going on in my own life, unlike the Enlightenment books which I remember enjoying more. I don’t think he’s quite knocked Lytton Strachey off of his pedestal as guy who defines the inner history of the Victorian upper/middle classes, though I guess I’ve only seen a fifth of Gay’s attempt. ***

Review- Gay, “The Education of the Senses”