Gerald Horne interviewed by Wilmer Leon on Inside The Issues on June 18, 2022, discussing the real and complete history behind Juneteenth, Texas and the Coun...
Let us turn to the language of the reviews author, and considering the above about accusations of "stalinism", I quote:
"Horne often combines unrelated statements and events, implying a connection where there is none, or suggesting that a particular statement means something different from what the speaker intended."
Now, where and how have I heard this dismissal used before... You mean to tell me that the written history we were taught before was a fabrication? You mean to say they were aware enough of public image and recorded history to obfuscate??
As I parse through the rest of the review, I can't speak to whether or not some of the falsehoods are or arent, but this review author IMO misrepresents Horne's argument quite a bit, and yet again, as is liberal tradition, we are pinning all the "importance" on what one or two people claim to have said rather than the actions and material changes taken.
Listen to this from the writer of the review and tell me this doesnt sound like a milquetoast neolib with absolutely no idea what an actual Marxist view of American history looks like:
"The Marxist view—which dates back to Marx himself—has always held that the American Revolution was a bourgeois-democratic revolution rooted in the development of the middle class in conflict with the ancien régime of feudal property and political relations, nurtured by the ideology of the Enlightenment. Among American historians there has been intense debate over the significance and extent of social conflict among the colonists, and over the relative weight to place on ideological versus economic developments. Nonetheless, there has been universal agreement that the American Revolution gathered force around a series of conflicts over taxation, sovereignty and political representation."
I don't know about you all, but WHEN THE FUCK did any reputable historian actually conclude the American Revolution was ACTUALLY about "taxation" & "political representation" - and I ask for which class/race/group this language referred to? Could this writer not simply do the same thing for the American Civil War and saying it was about "states rights" (which was seen as dog whistle reasoning EVEN BACK THEN as knowledge of the poor image of slavery has been around for centuries).
This writer is quite literally writing in defense of traditional American history, and for this reason I can't take it seriously - plus calling Horne a "Stalinist" and spouting Trotskyist bullshit themselves... Yeah no.
I understand I am not responding to this review with solid refutations, but we all know how twistable reality and wording can be.
Yeah I tend to agree with you, and the more I think about it the more it’s like “of course a bunch of dudes schooled in enlightenment philosophy and who owned slaves would have a vested interest in keeping slavery, and of course they would couch the reasoning in enlightenment philosophy.
If you look at the reviewers own claim that the NYT is pushing this theory to “divide workers along racial lines” where is their evidence? Surely they have some statement by the NYT staff saying “we want to divide workers along racial lines” lol.
Let us turn to the language of the reviews author, and considering the above about accusations of "stalinism", I quote:
"Horne often combines unrelated statements and events, implying a connection where there is none, or suggesting that a particular statement means something different from what the speaker intended."
Now, where and how have I heard this dismissal used before... You mean to tell me that the written history we were taught before was a fabrication? You mean to say they were aware enough of public image and recorded history to obfuscate??
As I parse through the rest of the review, I can't speak to whether or not some of the falsehoods are or arent, but this review author IMO misrepresents Horne's argument quite a bit, and yet again, as is liberal tradition, we are pinning all the "importance" on what one or two people claim to have said rather than the actions and material changes taken.
Listen to this from the writer of the review and tell me this doesnt sound like a milquetoast neolib with absolutely no idea what an actual Marxist view of American history looks like: "The Marxist view—which dates back to Marx himself—has always held that the American Revolution was a bourgeois-democratic revolution rooted in the development of the middle class in conflict with the ancien régime of feudal property and political relations, nurtured by the ideology of the Enlightenment. Among American historians there has been intense debate over the significance and extent of social conflict among the colonists, and over the relative weight to place on ideological versus economic developments. Nonetheless, there has been universal agreement that the American Revolution gathered force around a series of conflicts over taxation, sovereignty and political representation."
I don't know about you all, but WHEN THE FUCK did any reputable historian actually conclude the American Revolution was ACTUALLY about "taxation" & "political representation" - and I ask for which class/race/group this language referred to? Could this writer not simply do the same thing for the American Civil War and saying it was about "states rights" (which was seen as dog whistle reasoning EVEN BACK THEN as knowledge of the poor image of slavery has been around for centuries).
This writer is quite literally writing in defense of traditional American history, and for this reason I can't take it seriously - plus calling Horne a "Stalinist" and spouting Trotskyist bullshit themselves... Yeah no.
I understand I am not responding to this review with solid refutations, but we all know how twistable reality and wording can be.
Yeah I tend to agree with you, and the more I think about it the more it’s like “of course a bunch of dudes schooled in enlightenment philosophy and who owned slaves would have a vested interest in keeping slavery, and of course they would couch the reasoning in enlightenment philosophy.
If you look at the reviewers own claim that the NYT is pushing this theory to “divide workers along racial lines” where is their evidence? Surely they have some statement by the NYT staff saying “we want to divide workers along racial lines” lol.