Yes, that seems pretty inaccurate to me. To show that it is accurate you need to find quotes to support your assertion. This is not being 'obtuse' - this is the basics of making a properly Marxist analysis.
It says "mythology of the white proletariat" - i.e. we've been lied to about the history of white workers in USA. You can't seem to find more any evidence for your assertion besides the title of the book - I assume that's where you stopped reading.
the overall framing of the racial struggle in the book is presented such that it transcends the class struggle and indeed surpasses it as the fundamental stratum of oppression.
No, that's not the "overall framing" and if it was you would be able to substantiate your arguments with quotes from the source.
deleted by creator
I'm saying that it's not really an interpretation at all since it doesn't quote his works or really discuss them.
deleted by creator
Yes, that seems pretty inaccurate to me. To show that it is accurate you need to find quotes to support your assertion. This is not being 'obtuse' - this is the basics of making a properly Marxist analysis.
deleted by creator
It says "mythology of the white proletariat" - i.e. we've been lied to about the history of white workers in USA. You can't seem to find more any evidence for your assertion besides the title of the book - I assume that's where you stopped reading.
deleted by creator
No, that's not the "overall framing" and if it was you would be able to substantiate your arguments with quotes from the source.
deleted by creator