this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
75 points (100.0% liked)

Main, home of the dope ass bear.

15908 readers
188 users here now

THE MAIN RULE: ALL TEXT POSTS MUST CONTAIN "MAIN" OR BE ENTIRELY IMAGES (INLINE OR EMOJI)

(Temporary moratorium on main rule to encourage more posting on main. We reserve the right to arbitrarily enforce it whenever we wish and the right to strike this line and enforce mainposting with zero notification to the users because its funny)

A hexbear.net commainity. Main sure to subscribe to other communities as well. Your feed will become the Lion's Main!

Good comrades mainly sort posts by hot and comments by new!


gun-unity State-by-state guide on maintaining firearm ownership

guaido Domain guide on mutual aid and foodbank resources

smoker-on-the-balcony Tips for looking at financials of non-profits (How to donate amainly)

frothingfash Community-sourced megapost on the main media sources to radicalize libs and chuds with

just-a-theory An Amainzing Organizing Story

feminism Main Source for Feminism for Babies

data-revolutionary Maintaining OpSec / Data Spring Cleaning guide


ussr-cry Remain up to date on what time is it in Moscow

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

About a week ago Gerald Horne mentioned on his youtube channel a book called Teaching White Supremacy. I thought it sounded interesting but that it would be a pretty standard and possibly boring "America Bad" sort of book, but I found myself really enjoying it and learning a lot, and it's just like, are there any white people in 19th century America aside from John Brown who weren't completely fucking insane? Walt Whitman, a poet I really enjoyed when I was a teenager, who was on the right side of the Civil War—fucking racist piece of shit. Emerson, a philosopher who never interested me in the slightest, but who was still mentioned in our high school history classes—fucking profound disgusting racist, freely saying and writing the most appalling shit you can imagine. And of course their wikipedia articles are like "it was normal at the time." It's still normal now, it doesn't mean it's okay!

I haven't looked at Whitman in twenty years but I will still say that maybe he's a good poet, but fucking Emerson? Did that guy write a single word that is genuinely beautiful, interesting, or helpful? My guess is that he's just part of the canon because America needs someone to prove to the world that we're not all just a bunch of mindless barbarians. But Emerson is just basically a nineteenth century hippy. And Thoreau was like "wouldn't it be cool if I lived alone in a house in the woods." Wow, so deep!

Maybe Herman Melville is another exception, like a literary John Brown. (Someone prove me wrong.) Moby Dick truly is a classic and Typee is honestly fucking awesome too. It's no surprise he died in obscurity. Poe is also brilliant but he was a fucking piece of shit as a person (with a very tragic life of course). I don't know anything about his political views but I imagine that they weren't very good.

I'm a white cissie, so this country was built for me, and I'm guessing its shittiness doesn't come as much of a surprise for people reading this who aren't white cissies, but still, even if you spend just a few minutes a day reading almost anything about the USA, you are bound to get depressed. For a book I'm working on I was just researching age of consent laws and child marriage in the USA and holy fucking shit, the line "minors are not accepted in shelters" just left me unable to continue. I had to stop after researching for five minutes. So utterly fucking profoundly bleak.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mathemachristian@hexbear.net 19 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (2 children)

Wasnt Bacons rebellion about not genociding native americans fast enough? Or is that a different one?

[–] stink@lemmygrad.ml 20 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

You'd be correct. The first chapter of Settlers talks about it in details.

The whole point of Bacon's Rebellion was that white settlers were promised to work for capital as long as they got to profit from it, during a recession, they threw a hissy-fit and raided an indigenous tribe against the governors orders in order to steal furs that they were stockpiling.

[–] mathemachristian@hexbear.net 10 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Thats where I remember reading it but its been a while and I never got to finish the book unfortunately.

[–] stink@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

It's a really good book but it is very information heavy. Find myself needing to take a break after reading all the horrible shit in there

[–] MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 20 hours ago

For real, such an important read, but very difficult purely due to how shitty the history of the US actually is.

[–] JoeByeThen@hexbear.net 6 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

~~Iirc, Bacon's motives were questionable, but the folks he mobilized were basically a prole uprising.~~

[–] mathemachristian@hexbear.net 18 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Out of the debris of this chaotic dispute we can pick out the central facts. First, that there was no democratic political program or movement whatsoever. Bacon's Rebellion was a popular movement, representing a clear majority of the settlers, to resolve serious economic and social problems by stepping up the exploitaton of oppressed peoples. Far from being "democratic", it was more nearly fascistic. Bacon was the diseased mind of the most reactionary faction of the planters, and in his ambitious schemes the fact that a few more freemen or ex-slaves had paper voting rights meant little. Far from fighting to abolish slavery, the Rebellion actually hoped to add to the number of slaves by Indian conquest.

And, finally, there was no "Black and White unity" at all. Needing fighting bodies, Bacon at the very end offered a deal to his opponents' slaves. He paid in the only coin that was meaningful — a promise of freedom for them if he won. Those Afrikans who signed up in his army didn't love him, trust him, view him as their leader, or anything of the kind. They were tactically exploiting a contradiction in the oppressor ranks, maneuvering for their freedom. It is interesting to note that those Indians who did give themselves up to unity with the oppressors, becoming the settlers' lackeys and allies, were not protected by it, but were destroyed.

Thats from Chapter 2 of Settlers.

It's been a while since properly reading it but I think I remember it was fascist vs liberal infighting and at no point about proletarian solidarity.

[–] JoeByeThen@hexbear.net 16 points 22 hours ago (1 children)
[–] EstraDoll@hexbear.net 8 points 18 hours ago (1 children)
[–] JoeByeThen@hexbear.net 6 points 18 hours ago

It's on my list! catgirl-cry