Back on January 25th, when I was confined to one finger on
my IPhone, I promised to write about Jacqueline Jones' new book, A Dreadful Deceit, when I returned home
and could type with both of my forefingers.
The time has come to fulfill that promise.
Jacqueline Jones is one of the most distinguished and
accomplished scholars now writing American History. Intellectual disciplines go through moments
of extraordinary accomplishment separated by long deserts of mediocrity. I have many times observed that Philosophy,
far and away the oldest of the disciplines, has had stretches of five hundred
years or more when nothing much seems to be happening, interrupted by eruptions
of sheer brilliance. Think of fifth and
fourth century B. C. Athens, twelfth and thirteenth century Europe and North
Africa, Seventeenth and Eighteenth century Great Britain and France and
Prussia. The same seems to be true for
the younger disciplines. Sociology, now
mired in the tedium of opinion surveys and statistical manipulations, was,
somewhat more than a century ago, the most exciting of the Social Sciences, with
Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Karl Mannheim and many others transforming our
understanding of the social realm. There
have been moments [not now, I think] when Literary Criticism sparkled. Economics has flourished, especially when
Karl Marx was alive. Even Political
Science, which is not really a discipline at all, has had its moments. This seems to be American History's
time. The depth, richness, complexity,
and sophistication of the work now being done by the best American Historians,
especially on the story of African-Americans, is worlds better than what is
being written by philosophers,
economists, sociologists, political scientists, and literary critics these days. And in this moment of its flourishing, Jackie
Jones is one of the very best. Two of
her previous books, American Work and
Labor of Love, Labor of Sorrow, are
among the best things ever written about America.
The subtitle of A Dreadful Deceit is "The Myth of
Race from the Colonial Era to Obama's America." Jones presents her book as the detailed
stories of six individuals, ranging in historical time and place from seventeenth
century colonial Maryland to 1970s Detroit, but these stories are a device for
organizing a sweeping survey of the entire history of race in America. It is, contrary to superficial appearances, a
book with a strong driving thesis that informs Jones' selection of the stories
and of the vast amount of historical detail of time and place that she weaves
around those stories. The thesis is
nicely summarized exactly halfway through the book:
"The notion of racial differences between blacks and
whites would provide a guiding principle for postwar [i.e., post Civil War]
political relations and create a social superstructure to replace the legal
institution of slavery. Southern yeoman
farmers could ignore the material similarities between themselves and
freedpeople and embrace a notion of whiteness that guaranteed them considerable
privileges and legal rights, without altering their lowly class status. Politicians could appeal to their
impoverished white neighbors and exalt solidarity among white men, all the
while exploiting the labor of tenants, sharecroppers, and field hands
regardless of color. Yet despite (or
perhaps because of) the widespread acceptance of the notion of race, that
notion did not necessarily lend itself to proof -- or to rational discussion
for that matter" [p. 151]
The seventeenth century colonialists who sought to make
their fortunes on land granted to them by the English King needed labor to
transform the virgin forests into fields on which they could grow cash crops
for the home market [tobacco, rice, later cotton.] Their first solution was to bring the labor with
them in the form of indentured English workers, but though they continued to
use these workers for almost two centuries, they posed certain problems. The indentured workers were English subjects
and hence had legal protections that the courts set up in the New World were
bound to observe.
The colonists tried to use the labor of the indigenous
peoples, but this also posed problems.
These "Indians" were often members of powerful nations ["tribes"]
with whom the colonists entered into political and military alliances, and to
whom they could appeal for protection when their "masters" sought to
exploit them. One of the many
fascinating elements in the early chapters of Jones' book is her detailed
account of the political negotiations and shifting alliances between the
colonists and the various indigenous nations.
These relationships were really no different in motivation from those
into which European nations entered with one another in their endless jockeying
for power and material advantage.
The men and women captured, or sold into bondage, in West
Africa and brought to Virginia and Maryland also belonged to nations, some them
powerful, but those nations were too far away to offer protection, and so the
Africans could be exploited and subdued to bondage more easily.
Race played virtually no role in all of this. As Jones says early in her first chapter,
"Local political economies and labor demands shaped by military
imperatives -- not racial prejudices -- account for the origins of slavery in
the colonies." [p. 7] So long as slavery was legal, the slave owners
had no need to justify their treatment of their slaves, any more than they had
a need of an elaborate ideological rationalization for their treatment of their
livestock, their horses, or, for that matter, their tables and chairs. But with the defeat of the South in the Civil
War and the end of slavery, a situation emerged that was anomalous and required
justification. "[W]hites --
surrounded by a group of people toiling at ill-paid tasks, the men deprived of
the right to vote and the women limited to domestic service -- devised a racial
ideology from a harsh reality, an ideology that justified the immiseration of
black men, women, and children, all in the name of racial difference. [p. 135]
The implications of this central insight, which Jones pursues
through four centuries in the pages of her book, are profound, and of the very
greatest importance for our understanding of contemporary politics. The
subordinated position of African-Americans, and now of Hispanic Americans, was
inflicted upon them and exists today not because of the subjective, private,
irrational prejudices of White Americans, but because it has served the
economic interests of the rich while placating exploited Whites, whose
disadvantaged status is made more or less palatable to them by the knowledge
that their condition is at least superior to that of their black and brown
neighbors. So long as that subordinated
economic position remains essentially untouched, not even the ascension to the White
House of one of their own will address the roots of what today we call
"racism."
It would be foolhardy of me to attempt to summarize Jones'
book, for its real strength lies in the rich detail with which she fortifies and
elaborates its central thesis. This is
not a quick read. Indeed, it took me
more than a month to read the entire book, even though it is only 301 pages
long. But it is a book of the very
greatest importance, and I recommend it to you most strongly.
Ive been reading your essays and books and now this blog for 25 years or so (Im fifty).
ReplyDeleteIm so grateful for your cultural contribution.
This review, of Jones' book, is very much welcome; it seems in concert with Michele (last name Ive forgotten), *The New Jim Crow.*
Ive been reading your essays and books and now this blog for 25 years or so (Im fifty).
ReplyDeleteIm so grateful for your cultural contribution.
This review, of Jones' book, is very much welcome; it seems in concert with Michele (last name Ive forgotten), *The New Jim Crow.*
Thanks for your comments on Jones's book. I look forwarding to reading it. One quibble: your remarks gave this reader the impression that, according to you, it says something original. But from what you've disclosed about the thesis of the book (etc.), it doesn't seem to. E.g., a common thread running through the (worthwhile) scholarship on the history of racism in America--and a central tenet of critical race theory--is that, historically, the (fictional) concept of race has been used by whites to justify their alleged right to hold inequitable resources, status, and power over Blacks and other people of color.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments on Jones's book. I look forwarding to reading it. One quibble: your remarks gave this reader the impression that, according to you, it says something original. But from what you've disclosed about the thesis of the book (etc.), it doesn't seem to. E.g., a common thread running through the (worthwhile) scholarship on the history of racism in America--and a central tenet of critical race theory--is that, historically, the (fictional) concept of race has been used by whites to justify their alleged right to hold inequitable resources, status, and power over Blacks and other people of color.
ReplyDeleteYou are quite right. Indeed, I said something quite similar in my little book, AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF AN EX-WHITE MAN. What is extraordinary about Jones' book is the detail and depth and complexity with which she develops this idea.
ReplyDelete