Hey all,
I’m currently developing a Marxist-Leninist analysis of settler colonialism, especially in light of the situation in Palestine, and am going to read Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat by J. Sakai for the first time. Before I do I was just curious what other comrades think of the book and its analysis? It seems a pretty controversial text among many online Marxist groups, to whatever extent that matters, but as an Indigenous communist I feel having a clear and principled stance on the settler question is important for all serious communists. I’m not sure if I’ll agree with Sakai specifically, but since I generally agree with the opinions of y’all, I was curious as to your thoughts on the book.
It is fantastic as a revolutionary anti-racist, anti-imperialist history of the US Empire. I recommend it to virtually everyone on those grounds. However, his ideological basis is heavily informed by the widespread pessimism that followed the collapse of the US New Left anti-colonial struggles of internally oppressed nations (as Sakai characterizes). He embraces a brand of Third Worldism whose main practical application is to give up on revolutionary activity in the imperial core, since all workers are labor aristocrats who benefit more from imperialism than they are exploited by Capitalism.
While the degree of exploitation of workers in the imperial core is unquestionably lower, while White workers unquestionably benefit immensely from racism, we cannot accept defeat as a given.
The primary contradiction in the world is between Imperialist Nations and Colonized Nations. “Leftists” in the imperial core cannot wait for the comrades in the Global South to liberate themselves, we must be active strugglers for their liberation and our own. We must believe revolution is possible to hold any attitude other than ‘lie down and rot’.
Also watching white people squirm reading is really fun. A comrade’s conservative, racist sibling has possibly the only actual ‘SJW Marxist Professor’ in the US who is making the class read it. The comrade has been giving us updates on the growth of their sibling’s growing guilt and political conciousness.
Read Settlers!
The pessimism makes more sense given the context of the time it was written in. I’ve heard Gerald Horne’s Counterrevolution series described by some as a more contemporary analysis that succeeds Settlers.
I think the controversial rap the book gets is due more to its more dogmatic followers. Like a lot of maoists/third worldists, they have accurate observations but draw questionable conclusions from them.
It’s definitely a justifiable pessimism at the time, but that doesn’t make it correct or currently applicable.
According to you, maybe. From where I sit, the decade’s watchphrase has been “second, third, fourth, and fifth-through-tenth verses, same as the first”; where the first verse was the failure of Reconstruction. For 100+ years, settlers have done us the dirtiest(right behind to the damn-near-totally-extincted tribes of the Indigenous if I’m honest), and it doesn’t appear to be changing its intensity, just its manifestations. So… Why isn’t that pessimism applicable?
One of the best books I’ve ever read, makes crackers so uncomfortable.
It’s not like the book says send whitey back to Europe, just that they as a settler class have no vested interest in decolonizing. It’s not that controversial imo but I’m Black and also Indigenous so 🤷🏿♂️ spoke to me just fine
I don’t have any native in me as far as I know; but considering the trail for my geneaology disappears after the 1890s, it’s totally in the air as to who and what. And yeah, same situation as you-- spoke to me just as seamlessly as Wretched of the Earth or We Will Shoot Back. (Which, if you don’t have that latter one, it’s by Akinyele Omowale Umoja; Black Agenda Report put me onto it a few months back.)
As for OP-- I don’t expect anyone to really agree 100% with Settlers, but I’ve read it cover-to-cover like twice now, with a third coming up the next time I have a good, long break. It’s controversial because one, Sakai published under pseudonym and that’s enough to make naive, non-opsec minded ‘comrades’ shit their britches. Two, Sakai was maybe even more abrasive than brother Ture in his analyses; and that makes the settlers immensely uncomfortable. Three, it illuminates a WHOLE BUNCH of buried Amerikan malfeasance; and if I learned anything about the publicity that the settlers ‘learning’ about Tulsa engendered, a lot of the controversy is coming from people who don’t want to think about their nations and organizations of choice doing the things they did.
I have distant Ioway and Charokee, but since I’m white passing and have no connection to tribal heritage I’d count myself as a settler.
It’s a distressing book, because it basically tells every settler “you aren’t the main character.” We can only support actual revolutionaries.
because it basically tells every settler “you aren’t the main character.”
I mean, if I might be so bold, I’d think some settlers need to hear that message lmao. Joking aside, it’s that kind of thing that I don’t know a single Black comrade that actually organizes with settler orgs and parties and doesn’t have a story about getting absolutely talked over, sidelined, and otherwise made to feel ‘other’ within those very organizations; and I think if we got enough white leftists to internalize that message of Settlers at least once, we’d actually start making some headway in equality in this shithole of a nation.
And mind-- I’m not saying that settlers can’t lead their own left organizations; but on matters of liberation, especially Black and Indigenous liberation respectively, they unequivocally should not expect to be at the head of the table on the when, where, how, and why. They should consider themselves lucky to even have a seat at that table if they do; which they likely will bc good luck extricating a settler when someone already fucked around and gave them an invite to the kickback, but it should be understood that it ain’t the settler’s place to talk any kind of sideways about these matters like they’re leading and presiding over them.
It’s a good book that’s worth reading, even though I disagree with some of Sakai’s conclusions, and I think he was unfair to certain multi-racial leftist groups like the IWW.
I’d also recommend An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States.
The funny thing is that Sakai is actually very positive towards the IWW, they come off as one of the best white organisations in US history. I’ll admit, though, that he does critique them in regards to their syndicalism.
Nah, he did critique them on their lack of analysis on imperialism and the state. Generally, Sakai was pretty rough on everyone in the US. He did say a lot of positive things about the IWW, though, which is very unlike every single white organisation (liberal or radical).
He absolutely tore other unions to shreds, though.
It illuminates how and why white Euro-American settlers have always behaved as a group across history. This is crucial, because white settlers keep doing the exact same thing and producing the exact same results, believing all the while that by doing the exact same thing they’ll succeed if only they believe hard enough in their own moral righteousness.
It bounces off or upsets many white folks because they’re unwilling to accept the conclusions that they as a group materially benefit from imperialism, and that liberation is contingent upon the defeat of that group by people outside of it. Even if white people accept that they hold some abstract level of privilege in settler societies, most won’t accept the proposition that liberation doesn’t depend on their convincing their white friends to have the right opinions. Liberation requires colonized peoples gaining power by taking it away from white settlers.
Many white people see this as “defeatist”, believing that if they personally aren’t the subjects of revolution, then revolution must not be possible or desirable. White settlers need to be disabused of this individualistic outlook in order to have any productive role in revolutionary struggle. A “morally good” white settler isn’t a proletarian in the global sense: they’re a class traitor. The highest role that white settlers can take in revolutionary struggle is betraying the class interests of the while settler class.
Liberation requires colonized peoples gaining power by taking it away from white settlers.
Many white people see this as “defeatist”, believing that if they personally aren’t the subjects of revolution, then revolution must not be possible or desirable.
I’m sure plenty of white people resist the idea of a black-led revolution for something similar to this, at least unconsciously. But a much stronger critique of the Settlers philosophy is looking at stuff like this:
- Settlers itself argues that modern racism was invented specifically to divide the emerging proletariat;
- U.S. history is littered with examples of leftist movements that ultimately failed in part because even white leftists had reactionary, racist views; and
- Movements that were predominantly black, or black only, have similarly failed;
And concluding that a multi-racial, anti-racist leftist coalition is necessary for victory. In such a coalition (like in any coalition), you can’t expect a large group of members to contribute without some say in leadership. Settlers implies (can’t remember if it outright states) that such a coalition is impossible, which is why many leftists read it as defeatist.
Gerald Horne’s The Counter-Revolution of 1776 has all the good parts of Settlers without this and the latter work’s other flaws.
Movements that were predominantly black, or black only, have similarly failed
Settlers makes pretty clear these were frequently rather successful, but the problem comes when they get co-opted or hijacked by white people. I’d personally agree that the best solution is a mixed coalition, it’s just important that white people’s interests are not prioritized. A problematic idea promoted by patsocs is that since most people on this land are white it will be our revolution ie. finders keepers rule of genocide. We must combat that by putting the interests of those to whom this land belongs first.
Settlers makes pretty clear these were frequently rather successful, but the problem comes when they get co-opted or hijacked by white people.
If you have to say “we were successful until…”, how successful were you, really? Ultimately, every leftist project in the U.S. has at most a few significant wins, and none have achieved anything resembling the success of AES states, or even that of groups like the Zapatistas. A movement’s resilience against reaction and other right deviations is a key part of its viability; I’m guessing that’s part of why most of us here are MLs.
There’s also the argument (I’m pulling from In Defense of Looting by Vicky Osterweil, which cites Settlers repeatedly) that co-option/hijacking of potentially greater successes broke down more along ideological lines than racial lines.
A problematic idea promoted by patsocs is that since most people on this land are white it will be our revolution ie. finders keepers rule of genocide. We must combat that by putting the interests of those to whom this land belongs first.
It might be the most just to hand the keys of the U.S. to an indigenous government, but I don’t see any realistic way that happens. I don’t think this means you abandon the idea entirely, but I do think it means we’re going to have to choose between a less-just outcome that might be feasible or nothing.
Nother historical thread with this same question:
