Friday, February 8, 2013
Is something missing?
While it's becoming increasingly clear that this Roediger's book is about the evolution of whiteness (as opposed to blackness) in relation to labor, I can't help but wonder if he is limiting himself by strictly relating whiteness to the perception of a "black problem." While he does make a persuasive case connecting whiteness to blackness, if his whole argument is couched within the context of labor history, should he be including other ethnic communities which make up the spectrum of American labor. He does pay lip service to Native Americans, and takes time to show the assimilation of "swarthy" immigrant races like the Irish into the category of whiteness, but what about Mexican and Central American workers? Historically, black and white relations have the longest and most complex relationship, but if Roediger's point is that current class/race issues are intertwined with labor, how can you omit such a large and provocative part of the contemporary labor force. While never part of American slavery, Mexican immigrants have definitely been a part of the American labor society for over a century now, and the only time Mexicans are mentioned at all in the book are to reinforce American notions of racism toward those living IN Mexico in the 19th century, I'm starting to wonder if (as implied by the introduction), this book has more to do with Roediger's personal history with race (i.e. African-Americans) as it relates to class and labor than the broad spectrum of "non-white" laborers. Does anyone disagree?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI am very disappointed with this book. I am trying to reconcile his introduction as an account of the civil rights era with the events toward the end of the 19th century. There is no mention of Yick Wo v. Hopkins. In fact – there is scant information about Chinese immigrants. Roediger frequently invokes the works of Du Bois -definitely a post-Civil War revolutionary thinker– but rarely mentions anything that happened after the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteThis book ignores much and places too much value on anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence, to me, is worthless when it is used as foundational information in a thesis.
Roediger's argument is that white identity is formed in the crucible of the early republic, and in cities like New York and Philadelphia. In short, white identity could not have been formed at this time in opposition or relation to other ethnicities (e.g., Chinese or Mexican) because such categories were not prominent or even present. Perhaps it is time for a structural intervention--think about why Roediger starts with a modern question (how did workers come to be white?) and then answers this question first by looking at the self-identity of workers in the early republic in the language of republicanism, and then in the language of working-class culture. The chapters probe the evidence both in terms of authorial intentions and audience reception, within the Marxist framework--that is, thinking about how class interests and class relationships may be consciously and unconsciously affecting how they are creating racial ideas. In this sense, his use of evidence is hardly anecdotal. It is highly structured.
ReplyDeleteAt times I think we like to critique a book for what it didn't do and overlook what it accomplishes. There is plenty to praise in Roediger's work. I think Roediger's starting with his personal experience in the late sixties is a great tool to pull the reader in and situate his interest. I am convinced by his use of textual analysis of language used in the period and my favorite section was his section on blackface. While perhaps not a narrative, his interrogation of how people expressed their anxieties and what we can understand from those cultural forms is successful. His discussion of "blacking up" and the rejection of such mob action by other white Americans helps to give a multifaceted view of how whites saw themselves and thought about their whiteness. This book, while complex and at times dense, has been my favorite so far.
ReplyDeleteRoger