At the very start of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1630, the governor, John Winthrop, had declared the philosophy of the rulers: “… in all times some must be rich, some poore, some highe and eminent in power and dignitie; others meane and in subjection.”
Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States (p. 48). Harper Perennial. Kindle Edition.
We Americans like to think of the US as always the land of opportunity, but the facts are pretty different. In British America, an aristocratic society was established very early.
It seems quite clear that class lines hardened through the colonial period; the distinction between rich and poor became sharper. By 1700 there were fifty rich families in Virginia, with wealth equivalent to 50,000 pounds (a huge sum those days), who lived off the labor of black slaves and white servants, owned the plantations, sat on the governor’s council, served as local magistrates.
Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States (p. 47). Harper Perennial. Kindle Edition.
John Locke (yes, that John Locke) wrote the constitution of the Carolinas in the 1660s. It set up a system where eight barons would own 40% of the land and only barons could serve as governor.
Howard Zinn sets out his agenda early. He intends to tell the story of the oppressed: Indians, slaves, indentured servants, workers and protestors. The story of the mighty gets short shrift, except mostly for when they star as villains. This is not your high school American history. It is, however, meticulously documented. Those interested in how the world really works (as opposed to hagiographic folk tales) should read this, even if they are convinced that they won’t agree with Zinn’s assessments (I frequently don’t).
Zinn called himself an Anarchist and Democratic Socialist, but the "Commies under every bed" crowd are sure he was a Communist. But they tend to think anybody to the left of Francisco Franco is a Communist, and the evidence adduced is slim. It’s pretty clear that he sees history through a class struggle tinted lens, though he’s far from dogmatic when it comes to details. Of course the idea of oppression by upper classes explains a lot of history, if not nearly so much as Marxists think. Hobbes and Darwin saw more clearly.
Zinn sees the American Revolution mainly as a clever method for the American upper class to better exploit the lower classes, but he does pick up a thread that’s particularly relevant today.
We have here a forecast of the long history of American politics, the mobilization of lower-class energy by upper-class politicians, for their own purposes. This was not purely deception; it involved, in part, a genuine recognition of lower-class grievances, which helps to account for its effectiveness as a tactic over the centuries.
Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States (p. 61). Harper Perennial. Kindle Edition.
In fact, as Zinn himself points out, the Bostonians who led the Revolution were middle class. It was a bourgeois revolution.
Popular posts from this blog
Alexander at 30 something grieved that there were no more world's to conquer. Robbert Dijkgraaf writing in Quanta, asks whether physics has reached that sad state. While he concludes in the negative, his denial sounds more like "hey, we can still add a few decimal points here and there." Lubos Motl and Peter Woit both have commentaries up today, and Lubos is predictably outraged at his one time coauthor, and Peter is more measured. The Universe still has some puzzles for us of course, but it is not clear that their understanding will have the same kinds of revolutionary import that the discoveries of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein and the quantum theorists have had. In particular, the Cosmos is starting to feel a bit cramped. Of course it is indeed large beyond our imaginings, but there don't seem to be dragons out there, or at least not dragons that we don't already know about. Black holes, quasars, gamma ray bursters all seem to fit pretty neatly under known la
In an earlier comment, William Connolley wrote that he thought the US was "wealthist but not racist." I want to assure him that he is quite wrong. The history of racism in the US started with slavery but continued with Jim Crow. The cardinal principle of Jim Crow was denying blacks the right to vote. This policy was ensured by law and violence, with widespread lynching being the go to sanction. The passage of the voting rights act during the 1960's was the first solid hole in this policy, and it turned the South from solidly Democratic to solidly Republican. Ever since, the Republican Party has depended on racist support for it core voters. The scumbags of the Republican Supreme court gutted the Voting Rights Act, and ever since the Republican Party has made a career of suppressing the black vote. Techniques today are a bit more subtle than in the hay day of the KKK - burdensome voter registration rules, placing voting sites far from predominantly Black neighborho
I am arguing with Connolley again. The occasion is his review ( http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-tyranny-of-merit.html ) of a book called the Tyranny of Merit. It's not likely to be a book I would read, because I'm a lot more concerned about the tyranny of folly. Dr. Connolley, and perhaps the author, manage to wander into the thorny philosophical territory of the meaning of value, justice, and merit. Can we say anything about these except that opinions differ? Connolley: " The assertion (p 136) that Hayek doesn't understand that things other than market value, have value, is drivel. So what we get is a fatal problem for his theory: market value isn't moral worth. His answer (again, p 136) is to take market value as a proxy for social contribution, which is lying worthy of Plato. In his version, free-market liberalism differs from meritocracy. In mine, it doesn't." Dr. C tends to get a bit vituperative, which tends to have a bad effect on me,