>btfo capitalists
>btfo marx
>btfo white people
>btfo amerikkka
How come no one has been able to refute him for over 50 years? The best they got is
>he is a cia agent even though the cia is anticommunist or something

>>24579557 (OP)
Sakai's central argument of "Settler Colonialism is the primary-contradiction in the United States, and class-contradictions within the settler, and non-settler populations are secondary to that." is correct, but huge chunks of the individual historical arguments he made in the book are complete horseshit.

Under the complete horseshit category we may include his assertion that the American Civil War was 'a war between two settler nations for control fo the colonized New Afrikan nation.' He sticks to the usual line of 'Lincoln didn't care about freeing the slaves.' using the same out of context quote from the Greely letter everyone else uses; he frequently quotes figures out of context, to make them seem more racist than they actually are; and he presents the idea of Black people becoming US Citizens after the war as a novel solution to the problem of Black-Nationalism, as if the former idea hadn't been a lynchpin of abolitionism ever since the Dred Scott decision, and the latter wasn't still decades away.

I will give the book credit, that some points it makes continue to be both correct, and genuinely radical, even now. For instance: in the early chapters he points out that for the entirety of American history from Jamestown, until around the 1820s, there was no white proletariat in the US, as the rate at which the colonisers were killing Indians and stealing their land, was greater than the rate at which the white population grew (through both birth, and immigration), to fill it up, so literally every white male would eventually become a land-owner, if willing to work for it, and so being 'working class' was an inherently temporary position. I also liked the chapters detailing how white-only trade-unions would deliberately steal jobs previously held by Mexicans, and Chinese, effectively colonizing entire cities built by those two groups, on the West Coast. This was something I genuinely knew nothing about before reading it, and I respect him for detailing it so eloquently, and unapologetically.

I do, however, have one major criticism of his overall approach, as opposed to any individual chapter, or episode-in-history he covers: Namely, J. Sakai doesn't seem to realize that just because a stated motivation is hypocrtical, doesn't make it insincere. Time and again he will provide an example of a settler doing something progressive, show their progressive motivation, show the reason why their stated motivation is hypocritical, and conclude with exposition of what he believes to be their "true" motive, even in cases where that "true" motive is far more of a reach. Never once does Sakai stop and ask "Does this hypocrisy definitively demonstrate an insincerity of this person's stated beliefs, or is it just cognitive dissonance?" He does this constantly, and by the end of the book, it was beginning to drive me completely mental.

>>24579825
>or is it just cognitive dissonance?
It’s systemic and planned for by socdems like you so you tell us.

>>24579557 (OP)
>>he is a cia agent even though the cia is anticommunist or something


the concept is called controlled opposition mr troll

>>24579831
> socdems like you.
Mate did you seriously just
> Everyone who disagrees with me is a Liberal

I'm a fucking Communist. I support landback, and Black-Nationalism. I have long maintained that the 1% of humanity who are white-American Evangelical Protestants are an existential threat to the other 99%, and there's a strong utilitarian argument for killing them all off. None of that changes the fact that Sakai's method of analyzing the motives of historical figures is complete horseshit, and literally any other historian with basic fucking training would back me up on that.

Didn't engels do that to the working class in England?
What's the big deal?

>>24579845
No he didn't. Engels wrote about the miserable condition of the Working Class in England, while also occasionally stating that they took nationalistic pride in the Empire, which was a form of false-consciousness. J. Sakai's analysis of the history of white-America is a breakdown of the relationship between class, and national dynamics within a specifically settler-colonial society, as opposed to a more conventional metropole with multiple distant colonies.

sucki doesnt want people organizing based on class but on race.

white people are a total evil to him, what is the end goal of this guy, kill all the white people? make them go back to europe? whole thing just seems like both a waste of time and some sort of poison pill to try and prevent people from organizing amongst the races.

Does he ever mention that native americans owned slaves too? that some tribes fought on the side of the confederacy. leftoids really dont want people to know that.

>>24579844
way to out yourself as a complete retard

>>24579859

> Does he ever mention that native americans owned slaves too? that some tribes fought on the side of the confederacy.

I don't recall Sakai mentioning that in the book, but fuck it, as a leftoid, here's my reply to that point:

No shit, they did. They were called "The five civilized tribes." because they went out of their way to assimilate themselves to white-settler society, in terms of agriculture, economics, and politics. Why did they do that? Because Jefferson made it clear that if they did, then they'd be allowed to keep their land, and maintain their sovereignty. The Supreme Court agreed, and then Andrew Jackson ethnically cleansed them anyway. The fought for the Confederacy, because the CSA was less of a threat, in terms of imminent encroachment, than the USA was.

They owned African slaves because they were trying to become more like the colonizers, to avoid being wiped out by them. This doesn't invalidate Sakai's assertion that Colonialism is the primary contradiction any more than the fact that Black freedmen owned slaves, or that some indigenous nations fought alongside the US Government against other indigenous nations, or that Black Freedmen fought as 'buffalo soldiers' in wars against indigenous people. Shit's complicated. That doesn't make the central hypothesis incorrect.

>>24579859
>what is the end goal of this guy, kill all the white people
classless and stateless society actually
>>24579844
cool succdem labels, do plaster black liberation stickers on your macbook too?

>>24579855
My bad
I thought he was the one who talked about the labour aristocracy in England
Apparently that was Lenin

>>24579880
> cool succdem labels, do plaster black liberation stickers on your macbook too?
Okay, you're obviously arguing in bad faith here, and if I had any fucking sense I'd ignore you. Nevertheless, I'll bite:
First, you're accusing me of a being a SocDem who plays at being a Communist. You have no reason to believe this, other than that you either literally don't know how to argue against another Communist, when they point out that a book you like has flaws in it; or do know how, but have inexplicably decided not to in this case, and to pelt me with childish insults instead, in which case your thought process is beyond me.
Second, you're accusing me of being performative. I'm not. You could interract with me IRL, and have no idea of my political beliefs, unless you asked about them, in which case I would state them explicitly. I do not dress myself in any political ephemera, and the kind of pseudo-political virtue-signalling you describe is fucking disgusting to me on both a principled, and aesthetic level.
Also, this isn't important, but who the fuck owns a macbook? Even putting aside any ethical/political considerations, those things are dogshit tech, which you need to sell a kidney to buy. They're pure conspicuous consumption, on par with a fucking $300 plain white T-shirt. I own a hand-me-down PC I souped up with second-hand parts I bought from CeX over the course of years.

>>24579887
Fair enough.

>>24579895
>in which case your thought process is beyond me.
that's because you're a retard

you don't seem understand that it doesn't matter whether a settler genuinely believes in their progressive ideals while participating in colonial structures- what matters is the material function their actions serve within the colonial system and your gay liberal window dressing strengthens the settler project by lending it legitimacy through succdem labels of "humane" or well-intentioned

class has an empirical basis
race is a pseudoscience which is why the cia loves it

>>24579948
>race is a pseudoscience
one day it will be, and the academics will rewrite history so everyone looks like this and thinks double plusgood thoughts

>>24579948
Pointing out that race is a pseudoscience, as if that somehow means that centuries of institutional racial-segregation, and persecution based in that pseudoscientific idea don't manifest in the form of real socio-economic contradictions in need of resolving is as anti-intellectual, and out of touch with reality as claiming that 'Class isn't real, because money and ownership are social-constructs.'

>>24579976
combating racial persecution entails embracing the concept of race no more than refuting religious persecution entails accepting biblical mythology

>>24580054
imagine equating innate and immutable biological characteristics with fleeting belief, you're stinking up the thread with the smell of your own farts

>>24580054
1. Did I at any point suggest that 'biological races' is a valid concept, or that embracing that concept is necessary to acknowledging the material, empirical class (and in some cases, national) distinctions that have developed between people on the basis of their historical classification within that system? One can acknowledge that (for instance) there is no meaningful biological distinction between 'Black' and 'White' persons, while also acknowledgeing that Black-Americans and white-Americans constitute two different nations, due to the processes of historical-development.
2. Religious persecution is not a valid concept in and of itself. Religion should be stigmatised, and repressed. Such repression becomes reactionary if-and-only-if it is used as a pretext for ethnic, national, or racial persecution.

>>24579879
>>24579557 (OP)
>>24579825
We wuz kangz shieeet

>>24579557 (OP)
I refuse to own a copy of this. I hope his entire race gets exterminated and ill piss on the ashes

>>24579911
If Sweden is so happy why were they the rape capital of the word for years?

>>24579844
White American Evangelical Protestants are a dwindling demographic currently committing suicide and homicide in the interest of the 0.2% of humanity who are Jewish. America and Judeo-American liberal democratic capitalism are not long for this world.
>>24579948
Class is simply less complicated than race. No one serious is a nordicist nowadays. America took a bucket of mop water and mopped it all over the continent, White Americans were outmaneuvered because they acted in accordance with individualist liberal democratic capitalism and now are being tossed onto the pile of used cumrags. We have to make some form of non-cumrag existence on this continent possible for the different peoples/nations now here and Make Death to America Great Again.
Commies have no idea how backward-looking and bad at being White Nationalists or National Socialists White Americans are. Mostly they think personal racial animus and identifying with Jews and/or America are forms of praxis. So in that sense, yes, the CIA/Mossad/MI6 love "race", especially counter-jihad anti-"thirdworldism" and gladio neo-nazism like in Ukraine. Most White Americans are barely capable of thinking collectively and politically and are somewhat oikophilic, weakly xenophobic individualists.

>>24579557 (OP)
useful idiot or CIA agent
liberals say the same bullshit about race

>>24579825
>Namely, J. Sakai doesn't seem to realize that just because a stated motivation is hypocrtical, doesn't make it insincere. Time and again he will provide an example of a settler doing something progressive, show their progressive motivation, show the reason why their stated motivation is hypocritical, and conclude with exposition of what he believes to be their "true" motive, even in cases where that "true" motive is far more of a reach. Never once does Sakai stop and ask "Does this hypocrisy definitively demonstrate an insincerity of this person's stated beliefs, or is it just cognitive dissonance?" He does this constantly, and by the end of the book, it was beginning to drive me completely mental.
In the context of a 4 classes Maoist analysis, Sakai is trying to teach the Maoist operative that white proletarians need to be put under the party's control due to backwards features and false consciousness.

Outside of the Maoist context yeah, it'd look like moralising. A lot of Sakai readers are going to take a liberal bourgeois position on this and view purity cults, correct line thinking for *all persons,* and a culture of cultural policing ordinary people as necessary.

Obviously Maoists take a different learning here: that the development of consciousness in white workers will be mixed and uneven in this particular manner.

>>24579844
Yeah I do back you up on that, but you need to read him in the context of his polemic's use. He's "bending the twig," to counter a inclination.

>>24579887
Engels does write about contradictory class locations, and new classes. But in Engel's time in England the most advanced sections of the class invested heavily in their own resources via self-education and self-propagandisation. Rather than a labour aristocracy, they were forming themselves into the possibility of independent production of strategic knowledge.

>>24580522
>Commies have no idea how backward-looking and bad at being White Nationalists or National Socialists White Americans are.
Sakai worked as a nip line worker in Detroit / Chicago for years. I think he had a pretty fucking good idea how race worked.

>>24579948
It doesn't though, it's the exact opposite

>>24580522
Ivan pls

>>24580566
>Sakai worked as a nip line worker in Detroit / Chicago for years. I think he had a pretty fucking good idea how race worked.
Not commenting on him in particular as I haven't read him, and maybe in the context of a Maoist in the 70s or whatever in Detroit/Chicago Whites looked like a threat. In 2025 Whites are much less urban and unionized and their racial or class consciousness is more notional, and America more threadbare as a legitimizing and organizing force.
We are waiting for people to realize that America is not invincible or agreement-capable geopolitically, deportations are not going to happen, large swathes of territory are being re-Amerindianized and newly Indianized, Africanized, etc., and hard power is failing overseas but increasingly used domestically. No one seems to know what to do or what comes next, and I find Maoism ridiculous but they and leftists generally are at least somewhat engaging with actual interests and events. I don't see them as a threat so much as one more retarding force insofar as unwilling to account for factors like racial and ethnic interests and power and clinging to frankly regime-serving premises on these issues. Let's be real, is Sakai more likely to feed multi-racial Maoist revolution or be recuperable by multi-racial global Americanizing forces that make peoples into cumrags?

>>24580566
Firstly, thank you for your well thought-out, good faith response. It means a lot.

Secondly, I think I need to reread the book now, as you seem to be positing it less as a work of history, and more of social-investigation & class-analysis.

I have previously heard people defend Sakai's book, by arguing that it's less a historical work, and more a polemical strike-back at the existing web-of-lies making up the bulk of popular American underatanding of their own history - comparable in this to Zinn's APHotUS, or in my own country, to James D. Young's The Very Bastards of Creation, and Andy Wightman's The Poor Had No Lawyers.

Your argument here, (unless I have misunderstood you) presents a third reading: neither fundamentally-historical, nor fundamnetally-polemical, while using 'history as a weapon', but rather as Political-Economic/Anthropological, using both the History, and the Polemicism as a vehicle for SICA. I must reread the work, and reconsider it in this light, before commenting upon it further.

>>24581234
>James D. Young's The Very Bastards of Creation, and Andy Wightman's The Poor Had No Lawyers.
Added to the list, cheers.

CLR James didn't write Black Jacobins in order to cause a new Liberal Bourgeois revolution in Haiti, but to warn of what the real processes of history are when you take up arms to overturn the power of Right.

>>24580882
Sakai by some reports moved towards Autie positions in the 1990s, which is a reasonable thing to do in the 1990s for a US maoist opposed to white nationalism.