A review by atypewritersings1969
Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat from Mayflower to Modern by J. Sakai
4.0
Definitely a necessary read for those who want to understand the mythology of the white proletariat, how it conceptualizes itself as a broad-based workers movement when the reality and history of white labor organizing tells a completely different story.
It makes for a fascinating read, but by the same token there are some noticeable flaws:
1. As other reviewers have said gender doesn't feature prominently in the book. Women's involvement in communist and socialist labor organizing is completely omitted, which is odd if you know anything about Claudia Jones and histories of black women's leftist labor organizing. This could also be said for the attempts to contextualize U.S labor organizing as part of a transnationalist constellation of movements where U.S imperialism has taken hold. I would find it hard to believe that women didn't factor prominently in the intersections between anti-imperialism and labor struggles.
2. To this end the definition of labor is limited to industrialized aspects of society, which are androcentric. Gendered forms of labor, such as domestic work, doesn't factor into how the white proletariat understands its own mythology in relation to non-white workers. I'm sure the schism between poor white women and black + WoC who have historically been domestics for bourgeois white families would prove to be another interesting historical tension.
3. Queerness would have provided an additional analysis to this, especially since there have been LGBTQ folks in leftist labor spaces in the 60s and 70s (leslie feinberg being a perfect example of this). Additionally, since marriage equality's historical narrative is that its a movement that evolved out of the struggles of working class white lesbians and gays, it would be interesting to understand how white working class gays and lesbians conceptualized themselves in relation to the larger white proletariat and whether their internal narrative of class & anti-racist struggle coalesces or diverges.
Overall its a great book, super informative on a lot of levels. But it could stand to complicate its analysis on who constitutes a "worker" within the history of workers struggles.
It makes for a fascinating read, but by the same token there are some noticeable flaws:
1. As other reviewers have said gender doesn't feature prominently in the book. Women's involvement in communist and socialist labor organizing is completely omitted, which is odd if you know anything about Claudia Jones and histories of black women's leftist labor organizing. This could also be said for the attempts to contextualize U.S labor organizing as part of a transnationalist constellation of movements where U.S imperialism has taken hold. I would find it hard to believe that women didn't factor prominently in the intersections between anti-imperialism and labor struggles.
2. To this end the definition of labor is limited to industrialized aspects of society, which are androcentric. Gendered forms of labor, such as domestic work, doesn't factor into how the white proletariat understands its own mythology in relation to non-white workers. I'm sure the schism between poor white women and black + WoC who have historically been domestics for bourgeois white families would prove to be another interesting historical tension.
3. Queerness would have provided an additional analysis to this, especially since there have been LGBTQ folks in leftist labor spaces in the 60s and 70s (leslie feinberg being a perfect example of this). Additionally, since marriage equality's historical narrative is that its a movement that evolved out of the struggles of working class white lesbians and gays, it would be interesting to understand how white working class gays and lesbians conceptualized themselves in relation to the larger white proletariat and whether their internal narrative of class & anti-racist struggle coalesces or diverges.
Overall its a great book, super informative on a lot of levels. But it could stand to complicate its analysis on who constitutes a "worker" within the history of workers struggles.