deleted by creator

Psst the real conversation’s in the link, the algorithm prefers GZD even if there’s less comments, so it’s just a gateway drug. Shh

I gotcha, but personally don’t wanna die in a Nuclear holocaust.

Preferrably without too much spilled blood, especially not nuclear war since that would fuck up the planet even if somehow not spilled all over everywhere, but i won’t cry over civil war 2.0. I think the least bloody roption would be balkanisation.

In fact, the racism inherent to western patriotism goes far far back to the establishment of racismas a concept in the Americas as slave populations slowly but surely Christianized and local mixed-race people began to gain power in Carribean politics. European settlers needed a bulwark against potential slave revolts, so they used patriotism to the mother country as an ideological thread tying white settlers to the nobility and the bourgeoise. From Before Haiti: Race and Citizenship in French Saint-Domingue by John D. Garrigus:

Petit did not sensationalize colonial sexuality like later authors would. Nevertheless he was concerned with the consequences of male colonists founding creole families with slave women. It was for this reason, and not to defend slavery, that Petit described racial prejudice as “politically astute.” He acknowledged that some wealthy people of color had settled in France, where their French friends criticized colonists’ scorn for them as chimérique, an absurdity, an illusion. But Petit believed marriage between Europeans and free people of color should be outlawed because of the vile birth of these people, just as respectable French subjects did not marry theatrical players. People of color were worse than actors, because of their relatives in slavery, and their “blood . . . infamous for its inclinations and dangerous for its blackness of character.”

Petit’s racism was not primarily biological, but driven by the need to orient colonial “patriotism” toward France. Later authors argued that whites should scorn free people of color to reinforce the racial basis of slavery. But for Petit, if whites and people of color became too“familiar,” that is, if they established viable families, “creole patriotism” might come to mean imperial autonomy or independence. Though he did not explicitly describe this possibility, he encouraged French administrators to watch the problem carefully:

“But the principal reason to prohibit these matches [between immigrants and free people of color] has to do with the necessity of maintaining, in these sorts of men, the ideas of esteem and respect for white blood with which they must not be allowed to become too familiar, because, were they to develop common interests, the results might be dangerous, even irreparable.”

To add context here: Petit’s quote here is from his book titled Le Patriotisme Américain or “American Patriotism.”

Now to tie this in to the modern era, I will take a quote from The Possessive Investment in Whiteness by George Lipsitz:

The new patriotism arises from deeply felt contradictions in U.S. society. It arbitrates anxieties about changes in gender roles, jobs, communities, and collective identity brought on by deindustrialization and economic restructuring. Narratives of national honor take on increased importance as the practices of transnational corporations make the nation state increasingly powerless to advance the interests of its citizens. Private anxieties about isolation, loneliness, and mortality fuel public spectacles of patriotic identification that promise purposeful and unselfish connection to collective and enduring institutions. The new patriotism serves vital purposes for neoconservative economics and politics, providing psychic reparation for the damage done to individuals and groups by the operation of market principles, while at the same time promoting narcissistic desires for pleasure and power that set the stage for ever more majestic public spectacles and demonstrations of military might.

As stated in multiple quotes above, people of color do not see Western countries (esp America) and their patriotism as worthy ideas but as colonial projects. Modern patriotism only serves to rehabilitate the injustices perpetrated by national institutions. We can expand on this with a snippet from Michael Parenti’s Superpatriotism:

In this country superpatriotism rests on the dubious assumption that the United States is endowed with superior virtue and has a unique history and special place in the world. For the American superpatriot, nationalistic pride, or “Americanism,” is placed above every other public consideration. Whether or not superpatriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, as Dr. Johnson might say, it is a highly emotive force used by political leaders and ordinary citizens to muffle discourse. I think that was what the caller was doing (whether he intended to or not) when asking me if I loved my country. In any case, I would answer his question with another one: What exactly does it mean to love one’s country?

Do we love every street and lane, every hill and dale in America? There are so many sights and sites within the USA to which one might grow attached. Yet most of us have had direct exposure to relatively few parts of this nation’s vast territory since we lack the time and money to make that meandering trip across its great continental expanse. And what of all the natural beauty in other countries throughout the world? Would I be less a patriot if I am forced to conclude that there are parts of Ireland and New Zealand that are even more beautiful than the lovely sights of our Pacific Northwest region? Would I be wanting in patriotism if I felt Paris to be more captivating than San Francisco? or the Piazza Navona in Rome more endearing than Rockefeller Center in New York?

Perhaps love of country means loving the American people. But even the most gregarious among us know only a tiny portion of the US populace, that vast aggregate of diverse ethnic, religious, and class groups. In any case, any number of superpatriots feel no love at all for certain of their compatriots whose lifestyles, beliefs, ethnicity, or lowly economic status they find repugnant.

It might be that we can love whole peoples in the abstract, feeling a common attachment because we are all Americans. But what actually is so particularly lovable about Americans, even in the abstract? Although many Americans are fine and likable, some are not admirable at all. Among the compatriots who fail to win my affection are ruthless profiteers, corporate swindlers, corrupt and self-serving leaders, bigots, sexists, violent criminals, and rabidly militaristic superpatriots.

Maybe our superpatriots love this country for its history. One would doubt it, since so much of US history is evidently unknown to them: the struggle for free speech that has continued from early colonial times down to this day; the fierce fights for collective bargaining and decent work conditions; the long campaigns to extend the franchise to all citizens including propertyless workers and women; the struggles to abolish slavery, end racial segregation, and extend civil rights, to establish free public education, public health services, environmental and consumer protections, and occupational safety, and to impose a progressive income tax and end wars of aggression, and other such issues of peace and social justice.

Here certainly is a history that can make one feel proud of one’s country and love the valiant people who battled for political and economic democracy But many superpa-triots are wretchedly ignorant of this history, especially since so little of it is taught in the schools. How unfortunate, for it would add more substance to their love of country.

Also largely untaught is the darker side of our history. What is there to love about the extermination of Native American Indian nations, a bloodletting that extended over four centuries along with the grabbing of millions of acres of their lands? There is nothing lovable about the systemic kidnapping and enslavement of millions of Africans; the many lynchings and murders of the segregationist era; the latter-day assassinations of Black Panther Party members and other political dissidents; the stealing of half of Mexico (today’s Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and a portion of Colorado); the grabbing of Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Cuba; the blood-drenched conquest of the Philippines; and the military interventions and wars of aggression against scores of other countries.

(PART 2 OF 3)

“Lenin on his own part several times purposefully reminded his European comrades that the original “proletariat” — of Imperial Rome — did not work, but was supported by the surpluses of slave labor. As the lowest free class of Roman citizens, their only duty was to father new soldiers for the Roman Legions (which is why they were called “proletarii” in Latin) while they lived off government subsidies.”

I want to point out how this view by marx and engels was wrong, parentti’s book “the murder of julius Caesar” talks about rome with an materialistic point of view and how the information about rome was tainted by the burgeoise intelingentsia, on how the people that writed about rome and the roman people where rich aristocratic assholes, that never worked hard on their lifes and aways looked at the working class on general with disgust. This was an misunderstanding and an lack of proper information by marx and engels and should not be seen as fact, but as how the burgeoise manipulation of midia gos beyond our own ages, and how they will make you sheer for the opressors, and opress the opressed.

AMLO please make the Mexican USSR a reality, and liberate the American southwest. 🙏

Edit: This is excellent.

The poles of opposition on the question of left patriotism in the United States are “Turtle Islandism”, representing absolute negation, and “Americanism”, representing absolute affirmation. The class character of these poles are identical—middle and upper class white saviors.

Woah. I have never read anything that could explain so much in such smooth caliber.

Do you have any more of this line of thought, from this person or general theory?

I would love to hear more about Mexicanism.

Forgive me you might want tocopy and paste this to the other thread since the discussion is formulating there.

There is no place yet in America for a third party, I believe. The divergence of interests even in the same class group is so great in that tremendous area that wholly different groups and interests are represented in each of the two big parties, depending on the locality, and almost each particular section of the possessing class has its representatives in each of the two parties to a very large degree, though today big industry forms the core of the Republicans on the whole, just as the big landowners of the South form that of the Democrats. The apparent haphazardness of this jumbling together is what provides the splendid soil for the corruption and the plundering of the government that flourish there so beautifully. Only when the land — the public lands — is completely in the hands of the speculators, and settlement on the land thus becomes more and more difficult or falls prey to gouging — only then, I think, will the time come, with peaceful development, for a third party. Land is the basis of speculation, and the American speculative mania and speculative opportunity are the chief levers that hold the native-born worker in bondage to the bourgeoisie. Only when there is a generation of native-born workers that cannot expect anything from speculation any more will we have a solid foothold in America. But, of course, who can count on peaceful development in America! There are economic jumps over there, like the political ones in France — to be sure, they produce the same momentary retrogressions.

The small farmer and the petty bourgeois will hardly ever succeed in forming a strong party; they consist of elements that change too rapidly — the farmer is often a migratory farmer, farming two, three, and four farms in succession in different states and territories, immigration and bankruptcy promote the change in personnel, and economic dependence upon the creditor also hampers independence — but to make up for it they are a splendid element for politicians, who speculate on their discontent in order to sell them out to one of the big parties afterward.

The tenacity of the Yankees, who are even rehashing the Greenback humbug, is a result of their theoretical backwardness and their Anglo-Saxon contempt for all theory. They are punished for this by a superstitious belief in every philosophical and economic absurdity, by religious sectarianism, and by idiotic economic experiments, out of which, however, certain bourgeois cliques profit.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1892/letters/92_01_06.htm

The documents in second link say that Paul J. Sakai was born in 1917, got his undergraduate degree from the from the University of Washington in 1940, and was unable to complete his graduate work because of his military service in 1978. The rest of the files describes his testimony to the Commission of Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians in 1981 as his family was sent to Ninidoka Relocation Center in Idaho during the 40’s (WWII). The Commission heard from more than 750 witnesses, which tells me that he is one of many Japanese individuals who was affected by American internment camps.

I found a picture of this gravestone bearing Paul J. Sakai’s name, birth date (i.e. August 4, 1917), and death date. If this is the same Paul J. Sakai described in the documents you linked, he would’ve been 64 in 1981 (the time of his testimony), which means that he died shortly after giving it in 1984. I believe that the Paul J. Sakai in the documents you linked and the dead man are the same person since it’s common for American military personnel to be buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

It could be that Paul J. Sakai, the American military veteran, wrote Settlers in 1983 shortly before his death in 1984. But then you need to explain the publication of these later works: The Dangerous Class and Revolutionary Theory (2017), Learning from an Unimportant Minority (2015), Basic Politics of Movement Security (2014), The Ideas of Black Genocide in the Amerikkkan Mind (2009), and The Shock of Recognition (2002). These books were supposedly written by J. Sakai according to this website.

There’s a lot of information you can use here to find more evidence that’ll possibly back up your claim. For example, you can find J. Sakai’s birth record and see if he was born in 1917, graduated from university of washington in 1940, joined the military on January 23, 1941 at Fort Bragg, had family sent to Ninidoka Relocation Center, gave a testimony to the the Commission in 1981, wrote Settlers in 1983, and then died in 1984. Then find evidence showing that the books above were not written by J. Sakai, but someone else.

It could also be a coincidence that there is someone named Paul J. Sakai and J. Sakai who lived in the U.S. at one time. Maybe “Sakai” is a popular Japanese last name like “Smith” is in America.

Not Sakai:

The development of broad, interracial working-class support for egalitari an demands might have substantially transformed the politics of the United States and made the achievement of those demands more likely. There were the beginnings of such a movement in the 1930s and 1940s among the UMWA and certain left unions in the CIO. These beginnings were rightly, although perhaps overoptimistically, touted by scholars, civil rights activists and organizations, and Black newspapers during this period, many of whom had been highly critical of interracial unionism in the past. The history of the CIO during the 1930s and 1940s suggests that the achieve ment of interracial working-class solidarity and racial egalitarianism in unions is a difficult task. The crushing of left-wing unionism, however, destroyed whatever possibilities existed for racially egalitarian unionism; congealed the CIO in a bureaucratic, conservative mold; and laid the basis for the long, continuous decline in American union strength which continues to this day.

https://libcom.org/article/race-and-cio-possibilities-racial-egalitarianism-during-1930s-and-1940s

Nice job critically looking at the contents of my post. AGAIN, historically, unions in the US failed due to internalized racism, distancing themselves from communism through anti-russian/pro-nationalist sentiment, and through opportunists in organizing positions focusing bureaucracy toward cooperation with the US government. The reason I quote Sakai is because he very conveniently points out in the same paragraph (so I don’t have to quote 12 different books and research papers) that black organizers commonly resisted anti-communist sentiment and situations of their leadership getting in bed with Democrats. Orgs with racist sentiments most often collapsed quickest. This is not a controversial fact regardless of who’s saying it.

Maybe you guys should up your game and show the same intellectual rigor in disproving my points rather than making fake little “gotchas” because someone who actually put in the work hurt your feelings.

Yo that is some damning evidence right there. edit Wait is Paul J Sakai the same person as J. Sakai? edit In https://blog.pmpress.org/authors-artists-comrades/j-sakai/ there’s an excerpt wherein J Sakai appears to claim they were in high school in the 1950s, but this letter from MIS is from 1946. J Sakai does say they were a veteran. If they were in high school in 1950, the earliest they could have been born would have been 1932. I guess it’s possible these are the same people.

Anyone want to try to get a FOIA request going?

deleted by creator