| 
 This interview originally appeared in Mrzine, 
              the online site of the Monthly Review. David Roediger, professor of history at the University 
              of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and a scholar of critical whiteness 
              studies, delivered a talk titled "The Dilemmas of Popular Front 
              Antiracism: Looking at The House I Live In" on November 17 
              at the Marxist School of Sacramento. After screening this WW II 
              film that stars Frank Sinatra, Roediger discussed what it tells 
              us about the limits of anti-racisms that imagine we can subordinate 
              justice to unity. He connected the film to the themes of his recent 
              book, Working toward Whiteness: 
              How America's Immigrants Became White.  Roediger's research interests include race and class 
              in the United States, and the history of U.S. radicalism. Among 
              his other books are Our Own Time: A History of American Labor 
              and The Working Day (with Philip S. Foner), The Wages 
              of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class, 
              Towards the Abolition of Whiteness, Colored White: Transcending 
              the Racial Past, and History Against Misery (Charles H. Kerr). Seth: Your area of interest is critical whiteness studies. 
              Please explain the term for those unfamiliar with it. David: The areas in which I teach are working-class history 
              and African-American Studies and at its best the critical study 
              of whiteness often grows out of those areas. The critical examination 
              of whiteness, academic and not, simply involves the effort to break 
              through the illusion that whiteness is natural, biological, normal, 
              and not crying out for explanation. Instead of accepting what James 
              Baldwin called the "lie of whiteness," many people in 
              lots of different fields and movement activities have tried to productively 
              make it into a problem. When did (some) people come to define themselves 
              as white? In what conditions? How does the lie of whiteness get 
              reproduced? What are its costs politically, morally and culturally? 
              Not surprisingly, thinkers from groups for whom whiteness was and 
              is a problem have taken the lead in studying whiteness in this way. 
              Such study began with slave folktales and American Indian stories 
              of contact with whites. The work of such writers as Baldwin, Cheryl 
              Harris, Ida B. Wells, Américo Paredes, W.E. B. Du Bois, Leslie Silko, 
              and Toni Morrison has deepened such traditions. For radical white 
              writers wishing to forge interracial movements of poor and working 
              people, whiteness has also long been a problem, with Alexander Saxton 
              and Ted Allen making especially full efforts to understand whiteness 
              in order to disillusion whites unable to see past the value of their 
              own skins. 
 Seth: What black author and scholar W.E.B. Du Bois called 
              nearly a century ago "the color line" between whites and 
              non-whites remains a force to reckon with in U.S. society. Where 
              does the concept and practice of whiteness fit into this social 
              process? David: At about the same time of the famous "color 
              line" quotation, Du Bois added that what he wonderfully called 
              the idea of "personal whiteness" (Cheryl Harris would 
              similarly refer to "whiteness as property") was not timeless 
              or permanent or even very old. He argued that it had held sway less 
              than 250 years of all human history. That would make it no more 
              than 350 years old now and would place its origins, as Marx did, 
              alongside the primitive accumulation of capital and especially the 
              slave trade and the taking of Indian land. On this view whiteness 
              is both materially rooted and a powerful ideology propping up of 
              the order which created it. Seth: Some consider the New Deal era as a kind of golden 
              age for liberalism in the U.S. How did New Deal policies affect 
              the nation's skin color divide? David: As I wrote Working toward Whiteness, I came 
              to see one historic task on the New Deal - and one in which it succeeded 
              - as the fostering of fuller U.S. citizenship among immigrants from 
              southern and eastern Europe and their kids. But this very achievement 
              separated poorer and often despised immigrant workers from Europe 
              and workers of color in unprecedented ways. The New Deal never rethought 
              the draconian racist immigration restriction policies of the 20s, 
              of course, but its electoral base rested significantly on "ethnic" 
              voters, whose activism was both hemmed in and rewarded by the Democrats. 
              Southern and Eastern Europeans were included as secondary leaders 
              of the new industrial unions, and as entitled citizens qualified 
              for social security, unemployment compensation, and fair labor standards 
              protections, even as workers of color were largely left out of key 
              areas of the welfare state. This was critically true in the case 
              of massive federal subsidies to (white) homeowners through the Home 
              Owners Loan Corporations and the Federal Housing Authority. Seth: Jews and the Irish were seen as non-whites when they 
              first arrived in America. How did their loss of humanity under the 
              market economy connect with their eventual crossover into whiteness? 
 David: In some ways Jews and the various largely Catholic 
              and often poor European immigrant groups were "white," 
              as the historian Tom Guglielmo has recently put it, "on arrival." 
              Where naturalization law was concerned, for example, ample precedents 
              recognized their ability to become citizens, a right explicitly 
              resting on their "whiteness." But they also remained, 
              as Working toward Whiteness puts it, "on trial" 
              for a harrowingly long time. This enabled capitalists and petty 
              bosses on the job to pit various groups against each other not only 
              during periods of organizing and strikes but every day in hurrying 
              and pushing and cursing to get out production. The pioneer labor 
              historian John Commons was not wrong when he wrote around World 
              War One that exploiting and deepening such tensions as outpacing 
              scientific management among U.S. innovations where bossing was concerned. 
              Amidst the general miseries of proletarianization, workers also 
              learned that one source of meager benefits and protections could 
              lie in claiming a white skin. Thus Baldwin writes of immigrants 
              learning U.S.-style racism in a whiteness "factory" - 
              making terrible moral choices along the color line even as they 
              experienced "a vast amount of coercion." Thus Toni Morrison 
              changes an old African American joke that has immigrants learning 
              a terrible anti-black racial slur as their first English word. She 
              counts it as their second word, coming after learning to say "okay" 
              in settings where they had few choices but to say it. 
 Seth: The effects of the American Civil War spurred a major 
              "moral impetus" for the U.S. working class, you write, 
              citing Marx. Which writings of his have been most useful in your 
              research and teaching, and why? David: My use of particular parts of Marx's work very much 
              depends on what I am working on. For example, my first book was 
              (with the late Philip Foner) a history of movements for a shorter 
              working day in the United States and it sent me continually back 
              to Capital and especially to Marx's incomparable sections 
              on the hours of labor. In my undergraduate classes I am most apt 
              to assign Marx's very early manuscripts on alienation, often alongside 
              Herman Melville's short stories on labor, and for graduate students 
              I frequently suggest Marx's later writings on ethnology, so brilliantly 
              evoked in Franklin Rosemont's Karl Marx & the Iroquois. 
              Both of these choices show how passionately Marx hoped for alternatives 
              to the misery of the capitalist order, for new worlds. I'm also 
              very much a partisan of Marx's writings on slavery and the Civil 
              War, especially those on U.S. slavery in relation to both capitalism 
              and misery. Unfortunately, the work of Eugene Genovese, who for 
              a time advertised himself as a Marxist, spread the notion among 
              many U.S. historians that Marxism places slavery outside of the 
              capitalist world and even as an honorable alternative to it. Reading 
              Marx on the U.S. quickly dispels such a view. Seth: You are a Caucasian, male American. Please explain 
              how you became a critic of white-skin privilege. David: I grew up mainly in a "sundown town." Such 
              towns, cities, and suburbs, the subjects of a great new book by 
              James Loewen, threatened to prosecute and/or persecute African Americans 
              who stayed after sundown. The quarry town in Illinois where I grew 
              up had a 6 p.m. whistle to warn off Black visitors, but the whistle 
              was more-or-less superfluous as day and night the town stayed all-white. 
              But I also lived, summers and many weekends in a very different 
              kind of racist town. It was Cairo, at the junction of the Mississippi 
              and Ohio Rivers at the southern tip of Illinois. Cairo's civil rights 
              movement matured very late in the 1960s, in conjunction with Black 
              Power. Brutal vigilante and police violence was strongly resisted. 
              As it happened the small Black Catholic parish where I had long 
              attended mass - I was attracted at first simply because the priest 
              there raced through the service quickly - became a center of that 
              resistance. I was inspired and ended high school trying - it only 
              seems odd in retrospect - to organize student support for the Cairo 
              struggles in the sundown town where I went to school. Seeing early 
              on that racism differed from place to place, and that it could be 
              resisted, mattered a lot. Seth Sandronsky 
              is a member of Sacramento Area Peace Action and a co-editor of Because 
              People Matter, Sacramento's 
              progressive paper. He can be reached at [email protected]. |