Why did Communism never catch on among African-Americans?

Status
Closed

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,294
#31
Farquaad,

This post is offensive, perpetuating racist stereotypes and tropes and entirely in violation of Historum rules and standards.

You are suspended for 1 week and are warned that further transgressions will result in permanent exile.

The Mod Team
I am not sure he meant it to be racist. This penalty seems unnecessary, as do the big red letters. You can suspend me too if you want, but the suspension and tone seem a little power crazed.
 
Last edited:

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,705
Portugal
#32
Farquaad,

This post is offensive, perpetuating racist stereotypes and tropes and entirely in violation of Historum rules and standards.

You are suspended for 1 week and are warned that further transgressions will result in permanent exile.

The Mod Team
Maybe, or (in my opinion) maybe not... to be clear, I am not sure. I think that is quite in the limbo.

But, if that is the case, doesn't all the thread fall in that box?
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,200
SoCal
#34
Farquaad,

This post is offensive, perpetuating racist stereotypes and tropes and entirely in violation of Historum rules and standards.

You are suspended for 1 week and are warned that further transgressions will result in permanent exile.

The Mod Team
The statement that blacks are poorer than whites on average is completely accurate, though. It is quite natural for a group that is poorer on average to ensure that it would receive a good amount of government aid so that their lives would be improved. This might be why blacks have overwhelmingly voted for the Democrats over the last several decades (this includes some decades before 1991, hence no violation of the forum rules).

Anyway, you certainly have the right to set the rules for this, but I personally do think that this suspension for this specific comment was excessive. :(
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,200
SoCal
#35
Why did you put the example of Roman Catholic countries, since majority Catholic countries never fully adhered to Communism, neither those countries had particularly Communist movements that witnessed more popularity when compared to non-Catholic nations? That seems like an odd example to use....

Anyway, the USA also had less Communist or revolutionary socialist movements because the country was originally made of settler colonies and mostly a nation that inherited British liberal modes of governance and strong adherence to rule of law , government accountability and civil rights. The same pattern can also be established if we talk about Canada, Australia and New Zealand - none of those countries had strong communist and revolutionary socialist movements as well. Let me go further with my argument:

- Settler colonies: Those countries were established by white European colonists that rapidly replaced the native inhabitants and found themselves with large tracts of empty lands and resources at their disposal. They didn't had masses of non-whites and non-Christians to exploit as labour - therefore not creating a very feudal-like stratified society - and many of those settlers and their families decided to acquire their own tracts of land and that gave rise to a society largely composed of middle-class landlords and a more egalitarian distribution of wealth. That created a more "democratic environment" sort of speak, and there was less class struggle.
The slavery economy in the US south was a contradiction to all of this, but the North quickly destroyed that kind of society after the Civil War.

- British modes of governance: All those colonies inherited the political institutions and civil rights that appeared in Britain after the Glorious Revolution. The state of those "British made-countries" were less draconian, tyrannical than all other countries around the 19th century who still were monarchies governed by "pragmatic liberals" or "moderate conservatives" or outright absolutist monarchies like Tsarist Russia, who wanted to curb any kind of dramatic change in their social order. Therefore that kind of draconian practices radicalized further the progressive forces who started to adopt a far more revolutionary and violent ideal of fighting against oppression. In countries like the USA, social grievances could be fought by legal means, not through violent revolution.

So, coming to the OP question: Other reason of why black Americans didn't gave more support to Communism is also because most of the black intelligentsia lived in the North. Although racism in America was widespread and violent across the entire country, black Americans in the North always had certain civil and political rights and could resort through civil society and lawsuit cases to fight against oppression - which in fact they did. Countries like Guatemala or French Indochina didn't had that kind of luxury.
Good post, Rob! Anyway, it's worth noting that the Southern US to my knowledge did remain largely rural and agricultural until the post-WWII period. Just because slavery was gone didn't mean that the South soon experienced a rapid wave of urbanization; rather, it took a very long time even after the end of slavery for the South to urbanize and industrialize on a huge scale.

Also, Yes, blacks in the Northern US could vote and at least often did have free speech--which allowed them to help mobilize public opinion in favor of causes that they deeply cared about, such as black rights and black equality. As you said, they also had the option of lawsuits if they were wronged in some way--and unlike in the Southern US, blacks in the Northern US might have had better odds to succeed in lawsuits.
 
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions