Una historia del movimiento negro estadounidense en la era post derechos civiles (1968-1988). Valeria L. Carbone
Читать онлайн книгу.
(Oct 1988), 373–390.
72 Según el autor, su investigación intentó “to meet the need, which has become increasingly evident in recent years, of depicting in realistic terms the response of the American Negro to his bondage. The data herein presented make necessary the revision of the generally accepted notion that his response was one of passivity and docility. The evidence, on the contrary, points to the conclusion that discontent and rebelliousness were not only exceedingly common, but indeed characteristic of American Negro Slaves”. Herbert Aptheker, American Negro Slave Revolts, 6th Ed. (USA: International Publishers, 1993), 374.
73 Manning Marable, The Great Wells of Democracy, op. cit., 38.
74 Molefi Kete Asante está en desacuerdo con la denominación de “nacionalista negro” de Marable para caracterizar a Delany. Según Asante, “Delany was not a Black Nationalist. There was neither a black nation nor a black country that he found to which he attached himself. To Delany there were only the African people recently freed from 246 years of bondage who needed to be elevated. Thus, the label “Black Nationalist” serves to belittle Delany’s intellectual and activist philosophy, to consign him to a marginal space, and to defeat the attempt at selfdetermination and independence. (…) Delany was a transformatist…. If one reads his books and essays one finds throughout his writings that he was advancing a theory of African liberation based on a commitment to selfdefinition, sacrifice, and the willingness to be bold enough to create one’s own world. (…) He was a campaigner for transforming identity and creating within the oppressed, that happened to be largely black, a response based on self-determination”. Molefi Kete Asante, “Martin Delany: The First Transformatist”, ponencia en Temple University, 9 May 2012, http://stillfamily.library.temple.edu/historical-perspective/martin-delany-first-transforma(consultado en 13 ene 2016).
75 Eric Foner, A Short History of Reconstruction (New York: Harper and Row, 1990), xvi.
76 “1. Ni en los Estados Unidos ni en ningún lugar sujeto a su jurisdicción habrá esclavitud ni trabajo forzado, excepto como castigo de un delito del que el responsable haya quedado debidamente convicto. 2. El Congreso estará facultado para hacer cumplir este artículo por medio de leyes apropiadas”. “Constitution of the United States: Amendments 11-27”, The Charters of Freedom, U.S. National Archives & Records Administration: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html (consultado en 20 Jun 2015).
77 La Enmienda XIV (9 de julio de 1868) había proclamado que las personas nacidas o naturalizadas en el país, y sometidas a su jurisdicción, son ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos y de los estados en que residen. Determinó además que ningún estado podría dictar ni dar efecto a ley alguna que limite los derechos de los ciudadanos, o negarles la protección igualitaria de las leyes. La Enmienda XV (3 de febrero de 1870) estableció que ningún estado o el gobierno federal podría desconocer ni menoscabar el derecho de sufragio de los ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos por motivo de raza, color o previa condición de esclavitud. The Charters of Freedom, op. cit.
78 W. E. B. Du Bois, Black Reconstruction in America, 1860-1880 (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1935), 357-58, The Internet Archives: https://archive.org/details/blackreconstruc00dubo (consultado en 10 Ene 2013).
79 “the white group of laborers, while they received a low wage, were compensated in part by a sort of public and psychological wage. They were given public deference and tides of courtesy because they were white. They were admitted freely with all classes of white people to public functions, public parks, and the best schools. The police were drawn from their ranks, and the courts, dependent upon their votes, treated them with such leniency as to encourage lawlessness. Their vote selected public officials, and while this had small effect upon the economic situation; it had great effect upon their personal treatment and the deference shown them. White schoolhouses were the best in the community, and conspicuously placed, and they cost anywhere from twice to ten times as much per capita as the colored schools. The newspapers specialized on news that flattered the poor whites and almost utterly ignored the Negro except in crime and ridicule… in the same way, the Negro was subject to public insult; was afraid of mobs; was liable to the jibes of children and the unreasoning fears of white women; and was compelled almost continuously to submit to various badges of inferiority. The result of this was that the wages of both classes could be kept low, the whites fearing to be supplanted by Negro labor, the Negroes always being threatened by the substitution of white labor”. Ídem, 700-701.
80 W.E.B. Du Bois, “Dusk of Dawn: An Essay toward an Autobiography of a Race Concept” (1968), 103, en Dan S. Green y Earl Smith, “W.E.B. Du Bois and the Concepts of Race and Class”, Phylon (44), No. 4; fourth Qtr. (1983), 262-272.
81 W.E.B. Du Bois, Black Reconstruction…, op. cit., 352-353.
82 W.E.B. Du Bois, “The nucleus of class consciousness”, The Pittsburgh Courier, 5 Jun 1937, en Dan S. Green y Earl Smith, op. cit.
83 David R. Roediger, The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class (New York: Verso, [1991] 2007), 9.
84 “Low-browed and savage, groveling and bestial, lazy and wild, simian and sensual – such were the adjectives used by many native-born Americans to describe the Catholic Irish ‘race’ in the years before the civil war. The striking similarity of this litany of insults to the list of traits ascribed to antebellum Blacks hardly requires comment. Sometimes Black/Irish connections were made explicitly. In Antebellum Philadelphia, according to one account, ‘to be called an Irishman has come to be nearly as great an insult as to be called a ‘nigger’ (…) Recently peasants (in Ireland) now overwhelmingly laborers and servants, they settled in slums and shantytowns in cities in the U.S., where large nativist political movements resented their religion, their poverty and their presence”, Ídem, 133-139.
85 Esta idea es desarrollada por Noel Ignatiev, quien analiza como los católicos irlandeses “se convirtieron en miembros de la raza blanca” y cómo la cuestión racial ha sido central en la formación de la clase obrera estadounidense. Ignatiev se enfoca en cómo, a pesar de que el color de su piel los hacía miembros posibles de la raza blanca, los irlandeses fueron primero considerados “negros”, para luego ser admitidos y aceptados como parte de la “raza blanca dominante”. Noel Ignatiev, How the Irish Became White (New York: Routledge, 1996).
86 Ronald Takaki, Strangers from a Different Shore: A History of Asian American (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1989), 13–15. Los armenios,