One thing that’s always irritated me about broadly materialist historical explanations is the tendency to miss the importance of contingent historical events. Geography is not destiny, as Jared Diamond suggests, but rather it becomes a destiny when mixed with certain kinds of choices and chances. In The Longterm Effects of Africa’s Slave Trades, Harvard economist Nathan Nunn has shown that Africa’s exceptional poverty is directly linked to the slave trade:

if the slave trades had not occurred, then 72% of the average income gap between Africa and the rest of the world would not exist today, and 99% of the income gap between Africa and the rest of the underdeveloped world would not exist. In terms of economic development, Africa would not look any different from the other developing countries in the world.

If Jared Diamond is right, then Africa’s exposure to tropical diseases and the inadequacy of tropical agriculture suggest that investment in public health is the key to Africa’s future healthy and eventual equilibrium with the rest of the world. This thesis is popular among those who see our responsibilities towards Africa in the light of a the duty of assistance, rather than identifying some deeper obligations like recompense or reparation. It also appeals to our sense of pity, rather than invoking the much messier emotions of guilt and responsibility.

If Nunn is right, slave raiding destroyed institutions in the very most developed parts of Africa, shifting local comparative advantages in the continent away from institutionally stable, politically cohesive, and agriculturally rich coastal and agricultural societies towards remote, rugged, and difficult to access societies. Thus, we should invest in the things we destroyed: institutional stability and political cohesion in coastal and agricultural nations. I have independent reasons for supporting the institutional hypothesis, insofar as I suspect that institutions are the best tools for producing legitimate outcomes and that legitimacy has a greater impact on growth and justice than public health or the forms of production. Still, it’s nice to have some confirmation that the worst thing that human beings have ever done to each other is still the same: not genocide, which is a remarkably modern and weird form for our aggressive nihilism to take, but good, old fashioned domination.

Some short pieces derived from Nunn’s work:
Slave trade and African underdevelopment
The Blessing of Bad Geography

The white race is a club, which enrolls certain people at birth, without their consent, and brings them up according to its rules. For the most part the members go through life accepting the benefits of membership, without thinking about the costs. When individuals question the rules, the officers are quick to remind them of all they owe to the club, and warn them of the dangers they will face if they leave it.

RACE TRAITOR aims to dissolve the club, to break it apart, to explode it. Some people who sympathize with our aim have asked us how we intend to win over the majority of so-called whites to anti-racism. Others, usually less friendly, have asked if we plan to exterminate physically millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of people. Neither of these plans is what we have in mind. The weak point of the club is its need for unanimity. Just as the South, on launching the Civil War, declared that it needed its entire territory and would have it, the white race must have the support of all those it has designated as its constituency, or it ceases to exist.

Tropes of treason and fidelity to whiteness play out in Shannon Sullivan’s book Revealing Whiteness, and I think she effectively addresses the inefficacy of treason given the role race plays in our psychic and social lives, the ways in which every decision to ‘shed’ one’s race is deflected by the embodied signs, habits, and privileges of race that simple intentions cannot forgo. If we can’t get to anti-racism through careful attention, thoughtful deliberation, and political will, then John Brown-style insurrections won’t get us there either. That sort of aggression simply reinscribes the validity of the club and the impossibility of ordinary life outside it. Manifestos fail precisely because their words get the blood flowing, encourage us to feel righteous, devoted to a cause, zealous: we skip over the discomfort of confronting our privileges by immediately agreeing to jettison them. The zealot pretends he can be free of his privilege by officially declaiming it, while nonetheless preserving most of what marks him as white. If he engages in violent insurrection, he nonetheless gets better treatment, even in punishment, than non-whites. No, I think Sullivan is right, here: we cannot be rid of privilege, we can only put it to use, undermining itself, analyzing itself, drawing attention to itself. Even if Ignatiev has gone back to leading the revolution against kosher toasters or whatever he’s up to now, I’m glad that there are scholars who are not letting the matter drop.

(This is an old metafilter post of mine that never got any attention.)

Still, a few weeks ago, I got into a dust-up on metafilter about white supremacy. It started here, where I noticed that a character by the name of Milliken was engaging in some heavy-handed, long-winded, over-broad generalizations about black people. In response, I posted this callout on metatalk, which is the meta-space devoted exclusively to snark and personal attacks, but also the place where important discussions about the constitution of the community get fleshed out. The discussion did not go well at first… see here, here, and here.

But I eventually managed to coax Milliken himself into responding, and he quickly proved what I had already concluded: that he fervently believed some of the worst rhetoric of white nationalism. As he wrote in one of his last screeds: “I really am not racist. IM NOT. I am more upset and care to be more involved in the deconstruction of the liberal mindset towards minorities because I have read about and seen the results of things like affirmative action.” I managed to find versions of his arguments over at stormfront.org, which I won’t link because it just makes them more popular on google and would connect -me- to white supremacy. So Milliken was banned. What I still haven’t settled, despite the callout, is whether it’s really better for a community to exclude its most intolerant members, or whether the real goal of such experiences is to shame them into self-reappraisal.

Then, too, I’m interested in the operation of a self-policing community that can do all this on its own. It truly is a fairly homogenous community, not insofar as it excludes conservative views (by far the most popular/reviled character there is a guy named dios, who is fairly anti-liberal,) but because everyone who remains manages to preserve a level of civility and respect that’s surprising for such an online community. Or… perhaps not civility… but a toughness that makes civility possible. People who take offense when insulted are not respected, while those who respond well and wittily to the general tenor of snark are treated like local heroes. In the midst of this, we have a fairly high-brow discussion. It’s no wonder I spend so much time there.

Do you think of yourself as white or British or both? Does it worry you that you got your job just because of your race? Where are you from? No, but really? Since this is where you live, don’t you think you should try and integrate with other races more? Is your first loyalty to your God, or to your country? Is it true what they say about white guys? Given the genocide, slavery and colonialism unleashed in the name of Christianity over the last two centuries, do you feel your religion is compatible with democracy? Mr Grant, do you think of yourself as a white actor or an actor who happens to be white? I don’t mind white people, but if they want to live here then why shouldn’t they have to fit in with our traditions? Shouldn’t the police be doing more to tackle white-on-white crime? Given the objectification of women in your culture and the rise in teenage pregnancies, don’t you think it’s time to ban young girls wearing make up? What do you make of the tribal conflict in Ukraine? I thought you asked for flesh-coloured tights? Don’t you feel that this politically correct belief that we have to respect white people’s feelings has stifled honest discussion and debate? Isn’t it a shame that white people cannot pick more responsible leaders? What do you mean, you can’t Morris dance? Don’t you ever worry about being pigeonholed as a white person? Why aren’t you doing more to check the rise in Christian fundamentalism? Who are your community leaders? Why should we balance our belief in human rights with our tolerance for Christians? What do white people think about Jews? How would you define “white” style? Mr Amis, why do you write about white people all the time? Don’t you find that limiting? What are you doing for your people? Have you seen what the Bible says about women? Are you the token white guy? Don’t take this personally, but why are white men so aggressive? Now the Olympics are over, can we finally admit that white people are genetically equipped to excel in archery and rowing? What is it with white people and homophobia? You know what white women are like, don’t you? I understand that as a white person you come at this from a particular place, but can’t you try to look at it objectively for a moment? Why do you people have such a chip on your shoulder? Don’t get offended, I was only asking.