Skip Navigation
GenZedong @lemmygrad.ml
Princess Sankara @lemmygrad.ml

Thoughts on "Settlers" by Sakai?

Hey all,

I'm currently developing a Marxist-Leninist analysis of settler colonialism, especially in light of the situation in Palestine, and am going to read Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat by J. Sakai for the first time. Before I do I was just curious what other comrades think of the book and its analysis? It seems a pretty controversial text among many online Marxist groups, to whatever extent that matters, but as an Indigenous communist I feel having a clear and principled stance on the settler question is important for all serious communists. I'm not sure if I'll agree with Sakai specifically, but since I generally agree with the opinions of y'all, I was curious as to your thoughts on the book.

65 comments

  • One of the best books I've ever read, makes crackers so uncomfortable.

    It's not like the book says send whitey back to Europe, just that they as a settler class have no vested interest in decolonizing. It's not that controversial imo but I'm Black and also Indigenous so 🤷🏿‍♂️ spoke to me just fine

    • I don't have any native in me as far as I know; but considering the trail for my geneaology disappears after the 1890s, it's totally in the air as to who and what. And yeah, same situation as you-- spoke to me just as seamlessly as Wretched of the Earth or We Will Shoot Back. (Which, if you don't have that latter one, it's by Akinyele Omowale Umoja; Black Agenda Report put me onto it a few months back.)

      As for OP-- I don't expect anyone to really agree 100% with Settlers, but I've read it cover-to-cover like twice now, with a third coming up the next time I have a good, long break. It's controversial because one, Sakai published under pseudonym and that's enough to make naive, non-opsec minded 'comrades' shit their britches. Two, Sakai was maybe even more abrasive than brother Ture in his analyses; and that makes the settlers immensely uncomfortable. Three, it illuminates a WHOLE BUNCH of buried Amerikan malfeasance; and if I learned anything about the publicity that the settlers 'learning' about Tulsa engendered, a lot of the controversy is coming from people who don't want to think about their nations and organizations of choice doing the things they did.

      • I have distant Ioway and Charokee, but since I'm white passing and have no connection to tribal heritage I'd count myself as a settler.

        It's a distressing book, because it basically tells every settler "you aren't the main character." We can only support actual revolutionaries.

  • It illuminates how and why white Euro-American settlers have always behaved as a group across history. This is crucial, because white settlers keep doing the exact same thing and producing the exact same results, believing all the while that by doing the exact same thing they'll succeed if only they believe hard enough in their own moral righteousness.

    It bounces off or upsets many white folks because they're unwilling to accept the conclusions that they as a group materially benefit from imperialism, and that liberation is contingent upon the defeat of that group by people outside of it. Even if white people accept that they hold some abstract level of privilege in settler societies, most won't accept the proposition that liberation doesn't depend on their convincing their white friends to have the right opinions. Liberation requires colonized peoples gaining power by taking it away from white settlers.

    Many white people see this as "defeatist", believing that if they personally aren't the subjects of revolution, then revolution must not be possible or desirable. White settlers need to be disabused of this individualistic outlook in order to have any productive role in revolutionary struggle. A "morally good" white settler isn't a proletarian in the global sense: they're a class traitor. The highest role that white settlers can take in revolutionary struggle is betraying the class interests of the while settler class.

    • Liberation requires colonized peoples gaining power by taking it away from white settlers.

      Many white people see this as “defeatist”, believing that if they personally aren’t the subjects of revolution, then revolution must not be possible or desirable.

      I'm sure plenty of white people resist the idea of a black-led revolution for something similar to this, at least unconsciously. But a much stronger critique of the Settlers philosophy is looking at stuff like this:

      • Settlers itself argues that modern racism was invented specifically to divide the emerging proletariat;
      • U.S. history is littered with examples of leftist movements that ultimately failed in part because even white leftists had reactionary, racist views; and
      • Movements that were predominantly black, or black only, have similarly failed;

      And concluding that a multi-racial, anti-racist leftist coalition is necessary for victory. In such a coalition (like in any coalition), you can't expect a large group of members to contribute without some say in leadership. Settlers implies (can't remember if it outright states) that such a coalition is impossible, which is why many leftists read it as defeatist.

      Gerald Horne's The Counter-Revolution of 1776 has all the good parts of Settlers without this and the latter work's other flaws.

      • Movements that were predominantly black, or black only, have similarly failed

        Settlers makes pretty clear these were frequently rather successful, but the problem comes when they get co-opted or hijacked by white people. I’d personally agree that the best solution is a mixed coalition, it’s just important that white people’s interests are not prioritized. A problematic idea promoted by patsocs is that since most people on this land are white it will be our revolution ie. finders keepers rule of genocide. We must combat that by putting the interests of those to whom this land belongs first.

  • It's a good book that's worth reading, even though I disagree with some of Sakai's conclusions, and I think he was unfair to certain multi-racial leftist groups like the IWW.

    I'd also recommend An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States.

    • The funny thing is that Sakai is actually very positive towards the IWW, they come off as one of the best white organisations in US history. I'll admit, though, that he does critique them in regards to their syndicalism.

  • Is it worth adding to an ML booklist? If so where would it go? Near the beginning for new-comers or near the end for nuanced and complex theory?

    • I think midway through in "theory for specific places or conditions".

      • Cool I’ll add it alongside some Mao Zedong readings, I feel like those are also good for making good Party decisions and resolutions during specific circumstances, even if it isn’t the most applicable in current situations, it’s still useful to know.

  • Great book. I disagree with his conclusions (my take is there is a white working class especially with neoliberal proletarianization, but it’s extremely important to consider them as part of an oppressor nation) and it’s not dialectical, but it’s definitely worth reading. I wish someone re-did it today (for more recent data and Marxist analysis. I’m impressed by the scope of the book and I learned a lot from it. You should probably read more better done and specified books along with it though, like ‘the red deal,’ ‘fresh banana leaves,’ etc.

    • I'd consider any of Zak Cope's work, especially divided world, divided class, as some of the best modern works addressing labor aristocracy / socialized bribery theory and neocolonialism in the modern era.

      Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz also has great stuff, an indigenous peoples history, and loaded are excellent expose's of the US settler garrison.

  • One of my top ten books, it changed my life and my whole worldview. I'm glad that this thread isn't devolving into all the other internet discussions on Sakai, which is to criticism him for things he never said. Even the disagreements I'm seeing here seem fair.

  • Sakai's is wrong, I don't even think you all agree with what he's saying.

    I think you like FUKNSLAMMER posts as much as I do.

    But do you really think there is no revolutionary potential to the white working class? Maybe this makes sense to people who pigeon hole themselves into media criticism and engagement with malevolvent right wingers.

    But the majority of the white working class are not part of the labor aristocracy that is into MAGA shit. I don't think you would agree with the statement that the white working class has no revolutionary potential.

    Take a look at where all the JROTC kids come from

    • Saying something’s a decent book doesn’t mean one agrees with everything. Most of the people in here include caveats in their support for the book. In my opinion it’s mostly factually and emotionally accurate for the time. But things have changed since then, neoliberalism is proletarianizing white people to a large extent. The text is also sadly lacking dialectics. We do not have no hope in the white working class. We know there is some hope that they will fight for the right side in wars of national liberation. However, settlers must know the revolution is not theirs. We will no doubt benefit (surviving climate change, transitioning to a healthier sustainable lifestyle, avoiding pollution, less queerphobia, workers democracy, and so on), the only caveat being it’s not their nation and they don’t have the possibility to own land (not that most of us have any land anyway). We will fight for it alongside the oppressed nations, and others who were previously neutral will join.

      • In my opinion it’s mostly factually and emotionally accurate for the time

        With all due respect this means absolutely nothing and this is not the foundation for a serious conversation.

        You should probably look at what the book has wrought before you start talking about how great its vibes are. You familiar with a Mister Gazi Kodo?

    • *Sakai's conclusion is wrong

65 comments