Re: Debating slavery

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> chris_brady@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 10/20/00 05:01AM >>>
Charles, I think there is a tendency to discount true Marxist
historians, as opposed to marxian scholars who may use some
Marxist analysis.
Did you see Ronald Radosh's recent diatribe against H. Aptheker?
 http://frontpagemag.com/archives/radosh/2000/rr10-04-00.htm

The webmaster of the site put on a photo of W.E.B.DuBois, and
labeled it Herbert Aptheker.  Radosh pled innocence via knowledge.
" I apologize in advance for the grave error, for which I am not
responsible. ... Obviously, I do know what DuBois looked like."

((((((((((((

CB: Chris, I agree with you about the continuing tendency to make real Marxist
historians invisible, the main examples of which in this area of the history of
slavery being Herbert Aptheker and his struggle to report the resistence of 
slaves to
slavery , and Dubois.

On Radosh, we had a big bruhhaha on LBO-Talk about the diatribe you mention. We
dribbled a couple of the posts over here, but you might have missed them , or 
maybe
they were to piecemeal. If you want some of the discussion I still have some of 
the
posts.

At the same time we had LBO thread on Genovese , and his thesis of consent by 
the
slaves. It is quite disheartening that Genovese is now considered one of the 
two main
experts on the history of the South and slavery, because his consent thesis is 
the
anti-thesis of the great labor that Aptheker did, in the trenches and exiled 
from any
decent academic job.

I just mailed some of the exchange Lou started on this to Aptheker. We have 
regular
correspondence, so he may give some reply on it.