The American Crucible: Slavery, Emancipation and Human Rights, Robin Blackburn, London: Verso, 2011

2012 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 199-212
Author(s):  
Charles Post

Abstract Plantation slavery in the New World, in particular its relationship to the emergence of capitalism in Europe and North America, has long been a subject of debate and discussion among historians and social scientists. While there are literally thousands of monographs studying various aspects of chattel slavery in the US South, the Caribbean and Brazil, only a handful of works attempt to provide a synthetic account of its rise and decline from the sixteenth through nineteenth centuries. Few scholars, on the Left or Right, have made as profound a contribution to such a history as Robin Blackburn. Blackburn’s latest work, The American Crucible: Slavery, Emancipation and Human Rights, does not simply summarise and update his earlier work, but extends his analysis to the rise and decline of ‘second slavery’ in nineteenth-century Cuba, Brazil and the US South. The American Crucible provides a multi-causal explanation of the origins and abolition of New World plantation slavery, examining the complex interactions between the rise of capitalism, political crises in the metropolitan countries, the transformation of popular and elite attitudes toward slavery, and the struggles of the slaves themselves. However, Blackburn’s inability to grapple with the specific structure and dynamics of capitalist and slave social-property relations, and their changing historical relationship, weakens key elements of his analysis.

2011 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 129-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Post

Abstract The origins of the US Civil War have long been a central topic of debate among historians, both Marxist and non-Marxist. John Ashworth’s Slavery, Capitalism, and Politics in the Antebellum Republic is a major Marxian contribution to a social interpretation of the US Civil War. However, Ashworth’s claim that the War was the result of sharpening political and ideological – but not social and economic – contradictions and conflicts between slavery and capitalism rests on problematic claims about the rôle of slave-resistance in the dynamics of plantation-slavery, the attitude of Northern manufacturers, artisans, professionals and farmers toward wage-labour, and economic restructuring in the 1840s and 1850s. An alternative social explanation of the US Civil War, rooted in an analysis of the specific path to capitalist social-property relations in the US, locates the War in the growing contradiction between the social requirements of the expanded reproduction of slavery and capitalism in the two decades before the War.


2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 130-134

This section, updated regularly on the blog Palestine Square, covers popular conversations related to the Palestinians and the Arab-Israeli conflict during the quarter 16 November 2017 to 15 February 2018: #JerusalemIstheCapitalofPalestine went viral after U.S. president Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and announced his intention to move the U.S. embassy there from Tel Aviv. The arrest of Palestinian teenager Ahed Tamimi for slapping an Israeli soldier also prompted a viral campaign under the hashtag #FreeAhed. A smaller campaign protested the exclusion of Palestinian human rights from the agenda of the annual Creating Change conference organized by the US-based National LGBTQ Task Force in Washington. And, UNRWA publicized its emergency funding appeal, following the decision of the United States to slash funding to the organization, with the hashtag #DignityIsPriceless.


The first book to address the links between sovereign debt and human rights. Authors are renowned jurists, economics, historians and social scientists, all of which examine the links between debt and human rights from a variety of angles. The book is structured around five basic parts. The first sets out the historical, political and economic context of sovereign debt. Indeed, without understanding how debt accumulates, why it is necessary and to whom it is owed, it is impossible to fully comprehend the full range of arguments about its impact on human rights. The second part effectively addresses the human rights dimension of the three types of sovereign lenders, namely inter-governmental financial institutions (IFIs) (chiefly those from the World Bank group and those within the EU framework), sovereigns and private lenders. Part II examines also debt-influencing mechanisms, and with the exception of vulture funds that will be analysed in Part V, here we examine the role of export credits, credit rating agencies and bilateral investment treaties. Part III goes on to make the link between debt and the manner in which the accumulation of sovereign debt violates human rights. From there, Part IV examines some of the conditions imposed by structural adjustment programs on debtor states with a view to servicing their debt. All of these conditionalities have been shown to exacerbate the debt itself at the expense also of economic sovereignty. It is thus explained in Part IV that such measures are not only injurious to the entrenched rights of peoples, but that moreover they exacerbate the borrower’s economic situation. Finally, Part V addresses the range of practical responses to sovereign debt, such as odious debt claims, unilateral repudiation, establishment of debt audit committees and others.


2021 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 174-177
Author(s):  
Karl Aiginger

AbstractAfter President Trump’s departure, many expected that the transatlantic partnership would return to its previous state with the US playing a leading role. This article challenges that view. Instead, a new world order is foreseen, with different partnerships and spheres of influence. Europe can decide whether it wants to remain small and homogeneous or a larger but also more heterogenous Union that leads in welfare indicators such as life expectancy, fighting poverty and limiting climate change. Expanding this lead and communicating its uniqueness can empower Europe to combine enlargement and deepening, which appears unlikely without changes in governance and self-confidence.


2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 541-555
Author(s):  
Juan Pablo Scarfi

AbstractThe Monroe Doctrine was originally formulated as a US foreign policy principle, but in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries it began to be redefined in relation to both the hemispheric policy of Pan-Americanism and the interventionist policies of the US in Central America and the Caribbean. Although historians and social scientists have devoted a great deal of attention to Latin American anti-imperialist ideologies, there was a distinct legal tradition within the broader Latin American anti-imperialist traditions especially concerned with the nature and application of the Monroe Doctrine, which has been overlooked by international law scholars and the scholarship focusing on Latin America. In recent years, a new revisionist body of research has emerged exploring the complicity between the history of modern international law and imperialism, as well as Third World perspectives on international law, but this scholarship has begun only recently to explore legal anti-imperialist contributions and their legacy. The purpose of this article is to trace the rise of this Latin American anti-imperialist legal tradition, assessing its legal critique of the Monroe Doctrine and its implications for current debates about US exceptionalism and elastic behaviour in international law and organizations, especially since 2001.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document