Add new comment

while I really like the premise of looking to blackness for insight in order to "[parallel] yet [depart] from, as well as [stand] in contrast to, this anarchist history — an anarchic 'shadow history,' if you will, a para-anarchism that anarchizes anarchism," the author does severe disservice to their own provocation by continuing to emphasize and carry the canonical baggage that they seemingly desire to differentiate, or anarchize, in the first place.

"Anarchic meditation on the terrors of the state begin in the right direction, but they fall short of taking the critique as deeply as it demands." a vague but perhaps fair point, but to then follow up uncritically with a concluding summary, "[anarcho-Blackness: the primordial mutiny] concerns what Michael Hardt, reading Foucault’s reading of Marx, calls a priority of the resistance to power," renders their point null in void: opting to instead add the obligatory dash of academic pandering for Marxist colleagues to nod their heads over. hard to stray from that "weight of white — and cis male — supremacy" I guess. theyre better off sticking with Hartman's riotous girls.

"Not to mention that, save, really, for Goldman, anarchists did not really think about the specificities of gender." by not acknowledging (intentionally or not) other early anarchists challenging gender normativity (Voltairine de Cleyre, many in the free love movement like Emile Armand, and Itō Noe, just to name a few of the more well knowns) and injecting queerness into anarchist discourse (John Henry Mackay, Der Eigene and company, just to name a few of the more well knowns), again weakens their argument and prompts an eyeroll or two.