Max Sawicky wrote:
>
> Definitions are
> 'good,' I would say, if they are useful. What
> would be a useful definition of populism? I
> say such a definition would focus on what
> progressive, organically whole movement can
> be discerned in the U.S. in the 19th century,
> anchored around suffering agrarians.
Provided that those suffering agrarians were defined as primarily black. Any 19th century movement that did not make the condition of black americans central to its politics was at least implicitly and in most cases aggressively reactionary.
Carrol