And it required race. Not as a rationalization that arrived after the economic arrangements were in place. As the prior condition that made those arrangements possible. Race did not justify the plantation. Race produced it.
W.E.B. Du Bois, in Black Reconstruction in America (1935), extended this analysis into something that cuts close: why white workers, who shared many material interests with Black workers, so consistently chose racial solidarity over class solidarity. The system, he argued, offered white workers something real — not a paycheck but a social wage. Access to the category of the fully human, the legally protected, the politically visible. Freedom from the most brutal forms of discipline. The status of the person whose suffering counts. Du Bois called these the wages of whiteness.
They were real wages. And accepting them cost something. To claim the wages of whiteness required performing an identification with the class above — with the employers, the owners, people whose material interests sharply diverged from white workers' own — rather than with the class alongside. It required treating Black workers not as people with shared interests but as the thing you were not. The acceptance degraded the people who accepted it. It required maintaining, daily, a solidarity that worked against them economically in exchange for a status that protected them socially. The system offered that trade because it needed the working class fragmented. It got what it paid for.
One motion: gather one category into being by casting the other out of the human.
This is not an argument about white pathology. It is an argument about structural incentives. The system is organized to make racial solidarity more immediately valuable than class solidarity. That organization has never been dismantled.
In 1694, Portuguese colonial forces destroyed Palmares — a quilombo in northeast Brazil, a community of escaped enslaved people that had maintained independence for nearly a century. At its height it held around twenty thousand people, governed by a king who ruled in council with elected representatives from each settlement, organized around communal agriculture and collective defense, trading with neighboring villages on its own terms. It lasted through constant military pressure, through repeated assault, because it had built the governance structures that made collective action possible. Ostrom would recognize it: bounded community, self-developed rules, monitoring, conflict resolution, graduated response to violation. A commons built under conditions explicitly designed to prevent it. That is magic in the strict sense — singularities composing into something the system said could not exist. One act: rupture the plantation's code, live the new world as if it were already here.
Palmares is not a footnote to the Black radical tradition. It is a demonstration of what that tradition is: people classified as outside the human, building rigorous collective governance because their position forced clarity about what collective self-governance required.
Palmares was one form. The continent it remembered held many more — too many to name here, each governing itself in its own shape. A few, to show the range.
The Igbo, in what is now southeastern Nigeria, governed themselves for centuries without a centralized state — village councils, age-grade societies, women's market authorities, dispute resolution distributed by design. The Akan polities of West Africa held land matrilineally, the wealth attaching to the lineage rather than the individual. The Kingdom of Kongo administered an extended polity through a layered council system that predated Portuguese contact in 1483 and outlived the early disruption by generations. The Mbuti of the Ituri forest lived by gift exchange and consensus. No chiefs. No enclosure. The refusal that protects the commoning.
These were not preparations for Europe's arrival. They were what the continent was when it arrived — working systems with rules for use, transfer, and dispute. Ostrom would recognize them: bounded community, self-developed rules, monitoring, conflict resolution. The shapes vary. The architecture of a working commons is the same.
At Standing Rock in 2016, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and thousands of water protectors from Indigenous nations across the continent stood in the path of the Dakota Access Pipeline to defend the Missouri River and treaty land. The state's response was water cannons in freezing temperatures, rubber bullets, mass arrest. I have friends who were there. They have scars. They can speak for themselves — I gesture to them in love and solidarity. Anyone reading should seek their words. They are the work embodied. What Standing Rock demonstrated, at a scale the world watched, is that the defense of land as a living relationship rather than a commodity is not historical. It is ongoing, right now, maintained at enormous personal cost by people who understand something about land that the pipeline's engineers and investors do not.
In the Weelaunee forest in Atlanta — the forest defenders call it Weelaunee, its Muscogee name, not the city's name for it — a community of people occupied old-growth forest to prevent a police training facility from being built there. They called it Stop Cop City. The state's response included the first use of domestic terrorism charges against forest defenders in American history. Tortuguita, a defender, was killed by police in January 2023. The forest defense continues. Here again: people placing their bodies between a living ecosystem and its destruction, understanding that the forest is not a resource to be managed but a community to be defended. That understanding is the preconquest consciousness Sorenson documented, still alive, reasserting itself in an old-growth stand outside Atlanta. Abjuration, cast for the commons — the body itself the boundary.
The Tzutujil refused corrugated metal roofing when it became available — not out of conservatism but from a completely lucid understanding of what they would lose. The traditional thatched roof needed to be repaired every year. The community gathered to do it. Neighbors came. Some thatched, some cooked, some fed children, some argued about the right way. Nobody called it community building. It was roofing. But through the roofing, the web of relationship was rewoven. The obligations were renewed. The community updated its knowledge of itself — who was strong this year, who needed help, who had learned something new. That is what the refusal protected.
A metal roof lasts twenty years. During those twenty years, the occasion does not exist. The roof is replaced with something more durable. The relationship is replaced with nothing.
They recognized the enclosure of the occasion and refused it. The roof was not a product. It was an infrastructure for the return — the ongoing, annual, embodied practice through which the community reconstituted itself by attending to each of its members.