Thats really interesting for how severely differently it was presented in another explicitly leftist book I read. I was aware that it was strongly motivated by the genocidal interests of settlers but it was presented to me as effecticely a coalition between poor frontiersmen, indentured servents, and eventually slaves against wealthier colonials who refused to use state power to protect settlers. This movement was then coopted by Bacon but not began by him. The story as I understood it went something like this. In the beginning it was the frontiersmen (in some case legally landless), indentured servents, and slave aligned by their class interests as settlers threatened by indigenous resistance rebelling on their own for the purpose of not dying. Bacon, a wealthier colonial, comes in and says yeah fuck the natives I got your back and gives structure to the preexisting political unrests but is then successfully repressed by the colonial hierarchy led by Berkeley. Leading to stronger racial distinctions and decreased use of white indentured servitude as to avoid another such coalition forming across racial lines.

I'd have to look into it more but I don't think this is an entirely unfair interpretation. I'd have to look more into African participation especially as I had never heard they were only part of it very late into the rebellion. Scholarship may have changed since 1983.