The Black People
Last week I wrote a post in which, among other things, I offered a tentative view on how the black people was formed:
[…] black people in America have been melded into a distinct entity, not by force of their dark skin, but rather by force of the shared experience that engaged, and engages them, brought about, partly and less now than in the past, because of that skin color.
Inherent in this view is the supposition that whatever unifying social identity the men who were brought as slaves to America had, they somehow lost afterwards. And therefore, as my view has it, if not for the shared experience that engaged, and engages them, they, being uniformly distinct from other Americans only in their skin color, would have assimilated seamlessly into the dominant American culture. This view is in discordance with the view rendered by Dean in the comments to the post:
“Black” is an ethnic identity and not merely a skin color, and once you understand that, a lot of the politics of the black community start making a lot more sense.
What leads me to tentatively disagree with our gracious host is my perception that American blacks lack any substantial African identity.
The first piece of evidence that lead me to this impression is that the representation of black slaves in early pop culture–their portrayal in Mark Twain’s ‘Huckleberry fin’ and in movies such as ‘Gone With the Wind’, to be specific –give no indication of a defining African identity such as, for example, the speaking of an African language.
I know that pop culture representation is not dispositive, but it is a start.
And the second and more powerful piece of evidence is the seeming lack of African identity among the black people I have known and among those black people who are and have been in the spotlight of American media. I know there are black people of American ancestry who dress in African garb, and call their children by African names, but it has long been my impression that this is more an attempt to ‘identify’ with one’s roots than an expression of a true cultural heritage.
With that said I will make one remark on candidate Obama; for what’s a blog post without political commentary?
As I see it, and I mentioned it my earlier post, men with black skin color can ‘choose’ one of three identities: He can choose to be a black American, an American black man or a plain old American with black skin. I do not believe this is a any sort of conscious determination made at a given point in time, such as one might make when, say, adopting a creed. Rather it is a choice that one makes by his way of life, and, most importantly, when educating his children.
The only thing that one can inarguably ascertain from Mr. Obama’s and his children’s twenty year relationship with the church formally headed by pastor Wright is the identity Mr. Obama chose for himself and his children.
Some American’s will have a problem with that choice, not necessarily because they have anything against men of black skin but rather because they have a problem with those men who identify with the identity of that church.
Subscribe to Dean's World by Email
18 comments
I’m sorry, Naftali, but this is all based on a logical fallacy. Lack of “any substantial African identity” does not equal lack of a common black American ethnic identity.
As Wikipedia says (until someone edits it):
The claim here — not that I’m necessarily saying it’s correct, but I think you’re missing it — is that black Americans have “common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioral or biological traits” and “cultural continuities over time” based NOT on their shared African heritage but more on their shared cultural heritage: for hundreds of years a status as isolated second-class citizens at best and slaves or just property at worst.
I’m not sure this is proven, but it’s definitely arguable: even though black Americans have been nominally citizens for a century and a half, they have been mostly segregated from the mainstream society for most of that time, allowing them to form and maintain a distinct black American ethnic identity even without a distinct African ethnic identity.
Martin, you beat me to it.
Naftali, this quote:
… is similarly logically challenged. There are a number of things that can be ascertained from this, and the most important one is that something led Obama to continue to sit in a church while vile, racist, anti-American insanity was being spewed.
What that something was is up for debate. Whether it was rank political ambition, or actual ideological agreement.
But I have not yet encountered a single reason that would satisfy my expectations of a man who would be President of this country.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..The real domestic terrorists
How is it Naftali, you wouldn’t respond to the last comment of your last post ?
Its quite possible a genuine dialogue could have ensued.
Culture, not race. Culture, not race. Culture, not race.
HankB
Martin,
I”ll think about that.
CosmicConservative,
I was so narrow in order to feel comfortable with the ‘inarguable’
adjective.
Mck,
Tommorow I will study your comment and respond.
Naftali:
Well, I think you got so narrow you squeezed all the sense out of it. I suppose you could argue that Obama’s choosing of the church MAY have been in part due to a desire for him to express an identity, but even that is pure supposition, and the option of rank political opportunism is still very much on the table.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..What I think of UFOs
Hank, when a “culture” expresses it’s identity primarily in terms of race, how do you so easily separate race from culture?
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..What I think of UFOs
When talking about race, racialism, racism and Western Civilization, this is one piece of scholarship to have under your belt:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Stein2.htm
Stalin refined and weaponized identity politics, and in part through the machinations of “black liberation theology” stalinists managed to set up a sort of perfect storm — a political doctrine devoted to non-assimilation, perpetual infantilization and special victim status.
The palestinian meme constructed by them operates much the same way.
CosmicCon -
Its at least partially rank opportunism, since Obama’s connected to at least one other vile preacher: Rev. James T. Meeks.
http://tinyurl.com/25ynlb
This one is both racist and anti-Gay and is very much part of Obama’s campaign, as he served as part of his exploratory committee and is a delegate for him. And Rezko rears his head as well.
I’ve argued for this crap being pattern for Obama before. He’s damaged goods. He has, by his own words, sought out the most radical figures and embraced their views. He is not a ‘unifier’ of any sort.
Willem,
I read about half and will finish up a little later. It’s extremely insightful, just as you say. Thanks.
Naftali,
Of course, the same Wikipedia article says:
There’s a defining point somewhere.
If five cousins and second cousins hang out and eat the same food and listen to the same music in their teens, they’re not an ethnic group.
If 100 million people over 100 generations occupy the same land isolated from much outside contact and create distinct foods and music and literature and architecture, they’re clearly an ethnic group.
But how long does it take and how much isolation and what cultural indicators are necessary to indicate an ethnic group? Does it make an ethnic group to have a couple of centuries of tens of millions of people embedded within a larger group but significantly segregated and forming distinct linguistic and musical and literary and culinary traditions that cross over with the larger society’s but are still identifiably distinct?
Martin more or less gave my answer: Naftali doesn’t disagree with me, and I’m a bit mystified as to why he thinks he does. Indeed, I have long been slightly irritated by the term “African American” because it’s meaningless. There is no single “African” identity. If you go to Africa, or meet people from Africa, you’ll find that they rarely (except in places like the nation of South Africa) view each other or themselves as “black” or “white” or “brown” but rather they identify with their nation, tribe, language, religion–i.e. one of the many quite distinct ethnic identities found throughout Africa, which is a very large continent and not a nation.
Most black African Americans don’t have any particular African tribe or culture they can identify with. “Black” is a distinctly American ethnic identity, one that black people from the Caribbean and/or Africa generally do not share. Indeed, if you’ve spent much time in the American black community as an outsider, you’ll notice that there’s a certain resentment of blacks from Africa, because they *don’t* share so many of those cultural beliefs, habits, and customs. This is where the comments that Obama “isn’t black enough” come from: he grew up largely outside of black culture, and whatever ties he has in the black community are ties he had to actively pursue and develop as an adult. Mostly, he did not grow up in black culture, and doesn’t exhibit the traits of one who did. I suspect that he in part was drawn to radical black politics as part of his own search as a young man for his own identity–and unlike Sean and others, I see him as being genuine in hoping he can serve as a bridge and unifier between those poles.
CosCon,
Hank, when a “culture” expresses it’s identity primarily in terms of race, how do you so easily separate race from culture?
Good question. Sure, there’s a lot of overlap between race and culture. But most races have multiple cultures and sub-cultures. It’s a bit of a matrix, and it is hard to separate them out. It’s still doable, though.
Black folks, like most folks, want the good things America has to offer (good jobs, safe schools, safe streets, a nice home, etc, etc).
The problem within the black culture is a sub-culture of young, urban, trouble-makers, mostly without Dads, who don’t value reading books, but do value vulgar music. And these kids, for some strange reason, seem to set a lot of cultural trends up the ladder, so to speak.
It ain’t anti-black to point out where the trouble is. Look at Detroit — 30% graduate rate. How employable are those 70% of high school drop-outs gonna ever be? How marriable are they gonna be?
My belief is that a lotta hard working black folks would love it, if we, as a nation, would properly identify and diagnose these problems and tackle them together. Yes, the charlatans like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will balk, but they always do.
HankB
Hank: Detroit’s High School graduation rate is actually 25%.
Think about that for a moment, Dean. Trent Lott was pilloried because he SAID something awkward at Strom Thurmond’s 150th B-day, that the left thought was racially tinged.
Yes, stupid thing to say, Trent. But, meanwhile, 75% of kids in Detroit can’t even graduate high school!!!
No SATs, no personal statements, no Honor’s classes, no resumes, not even straight C’s in gym. Latin? Greek? Mathematics? — Not even on the radar screen.
Really, really sad when you focus on it. A factory that produces unemployable, anti-social young kids — and a left-wing, inner-city political establishment that props it up.
Oh well. Can’t solve the world’s problems on a blog. God Bless.
There but for the Grace of God, go I.
Still a great country, though, despite Detroit!
HB
Actually Mck, you raise there an angle that i hadn’t really thought about. After I think it through some more and come to some coherent tentative thoughts on and in response to it, I will write a post entitled ‘the white people?’. I expect to do it tomorrow evening.
[…] part one and two of what has become a three part series I argued, tentatively, that despite there being no […]
You must log in to post a comment.