The White People?
In part one and two of what has become a three part series I argued, tentatively, that despite there being no ‘white people’ identity, as such, historical circumstances in America have formed a ‘black people’ out of the descendants of those who were brought to America as slaves:
…..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.
In the final comment to part one, long time “Dean’s World” contributer, McKiernan, suggested, if I understood him correctly, that I rethink my rejection of a white peoplehood. After all, can it not be said, using McKiernan’s rewording of my paragraph, that
white people in America have been melded into a distinct entity, not by force of their white 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.
Well, that certainly gave me a lot to think about, and here is my tentative conclusion:
Is skin color important or not? The answer is somewhat ironic: Yes and No. Skin color is perhaps the most overt distinguishing characteristic a man has. And I suppose at a basic level individuals, living in an environment with people of appearance so strikingly different, cannot help but identify with others of similar appearance. It follows, then, that at some basic level black men and white men are consciencely distinct from one another; white men and the black other, black men and the white other.
That is at a most basic level, however. Group identity, though, can and does center around notions that are not basic to human nature. A creed, a nationhood, and a sport team are common examples of non-basic centers of group identity. In fact, for most of history and in most places this latter, less basic and more notional type of identity has grouped men with other men and distinguished them from yet other men. This is the stuff of the groupings of men in environments free of other men readily distinguishable one from another in any basic sensual way. This latter type of identity, more notional than basic, can often transcend basic distinctions between men, viscerally unifying under its banner men who differ one from another in very basic ways. The sport team identity is, perhaps, the most readily accessible of the aforementioned examples.
So the question is, really, of what kind of identity is the American? And the way I see it, even to early Americans, who saw the black men in their midst as property, American identity was not centered on whiteness; just because blacks were seen as different doesn’t necessarily mean whiteness per say had any great role in white Americans’ notional conception of themselves. In the whole of their daily lives, other than in their dealings with what at that time was seen as a specie of property, whiteness played no role whatever. Why, after all, would your identity center upon that which distinguishes you from a specie of property. And, why, after all, would your identity center on something so irrelevant to anything as skin color. It is perhaps for this reason–that the American identity was centered around notions not based on skin color–that many Americans felt a measure of guilt in connection with their treatment of slaves even back then. And it is perhaps for this reason that in a relatively short span of history, it became obvious to all thinking men that I have encountered, even in print, that American identity is inclusive of all skin colors, creeds and sport teams. Indeed our ‘modern’ attitudes in this regard were presaged by the writings of the founders of the nation itself; in the very words they used to describe themselves and the American nation.
Black men, however, underwent something unusual. As black slaves whose very lives centered around their white masters, and then as black men, an oppressed minority in the midst of a white America, their skin color was the center of their new forming identity. They–in American and not in Africa, however ironically–became the black people–for perhaps the first time in history, a people whose identity centered around skin color.
So now where do we stand? White American kids grow up rightly learning that, however basic, skin color is irrelevant. They grow up feeling a unity with black people that contradicts very natural, very basic feelings of separateness. The group with which they identify transcends, however imperfectly, racial divides and includes men of all creeds and men of all colors.
It is, indeed, somewhat sad that there will be for the foreseeable future basic distinctions between men that contribute nothing to their true character, but what can be done?
What can be done is to reinforce that notional identity that transcends the basic and unifies us all. Base Humanism as a uniter is a fantasy.
It is also sad that a black American whose identity centers around his skin color cannot help but see white men in a similar vain: A sad blog post by a great writer from whose perspective most can gain.
The Black men who do not buy into a transcending American identity, but rather see a White and Black America, can never unite with white men in the way white men can unite with them. Which is why, according to them, all we can hope for is ‘equality’.
If America wants a president who can further unite black and white men, it better choose an American with black skin and not an American Black president. Thomas Sowell would do the trick.
Subscribe to Dean's World by Email
16 comments
[…] Not a news summary. Posted by Naftali @ 4:16 am | Trackback Share This […]
Yep. Further, I think that if somebody was able to fully examine the actuality of cultural divisions they’d find the real divides being more economic and geographic, with the ethnicity or race or whatever being more incidental.
This is a good post when taken as a meditation on the problem.
However, and I mean this constructively so as to encourage further posts, I think you may have missed some history that you might have utilised in reflecting on McK’s challenge.
To put it succinctly, you missed the opportunity to examine the forging of a White identity in relation to their early experiences with the Native Americans.
Its true that ‘race’ as a term didn’t have the same meaning then as it does now. Early English settlers, for one, were more concerned with ’staying English’ than anything else, and English would be what they considered their race.
It wasn’t skin-color based. One can easily understand that when examining the ways the various Europeans interacted with the Natives. The French, just as white as the English, traded on a near-equal basis with the Red Men, as did the Dutch. The Spanish, however, enslaved them early on.
The English were predominant here and their attitudes and responses eventually developed into the hardened racism of earlier times, so they are the ones to examine closest.
I don’t think they were racist right off towards the Natives - that came later. At the time they simply regarded the Natives as “savages” and a problem to be done away with while using their black slaves to clear lands.
This long and rich history of many peoples struggling for place in a new world is where it all started and, I think, may get closer to the quick of McK’s challenge.
I like the comments by urthshu, hadn’t considered Early American history in this context, but it makes a lit of sense.
I do not, however, understand why holding on to the “black identity” of opression and slavery makes any more sense than white America trying to get back to the Early Am persepective.
There is no gain, only loss in embracing victim-hood.
I’d like someone to explain what constitutes “black culture” in America. I don’t mean what caused it, or why it exists, but rather what are the characteristics of “black culture,” and why are those characteristics so (apparently) incompatible with American culture.
Freeven’s last blog post..Leaving No Child Left Behind behind
They’re not “incompatible with American culture.” It is, in fact, one of several identifiable sub-cultures within American culture.
And the reason there isn’t a “white culture” is because, well, white people have developed a multitude of cultures. If you don’t think so, spend a week in San Francisco, then spend a week in New York, then spend a week in Nashville, then spend a week in Idaho. Or just spend some time in Louisiana, where you’ll notice at least three different white cultures in fairly short order.
There are also sub-cultures within the black community in America, but as it’s a smaller community that’s concentrated in certain key areas (not unlike the Jews) they’re more easily identified; rural blacks are very different from urban blacks, for example.
The problem with discussing this is that it gets people’s passions inflamed. First there are those raised with the liberal idea that we’re not supposed to notice skin color, that it’s completely irrelevant. That’s a very liberal and very moral value. It’s also bogus, because you can’t have people who’ve been here for many generations who’ve been segregated and kept apart just because of their skin color and have them *not* develop their own culture. On the flip side, black people tend to resent white people examining their culture, for a variety of reasons that all basically boil down to “it’s none of your business.”
Take, for example, the widespread rage in the ’90s over the subject of so-called “ebonics.” Probably if some fool hadn’t invented that term there would be no conflict over it, as all it is is Black Vernacular English, which scientists who study language (they’re called linguists) have been describing and analyzing for decades. Remember when Johnny Cochrane angrily insisted that you can’t tell someone’s black just by talking to them on the phone? Bullcrap. Yes you can–if they speak Black Vernacular English, since few if any people who aren’t black talk that way.
It’s so hard to discuss these things because you’ve got people from all points of view who get angry for different reasons over it. Too bad, it impedes clear communication.
It occurs to me that most Jews probably have an easier time understanding this because most American Jews are white, and yet they clearly see themselves as having a separate culture, or two or three different cultures, within the United States. There’s the hip urban/Hollywood/New York upper middle class Reform Jewish culture, then there’s the very conservative Orthodox Jewish culture, and they’re very different but each recognizes the other as undeniably Jewish.
Dean, all well and good. But I’m still looking for someone to give me an explanation of what constitutes “black culture.” If the answer is, you wouldn’t understand because you’re not black or it’s none of your business because you’re not black, then the call for a conversation shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Freeven’s last blog post..Leaving No Child Left Behind behind
Dean said: First there are those raised with the liberal idea that we’re not supposed to notice skin color, that it’s completely irrelevant. That’s a very liberal and very moral value.
I’d say this is no longer true. These days, conservatives are more apt to be the ones to whom color doesn’t matter, while liberals seem determined to draw racial distinctions every chance they get.
On the flip side, black people tend to resent white people examining their culture, for a variety of reasons that all basically boil down to “it’s none of your business.”
And there’s the rub. Whites righteously ask why they should continue to give of their time and treasure while not being able to examine where their support is going.
I’m inclined to agree with Frederick Douglass:
Freeven’s last blog post..Leaving No Child Left Behind behind
“You wouldn’t understand, it’s a black thing” is a slogan, and kinda silly. But, you want me to describe American black culture to you? Well let’s see, first off it has its own language/creole, known by the goofy name of ebonics but by the more rational standard it’s just African American Vernacular English or Black Vernacular English.
It has its own dress code, some of which meshes with the larger society as a whole, and some of which doesn’t.
In fact, I’m not even going to bother to keep going with this, as it’s a waste of time. Watch any black comedian, or hang out in black neighborhoods, or work in a company where blacks are the majority, and you’ll get it. It’s a sub-culture all its own, like the cowboy culture in Texas, easy to stereotype, easy to see people going overboard with, but you have to be almost willfully blind not to see that it’s there.
I’m not even going to bother to keep going with this, as it’s a waste of time. . . you have to be almost willfully blind not to see that it’s there.
I’m not arguing it isn’t there. But terms like black culture come up a lot in discussions of race, poverty, social policy, etc. Seems to me, the more specific we can be in our terminology, the more we’ll get from those discussions. Yet no one ever seems to explain what specific characteristics of black culture they are talking about. A lot of people talk and dress funny, so I don’t find those particular characteristics very helpful.
Freeven’s last blog post..Al Gore is right: It is a crisis!
Look, saying there’s such a thing as Black American/African-American culture is not the same as cheap multi-culti dialog about how all cultures are equally valuable, or an excuse not to expect kids to learn standard mainstream colloquial English, etc. It’s simply a matter of recognizing what is so manifestly obvious: the vernacular they speak, the general attitude toward religion (blacks in America are much more churchgoing than their white counterparts, and are overwhelmingly of Baptist or other charismatic/evangelical heritage), traditional and modern black music (funk, rap, hip-hop, jazz, or blues, depending on what era you look at), and a whole bunch of other things.
“It’s a black thing, you wouldn’t understand” is just a sort of snarky line that some people get too hung up on. In fact there’s little or nothing about black culture in the US that is truly difficult to understand, *if* you look at it objectively and realize that it’s *normal* for sub-groups to construct their own sub-culture, some more than others.
So to me, I’m still not understanding the question. Is the question whether or not black American culture is healthy? I’d say, and I know quite a few who would agree with me, that it’s very functional and very healthy in some areas, but this community also has problems, some of which the wider society as a whole can help with but some of which has to come from within.
Saying there’s such a thing as black culture should be a no-brainer: duh, of course it exists. And recognizing it doesn’t mean a squishy “kumbaya, everything is equal in our glowing rainbow multi-culti happyland” nonsense. Either extreme is bad, if you ask me.
Dean, you are spouting a bigot line. “Black culture” is limiting and not accurate. There are LOTS of black cultures, same as white. Identiyfing one “flavor” of black culture as representing (1) all black people, or (2) all groups of black people is stereotyping at its worst.
P Mike: Countless African Americans, and scholars, and sociologists, and anthropologists, and linguists, would completely disagree with you. You’re just having a kneejerk reactionary-liberal response. African-America dialectical English is well documented and is separate from the many white variations; black musical forms are easily identifiable; the Harlem Renaissance was a genuine literary and cultural movement; the black segregation experience was completely real to anyone born black in the United States in the 1950s or earlier, and still exerts real effects on their descendants.
It is no more “racist” to identify the very real existence of a shared black American culture than to identify that there is such a thing as darker skin in some black people than others. It’s just a fact. Indeed, it points to the very reality of black American culture that we accept that there are “black people” with different skin colors, since for a wide variety of reasons, both black people AND white people consider anyone of mixed ancestry to be “black.” How do they get to be that way? Mostly, by choosing to identify as black, or being born that way. From a genetic perspective, they are no more “black” than they are “white” or “asian” or whatever else their non-black parents are. Indeed, the vast majority of black people in America have multiple non-black ancestors; that’s because the identification of “black” is cultural in the United States, and is *not* based in any firm sense on genetics.
[…] have placed On Protestantism and The White People into our Best Discussions category. Although I haven’t figured out yet with this new software […]
Oddly, I am not a liberal.
RE: African-America dialectical English is well documented and is separate from the many white variations; black musical forms are easily identifiable; the Harlem Renaissance was a genuine literary and cultural movement; the black segregation experience was completely real to anyone born black in the United States in the 1950s or earlier, and still exerts real effects on their descendants.
I’ve lived in Chicago, South Carolina, Kansas, Tennessee and Mississippi, and black people in each place I have lived have different accents, different perspectives, and different ways of dealing with white America. The Harlem experience is foreign to black people in Jackson Miss. There are probably a dozen “black musical forms” endemic to specific locations. Segregation has not been completely resolved in some of the South like Port Gison Miss where the public school system is >90% black, and the whites attend a private school.
I know a LOT of black people who do not embrace Quanza (and a lot that do), I lived for a while in Charleston where (actually nearby) a distinct black culture and dialect unique in the world developed, I worked for a black man who was educated in a Jesuit school in Chicago — I worked for him in Mississippi, and he did not fit into the Miss. black culture, eventually leaving for a place where his black experience fit better.
There is no single flavor of black culture that represents all. People who claim there is generally (not always) have a vested interest in stereotyping “black.” Like goofy liberals and black leaders trying to rally support for black victim-hoodship.
You must log in to post a comment.