I am not particularly astounded by how many times the discussion of the merits of the N word arise. That is because people have fundamentally not recognized the absolute validity of the solution, which is not to use it if you're a civil person and consider everyone who does use it to be uncivil. Simple. Here's another twist on the debate:
"Leaving aside, for the moment, my thoughts on the merits of the n-word debate, I thought I'd suggest an alternative linguistic ban -- a ban of a phrase that I think is far more destructive to the psychological, emotional, and aspirational lives of Black folk than the dreaded n-word. The phrase? White people. I tend to believe that Black people use White folks as a benchmark entirely too much in our social, political, and cultural lives. Are Black kids learning? Do too many Black people have AIDS? Are too many Black men unemployed? Are Black features beautiful? Our answers to these and a host of other questions informing our quality of life too often turn, first, on an assessment of how we compare to White folks. That is debilitating to our sense of esteem, as it implies the inability to generate, and hold ourselves accountable against, self-directed standards of behavior and performance. I have two children, and I want them to do nothing less (and nothing more) than to achieve absolutely everything they're capable of achieving. Whether that means they out-perform White children is utterly irrelevant to me (indeed, it's less than irrelevant; it's simply not even a part of my thinking). I fear that too often folks of color seem on a permanent race to catch White folks -- irrespective of whether White folks, in any particular circumstance, are worth catching in the first place. I therefore propose a friendly amendment to the pending petitions to ban the n-world: Let's ban the w-words instead."
Wrong.
The obvious black cult-nat answer to this proposal is that we should, instead of focusing on what whitefolks do is that we should focus on what blackfolks do. That is essentially solopsist, because the black caste decides and determines what is properly black, and that always ends up degraded. Furthermore, the very idea of ignoring whites insures that one is unable to distinguish between them. The end result is that the proudest of the proud blacks end up merely being the top crabs in the same old barrel. Their refusal to assess themselves in terms of anyone but blacks makes for an increasingly hostile environment between different groups of blacks all of which are irrelevant to the world at large.
The Old School solution is to keep up with your own family tree and work the hierarchy. Lean on the strongest branches, put down roots and watch your seeds. It is impossible to do right by the black caste - they are those left behind, and in the long view Americans of African descent will look back on them as their true ancestors.
Here are two related posts that I think are worthwhile to check out.
The 'obsessiveness' of black culture in its constant comparison to white, is part and parcel of the quintessential American desire to keep up with the Joneses. It's just that for black Americans, all the Joneses are white, and we keep jonsing to be in their shoes. In the wake of the Civil Rights Movement, blacks have a surfiet of desire and expectation. The existence of a black middle class is not enough. We want Oscars, we want never to be insulted even in passing or unintentionally. We want Affirmative Action for the sons and daughters of college-educated blacks. We generate these desires not because we are obsessed with race, it has simply always been the way we express our ambition in America: to live as well as the white man.
So what's left behind? Hypersegregated areas, non-white, poor, bad schools, weak economic base. The internal third world, some with folks who are incapable of seeing success in any other terms than 'acting white'.
- How integrated is Integrated
I am oriented at looking at the question of integration from the standpoint of the extent to which it serves the aims of Black Power. This is to say that if whitefolks have reserved for themselves objectively superior public accommodations and private facilities over the course of Jim Crow, integration means making those resources available to blacks in order to further their own interests. I take it for granted that there will be both meritocratic and social hurdles for 'first blacks' to overcome in taking those opportunities. The proof of such black achievements stand as testament to the falsification of racist essentialism and provide existential support to other blacks who might follow, but the primary benefit goes to those who make use of the superior resources.
I think too much is made of the secondary benefits. These are mental blocks that could be overcome without role models. I find it very disappointing to find the material primary benefits to blacks themselves dismissed when the symbolic benefits are not present to everyone's satisfaction. For example, the achievement of Dr. Rice as a black Secretary of State is dismissed because some might still find a racist reason to mock her abilities. The achievement of the first black male opera singer is dismissed because most blacks don't care for opera. Someone can always invent some excuse to dismiss black achievement because it's not popular or doesn't symbolize something lionized by some political point of view. I say none of this should diminish the achievement itself - which is the fulfillment of some black person's dream.
Recent Comments