I propose the following psychological misdirection. "Blacks will overcome as a people".
I began to think about this last week, and the origins of the idea are a bit deeper still. Not long ago I began to suspect sociology. I have a problem with sociology in that I wonder if its analyses can ever be disassociated from socialist government intervention. I wonder if the politics of viewing the quality of life of people can be divorced from the appeal of programmatic solutions. And thusly I wonder if black politics itself can ever be driven from any other sort of appeal.
Obviously, I have a beef with statistical morality. There is something fundamentally slanted about the use of sociological observations which drive inquiries into the ways blackfolks live. My beef goes way back to 'Angry White Math' and was supported by Ellis Cose' argument about black responsibility in his Rage of a Privileged Class.
So the other day I put together four answer videos for a young guy named Chris who has got the fever for black unity. Unfortunately only one of the recordings worked, and I rather rushed through it so as to get it under the ten minute rule of YouTube. It's here:
It occurred to me that I might put together a new version of a Black Mental Liberation radio show. I'm rather convinced that Afronerd might be up for such an endeavor. That would be to disabuse folks of the political fantasies anchored on the prospects for black social and political unity towards the purposes of economic uplift. I certainly don't want to give folks the impression that economic uplift is a bad idea or that there is something fundamentally wrong with black self-love, but I would like to save people the grief of trying to get a grip on the politics of unity. I do so especially because I keep coming back to its failures and the anguish it puts folks through, as well as the lies that quest supports.
But the trope that has got my attention now is the idea that DuBois, MLK and Booker T all had a common fantasy in mind which was that the improvement of the Negro would ultimately be a group endeavor and that it would not involve war.
I start with the Frayser Conjecture which is this. Nobody took Japan seriously and there was probably no greater racial animus sustained by America than that against the 'Jap'. It wasn't until the Japanese started killing white Americans that white Americans began to respect them. Now we're great friends. There are a number of shortcuts in this conjecture but it does stand to reason. I once wrote:
All I've been saying, for years now, is that the reason black politics is stagnant is because they girded up for war and got peace, and now all they know is the rhetoric of conflict, but not the subtleties of social power. Today, all black partisans can do is yelp about the past and injustices that they have no intention of dealing with, not only because they lack the capability of bringing their foes to heel, but primarily because they are incapable of rallying any significant black majorities or non-black coalitions to their cause. If the cause of African Americans were so desperate, it would be recognized as such by human beings everywhere. But it cannot be sold because the situation is not dire.
So the question facing black politics is whether it can survive the change.
There is no revolution to be had. There are no black politics of war. There are only black bourgie complaints which are insufficient to arise any passions save those whose stock in trade is bamboozlement. There are no black soldiers. There is no black war. There are only black politicians on black soapboxes praying for both.
But there is no war to be had, really. There is only a kind of self-defeating anger and subversion, a low level roar that distracts many African Americans from participation in their elevation within the nation. Elevation is, of course, a relative value. Nobody's soul is going to be blemished because they do not rise in society so long as they don't corrupt themselves. But it seems to me that it is ultimately a kind of vain self-sacrifice to don the garb of righteousness and make oneself a foil for the entire nation. Surely MLK was able to do it once upon a time, but I'm afraid those are the wrong footsteps.
If anyone asked me, prior to about 20 years ago what MLKs greatest flaw was, I'd wonder where they were coming from. What a strange question to ask. But having read Malcolm X, I discovered the answer. King mistook non-violence as a tactic for non-violence as a strategy. Indeed, James Farmer's now immortalized paen to civil disobedience in a theatre near you makes it clear that the human choice always includes violence. One wonders if the damage to black humanity done by slavery has dehumanized a fraction of us to the point of the inability to grasp the scope of human choice.
So it seems to me that the question me must be asking ourselves at this particular moment in history is not whether or not Dr King's Dream is proceeding apace, but whether or not Americans are experiencing the presence of justice and securing the blessings of liberty. The eyes have been on small prizes, namely ethnic voting blocs, for too long. This focus has dominated and inverted political priorities - it has always given scheming campaigners and pollsters and pundits opportunities to be clever. "What do you people want?" should never be a question with any currency to students of human nature. And it should never be answered by anyone claiming to be an authority on the African American experience. To play that game is to enter a hall of mirrors where blackness echoes and it ultimately divorces the perception of the needs and desires of a caste from that of humanity.
There is no separate destiny for Americans. We are a nation. We are united states.
Recent Comments