E Pluribus Unum

"Humankind still lives in prehistory everywhere, indeed everything awaits the creation of the world as a genuine one... if human beings have grasped themselves, and what is theirs, without depersonalization and alienation, founded in real democracy, then something comes into being in the world that shines into everyone's childhood and where no one has yet been -- home."
--Ernest Bloch

In the third episode of the HBO Miniseries John Adams, Adams is appointed to be the Ambassador to Great Britain. He is therefore summoned to see the King as his first act of office. In one of the most extraordinary scenes of the series, Adams approaches King George.

As the door to the throne room is opened, the king is not seated on the throne but standing to its left, leaning slightly on it. Adams draws a breath as he realizes that he is now in the presence of the man whose actions have determined all of Adams renown by virtue of his struggle against them. And now he must bow. Thrice as he approaches, he bows, and finally the camera rests on the humbling stare of King George. The expression of the actor portraying the king and the way the sequence was directed are an art of perfection. It captures the very serene contempt and the absolute power of the British empire in a matter of seconds. I myself even held my breath. It is a striking moment and instantaneously recognizable, here is a supreme ruler who doesn't blink. It is as if one is staring at a portrait as the king remains with a fixed expression through a continuing period of silence in which it is realized that Adams is both capable of causing an offense which might cost him his life, and simultaneously incapable of arousing, on his own merit, the slightest emotion or disturbance in the king's countenance.

As an American, cousin to the British and inheritor of their language, customs and laws, I have often reflected on my attraction to its Empire. I am consistently impressed by portrayals of duty to Great Britain, not only in books and films, such as Master and Commander, but by the haughty bearing and dignity I have found in many members of the Caribbean Commonwealth. As deeply impressed as we Americans seem to be of our science, technology and dollars, there is a great much to be said about a people who conquered the seas without so much as a digital watch. So I am always mindful of the extent to which, having attended a prep school which endeavors to inculcate values more transcendent than those communicated in an SAT score, we Americans do not have such old school or old boy loyalties and deference to character. It is, after all, character that makes all achievement possible - science and technology are just foundries and toolsets. We should be mindful that Kim Jong Il has science and technology too.

The past several months, as Obama has jumped through some perfunctory hoops and America has jumped to some stereotypical conclusions, I have just about had my fill, once again, with the ignorance on race. But I still linger on to offer some insight and criticism. It turns out that Obama's recent turn to mess with the 'bitter' Pennsylvanians demonstrates another aspect of emergent leadership that is tragically outre. And I see it as a symptom of his in particular and much of black leadership in general, and that is the requirement at some point, to put people down - people you would deign to lead.

I'm going to be particularly aware of this as I pursue my studies in British history. I have said that my heroes of leadership are three, Stephen Biko, Teddy Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, each to their own nation. What was strikingly admirable about Biko was the passage I read about his speech in a stadium. He never stood on the stage, but hunted as he was by his mortal enemies, he took the microphone into the crowd and disappeared amongst the throng gathered. The act symbolized much to me, a man of the people, literally, who didn't need to stand on a platform to be heard, but instead led from within.

I don't know that leadership needs some objective re-evaluation by me, but I notice what I notice. And what I am noticing is the extent to which a lot of black leadership is irresponsible to whitefolks. It might be the very definition of black leadership, 'get whitey', I'm not sure. It seems something of a hallmark that often black men and women who heed the call of service in The Struggle develop a sort of tin ear to other forms. It's as if I were to present a young black man as a musical genius. If I were asked what kind of music he knows, my answer would be "funk, hiphop, soul, r&b, gospel and jazz of course - what other kind of music is there? Black leaders are provincial. In developing their skills under the presumptions of the race raising prerogatives of the Talented Tenth, they limit their abilities in the wider world. This is insufficient and irresponsible.

Fish do swim in water and there is no such thing as a neutral race. And so it can be argued that there is no such thing as a human, or universal flavor. In opposition to my claim that black leadership is provincial such a case could be made that the British were only arrogant in seeking to dominate the globe and made no accommodation for other sorts. They kept on guard against going native and had a tin ear for other forms. That is all certainly implicit in the stare of King George. And so black leadership should make no concession to accommodate all that outside of itself; our music is the only music that matters and the rest are pagans. Yet the fact remains that there is an active presumption within American history for equality and in the context of American citizenship blacks have no choice. We might like to be a nation, but we are not. Black nationalism is little more than a sentimental orientation - the black state has failed, the black nation never materialized, black power is dead. Starkly now, the evidence is in, we must be Americans. So within that context, if we presume to desire equality, then it means nothing more or less than equality under the law. If we presume to desire freedom, then it means nothing more or less than freedom under the American law - that is our liberty. Liberty is a product of nations, and we are one nation. Black leadership that does not effectively lead whites and inspire them equally is not the leadership of liberty at all. It is little more than acknowledgment of that old dead black power sentimental orientation. It's a head bob on the street trying to make a dollar out of 15 cents.

If we African Americans had formed a black nation, we would be petitioning ourselves for remediation of our social woes. If we were a black nation we could have the arrogance of power and could stare down those who would dare challenge our right to lead. But in so many ways, we are not. In so many instances we are a broken home resenting but needing the call to government services. Gerald Early called it 'lure and loathing' - the black desire for the treasures of America - treasures not of our own creation. Toni Morrison recognized it as the eternal burden of the rescued, like Robinson Crusoe's servant saved from being hunted by his own. We assume these burdens as blacks rescued by America only to the extent that we have accepted a separate destiny as blacks in America. This is black guilt. The humbling experience of holding out for a black hand from above that never came, and finally casting about for a white one instead.

We African Americans are not going to get our black nation. We are going to get America for better or for worse, one family at a time if we are fortunate enough to hold our families together or one person at a time in our individual revelation. And on that basis we will lay appropriate claim to our inheritance of liberty and equality. We cannot be and represent our people in any racial or cultural aggregation because our power was never even power over ourselves. It was broken from the start.  We cannot be 'where we came from' even though we should never forget. We have to be about the dream, and we have to be about supporting that for everyone. We have to be about adding our straw to the pillars of Constitutional principles - to show and prove that we are the same men for whom all that works. We cannot remain unreconstructed. There is no organic, racial or tribal path to liberty. Liberty is only achieved through cooperation and in defense of mutual obligations. We must construct our way to it and comport ourselves for it. Remember your Benjamin Franklin, we must all hang together or most certainly we will hang separately.

John Adams bowed thrice without scraping and realized that he stood before the king to which he had been a subject all of his life, and Adams would never be his equal. Even in stepping out from under his rule, he recognized their brotherhood in Western Civilization. The continuum of British and American life in jurisprudence was clear, as were all of the customs and culture. He and his peers were the last successful American rebels. It falls to us, if we are to enjoy and defend those fruits to bear witness to the the true nature of our inheritance. To properly inherit, one must be properly respectful heirs.

I have grown up in the traditions of math and science, mostly out of passion but certainly out of the recognition that such skills are a respecter of intellect and reason over person. As an African American I surely realized that my fortunes would be more secure in such a field, as contrasted with one which necessitated the force of personality. I grew up understanding that this was a racist country - a country that would kill Martin Luther King Jr, a country that would burn for it. And in my youth I was taught to have faith in the future, a future that would be determined by scientific advance. So my education did not look to the liberal arts. I have struggled to balance that and have by hard work and good fortune come to a better understanding of history and politics than I might have hoped. I know how much of America I once dismissed with contempt for a lack of a black presence in it. That lack has been synonymous with injustice, unprovable perhaps but generally assumed. Accordingly, I have believed that anything that produced black success 'in America' was just by definition and thus have justified my participation in Talented Tenth projects, not merely for the love I have for blackfolks, but for the transcendent purposes of justice - to prove America could be improved and as a running critique of America itself. But in pursuit of those race raising efforts, I recognized how a lack of shared values among blacks could scuttle any plans in practical and ethical ways. Therefore I have endeavored to stress fidelity to the best purposes of black nationalist sentiment. This was a separate and unequal inheritance - in fact it was a creation of something I think we all thought was new. Now I am doubtful about the prospects of any such agenda. What any of us do to carve a new path for any minority may ultimately be a wasteful dissonant diversion at best, and at worse we may find the turns we take in those woods lead us away from the goal.

This running critique of America generally devolves to a ranting critique of Americans, and I find it always and inevitably sloppy and overambitious. In the end, it always seeks to prove us wrong and see us endure some cosmic retribution and hardship. Somebody's always looking for some chickens to come home to roost. Somebody is always hoping someone pays the price for some failure in America. That's not leadership and nobody needs it. When we fail we will endeavor to win, that desire is in our better nature. The man who is knocked from his feet needn't be told so, nor analyzed in any fifty page book and told it is America's fault. He feels his own pain. He gathers his wits and stands up. The last thing we need are monuments of men on their hands and knees to inspire us to rethink America. And yet this is the nature of false leadership so many are tempted to use as their model. They say this is the nation that makes dogs of men and they point all around to their company as curs, and they bitch and whine and make puppy eyes for every sympathy. And they inevitably bite the hand that feeds them.

I do not know what it will take for us to be done with our alienation. I suspect that for every percieved difference in men, there will be some gap described as insurmountable for which one man's freedom requires one path and the different man a different path. Our challenge is great because we are a nation of different ethnicities and religions but one law and one liberty. For that law and liberty to have a singular meaning, it requires our mutual and singular devotion. There are no differentiated messages, no multiple standards allowable. When we find ourselves tempted to justify our flavor or sentiment, we should all insure that we recognize our common heritage and affirm our common destiny. Speak in your accent to every man and hear their every affirmation in your own voice.

There will only be one voice that survives in America, and that is the voice that speaks to all of us without qualification.  It is the voice that accepts and protects us and seeks to mold in us a common strength - our own. So let me be the first to pledge never again to say "What do you mean 'we'?"