I think this is a great point. There actually is a very long tradition of "social conservatism/moral reformism" among black people stretching back to slavery. This cat Christopher Allen Bracey calls it "Organic Black Conservatism" as opposed to, say, Think Tank Black Conservatism. Think Cedric The Entertainer in Barbershop, not Thomas Sowell.Well it's a conversation that's been going on forever but whites have long clung to the more controversial elements of it. Few white people - and none in the commentariat that I'm aware of - talk about the NOI's attempts to inspire self-respect, dress code, clean living. Now I have my own problems with the NOI (corruption, abuse, criminal ties) but that's neither here nor there. So many movements that were reduced to "anti white" or "anti semitic", "reverse racist" or what have you when often the focus was equally if not moreso focused on self-betterment. Now with Cosby you have a man who has a totally nonthreatening public persona, just using the soapbox to shake his fist at the kids and white folks applaud like crazy. They couldn't applaud for Malcolm, though...
Farrakhan's Million Man March had to be one of the largest conservative mass gatherings in recent memory. Remember the theme? Atonement. The whole idea was that black men had basically not been carrying their weight in the community. We'd been piss-poor fathers. Piss-poor husbands. And generally hadn't fulfilled the precepts of honorable manhood. We didn't go to The Mall in 95 to make demands on Congress. We went to get clean.
Anyway, I wrote about all of this last year, when I was profiling Cosby. A quick excerpt:
After Washington's death, in 1915, the black conservative tradition he had fathered found a permanent and natural home in the emerging ideology of Black Nationalism. Marcus Garvey, its patron saint, turned the Atlanta Compromise on its head, implicitly endorsing segregation not as an olive branch to whites but as a statement of black supremacy. Black Nationalists scorned the Du Boisian integrationists as stooges or traitors, content to beg for help from people who hated them.
Garvey argued that blacks had rendered themselves unworthy of the white man's respect. "The greatest stumbling block in the way of progress in the race has invariably come from within the race itself," wrote Garvey. "The monkey wrench of destruction as thrown into the cog of Negro Progress, is not thrown so much by the outsider as by the very fellow who is in our fold, and who should be the first to grease the wheel of progress rather than seeking to impede." Decades later, Malcolm X echoed that sentiment, faulting blacks for failing to take charge of their destinies. "The white man is too intelligent to let someone else come and gain control of the economy of his community," Malcolm said. "But you will let anybody come in and take control of the economy of your community, control the housing, control the education, control the jobs, control the businesses, under the pretext that you want to integrate. No, you're out of your mind."
Black conservatives like Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam, have at times allied themselves with black liberals. But in general, they have upheld a core of beliefs laid out by Garvey almost a century ago: a skepticism of (white) government as a mediating force in the "Negro problem," a strong belief in the singular will of black people, and a fixation on a supposedly glorious black past.
Now this isn't Obama's approach totally--but he's clearly pulling from this tradition. That anecdote yesterday about whipping other people's kids, was pulled right from the Book Of Black Conservativism. The whole notion of black people as "fallen" as needing to be better fathers and mothers goes all the way back to Booker T. and extends up to the MMM--which Obama attended. He came back a critic--like a lot of us who went. But I'm willing to be that Obama, with his parental background, felt a special attachment to the March's rhetoric.
I think it's easy to underestimate how much this Organic Black Conservative tradition resonates. It really is one of things that connects us. It's about going up school to check on your son, and finding out that the kids that are cutting up the most in class, are the one's whose parents are the least involved. It's about walking up Lenox, at ten in the evening on Sunday, and seeing eight year-olds out playing. There's a deep sense, in all of us--even left-wing me--that we aren't doing enough.
I don't know that that sense is rational. I don't think it makes policy. But we have a strong need to believe that we don't have to wait on policy reform (read: the consent of white folks) for change. That if we just change how eat, how we raise our kids, our study-habits, how we talk to each other, then everything will be OK. I feel like that all the time. It is the religious part of me.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
There isn't that deep sense in me, sorry but I askew the social conservative bent of our community. Because to me it is often rooted in wanting "consent from white folks" whereas I see demanding your government do right by your community is just being a citizen. I say it is rooted in wanting consent because it strikes me as wanting to seem respectable to the outside not from within. I often wonder if this sense of connection we some times feel (like how it isn't enough you're a good father you want all black men to be) isn't necessarily just about the host of bad outcomes that come with having lackluster parents but that a sub par black father reflects poorly upon you. And if this is a facet of it then it is one we need to do away with. I'm all for the betterment of the community, what I can't get down with is telling your brother to do right not because you care about him but because you don't want it to make you look bad. That's basically just tap dancing for Massa and isn't something I can respect.
I guess the best that I can do with that perspective, as a white guy, is to try my best to empathize. And I do think I get it, this sensitivity and aversion to actions that can be seen as motivated out of a need to please the oppressor. I think the concern would be how far one takes that perspective of the aggrieved. The concern is that one becomes overly concerned about giving the appearance of trying to please ‘Massa,’ that they do not see the forest for the trees. It is clearly true that the burden carried by black people in general, but black men in particular, in this society is greater than most any other gender/racial subgroup in America. There are any number of statistics that prove it to be the case, and depending on who is reading the statistics, very different conclusions tend to be drawn. The important societal question is how that burden will be sufficiently lightened. Obviously, there are some policies that can be (some of which has been) put forth to lessen the load, but I doubt the burden can ever be expected to be made equal through policy change alone. This leaves us with the fundamental, albeit unfair, but no less inevitable truth that the greater burden will have to continue to be borne by African Americans, particularly African American men and boys, until the disparity between racial and gender subgroups truly is imperceptible. The only plausible future in which I see this happening is the one that I think has already begun: when smart people like yourself, who have the above described aversions, put those concerns aside for selfish reasons as well as selfless ones.
Well, my point isn't to stop specific actions but to stop the motive behind them. Encourage boys to become men of substance, of integrity not because you feel if they don't it looks bad on you. Do so either because you believe in those principles or you see them as a means to an end (like how having an increase in two parent homes means x, y and z). That's really my point. I may have issues with the conservatism found in our community but chief among them is how it isn't about self determination although it should be. It isn't about our community although it should be. If we feel the need to prove ourselves equal instead of inserting it as an unquestionable fact then we allow for others outside ourselves to have an influence or power they shouldn't and I think this is a fatal flaw with the ideology in practice. I can't even get to the substance of it because a motive behind it is so distasteful and wrongheaded. I understand the burdens as much as a person my age can and I'll live with them but I won't add unnecessary ones to it.
Well said.
Hear! Hear! I, of course agree that the Black community (any American community, really) can stand to do better and be better. BUT, my issue with Cosbyism is that it's always seen like pressure from some of our most respected community members to participate in a shell game. If every African American does their best Sidney Poitier/Lena Horne impression for an indeterminate amount of time, then we will have earned the right to be judged as individuals. But if a single person messes up, we've got to start from scratch. You don't see people drawing conclusions about Whites in general based on Courtney Love, Lindsay Lohan, the Gosselains and Paris Hilton. But you do see Blacks judged on, say, Flava Flav or a person who committed a crime somewhere at some time... Any time an AA goes with the flow with these sort of comparisons, I feel a dangerous precedent is being set.
Not to ignore your point, but I think there's a fair number of negative stereotypes about white girls in their teens and twenties that come directly out of the media exposure of people like Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, and Paris Hilton.
There's a feminist critique in their treatment, to be sure, but what about the others: Has anyone specifically asked you to defend the Gosselains, Mark Sanford, or Ozzy Osbourne, like those dudes somehow reflect the entire White community? Because I get that in my office re: Al Sharpton, R Kelly, and (at one point) the DC Sniper. Furthermore, if Paris, Lindsay or Britney flashes their chocha, it isn't followed by hand-wringing columns and commentaries asking why the White community is so pathological/unable to pass on the basics of panty-ship?
I think it’s probably important in the context of this discussion to point out that there is no “white community.” While it’s obviously often erroneous to treat African Americans as a socio-political monolith, there is a black community: a history of racial stigmatization and oppression, necessitated it. In order to find parallels to what you describe in White America, you’d probably need to do a more focused study. In some ways, African Americans are like white immigrant populations that hold tight to a sort of hereditary-based nationalism for generations after immigrating. Ask an Italian about Tony Soprano, for example.
Still, I really didn’t mean to totally detract from your point. I do understand what you’re talking about. I think a lot of it comes from the fact that a lot of white Americans misunderstand the concept of racial identity and community. White people, for better or worse, prefer not to think of things in terms of their on racial identity. This is not to say that white people don’t, generally speaking, display a ton of ethnocentrism. We do. But it tends to be one of ignorance. One that generally is not considered. It’s a sort of bias of normality, i.e. white people think of themselves as being the symbol of what is normal and average. I suppose one could easily make the argument that this bias towards white as normal is the more palatable progeny of white supremacism, but it doesn’t think of itself that way. It simply says it is normal to be like me. It is abnormal to be different. It doesn’t even necessarily consider this a qualitative judgment.
So, if you’re getting these stupid questions from white people, it’s probably coming from this place where white people just don’t get it. They have no frame of reference with regard to racial identity, and they’re trying clumsily to understand. This doesn’t make it any better, I know.
No, we get hand-wringing columns and commentaries asking why the White community is so pathological after some moderately prominent white guy goes on a racist rant in front of a camera.
Your line
"I often wonder if this sense of connection we some times feel (like how it isn't enough you're a good father you want all black men to be) isn't necessarily just about the host of bad outcomes that come with having lackluster parents but that a sub par black father reflects poorly upon you", is a very real consideration and I agree if our conservatism is a part of the politics of respectability than it should be done away with. Af-Am and I believe other marginal groups must learn to live our lives in and of ourselves, for ourselves. On the other hand my family experience was that someone else's poor parenting and lack of attention to their child could lead to serious social problems for everyone in the community. Parents that don't question where there child picked up a new article of clothing or a toy encourage behaviours that down the line can become problematic. So I think the focus on orderly family lives, for example, involve some degree of dependence on the white gaze but also there is the real issue of how disruptive individuals can undermine communities that are knit together in in escapeable ways.
TNC,
This is the conservatism that I can connect to (reading the recent Booker T biography has flipped my beliefs on their head). This past election season was a blessing and a curse. It was the first time that I was deeply engaged in what was going on, and the more I learned, the more I realized that neither party really has anything to offer. Am I happy that Obama is President? Yes. Despite his faults and several of his policy positions, I am heartened that he is our President at this time. But I am also deeply frustrated. As the wheels have literally come off the economy this past year, and I hear many people in the Black community still asking, what is the government going to do for us, all I can do is wonder why? If anything, this crisis should have revealed to many that while the government may be able to throw money at a problem (which can help in some sense), it struggles with making any meaningful or substantive changes in people's lives. To the extent that it is "conservative" to believe that Black people should stop looking to the government for solutions, sign me up. It's too big, there are too many bureaucracies, there are too many special interests at play, there are relatively few with actual power in government that even understands what is going on. It's just too much.
I realize that there are some structural obstacles at play that will still impede progress for many, but if we could just get back to basics on some things, I really think that many communities could, by sheer will, make a bigger difference on their lives and future generations than a government program. Please forgive the rambling, but when I read stories like "Black Leaders want More from Obama," I'm perplexed. What more? I really wish people could break out of this mindset, and understand that the President, and by extension, any policy proposals that he puts forward, are not going to be as impactful as many hope.
I'm not sure if the Emerson post earlier was a prequel to this one, but I do definitely see the connection. Just a couple of points:
-"The monkey wrench of destruction as thrown into the cog of Negro Progress, is not thrown so much by the outsider as by the very fellow who is in our fold, and who should be the first to grease the wheel of progress rather than seeking to impede."
That quote is mind-boggling to me; It's just hard to imagine someone saying when black businesses were systematically destroyed and Jim Crow was in place. It is certainly a bold declaration of self-reliance. I don't think it's a wrong-headed philosophy necessarily, but I do see it as incredibly hard to hold knowing the realities of race relations at the time.
-It's interesting to see how Christianity affects black and white conservatism, and how that leads to vastly different political views. I gotta think about that one a little more though.
Here's the argument - the nexus of conversation: if black folks do everything for themselves, and white folks show up and destroy it - that's the racism worth fighting against, worth demanding government action over, etc. But the idea that Jim Crow keeps blacks back is only some of the story. The other side of the story is that under Jim Crow and other segregationist policies - black folks had things that bettered the black community - including schools and businesses. Marcus Garvey, Father Divine, Elijah Muhammad all managed to inspire black entrepreneurship. I've heard folk say that our decrepit black schools with our black teachers got the job done for our students, whereas integrated schools turn quickly into de-facto segregated schools, and without the community investment in ensuring the wellbeing of our children, because of the expectation (EXPECTATION!) that the government is supposed to take care of the problem.
Obama represents, to some degree, a nexus. But there is no longer a credible institutional movement behind this black conservatism. The NOI gets largely
discredited for some of its views, and the UNIA is largely gone... the NAACP is out of the liberal black tradition... so where is the institutional voice of black conservatism?
But we have a strong need to believe that we don't have to wait on policy reform (read: the consent of white folks) for change.
I think this is a tough dynamic for the white folk (like myself) to relate to. I'm sure many whites would say "That's what I think!", and mean that "there's nothing more that can be done", as opposed to what seems to me to be the black position of "there's nothing more that can be expected". The black/white racial discussion right now is about how level the playing field is, can be made to be, etc. Not being in the black community, we tend to discount previous and current barriers to advancement, so any appeals to self-reliance, etc. seem like they're the answer. And the calls for change in policy are the ones that get us worked up the most, because it can involve us getting less of what our perceived portion should be.
"And the calls for change in policy are the ones that get us worked up the most, because it can involve us getting less of what our perceived portion should be"
That's pretty much the deal with Affirmative Action, right? I mean, it has to be literally the least popular issue in the country right now (70% is the number opposed I'm pretty sure).
Right, and no one thinks of it in a manner like Citizen E describes, where the community being "helped" (i.e. being given fairer access) is holding itself to a higher standard than other communities. It's almost always thought of as people who are less able, hardworking, etc. being given opportunities that they haven't earned. It's easier, instead, to latch on to the mantra of "help yourself", which can lead to the blind neglect approach towards race relations. Pardon me for airing my white liberal guilt, but I feel trapped in what I could possible do about any of this, despite believing drastic changes still need to occur. I think black communities in particular and minority communities in general are schooled but not educated, policed but not protected, and monitored but not looked out for. Those sound like policy issues to me. At a certain point, demanding that those needs are all met by self-reliance sets out a herculean task that I would guess is nearly impossible to meet (for a group as a whole, as opposed to particular individuals). But, the dominant liberal party doesn't have a unified vision of what policy that would address these matters should look like. Obama's struggle will be how to convince the majority members of his party that the minority interests will lead to a better society for everyone involved. I don't have any answers on how to make that happen.
I've spoken of the California state program of which I was an assistant director during the nineties, in which we established counseling, tutoring, and mentoring programs for 4th-12th graders and their parents from populations that historically had low college going and retention rates. It was by any standard an extraordinarily successful program, had been for decades before I arrived, and continued to be so after I left. Among the many different communities that participated in what was an "Affirmative Action" program, no community set higher standards--from professionals to teachers to our college and university students working in the field than the African American community, although certainly we got incredible support and commitment from Latinos and poor rural whites as well.
But I come from a Jewish community, a community that is well respected for its history long emphasis on education, and I was never held to the standards that the African American community involved in our program held up for those young people we had enrolled.
I realize this is anecdotal, but in the current climate when it is a trend to pooh pooh Affirmative Action, and know nothing conservatives such as Ross Douthat talk out of their hats in the New York Times from third hand observation, posing it as somehow something antithetical to high standards, especially in the black community, my experience goes 180 degrees counter such an assumption.
That if we just change how eat, how we raise our kids, our study-habits, how we talk to each other, then everything will be OK. I feel like that all the time. It is the religious part of me.
I think you do better than okay.
Part of it is remembering Baldwin:
"People pay for what they do, and still more for what they have allowed themselves to become. And they pay for it very simply by the lives they lead."
Every day, ma. Every god damn day. Life is easy. Life is hard.
There are some things that everyone, black and white and every other color, should be able to rely on the government to do. Build roads. Collect trash. Maintain school buildings. Make sure industry isn't poisoning the drinking water. Enforce the law so that neither criminals nor the police prey on the population. When the government fails to do these things, everbody of all colors should holler and demand change.
But the government can't reach all that far into the details of anyone's life. It can build and stock a library, but it can't make any of us sit down and read. That comes from a mix of social norms and individual choice.
Things go best when the government, society, and the individual are all pulling in the same direction. The government builds the schools, society values the schools and takes them seriously, and the individual studies.
This was my sense of the NAACP crowds positive response to Obama. I have heard similar things in many black churches and some mosques (on the other hand I do remember a panel discussion with a rep of NOI where when I told him that it sounded like he wanted to keep all of the systemic social inequities in place but just put black people on top he said exactly b/c it was their time to rule). The question that no one seems to have an answer for is how to help parents (of any race), who having been raised themselves by teenage parents, and so lack the know-how to manage themselves in ways which will teach their kids to succeed in legimate/legal ways. We now know from developmental psychology that many skill like patience, empathy, long range planning etc are taught social skills and like learning a language are much harder to learn as an adult. Programs like Geof. Canada's baby-college are a start but many people resist such attempts at reform as challenges to their culture/way of life. What I like about Obama on these matters is that he rejects the either or of old liberal/conservative splits on spending more money for govt programs vs personal effort/integrity and speaks up for both.
ps "self-perfection" as in constantly trying to improve one's moral development/response-ability was indeed the main theme of Emerson's work. For a powerful thinker on Emerson and education/moral development see the works of Naoko Saito like the Gleam of Light or:
http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/eps/PES-Yearbook/1998/saito.html
I find Geoffrey Canada's project to be at once uplifting and deeply depressing. Really, my only knowledge of it came from a segment on This American Life from last year, which I've listened to six or seven times, so maybe both emotions come from clever radio editing, but I doubt it.
At any rate, I think you're right. His is a program that could be replicated, but could never touch as many people as need to be touched because of logistical reasons as well as the inevitable rejection of the program by folks who deem it an affront, or unnecessary, or just too damned demanding.
At any rate, I hope those kids are given the chance to just keep moving forward.
yes both uplifting and deeply depressing. I keep lifting it up as an example because through trial and error he came to understand how deep and wide the problem is. The problem is that as an educator his reach is limited and so we need something like a social movement, or a even a new culture, but no one knows how to manufacture one. Not to long ago sociologists had dreams of major projects of social-engineering but they bombed badly and liberal social/political theory has never recovered. I imagine that this is part of the appeal of the new compassionate conservatism style fed. govt programs that work with religious groups, but there really aren't the kind of cohesive social/political communities that once allowed for these groups to succeed on a large scale.
I am kind of struck by how much of the anti-Semitism, etc. of the NOI is downplayed here, though. To simply label it self-help is problematic.
I agree completely that the NOI has done completely incredible work with certain segments of black communities. And that certainly does NOT get the credit it deserves.
But that fact that groups like this by definition can't reach out beyond themselves to form coalitions make them inherently unable to bring about the change needed in these communities. Fine, make yourselves better fathers, partners, whatever, but blame all the problems on whitey or the Jews. OK. Where do you go with that now? It is self-limiting.
The appeal of a Bill Cosby is, I would argue, NOT that he isn't threatening to whites. On the contrary, he and others like him (like Obama to some extent) can overcome the inherent limitations of these groups.
what I found interesting about Cosby on these matters is that part of his message was along the lines of saying that if you keep waiting for white people to care enough to get things done than you will have lost this next generation and with them all that follow. This was not a friendly to white people, vanilla pudding-pop, kind of word that he was bringing. And this seems to get lost in the idea that Cosby is easy for white people to swallow. There is a dilemma that if conversations that have always happened behind closed doors are to gain national audiences than they will be exposed to, and used by, the majority press/govt. But what's the option? Community movements are useful but as Obama learned very limited.
Right. But this isn't a post about the NOI. It's actually about the interplay between conservatism and black nationalism--manifested in Booker T to Garvey to Malcolm to Farrakhan to Cosby to Obama.
The antisemitism of the NOI has been explored, and written about--I don't think anyone reading here doesn't know about it. Why would I write about that again? What relevance does that have to Obama's speech?
Right - I found this part particularly problematic:
What *would* "bring about the change needed in these communities?" (emphasis mine - I'm not sure which communities the commenter is referring to. black communities? where? Harlem? Mobile? Oakland? New Orleans?) The NOI is responsible for what type of change, exactly - what help are they standing in the way of here in Harlem, for instance? This is a whole different conversation.
The whole point of my post was to suggest that whites tend to reduce this discussion to a terribly monolithic meme. Evidenced in the NY Times' coverage of Obama's speech. And this post. I don't think it's particularly helpful to contrast Obama with Farrakhan. When these things get boiled down broad stereotypes it does everyone a disservice.
I think you make several important and excellent points, Jonathan.
I don't accept there is a "black community" and more than there is a "white community." I was trying to shorthand this difficult concept and not refer to some monolithic black community. Clearly, I failed in my shorthand. And to reiterate the point, yes, I focused on the wrong thing here.
Good point. Not the crux of the argument. Thanks for the redirect.
For the record, I don't want you to think I sanction any of that insanity. It's funny that I feel the need to say this. But I do. I really do.
I totally understand. I didn't mean to imply that you did with my comment. I had very lazy reading and posting this morning. You and Jonathan kept me honest. It's the only way to go!
First time a post of yours made me cry, TNC. Seriously - so glad you have this space where we can "go there."
Amen, amen, and amen.
QT
Who benefits when demands on society are stigmatized as driven by a craven need for approval?
Should we leave the political, economic, and military “commanding heights” in the hands of the current establishment?
"I don't know that that sense is rational. I don't think it makes policy. But we have a strong need to believe that we don't have to wait on policy reform (read: the consent of white folks) for change. That if we just change how eat, how we raise our kids, our study-habits, how we talk to each other, then everything will be OK. I feel like that all the time. It is the religious part of me."
(Substituting "bureaucrats in Washington/our state capital/etc" for "white folks" ...)
This really isn't presented as a "conservative" thing in the white community, at least in my experience. It's more of a "good parenting" thing, not really connected to ideology. Kind of like liberals and conservatives both think it's probably a good thing to make sure your kid doesn't put his finger in an electrical socket.
(Though I suppose a wacko on the left would have a government requirement that all houses be built with electrical locks in place, imposing a tax on existing homes that refuse to comply, and subsidizing the electrical socket lock industry to make sure lower income houses can afford the upgrade; while a wacko on the right would suggest deregulating the housing code, cutting taxes to the American-made socket industry, and letting the market determine which kids electrocute themselves.)
This should be obvious to everyone no one should have to wait on the consent of another person to try and start improving themselves. My only question is why does policy reform equal the consent of whitefolks. It seems to me that much policy reform is done in spite of powerfull white folks not because of.
Am I missing something?
This last bit gets preached to a lot of poor kids all the time:
My only question is why does policy reform equal the consent of whitefolks?
Quickly posted notes get a person in trouble all the time.
For the same reason gays can't achieve marriage rights without the support/consent of heterosexuals. Policy can't happen merely with the support of a minority. Black people, like gays, make up a fraction of the electorate. Convincing people who have, historically, been extremely hostile to you is an essential step. But obviously, it creates a great deal of tension, too.
I see now. It's the old if I work on myself, I can convince the other guy to listen to me, but first I have to work on myself.
In other words if you show up to a job interveiw in jeans and T-Shirt don't expect anyone to pay you any mind.
I heard this all the time growing up.
Right. And yet, there are some problems (like HIV/AIDS infection rates) that can't really be fixed by any amount of support or consent by heterosexuals, but can only be helped by changes of behavior in the community. Similarly, while the support of substantial numbers of whites was necessary to get rid of Jim Crow laws and segregated schools and all kinds of related stuff, that support is not really relevant for dealing with the much higher illegitimacy rates among blacks, or higher crime rates, or higher rates of dropping out of school.
I contend that the overwhelming majority of White people have never ever HEARD a Farrakhan speech. If he speaks for 3 hours, 2 of it is spent telling BLACK FOLKS what they aren't doing. The NOI is a VERY socially conservative group.
Which is why the hub-bub about Bill Cosby never made any sense to me, as a Black person. This White DELUSION that Bill Cosby is the first time Black folks have heard of ' personal responsibility'
G-T-F-O-H
From Booker T. Washington, who WROTE DOWN the rules of Etiquette for Black folk,
to just going to church every Sunday.
It always amuses me: Black folk are so religious and conservative that we're so ' homophobic', but somehow, in all that ' conservative' religious training, the preachers leave out 'personal responsibility'?
another G-T-F-O-H
There is no group harder in America on the Black poor than working and middle-class Black folk that get up everyday and deal with 'The Man' in their work environment. You could maybe squeeze a gnat through the finger measure of sympathy that they have for Black folks that they believe are gaming ' the system'.
Don't get my Black Nationalist conservative entrepreneur Uncle started on the Black poor.....makes Pat BuKKKanan sound like a wuss.
Gonna post the vid later but it's like that Chris Rock line--I love black people, but I hate niggers. Boy I wish they'd let me join the Ku Klux Klan. I'd do a drive-by from here to Brooklyn.
You know, it's "interesting" how the press would always cherry-pick the Farrakhan speech for some "inappropriate" shit that he said about white folks, or more likely Jews, than printing headlines to the effect: "Farrakahn to Blacks: Two Hours of 'No More Excuses!'" Because...uh...you know...nobody would have given a shit and Farrakhan wouldn't have become such a great figure for the media to steadily milk for sensationalistic non-news.
we may be heading off into retreaded ground here but I have heard Farrahkhan. and several of his leading spokespeople, and his message isn't simply one of self-dependence but rather one of racial superiority. And this is a central teaching of the NOI, and part of why Malcolm was killed and why his son converted to Islam, the kind that doesn't teach about evil Wizards blowing up the moon with dynomite. You don't have to cherry-pick anything when you are being served up "I can't even say the word jewelry without saying Jew". nuff said.
Even that takes us to a core of things--not much distance between American Exceptionalism and Black Exceptionalism. Not to minimize racism--but I just thought that it was worth making the point.
No I'm with you a 100% here, which is why I keep referring back to the haunting spirit of Manifest Destiny. This kind of "with God(by any name) on our side", chosen people/nation, sh*t always need to be called out as the corrupting poison that it is. You can see why I was always popular with my Zionist peeps. So it goes.
The Nation of Islam is as American as Cherry Pie...
(They've got the pie recipe wrong.)
My poinit, incidentally, wasn't that the NOI wasn't foundationally wack...it was that the media ntentionally blow the thing itself out of proportion and cherry-picked their own version of what it is and why it's significant or interesting in order to serve the purposes of a pre-fab narrative that is exploitative of the phenomenon. I've always thought of the NOI as an anomolous faction of the Religious Right (although obviously not embraced by the RR "mainstream".) The Mormon Church is also a very close analog to the NOI in many respects - they are the two "great" Made In USA theologies that are, frankly, ludicrous when you examine their precepts and origins disspassionately. Probably no crazier than most religions in their original packaging, but they lack the thousands of years of immersion in history and culture that give the older versions more apparent legitimacy.
"if we just change how eat, how we raise our kids, our study-habits, how we talk to each other, then everything will be OK."
I don't think this has anything to do with one's politics, nor do I think that it's necessarily about believing "then everything will be OK" - and I think it's utterly rational. It's about the rational calculation that the more you take charge of your own life and impose some discipline on your "lifestyle" and work habits and within your family, the better shot you've got - at the least - of averting total failure in the context of the real world and the eyes of family and friends. This is common sense, although we all know that for a hundred different complicated reasons - some having to do with family history, some having to do with social class, some having to do with personal habits and quirks of fate and possibly even our particular neuro-chemical balance and physiology, some having to do with, yes, racial constructs and assumptions...it's often hard to wake up each and every morning and know and do all of the stuff that makes the most sense. Also, experiencing a large measure of failure and adversity can quickly destroy any sense that you can move forward. But the public rhetoric of "conservatism" vs "liberalism" often allows conservatives to hijack the notion that they are the only folks with insight into personal virtues. That's fucking ridiculous and another one of their cons. Also, why their personal scandals are even more embarrassing after they've been riding on this bullshit, hypocriical notion.
But it boils down to common sense that the only rational calculation is to do your best to take control and improve your own your own life as you can best discern such a project. Political strategies and the rest of it follow from that point, or even those dimensions of change are futile. I've made enough of my own stupid mistakes and errors of judgement - or just let shit slide at times - so I'm not blaming anybody for "not being the best they can be", but stuck on stupid often seems to be the prevailing human condition across the board and we all can use strategies for getting unstuck.
TNC,
About 20 years ago, my mother said that she thought that integration of the schools was a bad for black people. Of course being in my twenties at the time and in the US Army (Cultural Melting Pot) and was embarrassed and a little angry at her comments. I’ve come to understand her view. This only my perspective. Black teacherat that time definitely understood other Black children, because 9 of 10 that teacher lived in the neighborhood, attend the same churches and possibly went to school with the majority of the parents. Back in the day, teachers, neighbors and other relatives had the right to punish you without parental consent. During Civil Rights Movement, Black people was so happy to be included, we didn’t see the consequences of this mass forced integration of one race on to other race that disliked us and was not willing to accept us, before it was too late. A black community teacher understood and helped (out side of the classroom) with the overall development of the student into productive member of society. That connection I think help a lot of black kid’s achievement in the early years of the civil right movement and those parents (My mother) were the ones who carried /passed it on to me. Now everything is about the economics/dollars and Blacks will lose every time until we fix the education gap, however less black kids are graduating from HS. This is alarming for the next generation of Blacks. Now communities are separated by economics. I guess we will see how this works in about 20 years. This is not to suggest segraton again, it's just my thought on the current problem we have in education.
"I contend that the overwhelming majority of White people have never ever HEARD a Farrakhan speech. If he speaks for 3 hours, 2 of it is spent telling BLACK FOLKS what they aren't doing. The NOI is a VERY socially conservative group."
The Oakland NOI splinter run by Yusef Bey was particularly problematic - an utterly corrupt and debased cult that committed some horrible crimes against other black folks - but on this particular point, I used to listen occasionally to Bey's demogogy when "Soul Beat" still had a cable access channel. I swear to god this sonofabitch ran down black people and black culture in ways that were damned near pathological in the level of contempt. It was that strain of wagging a finger at other black folks run totally amok. There was something sort of sickening about the whole damned thing - and when it became clear what a nasty, self-serving cult Bey's NOI splinter had become the psychological con - which was sort of like telling the wife you're about to beat up that she's really stupid and worthless - made a kind of perverse sense.
that should have been tagged to rikyrah's comment
Man, I grew up watching Bey on Soul Beat. And eating fish sandwiches and bean pies and oatmeal cookies out of the San Pablo Ave bakery. Bey and his people were into all kinds of bad biz - gun and drug running, shakedowns, Bey himself I believe was up on child molestation charges when he died.
But I think Rikyrah's spot on about the Cosby hub-bub.
It's interesting that you have a local frame of reference. I contend for most folks, the face of The Nation is Farrakhan, no matter who is running things in their respective cities.
Oh, I totally agree. Bey was a unique case, to say the least. His movement in Oakland was of a strength beyond what was expected of most local chapters though, and I believe he had problems with the upper echelons of the NOI behind that.
God - I wish Farrakhan HAD been running things in Oakland. I'm no particular fan, but there is no comparison between Farrakhan in his more recent iterations and they way that Bey mess ended up here. But, yeah, Farrakhan is pretty much the face of NOI in national media and the mind of most casual observers. And I doubt many white people in Oakland watched Bey's local TV show or knew much about him - other than the quite popular pies - until Chauncey Bailey and some others started to dig into his crazy shit.
I always thought if I had not attended an HBCU during the late 80s I would have moved along a conservative political bent. Why? Because I grew up in Gary, IN during the 70s and 80s where every Black person I knew believed that whatever Black people needed Black people themselves could get it. It was all James Brown's, "I don't want nobody to give me nothing, open up the door, I'll get it myself"! My family was old school patriarchy with solid ideas about men's responsibilities to their wives and children. Sometimes it got a little shaky with the spousal behaviour but when it came to children, any man that didn't take care of his children was considered something less. Not to say that there wasn't a critique of white supremacy, there was. But the critique of white supremacy boiled down to whites are so corrupted and degraded that you can't trust them to do the right thing. Therefore Black people have to do it themselves to make sure it got done. My father who will be 80 in October mourns the loss of the relative self determination that Gary's Black community had during segregation. I agree Black social conservatism is nothing new it's now a question of who is articulating it, to whom and for what reasons. Check out Wilson Jeremiah Moses's Golden Age of Black Nationalism, it lays out clearly the dynamics of conservative Black Nationalism.
So this raises the question--what about your HBCU experienced changed your mind?
It's axiomatic that all individuals should strive for self-improvement. But if we're talking about groups of people who are particularly in need of a make-over, I'd suggest the guys on Wall Street and in the US Senate.
In the film O Brother, Where Art Though, there is a scene where folks are being baptized in the river, to the sounds of Alison Krause singing "Down to the River to Pray." The music strikes me as having deep integrated roots, as most American music does, but the scene is lily-white. All Americans recognize what this scene represents, renewal, reform, moral uplift. So why haven't I seen any films with the black counterpart to this. It seems such a rich area to explore.
To me, the Million Man March draws from the same traditions as tent meetings. And in this they are all heirs to John Wesley, who is English, not American, but tent meetings, revivalism, this is so very much part of America, black or white, but I've never seen much of the black part in fiction.
Steve Martin portrayed a faith healer in Leap of Faith. It's really good, I recommend it. His choir was black, a gospel choir. We white folks love gospel choirs. But where's the black preachers in our fiction? I guess we don't like them so much.
Now that I think on it, I can think of one reference: Samuel L. Jackson's character in Pulp Fiction. Not specifically a preacher, but definitely concerned with redemption and moral reform. With Bible quotations, too.
I submit that most of the country will agree about Wall Street. And you'll get me on board over the Senate if you include the House of Representatives as well.
Let's toss in the folks who design cars for GM and Chrysler as well.
Just out of curiosity, is there an identifiable black Catholic take on conservatism and self-reliance? All the discussion here about Christian influences seems to be drawing on an explicitly Protestant form of Christianity. What about Catholic parishes and Catholic schools? A high percentage of the black professionals I know came up through urban Catholic schools. As did Sonia Sotomayor.
You know, before black people became the dominant political class because they made a lot of noise in the 1960s there was no romanticization of criminals or violence in America, there were no dreams of easy money, no "something for nothing" and no lazy fucks who didn't pull their own weight. Everybody did their homework. Nobody hung out on street corners, smoked cigarettes or drank alcohol. Drugs were something you got from doctors. Sex ? Never heard of it. Nor were there religious movements that preached salvation from a corrupt secular culture. There was no petty reduction into "nationalism" as the key to a worldview, nor were there special privileges or networks of "connections" based on the political and economic power of certain ethnic groups. These were (so called) African-American innovations in a pristine landscape of fragile innocence. I remember that. I was there. I'm an old white guy. Trust me. Trust the fuck out of me. It's your only hope for truly understanding shit.
I just caught this, this is hysterical. "Sex? Never heard of it." LOL!!!
Gangster films built Warner Bros.Studios in the 1930's. The first time I saw a drive-by shooting was the opening credits of "The Untouchables" tv series. Most of the really successful White actresses in the last 80 years, have had a career making role as a prostitute or "fallen woman"(see "Waterloo Bridge", "Butterfield 8" "Pretty Woman" et al.) Brucd's I wasn't there, but I do trust you.
Thanks, m'am.
I agree 100%. A couple of years back, I had a discussion about this this very drive with a close friend of mine, and he completely disagreed. Resisted really really hard, to every single thing you listed here: food habits, study habits, communication habits, etc. I tried to contend that these all informed one's overall approach and interaction to life, which in turn MAY improve one's situation, but he was of the belief that trying to change these things was mostly a fruitless exercise, and that improvement could only come with money. And while the economy was still really good, I'd often get laughed at for feeling the way I did. Is this something anyone else has come across in trying to discuss this sentiment?
There's another side to this too I think - that sometimes it's psychologically easier to get help from institutions and policies and strangers, that have rules and lists and deadlines, than trying to grow or seek that help from within a community. I think a big part of resistance to this kind of self-improvement is the fact that often times it involves a kind of going back home - and when home is too painful a place to return to for whatever reason, people end up in an in-between space, floating, not really part of any social safety net, and sometimes at the mercy of financial/governmental/civilian institutions, which may or may not be there to pick up the slack.
And who is the link between Booker T. and Marcus Garvey? Why, it's the long-forgotten and under-appreciated "dean of black journalists": T. Thomas Fortune.
T. Thomas Fortune. How could I forget...
Y'all make an excellent choir, so I'll keep preachin'. The question we have to ask ourselves is how do we reach the knuckleheads who are wasting their lives on corners? I am a NERD, I was the guy those on the corners made fun of. 25 years later, I'm successful by every material and spiritual measure I want to use. But they are still on the corner and now their kids are there too. I go back, when I can, and provide the role model for those kids.
But I start at home--my kids read more books about more topics than 99% of their peers. I read more books about more topics than 99% of my peers. But the question remains: how do we transform that #$%$%$ corner? I'm willing to take the long view, Malcolm's "each one, teach one" philosophy, but I'm afraid we're slowly running out of "ones". I'm one and I'm banking all of you are same, but can we slow the pace of change or are we past "tipping point"? If we are, do we save who we can and bail on the rest? Or do we "go down swingin'?"
Peace to all, great discussion, E.