The Anger of the Owned
26/02/07 12:23
Al
Sharpton recently learned that his forebears had
been owned by members of the late segregationist
Strom Thurmond's family. Whether my ancestors had
been owned by as repellent a set of forebears
(should there be justice and a hell, Strom Thurmond
is writhing in the latter's flames) would not
matter to me. However, knowing--not just assuming,
but knowing--that my progenitors had been owned by
a specific person... that would be hard. The
generalized assumption and specific knowing are two
different things. The specific knowing insists that
you consider the individual--not just the
generalized situation in which he or she lived. You
have imagine the day-to-day interactions between
your ancestor and his owner, the pain, the
frustration, the fury and the rage they must have
swallowed every day.
Considering this, I immediately thought that I had no interest in tracing my roots. Then, just a suddenly, I was angry at myself because I feared that the disinterest might be borne of shame... shame of my ancestors' slave status. But I don't think that's it. I think it's rage. I think I would not want to expose myself to the visceral rage that would follow upon learning the names of those who so grossly devalued, abused and in one way or another tortured those who came before me.
Perhaps the name I use belonged to them, in which case something of them touches something of me to this very day. And the idea makes my skin crawl.
It's very modern to suggest that anger is an unworthy emotion, but that's so much bullshit. The people generally telling you that you must "get past" your anger are those who bear some lurking guilt or sense of responsibility for it. Anger is only detrimental when it limits your actions or your options. It can also open both. It would probably be a good thing for me to expose myself to a sense of visceral rage over what happened in this country, and the aftermath of that massive hatred that lasted throughout most of the 20th century. That anger is part of my legacy, I now realize. I will not give it up to anyone.
Considering this, I immediately thought that I had no interest in tracing my roots. Then, just a suddenly, I was angry at myself because I feared that the disinterest might be borne of shame... shame of my ancestors' slave status. But I don't think that's it. I think it's rage. I think I would not want to expose myself to the visceral rage that would follow upon learning the names of those who so grossly devalued, abused and in one way or another tortured those who came before me.
Perhaps the name I use belonged to them, in which case something of them touches something of me to this very day. And the idea makes my skin crawl.
It's very modern to suggest that anger is an unworthy emotion, but that's so much bullshit. The people generally telling you that you must "get past" your anger are those who bear some lurking guilt or sense of responsibility for it. Anger is only detrimental when it limits your actions or your options. It can also open both. It would probably be a good thing for me to expose myself to a sense of visceral rage over what happened in this country, and the aftermath of that massive hatred that lasted throughout most of the 20th century. That anger is part of my legacy, I now realize. I will not give it up to anyone.
Why Obama is Acceptable to "Whites"
22/02/07 08:59
There
is something about Barack Obama I distrust. As an
Afro-American (part of the culture of descendants
of African slaves) his ignorance of or refusal to
acknowledge what he is not disturbs me—mainly
because that ignorance and/or refusal denigrates me
and my cultural background, while simultaneously
lifting his presidential prospects among the
majority—by playing on their historical denigration
of me and my background.
Barack Obama is a black man. Barack Obama is an African-American. But Barack Obama is NOT an Afro-American. Black and Afro-American are two different things, and with respect to Barack Obama’s political prospects, the difference is critical.
Afro-American describes the culture of American descendents of African slaves. The term invokes a particular identity informed by American historical memory. It is a memory that some Americans insist that we must not hold too tightly. A Virginia legislator recently insisted that blacks should “get over” slavery. Unlike other Americans, this white man said, Afro-Americans should forget our past. Afro-American historical memory is one that discomfits the majority because it puts the lie to one of America’s most defining, self-servingly powerful narratives.
Dirtying That Narrative
Americans have been soothed throughout our history by the refrain that we are an inherently “good” people. That insistence is in keeping with the idea that America has a god-given destiny to lead. This notion is woven throughout American history and Americans react to it with Pavlovian certainty; George Bush wielded it like a lion tamer’s whip during the runup to the Iraq war.
If a divinely fed spring of goodness informs America’s actions, crimes of hatred simultaneously wending their way through American history befoul that spring. By our very cultural existence and memory, we invoke such crimes of hatred—the crimes of slavery, Jim Crow, and the crime of governmentally sanctioned American apartheid that lasted throughout most of the 20th century. By our very cultural existence, Afro-Americans can dirty the American narrative. That is why the invocation of Afro-American culture remains so politically dangerous and frightening to some.
Joe Biden recently caught hell for suggesting what a lot of majority America was thinking—that Obama is unique among Afro-American political presidential candidates for being “clean” and “articulate.” Previous candidates whom Biden tacitly implied were “unclean” and “inarticulate” – men and women like Jesse Jackson and Shirley Chisholm – are indeed Afro-American, and insist upon the primacy of Afro-American historical memory. America’s great crime against herself and her people is part of their being. They never forget. That is a position greatly admired in other ethnic groups, but denied to Afro-Americans. For us to remember—for our fellow countrymen to accept and celebrate our remembrance as they do the remembrance of others—is to accept, at some level, indictment. That is anathema to those who consider themselves divinely anointed as “good.”
Color Is Not Culture
Obama’s father was African, not Afro-American. His mother was white. Non-blacks, like Biden, feel more comfortable with Obama because his biography suggests the absence of Afro-American historical memory. Growing up, he had no Afro-American influence in his household to pass such memory along. It is easy to read his history as free from such memory and the implicit indictment that is read to accompany it. Obama himself acknowledged as much when he wrote, “It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.” His father’s image, a son of Africa—not (Afro) America (despite the Americans in his pantheon). This distinction was clarified and strengthened when he later wrote of his disappointment on learning that his African paternal grandfather had worked as a servant for wealthy whites. Such knowledge would never have been a “disappointment” to an Afro-American. It would be almost expected. Obama makes clear that he identified with an African father, free from the simple, mundane, historical “humiliations” with which Afro-Americans historically contend.
It is a sign of Afro-America’s woeful failure to culturally identify ourselves (for ourselves and our countrymen) that we’re thrown into such a tizzy by a man whose background and outlook are quite clear. We write endless op-eds debating the false “black enough” issue. We ignore the more subtle—and difficult—cultural issue lurking beneath all that noise. That we exclusively identify ourselves with as sloppy and self-negating a tag as African-American, a designation to which Charlize Theron can lay claim, is partly to blame. “African-American” omits the most important aspect of our history in America—the culture borne of our status as the sons and daughters of slaves—in favor of some pan-African fantasy that is as grossly non-descriptive of other African cultures as it is of our own.
Acknowledgment Would Be Power--His and Ours
It is foolish of us to expect Obama to be what he is not, to possess what he cannot. He is not of Afro-American heritage, and has no reason to possess an Afro-American cultural outlook or historical memory. That outlook and memory are things to which he has obviously been exposed throughout much of his life. But the suggestion that his skin color combined with that exposure change the essence of his background… that is racist in the extreme.
Debra Dickerson of Salon Magazine noted that whites should not pat themselves on the back and declare “colorblindness” because they cheer Obama. This is a black candidate whose biography allows you to sidestep most of your fears and prejudices and vain desires for our historical amnesia. Those uniquely American fears and hates and projections concern only the dark offspring of American history– Afro-Americans, one of which Obama is not.
For Obama to acknowledge that he is not an Afro-American would be a greater national service than his presidential candidacy. It would force Americans to look at the intersection of race and culture, something we have all ignored for too long, largely to the detriment of Afro-America. It would also be a favor to his candidacy. It would officially free him from post-supremacist America’s lingering scorn for Afro-Americans and our history in this country. It would free him from Afro-America’s desire to anoint him a champion, or vilify him for his failure to accept the mantel. It would also free him from the suggestion that his “next generation” outlook is, in fact, a sotto paean to America’s restive desire to omit Afro-American viewpoints from its stream of consciousness—free him from the suggestion that he willingly benefits from prejudice against Afro-American cultural outlooks.
Barack Obama is a black man. Barack Obama is an African-American. But Barack Obama is NOT an Afro-American. Black and Afro-American are two different things, and with respect to Barack Obama’s political prospects, the difference is critical.
Afro-American describes the culture of American descendents of African slaves. The term invokes a particular identity informed by American historical memory. It is a memory that some Americans insist that we must not hold too tightly. A Virginia legislator recently insisted that blacks should “get over” slavery. Unlike other Americans, this white man said, Afro-Americans should forget our past. Afro-American historical memory is one that discomfits the majority because it puts the lie to one of America’s most defining, self-servingly powerful narratives.
Dirtying That Narrative
Americans have been soothed throughout our history by the refrain that we are an inherently “good” people. That insistence is in keeping with the idea that America has a god-given destiny to lead. This notion is woven throughout American history and Americans react to it with Pavlovian certainty; George Bush wielded it like a lion tamer’s whip during the runup to the Iraq war.
If a divinely fed spring of goodness informs America’s actions, crimes of hatred simultaneously wending their way through American history befoul that spring. By our very cultural existence and memory, we invoke such crimes of hatred—the crimes of slavery, Jim Crow, and the crime of governmentally sanctioned American apartheid that lasted throughout most of the 20th century. By our very cultural existence, Afro-Americans can dirty the American narrative. That is why the invocation of Afro-American culture remains so politically dangerous and frightening to some.
Joe Biden recently caught hell for suggesting what a lot of majority America was thinking—that Obama is unique among Afro-American political presidential candidates for being “clean” and “articulate.” Previous candidates whom Biden tacitly implied were “unclean” and “inarticulate” – men and women like Jesse Jackson and Shirley Chisholm – are indeed Afro-American, and insist upon the primacy of Afro-American historical memory. America’s great crime against herself and her people is part of their being. They never forget. That is a position greatly admired in other ethnic groups, but denied to Afro-Americans. For us to remember—for our fellow countrymen to accept and celebrate our remembrance as they do the remembrance of others—is to accept, at some level, indictment. That is anathema to those who consider themselves divinely anointed as “good.”
Color Is Not Culture
Obama’s father was African, not Afro-American. His mother was white. Non-blacks, like Biden, feel more comfortable with Obama because his biography suggests the absence of Afro-American historical memory. Growing up, he had no Afro-American influence in his household to pass such memory along. It is easy to read his history as free from such memory and the implicit indictment that is read to accompany it. Obama himself acknowledged as much when he wrote, “It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.” His father’s image, a son of Africa—not (Afro) America (despite the Americans in his pantheon). This distinction was clarified and strengthened when he later wrote of his disappointment on learning that his African paternal grandfather had worked as a servant for wealthy whites. Such knowledge would never have been a “disappointment” to an Afro-American. It would be almost expected. Obama makes clear that he identified with an African father, free from the simple, mundane, historical “humiliations” with which Afro-Americans historically contend.
It is a sign of Afro-America’s woeful failure to culturally identify ourselves (for ourselves and our countrymen) that we’re thrown into such a tizzy by a man whose background and outlook are quite clear. We write endless op-eds debating the false “black enough” issue. We ignore the more subtle—and difficult—cultural issue lurking beneath all that noise. That we exclusively identify ourselves with as sloppy and self-negating a tag as African-American, a designation to which Charlize Theron can lay claim, is partly to blame. “African-American” omits the most important aspect of our history in America—the culture borne of our status as the sons and daughters of slaves—in favor of some pan-African fantasy that is as grossly non-descriptive of other African cultures as it is of our own.
Acknowledgment Would Be Power--His and Ours
It is foolish of us to expect Obama to be what he is not, to possess what he cannot. He is not of Afro-American heritage, and has no reason to possess an Afro-American cultural outlook or historical memory. That outlook and memory are things to which he has obviously been exposed throughout much of his life. But the suggestion that his skin color combined with that exposure change the essence of his background… that is racist in the extreme.
Debra Dickerson of Salon Magazine noted that whites should not pat themselves on the back and declare “colorblindness” because they cheer Obama. This is a black candidate whose biography allows you to sidestep most of your fears and prejudices and vain desires for our historical amnesia. Those uniquely American fears and hates and projections concern only the dark offspring of American history– Afro-Americans, one of which Obama is not.
For Obama to acknowledge that he is not an Afro-American would be a greater national service than his presidential candidacy. It would force Americans to look at the intersection of race and culture, something we have all ignored for too long, largely to the detriment of Afro-America. It would also be a favor to his candidacy. It would officially free him from post-supremacist America’s lingering scorn for Afro-Americans and our history in this country. It would free him from Afro-America’s desire to anoint him a champion, or vilify him for his failure to accept the mantel. It would also free him from the suggestion that his “next generation” outlook is, in fact, a sotto paean to America’s restive desire to omit Afro-American viewpoints from its stream of consciousness—free him from the suggestion that he willingly benefits from prejudice against Afro-American cultural outlooks.