Yesterday, fellow blogger and Obsidian interlocutor Chuck Ross, made the following statements and posed the following questions:
See, the mistake that is too often made is that people make this argument that society and culture is white which implies that it’s “white’s only”. But that’s not the case. This culture has a certain set of characteristics and qualities and the majority of its occupants happen to be white. Theoretically, blacks have the option to capitulate and embrace the type of behavior that helps them fit into a society that just so happens to be white-majority.
But too many people think that the secret lies in the opposite direction. Instead of blacks moving towards the status quo, the status quo must shift to meet blacks. But this isn’t a good strategy, from an HBD perspective. These are ugly truths, but if the point of all of this is to solve the problem and to come out with a strong society and economy, black tropism is a better bet than status quo shifting.
By the way, of all the “Black Movements” that have ever existed in this country, has anyone ever come along and said, “you know what, just ‘sell out’. Just accept society as it is and try to operate within it.” I don’t think any movement leader has ever adopted that strategy for improving black peoples’ lot. Why, considering all the other movements of Black Nationalism or passive resistance or aggressive resistace hasn’t this happened? Why not try that?
In my admittedly clipped reply, I said to Chuck that he had raised some very provocative (but by no means novel, as we shall see) questions, and as I had been thinking about a related topic, I would return with an expanded series of thoughts in response.
The following are those thoughts.
First, as I said above, we have to note, and keep in mind the fact that Black folk have always sought to “fit in”; even Pat Buchanan, without question one of the Right’s best known Conservative voices, has said as much: we eat the same food, wear the same clothes, have the same names, pray to the same God. Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, WEB DuBois and Booker T. Washington, and countless other African Americans, prominent and pedestrians, were and are, completely culturally assimilated into American cultural mores. Black folk, unlike more historically recent immigrants, didn’t speak a “mother tongue”-we’ve spoken English for nearly the entire time we’ve been here. And consider Black Women, who spend billions of dollars a year, torturing themselves to look White. (NOTE: For a very interesting discussion on the latter point, please see this current blog post and comments by me at Chuck’s blog.) I mean, just on the face of it, Chuck’s comments and questions above, seem at the very least incurious and obtuse, and at worst, pernicious and duplicitous.
And let’s not even get started on the ultimate example of “fitting in”-the 44th President of the United States-with mixed, at best results.
Yet, just as the American historical record records the simple fact that its citizens of African background have bent over backward to “fit in”, it also documents a more recent, but nevertheless vociferous chorus of voices who pose the very same questions and makes the same assertions as Chuck does.
Here, we have to turn to what we may call the New American Right-by that I mean, those who choose to identify with ideas and notions espoused by White Americans who consider themselves the guardians of America’s originalist traditions, although they aren’t White themselves. There are no shortage of such individuals in our time, many of them having come along during the Reagan era-but for our purposes, we’ll consider three such people, all Males-”esteemed” economist and social critic Thomas Sowell; Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas; and finally, former Reagan administration staffer and conservative pundit, Dinesh D’Souza.
All three of these Men have had harsh words for what D’Souza derisively calls “the cultural left” and in particular those on said left who happen to be and/or openly and vociferously advocate for Black folk. They are staunch opponents of Affirmative Action, say that welfare and other social programs are the true culprit behind the difficulties that poorer African Americans face, and most of all, that their problems stem from moral failings that are intensified by all the aforementioned public policy programs. They say that the chief problem facing Blacks-particularly those who are poor-isn’t racism big or small-but rather the adoption of, and allegiance to, a set of cultural norms that are self destructive. Moreover, they assert, that if they just “work hard and play by the rules”-which includes “acting White”-that they too can achieve success.
Indeed, this is exactly what D’Souza-himself an immigrant from India who had achieved honorary White status-says in what is perhaps his most controversial book to date, the early 1990s tome The End of Racism. In it he asserts that a big part of Black culture is rooted in slavery uprisings ala Nat Turner, a kind of defiance that has long outlived its usefulness in the New World Order that was the post-Civil Rights Era. John Ogbu, the late educational scholar who became infamous for his Shaker Heights study, said more or less the same thing, using the term “oppositional culture” to explain in part, why Black kids who were the products of solidly middle class and upwardly mobile Black parents, still lagged behind White and Asian students on standardized test scores.
This “defiance of/from slavery” tradition/theory was also espoused by Manhattan Institute scholar John Mcwhorter, who in his own linguistically eloquent way, did a “yea, what he/they said”. There are many more examples across the Black/Non-White Conservative firmament, one that is firmly rooted in a blame the victim, “breaking a Man’s leg and then calling him a cripple” argument.
Although such notions are as intellectually sound as the idea that the moon is made of cheese when one does even the most casual study and observation of African Americans post-Slavery (think: Gunnar Myrdal), they nevertheless have tremendous appeal and cache in more Conservative circles; they have a near-metaphysical attraction for them, hence why so many of their adherents, from the elite to the rank and file, like Chuck, routinely utters such things.
Yet, we here at The Obsidian Files has been putting a laser-like focus on “fitting in”, and we’ve found that there is a very important distinction to be made when it comes to the discussion about Black folks. Simply put, this is largely a question aimed at Black Males, since we have reams of evidence that “fitting in”-if by that is meant, doing all the things that White society deems a pre-requisite to success-has indeed worked for Black Females. And, while there have indeed been Black Female voices on the Right, such as say, Condoleeza Rice, it seems that those who gets the most play and are featured most prominently to the public, have been Black Males.
Which brings us to Prof. Sowell, and Justice Thomas.
If you’re Black and you find yourself having a go at White Conservatives, it won’t be long before you hear them triumphantly trot out the names of prominent Black Conservatives; Sowell and Thomas tend to be at the top of the list. Usually, they are named to one, act as examples of what Blacks “should” do-and two, they are mentioned as quasi-martyrs to the cause of being “independent thinkers” (read: they agree with Conservatives) who went off the Black Liberal groupthink reservation, and as a result were summarily excommunicated for this egregious sin. And of course, a third powerful reason, is that such names are proudly mentioned as proof positive, that the Republican Party in particular, and the Conservative Right in general, aren’t racists.
By all accounts, if the voter rolls and exit polls eversince the LBJ era is any indication, Black folk enmasse ain’t buying.
What’s always been interesting about both these Men to me, is that they are more oddities than real flesh and blood people; I mean, neither of these Men has gained legitimate distinction in their respective fields in their own right. They are known more for their kind of Bizarro “Race Man” personas and stances, than for their life’s work in terms of their professions-a
true irony, since they and by extension the Right, denounces the Left for being and doing the exact same things.
Consider Thomas for example-nominated to replace the legendary Thurgood Marshall by Bush 41, Thomas’s paltry record as a jurist might have gotten much more deserved scrutiny had it not been for the “high tech lynching” that was the Anita Hill testimony against Thomas during his Senate confirmation hearings. Many have speculated that that Thomas wasn’t nominated By Bush the Elder because he was truly the Best Man for the job, but rather, because he was the right kind of Black guy for the Right. Surely, no one who has even a smattering of legal eagle skills and awareness would say that Thomas stands in the same room as Marshall-and, in yet another incredulous display of irony, Thomas’ claim to fame prior to being tapped to succeed Marshall on the bench, was being the HNIC at the EEOC-a governmental agency that was and continues to be vilified by the Right for being little more than an Affirmative Action rubberstamping operation. Yet, Thomas dutifully performs his function, by out-Righting even notoriously Conservative Antonin Scalia, who in his own words has said that Thomas is on some other ish with his Conservative views.
Then, there’s Sowell-who, after trying out living the life of a Black radical, got his act together, went to Howard and on from there to become one of the country’s most lauded economists you’ve never heard of, unless you’re on the Right or are accosted by folks on the Right if you’re Black and you find yourself discussing racial issues with them (see above). What’s always been fascinating about Sowell to me is, for all his supposed prowess as an economist, *he has never participated in a national discussion on the matter*. I mean, think about it-since at least the early 70s, he has been known to Washington insiders, and at least three GOP Presidents, in Reagan and both Bushes. One has to ask-if indeed Sowell is all that, why wasn’t he given a golden invitation to be part of any one of these POTUS’ inner circles, helping to craft national (and by extension, international) economic policy-especially given the events of the past few years in particular? Why is his biggest claim to fame, in fact and to date, been that of a “Race Man for the Right”? I mean, if indeed Sowell hadn’t discussed his heretical views on Race, ie, Black people, would he even be mentioned by the Right, let alone lauded?
None of this is to say that he doesn’t make some very interesting points and arguments. But, ya gotta admit, it does raise some powerful questions, don’t it?
What all three of these Men have in common-D’Souza, Sowell and Thomas-is that were willing to “sell out” to the degree Whites-and here I am saying White Conservatives, though in no way completely limited to them-feel comfortable. Simply put, White people feel comfortable with Black Men who have been “broken”, much in the same way bucking broncos are broken and made more amenable for human use. This is why there is so much said about Black Men being perceived as having “chips on shoulders” and the like. Think about it. In the White American public mind, Black Men must be domesticated, must be controlled lest their innate Wildman natures run amok on the countryside.
That these Men, Sowell, Thomas and other Black Male Conservatives, make it a special point of their very careers, to publicly upbraid-and that’s key, crucial, here, as White folk LOVE IT when Black people “tell it like it is” to other Black folk they deem as “misbehaving”-recall Bill Cosby’s “Poundcake Speech”-Black people and their perceived moral failings, really says a great deal as to what Black Men have to do in order to “fit in”. I’ve written about this recently, and wasn’t surprised that the response from Black Men themselves was rather paltry. Perhaps their silence spoke volumes to the cold, bitter truths presented in that particular missive.
So, in summation, I say to Chuck that not only should he study his history-he can begin by checking out Skip Gates’ excellent PBS series on the African American experience and go from there-but I would also say to him that “fitting in” for Black Men carries with it an extremely high price that even Black Women aren’t asked to pay; and given the spotty, at best, return on investment Black Men have received, is it any wonder if we discover, that they aren’t all that crazy about “fitting in” much anymore?
Comment & reply, holla.
Now adjourn your historically ignorant asses…
The Obsidian
