An Attempt to Change History

In our class discussion on the Freedom Generation and forming of a post-slavery culture, the Family Leader group’s Pro-Traditional Marriage Pledge came to mind. The group, led by Bob Vander Plaats, called upon all Republican presidential candidates to sign the pledge. The “Marriage Vow” pledge is against gay marriage, premarital sex, and porn and was quick to be signed off on by Bachmann and Santorum. On the first page of the four page pledge, it states the following:
“Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”
This statement, located in the preamble of the pledge, claims that the African American family of 1860 was more stable than the modern African American family. It also seems to suggest that things were better for African Americans in the time of slavery, especially for children. The preamble statement has been criticized by many for being “factually incorrect and show[ing] a gross misunderstanding of American history (Anderson Cooper Transcript, 11 July 2011).” When asked about the passage, a Family Leader representative asserted that the statement was “not meant to be racist or anything. It was just a fact that that in the days of slavery, there was usually a husband and a wife (Anderson Cooper Transcript).” The Family Leader group obviously does not have an accurate understanding of historical certainties.
In the time of slavery, slaves were denied human space. Human space, requiring family and community, pushed slaves into submission through regulation of bodies and regulation of space. In trying to create this human space that the institution of slavery sought to destroy, slaves were attempting to carve out an existence and maintain a family unit (Roger Williams). With the Chattlal Principle, slaves’ identities were disrupted as easily as a price could be set and a piece of paper passed from one hand to another. Children, who in the “Marriage Vow” preamble are asserted to be more closely tied to two-parent households in the 1860’s, were being grown into money with one part of their body belonging to themselves and the other to their masters. There was a constant fear of being sold and a constant threat of a social death and family destruction. There was also the identity issue and how to navigate the reality that sometimes the father of a slave child was his master (The Politics of Proximity, Johnson). Families had to constantly negotiate to preserve the unstable family unit. By 1860, the year mentioned in the preamble, there were 3.9 million slaves and slavery was the law in 13 states. The production of cotton is also up to 4 million bales by 1860. With this increase, internal transactions led to even more family separation with 1 million slaves being relocated from the upper South to the lower South. In 1860, 2 million slaves were sold through transactions. The stability asserted by the “Marriage Vow” is clearly historically incorrect. As shown in Chapter 6 in Problems, slaves were not considered humans, but products. Female slaves were reduced to being simply reproducers, as well as enduring rape by white masters.
The slave family unit was broken down through sale, death, and running away. Harriet Jacobs notes in the document that in 1861 her master attempted to use her children to make her work more and as a control source. Eventually, Jacobs went into hiding while her grandmother took care of her children. The hiding that Jacobs, who was abused by her master, was forced into destroyed her family unit. Another example provided by the documents is documentation of a slave mother killing her children before allowing them to return to slavery as death was a better option then returning to slavery (1856). With countless descriptions of family separation and abuse, it is ridiculous to argue that the family unit was stronger in slavery than in modern times.

Nihilism in Black America

During my first week of high school in the Mississippi school system, I sat with my older sister for lunch in the cafeteria. As we were talking, I noticed an older white student walking up to place his tray in the receptacle wearing one of those white “Dixie Outfitters” shirts with a confederate flag on the back and a camouflage, frayed-brim hat hanging out of the back pocket of his jeans. Subsequently, an exceptionally powerful-looking African American student sauntered calmly toward him. When approximately five feet were separating them, the black student took a long, forceful step, simultaneously placing the lunch tray up to the white student’s face and punching it so hard that the front of his white shirt turned completely dark red within seconds. I looked to my sister immediately, and she humorously responded, “Welcome to high school.” I did not recognize the symbolism of his blood soaked “Dixie Outfitters” shirt until later, but this was the ironic beginning of a physical and mental race war that continued through my entire schooling in that horrible state. While reading Remembering Jim Crow, one can only attempt to understand a fraction of the immense impact of this 89 year period and to identify the overarching and implicit manifestations of Jim Crow in today’s socioeconomic and cultural status quo. Witnessing these intense physical and mental battles first-hand continues to fuel an interest to explore the mindset occurring throughout today’s poor African American communities. Thanks to Dr. Cornel West of Princeton University and his book Race Matters, I discovered a particularly profound analysis of the issue that directly relates to my own philosophical and emotional struggles throughout my life in the Confederacy.

My birth followed the time of Jim Crow by decades, yet my life in modern Mississippi induced a strong bitterness and contempt toward this oppressive Southern “society.” After years of experiences like the one mentioned, my hatred of all the absurd values, racism and blatant stupidity was cultivated by the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, and my subsequent nihilism initiated an intense self-destruction. The significant realization here that I never comprehended fully was the fact that my nihilism was not simply a result of hating any particular concept, but, more fundamentally, it was a reaction toward the oppression of the Absurd. Thanks to Dr. West, I believe that I finally am beginning to understand the fundamental idea of what is happening in today’s economically poor African American society and the factors causing this shift toward the violent and apathetic mindset that manifests itself in crime and unemployment through the scope of this period in my life.

In Race Matters, West opens unexpectedly with “Chapter 1: Nihilism in Black America.” Throughout this first chapter, the general population is quite accurately placed into two main groups depending on their theories of how to rise and overcome called the “liberal structuralists” and the “conservative behavorists.” On the one hand, the “structuralists” believe that the burden on black society exists as a result of political and economic oppression. In other words, this camp upholds that disparity in the black community is society’s fault. On the other hand, the “behaviorists” place the blame on a lack of “Protestant ethic” in black society. More simply, this camp upholds that disparity in the black community results from a lack of “hard work, deferred gratification, frugality, and responsibility.” This idea of a “Protestant ethic” should seem familiar and is, in fact, conceptually identical to our phrase “politics of respectability.” My previous post discusses the shift from my inchoate behaviorist ideologies to what I thought was an ethically and rationally justifiable response of blaming society for everything as a structuralist. Both of these camps have obvious merit, but for various reasons they both miss or ignore the pervasive and pathological mindset within the community which he aptly refers to as “the nihilistic threat.” From the context of African American history and culture, he forms his own more appropriate definition in terms of nihilism as a lifestyle, a very familiar consequence of the ideology:

“Nihilism is to be understood here not as a philosophic doctrine that there are no rational grounds for legitimate standards or authority; it is, far more, the lived experience of coping with a life of horrifying meaninglessness, hopelessness, and (most important) lovelessness.”

Still in ignorance of the fact that I was just voluntarily indulging in the existential struggle forced upon non-white society, I had always considered finding some unifying theme that could explain the complex status quo of today’s stratified society as too complicated to even know where to begin. Particularly, I often wondered if all this violence and anger could simply boil down to a community rebelling against a constant and never-ending unjust society. Again, I did not have a single idea of where to start and often shrugged off the question/theory as being overly simplistic and completely unfounded. Yet the way Dr. West uses “nihilism” as a pragmatic ideology in combination with my own personal experiences, everything is beginning to make perfect sense.

I hate how obvious the answer to a question seems after it is revealed. That debilitating nihilism that consumed me for those years stared me straight in the eyes when thinking about how predominantly poor African American communities could turn on each other with such fervor. My question of whether it resulted from a community rebelling against society was in fact overly simplistic and idealistic. It followed from a more concrete investigation of what shifted music within the community from the beautiful genres of blues and jazz to the horrifying “gangsta rap” of today (which West argues is a result of the same nihilism but shifted correspondingly with America’s transition to hyper-capitalism). Regardless, I was infected by nihilism as merely an onlooker of injustice, acting as if I was some Camusian Absurd hero for simply watching Sisyphus grapple his rock, and felt the overwhelming rage toward everyone including those who shared my struggle. This fact contextualized all of these questions of gang violence and hateful lyrics and showed that this violence was not the result of a community against a society as I had naively hoped but, instead, an individual against society, signifying a transition from the transcendental Civil Rights Movement to the deterministic chaos seen on History Channel’s Gangland and NWA music videos. Throwing away all the redneck trash about slaves being freed 148 years ago and Jim Crow ending 46 years ago implying social equality, I am beginning to see the Absurd horror experienced in these time periods flowing over into today. Just ask Cornel West how it feels to see your uncle lynched and tied to a tree with an American flag. It makes you realize how little 46 years actually is.

‘Not nearly black history; it’s history for Americans’ – Tony Horne

During his lecture a few weeks ago, Tony Horne gave impeccable insight into not only African American theatre, but also into the identity of African American life post slavery with his latest production, August Wilson’s ‘Gem of the Ocean’. The play is set in 1904 Pittsburgh, ‘just at the dawn of migration of African Americans from the north to south’, and tells a story of a young man seeking redemption for a grave mistake. The protagonist, Citizen, must journey back into his ancestral history to heal his soul, but in the process, he goes through a personal battle of self-definition.

What is so striking about the playwright is his emphasis on what Horne calls ‘the healing power of history’. He proposed that August Wilson used his plays to look at history by reexamining it, and likewise, he believed Wilson’s works are ‘calls to action’, provoking society (the audience) to reassess their perception of African American history. By reevaluating the ideas of said history, Horne deduces the audience would be pressured to re-inscribe their identity with it well..

The connection with Horne’s proposal and our own experience of African American history in class is significant in two ways. In class, we saw how America tends to define itself on our ‘victorious’ revolution during the 18^th century and how it looks on at the documents that built the revolution as if trophies. However, we have also talked of the irony in America denying freedom to African Americans while at the same time fighting for freedom and independence from the British. In Horne’s perspective, essentially we have “re-inscribed” ourselves with that time period by looking at it from a different point of view. Thus, what was once thought one of America’s greatest triumphs may actually be seen as a time of utmost negligence and hypocrisy.

Another connection that we can attribute to Horne is our understanding of American history. He pronounced that African American history is “not nearly black history; it’s history for Americans.” In class, we also have been exposed to the notion that African American history is American history. By understanding how the African American race was so vital to the birth and growth of our country, it would be duplicitous to assume that African American history is independent from our own country’s. The issue now at hand is deciding how to transform modern education on America’s existence to include this new angle of insight. Furthermore, I believe it needs to be established at the earliest level of education as possible. The longer transformation takes, the longer this central and crucial American ingredient will go overlooked.

Nationalism & Integration

The relationship – and sometimes the conflict – between nationalism and integration is one that I hadn’t really considered before this class. I naively assumed that all African-Americans made the effort to integrate into American society as a whole. When thinking about nationalism and integration, it seems that a nationalist movement would only further the separation of races and strengthen segregation. So rather than benefitting the African-Americans, strong nationalism with weak or little integration would only increase the injustices of segregation and widen the inequalities between African-Americans and white Americans. When we discussed this subject in lecture, I found it hard to imagine the difficulties faced by African-Americans following the end of the Civil War. After hundreds of years of involuntary enslavement, they finally had the freedom that had been denied previous generations. Even so, gaining freedom from slavery seemed to be the easiest part. Freedom from prejudice – both legal and extra-legal forms – was a completely new battle, and one that would continue to be fought by newer generations. Given all the difficulties of integration and the obstacles (social, political, and economic) that the African-Americans needed to overcome in order to achieve equality, would the effort be worth it? At first, I was surprised by the fact that Booker T. Washington was a proponent of industrial education for African-Americans and adhered to the politics of accommodation – but upon further consideration, his pragmatic approach made legitimate sense. In order to better the race as a whole, providing opportunities for advancement in the work force meant that eventually more opportunities could be created. Often, advancement in the work force or some professional environment leads to economic and social advancement, as well. Finding the middle ground between Washington’s and W.E.B. du Bois’ differing opinions would be difficult, but possibly. An African-American culture was already strongly in place as a result of slavery, but it needed to be developed into a more cohesive, national effort in order to be more highly effective. African-American culture in the United States drew from traditional African cultures (obviously) and from the common experiences and vestiges of slavery. Strengthening religious organizations, educational programs, business opportunities, and political and economic standing were key in order to advance the race as a whole. While it might not satisfy the popular demand for short-term accomplishments, Washington’s approach to the ideas of nationalism and integration and his focus on building and growing African-American institutions would provide a strong foundation upon which to build further success in the long run.

Retentions of African Religions and Conversions to Christianity

In In Hope of Liberty, the issue of the conversion of slaves to Christianity is highlighted numerous times. According to Herskovits’ ideologies, Africans arrived in the New World with cultural retentions, such as religion and language; however, if slaves instead followed Frazier’s model of the African race as they arrived in the New World, these individuals came to America as empty vessels, devoid of any previous cultures and religions. From Frazier’s perspective, no struggle would exist for a slave to accept a new religion. Nevertheless, historians generally agree and accept Herskovits’ ideas over Frazier’s. Implicit in Herskovits’ argument is the fact Africans possessed religious ideals and the Europeans would be forced to actively change and replace African religions with Christianity, if they wanted their slaves to follow the same religion they did.
Initially, slaves had no intention of leaving their Old World practices behind. For example, Horton notes, “these dedicated [European] churchmen were particularly frustrated by the tenacity with which Africans clung to their Old World ways” (Horton 30). Why would Africans want to convert? Some Africans converted because incentives did exist to become a Christian. Besides simply appeasing the master and likely avoiding punishment, religious conversion could offer an opportunity for blacks to learn to read and write. Whites would also experience more difficulty in legitimizing the enslavement of a baptized African, since “one powerful justification of slavery was the presumed ‘pagan’ character of African society” (Horton 21). As a result, Africans may have been pursuing Christianity to aid in their quest for education and freedom. This education could be used as a tool in a later escape from bondage. I just wonder at this time how difficult the struggle was to put a former religion behind and accept a new one. In 1665, many of the motivational reasons to convert to Christianity were lost by the passage of laws that “subsequent conversion did not entitle Africans to freedom” (Horton 21). What were the reasons to convert to Christianity at this point?
Steadily, as generation after generation of slaves was exposed to Christianity, the majority of blacks began to identify themselves as Christian. In many instances though, African principles permeated in the Christianity they practiced. Christian slaves continued to maintain a deep relationship with the spirits, continued to communicate with ancestors, and continued to chant healing charms like predecessor followers of African religions did. The two different religion types began to integrate together into one religion that influenced the Christianity that both blacks and whites practiced.

Hypocritical Freedom

“the measure of a man’s estimate of your strength is the kind of weapons he feels that he must use in order to hold you fast in a prescribed place” – Howard Thurman (Jim Crow, 1).

The Jim Crow south was like mixing oil and water. While African Americans and whites both inhabited the same place it was impossible for them to integrate and form one entity. In the years following the abolition of slavery the black population of America faced the impossible task of establishing their race within society, beyond the limits that were previously fixed upon them. One can never forget the overbearing blockades that white southerners enforced in order to inhibit African Americans’ goal of liberty. Whites instituted laws and societal barriers that inevitably “ [froze] the place of the Negro in society and guarantee[d] his basic immobility” (Jim Crow, 1). It was not until the end of abolition that blacks realized they reserved the right to say “no”. Never had a word given so much power to a particular race. “No” actually placed the power in hands of African Americans.

White southerners found ways to go around the new laws and amendments for equality, most notably through the implementation of the notion of separate but equal, which was a result of the Supreme Court case of Plessy vs. Ferguson. This allowed the whites to preserve their own racial space and continue racism that was still prevalent in the South. Plessy vs. Ferguson racially divided the South and denied blacks access to the basic priveladges given to the whites. It was evident that Southern infrastructure was anything but equal. The white buses, schools, hospitals, neighborhoods, grocery stores, and clothing stores were clearly superior to their black counterparts. Many companies knew that if they kept one facility allowing both races to enter, the whites would boycott their company and begin shopping with one of their all white competitors. Additionally they knew southern whites would not approve of the racially separate items being equal in construction or condition. Although slavery had been destroyed the ideals and mindsets that went along with the institution were still engrained in southern society.

Southern society made obvious the traditional racist philosophies they wished to preserve and never let anyone from the emancipated race forget that. Black children of the Jim Crow south had to overcome the unpredictability of their childhood. Remembering Jim Crow illustrates

“… alleged white ‘friends’ suddenly becoming mortal enemies… most poignant of these realities emerged when African American children came to understand that blacks and whites were different in the eyes of their society…black children confronted racial differences in the taunts of white children, in the degrading treatment of black adults, and in their own observations of who was better off than whom. Under [these] circumstances, ‘you just automatically grow up inferior…” ( 3).

While whites had no way of estimating the capabilities the black race after the abolition they never attempted to risk their grander position within society in order to create true equality. White southerners saw the abolition as a major threat to their traditional society, therefore preserving the ideal southern way of life was essential to all southern white citizens. Protection of southern principles was Jim Crow’s key mission. Implementing the set of social standards established in the Jim Crow South allowed the whites to maintain their superiority over all other citizens. Despite the fact that the abolition took place decades before, blacks were stuck within a paradox. While they were technically free they were never fully liberated from the constraints of slavery. They were constantly shown their ‘rightful place’ within society, racial etiquette was the tedious and demoralizing conduct that every African American should follow in their everyday encounters with the white society. It was the fundamentals of this social protocol that blatantly indicated the true position of African Americans within the social order.

Why Was Racial Based Slavery So Successful?

When looking back on American history, it is easy to call into question how an institution as unjust as slavery could exist in such a country that was and still is incredibly dedicated to promoting equality and independence. However, it is also quite easy to produce the rational behind the success of slavery in the New World. When Europeans arrived to what would become the United States, they attempted to enslave the indigenous peoples; however, they soon discovered it was an impossible feat because the Native Americans had the home field advantage and they were all dying off as a result of the diseases carried by Europeans. After attempting to utilize the natives and even indentured servants, colonists soon determined the enslavement of Africans to be a much simpler plan.

In 1619, African slaves were brought to the New World, and colonists quickly benefited from the newly created racial based slavery. The difference between enslaving the indigenous people and the Africans was that unlike the indigenous people, the Africans were literally removed from their homeland and all social networks. It was much harder for an African to rebel, for they had no one else to turn to if they were to succeed. By kidnapping them from their homes, colonists forced African slaves to become dependent on their new owners for everything including food, water, clothes, and living space. Another benefit to racial based slavery was that unlike indentured servants, African slaves were free laborers who were forced to work for life. Racial based slavery also provided an easy method to identify who was and was not a slave. If a European indentured servant were to run away from his master, it was much easier for him to simply create a new life in another town. However, if an African slave were to flee, they were quickly identified as a runaway based on the color of their skin.

The most effective quality of racial based slavery was the idea of the inferiority of Africans. It was easy for colonists to justify their enslaving of other human beings because Africans were considered “other”. They were believed to be an inadequate race compared to the whites, and even a barbaric race that needed to be controlled. It was also this idea that allowed for the acceptance of slavery by Christianity. Africans were believed to be heathens who needed to be taught the way of God, and luckily for American slave traders this was one of the main reasons why slavery was condoned and even encouraged as America was paving her way into becoming an international power.