Among opinion writers, Jonathan Chait is outranked in my esteem only by Hendrik Hertzberg. This lovely take-down of Robert Johnson is a classic of the genre, one I studied incessantly when I was sharpening my own sword. The sharpening never ends. With that in mind, it is a pleasure to engage Chait in the discussion over President Obama, racism, culture and personal responsibility. It’s good to debate a writer of such clarity–even when that clarity has failed him.
On y va.
Essentially, Chait argues that I’ve conflated Paul Ryan’s view of black poverty with Barack Obama’s. He is correct. I should have spent more time disentangling these two notions, and illuminating their common roots–the notion that black culture is part of the problem. I have tried to do this disentangling in the past. I am sorry I did not then and will attempt to do so now.
Arguing that poor black people are not “holding up their end of the bargain,” or that they are in need of moral instruction is an old and dubious tradition in America. There is a conservative and a liberal rendition of this tradition. The conservative version of the cultural argument eliminates white supremacy as a factor, and leaves the question of the culture’s origin ominously unanswered. This version can never be regarded seriously. Life is short. Black life is shorter.
On y va.
The liberal version of the cultural argument points to “a tangle of pathologies” haunting black America born of oppression. This argument–which Barack Obama embraces–is more sincere, honest and seductive. Chait helpfully summarizes:
The argument is that structural conditions shape culture, and culture, in turn, can take on a life of its own independent of the forces that created it. It would be bizarre to imagine that centuries of slavery, followed by systematic terrorism, segregation, discrimination, a legacy wealth gap, and so on did not leave a cultural residue that itself became an impediment to success.
The “structural conditions” Chait outlines above can be summed up under the phrase “white supremacy.” I have spent the past two days searching for an era when black culture could be said to be “independent” of white supremacy. I have not yet found one. Certainly the antebellum period when one third of all enslaved black people found themselves on the auction block, is not such an era. And surely we would not consider postbellum America, when freedpeople were regularly subjected to terrorism, to be such an era.
We certainly do not find such an era during the Roosevelt-Truman era when this country erected a racist social safety, leaving the NAACP to quip that the New Deal was “like a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.” Nor do we find it during the 1940s, 50s and 60s, when African-Americans–as a matter of federal policy–were largely excluded from the legitimate housing market. Nor during the 1980s when we began the erection of a prison industrial complex so vast that black males now comprise 8 percent of the world’s entire incarcerated population.
And we do not find an era free of white supremacy in our times, either when the rising number of arrests for marijuana are mostly born by African-Americans; when segregation drive a foreclosure crisis which helped expand the wealth gap; when big banks busy themselves baiting black people with “wealth building seminars” and instead offering “ghetto loans” for “mud people”; when studies find that black low-wage applicants with no criminal record “fared no better than a white applicant just released from prison”; when, even after controlling for neighborhoods and crime rates, my son finds himself more likely to be stopped and frisked. Chait’s theory of independent black cultural pathologies sounds reasonable. But it can’t actually be demonstrated in the American record, and thus has no applicability.
What about the idea that white supremacy necessarily “bred a cultural residue that itself became an impediment to success?” Chait believes its “bizarre” to think otherwise. I think it’s bizarre that he doesn’t bother to see if his argument is actually true. Oppression might well produce a culture of failure. It might also produce a warrior spirit and a deep commitment to attaining the very things which had been so often withheld from you. There is no need for theorizing. The answers are knowable.
There certainly is no era more oppressive for black people than their 250 years of enslavement in this country. Slavery encompassed, not just forced labor, but a ban on black literacy, the vending of black children, the regular rape of black women and the lack of legal standing for black marriage. Like Chait, 19th century Northern white reformers coming South after the Civil War, expected to find “a cultural residue that itself became an impediment to success.”
In his masterful history Reconstruction, the historian Eric Foner recounts the experience of the progressives who came to the South as teachers in black schools. The reformers “had little previous contact with blacks” and their views were largely cribbed from Uncle Tom’s Cabin. They thus believed blacks to be culturally degraded and lacking in family instincts, prone to lie and steal, and generally opposed to self-reliance:
Few Northerners involved in black education could rise above the conviction that slavery had produced a “degraded” people, in dire need of instruction in frugality, temperance, honesty, and the dignity of labor…In classrooms, alphabet drills and multiplication tables alternated with exhortations to piety, cleanliness, and punctuality.
In short, white progressives coming South expected to find a black community suffering the effects of not just oppression but its “cultural residue.”
Here is what they actually found:
During the Civil War, John Eaton, who, like many whites, believed that slavery had destroyed the sense of family obligation, was astonished by the eagerness with which former slaves in contraband camps legalized …read more
Source: Atlantic Politics Channel
from Around The World http://ift.tt/1lY4i4H
via IFTTT
0 التعليقات:
إرسال تعليق