Radical thinkers focus on Black identity because they wish to exert power over the contour of acceptable blackness. If you can establish a monopoly on what it means to be black, then you can lock in generations of blame the Man sheep.
From the saying of prayer before dining to respecting one’s elders and the singing of spirituals on Sunday morning, African-American lives are anchored in tradition, in family. There are sad exceptions where unwed mothers with babies by different fathers fall victim to hip-hop culture and consciousness. But by and large, the black middle-class is more like The Cosby Show than Black Entertainment Television gangsta life.
Radical thought harms Black America. Intellectual movements like Critical Race Theory and the Hunt for Black Identity uncouple black thought from all that is constructive in the black experience. In place of “old time religion,” scholars offer up “shock and awe” narratives about space traders. Rather than celebrate the success of Oprah Winfrey and Earl Graves, publisher of Black Enterprise Magazine, life is cast as a “continuing struggle for black liberation.” Nonsense. Life is what you make of it, even if life is unfair. Do our black law professors create lasting treatises, tomes that will stand the test of time? No. People of Color conferences are all the rage, passions that flame out like birthday candles on a windy day.
To illustrate the harms of radical thought, I will use as an example Radical Integration, 94 Cal. L. Rev. 261 (2006). That I am using this article as a lesson does not mean I have a low regard for the author, Professor Michelle Adams. From what I can tell, Professor Adams is a wonderful and accomplished woman. I imagine we would have interesting conversations at “The Black Table.” But for now, her article struck a chord with me because we both are of a similar age and care about young relatives.
Like a good writer, Professor Adams hooks her reader from the opening line:
It is a beautiful summer day.
An aunt and her nine-year-old niece, both black, are driving from New York City to a Long Island resort to visit white friends. The aunt lives in a racially mixed community, her niece in a predominantly black neighborhood. Their friends have a modest boat docked at a marina which has a large pool. While the scenery is lovely, the drive is long and the day is very hot. The niece begins to fidget, and the aunt tells her niece to be patient because they can swim in the pool as soon as they reach their destination. The niece’s excitement at the prospect of a swim is palpable. Finally, after their long drive, they arrive and the pool beckons; nine or ten children are happily splashing and playing as several adults look on. The aunt takes her niece to the restroom to change. As they emerge from the restroom, newly changed into their swimsuits, the niece stops and grasps her aunt’s arm. The aunt leans down puzzled and asks: “What’s the matter?” Her niece, pointing to the pool, replies, “Auntie, I think that’s only for white people.” There is a long, terrible pause, after which the aunt says firmly, “No, It’s not, and we are going to get in that pool.” The niece, however, is suddenly no longer in the mood for a swim. “Auntie, I don’t want to get in the pool.” The aunt tries to reassure her niece. “Come on, it will be fine. It’s hot. Don’t you want to swim?” But the niece is resolute; she refused to swim that day.
The tale is shocking. Our hearts pour out to the little niece.
Professor Adams has hooked her audience.
But I know better. There is more to this story that remains untold.
My three children would never fear jumping into a pool. For better or worse, my children, ages 3 to 10, assume the world is their oyster. And that’s the only way I would raise my children. That we are the only African-American family on the block and that they attend private schools ranging from 5 percent to 8 percent black — these circumstances “liberated” their young minds from racial fears.
Growing up in a predominantly black neighborhood has many benefits. I grew up in a predominantly black neighborhood. But one downside is a discomfort in all-white settings. Unless parents take constructive steps to expose children to all sorts of people, they will develop the racial fear of Adams’ niece. It’s easier to feel comfortable in all-white settings if whiteness is no big deal.
Let’s suppose that the little girl’s fear did not originate from her black neighborhood. I would want to know more about her parents. How have her parents raised her? Have her parents taught her that race is a non-issue or have her parents interjected race in every conversation at every opportunity? If the latter, then I am not surprised that the little girl has all sorts of preconceptions about whites.
And that’s one harm of radical thought for Black America.
When you believe that blackness is all the difference in life and you poison young minds, you create fear. You create anxiety for that child in all-white settings. You have engaged in a form of child abuse. And yet radical thought would have us believe that the Man is evil and omnipresent. It is not true. What is true are legions of little nine-year-old girls who can only see race and not other playmates in the swimming pool.
Professor Adams does not offer an extended analysis of the daily race indoctrination her niece may have weathered. We are left with speculations.
A second harm of radical thought involves the loss of common sense. Adams writes that this experience “haunted” her, so much so that it generated a full-length law review article in a major law review. I am puzzled that Adams became haunted by a predictable outcome. If your niece lives in a predominantly black neighborhood and, let’s say, attends predominantly black schools, and let’s say has parents/grandparents that blame the Man, why should we be haunted that her niece is like a fish out of water in a mainstream setting? I am not. However, Adams believes in radical thought. She believes in Critical Race Theory. So, the culprit must be the evil outside world, not the prejudice within the child’s home. Black people can be prejudiced just like everyone else. And it takes a strong nine-year-old not to pick up baggage from the home.
By this point, Professor Adams has written me out of the black race. Smile. But I digress.
A third harm is an artificial, upper-middle class focus on the “continuing struggle for black liberation.” Hmmn. That mantra is probably more at home in a Third World overthrow of a dictator than a Long Island marina resort. Call me crazy. Most African-Americans are not alumni of Harvard Law School, like Adams and myself. Most black folks are working-class people. They have common every day aspirations. They want to pay the bills. They want to enjoy time with their children and grandchildren and sing in the church choir. They want their sons and daughters to have office jobs and a better life. The souls of black folks are not rooted in liberation struggle. As a result, there is no connection between the world of Adams and the world of the auto mechanic who works at AutoZone, for example, or the driver of a San Diego city bus. The natural leaders of the black community divorce themselves with radical lines from everyday people.
I do not question Adams’ sincerity. I believe she views the world, and her niece, through the lens of “struggle for black liberation.” But if we want to change the world, why not start with changing our thoughts? I ask you, Professor Adams, how many homeless men on the streets of Los Angeles have gained from a “struggle for black liberation?” How many unwed mothers with babies by different fathers have gained from “struggle for black liberation?” And how many young men have said “no” to crime because of “struggle for black liberation?”
The answer would be none.
Radical thought harms Black America in a fourth way. By focusing on the formation of black identity, you lose me and others as well. In my 44 years, I have come across so many black identities that the only constant seems to be self-identification as black. (And even that is called into question if you use the one-drop rule and consider my “passing for white” third-cousins black.) Radical thinkers focus on Black identity because they wish to exert power over the contour of acceptable blackness. If you can establish a monopoly on what it means to be black, then you can lock in generations of blame the Man sheep. Well, I don’t buy it. The Hunt for Black Identity is a mindless, fruitless endeavor. You will not succeed in putting everyone into an intellectual box. But the time and effort that goes into Black Identity studies takes time away from more constructive pursuits like securing judgeships, writing treatises, and steering uncompetitive applicants the hell away from law schools.
A final harm of radical thought is the lack of integrity. In the classic Black No More, George Schuyler writes about the hustlers of victimhood that were in it for the money. In an earlier essay, "The Lightness of Critical Race Theory," I showed how many Critical Race Theorists were in it for the tenure. Shock and awe sells. Adams’ article came out in one of the top law reviews in the county. Real life is less exciting than shock and awe. In my "Black Table" essays, I have cast insight into everyday life but, let’s face it, it’s boring and familiar. So, the bright and the ambitious hook their readers with disturbing accounts that can be explained by radical thought. One day, radical thought will crumble because the king will be revealed to have no clothes. But for now, we can read and be entertained by space traders and little girls that fear white kids.
Regarding the Winkfield Twyman, Jr., article, I thought that it was thoughtful and well reasoned, but cowardly in that he did not clearly state the truth of the matter, which is certain black people (that he calls “radicals”) in fact espouse simple, old-time racism and hide behind their skin color to deflect the truth of their racist ideas. These people have no interest in ending racism: they thrive on attacking whites, strife between the races, and they grow rich and powerful doing so. Why can’t black writers be more courageous? If they are going to write an article attacking phony black racists, then be honest: insincerety and timidity helps the bigot, and hurts real equality.
I don’t know why people who are liberal and/or socialist are labeled radical. WE are the ones who are radical, while they are very backwards. Anyone who supports more laws and more government is very backwards indeed. The American REVOLUTION was fought for less laws and was very RADICAL. Before that there were plenty of laws in the European countries where Kings and Queens ruled. I am proud to say that I am a “radical”. The thought that is described in this artical is in fact primitave and ignorant and in no way radical.
Radical thinkers focus on Black identity because they wish to exert power over the contour of acceptable blackness. If you can establish a monopoly on what it means to be black, then you can lock in generations of blame the Man sheep.
There are sad exceptions where unwed mothers with babies by different fathers fall victim to hip-hop culture and consciousness.
But by and large, the black middle-class is more like The Cosby Show than Black Entertainment Television gangsta life.
Rather than celebrate the success of Oprah Winfrey and Earl Graves, publisher of Black Enterprise Magazine, life is cast as a “continuing struggle for black liberation.”
“‘As they emerge from the restroom, newly changed into their swimsuits, the niece stops and grasps her aunt’s arm. The aunt leans down puzzled and asks: “What’s the matter?” Her niece, pointing to the pool, replies, “Auntie, I think that’s only for white people.” There is a long, terrible pause, after which the aunt says firmly, “No, It’s not, and we are going to get in that pool.” The niece, however, is suddenly no longer in the mood for a swim. “Auntie, I don’t want to get in the pool.” The aunt tries to reassure her niece. “Come on, it will be fine. It’s hot. Don’t you want to swim?” But the niece is resolute; she refused to swim that day.’”
Funny, but today, as I was minding my own business, I just happen to observe some children swimming today.
I watched as a young African-American female conquered the water, as a body moved like an “S” through the water. After doing that a few time, she was off to join others. One playmate did not want her fellow playmate to join the African-American female. Each time the willing playmate attempted to join the African-American female the other young lady would interfere. Finally, the willing playmate totally ignored the controlling playmate and was off to battle the rest of the pool with the African-American female. This left the controlling playmate to swim off by herself, refusing to join the other two playmates. Why?
Probably for the same reason, that Oprah finds herself persecuted, and we did not attend Harvard, but she is a billion dollar woman. Probably for the same reason, that Dr. King, Jr wrote about in protecting his children from the cloud their view of who they are. Life may not be fair to some, but that does not make it okay for those who can deny opportunities to children because of their skin color.
The former wife of Clarence Page, writes about how raced whites will teach you their ways, and you will learn that some will interfere with African-Americans no matter your credentials. African-Americans have no reason to fear raced whites, they know them.
On a particular level racial identity does matter. The authentic conservative position does consider important Blood and Soil, Kin and Kith.
The “proposition nation,” birthed by the liberal Enlightenment, is but an abstraction whereby anyone believing in a proposition (e.g. I’m an American, English is the national language, etc.) can have automatic membership. This is an absurd, ahistorical position.
It is odd that for the most part, it has been Enlightenment Leftists and Marxists who supported the proposition nation, but now it is supported by neoconservatives too.
The problem today is that it is permitted for minorities to defend racial preferences and seclusion for themselves but the same is not permitted for whites.
Josh Satterfield: “radical” means destroying an existing society in a socialist revolution in order to create a socialist utopia. This is why socialist revolutions, from the French in 1789 to the world’s most intensive in Cambodia in 1975-79, have been bloody disasters. The American Revolution was the antithesis of a socialist revolution–the purpose was not to overthrow the rule of law but to assure that the laws were made by Americans rather than Britons. Madison specifically denounces equal division of wealth schemes as “wicked” in Federalist 10, and socialism is an equal division of wealth scheme.
The American Revolution was truly revolutionary because it abolished the governmental paradigm of the monarchial European nation-states with their monarchs, aristocracies, state churches, and strong central governments. Socialist revolutions do not eliminate these institutions, they merely replace the people in power–dictator for monarch, nomenklatura for aristocracy, Party for state church, and an even stronger central government. This is very much like Goldstein’s theory of class struggle in “1984.”
No person with even a shred of decency would express pride for condoning the bloody socialist revolutions of the twentieth century.
Mike Allen: A good critique. The principal flaw in Mr. Twyman’s offering is his claim that most blacks don’t believe in pursuing the “liberation struggle”–it fails to account for why roughly 9 out of 10 blacks vote as if they are by voting for the Henry Wallace Progressives who have taken over the Democratic Party. If blacks were truly integrated into American society one would expect their voting patterns to be roughly equivalent to the rest of the country. He also fails to answer the question of why non-revolutionary blacks have created their own organization as a counter to the existing leftists black organizations.
“…raced whites..” (?)
Comment 5- Thanks for your comment. Roughly 9 out of 10 blacks vote a certain way because of civil rights. I think the votes are not deeply thought out well. For example, my father once said to me that he supported Bob Dole. He liked what Dole had to say. He would have voted for Dole but for civil rights. Civil rights kept him in a certain camp. Now, my father railed against higher taxes at home like ther was no tomorrow. But the siren call of civil rights kept him voting a certain way. My father is not unique. If you strip away civil rights, if tomorrow civil rights were removed from political debate, then black voting patterns would be roughly equivalent to the rest of the country. (And by the way, my father is a “Blame the Man” adherent.) Go figure.
Speaking of Republicans and Democrats for a moment, and with regard to ‘racism’ and the
‘Civil Rights’ that so many black voters are concerned about it might be helpful for them NOT to forget that:
Founded by abolitionists, the Republican Party has had a 150 year history of fighting for Civil Rights. In contrast, the Democratic Party’s active opposition to Civil Rights gave rise to the Ku Klux Klan, Black Codes, Jim Crow Laws and other repressive legislation which resulted in the multitude of murders, lynchings, mutilations, and intimidations (of thousands of black and white Republicans). On the issue of slavery, Democrats gave their lives to expand it while the Republicans gave their lives to ban it.
While Democrats were busy passing laws to hurt blacks, Republicans devoted their time to passing laws to help blacks. Republicans were primarily responsible for the following Civil Rights legislation:
1. The Emancipation Proclamation
2. The 13th Amendment
3. The 14th Amendment
4. The 15th Amendment
5. The Reconstruction Act of 1867
6. The Civil Rights of 1866
7. The Enforcement Act of 1870
8. The Forced Act of 1871
9. The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
10. The Civil Rights Act of 1875
11. The Freeman Bureau
12. The Civil Rights Act of 1957
13. The Civil Rights Act of 1960
14. The United States Civil Rights Commission
They also gave strong bi-partisan support and sponsorship for the
following legislation:
15. The Civil Rights Act of 1964
17. The Voting Rights Act of 1965
18. The 1968 Civil Rights Acts
19. The Equal Opportunity Act of 1972
20. Goals and Timetables for Affirmative Action Programs
21. Comprehensive Employment Training Act of 1973
22. Voting Rights Act of Amendment of 1982
23. Civil Rights Act of 1983
24. Federal Contract Compliance and Workforce Development Act of 1988
The Democrats have in one way, shape, or form- opposed ALL of the above, and to this day refuse to acknowledge their shameful past. Charges of racism against The Republican Party, our great nation’s military (SEMPER FIDELIS), and/ orThe American Government in general are unwarranted, unsupported, and foolish.
History speaks for itself. Labels have changed, but Republican Party ideals have not. As noted writer Thomas Sowell once said, “If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 50 years ago, a liberal 25 years ago, and a racist today.”