After yesterday’s discussion on the wokeist agenda of many of Bucknell’s anti-racist resources, it became evidently clear that everything that a university should be promoting is being silenced in the classrooms and on campus in general. We spoke a fair amount about the nature of the language we use today to discuss any sort of controversial topic or difficult topic that requires some debate or analysis. With regards to the Arbery case and Kendi’s article describing the case, he certainly is instilling a sense of predisposed faith-based language into his argument as if all people should already believe that all white people see all black people the same way: in a bad way. As we stated in class, it is almost like he is daring his audience to come back and say “no, that is not the case for me personally”. As soon as someone admits that, they are put on the wrong side of the moral binary and even their contrary thoughts could be harmful to society and people in the black community.
Like Kendi’s article, the Amy Cooper in Central Park piece was extremely similar, in that the writer fears for her life to go bird watching in the woods because she will be racially targeted and threatened. She too, because she had one experience of having the cops called on her believes she knows a) what is going on inside that woman’s mind and the reason she called the police in the first place and b) what is going on in all other white people’s minds when they call the police on others. I am in no way denying that there are racist people in this world that racially profile people and threaten them due to their own preconceived beliefs. However, when speaking of racism and racial stereotyping it can go both ways assuming all white people are the same and think all black people are criminals. Intellectuals should be able to recognize that that is extremely difficult to prove with data, hence the faith-based language that is used to describe it.
I think much of the wokeist agenda is to evoke emotions, especially regarding racism and the treatment of African Americans by police officers and the justice system in general. As we mentioned in class, the George Floyd case and the one body-cam clip that nearly all Americans saw of the officer kneeling on Floyd’s neck. From that one clip riots and protests were started in the streets of the United States stating that police brutality against black Americans is systemic and racism still roams free in our society unchecked. Yet as we talked about in class, many people did not watch or research what had transpired prior to those last few minutes of Floyd’s life. There was no discussion of the struggle between the officer and Floyd in getting him to show him his hands to make sure he was unarmed and Floyd’s unwillingness to cooperate. Not to mention the fact that Floyd was under the influence of pharmaceuticals that may have also impaired his ability to breathe even prior to the incident. The lack of context also plays into an earlier topic we discussed of misleading the public and pushing a narrative that fits their agenda.
When thinking about identity politics, I had not heard langue used in an academic setting and honestly thought it was something that the media and politicians made up in the past decade to polarize the country more and to stop any bipartisan agreement. When reflecting on our class discussion on identity and how it is unstable I wanted to compare that to identity politics. Because your own identity outside of social identifiers is unstable but within those identifiers, it is fairly stable and it does change how you think about politics especially when your identity is at stake in those debates. In this reading Mitchell does note that when thinking of this unstable identity it is more along the lines of a radical relationship, he states in part one “More importantly; the relationship is of a specific type, with discernible religious overtones: the unpayable and permanent debt one kind owes another”. When identity takes on this radical unstable relationship the unpayable debt that Mitchell brings up changes the relationship one identity has with another. Putting this in the scope of politics I do think that when identity politics becomes unstable or radical then this sense of permanent debt feeds into a mindset that there is always a lesser group, feeding into the idea of polarization and in the context of the US government the lack of bipartisan agreement because both parties have members of the radical and unstable sector of identity politics.
In the readings that we did for today, some of the events I knew about and others I did not. So I felt that, especially for the Reparations piece, that really gave a personal perspective for what it was like living under laws of segregation. It wasn’t just a bunch of dates with descriptions of events, it actually gave us a real idea of how those people were living at the time.
In the reading “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”, I thought that the concept was interesting that the author chose to show how white privilege was apparent in her life. Some of the things she said I did not quite agree with, but thats because these are specific to her life and not to mine. Like her, I am also a white woman, and this piece made me reflect in my own way on how white privilege is present in my own life. One of the ways that the effects of white privilege comes up in her life, specifically, the one about turning on the television or opening a news paper and seeing people of her own race widely represented, bothered me.
Maybe her race is widely represented but does that mean that other people of color arent there or shes just doesnt see them. Personally if I turn on the tv i see people of all different races represented. But thats just me. It definitely depends on what your watching or what you are reading (newspaper or magazine).
I thought that the bird watching article was interesting because the act of bird watching so peaceful and simple, could get turned into something its not and this aggravated me. I remember on the news when they did a story on the African American man bird watching, who confronted a lady about her unleashed dog, ended up getting the cops called on him. What is interesting is I’ve seen this scenario or similar ones take place on tv shows. Seeing something on television makes it seem unreal or not likely to happen in real life and then when it does, it becomes a whole debate. The part when the women explained how racists individuals believe that this is their land and because they own it, and that someone of color does not belong there is definitely rooted in white privilege and colonialism.
Colonialism not talked about in this article but I think that there is a connection to it since this article reminded me of how native Americans were kicked off of their lands, not treated fairly in treaties or flat out ignored. The concept of reparations could also be linked to this as well since native Americans have been fighting to get their land back for years that was unfairly taken from them by whites.
These themes are also present in the article about the black runner who was unjustly killed by a father and son pair while on a run. I think that fear does play its part in racism as it is talked about in the article when the author says that Americans dont realize that its scary for those individuals that they are claiming to be violent criminals. White individuals are only thinking about their own fear and not the fear of the one that they are accusing.
I did not know that linguistic racism was a thing and that it existed but after reading that short piece on the matter it clearly is and is most definitely a problem in classrooms that needs to be addressed.
The reparations reading I thought brought together past present and future since it talked about the past and how it affected those people and then how those people rallied in order to make changes to help better their futures and the lives of their families. The black movement from the south to the north because they were looking for protection under the law, however, what they got was laws that wrote them out completely and separated them from the rest of society. The fact that African Americans could not get a mortgage even if they were free just does not make sense to me. In that freedom that they desired was a place to call home for their families and the Fair Housing Act was supposed to fix all that and get rid of redlining. Before that, there was t overcrowding in certain communities because African Americans only had very few options when it came to housing because of redlining and segregation, but even after the passing of the act, the damage was already done.
On the idea of “structural racism” in the criminal justice system:
The House of Cards of ‘Structural Racism’ in _The New Jim Crow_
Alexander Riley
If you looked around at the country’s thousands of college courses on race and racism, you would certainly find Michelle Alexander’s _The New Jim Crow one of the most commonly encountered course texts. I have seen many colleagues at my university, in numerous disciplines, enthusiastically place it on their syllabi, and she was invited by my department to give a well-attended campus talk a few years ago. I frequently find students bringing the book up in class or in their writing as what they evidently take to be a universally acknowledged authoritative source of undisputed truth, whose claims are unneedful of any defense and unassailable by any criticism.
Alexander, a former professor of law transformed into one of America’s highest profile race activists when her book became a New York Times best seller and entered the social justice pantheon of holy writ nearly a decade ago, makes a basic claim in this work that is astounding on its face but that is nonetheless at the heart of the radical Zeitgeist that currently dominates much academic and pundit discussion of race in the country. In this vision, American society constitutes a seamless system operating according to a logic of ‘structural racism,’ perfectly and malignly organized to accomplish its goals. It does this work without the need for conscious intent to make or maintain it on the part of any given individuals, and so no discernibly racist individuals are needed to make the system work. It pursues these goals inexorably and indiscriminately, under its own inevitable momentum and with its own sinister, ghostly mechanisms.
Just what are the goals of this system of ‘structural racism’? To subjugate black people, bluntly put. Alexander claims that what she is describing is evidence of a vast and exhaustive ‘caste system’ in contemporary America that is in its effects indistinguishable from slavery insofar as it basically dooms blacks to second-class citizenship. A few here or there might escape, by merest accident or luck, but the purview of the system is universal in theory and nearly so in practice. The central arm of this ‘caste system,’ Alexander claims, is the war on drugs and the systematic effort to use it to imprison vast numbers of black drug offenders for inordinately long periods of time. Through this malign mechanism, vast numbers of black lives are irreparably destroyed, and all of black America is kept in second-class status as an extension of this mass state violence.
But what is the argument and what are the facts behind the claim? Put aside for the moment the specific legal aspects of why people in prison for drug offenses are there, that is, the free will they have exercised in making the choices they have made to do the things they have done. The language of ‘system,’ and especially ‘caste system,’ implies a universal or near universal expanse, an inescapability, an inevitable entrapment of the targeted population. Let us inquire then into the simple question of how many people are actually directly affected by this massive ‘caste system’ she claims to be theorizing.
As of 2017, there are about 180,000 people in federal prisons, and about half of these are serving time for drug offenses. (All data in this paragraph are from the 2017 U.S. Department of Justice report on prison statistics). There are many more prisoners, 1,300,000 or so, in state prisons, but only 15% of these (i.e., around 200,000) have a drug offense as their most serious offense. This gives a total of around 300,000 people in the whole country in prison for drugs–out of a total prison population of just under 1,500,000. This amounts to about a fifth of the whole prison population.
There are about 325 million people in the US, so the total number of people in prison for drug offenses works out to 0.09%, some 1/10th of 1% of the overall American population. Blacks make up about 14% of the American population, which yields a total of around 46 million blacks. Even if we assumed that all of the people in prison for drug offenses are black, which is not at all close to the truth, we would be talking about 300,000 out of 46 million. This works out to 0.6%, or a little more than 1/2 of 1%. Already, one is forced to note that it is something of a strangely impotent ‘caste system’ that affects such a minuscule portion of the population purportedly being marked for systematic oppression.
But perhaps we are not counting correctly. Alexander claims there are some seven million people currently “under correctional control,” by which she means the total of those currently in prison and those on probation and parole. The trend on this number in the decade since the book emerged is slightly downward, and as of 2017 it stood at around 6.5 million. But even if all of these were black, which is clearly not close to the truth, we would still be talking about a ‘caste system’ in which 15% of the black population was enmeshed, and fully 85% of blacks, nearly nine of every ten, are free of that system.
But again, we know the seven million are not all black. Far from it. Typically, whites and Hispanics together make up more than half the prison population at any given time (they are around 54% of prisoners in the 2017 BJS data cited above, and blacks are about 33%). The same should hold true for the overall population of former prisoners. If we reasonably assume that the portion of the seven million who are black is equal to the portion of current prisoners who are black, we get 2.3 million blacks, or about 5% of blacks in the ‘caste system,’ and 95% outside it.
There is yet another downward correction that needs to be made. Recall that it is the war on drugs and differential sentencing on drug offenses that are the central method of the ‘caste system’ she describes. Most of those who are under correctional control are not drug offenders and former drug offenders. They are people who have committed other serious offenses–murder, rape, robbery, etc.
If we assume the percentage of all those under correctional control who are convicted drug offenders is roughly the same as the percentage currently in prison for drug offenses, we get only a fifth of the total of seven million, or 1,400,000 of those under correctional control. If all of this total were black, that would give us 3% of the total American black population. But if we assume, quite reasonably from current prison data, that only about 33% of this figure is made up of black offenders, that leaves 460,000 blacks altogether who are in prison, paroled, on probation, or convicted and released for drug offenses.
So, let’s do the math on that: 460,000 out of the 46 million blacks in the US yields 1% of all blacks in the country who are under the control of the systematic and purportedly omnipresent ‘caste system’ Alexander describes. In other words, 99% of blacks are not under the control of this insidious ‘system’ that Alexander presents as essentially equivalent to the Jim Crow system that systematically discriminated against every black in its legal jurisdiction.
Let us give her every statistical benefit of the doubt. The great majority of the 460,000 are young and male, so how effective is her ‘new Jim Crow system’ at controlling the lives of that particular part of the black demographic? Roughly half the black population is male, and about 27% of that population is between the ages of 20 and 40. This comes to around 6,250,000 individuals. The 460,000 would make up just over 7% of that number. So, even among young black males, the ‘caste system’ is 93% ineffective.
And let the reader be reminded: Alexander’s is an analysis that simply brackets the question of the details of specific cases. She points to a number of cases in her book that she claims illustrate the unequal treatment blacks receive for drug offenses they have committed, but presumably she has to admit that this cannot be true of every single case. That is, there certainly must be at least some cases of black offenders among the 460,000 in which, once we had a look at the details of the crime and the sentence, and then looked at the comparative data for non-black offenders, we would be forced to acknowledge that these specific defendants had gotten just about what they deserved, and that white and other non-black defendants who had committed similar offenses had received similar penalties. We do not know how many of these there might be among the 460,000, but they would certainly bring that number down still more, and they would thereby demonstrate that the ‘caste system’ is even less effective at incorporating blacks under its aegis than revealed in the preceding analysis.
By the very numbers Alexander presents, then, this is the explanatory power of the claimed ‘structural racism’ of ‘the New Jim Crow’: a tiny percentage of the black population is directly affected, and no argument or evidence is presented to show, even for this tiny percentage, that their situation is inevitably a matter of systematic injustice rather than the legitimate functioning of a system designed to punish those who break laws.
In the preface to _The New Jim Crow_, Alexander admits the book is “not for everyone.” Her audience, she goes on, are “people like me,” that is, those already fully convinced of the claim that America is a deeply racist society, basically unchanged since the existence of slavery. Might it be that she is here acknowledging, however unknowingly, how unsatisfactory the argumentative logic of the book, and of the very notions of ‘the New Jim Crow’ and ‘structural racism,’ will inevitably prove to be for any potential reader who comes to it with even the slightest willingness to critically examine its claims?
It would be concerning enough if the New York Times’ 1619 Project were simply an effort in the radical recasting of the formative years of the American colonies and the early republic. Many with deep expertise in that historical material have responded in pointedly critical terms as to the massive historical distortions and omissions required by such a warped project.
But the Project’s ambitions extend far beyond historical rewriting. It also aims to forward an analysis of contemporary social issues and problems informed by the same radical intellectual perspective that undergirds that distorted history.
That intellectual perspective has its own history. It began to develop in earnest about a half century ago, in the tumult and chaos of Black Power radicalism of the late 1960s. It is there, in the catastrophically wrong turn the civil rights movement took, that the warped worldview that would eventually come to dominate the study of race in the contemporary world of higher education and then filter out to become widespread throughout American political culture has its origins. Until the middle of the 1960s, the civil rights movement had been dominated by a very different set of perspectives. Figures such as Martin Luther King Jr., Roy Wilkins, and James Farmer were vigorous opponents of the racial status quo of the times, but they built their analysis of its nature largely within the parameters of traditional American cultural frameworks. Constitutional Republicanism and Protestant Christianity were central cultural systems for these critics. In short, they believed that American culture and formative principles were sound and simply needed to be fully implemented to correct existing problems regarding race relations.
By the later 1960s, newer, younger, extremist voices had arisen in the black civil rights world. An essential early incarnation of this new radical voice can be found in the now largely forgotten book Black Power. This book, co-written by a young radical political scientist, Charles Hamilton, and one of the most controversial figures in the student organization SNCC (Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee), Stokely Carmichael, created in its title the term that quickly came to represent the entirety of the radical racial identitarian movement that took off in the ‘60s and ’70. In addition to presenting a new, revolutionary way of looking at civil rights politics, it basically invented the radically oriented set of ideological tools for talking about racial inequality in America that have in the half-century since the book’s publication been embraced by much of elite American culture.
The argument of this remarkable book, published in 1967, is that the situation for blacks as a whole had markedly deteriorated, and that prospects going forward would be dismal unless blacks as a group took up a revolutionary perspective. To repeat: this is in1967. That is to say, it is after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965; after the initiation under Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty of an unprecedented level of spending—much of it in the form of direct redistribution of resources—on urban social problems; after the first two thirds of the twentieth century’s “Great Migration” of blacks from the poor rural South to the materially more prosperous and politically free North. The positive benefits of this population shift can scarcely be overemphasized. By 1970, four in ten blacks lived in the North, and in the two decades between 1940 and 1960, the black middle class had grown enormously.
In this context, Carmichael and Hamilton claimed—against the evidence—that black circumstances were more dire than they had been since the Emancipation Proclamation. They went so far as to compare the black situation in 1967 to those of the “post-colonial” struggles in Asia, Africa, and elsewhere in the world. Blacks in the U.S. faced, in their view, a “unique case of colonialism.”[1]
It is a well-established rule in the sociology of social movements that the possibility of radicalization is heightened in moments of the movement’s advance and success. More material resources and more freedom for expression, which become available precisely as social movements make notable gains, frequently translate into the rise of angrier, more insistent voices than had been in evidence previously. As objective deprivation decreases, relative deprivation—the distance between the objectively improving situation of blacks and the ideal of equality to which they aspire—sparks the intense emotional force that we saw take shape in the many violent urban disturbances of the late ‘60s and early ‘70s.
But once we understand in social science terms how such perspectives could arise, and why radicals shouting emotionally charged but impractical, incoherent slogans might have gotten traction on the street, how could such a patently counterfactual case as that of Black Power be argued in an intellectual setting? Not very convincingly, it turns out. In order to make even the beginnings of a case, Carmichael and Hamilton needed fresh theoretical tools, devised not with an eye to more accurately and objectively understanding social reality but instead with the intention to mask obvious progress as oppressive stasis and decay. By every measure, explicit, noticeable, and damaging episodes of racism and prejudice were shrinking in the country in the late 1960s. The clearest evidence of how much white opinion had moved on this was in the fact that still white-dominated media sources in the North almost uniformly presented images of Southern mobs chanting ugly slogans at black students integrating schools and colleges with evident disgust and dismay. All the opinion data show a similar situation. At the end of WWII, fewer than half of whites in the U.S. believed in equal opportunity for jobs among the races. By 1972, just a few decades later, nearly all whites (97 percent) believed it.[2]
To counter these inconvenient facts, which could be multiplied here ad nauseam, Carmichael and Hamilton invented the notion—now nearly universally accepted as doxa in much of the academy—of institutional racism. This novel concept was defined as “acts by the total white community against the black community . . . less overt, far more subtle, less identifiable in terms of specific individuals committing the acts . . . [yet] no less destructive of human life . . . [and] originat[ing] in the operation of established and respected forces in the society.”[3] Here is the beginning of the seemingly limitless intellectual deception on this matter that is now dominant in the social sciences and much of the humanities.
The examples Carmichael and Hamilton use to illustrate institutional racism are also among the favorites of contemporary partisans of this worldview. The black unemployment rate is higher than the white rate, we are told, and blacks have a more difficult time securing a mortgage.[4] These statements were true in 1967 and remain so today. But only people who do not understand the basic logic of social science explanation could think that they are self-evidently “acts by the total white community against the black community” or that they unquestionably demonstrate the effects of unjust bias against blacks. The hard questions of explaining social outcomes are in this way not so nimbly leapt over. The reasons why people are employed or unemployed, offered mortgages or denied them, are numerous and complicated. Explicit prejudice might indeed play a role, but this has to be discovered empirically, not asserted as an a priori inevitability, especially when there is voluminous evidence, as there was in 1967, that American whites are rapidly becoming less prejudiced than they had been. What of the possible role of racial differences in educational training, testing performance, and evidence of income and savings, wealth, and accumulated debt, or of anecdotal or perhaps more systematic employer knowledge of differential job performance between groups, to name just a few other potentially relevant variables?
It is indeed possible that “the operation of established and respected forces in society” may yield unequal outcomes for different groups, but that fact does not tell us anything about the moral nature of those “forces.” A 100-meter race track and a random group of runners sprinting its length are quite likely to produce something other than total equality of outcome. By the malformed logic of Black Power, we are justified, absent any other information, in asserting that the race track itself is evidence of institutional racism if members of one racial group perform systematically better than those of another. To ask what training regimens are adhered to by different groups of racers, or what evidence might exist of group differences in capability for running the kind of race defined by this track, is taboo in this framework.
And how can we hope to demonstrate the action of “the total white community against the black community” in any set of “forces” at work in a vast and complicated national society such as the United States? This extreme structuralist logic fails any conceivable empirical test. Indeed, was even Jim Crow an example of institutional racism by this definition? Jim Crow clearly affected the lives of Southern blacks in broad and negative ways, and ideas about the inferiority of blacks were the demonstrable belief driving it, but all of this can be recognized and effectively described without the illicit and brute causal leap to the universalist Manichaeism of the untenable concept of ‘institutional racism’ that Black Power makes. For the only rationally supportable—and morally responsible—view is that Jim Crow was not “an act by the total white community.” It was a result of myriad specific acts by individuals from a subset of the larger group “American whites,” that is, white Southerners who voted or otherwise acted directly within Southern legal and political systems to establish racially exclusionary laws and policies. Some number, unknowable with any precision but certainly significant, of white Southerners either took no part in the political and legal decision-making that produced Jim Crow—because they failed to vote or otherwise directly participate in electoral politics or the shaping of law—or they opposed it.
The venerable axiom of the “Solid South,” united during the Jim Crow period under the pre-New Deal Democratic Party, is a useful shorthand for rough description of Southern politics, but as soon as one examines details in close relief, the simplification by which Carmichael and Hamilton want to go from this imprecise generalization to claims about the action of all whites falls apart. An easy way to see the degree of complexity in white Southerners’ political views during the period is to examine Presidential election results during the pre-Civil Rights era. Many Republican candidates for president in this period—McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover—carried or nearly carried some Southern states. Hoover won six out of these sixteen states. And even when the states of the former Confederacy voted for Democratic candidates, the state votes were in many cases far from landslides. Millions of votes were cast by white Southerners for Republican candidates for president during this period. And some of the Republican presidential candidates for whom whites in the South voted had positions on Jim Crow and racial politics more generally that were decidedly more pro-black than the positions of their electoral opponents. Harding straightforwardly argued, in a 1921 speech before a multiracial Birmingham, Alabama audience, for equal educational opportunity and equal rights of citizenship for blacks. In his 1923 State of the Union speech, Coolidge expressed the belief that the rights of blacks were “just as sacred as those of any other citizen.” Yet in the stunted analysis of Carmichael and Hamilton, the many white Southerners who voted for these men to serve as the nation’s leader are functionally indistinguishable on the race question from the most extreme elements of the Ku Klux Klan.
Jim Crow can be discussed in properly social scientific terms, of course, but those terms must be far stricter and more careful than the absurdly loose language of Hamilton and Carmichael’s institutional racism. The Jim Crow system consisted of legal codes and rules written by legislators who had ideas that define members of different racial groups differently as a matter of law, and these codes were generally—though not invariably–enforced by others, sometimes because they shared the ideas behind the codes, sometimes because of the obligation of their structural position in an occupational hierarchy, and sometimes because of both. Of crucial importance to this more careful definition of Jim Crow—and any other social situation of more or less systematic discrimination and differential treatment based on race—is that it makes clear that individuals are the only possible actors in human societies. “Forces,” the term Hamilton and Carmichael give as the agents of institutional racism, cannot act or hold racist ideas, or indeed any ideas. The theoretical move away from individuals as the agents in society to vague structures and “forces” is entirely unmerited, deeply anti-scientific, and motivated entirely by political ideology.
Institutional racism is manifestly here at its birth, already a phantom, an entirely fictional entity invented to “explain” any negative outcomes that accrue to blacks by indiscriminately blaming “the total white community,” without the need to carefully inquire into particulars or to comparatively examine the contribution made by other potential causes of such outcomes. It is to be accepted on faith, whatever the state of the evidence.
Black Power sweepingly rejects the policy goals and the vision of race relations of the King/Wilkins/Farmer civil rights movement. It instructs us that American society must be fundamentally “revamp[ed],”[5] and this must include the destruction of what the authors label “Anglo-conformity.” By this, they mean nothing less than the entire Anglo-Protestant institutional basis of American society and culture. The English language and all other “English-oriented cultural patterns” are to be removed from their position as “dominant and standard in American life.”[6] We are not told what will replace these deeply moored social institutions.
An entire chapter details the impossibility (a mere “myth,” in the authors’ terms) of black-white coalitions working toward peaceable relations between the races. The reason is simple: “[N]o matter how ‘liberal’ a white person might be, he cannot ultimately escape the overpowering influence—on himself and on black people—of his whiteness in a racist society.”[7] The totality of the shift in Black Power from the early (and successful) civil rights movement is perhaps at its sharpest in the authors’ account of their differences with “[o]ne Negro woman, prominent in civic affairs,” who criticized black rioters in one of the myriad urban disturbances of the period in the following terms:
We want a type of relationship [between whites and blacks], built on solid ground, which will endure through the years—a relationship depending upon mutual trust and respect. This does not derive from rowdyism and lawlessness . . . We insist on equality of opportunity—under law and under God—but we are not radical street demonstrators, losing control of our good instincts. Nor will we endorse or support those who work without purpose or concern for law and order. Let all of us—white and colored—join hands in securing justice, obedience to law and good will which will bring progress in every area of our common life.[8]
Carmichael and Hamilton’s response to this heartwarmingly magnanimous and unifying message demonstrates a total estrangement from the deepest meanings of American civic republicanism and Anglo-Protestant spiritual values. Blacks like this woman, they sneer, are “clinging to a set of values and a rhetoric which never applied in . . . this country.” Non-radical blacks foolishly subscribe to “Christian love, charity, good will . . . [and] the American dream,” but wiser heads know that these principles were “not originally intended to include them and [they do] not include the black masses today.”[9]
It could not be clearer that the creators of the 1619 Project have fed intellectually from the fruit that fell from this tree of extremist black thought. Black Power is in fact something of a theoretical template for the 1619 Project, fifty years in advance of it. In the Project’s lead essay, Nikole Hannah-Jones views American history from just this blinkered Manichean set of lenses. Whites are everywhere in it, at every moment of American history, the very image and emblem of visceral hatred and cruelty, and nothing more. It is not just the American Founding that is racist to its core; every facet of white identity, from the beginning to the present moment, is directed in a laser focus to the oppression of blacks. This perverse framework is precisely the inverse of the view of the brutal white racist Hannah-Jones wants to see in every American white. In this radical prism, all whites become inhuman monsters monomaniacally obsessed with the crushing of the souls of black folk, who are depicted universally as stunning moral superheroes. Indeed, it is blacks who made everything valuable and worthwhile in the country, the brilliant and creative collective authors who produced “the one truly American culture,” under the burden of the unrelenting white effort to betray every virtuous principle they had mendaciously planted in the founding documents.[10]
What is the truth of America in the vision of the 1619 Project? It is “that as much democracy as this nation has today, it has been borne on the backs of black resistance.” Only blacks believed in the ideals of the founding; the whites who produced its documents were the basest liars and hypocrites. Every bit of the labor to achieve American principles of equality, from slavery to Emancipation to the Civil Rights Movement, was performed, in Hannah-Jones’ narrative, by blacks alone and unaided, with whites everywhere resisting and undermining black liberation.
Anyone who has consulted real history or sociology on this understands that we are here entirely in the realm of fantasy. The true lines of the story of race relations in this country include plenty of racist whites and heroic blacks, to be sure, but they also include innumerable whites who actively opposed slavery and black subordination in every period of the life of the country, and they show us also countless blacks who contributed little or nothing to their own liberation, or who even undermined that project. This is the reality of history and social life: messy, complex, contradictory, difficult. But Hannah-Jones’ aspiration is clearly not so limited as to speak as a mere historian or social scientist. She wants to be an author of myths.
The tortured reasoning and logic of Black Power can readily be seen as the blueprint of Hannah-Jones’ essay. In both, anecdote constantly serves as evidence of the broadest claims about whole swaths of history and the beliefs and behaviors of large social groups. In place of any real examination of the complicated reasons for racial disparities, these disparities are simply listed in a condemnatory litany—blacks do less well in educational outcomes, employment and income, involvement in crime and the criminal justice system, etc. Then it is asserted that the list itself constitutes evidence of American racism and the impossibility of absolution short of a complete demolition of traditional American economic, political, social, and cultural systems. No other factors can conceivably be involved in the explanation, and no evidence is needed to illustrate the racism beyond hand-waving at “institutional,” or “structural,” or “systemic” (the three are essentially interchangeable in this literature) factors that need never be delineated or explained in any serious way.
Why do black students drop out of school more frequently? Why are their test scores lower? Why do they have less success securing good jobs? Why are they so overrepresented in the criminal justice system as defendants? The very business of truly scientific social analysis, of exacting and difficult examination of social problems with objective methods and theoretical equanimity, is rejected. A suggestion is even made in Black Power that social science itself, in its 1967 incarnation, is insufficient for adequately studying this topic precisely because there are not enough black social scientists. The black understanding of American culture and the psychology of American whites, it is asserted, is superior by virtue of their “alienation and detachment.”[11] Who you are determines the quality of social science of race relations you are capable of producing.
By 2019, we see the fruits of this identity-epistemology project begun in the late 1960s. Nearly all the figures associated with the 1619 Project are nonwhites, and one is on very safe grounds imagining that these are people who more or less universally accept the basic premise set out by Carmichael and Hamilton that only blacks can adequately study and understand the situation of blacks. The radically subjectivist approach of Carmichael and Hamilton is today taught as a respectable methodological take on the social sciences in universities across the country, thanks to the growing numbers of social science faculty influenced by this worldview.
Few today read Black Power outside the ranks of academic historians of extremist political thought in the 1960s. But Nikole Hannah-Jones and the other writers behind the 1619 Project have drunk deeply of the drafts distilled over the decades from the original cask of Carmichael and Hamilton. Understanding the deeply flawed nature of the 1619 Project requires tracing it back to the equally anti-intellectual and ideological efforts in sociological reasoning that grew out of extremist black political thought of the turbulent 1960s.
[1] Stokely Carmichael, Charles Hamilton, Black Power: The Politics of Liberation (Random House, 1967), 2-3.
This week’s reading from Mark Mitchell held a common theme of moral relativism. The moral universe has become relativized and has created areas where most of us don’t think that it is morally right to allow ppl to do morally unjust acts. At the visceral level there is foundational moral vocabulary created by society and there is to some degree a conforming to moral parameters that people have to adhere to. In order to be a consistent moral relativist one must think that everything that other people do is okay because we cannot morally judge them. We give up our autonomy at a certain level. In class we discussed examples like not being able to agree with someone agreeing to be murdered and cannibalized or someone willingly being someone’s slave. There is this moral distortion that occurs. Extreme acts like these create a moral vacuum. Left without a solution society rips itself apart and plays into this moralizing game. It is used as a mechanism to fuel revolutions and civil wars. Throughout time there has been an existing rift between transgressors and the morally pure. This is true with our current situation in the world and events like the bombing of civilians in Ukraine. This idea of the morally pure versus morally evil is a common theme evident in many religions as well. For instance in the case of Christianity Jesus was depicted as morally pure and was transgressed against and died for the salvation of humanity. Christians are taught that if they live morally pure lives in this world then their souls will be saved and they will be allowed to live in the utopia that is heaven. I think a lot of times it is not so simple or black and white with morality. There is a continuum and many gray areas of how we define moral acts. This varies greatly according to the moral and social conformity of different cultures as well.
Wokeism, a social justice movement that has gained popularity in recent years, is heavily influenced by the ideas of philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. In his work, Nietzsche questioned the concept of truth and the notion that there is a single, objective truth that all individuals should strive towards. Instead, he argued that the pursuit of truth is entwined with the pursuit of power, and that individuals and groups use narratives of truth to persuade others to behave in ways that serve their own interests.
Mark Mitchell, in his book Power and Purity, asserts that Nietzsche believed that the only thing that all individuals are truly pursuing is “the will to power.” This, according to Mitchell, is the true “bedrock” of human behavior and the key to understanding why individuals and groups engage in moralizing and identity politics. In other words, the pursuit of power is the driving force behind wokeism and other social justice movements.
However, Nietzsche’s own writings do not support this interpretation. Rather than seeing the will to power as an all-encompassing force, Nietzsche viewed it as a tool that individuals could use to shape their own personalities and overcome internal struggles. In this sense, the will to power is more akin to willpower or self-control than it is to a universal truth.
Joshua Mitchell, in his book Identity Politics and the New Tribalism, offers a different perspective on the origins of wokeism. He argues that the decline of Christianity in the western world has left a void in people’s lives, and that wokeism and other social justice movements have filled this void by offering a new moral framework. This framework, based on the idea of “oppressor” and “oppressed” identities, provides individuals with a sense of belonging and a way to categorize the world and the people in it.
But this moralizing approach, according to Mitchell, is ultimately destructive. It divides people into hostile camps and keeps them constantly at odds with one another. Instead of engaging in identity politics and moralizing, Mitchell argues that the state should focus on raising competent citizens and leaving moral issues to individuals and their communities. Only by moving beyond the divisive language of wokeism can society truly progress.
After talking about the Nietzism aspect of Mark’s readings that we read from last week, that helped me better understand the concept and connect his ideas with Josh’s in how they were either similar or different. From what I got from our talk in class is that Josh Mitchell does agree with Mark that there is a relationship between Christianity and identity politics.
What I liked about the reading we did for class this week was how Josh Mitchell started talking about what an identity is first, before he even got into explaining identity politics. I also liked how he talked about inheritance and how in American society we kind of went from talking about inheritance and then that changed to identity. He provided two explanations for identity. The first one is that identity refers to “kind” and how it went from something unstable to stable.the second version is a more radical meaning of the word which is that it evolved into the specification of a relationship. In the way he described it, it makes me think of how people have relationships with each other such as owing a debt (which he uses as an example). In this way, the second meaning of identity is where we see the transgressor and innocent victim relationships emerge. The victimhood aspect of identity politics somewhat reminded me of what Gad Saad talked about in his book the parasitic mind.
How each political party responded to identity politics is also quite interesting. The Republican party defends ideas on market commerce and tradition (going against marxism and progressivism). I believe he is saying that identity politics gets rid of the physical aspects of payment that the republican party believes in through working you will receive payment.
The gist is that the republican party doesn’t like identity politics but the democratic party does.
The whole mercy and justice correlation were interesting as well since mercy can supplement justice but can not be the substitute for it.
The way that Riley explained how identity politics is connected to Christianity made it more clear to me. The ideas of transgressions and moral purities come from Christianity. When the world is created by a pure entity, God, out of that we get humans who make wrong decisions (transgressions) and sins emerge. Sins are then become permanent stains on human beings. How they can rectify the moral good is by becomes an issue. However, God solves the issue in a supernatural way by creating another supernatural being that then beings the scapegoat and pays all the debts for the sinners in the community.
I’m not very religious but I know the basics so sometimes its nice to get a reminder on how it works.
Josh Mitchell is interested in how the western world thinks on western problems. There is a hint of Christianity there even though we do not even realize it. Therefore Christian foundations become inescapable since they become entangled with cultural discourses and affect the way that members of society think about things
I thought that Joshua Mitchell posed an interesting phenomenon of a world where transgressors were gone entirely. He framed a question of can the innocents be innocent without transgressors? After one purge takes place and white heterosexual males are gone then another group of transgressors ultimately will take their place and the cycle keeps repeating itself until the last identity group is reached. This group then takes on the stance of the innocent victim only to actually be using just enough power to scapegoat and urge its transgressor.
This week’s reading was one that I found very thought-provoking and made me self-reflect on what I thought of as true and what values are in relation to others and the world. While I did not self-reflecting a part of the reading that I had trouble understanding is at the bottom of page 20 to the top of page 2. When looking at truths and what can be claimed as a personal truth or as Mitchell says “my truth” he brings up an example of what can’t be true and the limits truth has. In one of these examples, he states that one can not choose to be a gender that they were not born as, and even after transitioning it is still not true that they are the gender that they identify as because at a genetic level he claims that there is no such thing as transgender. I found myself questioning this extensively because I do know transgender people and to say that they do not exist I find a very problematic and frankly transphobic comment. I understand that Mitchell is looking at this on a genetic level but gender and sex are two different things, and this might be a very new concept that has not caught on completely, but gender is a social construct and it is fluid and a spectrum. Sex is what is assigned as birth and it is a binary unless someone is intersex. I also found it interesting that he paired that comment with the idea of being transracial. I understand why he might try to compare the two to prove a point but they are drastically different. Gender is an internal sense of self, race is not. One can not inherit gender, unlike race. Race is also not just physical differences but it holds very strong social connotations like a culture where gender has no culture.
One thing that was brought up in class is how currently, religion is much more important in eastern world than in western world which is perplexing because back when religion first started to be prevalent in the world, it was much more prominent in the western world. We did not go into depth about why it ended up working out this way however, what we do know is that back in the day when religion was first introduced in the western world Christianity was the main type of religion what was being practiced and the reason so many people believed in it was because they looked at it as an a gateway for explanation of all of the world events that were happening that they were experiencing for the first time. They were not able to explain things with science such as diseases, natural disasters and famines so they all turned to religion. Moving forward to present time in western civilization, we are now so advanced technologically and we have much more knowledge so people don’t have to turn to religion for the answers to all of the things we don’t know. Now if someone does not know something it is very likely that someone else does. This is where intellectuals come into play. There are intellectuals all over the world however, the work of intellectuals has had a major impact on western civilization as they are responsible for most of the technological progress that the western world has experienced over the years. Now looking at the eastern world, it is pretty safe to say that there are a lot more countries that are not very advanced technologically because they do not have the same resources as a lot of countries in the western world which is one of the reasons religion is much more prominent. It is interesting because based on my observations in general, people who are Christian in the western world don’t practice Christainity as seriously as say Islamic people in the eastern world practice Islam. It seems like most of the Christians in the west are baptized at a young age just because that is the norm and that is was peoples ancestry have been doing for years so they just follow along. So they are Christian on paper however, they do not live their life ever thinking about religion or following the values and beliefs that Christianity preaches. We as Islamics for the most part take their religion much more seriously to the point that if they break the rules of their religion, they are punished. I wonder how much of a factor the technological advancement of each region of the world is in relation to the seriousness of how each religion is practiced. I know that it is not the only factor as well so I am curious what other factors play a role as well and more specifically the factors that caused the shift from religion being much more prevalent in the west to the east.
From Mark Mitchell’s book chapters from Power and Purity, we discussed two different truths and how this can relate to the overall class theme of wokeism. There is a Puritanical worldview and a Nietzchean worldview. We largely discussed the Puritancial worldview. It is a moralizing discourse in order for individuals to fit into a particular mold. The Puritans perpetuated a force of anti-freedom and conformity. This can be compared to the wokeists, which are a group of the present. The wokeists are similar to the Puritans as they have the same reasoning style of relativism. This concept of relativism was started by the ancient Greek philosophers. It is the idea that all knowledge claims are limited to the perspective of the claim they made. However, intellectuals in American culture see a problem with this wokeist view. Their approach is a moral worldview. It is suggested that intellectuals in American culture are participating in the political project which is built out of identity political and moral individuals. This is the Nietzchean worldview. After this we transitioned to the topic of our souls in Christianity.
Religion is the product of a work, something greater than you is what gives you your value. The idea of being a part of something bigger than yourself, reminded me how I have felt my entire life by participating in sports. My whole life I have identified as an athlete. After college, it is going to be difficult to transition as I will not have a team that is bigger than me. There will be a new identity marker for me. I think that it is interesting to note the secularization rate in the United States. There is now a downward trend away from people associating with religion. I wonder since COVID has played a significant role in everyone’s lives over the past 2 years, if there has been a change in the rate of religion. I feel like during times of stress, people want to turn to something that is bigger than themselves, so they do not feel alone. I wonder in the United States if people turned to religion, or if there was another outlet instead?