From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Pessimism
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:10:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <wepCvEe00WBMI8SlIb@andrew.cmu.edu> dc4l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Dean Calloway) writes:

# Excerpts from netnews.soc.culture.african.american: 8-Oct-92 Re:
# Pessimism by David A. Johns@elm.circa
# > Other races in America have been as reviled as blacks for a generation
# > or two at a time, and sometimes only in certain areas -- the Irish,
# > the Chinese in the West, Mexicans in the Southwest, etc., etc., but
# > the idea that these people were *essentially different* never
# > permeated society.  Eventually they all became part of the society
# > that had earlier rejected them.
#
# Not really... there are many accounts detailing the assimilation of
# European immigrants into "mainstream" America which would refute this
# assertion.

I don't follow you.  Are you saying that there are other groups that
have remained separate in the same way as African-Americans?  Doesn't
"assimilation" include "becoming part of the society"?

# To state that other "races" have been "reviled as blacks" is highly
# erroneous.  Europen immigrants, while undoubtedly discriminated
# against, faced pressures different than that of Blacks,
# particularly in the industrial North.

Well, I did say "for a generation or two".  Certainly the hatred for
the Irish in the North and Chinese on the west coast was in the same
league as the hatred for blacks for a while.  I didn't say that their
experiences were identical, after all.

# >
# > But our society, including blacks, still maintains that blacks *are*
# > essentially different.  It is only of blacks that we (blacks included)
# > say "if you're part black, you're black".
#
# There are two problems with this:
#
# 1. Skin color is so obviously apparent that it is impossible to
# ignore. Blacks are classified as Black because the distinguishing
# attribute (skin color) is readily evident.

There are two problems with *this* :)  First, not all people of
African origin participate in American consensual apartheid.  Many
Islanders, for instance, do not classify themselves as black except
descriptively.  I've also met a few Americans, generally the children
of mixed marriages, who refuse to classify themselves as black even
while not "passing" -- i.e., denying their black ancestry.  Second,
there are people other than Africans who are dark enough to be obvious
in the sense you're using: Asian Indians, some Polynesians, and some
American Indians, for instance.  Also, skin color is just as obvious
in a place like Egypt, and yet there, as I understand it, there is no
sharp dividing line between black and white in the sense we're used
to.

# European immigrants are harder to pick out (ESPECIALLY after the
# first generation).  Without an accent or a distinctive last name
# (name changing was a widespread practice during the 19th and early
# 20th century) it is pretty difficult to distinguish between white
# American born and white European born

Absolutely true (well, ignoring the fact that Italians, Greeks, etc.,
were dark enough for northern European types to notice when they first
arrived), but Europeans are not the only non-blacks in America. It's
true that some black features (especially hair texture, I think) are
very persistent in children of mixed ancestry, but so are Oriental
eyes and cheekbones.  Millions of Americans acknowledge Indian,
Oriental, Middle Eastern, or other non-European ancestry -- and show
it -- without classifying themselves as a member of those racial
groups.  Even more interesting, many people who look 100% white boast
of non-white ancestry -- as long as it's not black.

# 2. To imply that Blacks defend this in order to be different
# ignores the last thousand years of history and the last four
# hundred here in America.

This isn't quite what I meant.  I think both whites and blacks
*believe* that blacks are different, and that blacks feel that
maintaining separate customs is a fulfillment of destiny.  Very
closely related to this is the "soul patrol" phenomenon, which
essentially says, "You can't be anything but black, and black is
unique."

#   Blacks are the only group
# > of long standing in the US that does not marry outsiders with any
# > frequency.
#
# FAR from true.  Marriages outside group are extremely commonplace.

Well, someone posted figures here a while ago that indicated that over
50% of Jews and Asian-Americans married outside their group, but less
than 2% of African-Americans do.  Do you have better figures?

#   Only blacks feel a need for a separate pantheon of
# > cultural heroes and historical figures.
#
# This again ignores history.  Blacks arrived via the slave trade.
# All others came here of their own accord.  Others were allowed to
# bring their traditions and customs.  Ours were systematically
# eliminated.

I don't deny the *reason* for the phenomenon, but I think you may
have a somewhat distorted view of "others'" group identities.  Ask an
Irish friend to name some Irish heroes.  Do the same with a Bohemian
or Portuguese friend.  Ask an Italian to name a hero other than the
standards that have become heroes for all Western civilization
(Gallileo, Michelangelo, etc.).  How many famous Swedes do you know
of?

Of course, you can answer that they're all white, whatever country
they come from -- but then you will have fallen into my trap :)

# BTW your argument COMPLETELY ignores Native Americans.

In some ways Indians are similar to blacks, in that there are some
strong pressures for maintaining traditional culture, but in most
parts of the country Indians are not subject to the same "if you're
part, you're all" philosophy.

#   And it is basically only
# > blacks (joined by feminists in some cases, who are probably basing
# > their rhetoric on black models) who take seriously such concepts as
# > racial consciousness and racial guilt.
#
# Far from true.

Expand, please.  People talk about "Irish tempers" and whatnot, but
that's really pretty superficial.  And no one has seriously held Jews
responsible for killing Christ for quite a while.  What am I missing?

# >
# > I suspect that fear of the unknown and different is a human instinct,
# > but that this fear is fairly easy to break down if not reinforced in
# > some way.  In our society I believe that the rhetoric of separation is
# > maintaing the fear of "the other".  In other words, "It's a black
# > thang, you wouldn't understand" -- a creation of white racist
# > intellectuals of two centuries ago, but now accepted as fervently
# > among blacks as it ever was among whites -- is both the product of the
# > past and the guarantee that the future will be more of the same.
#
# We arrived here differently, we've been treated differently, we
# have different opportunities, and you say this is all negligible?

Hardly.

The history is the explanation for the status quo.  More specifically,
the need to prevent runaways and to keep the definition of slaves
clearly visible probably underlies most of this phenomenon.

But as far as having different opportunities, well, now we're in the
present, and I would argue that there is an interaction between the
concept of separation and the amount of opportunity.

As evidence for this, people of African origin who do not have an
American history (e.g., Islanders, recent immigrants from Africa) seem
to find considerably more opportunities than do American blacks.  I've
seen statistical confirmation of this.  And from personal
observation, it seems to me that American blacks who do not emphasize
their differentness seem to find more opportunities than blacks who
do.

You can argue that blacks shouldn't have to adapt in order to find
opportunity, but the fact remains that the same rules work for
everyone else too.  You shouldn't have to play by the same rules?
Hmmm ... could it be because you're different?

By the way, if you're wondering what my agenda is in all this, let me
tell you.  Many people have noticed that progress among blacks, after
an initial surge following the civil rights legislation of the 60s,
seems to have stagnated.  Obviously, something is missing.  Much of
the currently popular rhetoric involves extremely general themes, like
"overcoming racism" and "empowering the black community."

I tend to believe that conditions for blacks will improve as
conditions for each individual black person improve.  I'm a
pragmatist.  I ask, "What can *you* do in order to improve *your*
opportunities in life?"  One way to answer that question is to look at
people who are more successful than yourself.

It's not that I'm against general solutions also, it's just that
general solutions will never be sufficient.  As I think I said to you
recently in e-mail, sometimes you have to act *as if* there were no
obstacles, because to acknowledge them is to give them power over you.

Anyway, my hypothesis that separateness and lack of opportunity are a
vicious circle may be wrong, but so far I haven't seen anything more
convincing.

David