What Most White Americans Dont Want to Talk About (Part 5)

The early 1970's were a trying time for African-Americans in this country. We were still trying to find our national identity. Some of the great white and black leaders who gave African-Americans hope for social change in the 1960's had died. John F. Kenney was the first President who spoke of instituting change to the status quo. His brother Robert Kennedy, even more so, as a presidential candidate... one who had travelled to South Africa and criticized apartheid... one who spoke about seeing things the way they could be and asking why not: both brothers gunned down. Malcolm X... initially a very divisive figure... who came back from his trip to Mecca with a different understanding of his role in the black social movement... and Martin Luther King, Jr... from start to finish... a black man who preached peaceful "civil disobedience." There were others, like Andrew Young who live on... and (black Panther founder) Huey Newton who was killed in the 1970's... but these four men were inspirations to different segments of the population... that change could happen... and as each assassination grieved our consciousness... it seemed that hope for a better future... was being stained by the blood of a brutal reality.

I dont know if it was the growth of the drug usage, which spread throughout America in the mid 1960's. I dont know if it was social disillusionment at the prospects of equality, as progressive leaders were murdered and prejudice permeated longer and longer in our society. I dont know if caricatures of blacks... which had been projected, for at least 75 years, finally caught the black conscious. And there are a myriad of other possible issues (e.g. Nixon's war on drugs). The only thing I do know... is that the 1970's are when the crime rate for blacks began to rise considerably. When, the stereotype started to BECOME the reality.

It reminds me of the acronym that Tupac Shakur created for "thug life" [ The hate u gave little infants f---s everyone ] That is to say... the plan was to deny blacks freedom. To deny blacks education. To deny blacks housing options. To deny blacks social equality. To say that... American history clearly shows that the explicit agenda was to purposefully keep the African-American as poor... destitute... and ignorant, as it possibly could. And in that plan, America was very successful. However, there are some consequences in terms of the psyche of people that are forced to live in such peril... and the violence and crime that you see is a direct result of the treatment that they faced. To say that the "thug life" (or gang culture) was the effect... not the cause. There is definately alot of truth in that.

What of Blaxploitation's role in the early 1970's? Black exploitation: where we're willingly exploiting ourselves. Movies with large or total black casts in roles that reinforce negative stereotypical views of blacks to the country at large. We were either pimps, hoes, hustlers, drug dealers, prostitutes, thugs, dope fiends... something along those [marginal] lines. (e.g. Superfly, the Mack, Dolemite) Blackface was no longer necessary, there was an endless line of African-Americans in the 1970's waiting to be in movies... and, apparently, they didn't care what type characters they played. Remember the first portrayals of blacks in America? Dimwitted, baffoonish, liars, crooks, speaking horrible English, inherently musical, and women who were sexually permiscuous and provacative? Keep that image in mind... now look at 1970's Blaxploitation. We were now stereotyping ourselves... not just to white America... but to young black America too. Telling young kids this is what it means to be black. I wont go into detail about the "Cribs" (who became known as the Crips) or the birth of black gangs in America (because there have always been gangs like Al Capone and his war on Elliott Ness & prohibition)... but the reason the name changed in the late 1970's... they started walking with canes (to emulate the pimps they were seeing in the 1970's movies like the Mack) and were taken for cripples.

On a sharp subject change... let me also quickly mention in 1972, the end of the Tuskegee experiments. For those that dont know, the Tuskegee experiments are when the United States government deliberately lied to black men in order to study the LONG TERM affects of syphillis in an untreated adult male. What I, personally, didn't know is that the Tuskegee experiment started waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in 1932 by the US Public Health Service. Even after the discovery of penicillin, a relatively easy cure for syphillis, the PHS marketed to black males to come recieve treatment. A number of the men were given cures, while the other men were given placebos to study the long term affects of syphillis on the body. These were NOT rogue agents operating secretly within the government. Pete Buxton, the guy that viewed the practice as amoral and finally went to the New York Times in 1972, wanted to stop the experiment earlier. However, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) said that the experiment was too beneficial to stop. So, for 40 years, African-American men died, as they were unknowingly studied while given fake medicine. To this day, people throughout the black community are still skeptical about the medical community and its affinity towards black America. And that would be one reason why we die at an earlier age than whites; go to the doctor less often than whites; and according to studies... listen to doctor recommendations less often than whites.

When we think of the rise of crime in the 1970's.... mention must also be made of the loss of manufacturing jobs in this country. After WW2, America was the world's LARGEST manufacturer of goods. Manufacturing being a labor sector creating a lot of middle class jobs while simultaneously not requiring a lot of education. There were people of various backgrounds that made up the manufacturing market of the US, but these were definately beneficial to blacks, who did not have the educational options of whites in the 60's and 70's. When the manufacturing jobs went overseas, people who were once able to get a decent living right out of high school now had very few financial prospects.

Back to the increase in drug usage after the 1960's (mentioned in my hippie blog). Social conservatives wanted solutions to the "drug problem" and they got them with Richard Nixon's war on drugs. Not only were certain drugs, that were once legal, now illegal, but you had the creation of the DEA (drug enforcement agency) whose sole purpose was to find drug production/sales and to arrest all involved... trafficker... dealer... buyer. There were a lot of drug related arrests in the 1970's and even as "violent" crime rates have dipped in America in recent years, the overall crime rate climbed as advancements in technology and police investigation tactics have made drug related convictions hit an all time high.

And can we forget crack? In the early 80's cocaine (which was $100/gram) was largely seen as a white man's drug... mainly because it took a lot of money to get it. It was in a powder form that was sniffed. What would rock (pun intended) the black community would be the invention of crack cocaine in the mid 1980's. Powder cocaine... cooked into a crystalline rock form that could be smoked/inhaled. Very potent... and DEADLY addictive. The tv was flooded with images of crackhouses... crackbabies... and parents who abandoned everything in order to feed this dangerous addiction. And the crack was so cheap compared to the cocaine that it FLOODED the streets of lower class neighborhoods. Perception was so influencing, that Ronald Reagan signed into law the bill that made crack cocaine public enemy number 1.

I dont want it to sound like I'm defending crack... I'm not. Its one of the worst things to hit urban areas. But how many people know that crack carries a minimum sentence 100 times as strong as powder cocaine? Let me say that again. CRACK COCAINE CARRIES A MINIMUM SENTENCE THAT WOULD TAKE 1OOx THE POWDER COCAINE TO EQUAL THAT. That is insane. I didn't believe it the first time I heard it. I thought it was left wing propaganda. It had to be... right? 100 to 1. I had to go check several sources, and I kept seeing the same statistic. So, if you're caught with 5 grams of crack.... thats the same as being caught with 500 grams of cocaine. One crack rock will get you the 5 year sentence the same as a BRIEFCASE full of cocaine. And that has been the law in this country for over twenty years. So, young blacks.... who, I admit, shouldn't have dealt with crack to begin with... are now getting years in jail over $20 dollars worth of drugs. But it takes a few thousand dollars worth of coke to get that same sentance? I understand that crack is more addictive/dangerous, but there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with this. And there are many a group, white and black alike... who, far from trying to legalize crack... feel that because of 80's fear... American now has this DRACONIAN sentencing guideline that has no place in reality. One hundred to one? Wow. Are you serious? (click here)

I will not deny that the creation of gangs in the 1970's were also a large part of the crime rate, as it was not only drug arrest, but violent crimes that rose noticeably in the 1970's as well. And the majority of those crimes are against blacks. Some people have this view that criminals take these long 35 minute drives across town to commit crimes in white neighborhoods. Most criminals act against those near them, and blacks have always been... and continue to be the largest victim of violent crime. We're doing it to ourselves. Two things; Its good for some white people (we should tell Pat Buchanon maybe?) to know that blacks are victims of violent crime more than whites. We should all be united against criminals; not to view all blacks as prone to such activity, but to be the main victims of it. And for blacks who fear criticizing ourselves around non-blacks to know that we are doing nothing but helping ourselves become repetitive victims as we continue to ignore these type of issues that affect us the most. We want the same safety as others. Its time to be outspoken about it.

The problem with the gang culture of the 70's... it was almost as if it was the definition of what it meant to be black. One thing that you notice going to multicultural schools... there are a LOT of different types of white people. Country lovers (with boots and hat). Polo shirt/khaki pants "all american?" types. The Nirvana grunge hole in the pants type. The all black clothes Goths. The punk rockers. Various different types of white people who decided that this is who they are. However, we had been told for so long that we were all one way, and now we decided to believe the hype, making ourselves to become monolithic. Obvoiusly, there are always small exceptions to the rule, but more so than any other racial group... black males started to define for themselves the thin outline of what it meant to be black. One example (there are many) would be music. Think of all the different types of music that we either created or helped to pioneer. RocknRoll. Jazz. Soul. R&B. Funk. Reggae. But now you're not black if you're into Rock n Roll? The biggest criticism of Elvis Preisley is that he took what blacks like Little Richard were already doing, but packaged it in a way acceptable to the larger white community, but now black men can only be involved in rap music. There aren't explicit rules of course, but there is criticism and critique of those who diverge... labeled as "confused" as "without self identity" as "sell-outs" or "wannabes." I've never heard "thats not white" but no honest black person can say they haven't heard many a debate about what is... and what is not to be considered... "black." How do you even define... black?

Not only has the black identity been a critical issue, but the destruction of the black "nuclear family." When more than two/thirds of your children grow up with single parents, there is a serious problem. It used to be us versus them. The African-American man and woman joined together "against all odds" to make something better for themselves and their children. It use to be soul music that sang of a beautiful love between man and woman. But somewhere down the line... as we lost our identity... we took on this distorted view of black sexuality that had been lobbed against us for generations. No longer black familes versus those who would deny them their civility... it became black men versus black women. Women.. who weren't considered equals. The pimp culture... that (for decades) was stereotyped against us... we had now begin to accept and gladly wear as fact. The idea of manliness being unemotional. Unengaged. Detached. There was no longer a "us"... it was only "me"... and women became second class citizens. In a sick way, it could be seen as black men unable to control anything else around them, trying to exert control over the one group they could... perhaps similar to a 10th grader, frustrated at his inability to deal with seniors in high school, so instead... focusing on trying to control freshmen.

What part did the blaxploitation play...? I dont know... but the black family unit, which was in tact in the 1960's (when oppression of African Americans was FAR more severe than anytime since)... began to dissolve compared to the relative social calm of today. A time period when most of our present wounds are self-inflicted. I dont deny the sexism that permeates all races, however, there was a unique bond that black men and women shared in previous generations... and its just unfortunate that we've gotten to the point where we are today. Where black men, as relates to sexuality... know little else than the exploitation of black women as nothing more than sexual objects. Its pathetic, how we've come full circle, that when others joke about black men or black sexuality... they talk about the pimp and player in black men... and its just accepted as common knowledge; as the norm.. Its the same thing that offended us 100 years ago... now its the status quo. And in the most destitute of cases... considered badge of (dis)honor.

Due to our convoluted history in this country, there are a lot of African Americans who do not wish to critique ourselves in the presence of "others"... however, what is the benefit of denying issues that are killing our community? Two thirds of our children grow up without men in the house... while they're either in jail or out trying to "pimp" because they've foolishly taken the view that real men dont commit to one woman. And the idea that we refuse to put together the correlation with the black male mindframe of today and the amount of children growing up without fathers... its nothing short of infuriating. We have almost TWICE as many single parent households as the second worst group (hispanics)! And as another generation grows up without fathers instilling practical values in their lives... and they look elsewhere for male leadership and guidance... from those closest to them... out in the streets... doing the same thing that their fathers did... and the cycle of ignorance continues. 40% of black women never marry. 4 out of every 10... let that marinate for a moment.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

Progress has been made, to be sure... but there is still a fundamental separation in the general perception of the civility of blacks and whites. That perception of the "inner brute" still exists. Its part of the reason that studies show that blacks get longer sentences than whites when convicted of the same crimes. One clear example deals with the highly publicized contrast between two pictures of people struggling to survive the flooding of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. When a white person goes into an abandoned grocery store after a major disaster... they're "finding" food. When a black person goes into the same abandoned grocery store... they're using this confusion as an opportunity to "loot." Now, there were people who were stealing non-essentials... and that shouldn't be tolerated, but both articles specify the pictured individuals were leaving grocery stores. The "inner brute" in blacks have a propensity toward crime. So, while the white person is relunctantly forced to take food, the black person gladly takes part in stealing.

Another question we must ask ourselves: why are universities trying to get more immigrant Africans to fill their diversity expectations, as opposed to African-Americans who grew up in the United States? (click here) What is it about black Americans that would make colleges prefer Africans? That is something that we all need to seriously think about. Are we so damaged, scarred, or hopeless, that better versions can be found elsewhere?

Africa was carved up and divided among all the nations of Europe. Its almost unbelievable. A conference was had on who would get what piece. Slaves were taken and brainwashed... those who were left behing weren't treated much better. It was less than 20 years ago that South Africa tried to give their black population (which is the majority of the population) rights. The Rwanda genocide of the 90's was dark skinned Africans getting revenge against light skinned Africans that were treated better (and viewed as complicit) during colonial days. Today, in Zimbabwe... the leader refuses to cede power to elected officials with European backing. (click here)

These issues are real... and they need to be addressed. From both sides. With open hands... and open hearts. With patiences... understanding... and a desire to learn and become better people. White Americans need to know all of American history, as do African-Americans. Only then, can we truly know where we will go... together... from here.

But... we need to figure this out soon... because... though the social plane is better for African-Americans, than its EVER been... the crime rate for African Americans... is higher than its ever been... and it continues to rise. No story book ending... so far. We shall see. I dont like to paint pessimistic or altruistic futures. I try to take the most rational expectations based on the facts on the ground... and at the present time... things are looking very grim.

What Most White Americans Dont Want to Talk About (Part 4)

I didn't think it was possible... but even a can of drainage pipe cleaner can be used as a way to mass market prejudice. "I cant hide. I should have known better... but now I know that I can't hide. I really can't. I thought it was safe... to be in my house... and... you know, try to clean... some plumbing... but even then... I should have known... I was going to be reminded of my inner savagery. The 'brute' in me. Throwing spears at that pipe gunk... clearing it out like jungle brush." Oh, and... dont forget the big lips. Why can't they be thin... and um... not quite so red?

Something I haven't really talked about yet. The money. Can't really talk about crime without first talking about money. Most crime is socio-economic in nature. Rapists rape... those guys are crazy... probably have some inner subconscious propensity to do evil, and should be castrated... but we're not talking about that guy. We're talking about the mugger, the house robber, the car thief, the shoplifter, the drug dealer... crimes that revolve around the pursuit of money.

When I think of money and American History, I like to go to the World War 2 generation. "The greatest generation" as some like to refer to them, and as far as patriotism and EVERYONE getting involved and doing their fair share, its hard to argue against them. But I've already blogged about the World War 2 generation. (Feel free to check past blogs for that and other interesting articles! C'mon... Im overdue a shameless plug!) What I want to talk about is how the (original) GI Bill changed America. The greatest thing about America, pre-George W. Bush, was its freedom. Indeed, the Statue of Liberty, the gift from France says, send me your tired masses, yearning to be set free. And those included economic freedoms as well. Its always taken money to make money, so a true "financial ascencion" is not possible for most people, but there was no caste system (for whites) telling you what you could and couldn't do with your life. You could work at the factory, or work at the drive-in. It was your choice. Harry S Truman was the son of a farmer from small town Missouri! There was a small upper class, there was a small middle class... and a larger working class.

[This isn't the topic, but let me throw out a "another reason I dont like Republicanism" by saying that the rich are rich because of inequality against the poor. They will never willingly relinquish it... small government doesn't work, in terms of protecting the poor economically, and its only through government intervention that you see the rise of the middle class.]

Under (Democratic president) FDR, the size of the government greatly expanded. We were still suffering from the Depression of the 30's and FDR and the federal governtment were creating all types of big government programs to help will us out of the economic misfortune. Perhaps the most important big government financial legislation passed was the original GI Bill. It could be the single biggest contributor to the "golden age" of the 1950's. Its when a large chunk of the white working class were given their first real chance to take a real step upwards to financial comfort. The single most important part of wealth building is home ownership and the GI Bill helped a lot of people do that. Here are the most important tenants of the GI Bill, which was granted to all (white) servicemen who served during World War 2. First was a free college education; the second was a low to no money down on your mortgage down payment; and the final portion was a low interest rate for your home. Not only giving people a free education to get better jobs, but to make it far easier than it had ever been for large segments of the populace to own a home.

(it should also be noted that, today, John McCain is against a new GI Bill, which would attempt to re-expand benefits to troops, benefits that were greatly shrunk for Korean and Vietnam vets)

Another thing to remember... there was a draft in the 1940's. We have a volunteer army today, but during World War 2, the American army numbered in the MILLIONS (of troops). Its been said that, if you include the immediate families of all the troops that served during World War 2, that approximately one third of the United States population benefited directly from the legislation. Now, thats is BIG government at its largest. But, who can deny the financial benefits of passing that legislationt?

Who indeed. Another fact of American history: during the single biggest government intervention on behalf of the socio-economic well-being of its citizens, African-Americans (again) were largely left out. There were some successes to be had, but largely, we were left out. Those, who served bravely with their white soldiers in battle in Europe and Japan, like the Tuskegee Airmen (click here) and if you dont know... you better ask somebody came home to the same social injustice and bigotry that they left behind. Blacks in the 1950's were not allowed to go to the same schools as whites (Plessy v. Ferguson: upholds segregation)... blacks in the 1950's were not allowed to live in the same neighborhoods as middle class whites... and blacks in the 1950's were not getting loans with the same frequency or at the same interest rate as whites. So, while lower class white Americans, were allowed to get free university educations and move out to the suburbs, their African-American counterparts would be relegated to the inner cities. And as blacks became larger percentages of the inner cities, the more white Americans felt the need to flee. The practice, which began in the 1950's, is even recognized as a real term by Webster's.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=white+flight

I just can't emphasize enough how important the GI Bill was to making America what it became. About 1/3 of the entire nation's population was picked up. Extraordinary. As Europe spent the 1950's rebuilding after the decimation of the war... America became the Super Power. Nations that prosper economically tend to have strong middle classes, which is why I'm vehemently against (Communist) countries that keep everything staterun. You become powerful (economically) when wealth is distributed to the people. And the late 1940's were when America reached out to an ENORMOUS portion of its general populace. I think leaving African-Americans out of this social program, is probably the single biggest factor in the economic disparities we still see to this day. Its just my opinion, but I can not stress that enough.

We've seen the methodical plan of influencing white perception of African-Americans in various incarnations. Even with pipe cleaner? Sheeesh. We've seen black self-esteem broken, early and often, as generation after generation of slaves grew up knowing nothing of their history, other than brutal servitude to someone who told them that everything about them was ugly, and looked different enough to cause the slaves to believe it. We've seen the humanity of African American slaves debated. (3/5's?) We've even seen purposeful government disenfranchisement, meant to keep the African-American as a economic second class citizen. But, we haven't even mentioned Jim Crow.

Without going into the history of the name, simply put, Jim Crow laws... which were on the books in a lot Southern states... explicitly legalized discrimination that was already being practiced. Some may say, whats the difference? Injustice is injustice. And while that is true, I would imagine, there would be something a little more damaging to the psyche to know that your government has OFFICIALLY come out and said... "it is legally within a white man's rights to discriminate against you." If you want to eat in a restaurant, you eat in the back, and thats only if the restaurant is in an area that really needs your business. Because there were a lot of signs that said... "white only." Spreading freedom in Europe and Asia, and unabashedly denying it here. Drinking from your separate dirty water fountain... getting your food to go... riding on the back of the public busses... and of most importance... being denied the ability to go to the same schools.

Education is the great equalizer. An intelligent man is an asset to those around him. He can have doors opened that otherwise would not be afforded to him. So, the black kids that have grown up in this nation... have grown up... generation upon generation... with a second class educational system. Less funding... less supplies... lower qualified... lower paid teachers. This was the law. Black kids would not be able to get the same type of education that a lot of whites would get. I'm not going to say that all whites went to great schools, because, obviously thats not the case, but of those who had access to great schooling... those kids were white. Just like one could not be a critical thinker & say that most white people have money. But, of those who do have money, the overwhelming majority of them are white. So, its not to deny the existence of a white LOWER class, but to question the demographical makeup of the middle to upper class of this country, and to question how that new class of Americans were formed. Everyone (I sincerely HOPE) knows the story of the first attempts at desegregation. The governor of Arkansas was so against allowing black children to learn with whites, he was prepared to use force! The national guard got involved. (click here) Just think about that. The elected governor, who should be representing the best interest of all his citizens, was so vociferously against allowing black children to sit in the same classroom as white children and learn... that he was prepared to use physical confrontation to stop it. The governor. Governor George Wallace was another one. Yeah... um... this is astounding... but for a lot of previous generations of blacks... these were just regular occurences.

One of the biggest moments of the civil rights movement, was Lyndon B Johnson's signing of the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. (click here) John F Kennedy made promises about the bill, but he was unable to get around a Democrat filibuster in the Senate. Yes... a Democrat filibuster. Not so liberal, eh? Neither of the major parties were jumping to tackle the issue, but the Civil Rights movement did push on Kennedy. Back in those days, the Democrats dominated the Southern states (yeah, sounds crazy to me too) and it were Southern conservative Democrats who were vehemently against the civil rights movement. Through much finageling, and a "brave" speech at the Democratic convention, where LBJ basically walked into the "lion's den" of sorts, and told his fellow Southern Democrats... we aren't going to do this anymore, he was finally able to convince enough Senators to support (or at least not filibuster) the bill. But LBJ knew there would be consequences. Big ones. He, himself, said that the Democrats would lose the South, which essentially meant... he believed a lot of Southern whites would change their party affiliations... solely because LBJ thought it was immoral to deny blacks rights? I dont know about that Lyndon. Thats a bit much... surely, you can give Americans more credit than that. Right? *gulp* Right? what would the Southerners... do...? Hmmmmmm...

Those are the 1960, 1964, and 1968 elections... respectively. JFK carried the bible belt. But in 1964, it seems that Goldwater got a big portion... and in 1968, Nixon took portions, and the independent (Governor George Wallace) who ran on a pro-segregation platform, took other Southern States. He was the third party candidate, running aginst civil rights in 1968, and he took 5 states. He's the last 3rd party candidate to win a state. He took 5. Five. Running in the heart of the Democrats... with an anti-integration platform. Hmmmm... and in 1972, (Republican) Nixon won every state, other than the district of Columbia... and Massachusetts. I can't say its anti-war, because, though LBJ took us in, even upon re-election, Richard Nixon was against surrender. Hmmmm... what... caused the political shift... cleary it can't be civil rights... it would be absurd that the entire political landscape would shift because of giving more people freedom. So... you know... that CAN'T be the problem. I'll have to meditate on it. I'll have to get back to you on that topic. Because, it would be too scary if all these states left the Democrats because they supported African American freedoms. Hmmm...

Martin Luther King, Jr once said that all white are racist... either implicitly or explicitly, and... even for the 1960's... I would like to not believe that. I will say, however... though I'll never know the truth when it comes to older white Americans... still, I sometimes wonder what they truly thought about the racial issue 40 and 50 years ago, back when it wasn't taboo to be openly racist. There are lots of video from the time period... and there weren't just 10 or 15 people here and there protesting integration... these were LARGE groups of people. In the streets... openly and vehemently protesting equality for African-Americans and other groups. Again, that was just those bold enough to speak about it openly. How many more felt the same but didn't want to speak so boldly about it? If you are white... can you say for certain, that your parents... or grandparents didn't harbor racist views on African-Americans? Scary thought... in my opinion.

(Part V: The Conclusion - where we are today & where we go from here)

What Most White Americans Dont Want to Talk About (Part 3)

Whence last we spoke, I mentioned novels as a new, almost subliminal way, to promote fear and prejudice against the newly freed slaves. They weren't real stories, just hypothetical fiction, however, subconsciously, the readers would begin to fear and generalize all black men as uncontrollable and domineering against white women. [ Statistically, the African-American crime rate in the United States did not begin to spike until the 1970's... a good 60 to 70 years into the future, but we'll get into that much later.] For now, before the fiction started to become reality, we can look at the formulative time periods of mainstream perception.

As I said, novels were just one medium to convey this message. Hollywood, as a centre for "entertainment" is very culpable. What is entertaining today, isn't necessarily what would have been entertaining one hundred years ago. One "rag time" classic... blackface. Blackface is one of the most hated symbols of racism for African-Americans. In simple terms, similar to when women couldn't perform in plays, and men played all the characters, blackface originated as (former)slave characters being played by white men... as this picture so clearly shows us. I could just say... look at the picture, but I must point out that there was no attempt made at an accurate portrayal of a black man. Its meant to be exaggerated. It was another way to attempt to humiliate. Once again, everything about you (African) is wrong. So, the character isn't brown, his skin tone is pitch black. With the makeup, the white guy would do his best to exaggerate the fullness of black lips. If you're not African-American, it might be hard to understand the historical significance of slave owners open disgust for the skin tone, hair texture, lip size and nose width of the slaves... but the "lightskinned girls get in free" (symbolizing black men prefering light skinned women) party I mentioned in a previous blog is just one example of these same issues resonating (to this day) in the hearts and minds of many blacks. If you get bored one day, just do some google'ing and see the 100's of thousands of articles and blogs that will pop up, trying to address an issue that some(most?) non-blacks are unaware even exists.

The visual interpretation of the former slaves through blackface was just another indirect way to mock them. But, it wasn't just how he looked, it was what he did, and what he said... that really entertained the white audiences. The blackface characters were dimwitted and lazy. Cowardly, buffoonish. Lied often. Spoke horribly improper English. And, as the first pic shows, were... inherently inclined to musical talents. Perhaps the saddest thing, was that, in its latter stages, blacks started to reprise some of the roles themselves. (click here) There were female characters as well. As is the case on old cartoon reels of Tom & Jerry, there were the "mammy" type characters, who were loud, slow-witted, spoke slang, unappealing in terms of beauty and featured dominant male characteristics. And the other portrayal of black women was to be type cast as highly sexually provocative.

This is a sidenote of sorts, but knowing the history of blackface will bring more understanding of the Chappelle situation when he left his show. He had to question what he was doing... intentionally... or unintentionally. This is purely anecdotal, but I remember asking a(n older black male) coworker if he watched, and he expressed his dislike for Chappelle and his humor, and likened it to "chicken George" or blackface. Anyway, Chappelle had finished 2 successful seasons, and was working on production for season 3. One of the skits, which you can see on the three episodes Comedy Central aired (much to Chappelle's protest) was one where he played a miniature racial stereotype "pixie" of different races. White, black, hispanic (which isn't a race, but no time for that now) and asian. The black pixie was blackface. As an entertainer, there's no doubt that he knows the history of blackface. In Chappelle's words, he saw a white guy on the set that was laughing at the routine, but he thought he was laughing too hard. As if to say, he's not laughing with me... he's laughing... at me. The biggest problem with satirical comedy (Boondocks, anyone?) is that most people are too simple-minded to get it. As a comedian, trying to bridge the gap with racial humor, to one day wake up dressed as (of all things) blackface, and to see white people working for you laughing at you... I suppose that would drive anyone to Africa. Right...?

Well, as the 1930's rolled along, such... explicit forms of racism were beginning to become taboo. A "classic" from the 30's, that some percieve to have a racist undertone was King Kong. Its been said that the creator of King Kong was openly racist. Not a big stretch for the 1930's, I'd imagine. But what is the premise of King Kong? White explorers travel to an island inhabited by primitives. There, they find this giant ape like creature with some human emotions. They capture the beast and bring it to America in chains to put on display. The ape escapes its captors, grows unruly and uncontrollable, and has a dangerous affection for a helpless white woman, until the authorities can come and save her, by killing the savage beast. Though the 2005 adaptation received no mainstream criticism or inquiry about a possible racial undertone (because we're now beyond that?)... how would this movie have been recieved by a white American audience in 1933?

I mean... really... did you think I could talk about racism (implicit or explicit) in film and book form, and not mention (1915) "the Birth of a Nation"? (yes, thats a clansmen on the horse as the protagonist) Fear tactics at its best... or worse, depending on your perspective... The Birth of a Nation is a controversial movie based on the 1912 novel: Clansmen. Rather than the non-threatening, goofy blackface live action characters from broadway plays, the Clansmen book portrayed African-Americans in a more serious light: as the deadly "brute." The physically imposing, savage who was not intelligent enough to control his lusts and emotions. A neanderthal, of sorts. In the book, the black "brute" rapes a white woman. The woman and her mother are left so distraught after the assault, they both commit suicide. It is then that the clansmen, as the heroes of the story, come in and kill the black "brute" for his misdeeds. It promotes a different stereotype. Rather than dumb and funny, black men are scary and dangerous. Savage... deviant... violent.

I'm definately not excusing it, Im extremely judgmental of America's past... but is it any wonder that whites didn't want to have anything to do with blacks? I can just imagine some old white guy shouting "Not my daughter!". The movie was a way to explain away violence (lynchings) against blacks. [Remember Emmitt Till?] From the perspective of the novel and the movie... the Ku Klux Klan was the hero. Merely protecting their people from the savages. The American government isn't protecting white America from the brute Africans, so the KKK will do it themselves. And this (irrational) fear of black men, again, black crime didn't spike until the 1970's... would be drilled into the heads of white America... in various forms.... be it... novels... tv shows... flyers...

(you can't even drink water without fear of the brutes coming!)

(next, Part IV: WW2, Jim Crow, and the 1960's)

What Most White Americans Dont Want to Talk About (Part 2)

Stereotypes of the Africans were not just impressed upon the minds of the slaves... but also the minds of the slave owners. As this "flyer" indicates, this would be a show to go to see as entertainment. It reminds me of the Roman tactic of using live plays to influence public opinion on social issues. "Naked terror. Sex-crazed natives on the rampage." There is no doubt that various forms of mainstream media were used to promote a certain negative view of the African slaves as both barbarous and sexually deviant. It probably wouldn't be too much of a stretch to assume that... in order to keep public opinion of the use of slavery positive... there would need to be a concentrated effort portraying the slaves as less than human. A form of (distorted) moral justification. [i.e. They're not really human. Not totally. They need us, and our Christianity to humanize them. To give them stability and order. Look how they act on their own. That is their nature. Barbarians. Slavery is good for them. A way to bring civility.]


For anyone who hasn't read Federalist Paper 54, I implore you to do so. The Federalist Papers were short essays written mostly by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. I guess they could be considered Op-Ed pieces promoting the federal view of a democratic government, compared to the confederacy model, where the central government is weak and the majority of the power lies within the individual states. Federalist Paper 54 is written by James Madison, and in it, he speaks about taxation and the topic of slaves come up. He attempts to walk this tight-rope of intellectual logic mentioning on some level the humanity of the slaves, yet also acknowledging their existence as the property of others. And though they are human, there is a tax on property, and so, on some level, the Africans must be treated as goods. And in so doing, they "lose 2/5's of a person." I believe this is the first mention of the 3/5's of a person theory that the US government would later adopt; as also related to representation of the general populace.

Can anyone imagine having their government tell them that they are a little bit more than half of a human, but not quite completely: sub-human. Should solace be taken in the fact that the slaves were considered domesticatable, compared to the Native Americans, who were exterminated? The Federalist Papers were (again) popular essays circulating around the colonies promoting a certain view of which direction our government should go. There would have been many a white American reading and considering this sub-human thesis by Madison. Again, when it comes to African-American history, the goal was not just the deprecation of the Africans, but to also legitimize the practice of human ownership in the minds of the white Americans by questioning African humanity.

And, it would also cheapen the life of the slave/property... adding to the physical brutality. One important goal that was enforced rigorously was the illegality of literacy. One would be beaten, and could even be killed... for learning. Just... consider that for a moment. From the day we are born, our minds are growing and constantly processing new information. However, in the eyes of America, blacks learning how to read WORDS was not going to be allowed. Though many down play its importance in life, knowledge is truly power, and a thinking african was not to be desired by the European settlers. So, from the inception of America, the goal was to keep the african as ignorant as possible (something that will be revisited later)... and the slave owners went to great lengths to keep it that way. Even in the North, which would eventually be seen as more progressive, the teaching of blacks was opposed.





Education would lead to questioning, growth, organization, and eventually rebellion, and the European settlers were looking for mules. Dumb strong animals to do... not think. America was large. Compared to individual countries like England, Spain or France, the original thirteen colonies alone were huge. Not only that, it was uncultivated land in America. From an economic standpoint, there is no question that the settlers saw the large monetary benefit of free labor. It was that advantage with such things as the creation of the railroad systems and US agriculture which would help America start to compete with Europe, even at such an early age. Indeed, much of America was originally built on the backs of Africans who would never reap the financial benefits of their free labor. Similar to IBM's profiteering off of the holocaust (if you dont know... go look it up), there is no doubting that there were a lot of businesses that built from the ground up with slave labor. And with "manifest destiny," the more the country expanded westward, the more "docile" slaves were to be required. Denial of education, even to former slaves, was perhaps seen as vital to the expansion of the nation and the status quo. One former slave turned intellectual being the great Frederick Douglas (click here). America would do everything it could to keep these type of dissenting voices to a minimum.

After the civil war, in the 1860's, African-Americans were no longer slaves. They were free. They were 5/5's of a person. How free were they really? What opportunities were they given to excel? Though, the former slaves were legally allowed to vote (something white women wouldn't get for another 60 years!), there was no practical enforcement of that law, or protection against those who would try to prevent blacks from doing so. It had been illegal for slaves to read, and many states started to adopt compentency tests for voting, now infamous for their success in preventing newly freed blacks from voting. No education... no civil liberties... no protection... where could they go? Many became share croppers. Even in my personal life, though my father's family is from Africa, my mother's grandparents were sharecroppers. Share croppers were like indentured servants. It was barely an existence. You were paid just enough to survive. You lived on the plantation, worked long hours, and did just enough to survive, with not enough time, money, or opportunity to find better. But then again, what were the other prospects for a black man in the 1870's to find work? Just surviving in America, particularly in the South, was a successful battle... all its on.

But the point is that there were little practical successes after freedom was won. Share cropping was like a secondary... lighter form of slavery. Wage slavery of the harshest kind. Long brutal hours in the field just in order to ascend to very very poor. There were nice quotes, good speeches and a few legal documents, but in the daily lives of blacks in the 1870's... there was very little real change. Though not legally slaves, blacks would still be purposely kept poor and uneducated by the white community for a very long time.

Literature had always been used to instill in whites a negative stereotypical view of blacks, and novels would be a new and powerful way to promote this negative view of black masculinity. A new leisurely form of entertainment that told numerous dramatic stories about aggressive black men (known for their uncontrollable animalistic sexual desires!) terrorizing pure innocent white women. Sex crazed natives are on the rampage... white women... please watch out.

The vicious irony of course being that, since the first slave ships washed up on the Eastern shores of this country, since the inception of slavery in America, there has been one victimizer, and he has been the white male. There is no debate among historians about the prevelance of rape of black women throughout the time period of slavery. There are now a lot of different shades of African-American in this country today and I can guarantee you that it did not start with a bunch of white mothers in the 17 and 1800's. Of that much, you can be certain.

Because of the barrier of the Sahara desert, sub-Saharan africans are distinctively darker than North Africans. Interaction between Rome and Carthage... Egypt and the Middle East... Morocco and Spain... these opportunities for engagements would create interracial children that began to lighten the skin complexion of North Africa. You have many shades of black in America today, but, were they created from mutual consenting adults or forced sexual aggression?

(raises hand as if confused) "Um... Im just curious... can someone tell me... what exactly is... tragic hunger?" Is that rape slang? I dont know if it springs forth from the guilt of white sexual assaults against black women for more than a hundred years, or fear of Nat Turner-esque retaliation (click here) for past sins against blacks, but more than half a century BEFORE the brutal murder of Emmitt Till for saying "baby" to a white woman (click here)... with pictures so disturbing, I will not put them here or send links to them... CLEARLY... there was already a deliberate attempt to scare white America into a negative perception of the humanity of their black counterparts. That... we will see in greater detail...

(end part II)

What Most White Americans Dont Want to Talk About (Part 1)

Racial topics are always a touchy subject. You always seem destined to offend someone. Perhaps for even attempting to bring up the topic that is (and perhaps always will be by its very nature?) taboo. Though usually not the case, I've had non blacks who have thought I was being biased towards African-Americans, and on the other end of the spectrum, I've had cases where fellow African-Americans have felt like I was not being loyal enough on a certain topic. My only loyalty is to my conscience. Ever since my first introduction to Grecian philosophy, I've been obsessed with logic and reason, and no matter the topic, I earnestly try to come to the most logical conclusion attainable. That does require removing the glasses most people are soooo use to wearing, they dont remember that they're there... be they gender, racial, cultural, religious, economic, or social.

Though I never do this... I will preface this one particular blog by saying, Im a young black male, and as I write this entry, I am writing as if my intended audience are specifically white Americans.

Forty years after my favorite decade in American history: the tumultuous 1960's... we have a black man nominated by one of the two major parties to run for the highest office in the land. The President of the United States of America. This is something that anyone who was around 40 years ago, would have thought to be impossible. So, all should be well with the state of black America then, right? Sadly, this is far from the case... and in terms of statistical analysis, I dont know if things have ever been worse.

On several levels, Im nervous that I will not do justice to articulating the story effectively and efficiently, but...


Let's Get Started:

-African-Americans consistently have the lowest educational test scores of all the major ethnic groups in this nation

-African-Americans have a 50% high school dropout rate in many cities in the US

-60% of African-American male high school dropouts (in their early 30's) have been to jail or prison

-65% of African-American male high school dropouts were unemployed in 2000 (72% in '04)

-16% of African-American men in their twenties who are not in college are in jail or prison

-African-Americans are the only ethnic group with more women (than men) earning degrees

-Rates of imprisonment rose for black men in the (prosperous) 1990's, while most every other racial & gender group (including black women) showed financial gains

-African-American men make up 40% of the US male jail population

-African-Americans (though 12% of the general population) are 50% of annual US AIDS cases

-African-Americans (though 12% of the general population) are 40% of total US AIDS cases

-68% of African-American children are born in single parent homes (only group over 40%)

-90% of those single parent homes are run by African-American women

-The average salary of a black man in America ($30K/yr) is 75% that of the average white man


Anyone who knows me knows that I vehemently reject the notion that any group of people are inherently better than any other. So, then... the question must be asked... how did we get to this predicament?

We have to go back to African slavery. Most people sigh or grimace "that story, again???" when you bring up slavery, as if it were an isolated incident in the halls of time that should be acknowledged temporary, and moved beyond. Some small blemish, that may have affected a group of people back in antiquity, but has no real life application in the 21st century.

I've heard people say things like...

"Again with the slavery talk?"

"People keep looking back, why can't blacks look to the future."

"Why wont people take responsibility for their own actions?"

"Im tired of people talking about what happened hundreds of years ago."

"Why can't we get past this?"

Why indeed.

How soon does one really expect to recover from such an event? Such a period? A period of 400 years of slavery. 400 years. Just imagine that. Generation after generation after generation after generation after generation (keep going) being born and bred into a certain mindset. Knowing nothing else. How would that affect future generations of Africans? But first, a quick glance at the Hispanics.

When most people think of Spanish today, they think of Central and South America. But Spanish is a European language. It almost sounds awkward to say. Just like French and other languages, Spanish derives from Latin, the "archaic" (dead) language of the Roman (later called Byzantine) Empire that controlled Europe for centuries. While France and England colonized North America, the Portugese and Spaniards colonialized Central and South America. But what happened to the cultures of the Aztecs (Mexico), Incans (Peru) and Mayans (Central America)? Do people think they spoke Spanish? These civilizations were crushed through the "convert or die" mentality of the Spanish Conquistadors. (anyone remember the Spanish Inquisition in Europe?) With Spain being whole-heartedly Roman Catholic, South America became "Latin" (Roman) America... with their inhabitants Latinos. Latin, being the "cherished" language of the Catholic church. [Mass in Vatican City is still recited in latin, to this day.] So, the native (South) Americans were given a new identity. A new language, a new religion, a new culture... essentially... a new existence. These are things very few people ever think about when it comes to South America, but are extremely fascinating to me. If you look at the permanency of Spaniard influence over Central and South America, even 500 to 600 years later, you will see how effective colonialization of an indigenous people can be.

One thing that made the Roman Empire so powerful, was its philosophy of assimilation. This strategy that the Spaniards adopted so well. When Rome took over, you became Roman. Not to say this was more important than the adoption of the great road systems, the Roman aqueducts, the Roman calendar, or any of their other accomplishments, but assimilation was a great way to expand one's territory. I dont care what your country was before, it no longer exists... you become one of us.














Well, the Europeans had a different way of dealing with the Africans. Assimilation would have to be discarded in order to use humiliation. Not just humiliation through physical slavery, but humiliation through psychological. Abuses, as the above picture (and other forms of medium) shows, was communicated to the slave and to the slave owner both.

Our original identities were taken, however, unlike the South Americans... we were not given new identities. Instead, we had it engrained in our very being, that everything about us was wrong. We were taught to hate ourselves. Our skin color, our lip size, our hair texture, our broad noses... even the country of our origin, all were to be the source of scorn and ridicule. In terms of modern day hair, perms (permanent) were a way to change our hair texture, to one of a more straight European nature. To garner acceptance. To Europeanize ourselves. Its good to see more people become comfortable wearing natural hair, but to this day, African-Americans still use phrases such as "good (thinner, straighter) hair," taught to us, over 300 years ago. Last year, unresolved wounds were re-opened when a black party promoter advertised a party where light-skinned girls get in free. (click here)

There is a powerful scene in Roots when Kunta first gets to America, and his new master tries to give him an American name. If necessary, the past was going to be brutally beaten out of you. The first group of slaves were not allowed to speak in their native tongues, and the children who never knew freedom (or Africa) were not allowed to learn it. Its not that difficult to see how subsequent generations would reject their background that they didn't understand or have an opportunity to adopt.

"Why am I here...? Why am I going through this...? I've never been to Africa. I'm not African!"

All we knew is that we hated what we were, because of the physical and psychologically abuse that was engrained... generation... upon generation... upon generation. As a child with an African name, who grew up in the 1980's American school system... TRUST ME... African-American children (surprisingly from the earliest of ages) dislike and dis-associate themselves with Africa. Of this much, I can personally and undoubtedly attest.

(end part I)