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)