Rob Roy MacGregor
April 30th, 2004, 06:02 AM
Copyright © 2004 The American Conservative
Blaming Whitey
The End of Blackness: Returning the Souls of Black Folk to Their Rightful Owners, Debra J. Dickerson, Pantheon, 304 pages
From the promotion of this book and from the first few pages of its introduction, a reader comes to Debra Dickerson’s The End of Blackness expecting something other than an extensive catalogue of the sins and moral failings of whites. The author does get around to the book’s supposed premise, which is a call to blacks to free themselves from obsession with past grievances and take responsibility for the choices and decisions they make, but not before she engages in a considerable amount of verbiage aimed at whites’ past crimes and present incivilities.
We first get a tour of the old horror stories of bigotry—Emmett Till’s murder, the duplicitous Tuskegee “experiment,” Rosa Parks’s humiliation. Then come the generalizations about whites, along with some peculiar contradictions. Whites refuse to accept the “full dimensions” of their wicked past. Whites subsist only on their “windfall of skin privilege,” an implication that individual whites have achieved little through their own efforts. Whites believe so much in “their own infallibility” that when blacks fail to fit certain stereotypes, whites have to “build their own Frankensteins to fear and loathe.” And this is why elderly white ladies clutch their purses at the sight of a black man, and why whites “tremble” when finding themselves in all-black settings.
She talks authoritatively about “white supremacy,” which, apparently, like the term “racism,” has been defined downward. In Dickerson’s world, just about any behavior on the part of a white that lacks at least some deference to the sensibilities of blacks can get him slapped with the “white supremacist” label. She saves her most accusatory tone for white men, who are depicted as unreasonable belligerents who stubbornly continue to resist sharing their piece of the pie with blacks—an indication, somehow, of “masculinity” problems. She quotes a writer referencing sports, with whom she agrees, who claims that black men have taken over the “symbols of manliness.” To this, Dickerson observes that as long as black masculinity was kept “under lock and key,” the “myth of white superiority” could prevail. “Why can’t Walter Mitty identify with Walter Payton?” she asks.
As usual, this interplay between groups is not described in terms of the universal contest for power that exists wherever groups interact but instead is interpreted as further proof of unique white malevolence. Why it would be normal behavior for any group of men who have been dominant in their society to allow themselves voluntarily to be displaced is never a subject for discussion by such arbiters of castration politics.
Her depictions of the unyielding, recalcitrant white, who struts around like a know-it-all, egotistical peacock, had me wondering if she is paying attention to what’s really happening in this society, or if her antenna is picking up signals from a distant era. Where are these preening whites, “insulated by privilege” from the problems of blacks, who “simply choose not to know”? Is there really anywhere in this society where one can escape the relentless retelling of the story of slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings, and segregated water fountains? Set upon with the type of charges made by people like Dickerson, and eager to comply with the rules of the race game, most whites strive to keep their heads below the radar, so as not to be slammed with the ruinous accusation of “racist.”
With “hate crime” laws, a species of legislation concocted primarily to entrap whites, busily being applied, whites are circumscribed in silent, clandestine ways. Woe to that white guy who foolishly commits some low-level crime involving a “minority.” If there is even a whiff of what might pass for a white “consciousness,” which means he can legally be stamped with the “hater” label, an over-reactive prosecutor might very well ratchet up the original infraction into “conspiracy” and “intimidation” charges. If he is deemed to have engaged in certain thought crimes in regard to race, the poor sap could find himself looking at a mandatory minimum prison sentence.
There is little chance that the “supremacists” of Dickerson’s musings will find nurturing in a society with an educational system and a reinforcing media that work overtime to justify support for the special rights of politically protected groups, while teaching disdain for all things Western and white. In fact, the mental state of the University of North Carolina college student who recently wrote in the school newspaper about how “ashamed” he is of his ancestors is probably closer to the norm of today’s self-abnegating whites, and offers a snapshot of the future. Such youths, in the words of Congressman Tom Tancredo, “now cower if asked to react positively to the nation and civilization of which they are a part.”
Dickerson, caught up in railing against the sins of a bygone nation, is apparently unaware of how far the pendulum has swung. Although she rakes Louis Farrakhan over the coals for his excesses, some of her diatribes against whites sound like they could have come straight from the pages of The Final Call.
In the book and in interviews, Dickerson claims that she expected her criticisms of blacks to be looked upon as “incendiary” and “provocative.” She anticipated being denounced by prominent blacks and maybe even declared “self-hating, insane, or money hungry.” Perhaps she thought it best first to hurl her thunderbolts at whites in order to avoid incurring the ire of the liberal establishment.
As a black, I am disappointed that frank discussions on race are still at the stage where some of the most obvious and even trite observations are billed as “provocative” and “controversial,” as if it is daring merely to point to that which is broken and to urge that practical steps be taken to fix it.
In spite of her many declarations such as, “There is work to do, and it must be done by black people,” she cannot resist burdening others with a responsibility to blacks—even the country’s newest arrivals. In a testy discussion about immigrants, she equates them in their attitudes with whites. “Modern whites and even the freshest of immigrants … are blasé about the ugly, willfully amorphous past of American infamy.” One wonders if she would like to see immigrants consigned to sensitivity training sessions so they might learn better to appreciate the everlasting sufferings of blacks. Whites, here again, are the culprits. “Partially to assuage that guilt over their treatment of blacks, whites fawn (politically) over Asians and Hispanics.” Dickerson is not impressed by studies that explain why Asians meld so well into American society due to their high level of academic achievement and stable family and work patterns. Instead, in one case she refers to such observations by an author as a “typical example of fawning over the industrious, well-mannered Koreans.” She appears to resent the fact that Koreans and Asians in general tend to live in white, middle-class communities where they absorb mainstream values.
Read the rest here:
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_05_10/review.html
Blaming Whitey
The End of Blackness: Returning the Souls of Black Folk to Their Rightful Owners, Debra J. Dickerson, Pantheon, 304 pages
From the promotion of this book and from the first few pages of its introduction, a reader comes to Debra Dickerson’s The End of Blackness expecting something other than an extensive catalogue of the sins and moral failings of whites. The author does get around to the book’s supposed premise, which is a call to blacks to free themselves from obsession with past grievances and take responsibility for the choices and decisions they make, but not before she engages in a considerable amount of verbiage aimed at whites’ past crimes and present incivilities.
We first get a tour of the old horror stories of bigotry—Emmett Till’s murder, the duplicitous Tuskegee “experiment,” Rosa Parks’s humiliation. Then come the generalizations about whites, along with some peculiar contradictions. Whites refuse to accept the “full dimensions” of their wicked past. Whites subsist only on their “windfall of skin privilege,” an implication that individual whites have achieved little through their own efforts. Whites believe so much in “their own infallibility” that when blacks fail to fit certain stereotypes, whites have to “build their own Frankensteins to fear and loathe.” And this is why elderly white ladies clutch their purses at the sight of a black man, and why whites “tremble” when finding themselves in all-black settings.
She talks authoritatively about “white supremacy,” which, apparently, like the term “racism,” has been defined downward. In Dickerson’s world, just about any behavior on the part of a white that lacks at least some deference to the sensibilities of blacks can get him slapped with the “white supremacist” label. She saves her most accusatory tone for white men, who are depicted as unreasonable belligerents who stubbornly continue to resist sharing their piece of the pie with blacks—an indication, somehow, of “masculinity” problems. She quotes a writer referencing sports, with whom she agrees, who claims that black men have taken over the “symbols of manliness.” To this, Dickerson observes that as long as black masculinity was kept “under lock and key,” the “myth of white superiority” could prevail. “Why can’t Walter Mitty identify with Walter Payton?” she asks.
As usual, this interplay between groups is not described in terms of the universal contest for power that exists wherever groups interact but instead is interpreted as further proof of unique white malevolence. Why it would be normal behavior for any group of men who have been dominant in their society to allow themselves voluntarily to be displaced is never a subject for discussion by such arbiters of castration politics.
Her depictions of the unyielding, recalcitrant white, who struts around like a know-it-all, egotistical peacock, had me wondering if she is paying attention to what’s really happening in this society, or if her antenna is picking up signals from a distant era. Where are these preening whites, “insulated by privilege” from the problems of blacks, who “simply choose not to know”? Is there really anywhere in this society where one can escape the relentless retelling of the story of slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings, and segregated water fountains? Set upon with the type of charges made by people like Dickerson, and eager to comply with the rules of the race game, most whites strive to keep their heads below the radar, so as not to be slammed with the ruinous accusation of “racist.”
With “hate crime” laws, a species of legislation concocted primarily to entrap whites, busily being applied, whites are circumscribed in silent, clandestine ways. Woe to that white guy who foolishly commits some low-level crime involving a “minority.” If there is even a whiff of what might pass for a white “consciousness,” which means he can legally be stamped with the “hater” label, an over-reactive prosecutor might very well ratchet up the original infraction into “conspiracy” and “intimidation” charges. If he is deemed to have engaged in certain thought crimes in regard to race, the poor sap could find himself looking at a mandatory minimum prison sentence.
There is little chance that the “supremacists” of Dickerson’s musings will find nurturing in a society with an educational system and a reinforcing media that work overtime to justify support for the special rights of politically protected groups, while teaching disdain for all things Western and white. In fact, the mental state of the University of North Carolina college student who recently wrote in the school newspaper about how “ashamed” he is of his ancestors is probably closer to the norm of today’s self-abnegating whites, and offers a snapshot of the future. Such youths, in the words of Congressman Tom Tancredo, “now cower if asked to react positively to the nation and civilization of which they are a part.”
Dickerson, caught up in railing against the sins of a bygone nation, is apparently unaware of how far the pendulum has swung. Although she rakes Louis Farrakhan over the coals for his excesses, some of her diatribes against whites sound like they could have come straight from the pages of The Final Call.
In the book and in interviews, Dickerson claims that she expected her criticisms of blacks to be looked upon as “incendiary” and “provocative.” She anticipated being denounced by prominent blacks and maybe even declared “self-hating, insane, or money hungry.” Perhaps she thought it best first to hurl her thunderbolts at whites in order to avoid incurring the ire of the liberal establishment.
As a black, I am disappointed that frank discussions on race are still at the stage where some of the most obvious and even trite observations are billed as “provocative” and “controversial,” as if it is daring merely to point to that which is broken and to urge that practical steps be taken to fix it.
In spite of her many declarations such as, “There is work to do, and it must be done by black people,” she cannot resist burdening others with a responsibility to blacks—even the country’s newest arrivals. In a testy discussion about immigrants, she equates them in their attitudes with whites. “Modern whites and even the freshest of immigrants … are blasé about the ugly, willfully amorphous past of American infamy.” One wonders if she would like to see immigrants consigned to sensitivity training sessions so they might learn better to appreciate the everlasting sufferings of blacks. Whites, here again, are the culprits. “Partially to assuage that guilt over their treatment of blacks, whites fawn (politically) over Asians and Hispanics.” Dickerson is not impressed by studies that explain why Asians meld so well into American society due to their high level of academic achievement and stable family and work patterns. Instead, in one case she refers to such observations by an author as a “typical example of fawning over the industrious, well-mannered Koreans.” She appears to resent the fact that Koreans and Asians in general tend to live in white, middle-class communities where they absorb mainstream values.
Read the rest here:
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_05_10/review.html