Collectivism [Updated]
Michael Moynihan had a short article on Reason’s blog today subtly criticizing the Root for including United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on its list of Black People We’d Like to Remove From Black History. Moynihan begins thusly:
Over at The Root, where Slate magazine sequesters black journalists [emphasis added], Michael Arceneaux decides it’s time to excommunicate certain undesirables from the African-American brotherhood. Because “while we love our own,” he writes, “we sure do dream of erasing a few of them from the history books.”
Talk about the royal “We.” What’s galling are the reasons the Root includes Justice Thomas on an unwanted list inclusive of murderous despots, thugs, and infamous corrupticrats:
[Thomas] looks to the Constitution as “colorblind,” says he’s a man who just happens to be black and opposes government programs intended to help minorities.
A colorblind Constitution. The horror. What sort of illiberal individual could entertain such a notion? And where did Thomas get the idea that government social programs’ eligibility criterions should satisfy the equal protection components of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. No true Scotsman black man could hold such views.
If Justice Thomas has ever patronized himself by saying “I just happen to be black” I can’t find it on the Internet. Take away the racial prism that Root views through and Justice Thomas is a black man who reaches legal conclusions based purely upon his logical faculty and reason. In a word, Clarence Thomas is an individual. A reading from Ayn Rand comparing the merits of individualism with race-driven ideology is appropriate here:
“Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.”
In a sad twist, Root judges Justice Thomas by his “own character and actions,” but seeks to excommunicate Thomas from his “collective of ancestors” for failing to agree with the moral, social, and political stances held by the majority of the living members of his race. Look out Prof. Hutchinson, you might be next.
UPDATED: 2/23/2010 @ 11:45 a.m.
Frankly I’m surprised that Kanye West didn’t make Root’s list, considering that Barack Obama – while the sitting president of the United States – called West “a jackass” with a most sincere tone of voice.
UPDATED: 2/23/2010 @ 1:00 p.m.
Cavan got me going in the comments, so here’s our dialogue:
Cavan:
Well spoken. I find the very idea of “removing” some aspect of black history a bit perplexing. If they can do that can we just selectively remove Hitler from “white people” history? Clarence Thomas is as much a part of black history as Martin and Malcolm. That is, assuming that “black history” means the history of black people, and that membership in this group is determined by only skin color? Except in the case of Clarence Thomas where apparently membership is determined by his views? “Black History” is about race, if you chose to identify yourself by race instead of by intellect… I say you’re stuck with the identity you chose.
And Ayn Rand can insult the human race for its base collectivism all she wants… but she might as well complain about our weak bones or the fact we only have two hands. Humans are very visual creatures, and race–being a visual characteristic–will always be used to make the mental shortcuts known as stereotypes. Honestly I’ve never wondered why we don’t define race by voice patterns or smell–but logical me wonders it now.
Unfortunately its also a very dominant issue. It’s like the Sriacha Sauce of modern issues. No matter what you had before, if you put Sriacha on it–it now tastes Sriacha. No matter what the issue was before, once race gets introduced its about race.
Ryan:
I’ve achieved Sriracha sauce enlightenment. I put gobs of it on stir fry at Pho King Express (the one next to Stout) last friday and it enhanced, rather than overpowered, my meal. I believe all human beings are capable of a similar enlightenment whereby we interact with each other based upon character, content, and creed rather than primitive racial animus and collectivism.
I’ve been doing volunteer mediations in the local (female) juvenile hall and witness first hand some very basic forms of racial collectivism amongst the inmates there. The inmates are teenagers, come from the most broken of homes, and more broadly ‘communities’ that rely primarily upon race to draw social, cultural, and ideological lines. Moreover their prison environment is conducive to forging protective and information alliances. In light of those factors, the fact that race governs a good portion of the inmates relationships, actions, and responses is quite understandable. I do not fault those children.
But I fault the Root’s black intelligentsia because although they possess every resource to rise above the ugly, racial collectivism that centuries of racism forced them to retain, their ‘unwanted list’ clearly displays their refusal to do so. I further fault our society for tolerating (so long as it is non-white) explicit, racial-ideological collectivism. Finally, Salon “sequestering,” as Moynihan put it, their black commentators into a separate but public (equal?) forum (the Root) where they can serve as the de facto intelligentsia of African-Americans is insulting – a stunning example of the soft bigotry of low expectations.
[UPDATED 4/1/2010 @ 3:00 pm] – I’ve added some of the subsequent commentary below:
Joel Dreyfus [Managing Editor of the Root]:
Have you guys ever heard of humor..irony.. tongue in cheek? Are we collectivist, separate-but-equal, unintellectual agenda black folks barred from using such devices? The list was meant to be funny. And even the description of Thomas was ironic!!! I know, sometimes it doesn’t translate in print, but you guys need to, as my younger staffers would say, chill.
We’re not sequestered; we target a specific audience that feels underserved and whose views, perspectives and opinions are generally ignored by the mainstream media and the mainstream Web. We make a point of presenting a range of black opinions: conservative, liberal, middle of the road, and even, occasionally, humorous.
One of the wonders of the Internet is you can narrowcast to whom you want and if there is a market response to your content it means you are successful. And you don’t have to read us if you don’t want to.
I find it amusing that you and other sites have faulted Slate for “segregating” The Root. Just a little research would have shown that we were created just two years ago, more than a decade after Slate. We are in the same group for corporate convenience.
I find most news/intellectual/discussion sites on the web racially segregated in a much more blatant fashion – by omission. The Daily Beast recently posted a list of the most important journalists of the Left and Right. Such lists are more gimmicky than substantive but it reflected a common viewpoint that makes New Media not very different from Old Media: not a single African-American journalist made the list.
Quite possibly, you have been the exception and you have published the thinking of a diverse group of African-American, Hispanic and Asian thinkers.We’re comfortable in our skin and we have created a place where our audience is taken seriously and can engage in a spirited debate that reflects a broad spectrum of views. And occasionally, we even make them laugh.
Joel Dreyfuss, Managing Editor, The Root
Ryan:
Mr. Dreyfuss, I appreciate your thoughtful response. You lamented the fact that not a single African-American journalist made the Daily Beast’s list. I simply do not care what race, quantum, or color, any of those distinguished journalists are. My sole concern is whether their work product merits inclusion on the list. Now, I’m quite sure you too care deeply about merit. Our difference is that you take race into some account, and I do not. Nor do I consider the race or races of the authors of the articles I link to, comment on, or criticize.
Although you intended the ‘unwanted list’ to convey humor and/or irony, I submit that expressing desire to oust an individual (J. Thomas) from the African race for failing to conform his socio-political views to those the Root believes are appropriate for African-Americans is a peculiar strain of racial collectivism. Standing on the ideological shoulders of better individuals than myself, I contend we should judge others based solely upon their choices, ideas, and actions as individuals, and treat every individual equally, especially as a matter of law and government. Contrary to your young staffers’ recommendation I will not chill my advocacy in that regard. Finally, I think Flavor-Flav is pretty awesome, and it wasn’t cool for the Root put him on its unwanted blacks list. I appreciate you taking the time to share your viewpoints on my fledgling blog.
Pila:
Mr. Dreyfuss,
“The list was meant to be funny.”
I will agree that the list is a joke, but not in the way that you suppose it is.
The list can be broken down into three categories:
1.) Easy Targets
2.) Conservatives
3.) MurderersIf the list really were meant “to be funny,” it would make the most sense to compose it of all Easy Targets, as Conservatives and Mass Murderers are generally not know for their hilarity.
The inclusiveness of the list is as telling as the fact that Clarence Thomas got more words written about him than anyone else.
The article is blatant, and your response is disingenuous.
Pila Sunderland,
Mike:
Clarence “Uncle Tom” Thomas was the only conservative black man George Bush Sr. could find to fill the “black seat” vacated by Thurgood Marshall (a seat Thomas has proved woefully inadequte to fill). He was a perfect choice to advance the conservative agenda – a black man willing to defer at every turn to Scalia.
Ryan:
You call Thomas an Uncle Tom for precisely the same reasons I criticized the Root article for creating an unwanted list in the first place. You consider Thomas first as a member of a racial group before you acknowledge his individuality. As a result you feel (implicitly or explicitly) his ancestry should take precedence over his individual logic and ration, and when Thomas steps out of the African-American mold you demean his individual capacity to do so by labeling him as merely an Uncle Tom.
Well spoken. I find the very idea of “removing” some aspect of black history a bit perplexing. If they can do that can we just selectively remove Hitler from “white people” history? Clarence Thomas is as much a part of black history as Martin and Malcolm. That is, assuming that “black history” means the history of black people, and that membership in this group is determined by only skin color? Except in the case of Clarence Thomas where apparently membership is determined by his views? “Black History” is about race, if you chose to identify yourself by race instead of by intellect… I say you’re stuck with the identity you chose.
And Ayn Rand can insult the human race for its base collectivism all she wants… but she might as well complain about our weak bones or the fact we only have two hands. Humans are very visual creatures, and race–being a visual characteristic–will always be used to make the mental shortcuts known as stereotypes. Honestly I’ve never wondered why we don’t define race by voice patterns or smell–but logical me wonders it now.
Unfortunately its also a very dominant issue. It’s like the Sriacha Sauce of modern issues. No matter what you had before, if you put Sriacha on it–it now tastes Sriacha. No matter what the issue was before, once race gets introduced its about race.
I’ve achieved Sriracha sauce enlightenment. I put gobs of it on stir fry at Pho King Express (the one next to Stout) last friday and it enhanced, rather than overpowered, my meal. I believe all human beings are capable of a similar enlightenment whereby we interact with each other based upon character, content, and creed rather than primitive racial animus and collectivism.
I’ve been doing volunteer mediations in the local (female) juvenile hall and witness first hand some very basic forms of racial collectivism amongst the inmates there. The inmates are teenagers, come from the most broken of homes, and more broadly ‘communities’ that rely primarily upon race to draw social, cultural, and ideological lines. Moreover their prison environment is conducive to forging protective and information alliances. In light of those factors, the fact that race governs a good portion of the inmates relationships, actions, and responses is quite understandable. I do not fault those children.
But I fault the Root’s black intelligentsia because although they possess every resource to rise above the ugly, racial collectivism that centuries of racism forced them to retain, their ‘unwanted list’ clearly displays their refusal to do so. I further fault our society for tolerating (so long as it is non-white) explicit, racial-ideological collectivism. Finally, Salon “sequestering,” as Moynihan put it, their black commentators into a separate but public (equal?) forum (the Root) where they can serve as the de facto intelligentsia of African-Americans is insulting – a stunning example of the soft bigotry of low expectations.
To be fair, Root’s writers could be (probably are) well aware of the racial collectivism they are fostering. After all, it keeps them in the spot light. They wouldn’t be the first intellectuals to use their powers to advance a non-intellectual agenda.
If Root’s writers are fostering racial collectivism for job security’s sake I fault them all the more.
Have you guys ever heard of humor..irony.. tongue in cheek? Are we collectivist, separate-but-equal, unintellectual agenda black folks barred from using such devices? The list was meant to be funny. And even the description of Thomas was ironic!!! I know, sometimes it doesn’t translate in print, but you guys need to, as my younger staffers would say, chill.
We’re not sequestered; we target a specific audience that feels underserved and whose views, perspectives and opinions are generally ignored by the mainstream media and the mainstream Web. We make a point of presenting a range of black opinions: conservative, liberal, middle of the road, and even, occasionally, humorous.
One of the wonders of the Internet is you can narrowcast to whom you want and if there is a market response to your content it means you are successful. And you don’t have to read us if you don’t want to.
I find it amusing that you and other sites have faulted Slate for “segregating” The Root. Just a little research would have shown that we were created just two years ago, more than a decade after Slate. We are in the same group for corporate convenience.
I find most news/intellectual/discussion sites on the web racially segregated in a much more blatant fashion – by omission. The Daily Beast recently posted a list of the most important journalists of the Left and Right. Such lists are more gimmicky than substantive but it reflected a common viewpoint that makes New Media not very different from Old Media: not a single African-American journalist made the list.
Quite possibly, you have been the exception and you have published the thinking of a diverse group of African-American, Hispanic and Asian thinkers.
We’re comfortable in our skin and we have created a place where our audience is taken seriously and can engage in a spirited debate that reflects a broad spectrum of views. And occasionally, we even make them laugh.
Joel Dreyfuss, Managing Editor, The Root
Mr. Dreyfuss, I appreciate your thoughtful response. You lamented the fact that not a single African-American journalist made the Daily Beast’s list. I simply do not care what race, quantum, or color, any of those distinguished journalists are. My sole concern is whether their work product merits inclusion on the list. Now, I’m quite sure you too care deeply about merit. Our difference is that you take race into some account, and I do not. Nor do I consider the race or races of the authors of the articles I link to, comment on, or criticize.
Although you intended the ‘unwanted list’ to convey humor and/or irony, I submit that expressing desire to oust an individual (J. Thomas) from the African race for failing to conform his socio-political views to those the Root believes are appropriate for African-Americans is a peculiar strain of racial collectivism. Standing on the ideological shoulders of better individuals than myself, I contend we should judge others based solely upon their choices, ideas, and actions as individuals, and treat every individual equally, especially as a matter of law and government. Contrary to your young staffers’ recommendation I will not chill my advocacy in that regard. Finally, I think Flavor-Flav is pretty awesome, and it wasn’t cool for the Root put him on its unwanted blacks list. I appreciate you taking the time to share your viewpoints on my fledgling blog.
Mr. Dreyfuss,
“The list was meant to be funny.”
I will agree that the list is a joke, but not in the way that you suppose it is.
The list can be broken down into three categories:
1.) Easy Targets
2.) Conservatives
3.) Murderers
If the list really were meant “to be funny,” it would make the most sense to compose it of all Easy Targets, as Conservatives and Mass Murderers are generally not know for their hilarity.
The inclusiveness of the list is as telling as the fact that Clarence Thomas got more words written about him than anyone else.
The article is blatant, and your response is disingenuous.
Pila Sunderland,
Waiter
Clarence “Uncle Tom” Thomas was the only conservative black man George Bush Sr. could find to fill the “black seat” vacated by Thurgood Marshall (a seat Thomas has proved woefully inadequte to fill). He was a perfect choice to advance the conservative agenda – a black man willing to defer at every turn to Scalia.
You call Thomas an Uncle Tom for precisely the same reasons I criticized the Root article for creating an unwanted list in the first place. You consider Thomas first as a member of a racial group before you acknowledge his individuality. As a result you feel (implicitly or explicitly) his ancestry should take precedence over his individual logic and ration, and when Thomas steps out of the African-American mold you demean his individual capacity to do so by labeling him as merely an Uncle Tom.
I fail to see how his race is at all pertinent to his views.
The left proffers the racist standpoint that for a black man or woman to be a conservative of his own volition and construction is impossible. Was Guion Bluford an “Uncle Tom” for wanting to take part in space exploration? Was Sylvester James Gates an “Uncle Tom” for becoming a vocal supporter of String Theory? Should black people be limited in their pursuits, interests, and philosophies to those that people think of as black interests, pursuits, and philosophies?
It is of the same genus, but different species as the racism of low expectations, and at least as damaging. As long as a black guy agreeing with a white guy is seen as deference or, worse, as betrayal of his race we will be in this predicament.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/03/04/2010-03-04_teachers_in_trouble_after_honoring_oj_simpson_dennis_rodman_and_rupaul_for_black.html
Notice that, of the categories I mentioned, only the murderers and easy targets are debatable in whom should be celebrated. Nobody championing “Uncle (Justice) Tom?”
[...] For the record, in 2008 the Congressional Black Caucus refused to permit Louisiana Congressman Joseph Cao, the duly elected representative of a primarily African-American district, to join the CBC. Good luck locking the doors on Col. West, CBC. By the way, if anyone calls Col. West an Uncle Tom they’ll hear it from me. Like the Root did here. [...]
[...] Maine Governor tells NAACP to kiss his ass. To prove we’re not in a post-racial society, the (white) governor made sure to remind all listening that his son “happens to be black” – so don’t hate. Hmmm… “Happens to be.” For the record, I don’t happen to be anything. Happen has nothing to do with it, fool. For instance, I’m definitely Spanish (Punta de Tarifa – Gibraltar, essentially), Hawaiian (Kanaka’oluna ‘ohana, represent!), Portuguese (Madeira / Azores), Scottish (Tulloch, purportedly – there’s good reason to believe he wasn’t actually my great great grandfather), Irish (Abbott, from Cork), English (somewhere gray, no doubt), Norwegian (no clue), Dutch (no clue – but I trust my ancestor(s) tired of plugging the dikes and g(ot)tfo), French-German (Alsace-Lorraine – I know, right, choose your side motherfucker!) and Jewish (from my Mom’s side, so it counts right?). But the only thing that really matters is that I won the global lottery by being born in America (and Hawai’i at that! FBI!). Do I “happen to be” all of that? No. It is what it is. Perhaps it’s semantics. But I’d prefer, Governor, that if you’re going to preemptively use the “I can’t be racist because I adopted a black son” defense, that you’d just say “my son is black.” What’s wrong with that? Nothing. The trouble is that you (probably correctly) feel the need to say so, to CYA with regard to the NAACP. But what do I know, the only American of largely African ancestry I’ve ever pwned pissed off is the managing editor of The Root. [...]
[...] to a man’s genetic lineage – pervades much of the African American community (including The Root). I believe Ayn Rand’s essay on racism is determinative on the issue: Racism is the lowest, [...]