Temple 3 - Thought, Word and Deed

Here is a copy of a letter I wrote to a sports columnist, Howard Bryant.

I just read your article. I found it Googling today because I wanted to see how many references linked people to OJ Simpson - for whatever reason. This morning, on ESPN's Mike & Mike Radio Show, guest hosted by Vasilias (sic) and Gottlieb, Vasilias stated that Bonds was just like OJ and clarified by saying, "everyone understands the analogy here."

What's most interesting about all of this? The statement came within the context of a broader conversation about how Jason Giambi is his least favorite athlete in sports because he has escaped, relatively unscathed, in the national media and in the "court of public opinion." Yet, no one linked Giambi to OJ.

Bottom line, the subconscious is a beautiful thing - and so is a live mic.

By the way, I believe you wrote an excellent piece. I would, however, like to know if those black folk who "defended Bonds" or OJ drew a line, as I have, in criticizing the legal-social actions against them vs. expressing any statements about their personal virtues. I believe you'd be hard pressed to get quotes from black folk espousing or lauding the personal greatness of Bonds or Simpson - in fact, prior to their transgressions, you'd have had better luck finding white people to do that. So, I would disagree (based solely on my personal experience and recollections of other media reports) that black folks ever defended these individual in an affirmative sense. I would argue that they have, collectively, attacked the merits of legal-social actions in a negative sense - as in, "If (fill in the blank) weren't Black, this wouldn't happen."

It's a subtle distinction, but it's significant because it suggests that black folks have not capitulated an ethical center in defense of the "race." Conversely, it is clear that whites who sought to nullify jury trials and supersede all manner of civil protections following the Simpson verdict - and those who condone this most unique investigation of Bonds - have surrendered all ethical questions to achieve an end.

Thanks again.

This is the legacy of Maafa. The legacy of Maafa is such that these five conditions apply to every single Black nation. Maafa is a Swahili word which defines the triad of tortures: continental enslavement, passage across the seas, and New World bondage. The primary accomplishment of slavery was to eliminate African institutions of culture, defense, and justice - the cornerstones of social order for all Black people. The post-emancipation task of abducted Africans is not to gain wholesale inclusion into the institutions of their former masters. It is to reclaim, rebuild, and transform their own institutions to provide nourishment and protection for Black people. The loss of sovereignty and African cultural grounding equates to the loss of self-determination. The loss of self-determination means that Blacks exists as adjuncts to other people with prior claims of authenticity and authority.

Authenticity and authority are the concepts by which a people define and maintain themselves. Authenticity refers to the generally recognized and accepted behavioral practices and beliefs of a people. Implicit in this notion of authenticity is that a people self-identify, and therefore share certain values and practices as indicative of membership. Authority refers to the institutions of those people which define traditional and acceptable behavioral practice for the group.

By way of example, the authentic American is white. Six in ten Americans self-identify as white. National institutions of commerce, travel, politics, and trade portray the typical American as white. Non-white Americans typically have other descriptors attached to their identities: Native American, Mexican-American, and Asian-American. In fact, many non-white historical figures are not remembered as Americans at all: Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Nat Turner, and Malcolm X. The context in which these warriors were great precludes their identification as Americans. Whites, conversely, are generally referred to without reference to a European cultural base. Thus, Norman Schwartzkopf is not considered a German-American. He is merely American. While American authenticity is uniformly expressed as “white,” the authority is spread across many institutions:

•The institutional authority in politics is made up of a complex system of international, federal, state, and local networks. Political networks include multinational corporations (Bechtel, Microsoft), Congressional representatives, judges, legislators, and the armed forces, and law enforcement.

•Financial authority is signaled from the institutions of New York City’s Wall Street. Financial networks include commercial banks, savings banks, savings and loan institutions, financial service corporations, multinational corporations (Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch), and the Federal Reserve Bank.

•“Hollywood,” the home of commercial television and filmmaking, is the definitive source of American cultural authority. Cultural networks include multinational corporations (Time Warner, Cap Cities), media magnates (Turner, Murdoch, et al.), television networks, cable networks, theatre companies, schools, universities, and colleges, museums, spiritual centers (temples, mosques, churches, synagogues, etc.)

The dynamism of the American polity, notwithstanding, traditional images of America endure domestically and internationally. The authentic Muslim continues to be represented as Arab. The authority is in Mecca. For Catholics, the representations are as white as DaVinci’s paintings, and the authority is at the Vatican. Authority is as important as the perception of authenticity. It is clear that religious traditions like Islam and Catholicism require clear lines of authority. Therefore, propriety as a Muslim or Catholic is not only associated with tradition, but with the current practice espoused in a living institution (Mecca or the Vatican).
Blacks continue to live in America as adjuncts with only secondary claims to authenticity and no claims to authority. In some scenarios, individual Blacks are given opportunities to serve as surrogates of a non-Black entity. Witness Colin Powell as surrogate soldier for authentic American interests. Colin Powell is an American, without hyphen - without question. The context of his soldiering is not related to America’s racial conflict. Thus, Powell is more successor to Crispus Attucks than to men like Nat Turner, Gabriel or Denmark Vesey.

A people who are adjuncts or surrogates are best identified with a hyphen. The hyphen represents a connection to some greater entity. The recent shift in identity from ‘Black’ to ‘African-American’ suggests an implicit acceptance of Black marginality. Moreover, from a grammatical standpoint, the order is suggestive of powerlessness. America represents a powerful authoritative entity, of which Blacks are not authentically a part. Culturally, African icons and traditions are ritually ridiculed. Economically, American Blacks earn less than seventy cents on the dollar earned by whites. Blacks remain an underrepresented political group. In 1997, only one Black Senator served in the American Congress. African Americans are a marginalized group.

“African-American” is an answer to the question, “What kind of an American are you?” Africans, once abducted (1619) and then emancipated (1863), were made “American” by an act of the Congress (1865). Citizenship was not gained by referendum, nor did the creation of Black citizens reflect the popular will of authentic (white) Americans. Citizenship was imposed by political and military leadership as an alternative to territorial sovereignty within the borders of the U.S., wholesale relocation in Africa or the Caribbean, or extermination. Therefore, “African-American” remains a contradictory term. The contradiction is only heightened by the visceral contempt of most whites and Blacks for Africa and Africans. American Blacks, and others, have been taught that to “look African” is to look ugly. Doll preference tests performed by psychologist Kenneth Clarke on little girls demonstrated the pervasiveness of anti-Black indoctrination for American youth. Just as young Black children did not wish to associate with Black dolls, their parents typically deny association to the font of blackness - Africa.

Miseducation and alienation notwithstanding, I refer to U.S. born Blacks as American Blacks or American Africans. Continental, Caribbean, Asian, and European Blacks are also identified as such, based on region. Grammatically, the region (America, Caribbean, etc.) modifies the core cultural connection (Black or African) - hence, American African or Caribbean African. Thus culture, not nationality, as is the case with “African-American,” is primary. In the latter instance, it stands to reason that “African-Americans” would find common cause with Irish, German, and Italian Americans versus any connection with Brazilian Africans, Jamaican Africans or Panamanian Africans.

Common cause is not the same as common access to popular culture. It is common access to popular American culture which is shared by African and various ethnic white Americans. The uncommon cause is the distribution of power and resources between African and white Americans. American Africans or American Blacks are more likely to find common cause and common solution with Africans from the continent and throughout the Diaspora.

For my money, since "race" is socially-constructed (though difference is not - but the weight or value we ascribe to certain types of difference is) people are "who they say they are." If you say you're white, then you are. If you say you're not - and you're something else (a class identity, a regional identity, a spiritual identity) then you are. All that means is that your primary frame of reference for self-identification is not a specific "racial group" that others might assign to you. It doesn't mean that the history, patterns, constructs, ideology or challenges/benefits of that socially constructed group are not part of your life.

By extension, it's fairly easy to argue that religions are socially constructed. Take the case of international christianity following the leadership of Paul. Paul's clearly the architect - and he clearly was not divine. One may choose to argue the divinity of his inspiration, but his humanity is not a topic of debate. As such, for the sake of this argument, the religion (distinct from the faith) is socially constructed.

Does this mean that christians or non-christians are exempt from the societal implications of this religion? Quite the contrary. Much of what we perceive as valuable is socially constructed...take money. Money is an explicit agreement of value determined by many factors...it's not a fixed, neutral value. Currency values change by the second, the minute, the hour. What's a dollar worth to you? What's in worth if you live in England? What's it worth if you live in Nigeria? or India? or China? The values change not just over time, but according to our location.

"Race" is a similar social construction. It's meaning changes over time and space. It is not some objective neutral indicator of biology or of social value or of quality or mediocrity or intelligence or insanity. It is what it is - and it is what we say it is; and by extension, you are what you say you are - and you may still also be what they say you are...or not.