Skip navigation.

exploreopera

| Help

Sign up | Help

Temple 3 - Thought, Word and Deed

a blog about politics, sports, life and death

Authenticity and Blackness

, , , , , , ,

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.

Looking Forward, Looking BackAuthenticity and Stereotypes

Comments

avatar
Cobb writes:

That's heavy. I'm wrapping my head around it. Let me spew off a couple things for a few posts and see where we get.

The first point of reference is based upon what I will call the myth of race, which is parallel between whitefolks who claim 'white' beyond ethnic roots and blackfolks who claim 'black' beyond ethnic roots. In this way one could compare Afrocentrism to White Supremacy, but only to the extent that they are racial rather than ethnic.

I would say that America subsumes all ethnics as a nation such that they are unable to express and rely on any deep ethnic claims. Everybody is Americanized in a nationalist context - that's the rules. This is one reason why the question of illegal immigration is so hot today, and has always been. America is designed as a modern fraternity, to create an inheritance of nationalism and merit, fixations of the Founders. Peerage, religious faith, ethnicity - all frowned upon. All bow down before the flag.

The second point of reference relates to the fortunes of African nations in the post-colonial era with regard to any practical effort by Africans in the diaspora to become whole. Does anyone really do it? Do we have anything beyond Richard Pryor's epiphany or Dr. Ben's Slave Castle tours upon which to base some departure? I imagine that any such pilgrimage is authentic *enough*, but I cannot see how it might be transformative of a people. Not that the desire seems to be reciprocated by Africans themselves.

Indeed what separates India from Africa when it comes to the post-colonial? Is India a model? Should it be?

Thirdly I would want to seriously investigate the ways and means by which you would suggest such power arrangements or demands might be met. What indeed would satisfy an authentic people and who is to say such goals haven't been met? I would argue that the price of oppression is blood and it always has been, and that African Americans are no different in that regard. If a hero can be made out of Nat Turner, then what level of blood did he spill and what level of victory did he produce? It seems to me that the full nature of humanity cannot be described in anything other than victory. There are a million losing factions. Where do they go? Who cares and feed for their legacy?..well.. anthropological zookeepers, on the payroll of the Zoo.

If I were to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, in a castle, I might have lucid words to describe my fate. Otherwise, I'd load up the AK and go out and spray. But African Americans are not spraying.. wll by your definition they wouldn't. Subordinated blacks are not revolting either, but certainly Africans in the 20th century have proven their willingness and ability to wage full out war. And what is it they are fighting for, and how great are their victories and are we merely shadow of them for not having such exploits of our own?

By anonymous user, # 30. June 2006, 22:14:09

avatar
1. I don't believe that Africentrism is, at its root, a racial philosophy. I believe it is a cultural perspective which is often clumsily linked to anthropology (regional determinism) and biology (depending on whom you read regarding the value of melanin and vitamins A & D). Asante, Hilliard and Karenga don't suggest in any of their writings (that I'm familiar with - and I've read much of their work over the past 20+ years) that race is either real or determinant for black people. There are others like Jeffries, Na'im Akbar, Frances Welsing and others who try to make that case. With that being said, it's hard to argue for a "racialist definition" of Africentrism which can't affirmatively reference the works of Asante, Hilliard or Karenga. For that matter, Cheikh Anta Diop, Theophile Obenga, John Henrik Clarke, Yosef ben-Jochannon, John Jackson, Ivan Van Sertima and Runoko Rashidi don't make racialist arguments either. At the margins, less discriminating audiences have conflated Africentrism with black essentialism - and yet, if they bothered to read Dr. Clarke or Diop, they could not emerge with the same mistaken beliefs.

2. America tries to subsume all ethnics. The most successful ethnics, however, are capable of building viable bridges with their mother country. The English, Scots, Germans and Jews have been tremendously successful at this. The piece to which you responded was written in 1997. There is another section of it which details the process by which groups seek self-determination - even while seeking to take hold of the American dream and all that that entails. Even as immigrants become assimilated, they never forget Moynihan's maxim: "All politics are local." And if you've driven around the nation, you know just how locally ethnic America is.

What America subsumes is open to debate. In New York City, not much has been subsumed. More people from more places speaking more languages are here than anywhere else - and their focus is on securing a material base within the empire. That focus does not mean turning their back on their home nation. In fact, the Financial Times recently reported that immigrant Latinos are sending more $$ to Latin America (through US earned wages) than all foreign investment from firms/central banks, etc. That is significant for several reasons. It suggests that immigrants retain a dual focus - and that they haven't all lost their minds. It's one thing to have a big house in the burbs - and it's quite another to have a business that can hire 15 to 20 people from the old country and be able to send money home each month - so that you can retire in the old country. As the world gets smaller and people see the US for what it is, the appeal of going back home grows.

It is important to note that this generation of young black folk are very entrepreneurial. I happen to believe we always have been. "Each" of us come from deeply ingrained cultural traditions of ferocious buying and selling (often by women) in open air markets - whether in West Africa, the Caribbean or the deep deep south...This generation has transferred earnings from wages to create new businesses...they're often undercapitalized, but that's beside the point I'm making right now. Simply, these activities are not necessarily American...they're quite traditional.

3. I'll have to drop more on this later, but one thing that started as a drizzle with Dikembe Mutombo and Derrick Brooks is beginning to look like something much larger. Mutombo, as you know, went to Georgetown and played for John Thompson. Last year, Thompson, Mutombo, Mourning and several other players went to Africa. It's become a regular trip and they're in the formative stages of doing some good things. Derrick Brooks has been taking a group of students to Africa for years. Last year, Ray Lewis went to Ethiopia. I don't have enough details to really fill in the blanks, but that is significant. It may not amount to something fully transformative, but the potential exists.

That's enough for now.

By Temple3, # 2. July 2006, 15:03:37

avatar
Ourstorian writes:

Thanks T3 for an edifying and enlightening read.

By anonymous user, # 2. July 2006, 16:54:14

Write a comment

Comment
(BBcode and HTML is turned off for anonymous user comments.)

Please type this security code : 6e1302

Smilies

July 2008
SMTWTFS
June 2008August 2008
12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031