cheese it, the cops!

things i wrote this year

I reviewed a couple of books for the Times Literary Supplement: John Kaag's wonderful Hiking with Nietzsche, the incomparable James C. Scott's Against the Grain

For the New York Times' "Stone" series (the thing cannot possibly be described as a 'blog') I wrote on The Oscars and the Illusion of Perfect Representation

I haven't been rolling the opinion section of the Wall Street Journal quite as heavy as I had been the previous couple of years, but I notched a few: Mark Zuckerberg or Xi Jinping? Russian memes didn't steal the election, rural voters' pride and left's prejudice, the opposite flaws of trump and mueller, hatred enhaces your self-esteem

I had a couple of essays in the Los Angeles Review of Books' Philosophical Salon: western philosophy as white supremacism and before and beyond left and right (in early 19th c america)

For Times Higher Education I did an essay on some of the difficulties i'm having in teaching today's undergrads

For Standpoint I recapitulated my ridicule of Ludwig Wittgenstein

 

I must be getting toward two hundred columns for splicetoday over the last few years. In praise of my outlet I want to say that splice gives you some of the liveliest and most various and fun writing you'll find. Some 2019ly items:

I solved Brexit through the miracle of mereology

refuted Fukuyama and identified the actual end of history

narwhal horns and moral scorekeeping

mass shootings and the stories we tell ourselves

the powerlessness of positive thinking

male aging memoir: short version

reviewed or discussed visual art, as Pat Steir at the Barnes Foundation, arte povera at the Philly Museum, art and capitalism in Bentonville (Crystal Bridges), the art of suiseki landscape stones

i began a series of resoundings or recoveries of somewhat-forgotten recording artists, or lost-and-found musical loves: The Bellamy Brothers, Augustus Pablo, the Kendalls, Blue Angel (Cyndi Lauper), and Ann Peebles. There will be more of these as time unfolds.

i covered country music from time to time (and see above): steel blossoms, the highwomen, self-dramatization in cody jinks and miranda lambert, 2019 top ten

wrote about race, gender, identity politics, pc, free speech: break the glass floor; sexual abuse and political power, apologizing for whiteness; white guys: collectable, electable; his pronouns are 'they' and 'them'; trump, tropes, and the jews, 

masculinity, psychology, and servility

higher ed, which is struggling these days: hunting humans on campus, mandate campus free speech with a new title IX;  the ridiculous state of campus journalism

i covered some of the debates and impeachment developments and, in general, politics: joe biden rattletrap, intel will pick the next pres, the wrong word, whatever you do, don't elect the unelectable, there's no such thing as electability, 2020 will make 2016 look like a more innocent time, how elizabeth warren started her slide, (maybe this wasn't so prescient): biden and sanders are fading, trumpism after trump

media and such: against copyright, the wrong word is the least of our problems, yo, opinion editors, stop this practice immediately, the conspiracy theory is fake news

 

some piecey blog entries: how thoreau became a radical, ragging mr. rogers, 'ok boomer' and the fiction of generations, mao meets macklemore, quotations from chairman joe, masculinity, psychology, and servility, i just can't get no reception, the washington post opinion page and the cia: no distance, nicholas sandmann and nathan phillips (remember them?) both did well, homo economicus replaced by saints

On Sophia/bloggingheads I argued with Dan Kaufman about wittgenstein, the western phil as white supremacism essay, realism anti-realism and g.e. moore, the analytic/continental split, TRUTH

I think early in the New Year I'll have long pieces in Reason and Quillette, among others. I'm working through Robert Brandom's unbelievable book A Spirit of Trust (750 pages on Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit, but also about everything else; it is itself a philosophical system) for the TLS right now.

2018 sartwelliana

items

wsj: Nothing the Russians or anyone else can do on social media can in itself delegitimize any election. 

pdf

splicetoday: Male Aging Memoir, Short Version

"Spying' is not the wrong word. But even if it was...(investigate the investigation)

Resounding: The Kendalls (an appreciation of the father/daughter act's classic cheating songs)

guilty of whiteness

 

 

recent splicetoday things:

 

apologizing for whiteness is not the worst idea

resounding: the bellamy brothers (first of a series, reaching back and re-appreciating)

mass shootings as a kind of nihilism (perhaps ideology and, like, social media, are not the problem)

go ahead and have babies if you want (prediction, in 30 years the world will still be beautiful)

how to write an executive order on free speech (a new title ix)

hunting the ultimate game (on campus and congress)

 

 

 

recent items

splicetoday: gospel music as liberation, how strong women made it from bessie smith to janis joplin

the great nathaniel peabody rogers on how to write, unpublished since 1842

why they suck: w.e.b. dubois

reality and representation: martin luther king on facebook

pc entertainment as medieval allegory

nonsense demography

What Race Is

By Crispin Sartwell

 

Race was invented.

Race was invented by the sort of people who came to regard themselves, after that invention, as white.

The content of this invention was an application of the mind-body or soul-body dualism of various sorts that has been fundamental to Western intellectual and spiritual traditions for millennia, expressed in one form or another, for example, by Pythagoras, Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes.

Hence, the content of race is prefigured in and crystallized by the history of Western philosophy, or at any rate by Western philosophy of a certain type: the sort that associates mind, order, and virtue with itself and the culture from which it arises, as in Hobbes or Hegel, and anarchy and animality with peoples who were to be colonized or enslaved.

Race, in short, is mind/body dualism externalized or expanded from the scale of the individual to the scale of humanity as a whole. We are minds; they are bodies. We are pure white souls; they are polluted, stained, or tainted. We are human; they are animal. We are rational; they are emotional. We are free wills, natural masters, because of our status as rational minds; they are slaves of their own passions and hence need our oversight. We are culture; they are barbarism.

All these - rational/emotional, man/animal, civilized/savage, body/mind - are the same distinction in various applications or at different scales, and are reflected in exclusions and hierarchies: of the first and third world, male and female, black and white.

For this reason, white construction of blackness relentlessly emphasizes embodiment and animality, violence and sexuality: things that the people who regarded themselves as white wanted to repress or conceal in themselves. You can see this in every stereotype of black people, in the toxic mix of sexualization and violence in the murder of Emmett Till, in representations of black criminality and promiscuity, substance abuse and violence.

These constructions are, at their heart, purely imaginary, or merely false; they are intended fundamentally (a) to enhance the self-image of the people who account themselves as white, and (b) to help create and hold in place a racial hierarchy that benefits white people economically.

But this invention is embodied in the most concrete physical realities: ships and chains, plantations and prisons, the segregation of bodies. Race depends on techniques by which stereotypes are enforced and hence simulated: laws against literacy or barriers to a decent education, impoverishment, and profiling in law enforcement, for example.

But perhaps race is more than false, as many black commentators such as Frederick Douglass have emphasized. The truth is closer to the reverse of the content of the invention. We portray ourselves as bringing you God or civilization, and show ourselves to be unspeakably savage. We project onto you our own barbarity: we lynch you for looking at a white woman wrong, and we have inflicted generations of systematic rape on your people. We accuse you of violence, then whip you or incarcerate you en masse. We accuse you of laziness and live off your labor.

We are, in other words, what we accuse you of being, and necessarily we do not know that about ourselves. But you know it about us. The oppression we inflict arises from systematic, semi-intentional ignorance about who we are and what we are in fact doing. Or, white identity is a fabric of self-delusions, and blackness is a standpoint that yields knowledge of the racial situation.

The imaginary and concrete exclusions create cultures of resistance whose content far exceeds the original raw dualism.

my splice column this week is a reminiscence and plea for whiteness studies, which had its heyday in the '90s. 

a few things by me on race:

wigger!

i speak for my people: a racial manifesto

act like you know: african-american autobiography and white identity

splicetoday: the march of euphemism. the key to human liberation is to replace bad words with neutral-sounding words. then those words sound wrong, and we'll need new ones, forever. still, at least we'll all be free. okay, not to go all pointed, but the people who think that word replacement and censorious editing constitute substantive blows for the resistance are, you know, 'idiots, imbeciles, the feeble-minded, and moral defectives.' or to be fair - they are saying with the utmost apparent sincerity and intensity what they and we know very well to be false: that words create reality. obviously, harvey weinstein can learn to talk like a feminist and just keep right on with the abuse. correct?

trump and i

[how donny did the eclipse]

 

alright, i'm going to tell you, guiltily, what i like about trump, why i keep returning to a seemingly sympathetic tone, or why i sometimes 'relate,' though i utterly reject his politics. on the charlottesville weekend, i wrote this on saturday. (on saturday a counter-demonstrator was killed by a white supremacist, trump gave a lame reaction or a 'both sides do it' sort of thing. then on monday he said exactly what everyone demanded he say. then on tuesday he went off, in the disastrous way that finally convinced me that he actually is sympathetic to white supremacism.) 

through my life, i have done a lot of saying what i was not supposed to say, from the slightly continually inappropriate to the in-your-face transgression. i have calmed down a lot through the years, actually, but i definitely have an impulse, in any given situation, to feel for the verboten position, word, line of jive, and then find a way to deliver it, perhaps with a slant that makes it a bit hard to interpret. when i feel that people are telling me what to say, i have a vivid physical sensation of constraint; i might comply for awhile; ultimately it won't go well. the peeceer the people around me, for example, the more i talk wrong, or work on ways to undermine the constriction.

this impulse, i feel, has stood me in good stead many a time, and if you ever want a counter-consensus position, i am the wholesale outlet. it's led me to important moral insights, i believe, including that the political state is completely incompatible with any decent ethics whatsoever. but it will also tempt me toward the dark side, toward, for example, the views that are the opposite of the pc views. but that they're not pc, of course, does not entail that they are not evil, and so on. i sort of sometimes end up on the wrong side even by my own lights.

trump has that same set-up, which is more or less why i connect with him. whatever his views on race, etc, his very being was rebelling at the notion that everyone was writing a script for him, that they didn't care what he thought as long as he said a pre-rehearsed set of words that anyone could write in their sleep. that press conference tuesday was his whole being just saying 'fuck you'; he was chomping at the bit; he had the sensation of a release from physical constraint, of selfhood and self-respect and defiance. but he also expressed considerable sympathy with fucking neo-nazis, alright? you cannot have that in a pres of the united states, however he got there.

sorry about slow blogging. i'm not missing everything, however, in this wild and woolly period. real-time political commentary has basically moved to my weekly column on the world's liveliest website, splicetoday (today: political idolatry and iconoclasm, on confederate memorials and such) and my twitter feed @crispinsartwell. i'll be back on the blog too, i expect.

people who regard themselves as journalists came out of this weekend thinking that the main news story on charlottesville is what the president didn't say. this obsession with the presidency and cult of leadership is so stupid on so many levels, but it's also really quite evil. it is a devastating reflection on the personalities of those it holds in its thrall. that's my splicetoday column this week.

micro-solutions

as you know, i've come up with a simple solution for cultural appropriation: just avoid the words or aesthetic products of minority and oppressed groups. (or it would be simple, if figuring who belongs to what groups were simple). now i propose to address the scourge of micro-aggressions. the hard part of dealing with micro-aggressions from the point of view of straight white guy is that they're unconscious; we don't even know we're doing it. that certainly is going to make it hard to stop. we can start stopping by becoming self-conscious and stilted in all conversations with gay people, black people, latino people, women and otherwise gendered people - in short almost everyone. but it's not enough. the obvious solution is simply not to address such people at all unless absolutely necessary, and then in a few clipped words. with other people who identify as straight white men, i will be my bold, free-wheeling self; i say what i think, and laugh heartily and make mistakes, etc. i will greet everyone else with completely emotionally neutral silence. if absolutely necessary, a few extremely polite words at most, with an extremely curtailed repertoire of gestures. this of course will prevent me from knowing them at all, or they me, or from participating in any sort of community that is not a community of white straight men. ah, but who cares, you know? i'm more comfortable with white guys anyway. i just want to stop oppressing people. 

inappropriation

 

after my stint in re-education camp - for which i am really grateful to my jailers - i have come to realize that cultural appropriation is worse than evil: it is inappropriate. now i see that my cornrows were straight-up racial violence, like a hail of bullets or a thorough batoning. my forced, televised confession was completely sincere, and i have made an important resolution. from now on, everything i do will be pure white, white as a diaper, caucasian as a motherfucker (wait did i get that from hip hop)? because of my anti-racism, and from right now until my impending decline into dementia, it's going to be all white all the time: white clothes, white slang, white gestures, white hairstyle, white values, white neighborhood, white music, white walk (i am so so sorry about the pimpstrut), and so on. man, it is going to be all calvin klein, golf, lawrence welk, and dick-cheney-style politics from now on. i will not permit anything even vaguely black, brown, yellow, red, or chartreuse to enter into my behavioral repertoire or my geographical area in any way whatever, because that is what is really hurting black folks. if you will join with us in our collective program for white purity, together we will overcome this nightmare of racial oppression.

The Democratic Party is where Social Movements Go to Die

My column this week for splicetoday urges the amazing funky protest movement that just emerged not to get co-opted by the Democratic party. Help me spread it around? I think people who protested Saturday, among others, should think about this!  My view is that getting annexed by establishment political powers ended the peace and civil rights movements in the early seventies. And yes, I am saying that the civil rights movement has been over for a long time, and has only re-emerged with Black Lives Matter. True, I knock John Lewis.

The real disaster was what happened to the civil rights movement. Martin Luther King was not a Democratic strategist. LBJ tried to control him: to cajole, blackmail, absorb and short-circuit his movement. King was not the sort of person you could do that to, but in the next generation the civil rights movement failed, petering out into people trying to rise in the American political hierarchy. Jesse Jackson ran for President. John Lewis… well, John Lewis sold his soul to the devil, and spent most of his life bashing Republicans and functioning as an emblem or mascot of the goodness of Democratic politicians as they did massive housing projects and mass incarceration, for example.

That’s how the civil rights movement died. It’s an important reason why the racial situation in the country has improved so little since King’s day. Various black politicians rose through the hierarchy, providing the superficial appearance of equality that permitted the racist power structure to engage in continual self-congratulation as it pursued directly repressive and destructive policies.

 One thing I want to point out: when King's movement and more militant people drove the passage of the Civil Rights Act, etc, they were pressuring the political system from without. When they got co-opted, the movement died. We have made little progress on race since, I believe. With regard to civil rights, I argued this more elaborately in a series of blog posts last year:

racial monoculture

monoculture 2

monoculture 3

 

trying to assess trump's speech realistically

That was an interesting speech. On the bigotry end: well, there was no sexism. One could interpret the inner city crime and violence stuff as deploying racial code words. On the other hand, what does Rahm or Barack say about violence in Chicago? Things are going great? Would they hesitate to use 'carnage'? And also, I think he himself thought he was making gestures of racial reconciliation. He went straight from 'carnage' to this:

We are one nation and their pain is our pain. Their dreams are our dreams. And their success will be our success. We share one heart, one home, and one glorious destiny. The oath of office I take today is an oath of allegiance to all Americans.

And then there was this, which might be a quote from John Lewis:

And whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the wind-swept plains of Nebraska, they look up at the same night sky, they will their heart with the same dreams, and they are infused with the breath of life by the same almighty creator.

He used the word 'solidarity', and he was talking about race. What bothered me tremendously, however, was the the super-nationalism. It really does have a proto-fascist flavor. Nationalism is to be the basis of this new solidarity.

At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other. When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.

'Total allegiance,' eh? And of course this flava:

We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power. From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this day forward, it's going to be only America first, America first.

It's not that I wouldn't worry about racism/sexism, although I am more directly concerned about the anti-immigrant thing (which he did not hit hard in the speech), which well comports with the extreme nationalism. But if he really brought Americans together in solidarity to reject the aliens, militarize further, require absolute loyalty, and so on, that might be disastrous. But there were also some gestures toward affirming American freedoms, open debate, etc.

Anyway, it was not quite the speech people are portraying it as being. But Lord there is plenty to worry about, and I am very glad that people are engaging in all sorts of expressive resistance. I think they are underestimating how many people will be on the mall today, e.g. 

 

 

black lives matter, circa 1844

at the moment, i am working on a more satisfactory version of my nathaniel peabody rogers book. i was going too fast last spring. it was filled with typos, and i am still struggling to get the details right on createspace. also, i am adding a number of rogers' essays to make a somewhat more substantial volume. anyway, i am struck over and over again by how radical rogers was in how many dimensions: astonishing for an american newspaper editor in the 1840s. here is a slice from something that will be in the new version.

Bursting of the Paixhan Gun

Herald of Freedom March 15, 1844, Writings p. 375

On February 28, 1844 in the harbor at Alexandria, Virginia, President John Tyler was touring the newly commissioned USS Princeton when one of its long guns, "The Peacemaker," exploded. Tyler himself was below deck and was unharmed, but six people died: David Gardner (Tyler's prospective father-in-law); Thomas Gilmer (Secretary of the Navy); Beverly Kennon (the Navy's chief of construction), Virgil Maxcy (ambassador to Belgium), Abel Upshur (the Secretary of State), and Armistead (President Tyler's valet and slave). Rogers' take on these events is remarkable.

The reader has heard, by this time, of the terrible catastrophe on board the nation's War-Steamer Princeton, where five of our governmental chieftains were struck down at once by the exploded fragments of a great death-engine - intended by them for the destruction of others. They were practicing with it and amusing themselves with exhibitions of its hideous power. Five chieftains and a slave killed: John Tyler's slave. The bursting of the Paixhan gun has emancipated him - and left his owner behind. How busy death has been on every side of that owner, since he was thrown up into power by the fermentation of 1840! Above him and below him in place, 'the insatiate archer' (as poetry has called a dull genius, that never shot an arrow in his life), has brought down the tall men, and left him standing like an ungleaned stalk in a harvested corn-field. He seems to have been the subject of a passover.

I saw account of the burial of those slaughtered politicians. The hearses passed along, of Upshur, Gilmer, Kennon, Maxcy, and Gardner, but the dead slave, who fell in company with them on the deck of the Princeton was not there. He was held their equal by the impartial gun-burst, but not allowed by the bereaved nation a share in the funeral. The five chiefs were borne pompously to the grave, under palls attended by rival expectants of the places they filled before they fell (not those they now fill), but the poor slave was left by the nation to find his way thither as he might, or to tarry above ground. Out upon their funeral and upon the paltry procession that went in its train. Why didn't they inquire for the body of the other man who fell on that deck!

And why hasn't the nation inquired, and its press? I saw account of the scene in a barbarian print called the Boston Atlas, and it was dumb on the absence of that body, as if no such man had fallen. Why, I demand in the name of human nature, was that sixth man of the game brought down by that great shot left unburied and above ground? For there is no account yet, that his body has been allowed the rites of sepultre. What ailed him, that he was not buried? Wasn't he dead? Wasn't he killed as dead as Upshur and Gilmer? And didn't the same explosion kill him? And won't his corpse decay, like theirs? Don't it want burying as much? Did they throw it overboard from the deck of the steamer to feed the fishes? What have they done with it! Six men were slain by the bursting of that gun and but five were borne along in that funeral train. Where have they left the sixth? Could they remember their miserable color-phobia at an hour like this?

Did the corses of those mangled and slaughtered secretaries revolt at the companionship of their fellow-slain and demur at being seen going with him to the grave? If not, what ailed the black man, I ask again, who died on the steamer with Abel Upshur and Thomas Gilmer, that he couldn't be buried? Are they cannibals, at that government seat, and have they otherwise disposed of that corpse? For what would not they do to a lifeless body who would enslave it when alive? I will not entertain the hideous conjecture, though they did enslave him in his life-time. But they didn't bury him, even as a slave.

They didn't assign him a jim-crow place in that solemn procession, that he might follow to wait upon his enslavers in the land of the spirits. They have gone there without slaves or waiters. Possibly John Tyler may have had a hole dug somewhere in the ground to tumble in his emancipated slave. Possibly not. Nobody knows, probably - nobody cares. They mentioned his death among the statistics of that deck, and that is the last we hear of the slave. His tyrants and enslavers are borne to their long home, with pomp and circumstance, and their mangled clay honored and lamented by a pious people. The poor black man: they enslaved and imbruted him all his life-time, and now he is dead they have, for aught appears, left him to decay and waste above ground. Let the civilized world take note of the circumstances.

 

 

spliced: perhaps the nightmare of race in america is just getting started. or: this is how the civil rights movement failed.

trapped

donald isn't the best spokesman for the view but american liberalism, the welfare/incarceration state, and the total domination of the black electorate by the democratic party have been disastrous for black people. also it is driven by racism in a particular form: racism that denies of itself that it exists at all. well and truly trapped this time around, but really always.

another victory for white guys

supposedly, hillary's veep criteria were things like 'ready to take the helm from day one,' 'foreign-policy experience' etc. but they're obsessed with safety and with demographics; it was always going to be a white guy. it's an interesting year in the sense that donald will take wild risks all the time while hillary lives by one ultra-inspiring principle: fear of mistakes. expect her to say nothing, while yapping constantly, for the rest of her life.

the defiance of black folks

concentrating on david walker and frederick douglass's american defiance. also: why w.e.b. dubois is overrated.

 

nice thumbnail! my insane look. let me elaborate on a couple of things. walker is a protestant individualist of the same sort as william lloyd garrison or lucretia mott is (or, in a secularized version, thoreau). what he asserts in the first passage i quote is that to claim to be the master of a human being is to usurp the prerogative of god: it is blasphemous among other things. he asserts that human beings have only one master, only one ruler. many of these figures held that the political state is a form of slavery, by the way.

on dubois. his best writing is in the souls of black folk. getting out into his literary material is really a slog through some terribly over-written stuff that doesn't really amount to a clear point of view. his early essay 'on the conservation of the races' takes race differences and race destinies extremely seriously in the 19th-century german mode, even if it emphasizes the positive aspects of blackness. douglass and many others are so much better in that they attack race itself as a self-serving ideology, not a basic human reality that cosmically drives history. dubois is characteristically back-and-forth and characteristically woolly at key junctures, often substituting mediocre poetry for definite assertion.

when garvey accused dubois of running the naacp at the behest of white liberals, he had a point, even if his statements were too emphatic. and there is an element of 'natural aristocracy' or enthusiasm for hierarchy (implicitly correlated with skin tone) in duboisian notions like 'the talented tenth,' which i regard as extremely unfortunate. his later pan-africanism and marxism took him in more radical directions, but didn't basically solve the intellectual problems or improve the writing.

however, his early sociological work, such as 'the philadelphia negro,' is excellent and important.

 

losing the race

i'm spliced today, talking about why we use the term 'race' (and hence 'racism') with no coherent meaning.

leftist revanchism

nathaniel rich has a several books by and about james baldwin in the may 12 nyrb. it's not the worst thing i've ever read, though rich is no baldwin. but it ends with this typical symptom of obsessive, delusional political partisanship, which runs like painful urination through the pages of the new york review of books, the new york times, the new yorker, and so on.

Baldwin’s novels and essays describe a nation suffering from a pain so profound that it cannot be discussed openly. This was not a pessimistic view; it was, rather, deeply optimistic. It suggested that most people, deep down, wanted to resolve the crisis—that they were not apathetic or, in Baldwin’s term, brutally indifferent. Today it can be difficult to preserve this optimism. Still there are strong indications that there is more pain than indifference. You can tell this by the general level of fear, which is, after all, the source of that pain. It has risen to the surface, often reaching the level of total panic, evident in the calls to “take our country back,” to “reignite the promise of America,” to “abolish the IRS,” to “restore America’s brand,” and the many other revanchist sentiments that dominate the political discourse. These messages do not ring of indifference. They are expressions of great terror.

now, rich echoes baldwin in insisting that white americans examine the bigotry in themselves and its effects on their own psyche. rich engages in no such self-reflection, but just goes for the autonomic trump-bashing. but truly, his approach is just bizarre. so, for example, 'abolish the irs' is supposed to be an obvious expression of great terror and racism. say what? i suppose the internal revenue service is an agency dedicated to ending the national nightmare of racism. only a racist would have misgivings about american tax policy. 'restore america's brand' is supposed to be something you'd only say if you were terrified, i guess? also i suppose that the most wicked insult rich has at his disposal is 'revanchist.' is there nothing people like you, nathaniel rich, will not try to turn to partisan account? and can you do it no better than that?

what baldwin - one of my heroes - would tell someone like nathaniel rich is to try to start peeling back his own racial attitudes before he starts hurling his inexplosive bombs. and i will say, as i have said before, that american leftism has been an extreme disaster for the black community. we are approximately as segregated now as we were in the 1950s. housing programs in particular, but the welfare state in general, has frozen a permanent racial underclass and destroyed black communities. democrats loved and prosecuted mass race incarceration until they pretended to see the light. that they've trapped black folks in this insane dilemma where they vote 90% democrat is unforgivable. and there is racism at the very heart of white liberalism, but it is 'unconscious': incredibly condescending, taking no account of the experience of the people whose conditions or selves it proposes to ameliorate, engaged in continual moral self-congratulation, which is what it is for.

also, just for the hell of it, hillary's campaign is already based entirely on fear, of the 'dangerous loose cannon', etc. of course, some fears are rational, so that accusing someone of operating politically on fear is not adequate to condemn their position. also 'make america great again' sounds strangely like hope, though not like my hope. and sheer hope isn't enough either; it depends on what you hope for.

the partisanship we see now - and i emphasize the left though it's certainly coming from both ends - is obsessive, manipulative, and delusional. baldwin would tell you that if he were still around, rich boy. the people who write in this mode for these publications are only writing for people who already agree with them, and the whole thing is an exercise in slapping one's own back, all day every day. also the people who already agree are the only people who could be expected to nod along with non sequiturs of this caliber: disliking the internal revenue service can only be an expression of racial terror. i hope your ass gets audited, son, and they end up coming for your paycheck. 

talking only to people who agree with you leads to thinking of this quality, as heads bob up and down in unison. also it's liable to lead to some kind of partition in this country, or maybe a civil war if it keeps going like this. tell you what: let's see where race is after 8 years of hillary (admittedly, hillary getting elected is unlikely). just where we are now, i believe. or after 8 years of trump: also more or less just where we are now. engage in some self-reflection or leave james baldwin alone, son. you are not ready.

the moral duty of insurrection

there were many different sorts of abolitionists during the era of slavery. but there were not many like nathaniel peabody rogers. around 1840, he committed himself to total non-resistance. but in 1838 (seven years after nat turner and a year before amistad, which he also wrote about), he argued that slaves not only should rebel, but that insurrection was their moral duty, and it was every person's duty to join them. he opposed capital punishment, but finishes by arguing that, if hanging is permissible in any case, it is morally obligatory for slaveholders. so grapple with the fact that an american was publishing that in a newspaper in 1838.

   The enslaved of the country are as much entitled to their liberty as any of us, by the law as it is. They have a right to throw off all violation of it by force, if they cannot otherwise. Nay, it is their duty to do so, if they can, for it is not injury merely, that they are submitting to - not wrongs. They are rendered incapable of suffering injury, incompetent to endure wrong. The accursed system, that preys upon them, makes things of them - exterminates their very natures. This they may not submit to. They ought to prevent it, at every expense. They ought to resist it, as the Christian should the devil, for it wars upon the nature of man, and devours his immortality. If they could heave off the system by an instantaneous and universal effort, they ought to do it. Individually we wish they could do it, and that they would do it. We may be wrong in this opinion, but we entertain it.

   If our white brethren at the South were slaves, we should wish them instantaneous deliverance by insurrection, if this would bring it to them. We wish our colored brethren the same. We do not value the bodily lives of the present white generation there a straw, compared to the horrible thraldom, in which they hold the colored people, and we value their lives as highly as we do the colored people's. But insurrection can't effect it. It must be done by the abolitionists. They must annihilate the system by force of their principles, and as fast as possible. To the work then, and Heaven abandon the tardy! If you wish to save your white brethren and yourselves, we commend you to this work, in sharp earnest. We tell you, once for all, there is no time to be lost!

   There is no end to the theme - there must be to this article. The people collectively have the power to declare slavery a crime in the slave states. Congress has the power to do what amounts to the same thing - by direct action. Lex talionis would enslave the perpetrators, but that would be devilish, and ought not to be inflicted. But if hanging is lawful in any case, it is in this.

["the constitutionality of slavery"]

speech is not violence. but sometimes it is an amazing act of courage, physical as well as intellectual and social. the slaveholders of the era and their representatives in washington certainly argued that abolitionist speech far milder than that was indeed violence. they banned it, confiscated it, burned it, etc., and killed some of the people who uttered it, such as elijah lovejoy, a newspaper editor burned out and killed the year before rogers published this.

more defiance

i think the paperback of american defiance came out beautifully.

the essay by douglass, "The Claims of the Negro Ethnologically Considered," given as a commencement address at Western Reserve College in 1854 (!) - is one of a number of little-known treasures.

The relation subsisting between the white and black people of this country is the vital question of the age. In the solution of this question, the scholars of America will have an important and controlling part. This is the moral battlefield to which their country and their God now call them. In the eye of both, the neutral scholar is an ignoble man. Here, a man must be hot, or be accounted cold. The lukewarm and cowardly will be rejected by earnest men on either side of the controversy. The cunning man who avoids it, to gain the favor of both parties, will be regarded with scorn; and the timid man who shrinks from it, for fear of offending either party, will be despised. He that is not for us, is against us.

department of defiance

 

american defiance is out in paper, with kindle coming soon. it is a collection of anti-authoritarian texts stretching from anne hutchinson's defense against and attack on the puritan theocracy to voltairine de cleyre's "anarchism and american traditions."

there are some celebrated slices, especially emerson and thoreau, but there is so much that is so little known. i've tried to give whole texts or very substantial parts. john woolman's 'plea for the poor' from the 1760s anticipates the arguments of peter singer. sarah grimke's letters on the equality of the sexes is probably the first feminist book published in the us, and she's better than fuller, i think. william lloyd garrison argues for total anti-statism in 1838. sitting bull lures a reporter into the new york herald's last stand. there is a really stunning and ground-breaking essay on race by frederick douglass that is almost never read (better than dubois 50 years later), along with a big chunk of david walker's unbelievable appeal. angela heywood throws down some surrealist political sex poetry. anti-federalists, abolitionists, anarchists, and antinomians are all represented. 

this is our most radical and most american heritage: a fierce anti-hierarchical tradition, the texts themselves sometimes unimaginable acts of defiance. we need remindin.

in editing this book, i am appointing myself secretary of defiance. these texts constitute our artillery battery, our canon.

american acts of defiance

my next self-publishing project will be an anthology of american anti-authoritarian writings from the 17th through the 19th century. a number of fundamental texts here are far-too-little known and not widely enough available. many of them are quite unimaginably defiant. here is the toc, still subject to alteration:

 

Contents

Trial and Interrogation of Anne Hutchinson (1637)

Roger Williams, "A Plea for Religious Liberty" (1644)

John Woolman, "A Plea for the Poor, or a Word of Remembrance and Caution to the Rich" (1764)

Anti-Federalist Papers (1787)

Samuel Bryan, Centinel 1

Robert Yates, Brutus 3

Robert Yates, Brutus 6

James Madison, "The Virginia Resolutions" (1798)

Tecumseh

Letter to Governor Harrison (1810)

Speech to the Osages (1812)

John Taylor of Caroline, "Authority" (1814)

David Walker, "Appeal to the Colored Citizens of the World" (Preamble and Article 1, 1830)

Sarah Grimke, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes (selections, 1838)

William Lloyd Garrison, "Declaration of Sentiments Adopted by the Peace Convention" (1838)

Ralph Waldo Emerson

"Self-Reliance" (1841)

"Politics" (1844)

Nathaniel Peabody Rogers

"Speech" (1842)

"Authority" (1844)

"Reply to a Correspondent" (1846)

Josiah Warren, Equitable Commerce (1846)

Henry David Thoreau

"Civil Disobedience" (1849)

"Life Without Principle (1863)

Lucretia Mott, "The Laws in Relation to Women" (1853)

Frederick Douglass, "The Claims of the Negro Ethnologically Considered" (1854)

Angela Heywood, "Human Sex Power - Fleshed Realism"

Lysander Spooner, "Vices Are Not Crimes" (1875)

Interview With Sitting Bull (1877)

Voltairine de Cleyre,

"In Defense of Emma Goldman" (1894)

"Anarchism and American Traditions" (1909)

 

nineteenth-century anti-racism

i have often heard or read that no white american of the antebellum period did not harbor racist attitudes, and that this includes abolitionists. that is really utterly false. consider nathaniel peabody rogers: in 1840 he was saying that racism is not natural but produced socially, and a century and a half before people were diagnosing bigotry against gay people as originating in fear, rogers was labeling racism 'color-phobia': the title of the essay from which this is drawn.

   Our people have got it. They have got it in the blue, collapse stage. Many of them have got it so bad, they can’t get well. They will die of it. It will be a mercy if the nation does not. What a dignified, philosophic malady! Dread of complexion. They don’t know they have got it - or think, rather, they took it the natural way. But they were inoculated. It was injected into their veins and incided into their systems by old Doctor Slavery.

     The color-phobia is making terrible havoc among our communities. Anti-slavery drives it out, and after a while cures it. But it a base, low, and vulgar ailment. It is meaner, in fact, than the itch. It is fouler than Old Testament leprosy. It is a tasty disorder, a beautiful ailment, very genteel, and apt to go in first families. We should like to have Hogarth take a sketch of the community that had it - of ours, for instance, when the St. Vitus’ fit was on.

my canon

zora neale hurston's essays are still radically undervalued. she is one of the great american essayists. in the canon of great expressions of american individualism i would place seeing the world as it is alongside emerson's self-reliance and thoreau's walking.

  

i guess i never completed the series, or sometimes they take stuff down because you're using copyrighted music. intellectual property must die.

national association for the advancement of goldman-sachs (mono4)

one theme i'd like to pull out of the comments: you know, they fully enclosed jesse jackson, john lewis, and so on. but after that, people who were supposed to be 'black leaders', like julian bond, jesse jr, let's say marc morial, kwesi mfume just went back and forth from democratic party politics to the leadership of black organizations. they are not people who actually have much of any constituency in the black community, but they have a big constituency among democratic party leaders and donors. morial is appearing as a hillary surrogate as he serves as president of the urban league. now, i always had on board that these organizations were actually too moderate and compromising throughout, that they never really accomplished that much until driven forward by much more radical people. they almost had to be dragged. but, in hindsight, those early organizers and presidents (oh, dubois) were so fiercely independent, so suspicious of white control of their own organizations, so independent and representing their race as they saw it (well, the middle-class, light-skinned people of their race, was the criticism). what would they say if they saw 'black' organizations and black 'leaders' who were wholly owned subsidiaries of the clinton campaign=the democratic party=goldman sachs? what if they saw little else anywhere?

and, those are the only black voices democratic politicians are listening to, the ones they're stuffing into suits and setting up as mouthpieces. they are selected specifically to mirror this half-assed, dishonest white liberalism, and the actual concrete results in their own communities have amounted to a permanent disaster. (how many decades of miserable failure is it going to take for us all to draw the conclusions malcolm drew in 1953? one way he saw what was real was that he saw the situation from prison; that's the angle from which the truth is available, not from the veuve clicqot dinner with the board of citibank.)  that i have to sit here imagining what marcus or malcolm or whomever would say about this is the saddest thing of all. they used to be there right in our faces. y'all surrendered; your leaders are white people, and they are racist white people, and you vote the way they say at approximately 90%. never too late to go all nat turner on their ass, though.

 

(sharpton is an interesting case, inside/outside with some legitimacy as a leader. it has gotten to where al sharpton is the most radical black voice most white people might ever hear. no wonder we're complacent. think about where he would have been on the spectrum of black leadership in 1967. cornel west is out there, and at least he knows this history. but i think he would like to be absorbed into the democratic party; he's more pissed that they won't, though to his credit he'd try to push them into something that would at least look vaguely egalitarian and would be connected with some passion to the actual radical civil rights tradition. ok i should be able to name twenty names to the more radical side of that. i've got none except some underground hip hop artists.)

monoculture 1

mono2

mono3

comatose racism

comatose racism

 

what i want to say about the 'unconscious racism' of people of my race: oh, you know, it is semi-conscious racism. it's true, caucasoids are less conscious of more stuff than negroids and mongoloids, etc. it is the white man's burden; it's like there's a screen of bullshit between us and reality, and we installed it ourselves. it's sort of our job to try to punch it out. there's really a lot that has to be ignored that is hard to ignore in order to be an unconscious racist. it's actually a pretty conscious strategy to be unconscious. like, any one of us could suddenly start to become aware of it in ourselves and one another at any moment by a hundred routes, or just by listening around a little. go get yourself some george yancy.

i think it's like black folks want to give us a little break. i'm not blaming you! it's systemic (ooph i heard that just last year). this is a strategic way to try to tell us there is a problem without arousing our well-known insane defensiveness and self-righteousness. well, but is it exactly true? even if they're sort of willing to give each of us a break, maybe we shouldn't be quite so quick to give ourselves a break, or so worried about whether we ourselves are good people. or i would think the point is not to appear to yourself to be a good person, or to tell yourself all day what a really good person you are, but actually to be a good person. that might take more work, though.

 or what i want to pull out: i think unconscious racism is blameworthy on an individual basis. there are plenty of resources for coming to consciousness, plenty of people right in your proximity who are trying to make you more conscious. getting to know all of it is hard or in my actual experience it seems infinite, layer after layer; after i think i've got it down, that's when it's right there. but starting is unavoidable if you're not literally comatose. white person! repeat after me! i am a racist. i am a racist. i am a racist. i come from a racist people. i'm in the middle of a centuries-long, horrifying, genocidal moral failure, perpetrated by my own people. i am the people who are doing that. doing it right now. and now i am going to do whatever i can do about that. and the first thing that i can do is know that about myself.

we will never be free without knowledge of self. we will never be good.