Salon writer needs to know: is it time for Blacks to engage in violent revolution against Whitey?
Oh. And this particular author, Brittney Cooper, teaches college students.
No, I’m not kidding:
I teach college students, and in the hopefulness and optimism of their youth, they are often quick to point out that racial politics are so “different in their generation.” But what I see is black students their age being murdered unceremoniously in locales throughout the country, by white or non-black men, who receive insufficient justice for their crimes.
Despite a belief in progress, this moment suggests that young black men’s audacity to exist is a capital offense punishable by murder.
[…] white racial anxiety –and in particular the alleged legitimacy of it – is a foregone conclusion searching for facts. In this era, those “facts” seem to be readily available in endless media depictions of violent black males. In the post-Reconstruction era, those “facts” could be found in the swiftness of black progress during Reconstruction. During the tumultuous first half of the 20th century, those “facts” could be found in the audacity of black people’s desire to vote, share equal space on sidewalks, be paid fair wages, and eat at the same lunch counters. Black being is the problem. Not black thuggery. Black boys officially exist in a state of social death, because the law continues to tell us that their lives, when taken by white men, are legally indefensible. They have been rendered by the law dead men walking.
Many white folks believe that black criminality has produced white fear and that white fear in the presence of black masculinity is therefore always justified. But the opposite is true. White anxiety and fear and racism have produced the myth of pervasive black criminality.
The truth we need to be telling is that the myth of black male criminality is foundational, not incidental, to America’s national identity. Even if there were no black male criminals, to riff on professor Hortense Spillers’ work, they would have to be invented. The presence of black criminals justifies white male rage, white women’s fear and subsequent white male violence.
…The question is how should black people respond? Having seen a lot of violence in my childhood, I’m a deep believer in and practitioner of nonviolence. But in the face of unreasonable violence toward our children, why do black people owe the nation the safety of our reasonable, rational, nonviolent responses? Whether we take it to the streets or stay home and raise our sons and daughters, they are killed all the same.
Forgive me, but I’m going to stop right there, because the grating, self-satisfied mendacity of this overdetermined attempt at sounding scholarly is while straining for a revolutionary tone is, to my ear, so painful to read that I fear my eyes might begin to bleed. And believe it or not, yes, I fear my eyes bleeding even more so than I fear “black being” and wish to see it stomped out!
Amazingly, the recycled Mandingo tropes — whites fear black men and criminalize them because of their virility and power, and thus must look for ways to justify their torment of what are, in this reading, ubermen enslaved by a calculus that draws on White cowardice and legal bigotry of the kind this country hasn’t seen in ages (unless, of course, we’re talking about the current universities or our own Justice Department or Civil Rights Divisions or activist court rulings, wherein we’re informed that equality can only be brought about by sanctioned inequality) — together with the racial separatist dogman, can still find an audience in this day and age. But then, that’s the audacity of hope, I guess, re-using old shopworn indictments of White bigotry to justify any and all sort of behavior that shouldn’t be tied to any particular “race” at all.
Gateway pundit points out:
Blacks are 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites then vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit a robbery.
— which figure makes you wonder what is so “special” about Blacks that their “being” leads to such a staggeringly lopsided commission of crimes, many of them violent, against whites.
One answer, and it’s surely the one Ms Cooper would give, is that the police are profiling and targeting blacks, leading to more arrests and so a disproportionate (and therefore false) narrative about black criminality, one invented by Whitey and secured by his law enforcement apparatus, even the black ones, who one supposes are like modern day House Negroes.
But another is this: the victimology, the sense of unfulfilled entitlement, and the feints toward separatism so apparent in the writings of people like Cooper — when combined with the economic and social policy of liberals of all colors that lead to a kind of economic plantation system in which blacks have been routinely relegated — creates a sense of rage against a White Devil that has ceased to exist, for the most part, but that, to borrow back from Hortense Spillers (who herself borrowed from Voltaire, likely a racist himself), needs now be invented precisely to keep people like Cooper in jobs.
Longtime readers of this site know that I have studied racial theory and have debated those on all sides of the academic racialist encirclement that, itself like a noose, seems content to punish the country for its own empowerment and enrichment. And it’s motives are no grander or more noble than were those of the very bigoted Whites they once so rightly and righteously despised, but whom they now continue to map onto contemporary White “being” in order to maintain the illusion of their intellectual relevance.
These are charlatans and race hustlers. Just because we give them degrees from universities doesn’t mean they are incapable of slinging snake oil. It just means the price of the bottle goes up.