Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter 1 Share on Facebook 1 Share on LinkedIn 3 Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 3 (8 Shares)  

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   16 comments
OpEdNews Op Eds

Origins: Bred In the Bone: Part I of Traitor to My Race: The Abolition of White Privilege

By   Follow Me on Twitter     Message Jack Carney     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 1   Funny 1   Supported 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 9/6/15

Author 85418
- Advertisement -

"Traitor to My Race: The Abolition of White Privilege

A STORY TOLD IN THREE PARTS.

- Advertisement -

PART I: Origins -- IN THE BONE

"If it came to fighting, I'd fight for Mississippi against the United States even if it meant going out into the streets and shooting Negroes " I will go on in saying that the Southerners are wrong and their position is untenable."

From opednews.com/populum/uploadphotos/s_300_farm3_static_flickr_com_81593_4138442666_6837e76b89_n_317.gif: Our never-ending Civil War.
Our never-ending Civil War.
(Image by mrbill78636)
  Permission   Details   DMCA

- Advertisement -

So which is it, Bill?

The foregoing is a self-contradictory quote from an interview that William Faulkner, slightly drunk at the time, gave in the middle of the civil rights battle over integration in the early 1960's. I borrowed the quote from an op-ed article in The New York Times (6/21/15) written by Faulkner scholar Arnold Weinstein. To quote Weinstein himself, "It is this political ambiguity [on Faulkner's part] that many people today find unfathomable."

Which is, of course, the reaction of most readers to Harper Lee's updated version of Scout's father, Atticus Finch, portrayed in Go Set a Watchman (2015): could the loving, compassionate man depicted by Ms. Lee in To Kill A Mockingbird (1962) be the same racist member of the white Citizens' Council that a now grown-up Scout encounters on her return home twenty years later?

The simple answer is "Yes, of course." White supremacism, a term I find more accurate than racism, is bred in the bone. Faulkner and Harper Lee knew that. It's been the core of the self-identity of all white Americans, particularly white American men, and was codified into law at the dawn of the Republic and the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1788. Remember the Constitution's three-fifth rule: black slaves were classed as property, worth 3/5 of a white man in determining the population of each state and consequently the number of representatives in the lower House of the Congress to which State was entitled.

Can white Americans overcome this legacy? Can we wake up in the morning without ever questioning the advantages we have over Black Americans because of the accident of our white skins? To illustrate what I mean by this, white skin privilege enables those of us who are white to go to the head of the line -- for jobs, schools, opportunity -- without asking the permission of, without even acknowledging the presence of, those already in line, particularly if they're persons of color. Unless we renounce or abolish this privilege, persons of color, principally Blacks, will never fully trust us and a political alliance or collaboration between whites and blacks to achieve mutually beneficial aims will be impossible to construct. Actually, it's not so much Black mistrust of whites that's the principle obstacle, but historically the opposite. Even before Reconstruction and the abolition of slavery, whites have feared and mistrusted blacks, the price of maintaining whites' superordinate status. Accordingly and ever since Reconstruction, whites have viewed progress made by Blacks as a zero sum game, i.e., a threat, accomplished at our expense, and not as a way forward for all Americans. In short, so long as white privilege exists, so will white supremacism. In my estimation, they're synonymous.

This essay seeks to answer the question posed at the outset of the preceding paragraph: essentially, can white Americans change their fundamental self-identity as the predominant ethnic group in this country? Can we form what Russell Banks terms a creole or mongrel nation comprised of individuals of disparate origins or will we continue to deny their presence and their place alongside us?

A little more history. First, back to the Constitution; which document, the country's political keystone, explicitly contradicted the Declaration of Independence, which had declaimed that all men were created equal. That clause of the Declaration was a clarion call of freedom, one never before stated openly in a public document. It propelled all thirteen of the American colonies into revolt against the British Empire and underscored its animating ideology. By the end of the 1770's, Massachusetts had abolished slavery as did New Hampshire's new state constitution. Even Thomas Jefferson, at the Revolutionary War's conclusion, raised the possibility of sending freed slaves to settle the Northwest territories ceded to the new United States by Great Britain in the Treaty of Paris of 1783.

- Advertisement -

The fervor for universal freedom didn't outlast the decade. The national government of the thirteen new states, bound together by the Articles of Confederation, had no revenues, had no power to tax, had no power to enforce the laws passed by the national Congress. Having rid themselves of an oppressive Imperial government in London, most Americans and the individuals states in which they lived were leery of empowering a strong central government to run the country. The country appeared on the verge of falling apart, with each of the thirteen states going its own way. Then the political deal-making began, led by Hamilton and Madison for the central government faction or Federalists, as they became known, and Patrick Henry and Jefferson representing the Southern plantation owners.

In exchange for their support, the Southerners secured the Federalists' pledge that the proposed new Constitution and the government it established would guarantee their property rights as slaveowners. The British government had protected their right to own slaves as property in perpetuity and they expected their own government to do no less.

As an added inducement to the anti-Federalist or Republican faction, Hamilton and Madison promised to addend to the Constitution a Bill of Rights to safeguard American citizens from the intrusions of a central government. Key to our discussion, "citizens" were defined as white male property owners twenty-one years old and older. Most importantly, a "citizen" was no longer a "subject" of a monarch or supra-authority, whose status in a hierarchical society determined the rights to which he was entitled. Rather, a "citizen" was entitled to full political and legal participation in his government and larger society. Only he could vote, hold political office, own property and enjoy the rights protected by the Constitution. Minority age males, Native Americans and women could not be citizens. It was not until the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the "equal rights" amendment, in 1868, that citizenship by birthright became law, and the ratification of the 15th Amendment two years later that gave all American men, black or white, property owners or not, the right to vote.

When I was a young man, during and after the height of the Civil Rights movement, I had marveled at the ferocity displayed by white Southerners in denying Black Southerners their civil rights. James McPherson, the Civil War historian helped me gain an understanding of that phenomenon in his book of essays published in 1992, Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution. White male Southerners' self-identity, he wrote, was rooted in their understanding of citizenship as based on their historical ownership and hence subjugation of Blacks in a hierarchical, even feudal society. To be obliged to accept Blacks as political equals, as citizens, on a more level social field not only galled them but led them to question who they were. What Southerners popularly call their "heritage" and "way of life", which had gone uninterrupted since Jamestown's founding in 1607, save for the brief hiatus of post-Civil War Reconstruction, was being severely challenged. Many Southerners must have despaired. Yet, to quote Faulkner again, "When you have plenty of good strong hating you don't need hope because the hating will be enough to nourish you." (Absalom, Absalom!, 1936). More on this below.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

- Advertisement -

Must Read 1   Funny 1   Supported 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

Brief Bio.: Dr. Carney is a retired social worker with nearly 50 years of experience in social work, with thirty-five of those years spent in the public mental health system . He is an Alinsky-trained community organizer, Institute-trained in (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon



Go To Commenting
/* The Petition Site */
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Identifying the Next School Shooter Before He Shoots: Needle In a Haystack

Origins: Bred In the Bone: Part I of Traitor to My Race: The Abolition of White Privilege

Fear & Hate: Seeds of Violence & Mass Murder

Traitor to My Race --The Abolition of White Privilege: Part III - Personal Transformation

Jim Crow Re-Visited: Part II of Traitor to My Race: The Abolition of White Privilege