Derrick Bell’s Afrolantica, Part 9: The Birth of ‘Blackness’
Part 1: A Guided Tour Through Derrick Bell’s Afrolantica Legacies
Part 2: A ‘Euphoria of Freedom’
Part 3: What Could it Mean to Be White?
Part 4: The Wages of Antisemitism
Part 5: Thomas Jefferson, A Symbol of American Racism
Part 6: Why Meritocracy Must Die
Part 7: Unemployment Creates Crack Dealers
Part 8: We Have a Right to Your Property
From Page 28 of Afrolantica Legacies, the conclusion of Geneva Crenshaw’s response to Bill Clinton’s imaginary speech:
“Blackness is a concept distilled from the degradation of slavery and the exploitation of racism. It is a reminder that black and odious are not identical terms. The concept of blackness reassures us that we are worthy, despite the hostility to our presence we endure, the insensitivity to our pain we abide, and the inner rage we deflect — all too often on ourselves.”
Derrick Bell believed racism to be a permanent problem ingrained into the documents defining the American Idea. In this passage we begin to understand more why. His identity as a black man depends on understanding himself and “his people” as a class of permanent victims. In adopting the Marxist theology of human history as continued variations of proletariat vs bourgeoisie struggle, Bell designated his “blackness” as relegating him to a state of ongoing cultural warfare. (More on Bell’s Marxism and his embrace of Communist icon Paul Robeson in coming posts…)
Here Bell admits that the concept of “blackness” serves as an emotional crutch to “reassure us that we are worthy” and calm “the inner rage.” (Perhaps the kinds of feelings generated through knowing and admitting you’re a “nobody among world famous intellectuals”?)
Why is it necessary to carry around symbols of perpetual victimhood? Because as long as you’re a victim you’re not responsible for your situation in life and you’re powerless to fix it. Luck is all that matters, save when social justice (via affirmative action and reparations for slavery) can tip the imaginary scale back into balance.
“… challenge property rights in whiteness, the very essence of racism …”
Am I missing something? Property rights are the very essence of FREEDOM. Remove property rights and you erode the Constitution AND destroy a critical distinguishing factor of free people of any shape, size or color.
Yes, we are missing something and that’s because Bell is a poor writer. I had a hard time following the argument in these pages and had to reread it a few times to try and make out what Bell meant to say.
In this section he argues that “whiteness” is a kind of property that white people have. And that for blacks to rise up they need to stop respecting the “property rights in whiteness.” Because “whiteness” exists as a property that non-blacks have, racism will always exist.
Just pretend that you’re dealing with a cult’s theology instead of a supposedly respectable legal theory defended by CNN anchors and a lot of this will start to make more sense in its nonsense. It’s Alice in Wonderland style logic.
Thanks for the explanation. It makes the excerpt more clear. And yes, it does help to read it with Alice in Wonderland in mind.