To the Editor:
In his very fine article, “The Question of Black Leadership” [January], Arch Puddington asks why black leaders like Benjamin Hooks of the NAACP and Mayor David Dinkins of New York City do not speak out against the absurdities of Marion Barry, Louis Farrakhan, and Sonny Carson. The answer to his question is that black American culture has been tribalized.
Tribalism is totalitarian, in that the tribe is everything and the individual nothing outside the tribe. Penalties for going against the tribe can be severe. Shelby Steele describes this phenomenon very well in his book, The Content of Our Character. Steele grew up believing in the middle-class values of work, deferred gratification, and individual achievement. During the 1960’s, however, under the influence of the Black Power movement, he found himself becoming tribalized, feeling that “blackness,” in and of itself, was much more important than individual achievement. The encouragement given by the white Left to this nonsense seems to me to have been a crime of the first order.
Today in the inner city a black pupil who strives to do well in class is accused of “acting white,” and he may be harassed or beaten up. Interestingly, Shelby Steele says that the desired model of “blackness” is the black street thug. . . .
Notably, however, some important blacks are refusing to play the tribal game. As in Douglas Wilder’s remark, quoted by Mr. Puddington: “I’m a governor who happens to be black, not a black who happens to be governor.” . . .
The tragedy of the black tribe is . . . that it defines itself by its rejections and hatreds: of whites, of Jews, of Koreans, of high-achievers of any stamp. Such tribalism is suicidal. . . .
Jeffrey Hart
Lyme, New Hampshire
_____________
To the Editor:
I was very heartened by the good sense and courage displayed in Arch Puddington’s inquiry into the situation of black leadership in our country. Anybody who, by participating in public affairs or media today, comes into regular contact with the partisans of the new black ultra-nationalism cannot help wondering whether we do not face an alienation from our historic American sense of unity that is more dangerous than any other such phenomenon in our history.
Arch Puddington concentrates on the big Eastern cities, but in the San Francisco Bay Area many of the political fantasies he describes have entered the common wisdom. We continually hear, in the streets as in the public prints, references to a “plan” for genocide of blacks through drugs, the law, and AIDS; anti-Semitism crudely masked as criticism of Israel; promotion of Louis Farrakhan, the “Public Enemy” rappers, or Spike Lee as the greatest black leaders since Martin Luther King, Jr., if not King’s betters.
On campuses like Berkeley, Stanford, or the San Francisco Art Institute, in the offices of literary magazines as well as in municipal institutions, these views and others like them are increasingly mimicked by white academics, students, intellectuals, and political operatives anxious to prove their “political correctness.” . . .
It is especially important to note Mr. Puddington’s emphasis on the Stalinist—there is no other word for it—origin of anti-Semitic black officials like Gus Savage, for in any debate on these issues in the Bay Area the classic Stalinist methodology is immediately encountered. The most typical such gambit consists in the spurious claim that a defender of one or another “right-wing” position is known for racist remarks in private. Such slanders are difficult to rebut.
A common thread in both the Stalinism of the 1930’s and the black ultra-nationalism of today is the emphasis on the most baroque kind of conspiracies. A leading black but non-ultra-nationalist scholar, Robert Smith, was hired by the political-science department at San Francisco State University, and sought to teach a course in black politics in that department rather than the department of ethnic studies. His hiring was attacked as a maneuver to undermine ethnic studies! In the same way, Henryk Erlich and Victor Alter, the Jewish labor leaders from Poland executed by Stalin during the war, were labeled agents of Hitler. . . .
The growing acceptance of such hysterical claims as a legitimate part of public debate is the most disturbing aspect of the whole situation. For if there is no repudiation of crude anti-Semitism or conspiratorialism from the mouths of black leaders, then how can they be repudiated if taken up by others? The gates of hell are ajar, if only very slightly, and I need not dwell, I think, on the possible consequences, which cannot but be tragic for blacks as well as for Jews, and for us all. . . .
Stephen Schwartz
San Francisco Chronicle
San Francisco, California
_____________
To the Editor:
Two excellent recent articles, “Race Fever” by Edward Alexander [November 1990] and “The Question of Black Leadership” by Arch Puddington, have convinced me that the views of black leaders about whites, their excuses for the absence of black progress and, particularly, their explanations of black crime are illogical and self-destructive. These views are primarily the result of a Frankensteinlike nightmare which these leaders have themselves created in regard to black teenagers and young adults.
The Ocean-Hill Brownsville crisis of 1967-69 in New York City ushered in a long dormant black nationalism, a resurgence of latent anti-Semitism, a long-forgotten left-wing-inspired ideology of separation . . . and, worst of all, an unofficial but devastating licensing for the acting-out of adolescent rage which has wrought havoc upon both blacks and whites. A great outpouring of black euphoria and a brand new feeling of power (expressed openly as anti-white, separatist, and anti-Semitic sentiment) followed upon the Ocean-Hill Brownsville struggle and the winning of “community control” in the New York City public schools during the early 1970’s. The expression of vehement anti-white sentiments on the part of adults was interpreted by black adolescents (particularly the most disadvantaged) as a signal that they no longer needed to listen to or comply with “whitey’s” rules, standards, or justice.
This reaction was consistent with the psychology of American adolescents who often give vent to hostility and rage whenever there is an abrupt removal of limits. . . .
Anyone who knows anything about most American adolescents and young adults born since the end of World War II knows that the last thing this group needs is more encouragement to rebel. I served this age group as a New York City Youth Board street-gang worker after World War II, as the director of a residential-treatment institution, as a settlement-house supervisor, and in several other capacities, . . . and I can assure you that “adolescent rebellion” is for real, although academics and child-care professionals still argue over its etiology.
There was plenty of adolescent crime (as well as drugs) in the black community before 1970, but it was a source of great concern, condemnation, and even shame by leaders, ministers, and parents. At the very least, no one condoned it and few excused it even after acknowledging the role contributed by discrimination and prejudice to the problem.
Since the introduction of “community control” in the New York schools, black adolescent acting-out has spread like wildfire to inner cities and been exacerbated by the black leadership; white or black attempts at condemnation are labeled, respectively, “racism” or “Uncle Tomism.” To make matters a thousand times worse, during these past ten years, a mass proliferation of “crack” cocaine (which causes grandiose paranoia and violent aggression) as well as the easy availability of numerous deadly weapons, have added to the power of this rebellious group. Ironically and pathetically, it is still the black communities which suffer most from the guns, drugs, and crime. . . .
Can anything be done? I am really not sure, but I am sure, as is Mr. Puddington, that unless the lying stops and unless the black leaders, ministers, academics, and, yes, the parents, condemn the Tawana Brawleys and the Central Park “wilders,” things will get much worse. . . . As Mr. Puddington insists, the black leadership must, as in the past, uphold the role of moral arbiters. Whites must help but they are not to be bullied or called “racists” should they express honest differences of opinion.
Sheldon Seller
Riverton, Connecticut
_____________
To the Editor:
Arch Puddington makes some excellent points on the failure of black leadership, but things would have been clearer if he had addressed the question of “black leaders” rather than black leadership. The author fails to define adequately the term “black leader.”
Mr. Puddington notes that some black leaders are quite responsible and others seem only to promote crime and racism. The problem is that television convinces the public that certain people are black leaders when in fact they are merely mouthpieces for the media. Perhaps those leaders should be called “TV black leaders.” Real black leaders are leading fellow blacks in projects that take place in the real world, while the TV black leaders do nothing except appear on TV. They are there because they say the things TV reporters want them to say. If any one of them repudiated racism or nihilism we would not hear about it because he would not be on TV. . . .
We must not let the media convince us who black leaders are the way they convince us to buy detergent. Real black leaders oppose crime and racism. We should challenge the claim that one can support racially conscious programs and the release of criminals, and be a black leader.
Jim Briggs
Norwalk, Connecticut
_____________
Arch Puddington writes:
I would like to thank those who wrote to COMMENTARY as well as those who contacted me privately for their generous words of encouragement.
Jim Briggs blames the media for exaggerating the significance of certain black militants. Perhaps he has a point, but I would caution against pressing it too far. An important theme of my article was the problem posed by the existence of a constituency within the inner city for a politics of racial anger. There is no way of knowing the size of this constituency. In New York, however, it is sufficiently large to provide a supportive audience not simply for Al Sharpton, but for a broad network of community activists, clergymen, newspapers and radio stations, and educators, all of whom blame white racism almost exclusively for the many ills afflicting black America. Nor is this phenomenon limited to New York. During Chicago’s recent mayoral contest, the black candidate, Danny Davis, made campaign stops accompanied by a phalanx of bodyguards provided by Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam. One might well wonder why Davis, who does not subscribe to Farrakhan’s racist ideology, would even indirectly associate himself with a man widely regarded as radical and anti-white. The answer, apparently, is that within Chicago’s black community it is deemed good politics to have forged a relationship with Farrakhan and his followers. Put another way, for a black Chicago politician to repudiate Farrakhan openly would be political suicide in today’s overheated racial atmosphere. Complaining that the media promote extremists and demagogues ignores the far more significant point that there are substantial numbers in the inner cities who support extremist, anti-white politics.
Let me add that while I understand the tone of despair which pervades much commentary on racial matters, I detect modest signs of change which give cause for hope. The horrible toll of black-on-black crime is, of course, a factor here, and one is more likely to hear community leaders talking openly of the perpetrators of violent crime as the enemy, rather than repeating the ritualistic attacks on white racism. Likewise, there is a growing recognition that blaming white society for black economic failure will not contribute to solving the problems of the inner-city poor. And there is a new interest in dealing with the crisis of young black males. On this issue, unfortunately, the news is both good and bad. On the one hand, there seems to be a willingness to identify honestly the causes of the failure of black males: the proliferation of female-headed households, the absence of male authority figures, an environment which equates diligent school work with a rejection of one’s blackness, irresponsible attitudes toward women, a disdain for the world of work unless the payoff is big and immediate. Increasingly, however, the tone of the debate over how to address these problems is being dominated by black nationalists in the service of promoting their preferred project of the moment: Afro-centric education. According to its advocates, the purpose of Afrocentric education is to raise the black child’s self-esteem through (although they would of course deny it) a process of racial indoctrination. But the ultimate goal of Afro-centric education is to inculcate in young blacks the notion that they should identify themselves primarily as Africans, and not as Americans. That high officials from some of America’s largest public-school systems seem prepared to accept this bogus experiment is nothing less than scandalous.
