Comments on: Tommie Shelby

By: Robin Green

Robin Green — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:02:02 +0000

but for goodness sake people, the ruling party in all three branches of gov’t has as a fairly central belief that black people get too much from society.

Sounds like the book comes at identity politics from a very different angle, though. i.e. that black people need to stop focusing so much on exclusively-black coalitions etc. in order to be more effective politically. It’s possible that the book’s angle is right and the GOP’s angle is completely wrong (because they are talking about different things). I don’t know.

By: david

david — Sat, 14 Jan 2006 02:46:42 +0000

I doubt from Patterson’s description that I’ll like the book all that much, though I’ll like reading it. But then again, I’m white, and by any reasonable definition rich. Still, I’m surprised that there are a pack of people who still think it’s risky, and meritorious, to challenge the great big fat powerful social truth that identity politics for black people are too powerful in this country. Abb1 is an unsurprising proponent, but for goodness sake people, the ruling party in all three branches of gov’t has as a fairly central belief that black people get too much from society.

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 14 Jan 2006 02:27:35 +0000

I don’t think anyone here is threatening to ban abb1 from the club (if it’s not been done yet, is it really likely here?). Rather, abb1 says he doesn’t understand the reasons for something, and apparently those reasons are discussed in this book in a useful and interesting way. It’s been suggested that this might be a reason for looking at the book. Does this seem so unreasonable, Steve? Certainly abb1’s position isn’t very unusual, especially among those who are, say, white and privilaged. (I, of course, have no knowledge of, nor interest in, abb1’s race.) So, it’s far from obvious that this is an exercise in “independent thought” in any interesting sense at all, especially since all we’ve been told is that abb1 doesn’t understand, not that he or she has made any serious attempt to try and understand by engaging in the best arguments, or that abb1 has had to exercise anything that might reasonably be called “independent thought” here. So, it seems to my mind that your remark, Steve, is a bit silly.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 20:30:07 +0000

abb1:

Hell has frozen over; I actually agree with you. You’d better hurry up and drink the koolaid-occasional forays into independent thought are ok, but don’t make a habit of it-you wouldn’t want to get yourself banned from the club.

Steve

By: abb1

abb1 — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 19:40:59 +0000

Dæn, you right: I can understand it as a natural response. But not as the result of an intellectual exercise.

By: Dæn

Dæn — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:59:34 +0000

The comments to this post are very enlightening for me as a young black man who has often struggled to parse white liberals’ misgivings regarding black solidarity (sentiments like abb1’s are common among whites I know). I haven’t studied black identity politics formally so I can’t really do the subject proper justice; all I can say is that there’s something about feeling the weight of collective punishment (which is how racism can feel sometimes) that brings us together. Sharing the burden lessens it and also creates a need to maintain exclusive control over black cultural property, especially that which is directly connected to “the struggle”.

There still exist strong anti-assimilationist pressures against among certain black subgroups. These are the result of an enduring sense of disconnection from and distrust of American society engendered by our unique and often tragic history. I’ve often heard it said that this cultural and social segregation was codified and/or brutally enforced for so long that it became integral to black identity. I dunno, maybe I’ve been steeped in it so long that I’m just trying to rationalize the irrational, but racial solidarity seems to me a perfectly natural response given black history. I suppose if you really can’t understand it, there may be nothing else to do but accept it.

By: Wrong

Wrong — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:54:31 +0000

Why would a rational person want to maintain solidarity based on skin color of all things?

Because they are oppressed on the basis of their skin color. This seems rather obvious.

By: PersonFromPorlock

PersonFromPorlock — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:48:09 +0000

When the eminent sociologist Orlando Patterson says that someone is “a sparkling new talent with all the boldness and intellectual self-assurance…

Actually, no. When he sees blurb like that (“A sensitive and intelligent recounting of a young person’s coming of age”, etc.) the intelligent man screams loudly and throws the book as far as he can.

By: Teju Cole

Teju Cole — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:46:54 +0000

abb1,
You make a good point. I’m an American-African (not an African-American), and though I share in the suffering of the black people in this country and elsewhere, I don’t have a great instinct for unity. Solidarity, yes. Unity, no.

And I think that racialism is deeply problematic- indeed, I believe it (the assignation of essential value to race) had a role to play in the emergence of racism.

But I think I’m perhaps too distrustful of group-think, and I’m keen to hear a good philosophical argument in support of racial unity.

By: abb1

abb1 — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:40:24 +0000

Racism does, of course, exist and anti-racist solidarity is, of course, a good idea. But ‘black solidarity’ is something else. Why would a rational person want to maintain solidarity based on skin color of all things?

By: jet

jet — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:06:14 +0000

abb1,
I’ve recently been on the market for a house and had to break contract with my realtors after it became apparent they might be taking race into account. Since African-Americans still face political and economic racism from a significant portion of America in the economic and somewhat in the political field, I can see a need for some racial solidarity. But I’m not sure where the line is drawn and after which African-Americans showing racial solidarity become the flip side of my realtors. So perhaps I’ll read the book.

By: Marc Mulholland

Marc Mulholland — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:03:10 +0000

It seems odd that group solidarity – which I have no problem with – needs to be justified by reference to a “a unique [and continuing] history of injustice”. Whilst one can justifiably object to any negative externalities produced by group identity, I don’t see that a group only deserves recognition if it demonstrates a defined quantum of grievance.

By: Teju Cole

Teju Cole — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:41:04 +0000

This is the book I’ve been waiting for.

I was a little awed by Patterson’s review, and I very much look forward to reading Shelby’s book.

The American discourse around race is definitely ready to go to the next level. Has been for a while.

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:31:22 +0000

Abb1- Maybe that’s a good reason to read the book!

By: abb1

abb1 — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:47:29 +0000

I can’t understand why any kind of racial solidarity could be a good thing, even if it’s ‘thin’.