Black Power Advocates & BLM Tricked White Liberals & Set Back Racial Progress
Since Frederick Douglass first published his Narrative of the Life of a Slave in 1845, national black spokespeople have been publicly identified as central figures in the effort to reduce racial prejudice in this country.
Douglass’ approach was basically twofold. One, you elevate white public opinion about black capacity via the media and public speeches, using yourself as a model of excellent black character & accomplishment. Two, you work to elevate the overall black social condition, which also elevates white public opinion of black capacity, as they witness real black progress. This is based on the idea that the origin of white racial prejudice is the misinterpretation of historical black social inferiority, which whites tend to view as the ‘natural order’, and causes whites to underestimate black capacity.
This approach works well when executed properly by good black leadership in conjunction with good white leadership. Good leadership, black & white, along with a good political model, are in fact the two most important factors to its success. This was Booker T. Washington’s approach as well as Martin Luther King’s. These men used different methods, but their work was still based on the same racial philosophy. Even the manner in which the Southern Civil Rights Movement protests were executed was intended to ‘elevate white opinion’ on black capacity, because on television these black Southern protestors come off looking better than their white segregationist political antagonists. They are the ones who appear more civilized & Christian to the viewer, because of the political model they employed, adapted from Mahatma Gandhi, and the highly trained & disciplined manner in which they executed their political actions. This elevated white public opinion of black capacity.
The Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests today are of a wholly different character than the MLK led Southern movement, and they are based on a wholly different racial philosophy, a racist one. This philosophy teaches that ‘race is destiny’, and its creator, Stokely Carmichael, was largely inspired by the white Southern nationalist movement, which also taught that ‘race is destiny’. In contrast, Douglass, Booker T., and MLK taught that ‘character is destiny’. That’s why you are supposed to judge people by the ‘content of their character’ instead of their race: character is destiny. Black Power & BLM teach that ‘race is destiny’, just like the Ku Klux Klan and Adolph Hitler. In fact, all are rooted in the same racist European philosophy developed by Arthur Gobineau.
Over the years, Black Power advocates have become clever at hiding their racist philosophy & political agenda. They have done this by putting the face of MLK on their political actions, because white liberals tend to like him, but they have in fact completely rejected MLK’s philosophy, and instead surreptitiously substitute the racist philosophy of Carmichael. This is a ‘bait & switch’. It’s a political fake out to appeal to the racial sympathies of white liberals. In fact, much of the rhetoric that one hears regarding today’s politics of so-called ‘fighting institutional racism’ comes directly out of Carmichael’s Black Power book, a deeply racist piece of black political propaganda. All this talk about ‘overt’ versus ‘covert’ racism comes straight from this book. This whole racial agenda of focusing on fighting ‘systemic’ or ‘institutional’ racism, instead of individual racial prejudice, comes from this book.
Part of the reason Carmichael does this is to disguise his intentions: to create a new type of racist black politics, with a political army of openly racially chauvinist and race-baiting black political activists, who claim to be ‘fighting racism’. You take white liberal sympathy with MLK’s cause of reducing racial prejudice, but you secretly change the definition of racism. You show white liberals one thing but you give them another. It’s a political race hustle. The reason that Carmichael & his followers don’t want you to focus on ‘individual racism’ is because if you did look closely at their approach then you would realize that they are being racist by MLK’s definition. You would realize that they are not judging people by their deeds or their character at all, but wholly by their race. So-called white complicity in racism by their definition has nothing to do with the actions or character of an individual white person. They are culpable simply because they are white. Similarly, black individuals are victims of oppression simply because they are black. Everything is interpreted according to race. It’s a racist philosophy with a racist definition of ‘racism’.
Again, Carmichael does not want the reader to think too deeply about the real origin of this so-called ‘institutional racism’ that he postulates. For Douglass, Booker T., & MLK, the origin of traditional white racial prejudice against black is a misinterpretation of ‘black social inferiority’. One thing to notice about this definition is that it is generous in its assessment of white character. It’s a black Christian interpretation. It is not tinged with the least bit of racial vindictiveness nor racially partisan rancor towards whites. Booker T. views both Southern whites and blacks as both victims of the pernicious ‘institution of slavery’. It is not white people who are evil, but instead the institution of slavery which is evil, for Douglass, Booker T., & MLK.
Carmichael changes this model completely. His new definition is intended to stir hatred of whites by blacks, and mentally alienate blacks from the white American establishment. Slavery was an evil institution, because it was created by evil people, namely white people. The basic idea here is that the white man is the Devil, just like Malcolm X & Elijah Muhammad preached, and American & World history proves this. For Carmichael, the origin of racism is white Devilry, plain & simple, and this is effectively the view of BLM, because it is wholly rooted in Carmichael’s philosophy.
Of course, to make this politically effective they need substantial support from the white liberal media establishment. This is because without constant political propaganda it would be obvious to even more white & black Americans that these people are not interesting in reducing racial prejudice at all, but instead seek to politically spread racism. It would be obvious that black spokespeople like Ta-Nehisi Coates & Jemele Hill are racial chauvinists, who propagate racist interpretations of American history that are poorly argued. But when MSNBC, Vanity Fair, The New York Times, and the Atlantic give their stamp of approval that these are ‘anti-racists’, it confuses the issue just enough that white liberals are largely willing to fall in line. What these media outlets do is to persuade white liberals that they should support this movement even if it appears to manifest black anti-white racism, because these BLM people are really ‘fighting racism’. It’s just that you are white & affluent, so you don’t understand these oppressed black people, and what they go through. This is effectively a process of stimulating a willing suspension of disbelief on the part of white liberals, just like in a movie theatre.
What is truly sinister about this whole Black Power approach is that not only does it spread racism, but it prevents anyone else from reducing racial prejudice in the traditional manner of Douglass, Booker T., & MLK. In order to be successful they must define themselves as the people who ‘fight racism’, and so anyone who disagrees with their approach, like MLK would, is labelled a racist or race-traitor, depending on whether they are white or black. In turn, the white liberal establishment promotes the Black Power interpretation that they are the true heirs to MLK’s legacy, even if they wholly reject his philosophy & approach. Moreover, this politically racist approach which encourages black racial chauvinism & race-baiting becomes identified in the public mind with ‘fighting racism’.
This causes many American to give up hope that any racial progress is possible, because they start to think that the only way to fight racism is with more racism. That is in fact Stokely Carmichael’s philosophy: anti-racism racism. Fight white racism with black racism. Fight fire with fire. An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth. This is what BLM promotes, and the more that they become identified with the ‘fight against racism’, the less racial progress we will make, and the less hope Americans will have for any racial progress at all.
This represents a failure of both black & white liberal leadership. The sad truth is that black people’s historical condition has made the black demos susceptible to the politics of racial demagoguery. Black populist political & religious movements often, but not always, are infused with racist ideologies and led by racial demagogues, who stir up hatred against whites to keep their followers in a state of perpetual alienation & mental subjugation. We see this in movements ranging from Marcus Garvey to the Nation of Islam to the Black Panthers to BLM. It’s important that white liberal elites are able to distinguish black spokespeople who genuinely wish to reduce racial prejudice, from those who cynically wish to use the moral authority of this label to spread political racism. Sadly, in today’s Democratic Party, the black spokespeople of my generation, Generation X, are almost exclusively defined by the latter. It is part of the job of white liberal elites to ensure that black political racists do not set the racial agenda of the Democratic Party, and to stand up to these bigots. Keep them on the margins where they belong.
Il Trovatore (Aristarchus Patrinos) ; September 20, 2020; < 1600 words