POTUS, CRT, & the Dire Need for Patriotic Black Studies
Then we sat on our own star and dreamed of the way that we were and the way that we wanted to be.
Introduction: Institutional Racism or White Americans as Enemy Combatants
President Trump and Vice President Pence’s Press Conference regarding the evils of Critical Race Theory, and the need for Federal Government support for the writing of Patriotic American History, represents a shift of focus in America’s Culture War, initiated by the New York Times’ 1619 Project. The reaction to the publication of this racist political propaganda in the name of ‘fighting racism’ set in motion a new broad coalition against the 1619 Project and what it represents: an historical narrative of the USA which resembles the political propaganda of our war time enemies. POTUS was right on time.
What the 1619 Project made clear to many people is that histories written with the intention of proving ‘institutional racism’ tend to depict white Americans as ‘enemy combatants’ in a centuries long race war. This is no accident, because the book that introduced the concept of ‘institutional racism’ to the world, Stokely Carmichael’s Black Power, is in fact a call to race war. Not through means of physical violence necessarily (although it leaves that option open too), but instead it introduced new techniques of guerrilla warfare via psychological attacks on the white population through race propaganda. That’s effectively what the 1619 Project is, and its publication and distribution by the New York Times in the name of ‘fighting racism’ is a Black Power propaganda coup that would surpass Carmichael’s wildest dreams.
This may sound like an extreme interpretation, but the point-of-view of ‘Black Power’ and its accompanying concept of ‘institutional racism’, as laid out in Carmichael’s text, is that the current historical condition of black Americans is akin to Africans living under a white European colonial regime, but here in America. If a black American does not subscribe to this view, then Carmichael views him or her as having ‘false-consciousness’, just like Karl Marx. This defines the so-called ‘material conditions’ which determine black reality in America for Carmichael. This is why whites are the enemy from the point-of-view of ‘institutional racism’, because they are by definition, even in the 21st century, black Americans’ illegitimate colonial Masters. This is the artificial ‘black consciousness’ that Carmichael wishes to build by persuading black people to ‘think racially’. What the editors of The New York Times clearly did not understand is that this historical interpretation underlies the concept of Black Power & ‘institutional racism’, and cannot be separated from it. In the speeches & writings of Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammad, this is summed up in the doctrine of the white Devil, but this historical interpretation goes all the way back to WEB Du Bois.
This is why Du Bois advocated that black Americans join the side of the Japanese during World War II, and join the side of Stalin’s USSR and Mao’s China during the Cold War. He views the country as one big plantation, with 20th Century House Negroes, Field Negroes, white Masters & Overseers. Du Bois interprets the history of the Civil War, as well as the slave rebellions instigated by European foreign invaders during the Colonial period, as being a direct lesson for blacks today to apply. If Russia and China invades the USA, then instigate a modern day slave rebellion, and join the foreign invader, in the name of black liberation. Martin Luther King may have opposed the Vietnam War for Christian reasons, but Stokely Carmichael opposed it because he wanted to link the world’s Marxist-Leninist Revolutions to the Civil Rights Movement. He’s not a peace advocate so much as a Communist stooge, but in the name of ‘black liberation’. The same could be said for the elder Du Bois himself, winner of the Order of Lenin. This is the version of Du Bois that Carmichael really patterns his thinking after, the so-called ‘radical Du Bois’. The treacherous Du Bois.
Even Muhammad Ali’s opposition to the Vietnam War cannot be separated from his belief in the theology of the white Devil. It is in fact a function of his adherence to the doctrines of Elijah Muhammad. He and MLK both oppose the Vietnam War for ‘religious reasons’, but these men subscribe to two very different religions, and the Nation of Islam’s historical interpretation shapes Ali’s own view of American history. Over celebrating Ali’s public stance against the Vietnam War actually propagates his interpretation of American history, which is Elijah Muhammad’s interpretation of American history: the white man is the Devil.
The strong link between China and black professional athletes that affiliate themselves with the Black Power movement, like Lebron James, is no accident. I honestly believe that we should consider the possibility that Soviet intelligence assisted in the creation of the doctrine of ‘institutional racism’ to help destabilize the USA, for two reasons. One, the political propaganda of the Black Power book aligned this movement with Soviet foreign policy and propaganda of the time. Two, it is so well crafted to infect and pervert racial dialogue and race relations in this country, like a Gremlin. Even if the KGB had nothing to do with it, the doctrine of ‘institutional racism’ has its stamp. It serves a similar function to a KGB disinformation campaign.
Defining American Patriotic History
American Patriotic History is simple to define: history from the point-of-view of an American Patriot. What is an American Patriot? It’s someone who identifies in some sense with the political cause of the American Patriots of the original American Revolution. What critics of American Patriotic History fail to understand is that there were in fact many different perspectives among colonial supporters of the American Revolution, a broad & diverse republican majority coalition, in the words of Kevin Phillips. Colonists played different roles and had different reasons for supporting this cause. Different people came at it with different theological-political views. This is true for Americans of all races, colors, and creeds, and sexes, because this reflects the colonial support for the cause of the American Revolution.
Black American Patriotic history really begins with Crispus Attucks. Attucks set it off. He lit the fire, not only of the American Revolution, be he also set the standard of a black person who demonstrates total commitment to the cause of truth, justice, and the American way. He’s not a black spokesperson, but with a guy like Crispus Attucks, his actions speak louder than his words. What’s interesting about Attucks is that he’s leading a bunch of crazy and fanatical white guys. This indicates that he’s probably crazier than they are, because that’s the only way he could have earned their respect. What did Crispus Attucks do to earn the respect of these white American revolutionaries? Was there method in to madness?
Perhaps this was the origin of the Boston Massacre. This crazy black guy laid out some kamikaze plan to these white dudes, and they loved it. Total commitment. People don’t realize that Attucks was 47 years old at the time, and had lived a life of wide and varied experiences. He was born into slavery and escaped bondage. He eventually built a successful business, which benefited from familial ties to Native Americans. He was not just some dumb kid who didn’t know any better. He knew exactly what he was doing, and that’s what makes his story so compelling. Attucks had something to prove.
In contrast, the 1619 Project represents what might be called ‘Loyalist history’, in the sense that it is written from the point-of-view of a ‘slave agitator’ who sides with the British Empire against the American Patriots, in the hopes of securing ‘black liberation’. This is why 1619 wishes to blur its interpretation of ‘1776’, because in reality the logic of its interpretation of history dictates that it side with the foreign invader in hopes of instigating a slave rebellion. The reason this interpretation is so dangerous is that it sends a message that black people should side with whatever country that ‘Uncle Sam’ is at war with, in the hopes of instigating modern day slave rebellion, overthrowing the current white Masters, and securing ‘black liberation’. Just like the Civil War or the European invasions into colonial South Carolina.
The message of people like Du Bois, Carmichael, or even the 1619 Project is that black Americans should view their current social condition in a like manner, specifically as 21st century African colonial subjects of a European colonial Master on American soil. This analysis is based on a racist interpretation of history, in which race is viewed as the driving force of history. This is why Du Bois claims that ‘the problem of the 20th Century is the problem of the color line’, because he believes that ‘race is destiny’, a doctrine he learned from German scientific racists at Berlin University. Ironically, this is derived from the same racist philosophy adopted by the white Southern nationalists that Du Bois attacks. Du Bois believes in fighting racism with racism: blacks need a racist black social science to match the racist white social science that predominated at that time, and which he deeply absorbed at Berlin University. Du Bois gives them one starting with Souls of Black Folk.
Conclusion: The Need for Patriotic Black Studies
I have been working on the development of a new black social science since college. Recently, I accelerated my efforts in the wake of mob violence in my home city of Philadelphia, rationalized by today’s black spokespersons as ‘fighting racism’. I realized that a new black political science was desperately needed for a new brand of black politics for the 21st century. I was already closer than I realized, owing to my efforts in the past couple years in recovering and restoring the political philosophy of Booker T. Washington.
I came to realize that Booker T. Washington’s model fit nearly perfectly with the theoretical-historical model of my former mentor, Harvey Mansfield. This was not intentional, but a happy accident I stumbled upon. Consequently, if you substitute Booker T.’s philosophy and historical interpretation of of race & racial politics into Mansfield’s model, and you make Aesop’s Fables the basis of ancestral black political science in Western Civilization, you have what I call Black Mansfield. Booker T.’s understanding of character, freedom, and upward mobility is rooted in Aesop. Mansfield himself in some ways represents a kind of Anglo-Protestant Leo Strauss, but introducing Booker T. at the heart of the model changes Strauss’ historical interpretation in fundamental ways.
For example, Strauss’ ‘philosophy of race’, so to speak, is very different from Booker T.’s, partly owing to the very different oral traditions of these men, but also owing to their different theologies. What I have discovered, and this is implicit in Strauss’ work, is that theology plays an important part in one’s interpretation of history, including the history of race. A good example of this is the comparison of MLK’s philosophy and interpretation of race to Malcolm X’s. The respective theologies of these two men play a central role in their interpretation of American history, including the history of race in America. It plays a central role in their interpretation of white character, capacity, & accomplishment. Their interpretation of the origin and character of the evil inherent in the institution of slavery is very different, owing to these different theologies. The Black Power doctrine of institutional racism and consequently the 1619 Project derives from Malcolm X’s interpretation of history.
Using the histories and social science studies produced under Booker T’s direction at Tuskegee Institute, would make a good alternative basis for Black Studies today. These are black Patriotic histories in the sense I described, and would make a good foundation for a Patriotic Black Studies.
Il Trovatore (Aristarchus Patrinos); October 14, 2020; < 2000 words