an angle on racism
May. 26th, 2004 08:31 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
burnunitOkay so I watched Amistad finally after lo these many years. Other than the abuse of the historic professor Gibbs (great linguists apparently only get respect by filmmakers when they write fantasy novels), the presence of an utterly historically false and totally cryptic character of Joadson, and a John Williams score that occasionally tripped into the worst abuses of Snuffy Waldenism (i.e. the guy who writes the score for the West Wing) it's a very good movie (tm). I realized how much of a daddy-man I've turned into when it came to the scenes with the tiny baby on the slaver ship and I'm sitting there breaking into several little pieces.
Anyway, I had this flash of something - inspiration isn't quite the right word. Not that strong, just sort of like... confirmation? articulation? Well, I'll have trouble articulating it, no matter how I try.
Now, I've long felt that racism has become largely a tool of class warfare, wherein the master class has tuned the lower class white people into hating the brown people as a means of keeping ALL people subjugated to the upper class. If you don't buy that, well, then either we need to discuss it or you're just not going to be interested in the rest of what I have to say.
So thinking that, my "insight" is this: I think the story (and perhaps this is the distortion of Hollywoodization of history thanks to the film, but whatever, we live in hyperreality anyways) the story of the Amistad represents the moment when the overclass' use of racism to subjugate the others officially crystalized as an option. Calhoun's speech in which he claims the "natural state" of humanity is not freedom, and points toward slavery as a positive good (a later speech of his) is the expression of this moment. It's a desperate lie of course, at least to himself. I doubt any of the great orators and writers of early America believed a la Luther that the Will is bound. No, men like Calhoun were too busy inventing American Calvinism to believe in the Bondage of the Will. I clearly hear the 'Old Adam' in statements like his. The movie speech echoes Calhoun's "Slavery a Positive Good" which comes many years after the Amistad case. This is sort of ass-covering capitulation to an idea that if in its appearance or its accidents (thanks Aquinas!), the body is better, the mind more educated, and the health more obvious, then the condition of the enslaved is in fact better, not worse. That in fact the truly free will is able to will either its acceptance of God's order (or fate) or its rejection thereof. I can go on at length, but if you read that paragraph a couple times, you'll be able to follow.
Wow what a diversion. NO. The point is, Arliss Howard's portrayal of Calhoun's speech at the dinner table with Van Buren (brilliantly portrayed by the brillian Nigel Hawthorne) came out in those slow, honey dripping, thoughtful sounding southern cadences. It's a magnificently revealing speech. Howard plays it almost as if Calhoun was realizing at that moment the future of his cause; and in a flash of self-insight, found a way to shift the gound to an emphasis on freedom through rejection and the necessity of economic livelihood. IN other words, Calhoun sort of argues that a) the greater good is in realizing that being able to acknowledge your lot in life is a sign of free will and b) the greater good is in realizing the equality of the Southern masters' cause with that of the Northern industrialists'.
SO, Calhoun openly states that these northerners who hear him have a common cause with both the natural order and the shared economic livelihood of their white wealthy southern bretheren. And that in so articulating it, expresses a fallback position for one and all. The threat he makes is for civil war, but the greater threat is that he doesn't mind fighting a civil war in order to prove to the people around the table with him that their true obligation is to their class, and that they'll come to realize this in due time.
The Amistad case allows for the first time the divorce of the moral repugnancy of slavery from the classist rule of the masters. And Calhoun's outrageous claim that we are not truly free is the instrument he uses to psychologically inoculate his hearers' brains to the rest of his message when he places the economic concerns of his fellow southern elites into the minds of the elites of the north. So that it's finally understood that the issue is not the slavery, but the class. And that the slavery is a convenient tool of one strain of the ruling class, and so is racism and so is free will, but ultimately the rulers will need to rule and the masses will need to follow. In this moment of clarity, we're shown that Calhoun decides then and there to put race into the public mind, so that the non elite whites of the south (who will also be the ones fighting this civil war on behalf of their wealthy overclass masters) will be able to continue to accept their low place in the world. Calhoun communicates a handbook to his northern counterparts to use in order to blind the underclasses to the real goings on. So that after the war, the elites will use racism to turn the poor whites and the blacks against each other. In the South, this has obvious mechanisms of segregation.
IN the North, this has the extremely insidious and sophisticated mechanism of like... fricking doublespeak classism and racism. The northern low class whites will be told that racism is low class and that to hold overtly racist views puts one on par with southern rednecks; while blacks will systematically be held out of power, given lousy wages, denied real estate, etc. etc. The southerners will be told by the overclass that they are better than black people. The northerners will be told by the overclass that they are better than poor southerners. In both places, blacks will be functionally and systematically denied rights, etc. In both places, elites will continue to reap rewards.
It's the moment when race becomes the issue, when race is divorced from slavery per se and embraced as a useful divider-- a more useful divider than the previous obvious one of "slave" and "free." When it's realized that slavery is a losing proposition, but something has to be done to keep the overclass in its place. Calhoun tried to graciously ask the northern elites to preserve slavery out of consideration for their southern elite compatriots in the overclass, but he recognized the futility and instead planted the seeds of race as a useful tool, because for him race and racism is different from the economic institution of slavery and can therefore be wielded more subtley to oppress both the black and the poor white.
I argue that it's the moment when American racism became an intellectual pursuit. When it became no longer a matter of slavery of one people, but a tool for the ruling class for keeping down all people. When slavery became racism.
Now maybe I truly have begun to sound insane.
Anyway, I had this flash of something - inspiration isn't quite the right word. Not that strong, just sort of like... confirmation? articulation? Well, I'll have trouble articulating it, no matter how I try.
Now, I've long felt that racism has become largely a tool of class warfare, wherein the master class has tuned the lower class white people into hating the brown people as a means of keeping ALL people subjugated to the upper class. If you don't buy that, well, then either we need to discuss it or you're just not going to be interested in the rest of what I have to say.
So thinking that, my "insight" is this: I think the story (and perhaps this is the distortion of Hollywoodization of history thanks to the film, but whatever, we live in hyperreality anyways) the story of the Amistad represents the moment when the overclass' use of racism to subjugate the others officially crystalized as an option. Calhoun's speech in which he claims the "natural state" of humanity is not freedom, and points toward slavery as a positive good (a later speech of his) is the expression of this moment. It's a desperate lie of course, at least to himself. I doubt any of the great orators and writers of early America believed a la Luther that the Will is bound. No, men like Calhoun were too busy inventing American Calvinism to believe in the Bondage of the Will. I clearly hear the 'Old Adam' in statements like his. The movie speech echoes Calhoun's "Slavery a Positive Good" which comes many years after the Amistad case. This is sort of ass-covering capitulation to an idea that if in its appearance or its accidents (thanks Aquinas!), the body is better, the mind more educated, and the health more obvious, then the condition of the enslaved is in fact better, not worse. That in fact the truly free will is able to will either its acceptance of God's order (or fate) or its rejection thereof. I can go on at length, but if you read that paragraph a couple times, you'll be able to follow.
Wow what a diversion. NO. The point is, Arliss Howard's portrayal of Calhoun's speech at the dinner table with Van Buren (brilliantly portrayed by the brillian Nigel Hawthorne) came out in those slow, honey dripping, thoughtful sounding southern cadences. It's a magnificently revealing speech. Howard plays it almost as if Calhoun was realizing at that moment the future of his cause; and in a flash of self-insight, found a way to shift the gound to an emphasis on freedom through rejection and the necessity of economic livelihood. IN other words, Calhoun sort of argues that a) the greater good is in realizing that being able to acknowledge your lot in life is a sign of free will and b) the greater good is in realizing the equality of the Southern masters' cause with that of the Northern industrialists'.
SO, Calhoun openly states that these northerners who hear him have a common cause with both the natural order and the shared economic livelihood of their white wealthy southern bretheren. And that in so articulating it, expresses a fallback position for one and all. The threat he makes is for civil war, but the greater threat is that he doesn't mind fighting a civil war in order to prove to the people around the table with him that their true obligation is to their class, and that they'll come to realize this in due time.
The Amistad case allows for the first time the divorce of the moral repugnancy of slavery from the classist rule of the masters. And Calhoun's outrageous claim that we are not truly free is the instrument he uses to psychologically inoculate his hearers' brains to the rest of his message when he places the economic concerns of his fellow southern elites into the minds of the elites of the north. So that it's finally understood that the issue is not the slavery, but the class. And that the slavery is a convenient tool of one strain of the ruling class, and so is racism and so is free will, but ultimately the rulers will need to rule and the masses will need to follow. In this moment of clarity, we're shown that Calhoun decides then and there to put race into the public mind, so that the non elite whites of the south (who will also be the ones fighting this civil war on behalf of their wealthy overclass masters) will be able to continue to accept their low place in the world. Calhoun communicates a handbook to his northern counterparts to use in order to blind the underclasses to the real goings on. So that after the war, the elites will use racism to turn the poor whites and the blacks against each other. In the South, this has obvious mechanisms of segregation.
IN the North, this has the extremely insidious and sophisticated mechanism of like... fricking doublespeak classism and racism. The northern low class whites will be told that racism is low class and that to hold overtly racist views puts one on par with southern rednecks; while blacks will systematically be held out of power, given lousy wages, denied real estate, etc. etc. The southerners will be told by the overclass that they are better than black people. The northerners will be told by the overclass that they are better than poor southerners. In both places, blacks will be functionally and systematically denied rights, etc. In both places, elites will continue to reap rewards.
It's the moment when race becomes the issue, when race is divorced from slavery per se and embraced as a useful divider-- a more useful divider than the previous obvious one of "slave" and "free." When it's realized that slavery is a losing proposition, but something has to be done to keep the overclass in its place. Calhoun tried to graciously ask the northern elites to preserve slavery out of consideration for their southern elite compatriots in the overclass, but he recognized the futility and instead planted the seeds of race as a useful tool, because for him race and racism is different from the economic institution of slavery and can therefore be wielded more subtley to oppress both the black and the poor white.
I argue that it's the moment when American racism became an intellectual pursuit. When it became no longer a matter of slavery of one people, but a tool for the ruling class for keeping down all people. When slavery became racism.
Now maybe I truly have begun to sound insane.
no use fighting
Date: 2004-05-28 07:35 pm (UTC)JJT