In America, nothing is ever about race, except when it’s about race. You see, Americans have this little problem about race and historical perspective: since day-one, we’ve been wrestling over the so obvious-it’s-not-obvious paradox that stems from one of our most cherished documents proclaiming that “All Men are Created Equal” in a society where this has patently not been the case. The fact that the guy who wrote those inspiring words was a slave-owning, black concubine-schtupping product of imperialist era racialized thinking — in addition to being a brilliant statesman and enlightened political theorist — perfectly captures the mind-bending level of irony that stands at the heart of America’s experience when it comes to race. For over 2oo years, Americans have been alternating between grasping the wolf of slavery by the Ears and letting the beast go — and then trying to deal with the entailing racial consequences.
Such is the historical legacy on full display in Ferguson, Missouri in the aftermath of the August 9 shooting of eighteen year-old, unarmed black man Michael Brown by white police officer Darren Wilson. That’s right, it matters that Brown was Black and Wilson is white. I already wrote a probably brilliant post on the Ferguson shooting, but the whole case demands an even more probably brilliant post! If you don’t think that race matters in the Ferguson case, allow me to learn ya’ a thing-or-two about why being a black person in America carries the unfortunate connotation of criminality.
What we’ve seen in Ferguson — the protests, the white police clashing with black residents, the typical claims by right-wing media outlets that “It’s not about Race!” — all invoke a historical legacy planted in American slavery and harvested during Jim Crow that identified the so-called “floating negro” as the prototypical American criminal. But before we discuss the “floating negro” syndrome, let’s briefly remind ourselves why race matters when it comes to broadly discussing crime in America — and the Ferguson case in particular. Consider, as Talking Points Memo reports, how the more scuzzy elements of the right-wing moron-o-sphere have effectively tried to legitimize Brown’s killing by tarring him as an “n-word” “
For example, the website of noted conservative douche-canoe, David Horowitz, notes that Brown liked rap music (a black guy that likes rap music, will the shocking revelations ever cease!), that Brown was shown flashing hand-gestures that “some say are gang-signs,” and that he allegedly swiped some cheap cigars as depicted on a quick-e-mart’s security video. Plus, Brown was black. In a similar vein, the conspiracy nut-factory Worldnet Daily claims that Brown was a pot-smoker who rapped about pot-smoking, and, therefore, deserved to die. Because only black people smoke weed. And Brown was black. And that’s the real point here. Thus, when the New York Times claimed that Brown was “no angel,” that claim ignited some major controversy because the Times seemed to somehow suggest that Brown deserved to be shot dead because he was already a bit of a bad (black) seed.
But the point here isn’t that black people aren’t, and can’t be, criminals. Of course they can, and of course some of them are. No, the point is that, in American culture, blackness is automatically associated with criminality and deviance in a way that has never been the case with whiteness. To be white in America is to be American by default, but to be black in America is to be, by default, a potential criminal. What conservative media outlets — and a good chunk of white America — are harping on is the notion that Brown deserved to die because he was probably a criminal. And he was probably a criminal because he was black. But this isn’t a “natural,” “foregone” conclusion; rather, it’s a conclusion woven out of very potent historical threads that, when knitted together, created a cultural meme that associated blackness with deviance and justified constant white control over supposed black criminality.
In the antebellum South, slavery wasn’t just an economic system, it was also a system of racial control that gave whites total domestic, social, and political power over blacks. But what about when the Civil War ended slavery? How did whites scheme to control blacks then? The answer eventually coalesced under the banner of Jim Crow, a system of white hegemony over black human rights that created a nation-wide racial apartheid that was strongest in the South, where the legacy of slavery especially poisoned black-white social relations.
The most dangerous form of racial control in the Jim Crow South came in the form of lynching: an extra-legal form of law enforcement. And what so-often justified this form of illegal rough justice, you may ask? The answer was pretty straightforward: blacks were criminals who needed to be controlled and punished — especially when the law failed to do just that. Lynching, then, was law-enforcement by mob-rule. This brings us now to the “floating negro” syndrome.
Early twentieth-century muckraking journalist Ray Stannard Baker coined the phrase “floating negro” in his 1905 report “What is Lynching?” Baker wanted to understand how seemingly normal, small-town Americans could be responsible for the horrors of lynching, in which blacks were tortured, hanged, mutilated, and even burned alive. Now, Baker was, in many ways, a progressive-minded social-reformer whose heart was often in the right place. But he was also a man of his time who harboured some of the same (albeit water-down) notions of black inferiority that more avowed racists wore on their sleeves. Thus, while Baker was against lynching, his explanation for why it happened rested on the kind of racially based, “blame the victim” mentality that continues to influence public debate over contemporary cases like the Ferguson shooting.
In particular, Baker identified the “Danger from the Floating Negro” as the primary explanation for why lynchings occurred:
In all the towns I visited, South as well as North, I found that this floating, worthless negro caused most of the trouble. He prowls the roads by day and by night; he steals; he makes it unsafe for women to travel alone. Sometimes he has gone to school long enough to enable him to read a little and to write his name, enough education to make him hate the hard work of the fields and aspire to better things, without giving him the determination to earn them.*
In Baker’s estimation, these violence-prone, poorly educated, sexually lascivious, lazy negroes floated aimlessly across the white American landscape, driven by little more than malice in their hearts toward the caucasian devils who kept them down. No wonder lynchings occurred. According to Baker, rough justice was the natural — if sometimes brutal — white response to a very real danger: the danger that one of these ill-tempered blacks might float into their towns and wreck criminal havoc before moving on to their next sight of debauchery:
He [the floating negro] is often under the domination of half-educated negro preachers, who sometimes make it their stock in trade to stir their followers to greater hatred of the whites. He has little or no regard for the family relations or home life, and when he commits a crime or is tired of one locality, he sets out un-encumbered to seek new fields, leaving his wife and children without the slightest compunction.*
Now, if you’ve been paying any attention to the media coverage of the Ferguson shooting, you should recognize some of the same themes as noted in Baker’s report. Mike Brown wasn’t lynched in the traditional sense, but he did feel the same brunt of racially motivated justice that fueled both the legal and extra-legal application of the law for much of U.S. history.
The floating negro who is “under the domination of half-educated negro preachers, who sometimes make it their stock in trade to stir their followers to greater hatred of the whites?” Enter the far-right publication the New American, which launched a standard conservative criticism of black preachers like Rev. Al Sharpton, whom it called a “notorious racist agitator” who went to Ferguson “to add his own incendiary remarks to the volatile mix.” A “worthless negro” who “steals” and “prowls the roads by day and by night?” Enter John Lott of the right-wing Daily Caller, who claims that “Michael Brown looks more like a thug, not an innocent victim.” And while Lott acknowledges that, “Black pepole [sic] have legitimate historical grievances over how they have been treated by police,” he ultimately asserts that “the main problem facing the black community is black-on-black crime.”
It really doesn’t matter if any of the above criticisms of the shooting of Michael Brown stem from any inherent racist attitudes. As sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva notes in his book, Racism Without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America, white people in America often claim that race, as an issue, should be relegated to the past. “Most whites believe that if blacks and other minorities would just stop thinking about the past, work hard, and complain less (particularly about racial discrimination), then Americans of all hues could ‘all get along,’ he writes”*
But Bonilla-Silva argues that it just ain’t that simple. Many whites have adopted “color-blind racism” that justifies modern racial inequality and absolves them from “any responsibility for the status of people of color.”* Color-blind racism is the kind of “soft racism” that fuels discriminatory housing, school, and employment policies. It also drives political gerrymandering schemes and voter ID laws that disproportionately affect blacks. Indeed, color-blind racism “aids in the maintenance of white privilege without fanfare, without naming those who it subjects and those who it rewards.”*
Color-blind racism is deeply paternalistic, and it’s just this type of paternalistic racism that influenced Baker’s concept of the “floating negro” that still resonates in contemporary American society. Heck, it’s quite easy to imagine a Ferguson police officer bathed in the culture of racial-profiling who perceived Mike Brown and a friend as two up-to-no-good negroes “floating” down a Ferguson street. Officer Darren Wilson need not be a hood-donning racist to be affected by the cultural meme of the dangerous floating negro — he wouldn’t even be unique in that respect.
Yet, even if this wasn’t the case (since the facts are not all in on the Brown shooting), the local and national reaction to the Brown shooting reveals deeply entrenched racial divides that, in many respects, hinge on where different Americans stand on the perceived danger of Ray Stannard Baker’s “floating negro.” As long as whites continue to believe that blackness equates to criminality while refusing to understand how historical trends came together to create the “color-blind racism” that supports such a belief, more blacks will be shot, more whites will deny the existence of racism, and America will continue to alternate between holding the wolf’s ears and letting them go. Either way, we’ll keep getting bitten.
* See Christopher Waldrep, ed., Lynching in America: A History in Documents (New York: New York University Press, 2006), 186.
* See Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, Racism Without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014), 1, 2, 4.
Reblogged this on Citizens, not serfs.
Sharpton is a tough case. Because many of the criticisms of his past ARE legitimate- falsely accusing an innocent man of rape, making incendiary speeches before the Freddie’s Fashion Mart massacre and the murder of Yankel Rosenbaum. (Which is very different from saying that just because Sharpton supports a cause, it’s automatically unjust, as some commentators seem to imply.) Many left-wingers consider his past forgivable, and many right-wingers don’t. And of course, a conservative who had similar shadows in his past would be forgiven by the right and condemned by the left. It all depends on whose ox is being gored.
Yeah, those are fair points. Sharpton can certainly be obnoxious and he’s made some questionable decisions. But my point was more that criticisms of him from the Right fit into a long line of conservative criticisms of black preachers who spoke out, however radically, against racial biases. It’s easier to shut them down or engage in character assassination than deal with the substance of what they’re saying — even if they’re a bit uncouth in saying it. For another exhibit, see Wright, Rev. Jeremiah.
You had me at “douche-canoe.”
Well, I do pride myself on my scholarly language 😉
My primary objection to Sharpton is that the press gravitates to him as if he is some kind of official spokesman for a large group of people, merely because he shares their skin color. He has never been elected to any public office and his past antics (Freddie’s Fashion Mart, Tawana Brawley) show him to be an obvious mountbank. It would be just as offensive for the press to interview Pat Robertson and present him as some kind of representative for white people, merely because he’s a white preacher-man with a TV show, when he is in fact a blithering idiot and a nutcase. I’d much rather hear the opinions of Neil Degrasse Tyson or Phil Plait.
As for the shooting incident in Fergeuson, I may be naive but I hope that the investigation with be thorough and professional. Based on forensic evidence if the Officer violated the laws governing use of deadly force he should be facing hard prison time. It is a problem when the primary witness for the prosecutors has been blabbing to the press claiming that the victim was shot in the back while fleeing, but repeated autopsies show no back entry wounds. The officer could be guilty as hell, but that type of inconsistent crap can lead to reasonable doubt in court and blow the case.
Yeah, the issue of the witness talking is rather suspect. But in any event, the shooting itself was just the spark that ignited a whole bunch of systematic issues. Sharpton isn’t perhaps the best spokesman for these issues, but he’s a creature of them nonetheless and the fact that he can still go and comment on incidents like these suggests that more dialogue should be held by somebody. But maybe Al could give it a rest.
If Al gives it a rest so should the entire spectrum of talk radio and television shows. I find it interesting that the same people (speaking about the general public at large and not addressing specific individuals) who complain about Sharpton have no problems with conservatives who mangle the facts beyond belief in multiple situations. I mean if we’re going to say somebody needs to get off the air for what they say, then that has to apply for everyone.
I don’t see where either side if any side is “winning” with the rhetoric except in the wallet department. Let’s face it, if no one watched any of these shows, would it really hurt anyone? Or listened to them? I think it is a pretty sad state of affairs when the most accurate show is Jon Stewart’s.
“I think it is a pretty sad state of affairs when the most accurate show is Jon Stewart’s.”
Yep. Bill O’Reilly’s very unhappy about that. The other day he warned his Fox News viewers not to trust any cable news show that is “a partisan-driven program.”
Sounds like good advice.
Wait, I can’t trust anyone but Bill-O?! Good thing, because that “Killing Lincoln” book was very informative.
I am a senior white woman but I do not believe that wilson had to kill that young man. What a shame! The jury and all the representation wilson has had should have been thinking, What if that was my son or grandson? I do believe every time there mouth moves they are lying. How many shots? 1 or 2 was apparently not good enough. Why not Taze him? Forgive me as I am so upset over wilsons Freedom. RIP Michael Browna
Thanks for reading, Linda! You make a very good point: too many people commenting on this story seem unable to empathize with the people affected by the shooting. It always helps to imagine yourself in others’ shoes, if only temporarily.