16 ms·

The history that James Baldwin wanted America to see

126 points by samclemens 6y ago

scarmig 6y ago
History is a narrative, and States all want to write a particular narrative to make the governance of their communities easier. It's always been an absurdity that the USA somehow decided that maintaining a bunch of tacky statues of traitorous assholes built a half century after they lost a war is somehow key to creating an American history; after all, we don't commemorate Tojo with a statue at Pearl Harbor. But what is a narrative US governments can write now that everyone, across all the many demographics that make up our nation, will consent to? In the case of public monuments, I cannot imagine any subjects that could unite the US today or in the near future. Just yesterday, protesters tore down the bust of Ulysses S Grant in Golden Gate Park; statues of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt offend racial sensitivities; name a President from Washington to Trump, and someone will rage at their manifold evils. You can argue that that's all for the best, as every leader of US government has a lot of blood on their hands. But I find that troubling: you can simultaneously recognize that people have a mixed legacy while also celebrating their accomplishments. And there's a fair bit of hypocrisy in the style of critique as well: many progressive heroes themselves have mixed legacies, but for some reason I doubt many of the statue-topplers today would applaud someone vandalizing statues of white supremacist Elizabeth Cady Stanton (though who knows; today's hero is tomorrow's unperson), to say nothing of other more polarizing cases like Angela Davis. Perhaps relinquishing the use of history to build a sense of an American nation is the only way to go. But I guarantee that giving up our imagined community of "America" will be deadly to progressive goals and racial harmony.
- jacobush 6y ago
  I don’t understand what you are advocating.
  - MichaelGlass 6y ago
    I don't think there's a specific call to action / advocacy, more philosophizing about the challenge. tldr; Human beings are flawed. All our heroes have some amount of blood on their hands. If we start toppling statues we won't have any more statues. Maybe it's good that we stop putting people on pedestals, but without those pedestals what makes our creates Americans' shared identity / how do we work as a team? -- I guess I simply disagree. Some leaders have blood on their hands as a side-effect, and some have it intentionally. I'm a southerner. Southern revisionist history tries to attach pride to the crimes of our forefathers. Knock those boys down. For some heroes, I agree we need to be open to nuance instead of canceling the world. "This person helped with X, but we can't forget she also hurt Y". Maybe we should put our heroes ideologies ahead of their identities. Maybe the heroes should be the workers who built the systems, who we can more easily forgive for their flaws. Maybe our shared history and stories can be more about activities than the people that did them. Maybe our heroes are the identities rather than the individual, e.g. "The Pirate Roberts". But definitely, when a hero isn't supported by a significant part of its local populace, time to find better heroes.
  - scarmig 6y ago
    Not advocating anything here. Just pointing out that every nation has heroic myths that the government nurtures, and those national myths make many (good!) things possible that wouldn't otherwise be.
    - 082349872349872 6y ago
      Do national myths need to be heroic? When we started virus measures (lasting two months), the government didn't invoke William Tell, instead leaning on the spirit of "Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno." Two american songs that resonate most with my head-canon of the "American Dream" are: "Coat of Many Colors" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYAdKXzGtcY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYAdKXzGtcY "This Land" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRnHx3yVuf4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRnHx3yVuf4 neither of which are particularly statue-wise heroic. But it's been a long time since I've been in the States. What are some current national mythos songs there?
      - antepodius 6y ago
        I don't think you'll get an answer that. Everyone in the US who's sophisticated knows it's a mark of said sophistication to show aloof disdain towards 'the US'.
        tclancy 6y ago
        That is a ridiculous take. It is also possible people with education can see the flaws in the US myth too. I love a lot about this country but we have all manner of fractures and do a poor job trying to impose a single vision on to lots of different experiences.
        antepodius 6y ago
        They see the flaws in the myth, and thus move to deconstruct the myth. As they go, people become less connected, have less in common, as the shattering of the dream spreads down from the academies through social leylines, leaving behind atomisation as it goes. You could describe the same process as 'late-stage capitalism'. Cynical detachment not unlike the death of god. The problem is, the flawed lie was at the base of what people had in common, and quickly-constructed replacements don't have staying memetic power.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dkural 6y ago
  History can be and often is a narrative. Otherwise, especially for the most recent centuries, we'd get buried in mountains of facts. However, some of these narratives are more true than others, despite whatever flavor of post-modernism they teach in colleges today. The Government/State sanctioned version of this is not a history, but a "founding myth", ie propaganda. There was a great exhibit at the German Historical Museum of how countries had to invent a whitewashed version of their countries past after WWII: https://www.dhm.de/archiv/ausstellungen/mythen/english/ https://www.dhm.de/archiv/ausstellungen/mythen/english/ The book is well worth reading as well. Acknowledging the complexity of American history does not mean giving up on an imagined community of America. In fact, doing so is the only way to heal the nation and enlarge that imagined community to include those who've been erased out of that history.
lordnacho 6y ago
I've found it pretty interesting how the South lost the civil war, but there's still plenty of people waving the flag and revering figures from that side of the war. I think in most places if there's a war, the losing side doesn't get that kind of treatment. One thing I always wondered what what the "Southern way of life" means to people. Aside from slavery, which most modern people don't defend, what are the distinguishing characteristics? What makes it worthy of admiration? I ask because I hear the idea brought up a lot, but there's never any explanation about what exactly is different. Is it perhaps to do with religion?
- metrokoi 6y ago
  >I think in most places if there's a war, the losing side doesn't get that kind of treatment. They would if the winning side actually wanted the losing side to participate in the greater country as a whole, as the Union wanted after the war. You could completely crush the losing side and destroy all of their history, symbols, heroes, and values and anything that connects them together (which we have been seeing in today's times) but Lincoln and the Union leaders did not want resentment and spite from either side lead to the complete dissolution of the country. A state cannot be successful if half it's population is forced against it's will to participate. That's why the Union declared that Confederate veterans would be treated the same as Union veterans and given proper honor and burial. It did work out quite well, because there was not another civil war US is still standing so far. Most civil wars ended with either another conflict not too long after, or a complete rewriting of the previous system. As for the question of Southern Characteristics, have you asked people who are really from the South that? I think people too often rely on what others say of Southern characteristics. I cannot speak for them, but I have been told they value Jesus, freedom of speech and firearms, being friendly and giving, enjoying nature and the land they live on, and honest work. I think it's not often put into words because these values are so inherent that they don't often realize those values are unique until they go outside the south. Even as an outsider it can be difficult to quantify, but visiting there I can certainly sense subtle but very distinct differences in how people interact with each other and live their day-to-day lives.
  - impendia 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
zentiggr 6y ago
I think Baldwin and so many others have a very strong point, and the ideal picture of America is too enticing for many. The blunt reality is that the country I've grown up in was facilitated by bloodshed and presumed superiority. Every step of the founding and growth of "America" was paid for by the blood of others. There's no easy way for a lot of people to accept that their entire existence comes from a horribly tainted history. What I realized over my formative years is that no one is exempt, and everyone has the choice to try to make life better. And a lot of people still fall in that category of "It is hard to convince someone of facts when their identity depends on ignoring those facts."
- throwa23432rsf 6y ago
  It's actually worse. Since humanities is essentially controlled by Anglo-Saxon nations, all the former brutally suppressed colonies are also given native histories which reflect those that are just as brutal. This has changed to an extent over the years (notably with Native Americans), but is still canonical as far as India is concerned.
  - pwillia7 6y ago
    Is there really any argument that once resources became strained anywhere on Earth at any time humans existed they fought for control of them violently? What is the alternative narrative? I feel like Native Americans were either disparate or were pretty similar to other groups of humans if the area was populous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabanaki_Confederacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabanaki_Confederacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_warfare
    - monadic2 6y ago
      There are multiple violent narratives as well. The colonial narrative never ceases the violence. The fascist narrative tuns techniques of colonial domination inward to use on its own people.
  - marcoperaza 6y ago
jt2190 6y ago
If you’re not into reading, “I am not your Negro” is a great introduction to Baldwin. It’s on Amazon Prime video: https://www.primevideo.com/detail/0FJUJ2Z2H5U07TO08RQWCZPIPB/ref=atv_dp_share_cu_r https://www.primevideo.com/detail/0FJUJ2Z2H5U07TO08RQWCZPIPB... Official Trailer: https://youtu.be/rNUYdgIyaPM https://youtu.be/rNUYdgIyaPM
- BoiledCabbage 6y ago
  I'd also recommend watching Baldwin's debate with William F Buckley. It's fascinating to see his clarity of thought, and how much it still ties to arguments of today. Different words, different terms, and more euphemisms now but same arguments of thought. The topic of the debate is "Has the American dream been achieved at the expense of the American negro?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Tek9h3a5wQ&feature=youtu.be&t=843 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Tek9h3a5wQ&feature=youtu.be... Or even just watch the first 10 mins in from the youtube link point. The first 5+ mins slowing build to his point. Just watching their debate styles is fascinating.
  - goliatone 6y ago
    Thank you for sharing that link. Extremely powerful and insightful debate. It’s a rare occasion to see two arguments of the race debate next to each other in such a concentrated form.
  - js2 6y ago
    Transcribed the end of Baldwin's speech for those that don't have time to watch (but you should): If the American pretensions were based on more solid... a more honest assessment of life and of themselves, it would not mean for Negros—when someone says "urban renewal"— that Negros are simply going to be thrown out into the streets which is what it does mean now. This is not an act of God; we are dealing with a society made and ruled by men. If the American Negro had not been present in America, I am convinced that the history of the American labor movement would be much more edifying than it is. It is a terrible thing for an entire people to surrender to the notion that 1/9th of its population is beneath them. And until that moment, until the moment comes, when we the Americans, we the American people, are able to accept the fact, that I have to accept for example, that my ancestors are both white and black. That on that continent we are trying to forge a new identity for which we need each other. And that I am not a ward of America. I am not an object of missionary charity. I am one of the people who built the country. Until this moment there is scarcely any hope for the American dream. Because the people who are denied participation in it, by their very presence, will wreck it. And if that happens it's a very grave moment for the West.
zenit-mf-1 6y ago
In this video, James Baldwin responds brilliantly to Yale philosophy professor Paul Weiss on the Dick Cavett show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fZQQ7o16yQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fZQQ7o16yQ
chrisco255 6y ago
My proposal to the statue controversy: erect statues that celebrate the culture of the south. The food, the music, the inventors, the blue collar workers that built the region (both black and white), and some symbolism of unity and coming together to build a better future. Move the civil war statues out of town squares and to former battlefields in remembrance and for historical sake.
- _curious_ 6y ago
  Or how about no statues whatsoever?
- celticninja 6y ago
  You are still keeping statues of people who don't deserve statues though. Why would you put a Confederate general statue anywhere as opposed to a union general statue, given they freed the slaves. Unless of course you want to remember those who tried to keep slavery because you hold racist views.
  - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
    Exactly. First of all, if you look at the history of those statues, you'll find that virtually all of them were put up not to remember history, but they were put up during the height of Jim Crow to glorify a history that never was, and as a reminder to "who was back in charge" after Reconstruction. Also, as has been repeated many times, "There are no statues of Hitler or Nazi generals in Germany. There are memorials to the victims of their ideology of racial supremacy."
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      There's plenty of statues of other generals from history who were far from angels. Napoleon, Genghis Khan, statues dedicated to Viking conquerors, conquistadors, etc. Putting the statues on a historical battlefield is a good compromise that doesn't erase history. It puts it in a educational, historical setting. Then we can focus on the future, which is important. We have to move forward.

126 points by samclemens 6y ago

History is a narrative, and States all want to write a particular narrative to make the governance of their communities easier. It's always been an absurdity that the USA somehow decided that maintaining a bunch of tacky statues of traitorous assholes built a half century after they lost a war is somehow key to creating an American history; after all, we don't commemorate Tojo with a statue at Pearl Harbor. But what is a narrative US governments can write now that everyone, across all the many demographics that make up our nation, will consent to? In the case of public monuments, I cannot imagine any subjects that could unite the US today or in the near future. Just yesterday, protesters tore down the bust of Ulysses S Grant in Golden Gate Park; statues of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt offend racial sensitivities; name a President from Washington to Trump, and someone will rage at their manifold evils. You can argue that that's all for the best, as every leader of US government has a lot of blood on their hands. But I find that troubling: you can simultaneously recognize that people have a mixed legacy while also celebrating their accomplishments. And there's a fair bit of hypocrisy in the style of critique as well: many progressive heroes themselves have mixed legacies, but for some reason I doubt many of the statue-topplers today would applaud someone vandalizing statues of white supremacist Elizabeth Cady Stanton (though who knows; today's hero is tomorrow's unperson), to say nothing of other more polarizing cases like Angela Davis. Perhaps relinquishing the use of history to build a sense of an American nation is the only way to go. But I guarantee that giving up our imagined community of "America" will be deadly to progressive goals and racial harmony.

jacobush 6y ago
I don’t understand what you are advocating.
- MichaelGlass 6y ago
  I don't think there's a specific call to action / advocacy, more philosophizing about the challenge. tldr; Human beings are flawed. All our heroes have some amount of blood on their hands. If we start toppling statues we won't have any more statues. Maybe it's good that we stop putting people on pedestals, but without those pedestals what makes our creates Americans' shared identity / how do we work as a team? -- I guess I simply disagree. Some leaders have blood on their hands as a side-effect, and some have it intentionally. I'm a southerner. Southern revisionist history tries to attach pride to the crimes of our forefathers. Knock those boys down. For some heroes, I agree we need to be open to nuance instead of canceling the world. "This person helped with X, but we can't forget she also hurt Y". Maybe we should put our heroes ideologies ahead of their identities. Maybe the heroes should be the workers who built the systems, who we can more easily forgive for their flaws. Maybe our shared history and stories can be more about activities than the people that did them. Maybe our heroes are the identities rather than the individual, e.g. "The Pirate Roberts". But definitely, when a hero isn't supported by a significant part of its local populace, time to find better heroes.
- scarmig 6y ago
  Not advocating anything here. Just pointing out that every nation has heroic myths that the government nurtures, and those national myths make many (good!) things possible that wouldn't otherwise be.
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    Do national myths need to be heroic? When we started virus measures (lasting two months), the government didn't invoke William Tell, instead leaning on the spirit of "Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno." Two american songs that resonate most with my head-canon of the "American Dream" are: "Coat of Many Colors" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYAdKXzGtcY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYAdKXzGtcY "This Land" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRnHx3yVuf4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRnHx3yVuf4 neither of which are particularly statue-wise heroic. But it's been a long time since I've been in the States. What are some current national mythos songs there?
    - antepodius 6y ago
      I don't think you'll get an answer that. Everyone in the US who's sophisticated knows it's a mark of said sophistication to show aloof disdain towards 'the US'.
      - tclancy 6y ago
        That is a ridiculous take. It is also possible people with education can see the flaws in the US myth too. I love a lot about this country but we have all manner of fractures and do a poor job trying to impose a single vision on to lots of different experiences.
        antepodius 6y ago
        They see the flaws in the myth, and thus move to deconstruct the myth. As they go, people become less connected, have less in common, as the shattering of the dream spreads down from the academies through social leylines, leaving behind atomisation as it goes. You could describe the same process as 'late-stage capitalism'. Cynical detachment not unlike the death of god. The problem is, the flawed lie was at the base of what people had in common, and quickly-constructed replacements don't have staying memetic power.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dkural 6y ago
History can be and often is a narrative. Otherwise, especially for the most recent centuries, we'd get buried in mountains of facts. However, some of these narratives are more true than others, despite whatever flavor of post-modernism they teach in colleges today. The Government/State sanctioned version of this is not a history, but a "founding myth", ie propaganda. There was a great exhibit at the German Historical Museum of how countries had to invent a whitewashed version of their countries past after WWII: https://www.dhm.de/archiv/ausstellungen/mythen/english/ https://www.dhm.de/archiv/ausstellungen/mythen/english/ The book is well worth reading as well. Acknowledging the complexity of American history does not mean giving up on an imagined community of America. In fact, doing so is the only way to heal the nation and enlarge that imagined community to include those who've been erased out of that history.

lordnacho 6y ago

I've found it pretty interesting how the South lost the civil war, but there's still plenty of people waving the flag and revering figures from that side of the war. I think in most places if there's a war, the losing side doesn't get that kind of treatment. One thing I always wondered what what the "Southern way of life" means to people. Aside from slavery, which most modern people don't defend, what are the distinguishing characteristics? What makes it worthy of admiration? I ask because I hear the idea brought up a lot, but there's never any explanation about what exactly is different. Is it perhaps to do with religion?

metrokoi 6y ago
>I think in most places if there's a war, the losing side doesn't get that kind of treatment. They would if the winning side actually wanted the losing side to participate in the greater country as a whole, as the Union wanted after the war. You could completely crush the losing side and destroy all of their history, symbols, heroes, and values and anything that connects them together (which we have been seeing in today's times) but Lincoln and the Union leaders did not want resentment and spite from either side lead to the complete dissolution of the country. A state cannot be successful if half it's population is forced against it's will to participate. That's why the Union declared that Confederate veterans would be treated the same as Union veterans and given proper honor and burial. It did work out quite well, because there was not another civil war US is still standing so far. Most civil wars ended with either another conflict not too long after, or a complete rewriting of the previous system. As for the question of Southern Characteristics, have you asked people who are really from the South that? I think people too often rely on what others say of Southern characteristics. I cannot speak for them, but I have been told they value Jesus, freedom of speech and firearms, being friendly and giving, enjoying nature and the land they live on, and honest work. I think it's not often put into words because these values are so inherent that they don't often realize those values are unique until they go outside the south. Even as an outsider it can be difficult to quantify, but visiting there I can certainly sense subtle but very distinct differences in how people interact with each other and live their day-to-day lives.
- impendia 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

zentiggr 6y ago

I think Baldwin and so many others have a very strong point, and the ideal picture of America is too enticing for many. The blunt reality is that the country I've grown up in was facilitated by bloodshed and presumed superiority. Every step of the founding and growth of "America" was paid for by the blood of others. There's no easy way for a lot of people to accept that their entire existence comes from a horribly tainted history. What I realized over my formative years is that no one is exempt, and everyone has the choice to try to make life better. And a lot of people still fall in that category of "It is hard to convince someone of facts when their identity depends on ignoring those facts."

throwa23432rsf 6y ago
It's actually worse. Since humanities is essentially controlled by Anglo-Saxon nations, all the former brutally suppressed colonies are also given native histories which reflect those that are just as brutal. This has changed to an extent over the years (notably with Native Americans), but is still canonical as far as India is concerned.
- pwillia7 6y ago
  Is there really any argument that once resources became strained anywhere on Earth at any time humans existed they fought for control of them violently? What is the alternative narrative? I feel like Native Americans were either disparate or were pretty similar to other groups of humans if the area was populous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabanaki_Confederacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabanaki_Confederacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_warfare
  - monadic2 6y ago
    There are multiple violent narratives as well. The colonial narrative never ceases the violence. The fascist narrative tuns techniques of colonial domination inward to use on its own people.
- marcoperaza 6y ago

jt2190 6y ago

If you’re not into reading, “I am not your Negro” is a great introduction to Baldwin. It’s on Amazon Prime video: https://www.primevideo.com/detail/0FJUJ2Z2H5U07TO08RQWCZPIPB/ref=atv_dp_share_cu_r https://www.primevideo.com/detail/0FJUJ2Z2H5U07TO08RQWCZPIPB... Official Trailer: https://youtu.be/rNUYdgIyaPM https://youtu.be/rNUYdgIyaPM

BoiledCabbage 6y ago
I'd also recommend watching Baldwin's debate with William F Buckley. It's fascinating to see his clarity of thought, and how much it still ties to arguments of today. Different words, different terms, and more euphemisms now but same arguments of thought. The topic of the debate is "Has the American dream been achieved at the expense of the American negro?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Tek9h3a5wQ&feature=youtu.be&t=843 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Tek9h3a5wQ&feature=youtu.be... Or even just watch the first 10 mins in from the youtube link point. The first 5+ mins slowing build to his point. Just watching their debate styles is fascinating.
- goliatone 6y ago
  Thank you for sharing that link. Extremely powerful and insightful debate. It’s a rare occasion to see two arguments of the race debate next to each other in such a concentrated form.
- js2 6y ago
  Transcribed the end of Baldwin's speech for those that don't have time to watch (but you should): If the American pretensions were based on more solid... a more honest assessment of life and of themselves, it would not mean for Negros—when someone says "urban renewal"— that Negros are simply going to be thrown out into the streets which is what it does mean now. This is not an act of God; we are dealing with a society made and ruled by men. If the American Negro had not been present in America, I am convinced that the history of the American labor movement would be much more edifying than it is. It is a terrible thing for an entire people to surrender to the notion that 1/9th of its population is beneath them. And until that moment, until the moment comes, when we the Americans, we the American people, are able to accept the fact, that I have to accept for example, that my ancestors are both white and black. That on that continent we are trying to forge a new identity for which we need each other. And that I am not a ward of America. I am not an object of missionary charity. I am one of the people who built the country. Until this moment there is scarcely any hope for the American dream. Because the people who are denied participation in it, by their very presence, will wreck it. And if that happens it's a very grave moment for the West.

zenit-mf-1 6y ago

In this video, James Baldwin responds brilliantly to Yale philosophy professor Paul Weiss on the Dick Cavett show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fZQQ7o16yQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fZQQ7o16yQ

chrisco255 6y ago

My proposal to the statue controversy: erect statues that celebrate the culture of the south. The food, the music, the inventors, the blue collar workers that built the region (both black and white), and some symbolism of unity and coming together to build a better future. Move the civil war statues out of town squares and to former battlefields in remembrance and for historical sake.

_curious_ 6y ago
Or how about no statues whatsoever?
celticninja 6y ago
You are still keeping statues of people who don't deserve statues though. Why would you put a Confederate general statue anywhere as opposed to a union general statue, given they freed the slaves. Unless of course you want to remember those who tried to keep slavery because you hold racist views.
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  Exactly. First of all, if you look at the history of those statues, you'll find that virtually all of them were put up not to remember history, but they were put up during the height of Jim Crow to glorify a history that never was, and as a reminder to "who was back in charge" after Reconstruction. Also, as has been repeated many times, "There are no statues of Hitler or Nazi generals in Germany. There are memorials to the victims of their ideology of racial supremacy."
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    There's plenty of statues of other generals from history who were far from angels. Napoleon, Genghis Khan, statues dedicated to Viking conquerors, conquistadors, etc. Putting the statues on a historical battlefield is a good compromise that doesn't erase history. It puts it in a educational, historical setting. Then we can focus on the future, which is important. We have to move forward.