WHO’S AFRAID OF A LARGE BLACK MAN

Each chapter of Who’s Afraid of a Large Black Man starts out with introductory comments by the author, Charles Barkley, followed by a dialogue between him and a celebrity.  I knew by his comment on the second paragraph, second page of the second chapter that I didn’t like the book.  I felt obligated, however, to complete it before criticizing it. 

       The comment attracting my grave concern, made as a preface to an interview with Black Illinois Senator Barack Obama, read, “One of the keys for a black leader to be effective is that white people can’t be afraid of him.  White people have all the money and power, and if they’re going to help black people, if they’re going to listen to their complaints, they have to be approached in a non-threatening way.”

       Barkley’s comment reminded me of the attitude that James Baldwin ascribed to his father in Nobody Knows My Name.  Baldwin explained that the problem he had with his father is that the White man told him that he was inferior and his father believed it.  The immediate question that Barkley’s comment raised in my mind was “How did Barkley form the self-defeating idea that White people have “all the money and power” and why did he believe it? 

       Maybe, because he was born after the Civil Rights Movement of the 50’s and 60’s, Barkley missed the first hand view of the people power that made White money and White political power cave to the persistent demands of Black America, which raises the suggestion that Barkley hasn’t studied his own history.  Had he done so he would know that White people feared Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Stokley Carmichael and a host of other Black people who boycotted and marched, and, yes, burned and otherwise challenged traditional authority until they prevailed. 

       The irony of it is that the Black Charles Barkley would not have been able to write or promote his book if he had not become rich and famous and had the power that those elements command.  And most of his Black interviewees—Tiger Woods, Barack Obama, Samuel Jackson, Ice Cube, Morgan Freeman—are all wealthy, famous and, more or less powerful.  At least one, Morgan Freeman, to his shame, would prefer to be recognized as rich rather than Black.  (I say “to his shame” because he shouldn’t diminish his blackness and slight the historical movement that carved the path for him to become rich and famous in the first place.) 

       Charles Barkley would do well to study his history.  His suggestion that Black leaders should regress to shuffling and grinning and rolling their eyes in deference to White folks and playing the roles of victims searching for handouts if they want to be effective is nonsense.  (And that, by the way, is how I interpreted his comments.)  His own book is the evidence.  Every Black person he interviewed was positioned to achieve their wealth and fame by the power of the Civil Rights Movement.  Black people couldn’t play in the NBA, they couldn’t play in the PGA and they couldn’t get roles in mainstream movies while having to ride in the back of the bus and eat from the back doors of restaurants and drink from “colored only” water fountains and so much more!  White folks never did have all of the power and the money.  There was a time when they thought, just like Charles Barkley, they had it all.  But, Barkley should understand, events proved them wrong.

       We should, however, thank Charles Barkley for his dialogue with Tiger Woods, who comes across as more in tune with his unique status—as a Black American who happens to be the most famous golfer in the world.  It contradicts the murky image that the mainstream press would lay on Woods.  And we should also thank him for his closing interview with Marian Wright Edelman, who, typically, reminds the reader that, in spite of the Bill Cosby’s of the world (and, to some extent, the Charles Barkley’s), Black America continues to make progress in the face of complex problems that will take time, perseverance and patience to resolve.

       Unfortunately, however, in spite of his obvious sincerity, Barkley’s attempt at literary fame falls dismally short of serious and borders on the silly.  He was simply out of his league and someone should have explained to him that his interracial marriage is not sufficient to certify him as an authority on American race relations. n

A DREAM DEFERRED: The Second Betrayal of Black Freedom in America

Shelby Steele, on the other hand, has presented some new theories on modern race relations that deserve careful scrutiny.  I have always felt (especially regarding matters of race) that White liberals and White conservatives are more or less the same, since, when it comes to their own interest, both groups often become indistinguishable pragmatists.  And I have never been able to reconcile how a Black person could be a conventional conservative or liberal in the same way that White Americans label each other.

       Which is why, it seems to me, that the term “Black conservative” is an oxymoron.  The word “conservative” tolerates too broad a range of beliefs, many, many of which are in direct opposition to the interests of Black people as a group and as individuals, rich or poor, educated or uneducated.  A Black person may have what might be considered some conservative beliefs, but unless the person is a sycophantic troglodyte like Clarence Thomas, the Black conservative label doesn’t fit any more than O. J. Simpson’s glove fit at his trial.

       And it has always amazed me that all Black people are expected and assumed to be “liberals.”  So much so that they are rarely called “Black Liberals.”  Used together the two words would be considered a redundancy.  Yet, I have met few Black people who preoccupy themselves with environmental issues, or who are tolerant of gay marriage, or who oppose the death penalty or who believe that the pledge of allegiance and the Ten Commandments should be left out of the schools or that “In God We Trust” should be removed from our money or who would have a problem with being rich or having their taxes lowered.  But more than anything, it is impossible for Black people with any pride at all to hold the condescending view of themselves that liberals seem to relish.

       I could go on and on but the only point that I am making is that my life experiences have convinced me that the terms “conservative” and “liberal” as applied to White people are not directly transferable to describe Black people or their political leanings. 

       But I came away from reading Shelby Steele’s book with some new terminology and new ideas and a new understanding of the meaning of the terms “conservative” and “liberal.” In three separate essays, Steel redefined and expanded the terms to explain how—not just why—they apply to White people and Black people alike as they relate to race relations in America.  In doing so, he has given us a new and constructive way of thinking about those relationships that have pleased some and upset others on all sides of the liberal/conservative, Black/White equation. 

       Steele’s new terms, “redemptive liberal” most prominent among them, give the open minded a frame of reference within which to reconsider where the Black movement for independence went wrong by showing how “redemptive liberals” with guilt complexes and certain Black folks were willing to sacrifice Black freedom and replace it with a victimization complex that led to the “betrayal” of the original Black revolution in America. 

       But, he didn’t ignore White conservatives, who he theorizes were stigmatized by having their fundamental beliefs exposed for their flawed practice as they related to Black America.  Conservatives suffer, he writes, not from guilt but from “white stigmatization,” a condition of shame that embarrassed White America and compelled it toward greater racial equality even as it continues to resent being exposed as imperfect.

       And, he clarified the definition of “Black conservative” as a Black person who rejects victimization, promotes self reliance and is scorned by the “redemptive liberals” and their Black allies whose very powers depend on the willingness of Black people to remain dependent and victimized.  He has identified and clarified the very elements of the White liberal psych that are most repulsive to those of us who know that when someone insists on doing for you what you can and should do for yourself you are denied your freedom as much as if you were placed in chains.  It is convenient, he hypothesizes, for White Conservatives to go along with the game, leaving Black conservatives in a lonely no man’s land.

       Even as his book piqued my interest, Steele left me with one serious concern.  His indictment of the welfare state that encouraged the destruction of the Black family and his criticism of harmful preferences that discourage the Black pursuit of excellence is understandable.  But I remain puzzled by Steele’s excessive preoccupation with affirmative action.  He simply ignored affirmative action that is enjoyed by White people, such as President George W. Bush, who can become oil barons and presidents simply because they are sons of alumni or born into wealth or were members of Cross and Bones or were more acceptable to the “old boy network” or were raised in suburbia and educated in private schools or better funded public schools. 

       Let’s face it.  White America has never made a big deal out of White affirmative action. For example, we wouldn’t need school vouchers if White America didn’t enjoy the benefits of snob zoning or if we simply allowed school choice in the city to include suburban schools.  What an affirmative advantage White students enjoy, attending the best financed schools with the least special education students in pristine suburban environments.  And racism itself is a form of affirmative action that benefits White folks at every level of the employment process.  It is a kind of subtle racism that our relatively tough anti-discrimination laws cannot and are not designed to filter out.  When the time is right, affirmative action for Black and White Americans will die of its own accord.  But in the meantime, we shouldn’t select out Black people for seizing on every competitive advantage available, including affirmative action, just as White folks do. 

       Otherwise, I think Shelby Steele is proposing new ways of looking at old problems that can benefit all of America.  Being victims retards Black progress and those who would advocate “victim hood,” Black or White, betray Black progress.  We need to seriously reconsider what the real path to independence is and edge Black America in that direction as quickly as is humanly possible. n