The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Wattree's picture

    A MESSAGE TO BLACK AMERICA: OUR HISTORY LIES BEFORE US

    I just read a snippet from an old article in Essence Magazine indicating that researchers have uncovered new information suggesting that Cleopatra may not have been Black. The article brought back to mind a piece I read by Earl Ofari Hutchinson many years ago entitled, Whose Black History To Believe? In that very insightful article Hutchinson points out that black history tends to be given either short shrift by traditional historians, or is exaggerated beyond all recognition by historians of a more Afrocentric persuasion. His premise is that both approaches do a disservice to Africa American history. His analysis shows that African Americans would be better served by a more balanced interweaving of African American history into the fabric of American history as a whole.

    .

    While I'm in total agreement with both his premise and analysis, I think it's important to take this issue one step farther. We need to explore why so many of us feel the need to exaggerate our history in the first place. We also need to understand how this game we find ourselves involved in distracts us from the bigger picture.
    .
    The importance of cultural history is that it contributes to the collective self-esteem of a people. It brings cohesion by giving the members of a given group something in common to rally around as their own. A culture, much like an individual, is so much in need of a feeling of self-esteem that it invariably manufactures its own history, which often bears little or no resemblance to reality. For those very reasons, therefore, much of history is a lie. In fact, history itself has been defined as "A lie agreed upon."
    .
    A concrete example of that process at work can be seen by looking back at the Viet Nam War. Having never lost a war at that time, upon entering the Viet Nam War the United States had already geared up for manufacturing a history to justify its presence in Viet Nam, much like we're struggling with today in Iraq. The U.S. Finally came up with what was called "The Domino Theory". According to this theory, the North Vietnamese were merely fronting for Communist China, and if the United States allowed South Viet Nam to fall to the North Vietnamese, people in that part of the world would be slaughtered, and all the rest of the countries in the area would fall like "dominoes" to Chinese communism. 
    .
    If the United States had won the Viet Nam war that lie would have become an official part of world history. Young children all over the world would have read it as gospel for eons. But since the United States didn't win, this would-be "historical fact" has been left without a home, and now, thirty-five years later, the lie stands as a glaring example of how nations manufacture lies to justify their conduct.
    .
    The United States is not unique in fabricating history, however. All nations and all cultures do it. If Germany had won WWII the history of that war would have been written from an entirely different perspective; if Great Britain had won The Revolutionary War, the esteemed forefathers of the United States would have been remembered as a group similar to the way the United States currently view The Black Panther Party, or Cinque and the Symbionese Liberation Army. 
    .
    An example of this principle at work on a cultural level can be found in the white culture's touting of Benny Goodman as "The King of Swing", or Elvis Presley as "The King of Rock n Roll." We know that's not true today, but as time passes, and there's no one left to attest to the inaccuracy of such claims, eventually it'll become a "historical fact"-- or factoid (something repeated so often that it is seen as a fact).
    .
    So it is clear that the history game is just that--a game. But it's a game that black Americans should only play quite sparingly if at all, since due to the unique position of the African American in legitimate modern history, we come to this game with a decided disadvantage. 
    .
    The African American culture is a relatively new culture, thus, our history is verifiable. Therefore, African Americans don't have the machinery in place to effectively promote the hype necessary to fully participate in the history game. But since, in any event, the game only serves to divert our attention from what is really important--getting on with the business of building true viability as a people--black participation in the game is nothing more than an exercise in me-too-ism.
    .
    But it seems that whenever I hear a discussion on Black pride, someone always brings up the issue of Egypt, and whether or not Cleopatra was Black. Black people have got to understand that the issue is not important–in fact, it's academic. While it is always good to stay in touch with one's roots, the fact is, the African American culture has long since ceased being purely African--even though the continent of Africa will always define the core of our being--and any connection that we may, or may not have had with Egypt and/or Cleopatra is remote at best, at least, in a strictly cultural sense. It's as though we're going around, hat in hand, desperately searching for a piece of history to call our own. We shouldn't place ourselves in that position–it's undignified, pathetic, and wholly unnecessary.
    .
    We must begin to understand that we are a new culture. We ceased being Africans when it became necessary to adapt to the fields and ghettos of America.  Neither are we simply Americans--we became something more than simply Americans when it became necessary to become more than simple Americans for our very survival. We are a brand new culture--a culture conceived in pain, delivered into turmoil, baptized in deprivation, and weaned on injustice. And since adversity is experience, and experience translates into knowledge, we don't have a thing to be ashamed of. The uniquely pointed adversity that we have experienced makes us more, rather than less. Thus, we are a culture that is only now in the infancy of its development. For that reason, we cannot hope to compete, lie-for-lie, with ancient cultures relative to history, since our history is only now being written. But for that very same reason, we don't have to try to compete.
    .
    The fact that we are a new culture doesn't mean that we are anything less than the older cultures, it simply means that our greatest contribution to man lies before us. We don't have to look back to antiquity to find a source of pride, all we have to do is study the life and times of our parents, our grandparents, and that generation of black people born between the turn of the century and WWII. 
    .
    In less than 50 years, the Black people of that generation went from housekeepers and flunkies to the boardrooms of multinational corporations. In less than 50 years, they went from playing washboards and tin cans on the side of the road, to becoming some of the greatest musicians the world has ever known. In less than 50 years these people have gone from the defenseless and nameless victims of public lynchings, to laying a foundation, along with their White supporters (who must not be forgotten), that led directly to Barack Obama becoming the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth--and that is a chapter in history that is verifiable.
    .
    The most cursory glance demonstrates that there is something unusually unique about this new culture. While social scientists have postulated that all minority cultures must assimilate, dilute, and subordinate themselves to the dominant cultural soup, there is clear evidence that the African American culture has had a much greater impact on the dominant culture than is the reverse. 
    .
    Members of the dominant cultural group under fifty years of age have more in common with the African-American culture in terms of attitudes, style, and personal taste, than they have with their own grandparents. Black music--Jazz, Blues, Rap, and, yes, Rock n Roll--is the predominate music, not only in the United States, but in the entire world. Every time a Rock group goes on stage, they sing a tribute to nameless slaves moanin' in the fields--and just to turn on a radio or television set anywhere in the Western world, is to pay a tribute to Duke, Bird, Miles, and Diz.
    .
    In addition, the United States of America has honored only four men in history by declaring the day of their birth a national day of celebration--Jesus Christ of Nazareth, widely accepted by many as the father of all mankind; President George Washington, the father of this nation; Christopher Columbus, the man credited with discovering the Americas (along with the native Americans who were already a part thereof); and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a man whose forebears were brought to these shores in chains. 
    .
    That says a lot about that humble black man—and it says just as much about his people. In spite of the fact that Dr. King began his life burdened by the inherent disadvantages of being blessed with black skin in a Jim Crow environment, his words, his intellect, and his deeds so inspired the heart and soul of humanity that America saw fit to set aside a day for this nation--this world--to thank God that he was allowed to walk among us. His was a soul with such strength that it served to lift the rest of mankind to a higher level of humanity. That's not only a testament to one black man's ability to pull himself from the dust of his humble beginnings, it's also a testament to the capacity of his people to meet the test of greatness--and that's a history that is verifiable. 
    .
    So, we must take pride in our own personal journeys, and realize that in our own journey through life history is also being made. You don't have to be a world conqueror to have an impact on the history of mankind, you simply have to make decisions in your personal life that helps to enhance and move your people forward towards their appointment with destiny. And every time you face life's obstacles with courage and perseverance you meet that challenge. After all, you don't make decisions in a vacuum-- every decision that you make in life becomes a public decision. People are watching, your children are watching, and if you nurture your children properly, they will make the character of your decisions an indelible part of the public record.
    .
    Thus, the character that you reflect in your daily conduct carries the seed that your children will carry with them for generations. For that reason, I don't regret one moment of my youth that I spent stumblin' through Watts on whatever drug happened to be convenient. Those years were part of a personal journey that stands as a monument to who I am today. Of course, I related those struggles to my children as stumbling blocks to be avoided at all costs, but they were also related as examples of perseverance, and the determination to overcome the obstacles in my life. And by overcoming those setbacks, it allowed me to relate those experiences with just as much pride as the White culture relates the experiences of General Patton to their children. George fought his battles, and I fought mine, and as far as my children are concerned--as far as I'm concern--one was no less heroic than the other. Thus:
    .
    Neither scholar nor the head of state,
    The most common of men seems to be my fate;
    A life blistered with struggle and constant need,
    As my legacy to man I bequeath my seed.
    .
    More fertile, more sturdy these ones than I,
    This withered old vine left fallow and dry;
    The nectar of their roots lie dormant still,
    But through their fruit I'll be revealed.
     
    And that, is verifiable.

    Eric L. Wattree


     
    Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

    Comments

    Actually she was Irish: Clee O'Patra.


    I can only respond to a couple points--you make so many of them!

    On Vietnam--the neocons and most repubs think that that war had something to do with the death knell for communism. I get so angry, I have to mute the tv or quickly hit another tab to get onto another subject.

    China invaded that damn country right after we left and in less than a year, China fled the scene. The Chinese wanted no part of it! So much for the threat of monolithic communism.

    On another point, I am fascinated by the progress of our media over the last 5 decades. I mean I may be watching some silly drama on Cable but the head of the rich law firm is played by a Black Woman. Or in another drama the billionaire capitalist is a Black Man.

    There are Black folks and American Indians and Asians and Hispanics and just about any racial group you can imagine, represented on stage and screen and tv.

    And when you think about the diversity of this nation compared to countries like the UK (92% white) you can start to grasp the monumental task that this country has had to face and continues to face.

    When one examines reality one might note the differences in the racial make-ups in our prisons or the real ethnic variables involved in our unemployment numbers...it is depressing.

    But our propaganda system (stage, screen, tv, radio, newspapers) is doing a pretty fine job compared to the times I was growing up.

    Even FOX hires people from different racial groups to spew out their racially tinged crap--ironic is it not?

    MLK Jr's Holiday was and is of such importance. It is hard to imagine that Strom Thurmond actually voted for it!

    See, you always get me thinking and I can't stop writing. ha


    China invaded Vietnam after Vietnam invaded Cambodia to stop Pol Pot's blood-letting. (actually, China already had Pol Pot shit disturbing in South Vietnam). 

    China wasn't able to draw Vietnam in to actually cause damage, so instead destroyed a lot of land and equipment on the way out.

    China wanted into Vietnam during the Vietnam War, but afterwards just wanted to be controlling figure. And they pretty well made sure the Vietnamese will continue to hate them. "Better 10 more years of the French than 1000 years of the Chinese" I believe Ho said.


    thirty-five years later, the lie stands as a glaring example of how nations manufacture lies to justify their conduct.

    I don't disagree that has the US won the Vietnam war, American kids would learning about how the US stopped the spread of communism in SE Asia. 

    But I don't think the domino theory was a manufactured lie.  I think they really believed it.  And it was after all a theory. 

    The theory had been around a long time - In 1954 Eisenhower said

    Finally, you have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the "falling domino" principle. You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have a beginning of a disintegration that would have the most profound influences.

    There is a difference between misinterpreting the evidence or not fully understanding the dynamics of a situation and setting out to manufacture a lie, such as developing a theory one knows is a falsehood, in order to achieve some goal.  There may have been goals that made those in government more susceptible to convincing themselves that this or that theory was the truth .  In the matter of geo-politics, the likelihood more mistakes then correct predictions about how future events is greater.


    1) Lincoln's Birthday used to be a holiday until merged with Washington's for President's Day to make way for MLK.

    2) The "Domino Theory" was a fact.

    a) The Communists took North Korea as part of WWII partition, and then in 1950 invaded South Korea with China's help, taking everything except the tiny foothold at Pusan before the allies fought back to the partition.

    b) There was a Communist insurgency in Malaya from 1948 to 1960.

    c) The Communists in Burma started a rebellion that lasted for 8 years from 1948. The "Burmese Way to Socialism" took over with a coup in 1962 lasting until 1974 (along with a further Communist China attack in 1968)

    d) The Communists in Indonesia started in 1920, had their first revolte in 1926, and formed part of Sukarno's government, over 2 million strong - well entrenched until Suharto purged the Communists starting in 1965.

    e) Deng Xiao Peng occupied both Xinjiang and Tibet during the 1950's, and attacked India in the Sino-Indian War of 1962.

    f) The Communists in Laos were recruited in the thirties, but didn't really get going until 1950. Their dependence on Vietnamese made them much less respected, including the Ho Chi Minh trail cutting into Laos in the late fifties and the Vietnamese support for the Pathet Lao. The Vietnamese took over fighting against the US, and overall, the Lao Communists have been subservient to the Vietnamese ever since.

    Etc., etc. (cambodia, vietnam, 


    If you're interested in reading further on the whole "Cleopatra" thingie, wikipedia has a pretty good article tracing the history of how history was affected on the topic:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy

    Myself, before I even got into the study of that stuff, I didn't understand why African Americans wanted to claim her specifically so badly. It certainly made sense to want to think of ancient Egypt as part of one's heritage, but Cleopatra, not so much. Not 'zactly the finest role model. It was like falling prey to Hollywood images of her rather than even reading something like Shakespeare's version of the story.


    Alexander the Great conquered Egypt  around 330 BC and installed a monarchy that existed up to the time that Rome per JC conquered Egypt.

    Alexander and his fellow Greeks were white.

    I do not understand the debate. A lot of monarchies remained inbred.

     


    For centuries, black history in the United States was largely ignored. John Hope Franklin, among others, helped make black history a respected field of study. Given a lack of detailed research and interest only among blacks, it is not surprising that stories like Cleopatra were taken seriously. It should be noted that the country also took to heart the story that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and could not lie to his father about the deed. People can be duped.

    Many historians scoffed at the idea that Thomas Jefferson could have raped had a sexual relationship with his wife's half-sister, Sally Hemings. Annette Gordon-Reed addressed the relationship in her book "Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings an American Controversy. Gordon-Reed examined the story of the Hemings , who were freed after Jefferson's death in "The Heminges of Monticello". Once DNA tests linking the paternal line of the Heminges to Thomas Jefferson, many historians who denied the possibility of a relationship now told a tale of a beautiful love story about Thomas Jefferson's love affair with Sally Hemings. The ability of black historians to take a different look at oft told tales reinvigorates the field of history.

    There are thousands of stories yet to be told by black historians about the actions and contributions of black Americans, white Americans, etc. Fabricated stories like Cleopatra are not needed.

     

     


    In case you hadn't heard about it, there's a new major exhibition in DC on Jefferson's relationship with his slaves, his slaves' lives and the lives of their descendants, to be expanded to Monticello itself next month, encompassing the most recent research.

    The New York Times gave this review of it a major amount of space (comes to 7 pages on the website):

    Exhibition Review

    Life, Liberty and the Fact of Slavery by Edward Rothstein, Jan 27/28, 2011

    Excerpt:

    [....]We look back now, shocked at the cognitive and moral perversity. And that is one reason why a prevalent reaction has been to assert that the champions of those revolutionary ideals were hypocrites, including 12 of the first 18 American presidents, who were slave owners.

    But that too-familiar judgment brings us to the most challenging example of all: Thomas Jefferson.

    And two new exhibitions come to a far more subtle and illuminating assessment of the past. Jefferson’s relationship to slavery is the subject of an important exhibition opening on Friday at the National Museum of American History here, “Slavery at Jefferson’s Monticello: Paradox of Liberty.” It was created by the nascent National Museum of African American History and Culture in conjunction with the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, which runs Jefferson’s extraordinary plantation, Monticello, as a historical home and museum in Charlottesville, Va.

    The Washington exhibition will have a permanent counterpart opening next month at Monticello itself, where Jefferson, the writer of the Declaration of Independence, kept as many as 130 slaves. Expanding the already significant examination of slavery at the estate, “Landscape of Slavery: Mulberry Row at Monticello,” will consist of outdoor displays mounted alongside sites of labor uncovered through archeological digs.

    Such research has been going on for two generations, disclosing the material lives of both hired and enslaved workers: their demolished dwellings and work houses are revealed through Jefferson’s notes, stone foundations, kitchen utensils, shattered pottery, belt buckles and other artifacts. Monticello’s outdoor exhibition is also part of a major transformation over the past two generations; once a sacral architectural monument to Jefferson’s genius, Monticello has evolved into a more complex reflection of the man and the 5,000-acre plantation that he owned.

    These projects are difficult and ambitious, not just for Monticello but also for the African-American museum, which is scheduled to open in 2015. Lonnie G. Bunch III, the museum’s director, emphasized in a conversation that the Washington show is part of the institution’s attempt to explore how slavery might ultimately be presented [....]


    Thanks for the link. I spent the weekend in San Francisco at a Zinfandel festival, so Keeping up with the NYT was not at the top of my list then. I'll certainly read the article.