Newspaper Page Text
Unity does not equal conformity
"We can liberate ourselves and others only by forging in resistance identities
that transcend narrowly defined limits"
- bell hooks, Art on My Mind 1995
It appears to me that there is a
perceived need for conformity in so-
called African-American liberatory
discourse.
One explanation set forth by
perverted forms of Afrocentricity is that
community pressure on individuals to
conform to "Black ideologies" is cultural
residue passed down from our "African"
ancestors.
This remnant of our pre-colonial,
pre-literate "African" culture places an
emphasis on conceptual consistency in
order for meaningful communication to
take place because of the oral nature of
the language-culture.
The absence of a written language
led to a compacted language in which
simple words express complex ideas
creating a need for intense consistency
in ideology to communicate. However,
in rebuttal, I must point out that
consistency in understanding and
interpreting meaning doesn't necessitate
conformity in advocacy.
Another explanation set forth by so-
called black cultural nationalists
maintains the pressure to conform as
necessary to combat racial oppression in
a hostile, white-dominated society.
Often those who refuse to conform
are disempowered and cast out of the
closed ranks of "Black" authenticity as
sell-outs, uncle toms or house ni##ers.
However, in my humble opinion,
both positions are suspicious. First, we
must admit the diversity of our "African"
ancestry. Our ancestors come from a
wide range of nations with a number of
disparities in culture and values one to
another. And we must admit the current
diversity of "Black" ideologies.
Second, who is considered a sell-out
is grossly prejudicial. Pressure to
conform is based on professed ideology
and rhetorical posture (to borrow a term
from Toby Sanders) rather than being
based on concrete action.
I am inclined to agree, at least in
part, with Cornel West that "Black"
authenticity is not based on wise politics,
but is based on uncritical racial reasoning
that neglects moral reasoning and fails
to establish ethical standards for
behavioral norms.
If "Black" authenticity were based
on moral reasoning, those who debase,
degrade or participate in any activity that
is destructive to the so-called African-
American community would be
considered the real sell-outs.
Drug dealers, drug users, sexist
patriarchs, pimps and some entertainers
have not been held accountable for the
role they play in eroding the moral fabric
of so-called African-Americans.
Furthermore, why should anyone be
more sympathetic to Black bigots than
whites? We should be just as scornful of
Black cultural supremacists as we are of
white supremacists.
Third, the perceived need to
conform itself is problematic. Liberation
is actualized through intellectual
diversity and critical reflection.
Continued challenges to existing
behavioral norms and rhetoric that
reshape and reinvigorate our values are
critical to freedom. A unified struggle for
liberation can be an assault on all forms
of oppression while mobilizing multiple
tools as means in various situations.
The unchallenged rhetoric
surrounding the current discourse on
so-called Black unity and liberation is
wanting of critical reflection.
Prevailing notions of "Blackness"
arise out of opposition to western forms
of persecution.
"Blackness" is grounded in an
oppressive paradigm and maintained
by racist institutions. It often manifests
itself as either nihilistic self-hate or
patriarchal, homophobic and classist
elitism.
We must be unified in our assault
on oppression and diverse in our
ideologies in order to overcome
injustice. Continuing challenges to our
values and self concept (in deed, not
rhetoric) will provide a critical
intellectual grounding that emphasizes
self-determination in the creation of a
new eclectic, yet unified liberation
movement.
Political Punditry
Political Commentary
by Carl Murphy
My Morehouse Brothers: This is the first of .
several articles about the political state of our
nation and more importantly Morehouse
College. On the minds of most of the political
elite is the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
Clinton is the first elected president in
United States history to be impeached (Andrew
Johnson was never elected as president; he
finished the term of assasinated President
Abraham Lincoln). The senate recently voted
on whether to allow witnesses to testify at the
trial of the president.
It was passed by the Republican Majority
but under the stipulation that one witness,
Monica Lewinsky, be allowed to testify via video
tape. Dick Gephardt, Minority leader, claims
that the process was unfair due to the drawn
partisan lines.
It is hard to believe that Democrats
themselves would not vote on partisan levels if
they were not the majority. Twenty-seven ago,
when Democrats held the majority in both
houses, they did not hesitate to call witnesses at
the Nixon trial.
No matter how unfair an individual believes
the process is, the Constitution strictly outlines
the process for the impeachment of a sitting
president.
Witnesses are apart of a trial, it is up to the
prosecutor and or defense attorney to argue their
validity.
Some Senate members continue to
believe their is no validity to the case and plan
to move for its dismissal (for a second time
the first motion for dismissal was voted
down).
Months ago when the word
impeachment was mentioned, President
Clinton adamantly denied having any
"sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky.
Had Clinton been honest with the nation,
this impeachment trial may have been
avoided. Yet now we have two powerful
branches of government at war with each
other.
In the midst of this war, the casualties
have consumed national leaders such as
Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and Bob Livingston,
but most importantly the Amercan people.
President Abraham Lincoln said, "Lord,
give us faith that right makes might, and in
that faith let us to the end dare to do our duty
to understand it."
To the President and the Congressional
members, you have allowed our nation to fall
short of the framers' original concept of
government.
An idea that encompassed a strong belief
that government should mediate, not mirror,
popular views, and that elected officials
should represent, not register, majority
sentiment.