A review, as well as: The
half that isn’t being told
Recently
Judi and I had the opportunity of visiting the National Museum of African American History and Culture in
Washington D.C. With all of its many
limitations, I highly recommend visiting this museum.
When
we think of African American culture and history, I think there could be
several compelling museums dedicated to these topics. There could be museums of
African American history, music, dancing, art, sports, literature, as well as
the connections of these topics to nations throughout the world. So, limiting
all these topics to one museum poses problems. However, the curators of this
museum have made an effort to combine all these topics in one building.
Another
question we might ask is: Why is it necessary to have a museum dedicated to
Black people in this country? Another related question is: Why have the school
systems throughout this country purchased history textbooks that ignore most
African American history?
We
can begin to answer these questions with James Loewen’s book, Lies My Teacher Told Me. Loewen looked
at the United States history books most students read in high school. He found
that those books are loaded with outright falsifications.
Loewen
argued that the reason for these falsifications has to do with the need of the
government in this country to glorify that history. If people actually believe
that this is a nation with, “liberty and justice for all,” people might be less
likely to protest against the government.
When
we look at the history of Black people in this country, we see a history of
momentous struggles carried out against oppressive policies of the government.
I believe that this is the reason why people have struggled just to have
African American history included in the schools of this country. Many of the
advances Black people have made were not because of government initiatives, but
because of the struggles against unimaginably oppressive conditions supported
by the government.
So,
now that we see why there is a need for the study of Black history and culture,
we can look at the strengths and weaknesses of this museum.
The Washington Monument
As
we arrived at the museum, I noticed that it is located next to the Washington
Monument. George Washington represents a good starting point when we talk about
the dilemma of studying the history of this country. Washington was the
military commander of the revolutionary army as well as the first President of
this country.
On
the one hand, Washington was one of the leaders of the movement to free this
country from the oppressive British monarchy. That monarchy judged people, not
by their contributions, but as a result of their birth. Before the revolution,
people who were not born into the Gentleman class could never hope to be
treated with equality. The United States was the first nation in the world that
made a clean break from the monarchies or feudal societies of the past.
However,
Washington was also a slave owner. He didn’t see the profound contradiction of
supporting individual liberties, while at the same time supporting the horrors
of chattel slavery. We see this dilemma throughout the history of this country.
While advances have taken place, there always appears to be a backlash that
attempts to reverse those gains. I will attempt to explain why this backlash
unfolds at the end of this blog.
Columbus
There
is a short reference to Christopher Columbus, who was the leader of the first
Spanish expedition to sail to the Americas. In this reference the museum argues
that his voyage “transformed” the world. The museum also argued that his
expeditions didn’t treat the indigenous population very well.
We
can say that the voyage of Columbus did, in a sense, transform the world.
Bartolomé de las Casas was a Dominican friar who lived at the time of Columbus.
He wrote extensively about how the Spanish routinely committed genocide against
the native people of this part of the world. This was the beginning of the worst
holocaust in history. Close to one-hundred million indigenous people might have
lost their lives due to contact with Europeans. Las Casas initially felt that
importing African slaves would be more humane than enslaving Indians. Later in
his life, Las Casas argued that all slavery was wrong.
While
the museum made mention of Columbus, I saw no mention of Bartolomé de las
Casas.
The revolution of the thirteen colonies
In
the schools of this country, teachers taught us about the American Revolution. Clearly America
consists of North, South, and Central America. This is why I call the
revolution that gave birth to this country, the
revolution of the thirteen colonies.
After
the revolution six states abolished slavery, but in the other states slavery
was the law. This reflected the fact that the revolutionary government was made
up of two factions. These were the federalists
and the anti-federalists. The
anti-federalists supported slavery and they ran the government in this country
from the election of Thomas Jefferson until the election of Abraham Lincoln.
The
museum did mention the fact that the British offered freedom to those slaves
who joined their army. The museum neglected to tell this entire story.
The
facts are that most Black people, as well as most Native Americans supported
the British during the Revolution. They understood that the revolutionary
government would be more aggressive with respect to slavery and the theft of
Indian lands.
During
the treaty negotiations with the British, the revolutionary government demanded
that the Black soldiers in the British army be returned to slavery. The
revolutionary government didn’t view these soldiers as human beings, but as
valuable commodities that could be used to produce immense amounts of wealth.
The British
showed their duplicity by granting the demand that the Black soldiers be
returned to slavery. However, the British commander Sir Guy Carleton refused to
carry out this order. He supervised the transport of Black British soldiers to
Nova Scotia. This chapter of the history of this country was left out of the
museum narrative.
Thomas
Jefferson has been revered in this country for writing the Declaration of
Independence as well as serving as President of the United States. The
Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. is located in close proximity to the
memorial of Dr. Martin Luther King.
Ned
and Constance Sublette wrote a book titled: The
American Slave Coast – A history of the slave breading industry where they
documented the history of Thomas Jefferson to this insidious industry.
Jefferson opposed the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Most historians neglect to
mention why Jefferson, an owner of over 600 slaves, held this position.
The
facts are that Jefferson supported the so-called lucrative business of raising
slaves in Virginia, so they could be sold in the western states at the port of
New Orleans. While most slaves reached New Orleans through shipping routes,
many took overland routes of thousands of miles, while they were chained
together in coffles. By opposing the trans-Atlantic slave trade, Jefferson and
his fellow slave owners in Virginia controlled a monopoly on the slave trade.
After
the revolution in the thirteen colonies, the revolution in Haiti erupted. That
revolution not only declared independence from France, but also abolished
slavery.
President
John Adams maintained relations with the Haitian revolutionary government.
However, President Jefferson hated that revolution with a passion. He lived
with the fear that the slaves who worked for him would rise up, as they did in
Haiti, and relieve him of his wealth and possibly his life.
For
this reason Jefferson joined in the boycott of Haiti that the British, French,
and Spanish governments had been enforcing. Haiti happened to be the only
nation at that time that had abolished slavery until the French Revolution.
None of the powerful governments at that time wanted the Haitian example to
spread.
Toussaint
l’ Overture had different ideas. He was the leader of the Haitian Revolution
and hated the idea of slavery everywhere. He imagined arming the slaves of the
United States to free themselves from bondage.
So
Jefferson and l’ Overture had priorities that were completely opposed. While the National Museum acknowledged that
Jefferson supported slavery, they failed to mention his hatred of the Haitian
Revolution.
The
irony is that after the Haitian defeat of the French, Napoleon’s army needed
money. They obtained millions of dollars by selling their Louisiana Territory
to the United States. This sale doubled the size of this country and expanded
slavery. The irony is that a revolution that abolished slavery also set in
motion forces that expanded slavery in this country.
The
National Museum has statues of Jefferson and Toussaint next to one another
without mentioning this history.
The
National Museum does give a considerable amount of information about the years
when slavery was the law in this country. This is a positive aspect to the museum.
By looking at history from the perspective of the slaves, we see a history that
is difficult to glorify.
One
problem with the museum narrative of slavery is that it doesn’t take into
account a book written by Edward E. Baptist titled: The Half Has Never Been Told – Slavery and the Making of American
Capitalism.
Baptist
argued that slave owners were driven to coerce slaves to increase the amount of
cotton they produced. They did this by routinely using every method of torture
that was known in those days. Baptist showed the production figures showing how
slaves did indeed significantly increase production during those years.
The
horrendous conditions these slaves faced was one of the foundations of the
industrial revolution. Cotton produced by slaves was transported to Britain and
France where it was used in the mass production of clothing. In other words,
the chattel slavery of this country paved the way for the enormous wealth that
exists in the world today.
For
the past 40 years worker productivity has increased while the standard of
living for workers has deteriorated. So, while workers today are not physically
tortured, we continue to be driven to increase productivity so a tiny minority
can live in opulence.
Jim Crow segregation
The
National Museum also gave a considerable amount of information about Jim Crow
segregation and this is also a positive aspect of their narrative. When we
think of the history of this country, most people are unaware of the fact that
Black people who were born here did not have citizenship rights for decades
after the abolition of slavery. While the museum gives us these basic facts,
it’s explanation of why Black people were denied basic rights, in my opinion
was incomplete.
We
can begin the actual history of these events with the defeat of the confederacy
in the Civil War. The federal government then adopted the Thirteenth,
Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution. These Amendments
outlawed slavery, gave full citizenship rights to all citizens of this country,
as well as voting rights.
The
Supreme Court then made it’s Plessey v. Ferguson decision. The so-called job of
the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution. However, with their Plessey
v. Ferguson decision the court actually reversed the 14th Amendment
to the Constitution. This was one of several Supreme Court decisions where the
court violated the law by supporting Jim Crow segregation.
This
decision was made in an atmosphere where the Republican President Rutherford B.
Hayes withdrew federal troops from the former confederate states. This action
allowed the Ku Klux Klan to mobilize and to militarily overthrow the
progressive reconstruction governments. Jim Crow segregation became the law in
spite of the fact that these laws violated the 14th Amendment. So,
while slavery was outlawed, Black people lost all citizenship rights.
Today
there is a new memorial to 4,000 victims of lynchings in Montgomery, Alabama.
The federal government rarely, if ever, made an attempt to prosecute the murderers
of those who were lynched.
In
fact, not only the government, but the academic community made few protests
against these clear violations of the Constitution. Hollywood even produced the
film Birth of a Nation that openly
supported Jim Crow. Only when the civil rights movement erupted did people with
power begin to come to grips with the fact that Black people had no citizenship
rights in this country.
In
the mid 1960s the government passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights
Act. The government was effectively forced to pass these laws because of the
mass protests of the Civil Rights movement.
However,
from a legal point of view, adopting these laws was not necessary. All the
government needed to do was to enforce the 14th and 15th
Amendments. This would also have made Jim Crow illegal. However, carrying out
that action would have meant that all the Presidents since the 19th
century had violated their oath of office and refused to enforce the
Constitution. This would have meant that there was clear evidence that many of
the Presidents of this country could have been impeached.
The
National Museum only gave a partial history of these events. Clearly, there was
no mention, that I know of, that it was the Democratic Party that is on record
of running the systems of both slavery and Jim Crow segregation. While the
Republican Party was initially opposed to slavery, it openly supported the Jim
Crow laws.
Even
with the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights act, discrimination
against Black people continued. Routine police brutality was the issue that
sparked open rebellions in cities throughout the country. On a positive note,
the National Museum labeled the uprisings in hundreds of cities during the
1960s as rebellions. The newspapers
of those days routinely labeled those uprisings riots.
The
National Museum doesn’t mention the continued discrimination after Jim Crow
segregation was outlawed. It attributes the rebellions in the cities to the
deterioration of living conditions, and not racial discrimination. However,
when we look at the continued institutionalized discrimination throughout this
country after Jim Crow was outlawed, we see that there was a legitimate reason
for masses of people to rebel.
When
I visited the gift shop of the museum I saw that Michelle Alexander’s book The New Jim Crow – Mass Incarceration in the
Age of Colorblindness. However, while I walked through the museum, I didn’t
find any exhibits documenting continued racial discrimination in the so-called justice system of this country.
Alexander
gives the facts in her book about how ninety percent of those admitted to
prison on drug offenses were Black or Latino. Yet most drug users in this
country are caucasian.
The
Supreme Court found that obvious racial discrimination is perfectly legal in
their McCleskey v. Kemp decision. Warren McCleskey was a Black man
accused of murdering a police officer. He was convicted and given a death
sentence.
Lawyers
defending McCleskey gave the Court evidence that Georgia prosecutors sought the
death penalty in 70% of the cases involving Black defendants. However, they
sought the death penalty in 19% of the cases involving caucasian defendants.
The
Court accepted those statistics, but argued that there was no evidence that the
individual prosecutor was guilty of racial discrimination. The Supreme Court
was well aware that to prove a prosecutor was guilty of racial discrimination
is almost impossible. So, here again we see how the Supreme Court continues to violate
the basic tenets of the 14th Amendment. These ideas are not part of
the National Museum narrative.
Along
these lines I didn’t see any mention in the National Museum of prominent Black
people who where framed up and have spent decades in the dungeons of this
country. These men would include Geronimo Pratt who won release from prison and
a multi-million dollar settlement. I didn’t see mention of Ruben “Hurricane”
Carter who served 20 in prison and then found to be not guilty. Denzel
Washington starred in the movie about Ruben Carter’s life. I didn’t see any
mention of Mumia Abu Jamal, who has won support from all over the world for a
new trial. Nor did I see mention of the bombing of the organization MOVE in
Philadelphia that destroyed three blocks of homes in the city.
In
my opinion the lack of mention of racist police brutality in this country is a
big problem with the National Museum.
In
the sports section of the museum there are references to many of the Black
tennis stars of this country. These include: Althea Gibson, Arthur Ash, Venus
and Serena Williams. While all these stars are worthy of mention, when we speak
of Venus and Serena Williams we are looking at something truly exceptional.
Venus
and Serena Williams have dominated the sport of women’s tennis for about
seventeen years. I don’t know of two other siblings that have dominated a sport
for so long. We can also say that even today the game of tennis is dominated by
caucasian players. So, when we speak of these sisters, I think we might also
speak about their parents, Oracine Price and Richard Williams.
Richard
Williams wrote an autobiography titled: Black
and White – The way I see it. Reading this book I found a better history of
this country than is contained in most traditional history books. Mainstream
professional tennis has recognized Richard Williams contributions by making him
the first inductee into the newly formed Tennis
Hall of Fame.
Richard
Williams was born in Shreveport, Louisiana. His mother, Julia, picked cotton
and cleaned laundry for a living. From his early age, his mother nurtured
Richard and taught him how to deal with the hostile environment where he lived.
Growing
up Black in Shreveport meant that Richard had no rights. Three of his childhood
friends were lynched. He learned to run fast to escape racist mobs.
Richard
Williams was one of the millions of Black people who migrated out of the Jim
Crow states and he eventually ended up in California. For a short time he worked
with the civil rights movement. However, given his history, he could not abide
by their methods of non-violent civil disobedience.
One
day he was watching television and accidentally viewed a woman’s tennis
tournament where the winner won $40,000 for four days work. Seeing this he was
motivated to learn this game. Then, he wrote a 78 page proposal outlining how
he would raise two daughters who he would train to become tennis champions.
This was before Venus and Serena were born.
As
they were growing up, Richard Williams attempted to nurture his children in the
same way he was nurtured by his mother. By doing this they developed the
discipline to make the most of their abilities. Both Venus and Serena represent
a small minority of professional athletes who have learned to become fluent in
foreign languages. Their mother Oracine also was a strong influence.
Before
one of their most important matches, Richard Williams spoke to his daughters.
He talked to them about the history of Black people from slavery to Jim Crow
segregation. He explained that their opponents don’t have this kind of history.
He concluded that if Black people have been able to overcome all the obstacles
they have faced, Venus and Serena Williams clearly have the potential to win the
most prestigious tennis tournaments.
I
don’t believe that Richard Williams was mentioned in the National Museum, but I
believe his example helps us to understand our history. This example shows us
that we can overcome whatever difficulties when we are raised in an environment
that nurtures our growth.
“The
great force of history comes from the fact that we carry it with us, are
unconsciously controlled by it . . . History is literally present in all that we
do.”
I happen
to be an admirer of the late writer James Baldwin. So when I viewed the above
bronze quotation from Baldwin featured in the National Museum, I took a photo
of it. Then, I realized that this only a part of the entire quotation of
Baldwin. By looking at this entire quotation, we see a different meaning in its
message.
“White
man, hear me! History, as nearly no one seems to know, is not merely something
to be read. And it does not refer merely, or even principally, to the past. On
the contrary, the great force of history comes from the fact that we carry it
within us, are unconsciously controlled by it in many ways, and history is
literally present in all we do. It
could scarcely be otherwise, since it is to history that we owe our frames of
reference, our identities, and our aspirations. And it is with great pain and
terror that one begins to realize this. In great pain and terror one begins to
assess the history which has placed one where one is and formed one’s point of
view. In great pain and terror, because, therefore, one enters into a battle
with that historical creation, Oneself, and attempts to create oneself
according to a principle more humane and more liberating; one begins the
attempt to achieve a level of personal maturity and freedom which robs history
of its tyrannical power, and also changes history.”
In
this quote I believe that Baldwin is arguing that racial discrimination had
been central to the history of this country. He defines maturity as the ability
to break from that history and challenge this discrimination in all of its
forms. For Baldwin, this is the way to begin to go down the road to freedom and
liberation.
The
following quotation by Baldwin is one of my favorites. This is so relevant, it
could have been written yesterday. These two quotations are contained in
Baldwin’s book of nonfiction writings titled: The Price of the Ticket. I have been told that this book is
currently out of print.
“Power,
then, which can have no morality itself, is yet dependent on human energy, on the
wills and desires of human beings. When
power translates itself into tyranny, it means that the principles on which
that power depended, and which were its justification, are bankrupt. When this happens, and it is happening now,
power can only be defended by thugs and mediocrities––and seas of blood. The representatives of the status quo are sickened and divided, and
dread looking into the eyes of their young; while the excluded begin to
realize, having endured everything, that they can endure everything. They
do not know the precise shape of the future, but they know that the future
belongs to them. They realize
this––paradoxically––by the failure of the moral energy of their oppressors and
begin, almost instinctively, to forge a new morality, to create the principals
on which a new world will be built.”
Clearly
there were many references in the museum of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King.
However, while I was viewing the items in the gift shop, I saw a poster of Malcolm
and Martin. Included in that poster was information about the lives of both
leaders. One of the opinions expressed in that poster was that Martin Luther
King was a more effective organizer than Malcolm X. This opinion was shared by Manning Marable, who
wrote a biography of Malcolm X (Malcolm X
– A life of reinvention). I do not agree with that opinion.
I
own books on the writings and speeches of both Martin Luther King and Malcolm
X. Clearly much can be learned from studying the life of MLK. He was a selfless
defender of the rights of Black people. One year before his assassination he
gave a speech against the war in Vietnam. In that speech he labeled the United
States government as the “greatest purveyor of violence in the world.” He also
argued that the United States would appear to be “strange liberators” to the
Vietnamese people.
However,
a big problem with MLK’s perspective is that it was dedicated to the concept of
non-violent civil disobedience. We can see the problem with this perspective by
looking at the history of the struggle against apartheid in South Africa.
The
African National Congress had a long history of nonviolent resistance to the
apartheid government. Even the Indian revolutionary Mahatma Gandhi learned the
theory of non-violence from the time when he lived in South Africa.
Then,
in the year 1960 there was a demonstration in Sharpeville, South Africa at a
police station. The police opened fire and murdered sixty-nine of the
demonstrators. The African National Congress then abandoned their non-violent
methods of resistance.
It
took thirty more years, but the South African people freed themselves from the
apartheid government. Nelson Mandela came out of prison to become the President
of the new South Africa.
This
history shows that non-violence can only be effective when a government
respects this kind of protest. Malcolm X argued that the rights of Black people
need to be defended “By any means necessary.” In my opinion, today young people
will find the speeches of Malcolm X more relevant to their experiences than the
speeches and writings of Martin Luther King.
Malcolm
X gave the following reason for why Black people needed to study their history.
He was asked if he wanted to wake people up to their exploitation. He answered
that he was about waking people up to their history, their humanity, and their
worth as human beings. He argued that when you do this, you will get action.
Lonnie G. Bunch III
Lonnie
G. Bunch III is the curator and administrator of the National Museum of African
American History and Culture. At the end of my visit to the museum I viewed a
film that attempted to show what this museum is trying to do.
Lonnie
Bunch was on this film and he argued that the museum is attempting to show the
horrors of the past so that this country can be improved. This is my
recollection of his remarks.
When
we read newspapers in this country, we oftentimes see an entire section
dedicated to business interests. All media outlets are funded by advertising
used to promote products that form the basis of corporate profits. Many papers
show the stock market prices of many corporations. They report on whether those
prices are going up or down.
While
the Pledge of Allegiance argued that
this is a nation with “liberty and justice for all,” the business section tells
a different story. That story is how the number one priority in this country
has been the drive to maximize corporate profits on investments. The government
makes no secret of the fact that it wholeheartedly supports corporate interests.
So,
understanding these facts, we can ask the question: What does it mean to
improve this country as it is? Since the drive for profits is the priority,
improving the country would increase the profits of corporations.
We
can also ask the question as to why has the discrimination against Black people
been so pervasive throughout the history of this country? When we see that the
priority is profits, then we can also see that corporations are continually
obsessed with cutting costs. Racial discrimination has always been about using
the labor of Black people at the lowest price possible.
James
Baldwin argued that racism doesn’t come from the mob, but from the boardroom.
Richard Williams argued that in Shreveport, Louisiana he saw evidence of millions
of dollars produced by Black people. He argued that he just wasn’t receiving
his share.
In
my opinion, the struggle to end all forms of discrimination must be linked to
the struggle to put in place a completely different kind of government. In this
kind of government human needs would be seen as more important than profits.
This wouldn’t be about improving this country, but what is needed is a complete
transformation of the political and economic priorities.
While
I have listed many problems with this museum, I feel it is well worth seeing.
Even with all of its problems, I believe the museum gives a substantial amount
of evidence that supports the idea that Black people deserve reparations in this country for literally centuries of
slavery and discrimination. For this alone the museum is well worth
seeing.
Thanks for posting this. I went with three others in the first few months of its opening. Perhaps I Missed something, but I saw very little on Malcolm X. I saw a lot more of Oprah! The beginning of the tour once we got off the elevator was so crammed that it was almost impossible to walk let alone read about the earliest days of slavery. We were just pushed along so that portion of the museum was not really available for study. I thought there was an awful lot of emphasis on "stars" and there memorabilia. Also the very prominent displays of the "brought to you by..." signs and banners of corporate sponsors was a disgraceful sign of how this museum was paid for. It is part of the national museum but just reinforced for me who runs this country. The Oprah theater we were told was only for special showings of special events and NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. Oprah Winfrey also is an African American activist whose contributions to American culture rank alongside those of Sojourner Truth and Ida B. Wells, according to a new exhibition at the National Museum of African American History and Culture. Seriously? Yes, I agree that one should go to the museum and see what is worth seeing. To me, however overall it was a disappointment. But then again, I have never been a fan of Oprah anyway. Cheers.
ReplyDelete