Thanks to Ralph Luker's link below, I took the time out to read through Abdul-Walid of Acerbia's thought-provoking and occasionally disturbing essays on "Black Americans." As a pickup-truck driving southern White boy who plays the blues, has made a living off of studying and teaching African-American and African History, and who has married into an African family, I feel a bit like he and I are different actors in the same play.

Let me address only a couple of the things his essays made me think about. First is his lament that while"American Blacks" invest lots of energy in studying and"being Black," White folks seem to feel free to go study and be anything they darn well please. Over the past few years of teaching World History, I've developed a concept which I dubbed"Cultural Epicureanism." That is, some people, at various times and places, seem unusually willing to break out of the structures and communities that culture and ethnicity seek to impose. Some folks, such as long-distance traders and emigrants, tend to be particularly willing (or perhaps required) to play the role of Cultural Epicureans. Others, particularly those possessing identities fixed by fairly rigid orthodoxies (religious, political, racial, or whatever) resist, rather than embrace, the tendency to visit, sample, enjoy and embrace elements of other cultures.

Now, obviously, not all White folks are Cultural Epicureans. Indeed, until fairly recently, White conceptions of race and culture in the US actively mitigated against such behaviours. Resistance to Rock and Roll as"Black Music" would be only a tiny example. My own grandfather thought that eating Chinese food was basically un-American. And, when I announced my desire to go off and get my PhD in African History, more than a few friends (and a few family) were dismissive, derisive, or even downright hostile to the idea.

However, in recent years, it is clear that many, if not most, White Americans have mellowed out a good bit about such things. Part of this is, as Abdul-Walid rightly says, a recognition that many White Americans now look back with a bit of shame at the racist ways of our recent ancestors. Indeed, now that many students are actually taught about the very real history of racism and exploitation that has all-too-often defined the West's relations with other parts of the world over the past few centuries (despite the efforts of some conservatives to demand a return to nationalist"happy history") many White students are thus encouraged to be self-critical of their own culture and open-minded about others. Ironically, such a combination may be exactly what is necessary to function in an increasingly global and multicultural America.

The second point I would like to address is Abdul-Walid's recurring emphasis on just how differently African and West Indian immigrants see culture, race, and America than do African-Americans. The critical point here, methinks, is simply that the US has always favored immigrants -- and that recent African or West Indians are immigrants and African-Americans never were. Thus, recent African immigrants are self-selected Cultural Epicureans. Like immigrants throughout time they knew it was going to be hard and would demand cultural flexibility on their own part. As my African father-in-law says"If you move to a land where people cut off their own ears, take a sharp knife with you." Forced migrants, such as African Americans, were not even given such a choice for generations. And, not surprisingly, when such a choice was offered, it was not greeted with enthusiasm, and many who took the choice were denigrated as"sell-outs." It bears noting that the other main non-immigrant group in the US, Native Americans, have suffered even less success in this country than African-Americans -- more evidence of how the US favors the willing newcomer and stacks the deck against unwilling participants.

Thus, while I agree with Abdul-Walid that African-American investment in a constructed “Blackness” is all-too-often a serious hindrance to success in the US, I think it is important to recognize that it is to heap burden upon burden to ask non-immigrants to act like immigrants.

Jonathan T. Reynolds - 5/12/2005

Certainly I'm not saying that already-established communities (themselves descended from immigrants) have welcomed newcomers to the US with open arms. Obviously issues of race/ethnicity and the desire to limit economic competition often made it difficult for first-generation immigrants on a variety of levels. Yet, such groups have often done well anyway, in no small part because they were "hungry" for success and were willing to make the sort of sacrifices and work the sorts of jobs that already-established groups were not.

Thus, despite racism and resistance, groups such as the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, or more recently the Indians have have done quite well -- often attaining in a generation or two standards of living in the US that far outstripped those found in their former homelands and also surpassing those of non-immigrants such as Native Americans and African-Americans. That's what I mean when I say the US "favors immigrants."

One of the reasons why the success of African or West Indian immigrants in the US is significant is that it show that race does not trump all other elements in terms of success. Abdul-Walid may be guilty of being too dismissive of race as a factor (my own wife has certainly run up against her own share of it), but his own experience and that of many other "Black" immigrants helps show racism isn't insurmountable.

Ralph E. Luker - 5/12/2005

Jonathan, I think I need a clarification from you. If I'm not mistaken, you'd have a hard time convincing 19th century Irish or Italian or most eastern European immigrants to the United States that they were favored over native communities. I suspect that older Sephardic and German Ashkenazic Jewish communities held privileged positions that newer east European Ashkenazic Jewish communities threatened to undermine and that the latter were discriminated against. So, isn't there some peculiar difference -- like race -- that you have to play into the equation, if you're going to make an argument that immigrants are privileged over native communities?