Wright is Wrong... Except When He's Right

The question came up in a column by Ralph Reiland in today's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, as follows: "... it probably doesn't help young people in the black community when they're told that their country hates them, that the U.S. government gave them drugs and AIDS, and that jail and genocide are the officially-sanctioned plan for them." Further on, he says, "Does Obama think it improves matters when black leaders tell blacks that they're poor, sick, jailed, or hooked on drugs because of a government plot?"

Yeah, OK, let's actually take a look at some of these points, rather than just blowing them off as the rantings of some "radical". In fact, let's admit that, if we want to claim that there is at least of grain of truth behind every "stereotype" or prejudice held by white people, then there _might_ just be a grain of truth -- let's say "a basis for the perception" -- behind certain ideas held by black people. Of course, it's always possible that we're talking about a "meme" - defined as a "unit of cultural information, such as a practice or idea, that gets transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another." A meme does not have to have a basis in fact -- it can be a wild idea that someone dreamed up, but which appeals to people because of their perceptions of the world, or their experiences in it. For example, the notion that the U.S. government "invented" AIDS for the purpose of exterminating blacks -- in both Africa and the U.S. -- is, arguably, a meme. It's a fanciful notion that is, nonetheless, widely believed for what might be called political/cultural reasons. But even so, someone looking for "evidence" is going to focus on the high incidence of AIDS in black prostitutes (as if that were otherwise unexpected) and its allegedly high incidence in Africa (passing up, for now, the temptation to discuss the known gross over-diagnosis of "African AIDS"). But what about Wright's other points? Are they memes too? Or just the workings of his feverish imagination? Or might there be something more to it? Let's have a look, shall we?

* Does the U.S. hate blacks? Well, we _claim_ to be giving them every break in the world, affirmative action and massive funding of remedial and social and "inner city" programs being offered as evidence. But we've also used them as stalking horses for "urban renewal", the main effects of which were to drive the working-class white ethnic groups out of American cities and to install blacks as a permanent, politically-malleable underclass. We've demolished organic, culturally-rich black neighborhoods and replaced them with sterile high-rises, which instantly become hotbeds of violence and drug abuse. We offer affirmative action programs and preferences, then whisper about the ones who take advantage of them that, well, they "only got as far as they got" because of all the help we gave them. And, yes, we pass laws against certain behaviors, like the use of certain kinds of drugs or even certain _forms_ of the same kind of drug -- laws which have wildly disproportionate "adverse impact", and yet no one ever raises their voice in protest -- except the likes of Rev. Wright. And much more could be said regarding the issue of whether the U.S. "hates" blacks. All I can say is that, given the evidence, it's hard to argue that someone should never develop that impression.

* Does the U.S. government give blacks drugs? Why don't we ask whether there is a blatant differential in drug-enforcement policy between black neighborhoods and, say, white suburban neighborhoods? Might it not be suggested that certain "inner city" areas have been, basically, "triaged" out of eligibility for law enforcement, particularly of the "war on drugs" kind? Does our drug policy result in ridiculously high profits for drug dealers, which encourages them to make drugs more widely available and to see to it that the customer base gets renewed on a regular basis? And finally, do we "treat" drug users with jail time more often than with genuine rehabilitation? Would the situation be any worse if we really _were_ giving the stuff away for free?

* Is jail part of an officially-sanctioned plan for blacks? I have written elsewhere on the "prison industry" in the U.S. It is a massive job-creating and job-perpetuating institution, and its livelihood depends on having a reliable and ever-burgeoning supply of what Tom Wolfe (in "The Bonfire of the Vanities") calls "the chow" -- i.e. the chronically-under-arrest, or in jail, or out-on-bond members of the underclass that are, in fact, the life blood of the system. The situation as it stands is that the rest of the country expects a lot of blacks to be in jail, and blacks expect a lot of their own number to be in jail; it's taken for granted -- that's just the way things are. So no one objects because no one wants to admit that, as often as not, the law creates criminals. In particular, the law becomes a tool by which a dominant group can persecute the members of a non-dominant group, by picking out things they do or like, or their vulnerabilities, and declaring them "illegal". So if it turns out that blacks, for whatever reason, are prone to drug abuse, then the logical thing to do is pass laws against the abuse of those drugs that are especially common in the black world, and less common in the white world. So the ruling class gets to claim that it has "done its duty", the voting majority get a warm, fuzzy feeling knowing that there is a vast, jailed underclass in America and that they aren't in it, and the "justice" system gets the care and feeding it is accustomed to.

* Is genocide part of an officially-sanctioned plan for blacks? Well, let's see. "Abortion rights" was a movement started by white liberals. The Roe v. Wade decision was decided by, and applauded by, white liberals. Black women troop into abortion clinics by the thousands every day to undergo abortions, many of them entirely or partially government-funded, performed by, overwhelmingly, white doctors. I think a black person would have to be half blind to _not_ see something very sinister in all this. And secondly, how about the apparently limitless supply of guns of all types in the "ghetto"? Where on earth do they all come from -- I mean, seriously? And where do all those African "rebel groups" get all _their_ guns? I mean, these are people who are lucky to get one yam to eat all day long. But they have an arsenal that would put the Normandy invasion to shame. Draw your own conclusions; I've already drawn mine.

* Are blacks poor because of a government plot? Well, to begin with, American blacks are hardly "poor" by world standards. But they have it drilled into them, all day long, that they _are_ poor, by politicans looking for votes and for support for collectivist programs. So maybe this "poorness" is, at least in part, a meme -- but if so it's a government-sponsored one. And we can also count on that same system to make it difficult for that politically-reliable "poor" group to achieve actual prosperity -- by, for example, insisting that their kids attend the same hell-hole schools generation after generation. So -- bottom line -- I can't swear that there are government programs with the explicit mission to keep blacks poor. What I _can_ guarantee, however, is that there are great numbers of government programs that _depend_ on blacks (or someone) being, and staying, poor.

* Are blacks sick because of a government plot? Well, let's think about what contributes to "sickness". One thing is ignorance (schools again) -- another is bad food (junk food is the cheapest and most available of any food in the "inner city" -- how come?) -- another is substance abuse (see discussion of drugs, and note also that in many inner city areas the _only_ retail store on some blocks is the liquor store) -- and another is, quite frankly, just feeling like, what's the use, you're only going to get crapped on. (See any part of the above discussion.)

So I think we have to give Rev. Wright his due. It doesn't take much of a conspiracy theorist to realize that there is something terribly wrong with the "system" in its approach to the race issue. And yes, Rev. Wright may be dealing with the meme more than the reality when it comes to AIDS, but on the other points I'd say he was on pretty firm ground. And I'll bet Obama thinks so too -- but it doesn't play too well in Punxsutawney.