Vision Circle

What's the problem with this scenario? First it isn't accurate in the academic sense...so those interested in studying this phenomenon would get the account wrong if they presented it in this fashion. Second it is based on a set of regressive assumptions about politics in black communities. Third it reifies the entire idea of racial difference to the point that it becomes very difficult for people outside of St. Louis to understand what exactly is occurring here.

What are some of the regressive assumptions here?

1. Black leadership is an organic trait.

Here I mean that black people don't necessarily need things like elections to figure out who their representatives should be. They can just "feel" it. They "know" when someone is down, and when someone ain't. Now to be honest, this last part is true. I can spot people who don't really like us a mile away. Looking through a striped McDonalds Happy Meal straw.

But the whole idea of "organic leadership" is problematic because it is at its base anti-democratic. How do you get rid of someone who isn't elected in the first place? How can you possibly hold these individuals accountable for their actions? From what I understand the members of the Black Leadership Roundtable are not elected as such. Donald Suggs is as cool as the other side of the pillow...but no one elected him. His position as owner of the St. Louis American does make him an influential figure in St. Louis as a whole, but that does not necessarily make him a "leader." And as far as I know Sharpton's "National Action Network" is just a shell designed to house his perm.

Ron Harris (journalist for the Post-Dispatch) notes that one of the problems that the Roundtable faced in hindsight was that they didn't deal with ELECTED LEADERS. I don't think they did this consciously...our ideas about black politics are at this point largely subconscious. We can write these narratives with our eyes AND our minds closed. Though elected officials are (by default of being elected) THE legitimate representatives of any community, the Roundtable felt that the black elected officials just didn't matter. It should come as no surprise that the folks raised up.

2. The Black Church is monolithic, political, and reaches all black people

Newsflash. Not all black people go to church. Not all black people are Christian. Not all black people believe in God! Even assuming that black church attendance is higher than white attendance, we're still talking about a shade over 50% if THAT. And these churches are very different from one another, mirroring the class and caste differences within the black community. Some of them are heavily political and engaged in outreach...some of them are apolitical and involved in nothing more than ensuring their parishoners get to heaven. Whatever the case, the churches even taken in sum do not represent the views of all black people, and going through the churches to reach black people (as opposed to other more traditional mechanisms) would be like trying to reach all whites by going to a Monday Night Football Game at the Rams stadium.

But again, this notion that blacks are organic and "deeply spiritual" cause both blacks and whites to make arguments about the centrality of the black church that really aren't warranted. And the idea that black people are deeply spiritual easily devolves into the argument that black people are overtly non-rational, which in turn easily devolves into the position that they are easily lead to engage in foolhardy political activities. Which in turn takes us to:

3. Marches constitute political action

We've got to get this idea that marches and boycotts are either the only avenue available or the political avenue of choice for black people. Marches are an old school tactic that was used largely to get media coverage that could in turn raise consciousness levels among the interested. THe problem here is that the march has become ubiquitous. MLK Holiday? March. Increase in the number of black prisoners? March. The Mayor of St. Louis draws a black district out of existence? March.

Black leaders without constituencies are tied to marches largely because these events legitimize them (instead of counting votes, you can just count marching heads to see how much of a "black leader" one is--see Million Man March). And folks who are upset and want a quick way to verbalize their problems have an outlet. But marches inevitably lead to symbolic victories. And a puffed up sense of accomplishment. As such while effective in some individual cases, marches are largely useless as a form of political activity.

4. Black people have one interest

Related to the idea that black leaders are organically grown like watermelon, is the notion that all black people have the same exact interest. While I'd say we all agree that white supremacy should be eradicated, there is a great deal of disagreement after that. Part of this disagreement is ideological-some of us tend towards the nationalist end, some of us toward the integrationist. But much of it is contextual and depends upon the circumstances. Take this event for instance. The Black Leadership Roundtable largely supports the reform agenda. But the workers who had their jobs cut (largely black) wish they had their jobs back. Class distinctions (plus some other stuff) explain these differences. While blacks who live on the North side don't want those schools closed, I'm willing to bet that blacks (particularly those not from St. Louis) are on another groove entirely, willing to gut those schools if it means they don't have to pay private tuition any longer.

The problem here is that by conflating all black interests together we miss the diversity of black people and to a certain extent take them out of society as it is lived. What I mean here is that whites differ on a number of issues based on class, or gender, or sexual orientation. Black people are subjugated by white supremacy, BUT THEY ARE STILL BESET BY THE SAME GENERAL ISSUES AS THEIR WHITE COUNTERPARTS.

A second problem is that if we assume that all blacks have the same interests, it isn't that hard for "black leaders" to cut deals with folks in power for what amounts to bottle deposits in the large scheme of things, and then bring those bottle deposits back to black people saying "look what WE got." Knowing damn well those bottle deposits can get those "black leaders" new Playstations...but them Playstations won't help black people as a whole do much of anything.

This problem is a BIG issue here, largely because the solution isn't going to be retracted....and the solution isn't going to be effective in the way that people want or expect. When I say the solution won't be retracted what I mean is that those jobs aren't going to be UNcut...and those schools aren't going to be UNclosed. So if black parents can't get that, what's going to happen is that some "black leader" will negotiate some type of settlement that will largely benefit that leader.

On the other hand, the types of resources really needed to transform St. Louis Public Schools aren't forthcoming. I strongly believe that given the dynamics of hypersegregation that hamstring public schools the feds have to kick in some serious loot to deal with the real problems. So that leaves members of the Black Leadership Roundtable unable to really do much more than shuffle some of the line-items around in hopes that manna from heaven will fall.

Posted by at September 9, 2003 07:20 PM | TrackBack