STUDYING SLAVERY
We began last week's column discussing Berkeley
resident Michael Larrick's opposition to the petition to change the name of Berkeley's
Jefferson Elementary School, outlined in Mr. Larrick's April 19th Berkeley Daily
Planet commentary in which he wrote that "Black Americans and their leaders
would be far better served if they would address the real problems in black education
instead of the superficial and misleading issue of the name of a school." [Advocates
of the Jefferson name change–who were both black, white, Native American, and other
variations, by the way–said they didn't want the school named after Thomas Jefferson
because of Jefferson's lifelong status as a man who personally kept Africans in slavery.]
We ended with the promise to pursue the question: does the so-called "achievement
gap" between black and white students have some roots in American plantation
slavery and could a serious study of slavery reveal those causes and have a hand
in the cure?
Some thoughts.
To know and understand the nature of our universe, serious scientists tell us that
we must study the Big Bang, that enormous explosion at the beginning of Time as we
know it, when the universe was formed. The idea here is that all of the vast and
almost unbelievable complexities of the universe had their root in miniscule differences
within and between early pre-atomic matter and that seeing the conditions at the
earliest stages of the Bang, we can follow their pathways as they spread out to become
the black holes and pulsars and gas giants and dark matter across the billions and
billions of light years that constitute what we call space.
So it is with slavery and African-Americans.
Before the American slave trade there was no such people as African-Americans. Slavery
was a vast funnel in which Twi-speaking and Hausa-speaking people, Mende and Wolof
and such were poured in at one end on the West Coast of Africa, and what we now call
African-Americans came out the other, walking off the plantations at the end of the
Civil War. The dark passage inside that funnel forged most of the attitudes and kinship
bonds and contradictions and attributes-both good and bad-we see played out among
black folk today, from the Lousiana backroads to the streets of East Oakland to the
halls of Congress.
One such set of contradictions concerns the issue of education.
In his commentary, Mr. Larrick writes that "Black anthropologist and author
Dr. John Ogbu has … found that the very same problems [of race, opportunity and responsibility]
plagued both [less affluent] Oakland and the affluent black suburb of Cleveland,
Shaker Heights Ohio. Black students were absent more often, did less homework, watched
more television and had less involved parents. They did not value education and in
fact, if a black student were doing well in school he was chastised by his peers.
If you live up to your academic potential you are accused of acting white. He found
that the students own attitudes hindered their academic achievement."
Seen in isolation, the evidence of such attitudes among some black students is either
inexplicable, like the tale of the man shot over a watermelon, or else leads to the
conclusion–by some–that African-Americans are trifling, lazy, and stuck in our present
condition pretty much because of our own inabilities.
In fact, the term "acting white" is actually a pale echo of the slavery-time
charge of "acting like the masta'," and was part of the fierce cultural
wars that took place between those African captives who thought freedom–and even
mere survival–lay in adopting white folks' ways and those who believed that those
goals could only be met by maintaining the old African cultures and resisting being
sucked into what has been called a "slave mentality." You can pretty much
see that same struggle played out among pretty much all long-term captive or colonized
peoples.
Clearly, a serious study of that slaverytime struggle would be helpful in understanding
black attitudes over education today, which continue to be just as contradictory.
Then why hasn't such a study been undertaken? Mostly because a dark veil hangs over
America's slave history that is difficult to penetrate.
One of the most successful strategies of American slavery–from the point of view
of the slavemasters, of course–was to put the shame of slavery on the Africans themselves.
That undercurrent of low black self-esteem is at the root of many present difficulties
among African-Americans, none more so than the one that finds most African-Americans
ashamed and embarassed even to this day to have a serious discussion on what exactly
happened during slavery.
Repressed shame, too, plays some part in the white reluctance to have that discussion.
It gets played out in the nagging and largely unspoken fear of what might be revealed
by such an investigation, as well as by companion attitudes of "haven't we already
dealt with that enough?" or "didn't we already make up for all of that
with a. the Civil War, b. the civil rights acts, c. recent Supreme Court decisions
or d. some combination of all of those?"
That's a subject for another discussion.
But a revealing thing happened during the recent debate over the proposed renaming
of Berkeley's Jefferson Elementary School.
I attended a mid-May meeting at the school in which for the first time in my life,
I saw ordinary people–not just politicians or policy makers or folks with some agenda
to promote, whether good or bad–have an honest and serious discussion about American
slavery, its ramifications, and its implications. This Jefferson School discussion
was participated in by people of many ethnic backgrounds.
I think that discussion happened for two reason.
The first was that the proposal to change the school name forced people–black, white,
and other races–to enter a difficult discussion that they might have otherwise ducked.
But the second reason, I believe, was that by focusing on Jefferson's relation to
slavery rather than a general charge of white people's complicity in slavery, the
discussion allowed whites to participate without having to come in the door with
guilt-coats draped over their shoulders. It permitted a detatchment which will certainly
have to be modified if these types of talks go deeper, but which appeared to be absolutely
necessary as a first step.
That spirit of cooperative soul-searching, I'm afraid, got overshadowed in the incidents
surrounding the School Board vote itself over the name change. But it's something
that existed for a brief moment in time and space, and therefore we know it can be
done.
Looking at the public education systems of the three major cities of the inner East
Bay–Oakland, Berkeley, and Richmond–you see all of them dominated by the often unspoken
issue of how to educate black youth. How is the achievement gap to be closed? How
to do it while at the same time lifting the education of all students? No-one has
come up with any easy answers. But perhaps a three-city cooperative effort in a long-term
project of the study of American slavery-using it both as a research effort and student
education tool, perhaps with related essay contests and events, perhaps with a Slavery
Institute operating out of one of the community colleges-would be an important step
in the right direction to explore causes and, out of them, formulate solutions. Looking
backwards is sometimes the best way to move forward. The Jefferson School name change
discussion may have shown us a way, and, if so, it would have ended up doing an enormous
good.