Answer the following question:
What is “the house that race built”? How are Baldwin’s ideas situation in comparison with King and Malcolm X?
Feel free to respond to anything else in the article that you find interesting, surprising, or troubling. There is a lot there.
The house that race built is defined by James Baldwin has this concern that blacks are looked upon as strangers, in their own country that they share equally with everybody else that lives here, and that this idea continues to resonate in our society. He tries to figure out how the nation is trying to come to grips with what it means to be a stranger in one’s own house.
Both James Baldwin, Martin Luther King Jr., and Malcolm X were some of the most important and poignant speech writers in American history. The article states, “Though there is a tendency to construct King and Malcolm X as a binary of black thought and action during that era, Baldwin—standing in between the titans of non-violent resistance and any-means-necessary self-defense—saw limitations to King’s edict of love for the oppressor and Malcolm X’s condemnation of “white devils.” Baldwin insisted on a different claim” (4). Baldwin believed that blacks should not be “strangers” in the house that they share equally with their “countrymen,” a house whose foundation was built with the hands of their ancestors and the mythology of race. Baldwin also wrote about Malcolm and the Nation of Islam in one of his books, but never explicitly mentions MLKs name in the book. “Like Malcolm, Baldwin found the philosophy of non-violent resistance shortsighted because it required blacks to bear the burdens of a “problem” and a history that they did not create themselves.”
What I found interesting was the last paragraph of the entire article. “Baldwin—whom I suspect is looking down on us from above, flicking a cigarette with one hand and sipping a cocktail with the other—is still asking when, if ever, the stranger will be fully embraced in the house that was built on race.” I think this sentence is extremely relatable to today’s times and sadly, I don’t think most African Americans would say that they do not feel like a stranger in their own home (the US).
The house that race built is a metaphor for the structure of the United States. This country was built upon a race caste system, and with this system, comes many contradictions that activists like Malcolm X, Dr. King, and Baldwin dealt with in their own ways. This country is the land of the free, but slavery didn’t actually end until the mid-twentieth century, and some would even argue that it still isn’t over because of the prison industrial system. This country is supposed to be a place where everyone can pull themselves up by the bootstraps, work hard, and eventually achieve the American Dream. However, this dream was built on the backs of people of color. Some do get the ultimate dream but there certainly are more barriers for some than others. Everyone is supposed to have equal opportunity but we know that’s not the case. The most interesting and troubling contradiction to me is the idea that the American identity has been strategically linked to whiteness. Therefore, those whose ancestors came here as immigrants in the earliest twentieth century are now somehow seen as more “American” than, for instance, my family that has been here since the eighteenth century. Black folks, quite literally, built this country, but we were othered from this country’s inception and we are still othered today.
It seems as if Baldwin’s insights were, in a way, a compromise between Dr. King’s and Malcolm X’s ideas as to black folks place in America, and how to make things better. Dr. King thought that we needed to love our oppressor. Although this seems counter-intuitive, it’s rather revolutionary. Malcolm X believed that black people needed to love the black community and learn that white folks have never loved them. However, I agree with Baldwin, in that I believe that neither ideology gets at the whole picture. Love will not dismantle white supremacy, it can’t. A movement can’t rely on moral suasion. I don’t believe that’s because, as Malcolm X would say, white people don’t have a conscience or morals. However, Baldwin also didn’t believe that white people were demonic and that we should hate them like X did. Baldwin believed in love, and he believed he had to remain an optimist. He said, “the transcendence of the realities of color, of nation, and of altars” (57). I’m still not sure what exactly he means by this but I take it to mean that this country (white folks) need to transcend their possessive investment in whiteness so that maybe we can start to come together in some way. I hope we discuss what he meant more in class.
Over spring break, I took my parents to see I Am Not Your Negro, which is a documentary based on the book that Baldwin was writing before he died. In the book he was writing, he was going to talk about how three of his friends had been assassinated: Medgar Evers, Dr. Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X. The film was packed with information and some of it definitely went over my head, but I’m really stuck on this idea that people of color and white people are experiencing two different Americas and are still seen as others to this day. That really hit home when the article started discussing Trayvon Martin because, with this election, there has been a lot of conversation around who belongs here. Zimmerman took it upon himself to decide that Trayvon didn’t belong. Now, we continue to have arguments about whose country this is. Oftentimes, if people of color express discontent with the country, then it goes straight to, “well if you don’t like it then leave”. To me, that sounds like something a landlord would say to a tenant. So, people really feel like they’ve somehow inherited authority to decide who belongs and who doesn’t but this is just as much white people’s land as it is black people’s land.
Finally, I thought two of the bolded quotes were interesting. First, “There is no reason that black men should be expected to be more patient, more forbearing, more farseeing than whites,” (55) I feel like this is still such a pertinent question both with questions surrounding protest politics and everyday interactions. For example, on different college campuses, there’s talk surrounding whether or not people of color should be able to have spaces that are targeted towards them. So, should black students be allowed to have a black lounge? Anyone would be welcome, but it would be a space set aside for black students. This then sparks the debate of, “if white people were to this then it would be racist” or “now we are self-segregating, and making race relations worse”, or “we need to make this space open and inclusive of everyone”. However, obviously, as Alexis has astutely noted, “it’s not like every white organization or institution sits back and argues about whether or not black people will feel comfortable in their spaces.”
I also really liked “The virtues of respectability will not protect black people—and black men in particular—from the potential dangers of police abuse.” (63) I feel like sometimes people feel like police abuse can be because of anything but implicit racial bias, so they oftentimes jump to respectability as the issue. “If black men would just pull up their pants.” “If they wouldn’t have a smart mouth” “If they didn’t break any law ever” etc. This still troubles me, especially when people I know, say things like this. My brother and I went to majority white schools. For awhile, it was a thing for the boys in middle school to have airsoft guns and play with them on the weekends. Pretty much every boy had one. So, when Tamir Rice got shocked, it surprised me to hear my white neighbor say, “well he shouldn’t have been waving that gun” like her sons did not wave their guns in the exact same way.
The house that race built refers to the United States as a whole. This country was built by slaves yet blacks are not treated as equals. Blacks are treated as stranger in “a house whose foundation was built with the hands of their ancestors” (54). Even though the US was built by slaves, blacks are still treated as inferior within the county. Blacks face large unemployment rates, poor education systems, and mass incarceration.
James Baldwin, Martin Luther King Jr., and Malcolm X all believed that love would lead to black acceptance in the US. However, their ideas of love were very different. King thought that blacks should “love thy enemy” and push aside negative feelings towards whites. Malcolm X, on the other hand, believed that blacks to learn to love themselves and understand that white people have never cared for them. Baldwin idea is a combination of King’s and Malcolm X’s ideas of love. He believed that King’s love thy oppressor was “shortsighted because it required blacks to bear the burdens of a “problem” and history that they did not create themselves” (55). He did not agree with Malcolm X either because his philosophy included hatred for others. Instead, Baldwin believes in love that transcends “the realities of color, of nation, and of altars” (57). I think that Baldwin is saying that people need to learn to accept one another despite race, nationality, and religion. This transcendence needs to be experienced by all people, otherwise nothing will change.
“The virtues of respectability will not protect black people – and black men in particular – from the potential dangers of police abuse” (63). I think that this line is interesting because some people believe that if blacks became more “respectable” they would be treated respectfully. However, this is not the case. There was a news story last year about a black therapist who was shot three times while trying help a person with autism. The autistic man had run away from a group home and the therapist was trying to bring the man back. In a video showing what had occurred, the therapist was lying on his back with his hands in the air telling police officers that the autistic man had a toy truck in his hand and was not dangerous. However, despite his actions, the therapist was shot three times in the leg. In this situation, the black therapist was clearly not a threat but was shot nonetheless. Respectability and context did not matter here as the black man was shot even though he was clearly not a threat.
http://www.businessinsider.com/an-unarmed-black-therapist-was-shot-by-florida-police-while-helping-an-autistic-patient-2016-7
The house built on race refers to the structural foundations of American society that has been built on the plight of African Americans. The metaphor encapsulates the contradictions of American society very well– blacks in America have had an instrumental yet subjugated role in the construction of American society. Yet despite this role blacks have by and large been alienated from these very structures that they have built. As a result blacks have become a stranger in a society that they are now inextricably apart of. As a result of their stranger status blacks are pariahs in their own world, which brings the prospects for reconciliation of racial tensions in to question. Whom should bear the burden of fixing the racial tensions between the groups when that tension is solely the creation of one party? James Baldwin wrestled with this question was wrestled, as well as Dr. King– though they came to very different conclusions: Dr. King believed that blacks had to be responsible and involved in the reconciliation between the races on the basis of love for all. Although Baldwin did not explicitly reference Dr. King when distinguishing between ideology, their positions are distinctly different. Baldwin did not believe it was the role of blacks to fix something that they did not break. But nor did Baldwin agree with Malcom X’s and the Nation of Islam’s reinvention of racial history on the basis of hatred. Baldwin did not believe that hatred was a requirement for blacks to gain equal footing in the society that they helped to construct. Yet he also vehemently insisted that the onus is on the government and white America to make equal room for blacks in our house.
I watched the debate referenced to in the article, between James Baldwin and William F. Buckley. I thought James Baldwin opened up the debate fantastically, his opening statement on the proposition, “has the American dream been at the expense of the negro people?” can be summarized as: when debating a proposition that has either negatively injured or benefited the debaters there will always be an unresolvable conflict over the fundamentals of the proposition.
Defined by James Baldwin, the house that race built is the United States of America, and the fact that blacks are looked upon as not Americans, but more so as outsiders. Baldwin goes as far as to say, “Many-if not most-of slavery’s descendants remain strangers today.” Throughout the text Baldwin is also compared to Malcolm X and MLK, and it is said he is believed to be somewhere in the middle of the two. “He believed that blacks should not be cast off as strangers in the house that they share with their “countrymen,” a house whose foundation was built with the hands of their ancestors as well as on the mythology of race.” This solidifies the point that Baldwin saw no reason that in the United States, a country built on freedom, should any man be denied freedom because of their race. However, I believe that many White Americans still see Blacks as strangers. A perfect example of this is George Zimmerman, and his fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin. To continue on this point, our judicial system still does what they can to uphold this idea, and this is seen by George Zimmerman’s non-guilty ruling. It is believed that Baldwin stood somewhere in between Malcolm X and MLK, and his ideology fit between non-violent and do-everything-you-can mentality. I believe that it is concerning that most people know exactly who Malcolm X and MLK are, however, not many people are familiar with Baldwin. In the end, I think Baldwin does a terrific job at getting his point out that Blacks are still considered strangers, even today.
The house that race built is an effective metaphor for the United States as racial systems literally built the country (slavery) and created social ideology that manifest itself in disparity as well as the exclusionary concept of being American. In their own country, or “house”, blacks continue to be excluded from the benefits pro white policies in jobs, housing, politics, education, justice system, and access to social space and continue to be limited by the reverberating, sedimenting side effects of slavery and Jim Crow. This infrastructure eliminates blacks from what allows others (no other group is as explicitly and unceasingly oppressed) to live freely and live in (or have a fair chance at) the ideal of being an American. As a corollary, this disparity has supported others in succeeding and furthering the notion of blacks as strangers in their own house. While Baldwin’s piece does not entirely display an central philosophy comparable to that of King or Malcom X, a balance between the two can be inferred. Baldwin leans more towards Kings peaceful belief in shared love for all, but Baldwin does not share the belief with King that this solely ideology can reconcile blacks unequal social standing. Similarly, Baldwin does not entirely agree with Malcom X’s hateful opposition and inward focus. Baldwin’s stance is more holistic and derives truths from both his predecessors. White supremacy is too complex and deeply ingrained to be tackled by either ideology and must be acknowledged and fought by all, especially the white patriarchy that stills controls our political and economic means.
“The house that race built,” refers to the United States, a country that was quite literally built upon the backs of slaves. Despite having provided the labor that the country capitalized upon, African Americans have been historically unable to reap any of the benefits of their ancestor’s slavery. Instead, they have been systematically denied the economic privileges that whites have received at their expense. Black people have been marginalized and treated as outsiders in “the house.” They built the house, but they are strangers in it. While Baldwin does advocate for loving all people, he does not ascribe to King’s proposal of “agape love” of loving one’s oppressors as a solution. It places an unfair burden on African Americans to have to both fight for the human rights that were denied them by white Americans, while also showing unconditional love for the people oppressing them and throwing them in jail for fighting for those rights. The stories in the article also shed light on the fact that even when blacks are completely respectable, they still suffer from oppression and blatant murder. The solution lies more in whites acknowledging their own wrongdoing, rather than forcing blacks to be perfect, because they will still not get the respect they deserve. The article says that, “Baldwin found the philosophy of non-violent resistance shortsighted because it required blacks to bear the burdens of a “problem” and a history that they did not create themselves.” I think that this is especially significant because white Americans often try to alter that history by claiming that the problems faced by the black community were brought on by themselves, similar to the cultural racism frame illustrated by Bonilla-Silva. White Americans tend to try to spin it that black people are the problem, not the racism of whites. If one were to ascribe completely to Malcolm’s ideas, then we would lose out on the necessary component of love for other humans, but if we ascribe completely to King’s ideas, it’s possible that we would forget that it is not black people’s job to appease white people and fix racism through their respectability. The article also demonstrates the importance of not losing sight of the humanity in your oppressors. The story of the white man, Steven Utash, being saved by the black woman Deborah Hughes, and her response that, “He was a man, he wasn’t white,” showed that dehumanizing white people will not solve the problem of racism either. Baldwin’s views fall between love and humanization for enemies, without resorting to the politics of respectability, while still demanding that the people who established the systematic oppression in the first place help you dismantle it.