Religion
Related: About this forumSlaves like Us: American Atheists on the Plantation
March 12, 2012 at 5:56 am
Look, A Negro! My body was returned spread eagled, disjointed, re-done, in mourning on this white winters day. Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks
By Sikivu Hutchinson
The black body has always been an object of deep and abiding obsession in the American imagination. Be it cavorting in funky abandon on a dance floor, vaulting off a basketball court in dunk mode, suckling apple-cheeked white babies, trotted out in a police line-up, or greased down, poked, prodded and staged on a slave auction block, the black body occupies that mystical place between corporeality and supernaturalism. Recently, American Atheists, a predominantly white group with a largely white leadership, slapped up a billboard in a Harrisburg, Pennsylvania neighborhood featuring a picture of a shackled naked black slave and a bible quote that said slaves obey your masters. The ad was intended to protest Pennsylvanias boneheaded declaration of 2012 as the so-called Year of the Bible. Much to the astonishment of AA reps, the billboard was reviled, defaced, and labeled a hate crime by some in the African American community. Apparently offended black folk just werent intelligent enough to grasp the sage lesson that American Atheists, prominent champion of anti-racist social justice, was trying to teach them. Instead, some misconstrued the message as racist, concluding that, in a country where white nationalists have issued a clarion call to take back the nation from the Negro savage/illegal alien in the White House, slaves obey your masters probably still means them.
In the 2002 documentary RaceThe Power of an Illusion, Harvard science historian Evelynn Hammonds discusses how much of 19th century scientific inquiry on racial difference revolved around black bodies: If we just take African Americans as an example, theres not a single body part that hasnt been subjected to this kind of analysis. Youll find articles in the medical literature about the Negro ear, and the Negro nose, and the Negro leg, and the Negro heart, and the Negro eye, and the Negro foot and its every single body part. And theyre constantly looking for some organ that might be so fundamentally different in size and character that you can say this is something specific to the Negro versus whites and other groups. Scientists are part of their social context. Their ideas about what race is are not simply scientific ones, are not simply driven by the data that they are working with. That its also informed by the societies in which they live.
Hammonds underscores the political invention of the black body through the lens of scientific objectivity. The legacies of slavery and scientific research dovetailed with the popular display of black bodies as the ultimate site of racial otherness. These legacies shape the experience of walking, driving and breathing while black. They inform the terror of being a carefree teenager out for a casual stroll in the kind of private gated community where 14 year-old Trayvon Martin was shot and killed recently by a white neighborhood watch captain in Orlando, Florida. The case made national headlines due to the curious fact that three weeks after the murder, the shooter (who claimed he was acting in self-defense) has not been charged and is still walking around free. According to Martins family Trayvon was found with candy and ice tea on his body.
In the Harrisburg incident some black residents spewed anti-atheist slurs and labeled the AA group the Antichrist. Vandals tore part of the billboard down and it was removed shortly after it was mounted. But AAs ahistorical paternalistic approach to secular public service messaging is one of the main reasons why New Atheism is still racially segregated and lily white. Clearly AA doesnt give a damn about the reality of urban communities of color in the U.S. vis-à-vis the institutional role of organized religion in a white supremacist capitalist context. In my book Moral Combat: Black Atheists, Gender Politics, and the Values Wars I ground my critique of American religiosity in the social history of residential segregation and the cultural context of actual black communities. Northern cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, Cleveland, Detroit and Milwaukee rank among the top ten most segregated cities in the U.S. All those churches that white folk have the luxury of not seeing in the segregated black neighborhoods they bypass on the expressway arent there because blacks are ignorant, backward neo-slaves; theyre there in part because urban retail, commercial and green space development is moribund in the so-called ghetto. Take a ten minute drive from South Central Los Angeles (a racist misnomer used to ghettoize any predominantly black neighborhood in L.A. regardless of geographic location) to predominantly white West L.A. and the storefront churches, liquor stores, check cashing places, and bail bonds offices vanish while parks, schools, grocery stores, businesses, office parks, and retail centers proliferate.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/blackskeptics/2012/03/12/slaves-like-us-american-atheists-on-the-plantation/
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And I hope that AA, which has issued an apology, becomes more thoughtful and sensitive as a result.
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)happened. I'm not surprised that this billboard was vandalised and torn up before being taken down. the church has ALWAYS been central to black folks as it was the nexus of the civil rights struggle. Amen, CBayer, Amen! .
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)If it had actually addressed the legitimacy of the message that was intended, that the God blacks worship never said a word condemning or forbidding slavery in any of the long lists of social and moral rules and restrictions laid out in the Bible, and that the Word of God supports or implicitly condones the practice in many places, the one quoted on the billboard being only one of them. The author manages to talk a lot about anatomy, but says not one word about the really central issue. Why is that, one supposes, if not that the point made hits a little too close to home for his pseudo-intellectual erudition to cope with?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)... therefore criticism of the bible for condoning slavery is off-limits, when AAs are the most likely audience"?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)already been said, and said very eloquently by those who found this offensive.
The message that you describe (criticism of the bible....) was not conveyed by this billboard. The complaints about it do not speak to that message at all. The wording and imagery were poorly chosen, offensive and clearly did not convey what the group meant for it to convey.
Are you a member of any marginalized groups, Muriel? If so, and you tell me that certain words or images are offensive to you, would you not expect that I would listen to you about that out of personal respect?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)but I'm not sure it's really the equivalent. I don't see myself as that marginalised (especially in the UK), but what I object to there is the accuracy of 'militant' - an adjective applied to people like me. In this case, the billboard did not try to say anything whatsoever about African Americans. The target was the PA House of Reps, and the Bible. The blog in the OP does seem, to me, to be saying "black churches are OK with what the Bible says, and so therefore atheists shouldn't attack it when speaking to African Americans". It seems ot me that such a stance would hurt the blogger's desire for the greater involvement of African Americans in the atheist community - he seems to be saying "black churches have the right to speak for the whole African American community".
I agree the wording and imagery were poorly chosen, and clearly did not convey what the group meant for it to convey, and I can see why; and they were offensive, because many African Americans were offended. Therefore we need a clear explanation of why it was offensive (because I would not have predicted that before; I wouldn't have said the use of the metaphor "told to get to the back of the bus" was offensive to African Americans, for instance, though that is a clear reference to an injustice done to them).
I just disagree that the explanations of why this was offensive are 'eloquent'. I think they have been rather vague.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I know you have read these lines, but I want to reiterate them:
"Apparently offended black folk just werent intelligent enough to grasp the sage lesson that American Atheists, prominent champion of anti-racist social justice, was trying to teach them. Instead, some misconstrued the message as racist, concluding that, in a country where white nationalists have issued a clarion call to take back the nation from the Negro savage/illegal alien in the White House, slaves obey your masters probably still means them. "
Having lived in DC, the south side of Chicago and the deep south, I have had a lot of contact with different African American communities in this country. Maybe that was why I saw this as outrageous from the beginning and am not at all surprised at the anger from the targeted community.
I've known you for quite awhile, and I am having trouble understanding your tone deafness here. It seems out of character.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 14, 2012, 06:47 AM - Edit history (1)
That's the point. To remind people of the conspicuous failure of the Christian god and Bible to condemn the very offensive institution of slavery. Apparently that's something that people just can't bear to be confronted with, because any rational resolution of it damages their worldview beyond repair.
Did anyone rational person seriously think that the message was that atheists were fond of slavery and would like to see it reinstated? Or that the billboard was a painful reminder of something that African Americans would just as soon forget? If those were the gripes about the billboard, then they were not reality-based or reasonable. Any more than the response of a student who got their knickers in a twist because their professor used the word "niggard" in a lecture.
Ian David
(69,059 posts)"Martin in the third cubicle is African-American. Let's ask him if he likes it."
"You mean the intern?"
"Yeah. Hey, Martin. Do you think this billboard will appeal to African-American Atheists?"
"Uhm. Sure."
"It's not offensive or anything, is it?"
"Uhh... well... not really."
"Great! Let's put it on a billboard! Then we can get started on the billboard for Jewish people with the photo of Auschwitz."