Constructive Racial Loyalty?

I post here far less frequently than I ought, but guest-blogger Brando Simeo Starkey's recent post asking whether a man named Julius Henson is a traitor to his race rouses me from my blogging slumber.

I wish to comment on only one of several troubling facets to the post:  history has shown, many times over and in countless racial and religious contexts, that calls for racial solidarity of this sort (and for reproaching those who breach it) end in violence.  Murdered Jews alleged to have collaborated with the Nazis; severely beaten Japanese Americans branded as "inu" ("dogs") in the WWII camps in the USA; hounded Palestinians alleged to have collaborated with Israeli occupation; and on and on.  

I seriously doubt that this is what Professor Starkey has in mind, of course, but to call for "constructive racial loyalty" without taking account of how often such calls produce destructive behavior seems to miss an important part of the picture.

 

Comments

[Brando Simeo Starkey]

Interesting post. In my book, I discuss both destructive behavior and destructive racial loyalty norms and argue that blacks should steer clear of both. So the picture you think I might have missed, I actually painted in full detail. But I'll go through my book to make sure I hit the point home. So thanks for the comment.

But what's your ultimate point? That enforcing racial loyalty is bad because some go entirely too far? Should we reject religion because some use religion as a justification for atrocities? Should we reject democracies because some majorities will trample upon the rights of minorities?

Racial solidarity requires people to be loyal to the group. Do you know how often Martin Luther King called people Uncle Toms? Do you know how often Thurgood Marshall did the same? Moderate leaders in the civil rights movement realized that some blacks worked on behalf of white supremacist organizations to thwart their work. I think King and Marshall were wise to publicly condemn such people and to do using the language of racial loyalty. Such norm maintenance not only taught blacks how to fight for their rights, but it served as a deterrent to others who might engage in similar dastardly deeds.

[Matt]

It seems to me to be worth while to explore the limits of what might be acceptable as a form of racial solidarity before we ask if it's a good idea, all things considered, to pursue any forms that are acceptable in themselves. So, beating people up and murdering them are pretty clearly going to be outside the limits, at least in anything but the most unusual cases. That leaves a lot of ground, though. When, if ever, is it acceptable for members of a group to only patronize stores run by members of the same group? When is verbal criticism acceptable? When might a norm of racial or group in-dating be acceptable? Those all seem to be to be open and interesting questions. Of course, we might well decide that while such practices are sometimes acceptable in themselves, they are too likely to lead to unacceptable actions if implemented. But even if that's so, it doesn't make the first question uninteresting or important.

[Larry Rosenthal]

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 93 percent of all Black homicide victims from 1980 through 2008 (the most recent year for which statistics are available) were killed by Blacks. Curious that Professor Starkey seems more concerned about whether Julius Henson's robocalls undermine his conception of racial solidarity. If Professor Starkey wishes to address the problem of racial solidarity, perhaps a better place to start would be black-on-black homicide, an issue on which the New York City Police Department appears to have made far more progress than the advocates of "racial solidarity."

Larry Rosenthal
Chapman University School of Law

[Matt]

Larry, I assume that we all agree that no one should murder anyone, regardless of the race of the victim. That's obvious. But why would that be in any way relevant to the question Brando was interested in in his post, or rule it out as an interesting question? I'll admit that your comment here strikes me as a pretty massive non sequitur. Can you explain why, even if the statistics you cite indicate a lack of racial solidarity (I'm not sure that's the right way to see it, but maybe it is) it would mean we shouldn't be interested in the other question, or why the question of whether Henson's actions are _merely_ vile, or also have this other bad characteristic, isn't worth thinking about?

[Mlk]

Do you really not see the relevance? Blacks killing other blacks does not further solidarity.

[Matt]

"Blacks killing other blacks does not further solidarity."

Has anyone denied this? But why would that have any relevance for the question Brando is interested in? As far as I can see, it has no relevance for that question, or for whether it's an interesting question. So, bringing it up here is a non sequitur. I suspect it's also a form of trolling, but perhaps Larry can explain why it's relevant.

(Sometimes Larry seems to suggest that, before anyone can spend time on the questions that they are interested in, they must first address the questions that Larry is interested in. Thankfully, this isn't so.)

[anon]

Leave it to Matt to always attack personally the others who post here.

[Matt]

Where are my "personal attacks" here, anon? If I "always" do this I suppose it will be easy to point out several. Please do note that neither asking why a question is relevant nor suggesting that Larry seems to try to switch discussions to what interests him is a "personal attack". Even better would be for you to address the interesting post. That's much more interesting than me!

[anon]

"I suspect it's also a form of trolling ..."

Questioning Larry's motives.

"Sometimes Larry seems to suggest that, before anyone can spend time on the questions that they are interested in, they must first address the questions that Larry is interested in."

Follow you own advice, Matt. Address the issue. This comment is just a bizarre, snide attack. You wrongly attack Larry personally, and imply that Larry believes his interests to be more important than Brando's.

Why not just follow your own advice, and stick to the issue?

[anon]

"Sometimes Larry seems to suggest that, before anyone can spend time on the questions that they are interested in, they must first address the questions that Larry is interested in."

Here, also, Matt is bringing in unspecified other instances of conduct by Larry ("before anyone" "they must"): a hallmark of the ad hominem argument is attacking a person's supposed characteristics.

[Brando Simeo Starkey]

Matt, aside from me, is the only one to post a reply that was responsive to my actual research question -- which was the focus of this post.

[Larry Rosenthal]

I am grateful to have been educated by Matt and Professor Starkey's helpful comments. I now understand that I should not endeavor to discourage others from "spend[ing] time on the questions that they are interested in," unless that person is guilty of "racial treachery," in which case we should encourage discussion of how best to go about inhibiting race traitors from exercising their rights to free speech under the First Amendment (which, as far as I can tell, is the only offense of Julius Henson).

In my defense, I can only write that at the time of my original comment, I had believed (wrongly, I now see), that it was anomalous to characterize as "racial treachery" (a phrase that has a familiar ring -- I must do some research to determine who first popularized that concept) an instance in which African American exercises his right to free speech by making statements that are regarded as inconsistent with interests of the African American community as a whole, when black-on-black homicide represents what I had thought was a far more serious threat to the welfare of the African American community as a whole (or at least the portion of that community that, unlike law professors, is forced by economic circumstances to live in high-crime disadvantaged neighborhoods where black-on-black homicide is concentrated). Now I know better.

Larry Rosenthal
Chapman University School of Law

[Matt]

Anon,

This is the last time I'll address this, as I hope some people will add to the original, interesting, question. (I should note that, as Brando points out, I started off by addressing the issue, and only when Larry tried to take it in a completely unrelated way did I suggest that this was a mistake. This in turn lead to your intervention.)

For an example of this sort of behavior in the past by Larry, please his his comment, an my reply, here:

http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2010/07/field-trips-for-law-school-classes.html

It's just one example from many one could find, if one had more interest in spending time on Larry than I do. (You'll see why this one in particular sticks in my mind.) This also goes to your second comment. It's a typical example, as was the one in this post, of Larry trying to shift the topic away from the post to something largely irrelevant that is of interest to him. Now, maybe that doesn't show that he thinks his interests are more important than those of others. There are other possible explanations, of course, though none very flattering. But this seems like a pretty plausible explanation to me.

I think you're confused about what a "personal attack" would be. Saying that Larry seems to be engaged in trolling isn't a "personal" attack- it's a remark about the type of activity he's engaged in. In this way it has the same logical form as your saying that I'm engaged in a personal attack. Now, perhaps I'm wrong about Larry. If so, I've made a false claim, but that doesn't make this a "personal attack". If I'd said, "Larry is a troll so you should ignore him", it would be closer, but that's not what I've done. Similarly, if you'd said, "Matt is a jerk, so ignore him", you'd be engaged in a personal attack. As it is, neither of us is doing that here.

Next, I don't engage in an ad hominem. I make a claim about Larry's behavior on blogs, as documented above. That statement is directly relevant to the issue at hand- whether Larry's comment has any relation to the discussion. If a person's behavior is relevant to the discussion, it's not an ad hominem to bring it up. Many people are confused about what an ad hominem is, but this isn't one. (If I'd said, "Larry is a mean guy, so don't pay attention to him", or "Larry is a Republican, so don't believe his arguments", that would be an ad hominem. I hope you can see how this is relevantly different.)

Next, even if my comment is snide, that too doesn't make it a personal attack. You are right that I didn't specify the cases where Larry has tried to change the subject to one that he thinks is interesting, but that is at best very marginally connected to the topic of the post. I've provided an example now, and if I had any desire I could provide more. I'm sure others come to mind to people who read law blogs. As far as I can tell, this deals with all of your examples, and shows that they are not "personal attacks" in any relevant sense. Now, do you have anything to add to the discussion? If so, please do add it.

[anon]

Matt:
"In this way [my comment] has the same logical form as your saying that I'm engaged in a personal attack."
This is, of course, another ad hominem attack. It is in the form of "Ad hominem tu quoque."
It seems you are confused about the meaning of an "ad hominem" attack. Therefore, you are more likely to continue.
Saying Larry was "trolling" was implying that he posted a comment for an improper ulterior motive: to provoke an emotional response. This was an ad hominem attack because it didn't address the merits of Larry's point.
Why not just admit it and move on?
Saying that Larry was wrong in other instances also had nothing to do with the merits of Larry's post in this thread. You made, and now you are repeating, your argument that Larry is a bad actor, and is acting badly again. Of course, this doesn't address the merits of Larry's post: it is just another ad hominem attack.
Why not just admit it and move on?

[Brando Simeo Starkey]

Anon,

What claim is Matt saying is false because of a previous comment or action of Larry's?

For an actual personal attack see this post: http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2010/06/my-new-book-acting-white.html

[anon]

Matt is claiming that black homicide rates are irrelevent because Larry is a troll.

[Matt]

"Matt is claiming that black homicide rates are irrelevent because Larry is a troll."

Uh, no.

[anon]

Then why did you say it, Matt?
You've lost the debate, Matt.

[Brando Simeo Starkey]

Two things anon:

First, Matt never said that. This is what Matt said: "As far as I can see, it has no relevance for that question, or for whether it's an interesting question. So, bringing it up here is a non sequitur. I suspect it's also a form of trolling, but perhaps Larry can explain why it's relevant." Matt, in other words, argued that black homicide had no relevance to my research. He's right. It doesn't. To claim otherwise is a gross misreading of what was actually said.

Second, even if Matt said that "that black homicide rates are irrelevent because Larry is a troll" (which he didn't) you have conceded that Matt is not guilty of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque. Ad Hominem Tu Quoque is a logical fallacy. Going to this website will help you understand why you're wrong. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html

Here's a breakdown of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

"Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false."

If Matt said that Larry once claimed that black homicide rates were irrelevant and used that to knock down Larry's argument, then you would have something. But Matt did nothing of the sort. You, therefore, have nothing. Nothing.

I'm not sure why you've chosen to enter this debate, argue the losing side, and then proclaim victory, but I think it's best if we just moved on.

[anon]

Brando:
You are pointing to the wrong comment.
I said Matt was making an ad hominem attack. Matt's response was, "I am wrongly accused; if fact, you are making an ad hominem attack!"
Thus, the classic Ad Hominem Tu Quoque. He had no reason to call another person a troll. It was just a bit of nasty blogging.
This thread was started to debate the potentially destructive nature of your references to "racial treachery."
The post started: "I seriously doubt that this is what Professor Starkey has in mind, of course, but to call for "constructive racial loyalty" without taking account of how often such calls produce destructive behavior seems to miss an important part of the picture."
Malcolm X comes to mind.
Larry contended that homicide is more detrimental than the supposed voter suppresion that you said amounted to "racial treachery." In other words, if it is "racial treachery" for one man to have suppressed the black vote, then what of the rampant homicide in the black community. Larry didn't say it directly, but I took his point to be that your attack on one man as a "race traitor" was an inappropriate way to make your point.
You could have condemned voter suppression without reference to that person's race. But, your point was to focus on that person's race. You wanted to condemn that man, in particular, based on race.
I'll have more to say in response that focus. I anticipate you will be posting many more of these blog entries advancing your notions of "racial treachery. “