Gingrich Wins in the "Sahara of the Bozart"
by Walter C. Uhler
Racism is alive and well in
the Republican Party of South Carolina. You saw it up close and personal
if you watched the recent presidential debates in that state and heard
symbolic racists in the audience cheer Newt Gingrich every time he
offered up the newest racial code words.
Code words are required in the Sahara of the Bozart because ugly overt
racism needed to be replaced and has been replaced by what scholars call
"symbolic racism"- "a coherent set of beliefs including the sense that
discrimination is no longer an obstacle for blacks, that their current
lack of upward social mobility is caused by their unwillingness to work
hard, that they demand too much of government, and that they have
received more than they deserve." [Vincent L. Hutchings and Nicholas A.
Valentino, "The Centrality of Race in American Politics," Annual Review
of Political Science 2004. 7:p. 390]
Code words took over, because, as Republican political operative Lee
Atwater once put it: "You start out in 1954 by saying 'Nigger, nigger,
nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' - that hurts you. Backfires. So
you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff.
You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting
taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic
things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than
whites." [Bob Herbert, "Impossible, Ridiculous, Repugnant," New York
Times, Oct. 6, 2005]
Thus, South Carolina’s symbolic racists can now applaud Newt when he
calls President Obama “the food stamp president,” – notwithstanding the
fact that non-Hispanic whites far outnumber blacks as food stamp
recipients – just as they applaud his recommendation that “black
Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps.”
No wonder. Few symbolic racists possess the education to know, let alone
consider, that a study of over 100,000 businesses across America found
that nearly 1.2 million instances of overt job discrimination against
blacks, Latinos and Asian-Americans occur every year. They do not know,
let alone consider, that “a white man with a criminal record is more
likely to be called back for a job interview than a black man without
one, even when their credentials are the same.” [Tim Wise, Dear White America,
pp. 30-31] But, how better to rebut the despicably empty claims of
reverse discrimination, than by introducing such inconvenient facts?
Beyond those facts, there’s the long troubling history of how “lazy”
southern whites have employed blacks during the past four centuries. (As
Stephen Innes has written, in Creating the Commonwealth, “Where
there was a landed aristocracy based on slavery, as in Brazil or the
ante-bellum American South, an anti-work ethic ideology became common.”
p. 187]
Thus, after stealing land from Native Americans and forcing slaves to
work that land for them for some 250 years, lazy but predatory white
folk produced children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren who
recovered from the ass-whipping they suffered at the hands of Yankee
soldiers – and the 400,000 acres of South Carolina land given to former
slaves by General William Tecumseh Sherman in 1865 -- to impose Jim Crow
laws “essentially intended to criminalize black life” [Blackmon, p. 53]
across the south.
Good Christian white folk – like the ones who previously justified
slavery -- employed extrajudicial means, especially lynching, to
“terrorize” African-Americans. South Carolina was probably the most
egregiously racist of all the big lynching states – all southern – in
the country. Although its good folks only lynched 156 African-Americans
during the period 1882-1968, while Mississippi – its closest competitor
for most egregiously racist – lynched 539, Georgia 492, Texas 352,
Louisiana 335, and Alabama 299; South Carolina lynched only 4 whites, or
less than 3 percent of the African-Americans lynched there. Even the
fine white folk in Georgia, Newt Gingrich’s home state, had the
extrajudicial decency to lynch at last 7 percent as many whites as
African-Americans.
During most of those lynching years (in fact, up until World War II)
southern states re-enslaved African-Americans through the establishment
of American gulags (labor camps) that were systematically populated with
terrorized African-Americans, who had been arbitrarily arrested,
convicted, fined and then jailed for failure to pay the fine and sundry
fees associated with the adjudication of their arrest. Once securely
in jail, small town sheriffs and governing officials leased them out to
farmers and business owners until they worked off their fees and fines.
Thousands died under the unsanitary and harsh work regimes imposed by
good old white farmers and businessmen.
The crime of choice trumped up by these small town white racketeers was
“vagrancy,” a crime that curiously and coincidently touched few of the
down and out white folk roaming the south. (As Douglas A. Blackmon has
written in, Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War,
“After white South Carolinians led by Democrat Wade Hampton violently
ousted the last black government of the state in 1877, the legislature
promptly passed a law for the sale of the state’s four hundred black and
thirty white prisoners.” (p. 55))
In all, predatory white southerners exploited African-American slave
labor for some 250 years and African-American gulag labor for another 70
years. Is that what the members of the Tea Party have in mind, when
they talk about “taking our country back?”
Thus, I’m always amused when I hear Southerners like Gingrich recommend
that blacks should demand jobs. But, seriously, do such Southerners
even deserve the right to speak about the subject?
The spectacle of symbolic racism on display during the presidential
debates in South Carolina brought to mind an article written in 1917 by
the great journalist and thinker, H. L. Mencken. Titled, “The Sahara of
the Bozart,” Mencken argued that the Civil War had killed off most of
the best men that the South had to offer to American civilization. The
“white trash” that, generation after generation, reproduced itself would
have been bad enough for the region, but their preoccupation with race,
their need to keep the African-American down – which he called “the
cornerstone of all their public thinking” -- virtually guaranteed that
they would be unable restore the civilization they enjoyed during the
lives of Washington and Jefferson.
Thus, wrote Mencken, “for all its size and all of its wealth and all
the ‘progress’ it babbles of, it is almost as sterile, artistically,
intellectually, culturally, as the Sahara Desert.”
Now, I’d never go so far as to say that Mencken’s description accurately
captures southern life in its entirety. The South has its fair share of
artists, intellectuals and cultural centers. But it certainly captured
the life of those Republicans in South Carolina who applauded the
symbolic racism of Newt Gingrich a week ago
Walter C. Uhler is an independent scholar and freelance writer
whose work has been published in numerous publications, including The
Nation, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the Journal of Military
History, the Moscow Times and the San Francisco Chronicle. He also was
President of the Russian-American International Studies Association
(RAISA).
waltuhler@aol.com