Negroes and the Gun

Negroes-and-the-gun
Play

This next Liberty Law Talk is with Nick Johnson on his new book Negroes and the Gun: The Black Tradition of Arms. Johnson writes that “The black tradition of arms has been submerged because it seems hard to reconcile with the dominant narrative of nonviolence in the modern civil rights movement.” Added to this, Johnson observes, was the rise of a “new black political class” that came to prominence “within a progressive political coalition that included the newly minted national gun control movement.” “The burgeoning black political class,” he writes, “embraced gun bans and lesser supply controls as one answer to violent crime in their new domains. By the mid-1970s, these influences had supplanted the generations old tradition of arms with a modern orthodoxy of stringent gun control.”

The full history, however, of the black tradition of arms ought not be submerged. The historical record that we discuss – it includes runaway slaves defending their communities from slave catchers and blacks in the Jim Crow South defending life and property – uncovers a tradition that affirms guns as essential to self-defense while avoiding their use in organized political resistance. For reasons not difficult to imagine, the conceptual separation between these two notions of self defense and political resistance was difficult, at times, to maintain in practice. Finally, Johnson notes that it was two black plaintiffs, Shelly Parker and Otis McDonald, would-be beneficiaries of enlightened, progressive supply-control policies, who led the lawsuits against strict gun prohibitions in Washington, D.C. and Chicago that recently bolstered every American’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Friday Roundup, October 25th

  • Twilight of the American Republic: The new Liberty Law Talk presents a different way of thinking about American Exceptionalism. This discussion with author Justin Litke considers how the twentieth century emergence of an expansive American Exceptionalism relates to the frayed constitutional consensus of the American founding.

Negroes and the Gun

I have been away from this page for several months, working on book that is now nearing completion. Thought I would say hello again and give a preview of the book. You may recall my posts responding to eruptions from Bob Costas, Jason Whitlock and Danny Glover. Those posts tried to retrieve the debate from the swirl of myths, absurdities and glib chatter that often afflict the intersection of race, gun rights and firearms regulation. I have spent a substantial part of my scholarly effort over the years within that intersection. The culmination of that work so far, is my forthcoming book Negroes and the Gun: The Black Tradition of Arms (Prometheus, Jan. 2014). I am still working through copyedits but Amazon already has the pre-order page up.

Negroes and the gunI expect to be talking about the book in a variety of places during 2014. I also plan to work some of the themes from the book into this page as I pick up the blog again. I have posted the Introduction to the book below to give the flavor of it. All I will add for now is that I have known about this story for a very long time, but until I launched fully into the research for the book I did not appreciate its extraordinary richness. Almost every day, as I worked through the sources, I found something that took my breath away. By the end of it there were enough episodes defying the traditional narrative of victimization that it changed the way I think about the black experience in America. More on all this later, for now, here is the Introduction.

From Negroes and the Gun (Prometheus 2014)

Gun! Just the word raises the temperature. Add Negroes and the mixture is incendiary, evoking images of hopeless young gangsters terrorizing blighted neighborhoods.

This book tells a dramatically different story. It chronicles a tradition of church folk, merchants and strivers, the very best people in the community, armed and committed to the principle of individual self-defense. This black tradition of arms takes root early and ranges fully into the modern era. It is demonstrated in Fredrick Douglass’ advice of a good revolver as the best response to slave catchers. It is evident in mature form in 1963, when Hartman Turnbow of Mississippi fought off a Klan attack with rifle fire. Turnbow considered this fully consistent with the principles of the freedom movement, explaining, “I wasn’t being non-nonviolent, I was just protectin’ my family”.

The black tradition of arms has been submerged because it seems hard to reconcile with the dominant narrative of nonviolence in modern civil rights movement. But that superficial tension is resolved by the longstanding distinction that was vividly evoked by movement stalwart Fannie Lou Hamer. Hamer’s advice about segregationists who dominated Mississippi politics was, “Baby you just got to love ‘em. Hating just makes you sick and weak.” But asked how she survived the threats from midnight terrorists Hamer responded, “I’ll tell you why. I keep a shotgun in every corner of my bedroom and the first cracker even look like he wants to throw some dynamite on my porch won’t write his mama again.”

Like Hartman Turnbow, Fannie Lou Hamer embraced private self- defense and political nonviolence without any sense of contradiction. In this she channeled a more than century old practice and philosophy that evolved through every generation, sharpened by icons like Ida B. Wells and W.E.B. Dubois, pressed by the burgeoning NAACP, and crystallized by Martin Luther King who articulated it this way:

Violence exercised merely in self-defense, all societies, from the most primitive to the most cultured and civilized, accept as moral and legal. The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi. … When the Negro uses force in self-defense, he does not forfeit support he may even win it, by the courage and self-respect it reflects.

…But violence as a tool of advancement, involving organization as in warfare… poses incalculable perils.

In practice and policy, from the leadership to the grass roots, this view dominated into the 1960’s – right up to the point where the movement boiled over into violent protests and black radicals openly defied the traditional boundary against political violence. That violent and radical turn was the catalyst for a dramatic transition, as the movement ushered in a new black political class. Rising within a progressive political coalition that included the newly minted national gun control movement, the burgeoning black political class embraced gun bans and supply controls to answer the violent crime in their new domains. By the mid-1970’s, these influences had supplanted the generations old black tradition of arms with a modern orthodoxy of stringent gun control.

The first seven chapters of this book chronicle the rise, evolution and decline of the black tradition of arms. Chapter eight details the pivot from that tradition into the modern orthodoxy.

The secondary theme of this book, distilled in the last chapter, addresses an intriguing tension. On one side is the tragic plague of violent young black men with guns and the toll that this violence takes on many black communities. On the other is the fact that recent momentous affirmations of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms were led by black plaintiffs, Shelly Parker and Otis McDonald, who complained that stringent gun laws in Washington D.C. and Chicago left them disarmed against the criminals who plagued their neighborhoods. The modern orthodoxy would cast Parker and McDonald as dupes or fools. But the black tradition of arms places them in a more complex light and raises critical unexamined questions about the modern orthodoxy. Chapter nine engages those questions, highlights the diversity of interests and views about the gun question, and assesses the current implications of the black tradition of arms.

In the several years that I have been working on this project, people have asked what motivated it. What did I hope to achieve? To the first question, this book, like much of my work, is motivated by a rural sensibility, a familiarity with and affection for people and places that are under-acknowledged in both in popular culture and in policy-making.

To the second question, my goal here is to answer a longing that I have observed in a variety of contexts. It is evident when people, especially young people of color, probing the narrative of the civil rights movement, wonder plaintively “whether anyone ever fought back”. There is a palpable yearning for something more than the images of negroes in church cloths flattened by baton charges, attacked by dogs and sometimes hanged from tree limbs. Many of these people were heroes. But they were also victims and that leaves us unfulfilled, grateful for their sacrifice, but still not fully proud. The question lingers, where is our Leonidas? Where is our classic champion who meets force with force even in the face of long odds? Some may find an answer within the black tradition of arms.

Of course, many episodes here end badly for Negroes with guns. And any worry about over-glorifying violence is further leavened by accounts of prosaic black on black violence and desperate, failed efforts that are more pathetic than heroic. But other episodes, like Hartman Turnbow’s defiant stand, leave us wondering how different is that really, from the tale of gallant young cavalrymen charging artillery placements with sabers?

Black folk still await their Tennyson. But his raw material is in these pages.

The Saturday Night Special

I just dusted off an entertaining screed from 1973 written by former Washington Post reporter Robert Sherrill. Although you can gather it from his credential as a Posty, the prodigious title of the book better signals his views on the “so-called” right to keep and bear arms. To wit: The Saturday Night Special: And Other Guns With Which Americans Won The West, Protected Bootleg Franchises, Slew Wildlife, Robbed Countless Banks, Shot Husbands Purposely And By Mistake And Killed Presidents – Together With The Debate Over Continuing Same.  Absent from Sherrill’s list is any suggestion of the utility of firearms for legitimate self-defense.

The book is a vivid reflection of the times, urging confidently the states’ rights view of the Second Amendment that today not a single member of the United States Supreme Court attempts to prop up. But enough nostalgia.

Read More

Gun Control Advocates are Playing Chess

The President was on television recently stumping again for his gun control agenda.  He spoke in his favored repetitive mode except for one sort of new flourish, which was the acknowledgment that there are good people on both sides, and we all need to walk a bit in each other’s shoes. This advice actually might illuminate our way through the coming teeth gnashing-debate about the Senate’s vote on expanded background checks, among other things.

Read More

Presidential Sophistry

Obama's executive orderThe President has held two news conferences in three days commenting on the coming wave of gun control initiatives.  His presentation has been emotional and properly reflects the anguish that we all feel for the victims of gun crime. It also has been a dazzling display of sophistry. I say that because the President is smart. And if he were not smart, I would say that, so far as his gun ban proposals, his comments were a profound display of ignorance.

Responding to the run on guns precipitated by the preliminary proposals floated by his team, the President said that the motivation must be mainly financial.   Callous capitalism, that other great evil, had prompted unnamed villains to gin up fear of gun bans in order to make profit. The truth is far more basic.

Everyone here is seeking the best route to personal security. Gun people calculate that within the window of imminent threats government is incompetent and they must protect themselves. From the rhetoric, you would think that gun owners or at least NRA members do not have families and children that they love and want to protect.  That of course is absurd.

These people realize the limits of government and have prepared to protect themselves.  Private firearms are central to their approach, and that drives the recent run on guns (and those following Obama’s two elections). If you believe you will lose something essential to one of your core needs, you will scour the market and buy up what you can.  It does not require blandishments from profiteers.

Read More

Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s Gun Control Alchemy

We now have a view of the new gun control proposal that some have labeled Diane Feinstein’s Grand Plan. Grand? Feasible? Passible? That remains to be seen.  What is plain and predictable is that Feinstein’s proposal illustrates the structural inadequacy of supply control policies that attempt a purely public response to an intensely private crisis.

The impulse here is the horror in Connecticut.  A moment’s reflection shows that Feinstein’s plan is basically non-responsive.  The main worry from Connecticut is not that an incomprehensively mad, damaged (one searches for something more here) young man, killed with an AR-15.  At one level we all know that virtually any sort of firearm and a variety of other deadly weapons are easy substitutes against the helpless.

But that is a difficult thing to say in this climate and it does not satisfy people who are hurting.  And that hurt is very much a driver here.  The pain from Newtown is intense.  Many people desperately seek something to ease that pain and affirm that our society, our culture, are not irretrievably off the rails.  For those under the delusion that the state can stop imminent violent threats, Feinstein’s supply side gun control proposal will have appeal.

Read More

Tocqueville and Terror

Tocqueville’s themes illuminate last week’s school massacre and others like it: The weakened family, the crumbling of other forms of authority, the purposelessness of a life that resembles a video game (“mental dust” he calls the rapidly changing appearances of modernity), and the promise of relief through a benevolent bureaucracy that imposes centralized uniform rules. A comfortable, sheep-like existence seems to be democratic life’s principal promise—occasionally disrupted by outbursts of religious enthusiasms. This is the “schoolmaster despotism” that gently oppresses us. But this opportunity tempts the baser instincts of human nature. When men and women behave like sheep, someone brutal in spirit or strength will take sport in slaughtering them.

What to do? My modest proposal: Note that over the years a disproportionate number of these mass slaughters are carried out by Asian-Americans—two out of the last 13 this year. Asians—they have better educations and incomes, get into super-selective schools, and disproportionately slaughter innocents. Should Asians (or at least Koreans) be banned from owning guns? Of course that wouldn’t stop all such atrocities, but as President Obama said, “no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society.” But why not try? It makes more sense than most of what will be proposed over the coming weeks.

Gun Control’s Racist Origins

Generally there is no need to respond to absurdities. Ignore them and they wither away.  The temptation is to dismiss Jason Whitlock’s comment that the NRA is the new KKK as just such a thing. If you have not been following this, Whitlock’s wisdom on firearms policy was invoked by Bob Costas and that has given him a platform to share more of his deeply flawed insights.

The worry is that it takes a certain amount of cultural literacy to recognize an absurdity, especially when it is given a veneer of legitimacy in print and on the airwaves. This is a particular concern on issues of firearms policy where, as I demonstrated in my last post, many people hold wildly inaccurate views of the basic facts.

Presumably the suggested equivalency between the NRA and the KKK is a commentary on the view that the Second Amendment protects a substantive individual right to arms and that owning firearms is a rational choice and legitimate exercise of personal autonomy within our political system. The implication is that this choice should be no more appealing to Blacks than membership in the Klan. (Actually it’s even worse, as Whitlock seems to suggest the NRA, or some unnamed co-conspirator, is also responsible for the illegal drug trade) 

Read More

Bob Costas’ Supply-Side Gun Control Fallacy

At the risk of stating some obvious things, I want to respond to Bob Costas’ recent comment about the failings of “our current gun culture”.  Costas endorsed without reservation, indeed just read from Jason Whitlock’s critique of the murder suicide deaths of NFL player Jovan Belcher and his wife.

“Our current gun culture, “Whitlock wrote, “ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead.”

“Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it. In the coming days, Jovan Belcher’s actions, and their possible connection to football will be analyzed. Who knows?”

“But here,” wrote Jason Whitlock,” is what I believe. If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.”

Read More