Black Exceptionalism Pt. 1
It's not racist to treat Black people differently if it's for social justice. /s
Black exceptionalism is gaining traction as a grounding perception in American liberal-progressive circles.
The frequent framing of “Black exceptionalism” as the idea that Black people who succeed academically or financially are “exceptions” is not what this essay is about. Let me clarify what I mean by exceptionalist - here I am using the common definition of politically exceptionalist worldviews: the idea that a discernible demographic entity is ‘exceptional’ relative to the rest. This is seen in American exceptionalism, Nihonjinron (Japanese exceptionalism), Sondenweg (German), and other concepts of a “chosen” people with a unique history, unlike any other. It is effectively the idea that any subject group has a unique entitlement to development and claim to exemption or benefit.
Black American exceptionalism is unable to exist in a similar way to that which we are used to seeing in the context of national identity, primarily due to its referent demographic being a minority within a pluralistic nation-state. The Black American exceptionalist narrative runs in contrast to the conventional exceptionalist narratives cited earlier (Japanese/German/American) largely because there is no credible avenue to suggesting that the United States is at its core a ‘Black state’.
Developing an exceptionalist political narrative within a pluralistic political landscape imparts unique features to that narrative. It has been occasionally touched upon by conservative-leaning Black media figures, such as Terry Crews, though under the misnomer of “Black supremacy”. Black supremacy can be understood as a comparable ideological counterpart to White supremacy: the belief in the superiority of the subject demographic that thereby entitles them to dominance, survival, and flourishment in a region. The differences toe a fine line, but the distinction is critical to accurately defining an emerging, left-swung exceptionalist movement.
The misattribution of supremacy/exceptionalism only serves as grounds for Black exceptionalists (primarily composed of the progressive left) to deflect and skirt around any rational critique of ideology. Their frequent retort is that A) it is not Black supremacy because there is no belief in racial superiority, and B) that accusations made of “Black supremacy” are bitter misunderstandings of progressive movements that seek to right historical inequities.
The unique prescription of Black exceptionalism is oriented around politics of resentment - constrained within a Black versus White dichotomy. This ideological orientation distinguishes Black Americans as victims of White American society, with a broadly defined moral claim to indemnities varying from semantic to material.
Conversely, a Black supremacist can be defined as one who promotes the racial superiority of Black individuals, much like White supremacists would promote that of White individuals. It lends itself to Pan-Africanism (the idea of state-transcending Black identity) and Black nationalism (or separatism) through its belief in the Black entitlement to social dominance. This translates to the mutual seeking out of transnational Black unity and a racially-defined community removed from the White ‘other’. A Black exceptionalist sees the Black American historiography as uniquely entitling it to indemnity by the state, and mass paradigm change on the end of the non-Black majority to right historical wrongs. It lends itself to Pan-Africanism and Black nationalism (or separatism) only through its belief in a racially defined legacy, destiny, and call to action — it does not necessarily define the White ‘other’ as less than or look to segregate. In fact, the implied/perceived superiority of Whites, in Black American exceptionalist historiography, is crucial to defining it - many of its adherents are White.
Where Black American exceptionalism comes to the forefront is in its treatment of racial justice as a driving force for progressive politics. The narrative driving the centering of the Black American perspective necessarily does not decenter White Americans. White Americans are easily as important, if not more important, to this narrative. Take the narrative promulgated by the Black Lives Matter Global Network — the “Herstory” section of the site most clearly displays the way in which the Black American perspective is historicized; one of perpetual racial victimization by an identified White majority.
"…intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes…in a world where Black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise.”
In spite of its half-hearted attempt at neutral language, the countering force here is clearly White Americans. Who is systematically and intentionally targeting Black lives and advancing their demise? Who is denying Black folks’ humanity, contributions to this society, and resilience in the face of deadly oppression? Their answers to these questions are so obvious that explicitly stating them is gratuitous. This framing at once allows the Black American exceptionalist the capacity to both solidify its victimhood as a matter of ‘historical truth’ and as a matter of ongoing ‘otherness’ - despite the fact that this otherness is both central to and continuously advanced by its own narrative.
The intentional narrative dichotomy of White America (bad/oppressor) and Black America (good/oppressed) also, by design, does not incorporate other ethnic minority groups into its fold. In essence, there is no narratively convenient incentive to promote the notion that Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Indigenous Americans, or any other non-White/Black ethnic group have legitimate grievances that cannot primarily be traced back to the faults of White America.
The recent focus on hate crimes against Asian Americans, without critique of the perpetrator’s race, is emblematic of this. To put it bluntly, Black Americans are often themselves perpetrators of violent crimes against non-Black minorities. The outright lack of accountability, lack of recognition, or willful deflection of this fact by progressive, liberal, and left-leaning outlets is attributable to a progressive-oriented framing of “journalistic integrity”, and desire to perpetuate a Black exceptionalist (or ‘exemptionist’) narrative. A progressive-minded journalist denies the individual culpability of Black perpetrators in the interest of furthering collective, progressive, political goals.
Black individuals are morally exempt from social judgement, because White supremacy is a greater threat. This precept is intentionally maximized in an effort to cultivate the racial solidarity progressive identity politics has deemed necessary to advance its own aims (regardless of any discrete consequences for targeted minority groups). The relentless discourse of solidarity between non-Black minority Americans and Black Americans is primarily a narrative tool to support a political framing that must fundamentally center Whiteness as an oppressive oppositional force in order to remain coherent.
In the interest of keeping this easy to read, I will publish the second part in the next few days. In the second part, I plan to elaborate upon the Black exceptionalist narrative defined here using specific recent examples.
I believe you said you were hesitant to publish this. I am glad that you did and I praise your courage to do so despite possible backlash.
This was a good read, though it disappointed on the "derangement" front.
Tying critical theory and black nationalism together is a bit of an oversimplification - at least some strains of 20th Century black nationalism were primarily concerned with the cultural erasure observed during mid-century assimilation on its own terms, not in terms of an overarching power structure - these strains were alive and well in mid-90s alt hip hop, for example. And indeed, they raised profoundly interesting questions about the relative value of preserving identity vs prioritizing material advancement that have no easy answers (what is the point of assimilating to advance, if you will no longer be "you" afterward?) - though Irish, Italian, and German immigrants never had the luxury of confronting the same conundrum.
Is the sentence beginning "In essence, there..." meant to employ a double negative?