Life Among the Lowly: Uncle Tom's Cabin Revisited through the Hug of a Murderer

AmericaHypothesis: Since this post is projected towards an unknown future, I can offer no hypothesis based on the past.

Brandt Jean hugged Amber Guyger, the convicted murderer of his brother Botham Jean. It was depicted as an extraordinary act of forgiveness, which calls to mind another heroic act of forgiveness, that of Uncle Tom praying for his own murderer as he is being beaten to death by a slave master.

Most of us know the term Uncle Tom from its 20^thcentury meaning as an African American who is so cowardly that they have allied with their own persecutor instead of standing up to protect themselves and their community’s rights. But Uncle Tom’s Cabin: Life Among the Lowly was written in the 19^th century, and the intent of its author, a white woman unfamiliar with slavery first hand, Harriet Beecher Stowe, was far different than what 20^th century politics and society did with the hero of her story, Uncle Tom.

When he met Harriet Beecher Stowe, President Abraham Lincoln purportedly joked that here was the woman who started the Civil War. Her writing reached hundreds of thousands of readers, primarily northerners, and raised their consciousness as to the evils of African slavery in the South, and it had a particular message as to the solution – which was decidedly not war. The book, while not based on a first hand accounting of slavery or of life in the south encapsulates the history of slavery, and did form the basis for abolitionist moral outreach in the 1850s.

Here is a brief synopsis of a book everyone in America should read. At the beginning of the story Uncle Tom lives on a small farm with his family who is enslaved to a middling white farming family. A majority of slaves in the 18^th and early 19^th century lived in similar circumstance, with only about a quarter of the slave population living on large plantations with large numbers of slaves. But hard times fall on the white family, and Uncle Tom and his family are subject to their worst fears, being sold down river to where the large plantations enforce their labor conditions with violence. 

Of course, violence hung over their heads as slaves in all instances, but on the small farm Stowe depicts a more harmonious life. Such happens to Uncle Tom and he is sold down river. All he has is his faith in god and the love which that faith inspires in him.  After saving a little white girl’s life Tom is nearly freed but instead his new owner, the clear villain of the story, Simon Legree, has him beaten to death – not because he is a slave, but because he refuses to divulge information on some runaways. As he dies he prays for the forgiveness and redemption of his murderers. 

For Stowe, and Abolitionists of the time, Uncle Tom’s self-sacrifice was a Christ-like expression of power through Grace. Further, Uncle Tom would not succumb to the violence of hatred and rise up to fight against those who murdered him. Uncle Tom is a hero of the non-resistance strategy of the Abolitionist movement, and an example of how only love can overcome hate. At least in the 19^thcentury. 

By the 20^th century, Uncle Tom’s actions fell under increased scrutiny. “For my part, I was never an admirer of Uncle Tom, nor his type of goodness,” stated Harlem Renaissance leader, the composer, James Weldon Johnson, who went on to state, “but I believe that there were lots of old Negroes as foolishly good as he.” Quite a different take than the suggestion that Stowe’s character sparked a Civil War to end the institution.

While the denigration of Uncle Tom may have come from the white produced film version in 1903 with black face actors and a change to the story – Tom was not terrific – it appears that the politics of the 20^th century demanded a change with the rise of Marcus Garvey’s Black Nationalism. New ideas and new leaders who supported another, more active style of strength were seen as necessary. But most certainly, the greatest civil rights leader was not a nationalist, and instead, relied on non-resistance under the more familiar phrase, non-violence. Dr. King’s legacy is only love can overcome hate – not strength of arms and action, but love.

The murder of Botham Jean is a tragedy and a tragedy of the invidiousness of race in America. Had he been white, it seems highly unlikely that the white, off-duty cop would have shot him as he sat in his own apartment. Amber Guyger, the off-duty cop may well have been confused and thought a man was in her apartment, but she pulled trigger because Botham was black.  He, like everyone in America, was judged by the color of his skin rather than the content of his character – and everyone is thusly judged, but some gain privilege and some punishment and persecution. Such was the fate of Botham Jean, guilty of being black in America.

Guyger was found guilty of murder, perhaps as a white female, she did not have as much privilege as other cops who have shot and killed black men. Still, the verdict is somewhat of a surprise, but not nearly as surprising as the sentencing. Botham’s brother, Brandt, was allowed to speak directly to the convicted murderer of his brother in open court. And what he said and did was overwhelming to even the judge, whose lack of judicial decorum will not be subject here.

Brandt forgave. Brandt loved.

Brandt even went so far as to hug his own brother’s murderer. Wow.

There are many differences between Brandt Jean and Uncle Tom – the situations are hardly the same, but quite obviously Brandt meant to convey a similar message to the World as did the author of Uncle Tom. Only love can overcome hate.

But already there is a disquiet about this scene. Not really about Brandt’s actions, yet, but mostly about how awed people have been at “Black Forgiveness” and the perception that this has become the focus instead of the alarming and continued persecution of blackness, browness, “otherness” in America. And those critics are right. The fascinating event of this hug cannot overshadow the continual systemic and personal violence perpetrated on some Americans (and non-Americans) because they are deemed criminal, or alien, or not worthy of the guarantees of rights in this society.

But it does make you wonder which Uncle Tom Brandt Jean will be remembered as.

Fear and Hope: The Intersection of Star Wars, Dune and the American Cultural Psychology, Part III

‘He is the Kwisatz Haderach!’ 

The line from Dune ushers in the revelation that Paul is the promised savior, or literally, the person who can be (say it in a whisper) many places at once.

      A trope of fiction and human society is the Kwisatz Haderach, Messiah, Chosen One, Great White Hope, Fuehrer, and many more. The One who can solve all the problems that we have is yearned for through the ages and pages of the human mind -- Someone who can preserve what is possessed and bring salvation from any threat real or imagined. The only hope that Fear possesses is the arrival of such a being.

      Democracy, as defined in the Liberal Revolutions of England, America and France, by definition cannot rely on such solutions, but of necessity, and by definition, can only be found in the “hearts and minds,” as the Founders put it, of the many. And to that end, the many have to be willing to take control of themselves and by extension their own community, and figure out solutions themselves.  Fear cannot be the basis of democracy, not real democracy, because Fear compels people towards the Kwitsatz Haderach, even if, like Paul Atreides, he is not cut out for the job, or like his son, Leido II, becomes a hideous monster God Emperor. But what informs such a desire, this desire for vicarious salvation through a champion?

It is the Child of Fear, Ignorance, the utter abrogation of self, and the denial of will to be replaced by another, whether false or true … and relying on the Kwitsatz Haderach, seldom rings with a satisfying truth.

      We often use ignorance as a synonym for stupidity – it’s not. The term is also used to suggest a lack of knowledge, but that is only part. More fully it is the neglect of reason and the absence of will to utilize the tool of reason to establish a response.

      While there are dozens of opportunities in human history to examine Ignorance (the child) fostering Fear (the parent), the context of contemporary America is the example most presient, and interesting – mostly, because it just shouldn’t happen here. It shouldn’t happen here because ignorance, in its many forms, should not be the praxis of our cultural psychology, and that cultural psychology should not be manifest through fear – but at current, both Ignorance and Fear, play a striking part in the American political dynamic. Sad.

Sometimes even the Chosen One can be
marginalized for not being "normal" enough

      American culture is changing – though some might add that it is coming to fruition, with trends of inclusion, tolerance, secularization and a base-line of material well-being that historic societies only dreamt of.  The 1960s brought about revolutionary concepts, if not revolutionary change, through rights movements for women, peoples outside the majority “race,” (most particularly the Civil Rights Movement of African Americans) and challenges were brought to existing sexual standards, for both straight and gay. Birth control was one of many pills that American culture had to swallow, and for many, the taste was bitter in their mouths. 

Unlike Paul Atreides, who ultimately was not up to the task of fulfilling his role as the Kwitsatz Haderach – he didn’t want to become a worm – Ronald Reagan was quite willing, and quite a worm. He led the forces of Fear, who believed they were losing their America, an America complete with its inconsistencies and hypocrisies that allowed for the destruction of self-definition and self-determination (freedom) for those who were defined as the “other,” and, therefore, not entitled to the full good graces of being American. Black and brown, yellow and red, gay, or not straight enough, and women who would not accept a biological role controlled by men were not part of Reagan’s group and they were largely defined out of the blessings of freedom, much as they had for most of America’s existence.

Reagan wasn't in this movie --
He was in the Reality show.

Reagan was the protector of white privilege, the savior of what “we” possess, and the Messiah to rescue us from the invasion of the other. All faith was placed in this man to roll back the possibilities of a Hoping millions, who merely wished to achieve their version of an American dream. 

      But Reason, the well-spring of Hope, did not rest. The theory of America, based on reason, established through hope, is the promise of self-definition and determination, and that theory was determined to rise over a practice of exclusion and Fear. The ultimate manifestation of Hope, oh yes, that’s too easy, Obama. 

The Alt Right depicted him as the Messiah,
but instead he was just a human, a good human.
Maybe that is what we all need to be.

Not because of good policy, not because of right action, but because of the audacity to challenge Fear (the protection of the familiar) and Ignorance (the willful neglect of possibility). Obama, as with Trump, is less about the man himself, in terms of culture, and more about the willingness of the majority to think past fear and allow for a new possibility. Likewise, Trump is not the cause of the rise of Fear and Ignorance in the 21^st century, but he is the manifestation of those very un-American principles which have haunted this society since the Founding. The answer to the Obama Factor, was typical of Fear and prodded by ignorance, to seek someone who could protect them from the perils of change and this audacious Hope. 

At their tea party, millions waited for a savior. Their Fear disabled them from embracing Hope under any circumstance. Argument would not work, effective practice would not work, consistency in theory and law, would not convince. He is their leader, their Chosen One – He is the Kwitsatz Haderach.

I used to think this Fear came merely from the power of racism, but it’s not that. Fear comes from anything unfamiliar, and race defined through skin shade is just an easy manifestation of the unfamiliar. Even worse is the “familiar” worship of Trump supporters, or more clearly, how they perceive what is “familiar.” It’s not merely wanting “what looks like me, sounds like me, talks like me” – familiarity is also, by extension, what they have been told ought to be, whether that source is parent, party or even more unquestionable, their god. And Fear and god are often synonymous since they are immutable, unchangeable, and are the ultimate in irrationality (not provable or disprovable through rational observation).

And Hate led to Suffering, not Salvation.

And so they cede to an unlikely dictator any possibility. And so they follow in the logic of blind worship. And so we find ourselves with a future of our own past with a choice between Fear and Hope.

Fear and Hope: The Intersection of Star Wars, Dune and the American Cultural Psychology, Part II

Fear is the mind killer

The consequences of Fear is ultimately suffering, but why? In another galaxy and most assuredly a very different time, Frank Herbert, the author of the Dune series, gave us the answer. “Fear is the mind-killer.” And while that quote is a bit out of context, like most quotes, it does serve the context here. 

      The children of Fear includes ignorance, whether willful or not. Fear is the mind-killer, the oblation of rational powers, the negation of the hopeful expectation that You can figure things out. Ignorance is not stupidity. It is the lack of knowledge and the lack of will to seek knowledge …. You just don’t know, which leads to a sense of a lack of control. It’s why humans choose "belief," which requires little effort other than obedience to authority imagined or real. Knowledge through reason requires work, doubt and will. Work, to gather and evaluate information, doubt, to discount or affirm sources to determine if they conform to reality or imagination, and will to formulate ideas based on that research and those challenges. Fear kills the mind.

      The northern colonies, and later states, were not without their own fears, but Fear played less of a part in forming the overall cultural psychology that by extension spread from the North to the rest of the United States – except the South – but it could have.  Fear could have dominated all of American life but the road to Fear was blocked by a congerie of hopes that emanated from some very peculiar places.

It's horrible that some people believe
this was a promise by their god not to
murder every man, woman and child,
but I guess that would be the ultimate hope?

       The greatest distinguishing feature between the south and the north in cultural psychology is the importance of race and a differing definition of the “other.” The North in its settlement patterns by European populations followed European patterns of identity and cultural psychology, which revolved around religion rather than the new conceptual pattern of the Americas, as did the South, around race. In brief the North’s origin is not embedded in racism – though it is embedded in religion-ism.

      We don’t often dissect the meaning of “Racism” and what that might mean, because we think we know what it means – fear, hate, anger – discriminatory and privileging policies and institutions. While that definition is totally valid it does little to explain the phenomena and even posit or compare or suggest alternatives (Are there non-racist human societies? Only in Utopia, right?). From an anthropological perspective, not physical anthropology, but the study of human culture and behavior, human groups develop various ways to define identity and community – to basically define who belongs and who does not, who is in our group, what is our group and who is not and why. As written in Understanding Different Worlds (Blog April, 2018) the primary basis for a definition of self and society is external markers that indicate shared blood. “Natural” humans protected their DNA to preserve their DNA. They promoted the needs of their blood group over those of groups where there was no shared blood – just like most animals. Over time, and incorporated into the earliest “Archaic” civilizations, was this rule of blood. Today, we hear it termed in political discourse as the negative term Tribalism, but that is what we are, tribal. 

Our team wears orange hats

What entails belonging in the tribe, however, became more complex as societies developed the resource base to become more complex. Blood, membership in a particular tribe, ethnicity, or “Race” was a common unifying element, and recognized by humans by their external markers – “Our blood wears this kind of hat – others wear different hats.” But blood was not always the unifying principle of identity and group think. In 17^th century England (when colonization to North America began) the primary sense of belonging, that which established identity and cultural psychology, was religion, not race. When English colonists finally established colonies in the South through Tobacco production and, eventually, African slave labor, religion gave way to “Race,” as it did in most of the Americas, but not in the northern colonies. Religion decided whether you received privilege or persecution within the context of the earliest colonies – even treatment of the PAI Native Americans was often rooted in their alien (and therefore incorrect) religious practice. Colonies, like Massachusetts Bay, were Religionist not racist. Religion defined your place in society and if you were not a Calvinist (or at the very least Christian) you were out. 

But the superstitional, irrational basis of religion got the best of them in Massachusetts as is best witnessed by the Salem Witch Trials of 1692. English society was at the cusp of Modernity – developing rational systems for society, and the irrational craziness of “is she a good witch or a bad witch – who cares, burn her,” got the best of them. Leaders, like Cotton Mather (ironically a Minister) realized that religion as the defining principle had to be tempered to stop the insanity of religion itself. Over the next century, Massachusetts and most northern colonies became more secular and rationally based, not wholly secular, mind you, but a lot less holy minded. The ultimate unifier became the principles of the American Revolution – ideas of self-definition and self-determination. It’s why Massachusetts was the radical hub of the Revolution and was not mired (with some exceptions) to the total hypocrisy of the “freedom for all, except for them” racist South. 

Building is difficult.
Sometimes the plan works and sometimes not.

It is not to suggest that the North was devoid of racist, nationalist, ethnicist, religionist concepts in its evolution – it certainly was, but the primary locus of identity was founded in rationality with the hope – Hope – that all people might one day pursue life, liberty and happiness on their own terms. It is why abolitionism, woman’s rights, urban culture, social experimentation were established in the North – and not the South. There were fears, but not Fear. Hope was a possibility and was the basis of social and political organization, and then one day …. Fear.

The “other” and the fear of losing the familiar are the Great Fear and it came to the north as industrialization necessitated cheap labor. Immigration. 

      The relatively homogenous Anglo-Saxon Protestant population of the north had to deal with new populations immigrating to America that were not like themselves triggering fears of how to deal with alien cultures integrating into the happy rationality of their “idea” based society. These immigrants were Catholic and Jewish, Irish, Italian and Russian who, if they had political thoughts, were perceived by the ASP population of the North to not have any knowledge of British based American political principles of the rule of law, separation of powers, checks and balances, rights and liberties – the new immigrants, in the minds and hearts of the Founders – knew nothing of the unifying principle of “Ideology” that formed the basis of American identity and cultural psychology. And so the rational turned to the irrational to find a way to deal with the immigrant situation. They turned to Race – the irony of which is that they turned to race as they were fighting and just defeated the South’s racism in the Civil War. Add the W.

The Statue of Liberty promised a Golden Door,
but it was really a White door.

      WASP populations used race to protect what they perceived as theirs (even if the cogency of their ideology demanded that they accept “all men” – oh well, human see, human do). 

      The adoption of Southern definitions of identity emanating out of slavery in terms of race is quite clear. WASP populations considered the Irish, Italians and Eastern European Jews as Black, not as White, at least initially, but as Black. Maybe it was because the northern population was only about 1% African? More probable is that blackness had already been demonized as inferior, as alien, as sub-human – as not belonging. And the immigrants parleyed their numbers into success in America – through capitalism, in use of space, in electoral politics. WASPS fought back. They invigorated their own brand of KKKism and were able to fight the tide of immigrant hordes by laws restricting immigration in the 1920s. But the damage was done. The focus of identity was now race – regardless of privilege or persectution – the North and all of America was decidedly a racist society.

      But Hope fought back. World War II happened, and while it could not budge Jim Crow, it did effect the rest of the country (all those immigrants were redefined as White!). Oh, not that white southerners didn’t want to fight their racist cousins in the Third Reich and Land of the Rising Sun. They did, but the consequences of the war were somewhat different south to north. Maybe because of formerly black people in the north being Europeans and not Africans for the most part. Maybe it was because many of those immigrants bought into “ideology” over ethnicity and religion in forming their identity as Americans. Maybe. But with the revelations of the Holocaust (an unlikely pillar of Hope), northern politicians, scholars and peoples were stunned by the potentiality of their own racist conceptions. They turned back to Hope and freedom, or at least they wanted to. But Fear is a formidable opponent especially when it comes to the practical matters of how humans live their lives, far away from the abstractions of concepts of identity and cultural psychology.

Fear can be from real causes
or imagined.
Chill, it was only ketchup.

      Fear chipped away at Hope in little daggers of fear. The Communist threat – those Eastern Europeans – and then, real Black People! The Great Migration begun in the 20s was in overdrive by the 1960s and was transforming, once again, the WASP homeland and the cities of all of the White northern populations. Red lining, bussing, informal Jim Crow. Privilege and persecution became a black and white issue. Was race and Fear winning? The evidence suggests …. Kind of.

      Without Northern white liberals, there would have been little success to the “Civil Rights Movement” (put in quotes because the CRM was not merely a struggle in the 1950s and 60s but a perpetual fight that went on long before and is still going on). It wasn’t white southern “Christians” who deconstructed the legal apparatus of Jim Crow. It was secular northern political groups, like SDS, that compelled their politicians and judges to act. I know, Johnson was a Texan – but some Texans are ok. Some.

      Today, the Battle of Fear and Hope rages in American society, but Fear has a stinging new ally in its fight. And the child of Fear is the Mind killer and it’s ultimate manifestation is the (not so heroic) hero of the early books of the Dune saga.

One of my favorite Chinese phrases, featured with this photo in Part I, means literally, “frog at the bottom of a well.” It means ignorance, a lack of perspective, because like the frog at the bottom of a well can only see a small part of the sky, ignorance cannot, or will not, grasp more than the obvious, or even worse, that which comes from authority.

Ignorance, the Child of Fear, is the Mind Killer and how it informs the current state of American politics will be the subject of a 3^rd and final part of this series.