Wilderson is most illuminating when writing about Black experience in the US - Black experience being equated to non-being, and White identity being formed by the absence of violence to which Black non-being is subject. However, I find it strains credibility to say that Blackness defines non-being all over the world, simply because Africans were used in the slave trade and therefore treated as commodities. His books are careful to never mention historical periods when Whites enslaved other Whites (such as during the Roman Empire) yet no racialization of non-being took place then. So why is Black enslavement such a pivotal moment in history? I'm not trying to sound condescending, he just never seems to answer this. I find his work rather distasteful when he has to go out of his way to prove that, yes, Jewish and Native American people were exterminated (arguably worse than being enslaved) but they were still "Human"! (whatever that means exactly). His system is an interesting abstraction and, as a White person, a way by which I can try to understand the depth of Black suffering. But I also can't help but think of historical or factual events which create complications for his rather fixed ideas about race (namely, that Black suffering is unique and is the only race excluded from "being").
It's not just about being enslaved, it's about occupying the position of the slave as different societies are forming a global community. And this goes really far back. You can find historical accounts of Arabs offering Black slaves to Chinese officials as an act of diplomacy, for example. Throughout the past centuries, a sort of global consensus has been forming around the inherent inferiority and - most importantly, I think - ahistorical nature of African people and African civilisation. We came to be viewed as a form of "humanity" outside of time, outside of everything that defines humanity, really: our religions are not real religions because we don't worship God. Our languages are not real languages because we don't write. Our art is not real art, etc... Everything we do, everything we say, even our very flesh requires you, the real people, to project 'humanity' onto it. This is why even though you would think that extermination is technically worse than enslavement, at least there is a being there to kill. Millions of Africans have been exterminated throughout the centuries (continuing to this day) and no one cares because no one views human beings being killed. And actually even if you were to project empathy onto Black bodies, you're still just revelling in your own humanity. If you were to really consider Black people as your equal, your heart would fill with existential dread.
this was so illuminating, grounding and nutritious. Thank you
Great convo
awesome
DEEP-Deep-deep
👏🏽✊🏽
Is "Human" outside of Black life???
The terms "Human" and "Slave" as used within the context of Afropessimist thought differ from their uses in other contexts
Thank you
The empirical Anglo-American teaching that Wilderson mentioned, has surely been obliterated by conservative rhetoric.
I think that this is in the context of academia, which conservative rhetoric abhors entirely
Wilderson is most illuminating when writing about Black experience in the US - Black experience being equated to non-being, and White identity being formed by the absence of violence to which Black non-being is subject. However, I find it strains credibility to say that Blackness defines non-being all over the world, simply because Africans were used in the slave trade and therefore treated as commodities. His books are careful to never mention historical periods when Whites enslaved other Whites (such as during the Roman Empire) yet no racialization of non-being took place then. So why is Black enslavement such a pivotal moment in history? I'm not trying to sound condescending, he just never seems to answer this. I find his work rather distasteful when he has to go out of his way to prove that, yes, Jewish and Native American people were exterminated (arguably worse than being enslaved) but they were still "Human"! (whatever that means exactly). His system is an interesting abstraction and, as a White person, a way by which I can try to understand the depth of Black suffering. But I also can't help but think of historical or factual events which create complications for his rather fixed ideas about race (namely, that Black suffering is unique and is the only race excluded from "being").
It's not just about being enslaved, it's about occupying the position of the slave as different societies are forming a global community. And this goes really far back. You can find historical accounts of Arabs offering Black slaves to Chinese officials as an act of diplomacy, for example. Throughout the past centuries, a sort of global consensus has been forming around the inherent inferiority and - most importantly, I think - ahistorical nature of African people and African civilisation. We came to be viewed as a form of "humanity" outside of time, outside of everything that defines humanity, really: our religions are not real religions because we don't worship God. Our languages are not real languages because we don't write. Our art is not real art, etc... Everything we do, everything we say, even our very flesh requires you, the real people, to project 'humanity' onto it.
This is why even though you would think that extermination is technically worse than enslavement, at least there is a being there to kill. Millions of Africans have been exterminated throughout the centuries (continuing to this day) and no one cares because no one views human beings being killed. And actually even if you were to project empathy onto Black bodies, you're still just revelling in your own humanity. If you were to really consider Black people as your equal, your heart would fill with existential dread.