What You Give
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas celebrates with benefactors at the Federalist Society, ca. 2011.
This is what we call unimaginable before it happens, and unsurprising afterward.
If we take a moment to recall the idea of political correctness, the reason we call something unimaginable before it happens is to protect the feelings of what is improper. It might be the kind of thing that is hard for people to follow from half a world away, but Clarence Thomas is both fulfillment of and apparent reaction to racist tropes.
For instance, think back to FOX News and Republicans going off about Black Liberation Theology, and black radicals, or the New Black Panthers: Clarence Thomas is actually an intersectional point for white supremacists. On paper, he's an actual black segregationist, and if that gets confusing for our international neighbors, it's true a lot of Americans not only don't understand, but apparently can't. And, by "apparently", I mean we can take their word for it. Think of it this way: While many conservatives fear or loathe Malcolm X, Thomas is more upset that the civil rights icon remains within the ambit of what is liberal.
In some ways, Thomas is like other black conservative politicians, like Alan Keyes and Ben Carson, whose success depends upon assuaging white conservative benefactors.
And to some degree, his role is familiar in other sectors, too. A Canadian woman named Bloomfield used to sell books to men by arguing that it shouldn't be a crime for men to have sex with female children. So, the idea that Bloomfield (a.k.a., Andrea Hardie, JudgyBitch), who continues pitching to incels, came out as a Nazi in 2017, surprised nobody. In the United States, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), then a member of the House of Representatives, once argued on television that women resent civil rights protections under law, and would rather struggle to earn men's respect, instead. We ought not be surprised that she has announced her opposition to free speech and privacy for women.
And if Clarence Thomas is the sort who informs white conservatives' understanding of black liberation and radicalism, it's easier to understand why those whites are so afraid. Back in his Holy Cross days, Thomas helped found the Black Student Union, and was elected secretary-treasurer. A black anti-miscegenist, he stayed that way until 1986, when he met a white woman he wanted. And that might also be the point at which Thomas began weaponizing his appreciation for Richard Wright's Native Son; Corey Robin↱ explains:
Compared to 1940, the trope about expressing the combined privileges of race and class is vapidly doctrinaire in the twenty-first century. It is unclear, for instance, what the current sentiment toward "offering help to black people" actually means. Moreover, compared to 1968, it's easy to wonder what it means to succeed in the shadow of white benefactors, and impossible to ignore the coincidence of Thomas' success with the needs of his white benefactors.
The short form is that Clarence Thomas is what happens when you stuff an actual black segregationist into a conservative suit. For over thirty years, at least, Thomas has asserted that racism is mysterious, with "undiscoverable roots". It's part of a familiar argument, that people are too hard on white supremacism. Like Blackburn's antihistorical expectation that men will relent, Thomas believes the discussion of racism should be less judgmental against racism and its effects, because black people need to earn white respect. Robin summarizes, "The most that can be hoped for is that whites be honest about it."
That, of course, has to be sussed out, but Clarence Thomas is also a waypoint in the argument that the real key to ending white supremacism is to coddle it. In 1993↱, Thomas described "The New Intolerance", comparing a straw man about "nonconrorming" ideas to segregation itself: "In many ways, it is just the same old thing we've seen before, just as invidious and perhaps more pervasive than the incivility black Americans suffered throughout much of this century."
Justice Thomas most likely is not unaware that in Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 case establishing the segregationist doctrine of "separate but equal" as constitutional law, the one dissenting vote came from the former slave owner who knew it wouldn't work. If it seems strange that between a black man and the former slave owner, the slaver somehow comes out as the good guy¹, that's part of what it takes to be Clarence Thomas. In the moment, the answer has less to do with the skin color, and everything to do with the character of the argument.
Think of it this way: If, thirty years ago, the critique had gone that Clarence Thomas was an Uncle Tom who will roll on Brown in favor of "separate but equal", that would have been considered out of bounds, even an example of what he complains about. However, these years later, the one thing we ought not be, as Thomas signals his intentions toward Brown, is surprised.
It's not my place to intervene in the black discussion of black success vis à vis white benefactors, but Thomas never makes clear just how pandering to white supremacists in hope that they will relent is supposed to work. It's kind of like the old Cosby argument to stop making white people nervous, which, similarly, never really addressed how that works when what makes them nervous is entirely internal.
These years later, it ought to be obvious that one cannot assuage that kind of fear.
For people like Thomas, though, that's beside the point.
____________________
Notes:
Contreras, Russell. "Clarence Thomas attacks Brown v. Board ruling amid 70th anniversary". Axios. 23 May 2024. Axios.com. 24 May 2024. https://bit.ly/4dRQjOi
Robin, Corey. "Clarence Thomas’s Radical Vision of Race". The New Yorker. 10 September 2019. NewYorker.com. 24 May 2024. https://bit.ly/3QXKdC4
Thomas, Clarence. "The New Intolerance". May, 1993. AmericanRhetoric.com. 24 May 2024. https://bit.ly/3WVzuMh
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas celebrates with benefactors at the Federalist Society, ca. 2011.
This is what we call unimaginable before it happens, and unsurprising afterward.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a strong rebuke of the Brown v. Board of Education ruling on Thursday, suggesting the court overreached its authority in the landmark decision that banned separating schoolchildren by race.
(Contreras↱)
(Contreras↱)
If we take a moment to recall the idea of political correctness, the reason we call something unimaginable before it happens is to protect the feelings of what is improper. It might be the kind of thing that is hard for people to follow from half a world away, but Clarence Thomas is both fulfillment of and apparent reaction to racist tropes.
For instance, think back to FOX News and Republicans going off about Black Liberation Theology, and black radicals, or the New Black Panthers: Clarence Thomas is actually an intersectional point for white supremacists. On paper, he's an actual black segregationist, and if that gets confusing for our international neighbors, it's true a lot of Americans not only don't understand, but apparently can't. And, by "apparently", I mean we can take their word for it. Think of it this way: While many conservatives fear or loathe Malcolm X, Thomas is more upset that the civil rights icon remains within the ambit of what is liberal.
In some ways, Thomas is like other black conservative politicians, like Alan Keyes and Ben Carson, whose success depends upon assuaging white conservative benefactors.
And to some degree, his role is familiar in other sectors, too. A Canadian woman named Bloomfield used to sell books to men by arguing that it shouldn't be a crime for men to have sex with female children. So, the idea that Bloomfield (a.k.a., Andrea Hardie, JudgyBitch), who continues pitching to incels, came out as a Nazi in 2017, surprised nobody. In the United States, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), then a member of the House of Representatives, once argued on television that women resent civil rights protections under law, and would rather struggle to earn men's respect, instead. We ought not be surprised that she has announced her opposition to free speech and privacy for women.
And if Clarence Thomas is the sort who informs white conservatives' understanding of black liberation and radicalism, it's easier to understand why those whites are so afraid. Back in his Holy Cross days, Thomas helped found the Black Student Union, and was elected secretary-treasurer. A black anti-miscegenist, he stayed that way until 1986, when he met a white woman he wanted. And that might also be the point at which Thomas began weaponizing his appreciation for Richard Wright's Native Son; Corey Robin↱ explains:
Thomas came to believe that, for the white liberal, offering help to black people was a way to express the combined privileges of race and class. This is a running theme of Wright’s “Native Son,” in which Bigger Thomas, a poor black man from the slums of Chicago, is given an opportunity to rise when a wealthy white family hires him as a chauffeur. The idea that black people can advance only with the help of whites is anathema to Clarence Thomas, who has identified with Wright’s protagonist throughout his life. For him, white benevolence denies black people the pride of achievement. By contrast, if one is black and overcomes the barriers of Jim Crow, one can be assured that the accomplishment is real. Thomas often invokes the example of his grandparents, who, despite segregation, managed to acquire property and support their family. Though they “had to work twice as hard to get half as far,” they knew, however far they got, that the distance was theirs. When black people succeed in the shadow of white benefactors, that certainty is lost.
Compared to 1940, the trope about expressing the combined privileges of race and class is vapidly doctrinaire in the twenty-first century. It is unclear, for instance, what the current sentiment toward "offering help to black people" actually means. Moreover, compared to 1968, it's easy to wonder what it means to succeed in the shadow of white benefactors, and impossible to ignore the coincidence of Thomas' success with the needs of his white benefactors.
The short form is that Clarence Thomas is what happens when you stuff an actual black segregationist into a conservative suit. For over thirty years, at least, Thomas has asserted that racism is mysterious, with "undiscoverable roots". It's part of a familiar argument, that people are too hard on white supremacism. Like Blackburn's antihistorical expectation that men will relent, Thomas believes the discussion of racism should be less judgmental against racism and its effects, because black people need to earn white respect. Robin summarizes, "The most that can be hoped for is that whites be honest about it."
That, of course, has to be sussed out, but Clarence Thomas is also a waypoint in the argument that the real key to ending white supremacism is to coddle it. In 1993↱, Thomas described "The New Intolerance", comparing a straw man about "nonconrorming" ideas to segregation itself: "In many ways, it is just the same old thing we've seen before, just as invidious and perhaps more pervasive than the incivility black Americans suffered throughout much of this century."
Justice Thomas most likely is not unaware that in Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 case establishing the segregationist doctrine of "separate but equal" as constitutional law, the one dissenting vote came from the former slave owner who knew it wouldn't work. If it seems strange that between a black man and the former slave owner, the slaver somehow comes out as the good guy¹, that's part of what it takes to be Clarence Thomas. In the moment, the answer has less to do with the skin color, and everything to do with the character of the argument.
Think of it this way: If, thirty years ago, the critique had gone that Clarence Thomas was an Uncle Tom who will roll on Brown in favor of "separate but equal", that would have been considered out of bounds, even an example of what he complains about. However, these years later, the one thing we ought not be, as Thomas signals his intentions toward Brown, is surprised.
It's not my place to intervene in the black discussion of black success vis à vis white benefactors, but Thomas never makes clear just how pandering to white supremacists in hope that they will relent is supposed to work. It's kind of like the old Cosby argument to stop making white people nervous, which, similarly, never really addressed how that works when what makes them nervous is entirely internal.
These years later, it ought to be obvious that one cannot assuage that kind of fear.
For people like Thomas, though, that's beside the point.
____________________
Notes:
¹ It's probably not trivial that Thomas is also after the slaver's grandson, who concurred in Griswold, the case Sen. Blackburn wants a piece of, but we ought not make too much of the Harlan family coincidence.
Contreras, Russell. "Clarence Thomas attacks Brown v. Board ruling amid 70th anniversary". Axios. 23 May 2024. Axios.com. 24 May 2024. https://bit.ly/4dRQjOi
Robin, Corey. "Clarence Thomas’s Radical Vision of Race". The New Yorker. 10 September 2019. NewYorker.com. 24 May 2024. https://bit.ly/3QXKdC4
Thomas, Clarence. "The New Intolerance". May, 1993. AmericanRhetoric.com. 24 May 2024. https://bit.ly/3WVzuMh