Gone with the Whip

Of the printed reactions to ABC’s Roots, the most interesting is that of Roger Wilkins. Mr. Wilkins, now an editorial writer for the New York Times, is perhaps best described as a former Negro who suffers from the delusion that he is still a Negro, and that every thought he thinks is accordingly a genuine black thought. The truth is that he is really a white liberal, with all the parochialism and even ethnocentrism of the breed.

The three episodes of Roots that I saw were uneven but irresistible. How fitting that its ratings should rival those of Gone with the Wind, whose romanticization of the old South it complements by romanticizing slavery. The slaveowners are shown as uniformly cruel and stupid, but that is less implausible than the ennoblement of the slaves by their captivity. The trouble with systematic oppression is that it does debase so terribly, making its victims (except for the saints) mean and cowardly. Yet the blacks of Roots keep their dignity intact, leading a psychic double life, Tomming it for Massa, but, among themselves, secretly and indomitably proud. It has been charged that Roots played on white guilt, but I doubt it: how could one feel that these valiant sons of Africa had been essentially and permanently harmed? Their shuffling is all an act, their hearts remain pristinely leonine.

JS

About the Author

Joseph Sobran

Of the printed reactions to ABC’s Roots, the most interesting is that of Roger Wilkins. Mr. Wilkins, now an editorial writer for the New York Times, is perhaps best described as a former Negro who suffers from the delusion that he is still a Negro, and that every thought he thinks is accordingly a genuine black thought. The truth is that he is really a white liberal, with all the parochialism and even ethnocentrism of the breed.

The three episodes of Roots that I saw were uneven but irresistible. How fitting that its ratings should rival those of Gone with the Wind, whose romanticization of the old South it complements by romanticizing slavery. The slaveowners are shown as uniformly cruel and stupid, but that is less implausible than the ennoblement of the slaves by their captivity. The trouble with systematic oppression is that it does debase so terribly, making its victims (except for the saints) mean and cowardly. Yet the blacks of Roots keep their dignity intact, leading a psychic double life, Tomming it for Massa, but, among themselves, secretly and indomitably proud. It has been charged that Roots played on white guilt, but I doubt it: how could one feel that these valiant sons of Africa had been essentially and permanently harmed? Their shuffling is all an act, their hearts remain pristinely leonine.