By Vikas Nanduri
“During the emergence of new ontological relations in the modern world, from the late Middle Ages through the 1500s, many different kinds of people experienced slavery. In other words, there have been times when natal alienation, general dishonor, and gratuitous violence have turned individuals of myriad ethnicities and races into beings who are socially dead. But African, or more precisely Blackness, refers to an individual who is by definition always already void of relationality. Thus modernity marks the emergence of a new ontology because it is an era in which an entire race appears, people who, a priori, that is prior to the contingency of the “transgressive act” (such as losing a war or being convicted of a crime), stand as socially dead in relation to the rest of the world.”
- Wilderson III, Frank B.. Red, White & Black (pp. 17-18). Duke University Press. Kindle Edition.
This quote from Wilderson in Red, White & Black captures the essence of Afropessimism. Afropessimism is a critical theory that postulates that when the African Americans were enslaved they became socially dead i.e. they are the antithesis of Human and are objects of civil society. White slavery is contingent on some condition being met i.e. debt slavery, but slavery of Blackness was not contingent, they were slaves for simply being black i.e. gratuitous violence of the master can be justified simply because Blackness is conceived as the antithesis of rationality and Human or they are objects to society. Thus, the claim that anti blackness ontological, and the foundation of the slaves ontology is the idea of accumulation and fungibility i.e. being traded and owned by their master.
This quote is also important to how Afropessimism conceived race relations with other races that have been subjected to violence. The stance Afropessimists take is that anti blackness is unique from all other relationships, because all other violence was contingent or served a purpose i.e. violence against Native Americans was to gain land. But violence against Blackness was gratuitous violence i.e. violence with no purpose or violence for the sake of violence. This is also important because Afropess conceives Human, i.e. those that are considered living and not objects, as part of civil society. They contend Blackness is separate from every other ethnic minority, because it was the only race that became socially dead i.e. an object of civil society. The reason this is so critical is because Afropessimists see the black struggle against broader society which INCLUDES other ethnic minorities that are Human. They say these minorities are complicit in this violence, because Human, i.e. Whiteness, is determined in relationality to Blackness i.e. Blackness is the antithesis of rationality and what it means to be Human. Since ethnic minorities are a part of society which means they are Human, Afropessimists see the black struggle as against these minorities as well. Afropessimists see the Human existing ONLY because of the social death of Blackness which obviously means any Human inevitably furthers the violence of the relationship.
“Eltis meticulously explains how the costs of enslavement would have been driven down exponentially had Europeans taken White slaves directly to America rather than sailing from Europe to Africa to take Black slaves to America. He notes that “shipping costs … comprised by far the greater part of the price of any form of imported bonded labor in the Americas. If we take into account the time spent collecting a slave cargo on the African coast as well, then the case for sailing directly from Europe with a cargo of [Whites] appears stronger again.” ”
Wilderson III, Frank B.. Red, White & Black (p. 15). Duke University Press. Kindle Edition.
This is critical, because it shows there is no reason at all for blacks being enslaved. It’s more economically viable to have white slaves, but the very basis of slavery in it of itself is a symbolic relationship between the slave and the master. That gratuitous violence can only be justified against Blackness. Additionally, there were moral dilemmas on whether to enslave poor whites, but there were none on whether to enslave blacks which further proves that anti blackness is ontological insofar as Blackness is socially dead i.e. regarded as an object rather than person.
“In other words, the law would rather shoot itself in the foot (i.e., sacrifice the economic development of the New World) than STEP into a subjective void where idlers and vagabonds might find themselves without contemporaries, with no relational status to save.”
Wilderson III, Frank B.. Red, White & Black (p. 17). Duke University Press. Kindle Edition.
For me, a helpful analogy was where in To Kill a Mockingbird, the "white trash" have nothing except "at least I'm not black." They are held in contempt by society as they’re poor, uneducated, and unclean, but they’re able to have their identity rest on the fact that “I’m not black.” The idea is that Whiteness is determined in relation to Blackness and whiteness is literally anti-blackness since the slave is held to be the antithesis of what it means to be Human i.e. Whiteness.
Above all, however, it’s very important to realize that Afropessimism is pessimistic, Wilderson says that any reform by the government won’t work because society is anti black and instead all these “reforms” let us pretend that issues have been addressed while entrenching violence against black and brown bodies. For example, Wilderson says despite having laws against discrimination there’s still rampant police violence against black and brown bodies as well as the war on drugs which disproportionately targeted Blackness. That’s why in debate, the alternative is usually something along the lines of “burn down the world” or some similar revolution. What’s critical to realize is that no Afropessimist gives specifics on what that revolution will look like, because “society is too anti black to conceptualize what such a revolution would look like.”
- Wilderson III, Frank B.. Red, White & Black (pp. 17-18). Duke University Press. Kindle Edition.
This quote from Wilderson in Red, White & Black captures the essence of Afropessimism. Afropessimism is a critical theory that postulates that when the African Americans were enslaved they became socially dead i.e. they are the antithesis of Human and are objects of civil society. White slavery is contingent on some condition being met i.e. debt slavery, but slavery of Blackness was not contingent, they were slaves for simply being black i.e. gratuitous violence of the master can be justified simply because Blackness is conceived as the antithesis of rationality and Human or they are objects to society. Thus, the claim that anti blackness ontological, and the foundation of the slaves ontology is the idea of accumulation and fungibility i.e. being traded and owned by their master.
This quote is also important to how Afropessimism conceived race relations with other races that have been subjected to violence. The stance Afropessimists take is that anti blackness is unique from all other relationships, because all other violence was contingent or served a purpose i.e. violence against Native Americans was to gain land. But violence against Blackness was gratuitous violence i.e. violence with no purpose or violence for the sake of violence. This is also important because Afropess conceives Human, i.e. those that are considered living and not objects, as part of civil society. They contend Blackness is separate from every other ethnic minority, because it was the only race that became socially dead i.e. an object of civil society. The reason this is so critical is because Afropessimists see the black struggle against broader society which INCLUDES other ethnic minorities that are Human. They say these minorities are complicit in this violence, because Human, i.e. Whiteness, is determined in relationality to Blackness i.e. Blackness is the antithesis of rationality and what it means to be Human. Since ethnic minorities are a part of society which means they are Human, Afropessimists see the black struggle as against these minorities as well. Afropessimists see the Human existing ONLY because of the social death of Blackness which obviously means any Human inevitably furthers the violence of the relationship.
“Eltis meticulously explains how the costs of enslavement would have been driven down exponentially had Europeans taken White slaves directly to America rather than sailing from Europe to Africa to take Black slaves to America. He notes that “shipping costs … comprised by far the greater part of the price of any form of imported bonded labor in the Americas. If we take into account the time spent collecting a slave cargo on the African coast as well, then the case for sailing directly from Europe with a cargo of [Whites] appears stronger again.” ”
Wilderson III, Frank B.. Red, White & Black (p. 15). Duke University Press. Kindle Edition.
This is critical, because it shows there is no reason at all for blacks being enslaved. It’s more economically viable to have white slaves, but the very basis of slavery in it of itself is a symbolic relationship between the slave and the master. That gratuitous violence can only be justified against Blackness. Additionally, there were moral dilemmas on whether to enslave poor whites, but there were none on whether to enslave blacks which further proves that anti blackness is ontological insofar as Blackness is socially dead i.e. regarded as an object rather than person.
“In other words, the law would rather shoot itself in the foot (i.e., sacrifice the economic development of the New World) than STEP into a subjective void where idlers and vagabonds might find themselves without contemporaries, with no relational status to save.”
Wilderson III, Frank B.. Red, White & Black (p. 17). Duke University Press. Kindle Edition.
For me, a helpful analogy was where in To Kill a Mockingbird, the "white trash" have nothing except "at least I'm not black." They are held in contempt by society as they’re poor, uneducated, and unclean, but they’re able to have their identity rest on the fact that “I’m not black.” The idea is that Whiteness is determined in relation to Blackness and whiteness is literally anti-blackness since the slave is held to be the antithesis of what it means to be Human i.e. Whiteness.
Above all, however, it’s very important to realize that Afropessimism is pessimistic, Wilderson says that any reform by the government won’t work because society is anti black and instead all these “reforms” let us pretend that issues have been addressed while entrenching violence against black and brown bodies. For example, Wilderson says despite having laws against discrimination there’s still rampant police violence against black and brown bodies as well as the war on drugs which disproportionately targeted Blackness. That’s why in debate, the alternative is usually something along the lines of “burn down the world” or some similar revolution. What’s critical to realize is that no Afropessimist gives specifics on what that revolution will look like, because “society is too anti black to conceptualize what such a revolution would look like.”
Answering Afropess
I think most people would agree Afropess is too pessimistic in that society will always regard Blackness as an object, because I think most people would agree there has been progress from slavery in the 1800’s. There’s definitely still state massive violence against black and brown bodies, but winning that there has been tangible change will help you prove that anti blackness is not ontological i.e. we can decrease anti blackness without literally abolishing society. Winning that there can be tangible change within society is critical, because if you don’t win that then they will make the argument that the only risk of solving for Afropessimism is by “burning down” society.
Additionally, there are arguments that can be made on how Afropess is the death knell to social energy, because it postulates that there is no hope for reform and only “burning down” society will solve. The reason this is problematic, however, is that Afropessimists offer no blueprint for actual action for this revolution so you could make the argument that there’s no way to mobilize a revolution without an actual plan. I think most teams would answer this back by saying Afropessimism is descriptive rather than prescriptive i.e. the idea that reform will entrench anti blackness is a fact so it doesn’t matter if we say it. That ties back into the idea that you have to win that anti blackness is not ontological and we can improve conditions for black and brown bodies.
There’s also definitely ground for A spec or reading a theory argument that the kritik must specify what actor is implementing the revolution and how the revolution will happen. I think most teams would respond with an impact turn on how “fairness, clash, and limits” are institutions of debate which is anti black and reading theory arguments such as A spec is a subjugation of black and brown bodies.
Also, many judges frown upon debaters who are not black running Afro-pessimism. To them, there’s a huge difference between saying “I’m an object of your civil society” and saying “you're an object of my civil society.” However, there definitely are responsible ways to read Afropess if you’re not black such as self abolition which recognizes our role in anti blackness and seeks “a negative identity politics by negation of self.” For example, Baylor runs Afropess responsibly in this round: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjpdPTY9qBs
Additionally, there are arguments that can be made on how Afropess is the death knell to social energy, because it postulates that there is no hope for reform and only “burning down” society will solve. The reason this is problematic, however, is that Afropessimists offer no blueprint for actual action for this revolution so you could make the argument that there’s no way to mobilize a revolution without an actual plan. I think most teams would answer this back by saying Afropessimism is descriptive rather than prescriptive i.e. the idea that reform will entrench anti blackness is a fact so it doesn’t matter if we say it. That ties back into the idea that you have to win that anti blackness is not ontological and we can improve conditions for black and brown bodies.
There’s also definitely ground for A spec or reading a theory argument that the kritik must specify what actor is implementing the revolution and how the revolution will happen. I think most teams would respond with an impact turn on how “fairness, clash, and limits” are institutions of debate which is anti black and reading theory arguments such as A spec is a subjugation of black and brown bodies.
Also, many judges frown upon debaters who are not black running Afro-pessimism. To them, there’s a huge difference between saying “I’m an object of your civil society” and saying “you're an object of my civil society.” However, there definitely are responsible ways to read Afropess if you’re not black such as self abolition which recognizes our role in anti blackness and seeks “a negative identity politics by negation of self.” For example, Baylor runs Afropess responsibly in this round: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjpdPTY9qBs
Sample Kritiks
Use Verbatim to open these. Also, although these Kritiks are a helpful start, you should optimally write your own shells using these as a guideline.
