Saturday, January 8, 2022

Book Review


Soul on Ice

by Eldridge Cleaver

     While doing prison time on a marijuana possession charge in the mid 1960s, Eldridge Cleaver wrote a series of letters and essays. By 1970, he had become a recognizable figure in the urban guerilla movement known as the Black Panthers and so these writings were collected and published as Soul on Ice. Readers with knowledge of Cleaver’s biography may be surprised at how nuanced some of his writing is. Then again, they might not be. A lot of readers in our age have little sense of nuance and often allow their knowledge of the author’s moral shortcomings to overshadow the meaning of these essays as they stand. Even worse, some readers use Cleaver’s essays as a stepping stone to express their own self-righteous moral outrage, using it as a vehicle for grandstanding and virtue signalling without taking into consideration anything that Soul on Ice actually says.

This collection is organized into four sections. The first deals primarily with Eldridge Cleaver’s life in Folsom Prison with, regrettably, no references to Johnny Cash. It opens with an introductory essay, “On Becoming”, in which he effectively sets the tone for all the writing that comes after. He states the purpose of his writing is for self-reflection, using his prison sentence to come to terms with the mistakes he made in his youth, all the while offering commentary on the white power structure that contributed to his disgruntlement with American society. You might say that this essay is friendly in tone, maybe even humble. Cleaver draws you in by sounding like a gentle person who got misguided in life.

Then this passage comes almost out of nowhere: “I became a rapist...Rape was an insurrectionary act. It delighted me that I was trampling upon the white man’s law, his system of values, and that I was defiling his women...I was getting revenge.” These thoughts, spread over two paragraphs hit the reader like a stink bomb of nuclear proportions. In fact, it hits so hard that it permanently clouds the judgment of some readers, so much so that they can not read, with any degree of accuracy, most of what comes later in this book. In fact, their judgment is sometimes so clouded, sometimes deliberately for the sake of puffing up their own sense of superiority, that they completely ignore the next paragraph which marks both a transition point in the essay and a transition point in Cleaver’s thinking. Says the author, “I took a long look at myself...and admitted that I was wrong, that I had gone astray – astray not so much from the white man’s law as from being human, civilized...” The author, at this point, takes responsibility for his own wrongdoings and vows to turn himself around. He admits that he owes this not only to himself but to society as a whole. Readers who are clear-headed and humanistic enough to grasp the meaning of this confession will still often admit that these hard-hitting paragraphs hang like a dark cloud over everything that Cleaver says subsequently throughout the course of Soul on Ice.

In one sense, Cleaver’s confession is a stroke of literary genius. Rarely do passages in essays like this arouse so much curiosity and strong emotion, enough so that the reader feels a strong compulsion to continue reading. Such a bold admission to possibly the worst crime a man can commit demands that it be followed up with bold analysis and even bolder insights. From this point on, the bar for success is set high; it is propped up according to whether Cleaver can deliver the goods by the last line of the last essay.

Other essays in this first section deal more specifically with life in prison. One piece, “The Christ and His Teaching”, stands out above the others, not only in this section, but also in the whole book. Cleaver writes about Lovdjieff, a prison teacher who is wildly popular with the inmates and a cause for suspicion with the prison authorities. The fact that Lovdjieff is white seems surprising at first, considering the author’s antagonism to the white power structure, but it soon becomes incidental and a matter of less importance as the essay progresses. Cleaver feels a deep bond with Lovdjieff, not just because of the teacher’s passion for knowledge but more specifically for his ability to get the author to see his life situation from multiple perspectives. At the crux of the matter is the life of Thomas Merton, a theologian who renounced material wealth to live in a monastery, dedicating his life to God. To Cleaver, this monastic life and vow of poverty looks insane; to him it looks like life in a ghetto only the imprisonment and poverty in a monk’s cell are voluntary. Cleaver thinks Lovdjieff’s lessons make Merton look like a fool but what is more important is that this forces Cleaver to look at his own prison life in a different light, it forces him to reframe his situation and consider the possibilty that he is wrong in his thinking.

“The Christ and His Teachings” is more than an almost stylistically perfect essay in the way it introduces themes, points, counterpoints, and gives the reader just enough information to lead them to the main point without overstating the case. It stands out among Cleaver’s other writings because it so directly points to the heart of his thinking. It demonstrates that not only can a person change by stepping outside themselves and re-thinking the way they are, but entire societies can do the same. The purpose of the teacher, and of effective leadership, is to catalyze this process, set it in motion, liquidate fossilized ideas, and the more sincere the teacher is, the more effective their results will be with their pupils.

The carry-over of this theme of transformation being instigated by a teacher can be easily seen in the essays on Malcolm X. As is well-known, after Malcolm X went on the hajj in Mecca, he left the Nation of Islam, converted to Orthodox Sunni Islam, and renounced racism while publicly acknowledging that he would work with white people to end injustice against non-whites. While this was a controversial move that fractured the loyalties of African-American activists at the time, Cleaver writes in full support of Malcolm X’s decision, holding him up as an example for the direction society can go in the process of integration.

The chapters dealing with life in prison are the best in this collection. They are personal and self-probing, creating a clear picture of where Eldridge Cleaver stands at this point in his life. He does an effective job of rallying the reader to his side. The caveat is that, being a prisoner and one that acknowledges his guilt in the crimes he committed, he appears to be deliberately portraying himself in the most sympathetic light he possibly can. Cleaver does come across as sincere, and he probably is, but he might leave you wondering how deeply into his own moral convictions he actually went.

Aside from the section of letters Cleaver exchanges with his attorney, the rest of Soul on Ice attempts to be less personal, addressing broader and more theoretical social issues concerning white supremacy and the oppressive power structure of government and big business. Many of his ideas are naive, being broad abstractions and over-generalizations. With his shift from focus on the individual to the structures of institutionalized racism, a lot gets lost. The idea of individuals as participants in a society much larger than themselves does not get effectively connected to the broader abstract theories he proposes. There is no data to support his theories, but to be fair, Cleaver was not a social scientist and he does effectively communicate a world view, even if it is a rudimentary one at best. Some of his ideas are certainly plausible, but his arguments lack supporting evidence. On the other hand, some of his ideas, particularly in regards to gender, are questionable.

“The Primevel Mitosis” is by far the oddest and most off-putting essay in this collection. It is formulaically logical while its contents are mostly absurd. Drawing on tightly-wound Hegelian logic, the politics of the Sexual Revolution, and the Nation of Islam’s myth of Yacub, the scientist who unleashed evil on the world by creating white people in a laboratory, Cleaver argues that white men are all brain and no body, black men are all body and no brain, white women are some vaguely defined essence of pure femininity, and black women, along with homosexuals, are a hopelessly confused mish-mash of gender roles. The bizarre reasoning behind this does not need to be analyzed in depth to be dismissed. But what is most troublesome is not how misogynistic, homophobic, and shockingly racist against African-American women it is, but rather how it justifies raping white women as a tactic of political activism. At the start of this book, Cleaver denounces that idea and action as a mistake of his youth but he reasserts it here by saying that it is necessary for black men to have sex with white women for racial progress to be made. While he is advocating consensual interracial sex over rape, and there is certainly nothing wrong with interracial sex unless you are a bigot, the idea that white women can be utilized as tools for the sake of harming and disempowering white men should be regarded with suspicion. Towards the end of this book we can see how Cleaver has shifted from rape to consensual sex without actually altering the flawed philosophy that underlied his motivations to commit that crime in the first place. On top of that, while interracial relationships certainly can go a long way in eliminating racism, interracial sex is not a panacea that will magically eliminate inequality on a large scale. Cleaver is advocating a fetish, not a plan of political action.

On a brighter note, in Convalescence”, as well as comments in other essays, Cleaver addresses the issue of white people “appropriating” African-American culture. He mentions the likes of Norman Mailer, Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac, Elvis Presley, and The Beatles; all of these are currently whipping-boys for the anti-appropriation crowd these days, but like Lovdjieff, Eldridge Cleaver would insist that these people look at their beliefs from another angle. Cleaver DEFENDS these white people for borrowing Black people’s culture. In his era, white people were not hearing pleas from African-Americans for racial equality but they were hearing their music. It would also make sense that white people would accept other white people who encourage integration simply because they are of the same peer group. What those writers and musicians did, according to Cleaver, was making it possible for white people to see that Black people have a legitimate point of view; they have something that can benefit all races and bring people together. Jack Kerouac and The Beatles, without being explicitly political, sent the message that it is acceptable for Black people to be themselves and that it is acceptable for white people to appreciate that. While Cleaver acknowledges that their borrowing of cultural elements and styles from Black people is superficial and even corny, he makes jokes about how silly white people look when they dance to Black music, he also demonstrates how they were opening a doorway, allowing white people of all races to interact in the same physical space. These cultural icons are like Lovdjieff and Malcolm X, catalyzing change and making people reorient the frameworks they use to perceive the world.

Getting back to his opening essay and the statement about rape that hangs like a dark cloud over everything else in Soul on Ice, we have to consider whether Eldridge Cleaver lived up to the task he set himself with that statement. Aside from it being a painful confession for him to make, did he succeed in effectively using his writing to re-evaluate his life, taking responsibility, and making changes for the better? In the end, I can meet him half way and say he got off to a good start but leaves a lot to be desired. His self-reflection comes across most effectively in the chapters on prison life and the essays drop in qualoty as they go on. He shifts away to writing about larger social issues that effect him personally but take the spotlight farther away from himself than it should be. While he expresses the need to end segregation and usher in a new era of social equality, even proposing a means of doing so through interaction in social spaces surrounding popular culture, he never sufficiently addresses the question of why he, the individual man named Eldridge Cleaver, saw rape as a legitimate form of expression. He never answers the question he poses to himself. He may have done this in his private life, thinking it was too personal to publish, and he does start off with an apology and a promise to be a better person, but on a literary level, he owes it to the reader to address the issue in some detail since he brought it up in the first place. By the end, it looks like his analysis of white injustice is a way of avoiding responsibility for the crime of rape that he committed. This obviously not the impression he wanted to make.

While not all of the essays in Soul on Ice are great, there are a few high points that make it a vital work of literature. His own life is another matter. After getting kicked out of the Black Panthers for wanting to escalate violent revolution while they were more concerned with free breakfast programs for children and helping African-American people get jobs, he went from one cultish group to another, becoming a Moonie, a Mormon, and finally a republican. He even tried to start his own sect called The Church of the Sacred Sperm; sounding too much like something out of a John Waters movie, it predictably went nowhere. He also invented the penis pants. If you don’t know about them, look them up online. This is the life of a man who felt lost in the world, struggling and failing to find a place to belong. His homophobia, his emphasis on hypermasculinity, and his obsession with his own penis are easy to laugh at, but there is something horribly sad about all that. He was overcompensating for feelings of weakness and vulnerability. While he blames white society for his rage and eccentricities, and in some senses this is justifiable, he had deeper personal issues that never got addressed. I’ve met a lot of troubled people in my life and I see certain patterns; I find myself wondering if Cleaver was sexually abused as a child. When Allen Ginsberg said, “I saw the greatest minds of my generation destroyed by madness”, he could very well have been talking about Eldridge Cleaver. He was a tragic figure and the biggest tragedy is that he never got the help he needed.

Soul on Ice has definite strengths and weaknesses. The strengths outweigh the weaknesses, especially in Eldridge Cleaver’s ability to express his anger, his hopes, and his confusion with a precise and rigid clarity. You can see his demons and angels fighting a brutal war even when he is not directly writing about himself. Like the heroes and idols he portrays in this book, he gets you to re-evaluate the way you think. Even if you don’t appreciate what he has to say, this book is a valuable historical document for students of African-American history, the Civil Rights and Black Power Movements, and the countercultures of the 1960s.


Cleaver, Eldridge. Soul on Ice. Ramparts Books/Dell Publishing Co. Inc., New York: 1970.


 

Have We Forgotten How to Read Critically?


 Since the internet has made the entire world a library with no exits or supervisors, many readers treat every published piece of writing as a conversation opener, demanding a bespoke response.


Read the full essay on Dame

Sunday, January 2, 2022

The 1970s Political Activist Who Invented Penis Pants


Introducing Eldridge Clever, Presidential candidate, writer, political activist, a prominent early leader of the Black Panthers, oh and inventor of the penis pants.


 

Book Review


Caligula: A Biography

by Aloys Winterling

     Caligula was an insane Roman emperor. Well, hold on a minute, maybe not. Aloys Winterling wrote Caligula: A Biography to examine that dispute even though it is an obscure one at best. For the most part, he proves his point that Caligula was perfectly sane, but the question I have as a reader is why did he see a need to make this argument in the first place?

At the start, Winterling outlines his thesis and the criteria he uses as a metric for evaluation. Caligula’s eccentricities were misunderstood or taken out of context. Nobody could have obeyed his orders if he were insane. No Roman physicians ever diagnosed him as being insane. The accusation of mental illness was meant as an insult as opposed to a clinical psychiatric condition. Some of these criteria are problematic, to say the least, almost so inept that you might wonder how a professor of history could not see his own blunders in his evaluation. But I will come back to that later.

At the time, Caligula was the youngest emperor to have ever led the Roman Empire. He was an upstart, full of youthful vigor, and ready to change the Roman government in ways that were not to the liking of the senate or the aristocracy. After being ruled by the three Caesars, the senate was growing increasingly more weak while the emperors were growing increasingly more powerful. Caligula wished to continue this trend and eventually return Rome to a monarchy. A showdown was inevitable, and a conspiracy to murder the young and naive leader was hatched. Caligula was alerted to the danger and had the rebellion put down immediately. After that he went on a campaign to humiliate and further weaken the senate. Wacky hijinks ensued. The emperor pulled a handful of pranks and practical jokes to make it clear to the senate and the plebs what he really thought of the aristocracy. The oddest incident was when he appointed his favorite race horse consul and proceeded to treat him as such. This, and other stunts, infuriated the senate and caused them to complain of his insanity. Otherwise, Caligula was an unremarkable emperor; the rest of his life involved political squabbles, excessive spending, and watching chariot races and gladiatorial combat for fun. He was assassinated shortly after being crowned emperor without having lived long enough to accomplish much.

That’s all folks.

Winterling states his argument and defends it, but that doesn’t say a whole lot. To say it was impossible for Caligula to be insane because others were willing to follow him is a weak idea. Hitler and Stalin were obviously mentally ill, yet they were able to lead their nations down the path to disaster. Donald Trump was president of America for four years while psychiatrists warned us that he has clear signs of a narcissistic personality disorder. There has been no shortage of religious leaders who were certainly crazy yet they still had their followings. Joan of Arc was schizophrenic. Ronald Reagan had Alzheimer’s disease. Case closed.

No physician in the Roman Empire ever diagnosed Caligula as insane is not such a sound criteria either. Firstly, just because such a diagnosis is not in the surviving written record, that does not mean nobody ever though it was true. Secondly, the Roman Empire was a pre-scientific society so the chances of doctors in that time having accurate knowledge of psychiatric disorders is pretty slim. Besides, Winterling himself does not provide us with any reason to think that he knows anything about psychiatry either.

Winterling’s argument that Caligula’s insanity was an insult rather than a diagnosis is a sound idea, but so what? It makes perfect sense in its context and, assuming that the most important details of Caligula’s life are known about, it isn’t a profound conclusion to arrive at. In fact, if Winterling had written this as a straight biography without outlining his thesis or even analyzing the evidence, I would see nothing in it to make me think Caligula was insane anyways. On the other hand, I take it for granted that people in positions of political power tend to be psychologically disordered to begin with. A sane person wouldn’t want to be an emperor, a dictator, or a president in the first place. I don’t think a sane person would want to be a psychologist either.

Caligula: A Biography is a so-so book. It is written at about a junior high school level of complexity so if you are used to reading more complicated books it is a bit plain. But Aloys Winterling accomplishes what he sets out to do, even if he is going for a low-hanging fruit. Caligula was moderately interesting, but he didn’t live long enough to be a fascinating historical figure. I was actually hoping for more sex and violence in this biography but admittedly, historical accuracy is more important. If you came to this book expecting something like the hilariously dreadful exploitation film directed by Tinto Brass in the 1970s, you probably will be disappointed. But then again, that might be a good thing anyways.


Winterling, Aloys. Caligula: A Biography, translated by Deborah Lucas Schneider, Glenn W. Most, and Paul Psoinos. University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: 2011. 


 

Saturday, January 1, 2022

Book Review


Freedom's Orator:

Mario Savio and the Radical Legacy of the 1960s

by Robert Cohen

     In the fall of 1964, onSproul Plaza of the UC Berkeley campus in Oakland, a young physics student climbed on top of a parked police car and made a speech. The car was surrounded by several thousand students, all sitting on the pavement, making a coordinated effort to prevent the police from approaching it and driving it away. This was the beginning of the Free Speech Movement and the student on the police car was Mario Savio, its main spokesperson. The Free Speech Movement began when the administrators banned political speech at Berkeley, primarily to prevent student activists from educating others about the Civil Rights Movement which was approaching its peak at the time. Robert Cohen’s biography Freedom’s Orator: Mario Savio and the Radical Legacy of the 1960s does a quality job of bringing the days of the FSM to life for readers in our current times.

As any biographer would, Cohen starts off with the family upbringing of the young subject, showing how Mario Savio’s childhood prepared him for his role in later life. His parents were working class immigrants from Sicily who raised Savio in Brooklyn. The youth was an academic high achiever who suffered from a severe stutter that was caused by anxiety and got worse when in the presence of authority figures. Cohen returns to this fact repeatedly throughout the book to illustrate how overcoming this problem propelled Savio to be an advocate of free speech and an effective speech-maker throughout the rest of his life. Other contributing factors in Savio’s development into a political activist were his grandfather’s membership in the fascist party of Mussolini and the trauma of childhood sexual abuse which made him feel a deep solidarity with all the downtrodden people of the world.

Mario Savio went on to be involved with activism as soon as he left high school. He went to Mexico to help indigenous people build modern housing for themselves and spent time in Mississippi working with SNCC to register African-American voters while the KKK were trying to terrorize and kill them. When he returned to Berkeley he participated in non-violent demonstrations in favor of equal representation for Black people in the labor market. When SNCC, CORE, and other leftist political organizations began setting up tables on UC Berkeley’s Sproul Plaza to educate students about Civil Rights, the pro-establishment administration called the police to have them arrested and removed. That led to the spontaneous demonstration where Mario Savio made his groundbreaking speech.

From there, Cohen details what happened with the Free Speech Movement and their two committees that worked on solving the conflict they had with the authorities. The FSM not only had conflicts with Berkeley’s management team, they also had internal conflicts that had to be overcome. Mario Savio was also a man who had his own deep, internal conflicts. The biography examines these issues both sympathetically and critically, never shying away from pointing out where the FSM’s weaknesses were even though he wholeheartedly admires what they did.

Other topics covered are Mario Savio’s relationship to the New Left movement and the hippie counter-culture, neither of which was he enthusiastic about in his support, his battle with mental illness, his career as a college physics professor, and his lifelong commitment to advocacy for minority and low-income students in their struggle to pursue higher education. The final part of the book is a collection of Savio’s speeches and essays. This was the least memorable part of Cohen’s biography, mostly because all the key ideas there were already addressed in the first three sections. The final essay, an effective explanation and defense of affirmative action, hits all the right notes and is well worth your time even if it is a bit dry.

Aside from the clear and precise details, a strength of this biography is how well Cohen explains the methods of the Free Speech Movement which provides a good contrast to the political activism of our current times. Mario Savio saw the educational institutions of America as being run like machines so they believed in shutting down their operation through demonstrations and forcing the authorities into a position where they would have to negotiate in order to get the machine running again. When the Berkeley students seized the police car, they held it for ransom and the price was a place at the negotiating table, not some outlandish over-the-top abstract claim like ending the patriarchy now or stopping capitalism. The FSM risked their safety to put themselves into a position where they could make demands. Their activism was done with the intention of reaching short terms achievements that could lead to more short term achievements which collectively would result in a larger transformation of society at a later time. Political activism today is mostly done by ineffective street demonstrations and picking fights with strangers on the internet, neither of which have proven to be effective. The end result of political correctness was Donald Trump. Occupy Wall Street is a great example of the colossal failure of the 21st century American left; it was a massive demonstration where nobody made any clear demands and so nothing got accomplished. Today’s activists should learn a few lessons from the Free Speech Movement and the Civil Rights Movement to see how things actually get done. Demonstrations are not magic spells that correct the world’s problems. Arguments on the internet have never, ever, succeeded in convincing anybody to change their mind about anything significant. Without direct action that leads to realistic demands and negotiation, activism amounts to nothing more than vanity, publicity stunts, and whining.

Mario Savio is here portrayed without any embellishments. His style was plain and down-to-Earth. There was nothing flamboyant in his character which again stands in stark contrast to the celebrity boutique activism we have now and the McLeftist-tainment costume shows we get from activist at the street level. Savio acted out of conviction more than egotism. For him, change was more important than fame and that is why he was able to lead the Free Speech Movement to victory armed with nothing but the minds and bodies of the people who supported the cause. Mario Savio comes off as any ordinary man on the street, albeit an ordinary man on the street who made a significant difference in the conduct of our nation.

While the cause of free speech in the 21st century has become the domain of loony conspiracy theorists, white supremacists, and other bizarro right wing ideologues, leftists have come full circle and are now demanding censorship for offensive speech. UC Berkeley has become a big part of the reactionary left’s blunders since they have banned Bill Maher, Ann Coutler, and Milo Yiannaoulis from speaking on their campus; the latter two individuals deserve all the humiliation the receive at the hands of the public and then some, but they still should have the right to make asses of themselves on any college campus they choose. Colleges are supposed to be places for the free exploration of ideas, not factories, as Mario Savio would say, for producing pre-fabricated workers for big business and government bureaucracies. Universities are also not meant to be indoctrination centers which is what they become if speech is censored in the name of not offending people. It is a sad irony that UC Berkeley, after having put a commemorative plaque to Mario Savio on Sproul Plaza, is now a hotbed of censorship and cancel culture being propagated by the people who have benefited the most from the Free Speech Movement. Without Mario Savio, some of the advances made in the name of minority rights, women’s rights, and LBGTQ rights would not have been possible. Activists of today’s left owe it to themselves to read a book like Freedom’s Orator so they can raise their awareness of how freedom of speech benefits everybody and censorship only benefits the people of privilege they claim to be fighting against.


Cohen, Robert. Freedom's Orator: Mario Savio and the Radical Legacy of the 1960s. Oxford University Press, New York et al: 2009.