Cosmopolitan Defense II

To the Editors of the Crimson:

In his Crimson piece entitled "Parochial Moorings Don't Bog Down," in which he berates Professor Martin Kilson's "Cosmopolitan Imperative," Christopher J. Farley claims to speak for all Black students at Harvard. There are those of us, however, who feel he has misrepresented not only the Professor's argument but also the entire Black population of this country. His piece falsely portrays the latter as a culturally and politically monolithic group. Falling prey to a "romantic realism," Mr. Farley contrasts the inherent honesty, virtue, and simple "traditional customs" of Blacks with the materialistic, so-called, "yuppie ethic" of whites.

Obviously, the author fears the loss of identity which might result from Blacks' adopting the "materialistic" or "cosmopolitan" stance he feels the professor is advocating. "To ask Blacks to become 'cosmopolitan' is a corruption of what it is to be a Black American." This rather lofty statement would be true if Kilson's definition of "cosmopolitan" agreed with Mr. Farley's misinterpretation of the term.

Cosmopolitan does not entail forsaking one's "roots" or one's "poorer bretheren"--as Mr. Farley condescendingly refers to the economically deprived members of our race. On the contrary, the "cosmopolitan imperative," rather than being a call to assimilate, to deny our origins in the ruthless pursuit of personal advancement, is instead a plea to Black students to work within the social and political structures of this country to bring about improvement. Professor Kilson feels that Black students have the responsibility of alerting non-Blacks to a problem that is not only ours but theirs as well: poverty and discrimination in the United States. Perhaps Doctor Kilson goes too far in making the generalization that all cosmopolitan Blacks, will provide better leadership than all "parochial" Blacks. Nonetheless, as we live in a multi-racial nation--or as Mr. Farley himself puts it: "...a country which prides itself in cultural differences"--it would seem that interaction with the elements surrounding us, rather than xenophobic isolation from them, would be a better means of securing a more acceptable position for Blacks in general, and a more financially secure situation for underpriviledged ones.

Involving oneself with non-Black America does not necessarily lead to a loss of "Blackness." Our "cultural memories" are not as evanescent as Mr. Farley believes them to be. Secondly, the author needs to define the term "Blackness." As stated earlier, Black Americans are not a monolithic group; we have different geographical origins and cultural heritages. We should of course never--indeed, how could we ever--forget that we are Black but it is simplistic to define our racial identity in terms of "traditional customs," or as the antithesis of being "educated," "influential" or "financially secure."

Furthermore, it is demeaning to Blacks to state that they only have white friends in order to insure future financial success. For someone who associates Blackness with honesty and virtue, Mr. Farley certainly portrays us as a group of economic mercenaries. Implicit in his argument is the assertion that Blacks can only have true friendships with one another; friendships with non-Blacks, he suggests, are motivated purely by self interest. While we recognize that racism continues to plague our country, we feel that the best way to overcome this evil is through interracial association. Such contact, rather than resulting in an abandonment of cultural identity, leads to better understanding among all ethnic groups.

This is the idea Professor Kilson is supporting in his letter. He is not urging Black's to become something they are not; on the contrary, the Doctor is adamantly against both assimilation and the abandonment of one's social responsibility. He leaves it to the discretion of the student as to how much he or she should "temper" his or her parochial givens with cosmopolitan interactions."

Also misunderstood was the ideology of Booker T. Washington. The educator was no, an assimilationist. In fact, Washington advocated the separation of the races, not their interaction. His statement that in all things social Blacks and whites should be like the five fingers of the hand--separate--is anything but an encouragement to Black cultural disolution. In closing, let us reiterate our disagreement with Mr. Farley's self-appointment as the spokesperson for all Blacks at Harvard, and our resentment of his claim that education, influence, and financial security are perogatives of non-Blacks only. Susan Fales '85   Derick Fennel '85