As a summary, Patterson seeks to show, in the essay "Broken Bloodlines," that during the period of enslavement the Afro-American slave family was often disrupted. Enslaved Africans were treated as chattel (property) and as livestock. There was no legally-recognized marriage, although males and female cohabited in cabins and produced children. Males were robbed of the normal role of provider and protector of the family. Master provided the food (as paltry as it may have been, and "husbands" supplemented the diet by hunting, trapping and fishing. The slave man was punished and even killed if he tried to protect his wife and children from abuse by overseers and the master. Herbert Gutman's famous study of large plantations found that at least one third of slave families were broken up by the sale of one of the partners. Thus, a man might be sold away from his family (or vice versa), and over the course of a life time co-habitate with a series of different partners. This pattern disrupted slave families. The institution of New World slavery damaged and injured and weakened the Afro-American family. The weakened family, for a segment of the Afro-American community, was a legacy or consequence of slavery. Afro-Americans tried to put their families back together again after slavery ended in 1865. But a portion of the community suffered from the pattern of births out of wedlock and abandoned women who became "single parents." This pattern worsened in the 20^th century when Afro-Americans moved to the North. Men who could not find regular employment might abandon their families. Women were forced to work full-time to support themselves and their children, without a male partner. And if the mother has to work full-time, then the children may have to "raise themselves" or "grow up in the street" because the parent is (or the parents are) not there to supervise the children. This then makes the children more vulnerable to the peer group, gangs, juvenile delinquency, early (precocious) sexuality, dropping out of school, and criminal activity. The pattern then gets transmitted to the next generation, and becomes self-sustaining and self perpetuating. This pattern of family "dis-organization" or "dysfunction," as sociologists class it, got worse during the Great Depression of the 1930s and has worsened since that time. For sixty years, all statistics reveal that the rate of unemployment for Afro-Americans is TWICE what it is for Euro-Americans. Since the 1990s, the percentage of Afro-American children born "out of wedlock" exceeds fifty percent, and has even risen above sixty percent. The percentage of Afro-American children who live in a family or household without two parents who are married to one another is greater than the percentage of Afro-American children who DO live in a household with two parents who are married to one another. This may be a consequence of BOTH a residue of the damaging effect of slavery AND the tendency of unemployment to stress men and push them to abandon their families. This happens because the man who is unable to fulfill the normal role of breadwinner, PROVIDER and protector may feel--psychologically-- like less of a man, or feel inadequate, or feel like a failure. It is easier to walk away than to see his family suffering and "doing without" because he cannot "provide." And if he is blamed and "put down" for his "failure," this will push him away even faster.

This type of environment forces women to be independent (I can make it without a man). But it also encourages what Patterson describes as a pathological subculture in which males measure their "manhood" not by success in providing or their ability to provide, but rather by their "success" as bedmates, or the number of sexual conquests that they have, and how many women they "have," and how many children they have, whether they are providing for those children or not. Thus, manhood comes to be redefined in "ghetto culture" as "getting over" on women, and getting them pregnant. It is redefined as being a stud (a "player"). In this mindset, getting a baby makes you a "man," whereas most societies know that TAKING CARE of a baby (PROVIDING) makes you a man. Of course, during slavery, that is exactly how black men were used: to "service" or impregnate women, without any responsibility to provide for the children that resulted from sex. Today, welfare "provides" the way that the slave master used to "provide," such that welfare is just a new form of slavery. And SOME black men are reduced to the role of sperm donor or gigolo, just as back during slavery the black male was at worst merely a sperm donor (sociologist David Blankenhorn calls this the "sperm father").

The point is that a tragic combination of the possible residue of slavery (which encouraged black men to behave merely as sperm donors) and the consequences of disastrous levels of unemployment have had the effect of damaging the black family. And extended family networks try to compensate for the damage, but the extended family is still a compensation for the problem, not the same as avoiding or preventing or eradicating the problem. Orlando Patterson would suggest that the most destructive impact of slavery was NOT the physical abuse or the scars of the body or even sexual exploitation. It was the damage that was done to the black male-female relationship, and the family.

FEAST OF BLOOD

"Feast of Blood" is about lynching. Lynching is described a being accused of a crime or offense, and being killed by a mob of three or more people, without benefit of trial. Thus a vigilante takes the law into its own hands, and becomes judge, jury and executioner. Between 1880 and 1930, more than 3,000 Afro-Americans were lynched, the vast majority in the South. From 1882-1968, 72% of all of the victims of lynching were Afro-Americans (Patterson, p. 176). In the southern states there was no law against lynching. And the Southerners in the Senate blocked efforts (filibuster) in 1922 to pass a FEDERAL law against lynching (the Dyer Anti-Lynching bill that had passed in the House of Representatives). After the 1880s, increasingly lynching became something that was peculiarly reserved for blacks (and Indians) only. Nonwhites were singled out for such treatment. The most frequent form of lynching was by hanging. But in some extreme cases people were burned alive, or dragged to death behind cars or trucks, or tortured and mutilated and castrated. Claude Neal (Florida, October 1934) was mutilated (penis cut off) and castrated (testicles cut off), and he was even forced to eat them (Patterson, p. 197-198).

There were even cases of black women being hanged. In the case of Mildrey Brown, this thirteen year-old girl was accused and convicted of poisoning a white infant whom she was baby-sitting. She was hanged in South Carolina (1903)* On p. 180 Patterson describes the case of Martha Turner. She was 8 months pregnant. Her husband had been lynched. She said that she would take legal action against the men who killed her husband. Her dress was doused with kerosene and burned off of her. She was has strung up by her ankles, and her abdomen cut open. The fetus was cut out of her body, and when it fell to the ground it was stomped to death and crushed. And the woman killed. Patterson points to 74 Afro-American women who were lynched, and five Euro-American women (1882-1930) (p. 179).

In 1892 Thomas Moss and two of his companions were lynched in Memphis, Tennessee. The person who spoke out publicly against lynching, and in print, was Ida B. Wells. A mob then burned down the office of her newspaper, and threatened her life. She fled Memphis, and went to Chicago. She worked in both Chicago and New York at various times.

White supremacists put forward the propaganda that lynching was necessary to defend "white womanhood" from the pronounced tendency of black men to be rapists. But of course, if black men were such dangerous rapists and such a menace to society, why had white men done everything in their power for 400 years to bring black men 3,000 miles across the ocean from Africa to America? Thomas Moss was not lynched for raping anyone. Rather, he had opened a grocery store. It attracted Afro-American customers. A Euro-American merchant became jealous because Moss's store was "too successful" in competing with the Euro-American store. The white merchant incited a group of men to attack the black store on a Saturday night. The blacks fought back, and shot (but did not kill) three white men. The authorities then forbade the sale of weapons or ammunition to blacks in the area. A mob went into the jail and brought out Moss and the two other co-owners of the store. They were all hanged, and then a mob looted and ransacked the store. Moss's real crime was that he dared to open and a business of his own, and to work for himself, and to compete with a white man, and fight back and defend his property when it was attacked. In the South, this was a taboo. It was an unwritten crime for blacks to compete with whites--or to be or try to be successful. Success and upward mobility and OWNERSHIP were reserved "for whites only." And how dare a black person to FIGHT BACK against attack or aggression by whites!

Close study of instances of lynching show that in not even one-third of the cases was the black man even accused of rape. The smokescreen of "rape" was used as an EXCUSE to attack and destroy black people who were assertive or dared to stand up for themselves or fight back. Many of the Afro-Americans who were lynched were accused of quarreling with whites, or fighting with whites, or assaulting whites, or killing whites. And if a white woman dared to have a consensual relationship with a black man, it was STILL rape because white women had no right to choose to be with anyone other than a white man. This it was rape, even if she consented, or even if she initiated the relationship, because CULTURALLY she had no right to give consent to such a relationship or to make such a choice. Only men were accorded the right of choice: not women. For a black man to be with a white woman was a crime. It was a transgression, because he was taking something that did not belong to him. White women "belonged" to white men, and black women belonged to white men too (not to black men) because whites were superior to blacks and blacks were less than human and were little more than livestock. July Perry (Florida) was lynched for quarreling with the election officials. He said he had paid his poll tax. They said he had not. A crowd followed him home to his house and demanded that he come outside. He fought back, and got his gun.

On p. 175, Patterson shows that 1,937 Afro-Americans were lynched for committing homicide, 205 killed for assault, 912 for rape, 288 for attempted rape, 212 for robbery or theft, 85 for insulting whites, 1,084 for other reasons.

In addition, white supremacists distorted and perverted Christianity to create their own white supremacist brand of pseudo-Christianity. In the middle of the 1800s something emerged in Britain called British Israelism. This cult argued that the real chosen people were not the so-called Jews. Rather, they said, the Lost Tribes of Israel had gone to Europe in ancient times, and the English were the lost tribe. And then these Englishmen had come to America, and the white Americans were the true Hebrews. This theology was popularized in America by Wesley Swift, and became known as Christian Identity and then was embraced by the Aryan Nations. The ideas were circulating in America, especially in the South, in the 1800s.

These ideas also suggested that Adam and Eve had been white. When Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, Eve was tempted by the serpent. Eve had sex with the serpent (Satan, the Devil) and sex with Adam. She gave birth to several children. Abel was white, and he was Adam's son. He was the product of the Adamic seedline. Cain was the son of Eve and Satan. He had the mark of Cain on him, and was racially mixed or black. He was a soul-less, monstrous, bastard child, not really human. He was evil and Satanic, the spawn of Satan. Black people and nonwhite people are "mud people." They are not the descendants of Adam, but supposedly the descendants of the half human, cursed, Cain. This was why Cain (the Satanic one) killed his brother Abel (presumably when both were adults and after they had married and sired children).

This theology depicts black people as the enemies of the Adamic seedline, cursed by God, who deserve to be treated like enemies and destroyed.

Orlando Patterson suggests that lynching was pathological (sick, diseased, aberrant) behavior (psychopathology). And lynching can be looked at AS IF it were a (sick) religious ritual. To grasp this, we need to recall that far back in human history, in our most primitive stages, humans in some culture practiced human sacrifice. Human sacrifice appeased or propitiated angry gods or spirits. In the Old Testament, Abraham was going to sacrifice his son Isaac (human sacrifice). But then God or an angel of the LORD tells him to spare the child's life, and sacrifice a ram instead. The sacrifice of animals in ancient religions (goats, sheep, rams, bulls, pigeons, whatever) served as a SUBSTITUTE for the sacrifice of humans (especially children). Furthermore, in ancient religions, the sacrifice is burned on an altar, and the smoke ascends to "heaven" and the aroma supposedly is pleasing to the gods. Supposedly the gods are more inclined to respond favorably to our prayers if we give them reverence by making sacrifices and offerings to them (reverence and worship, not bribery).

We should also recall that during the European Middle Ages, witches or people possessed by the Devil (or demons) were burned at the stake. The act of burning is intended to PURIFY something that is evil or Satanic or demonic. It is not JUST mindless cruelty. Burning cleanses or purifies or drives out evil or disease or contamination (blankets infected with smallpox must be burned). Fire also consecrates a place as holy.

Also, in the Old Testament, one of the most significant ways that God makes Himself manifest (visible) to humanity is in the form of fire. Moses heard the voice of God from, and saw, a BURNING bush. When the Hebrews departed from Egypt, God made Himself manifest to them as a pillar of FIRE. For Elijah, God caused FIRE to come from heaven and consume an altar. Fire and brimstone rained down on Sodom and Gomorrah to destroy the two cities. Fire symbolizes the presence of God Himself. The BURNING cross is a message and a warning, but it also symbolizes the presence of God on the cross.

Orlando Patterson puts all of these elements together to suggest that lynching functioned AS IF it were a (sick) religious ritual. A lynching was preceded by prayer. When Mack Charles Parker was lynched in Mississippi, in 1959, one of the co-organizers of the event was a Baptist (Protestant) preacher (p. 202). When George White was accused of rape and murder in Wilmington, Delaware, in June 1903, a Presbyterian minister whipped a crowd up into a frenzy and declared that Scripturally a lynch mob would be justified (203-204). For the KKK, the burning of a cross (a Christian symbol) is preceded by prayer by a Protestant minister! It is almost AS IF lynching was a form of human sacrifice, with the black victim as a sacrificial offering to the god of white supremacy. Apparently this was an angry and bloodthirsty god who needed lots of victims in order to be appeased. Some white Southerners after the Civil war even believed that their god had allowed the Confederacy to lose the war as a punishment for the South angering their god (no one was exactly sure what the South had done to make god angry though). Especially where the Afro-American is burned alive, at the stake, the murder comes closest to human sacrifice and the burning of a witch (an evil, Satanic person). The burning of the person purifies the community of the contamination brought about by whatever offense or transgression the victim committed. His death is a ritual punishment hat reasserts the proper order (white supremacy and black subordination, submission).

Furthermore, some witnesses to the lynchings said that the aroma of burning flesh reminded them of "barbecue," like steak (p. 199). It made them intensely hungry (see p. 202). Physiologists know that the sensation of hunger causes humans to salivate (like Pavlov's dogs). The senses of smell and taste are closely linked. Much of what we think is taste is really smell. Lynchings frequently were held at noon, and were routinely followed by a meal. In other words, it was as if the lynching made people hungry and then they ACTUALLY DID EAT! Patterson suggests that smelling the aroma of "human barbecue" and then salivating and eating is just one step away from actual cannibalism. It is about as close to cannibalism as one can come without actually consuming the corpse of the burned victim.

Furthermore, some people actually mutilated the body of the victims to get body parts, which they then kept as souvenirs and trophies. When Richard Coleman was burned alive in Maysville, Kentucky, 1899, relic-hunters carried away fingers, toes, and his teeth (Patterson, p. 195). When Sam Hose was lynched near Atlanta (about 1906), someone actually chopped off his knuckles. The knuckles were then placed in a glass case and put on display in a department store (described by W.E.B. Du Bois), and people paid to come and see them.

Patterson tries to make it clear that he regards this as sick, psychopathological, aberrant, mentally diseased, deviant behavior. But we try to "understand" how this could have happened. What was wrong with the people who felt the need to do this? What was wrong with the American society that stood by and allowed it to go one for DECADES (until the 1950s!)

In addition, lynchings were public spectacles. There was a carnival atmosphere. It was a circus. For many people, it was an exciting event, like sports or entertainment. Some lynchings were advertised in the newspapers a week in advance. These were pre-meditated events, not always spur of the moment, spontaneous outbursts. People were invited from neighboring towns to come and watch. Hundreds and thousands of people came to watch and enjoy the spectacle. People brought their wives and children to see it. Some people sold photographs of the burnt or mutilated body (p. 198). They sent postcards about the lynching. People posed for photographs with the corpse, and smiled and "mugged" for the camera. If one examines the facial expressions in these photographs, the presumed participants or spectators do not seem grieved by the event. On the contrary, they smile and beam proudly at what they have done. They proudly display what they have done, like a fisherman with the big fish that he had caught, or the hunter with the head and antlers of a beer that he was killed. After the end of Reconstruction, Afro-Americans became so much prey. They were the hunted "beasts," and the hunters gloried in the thrill of the hunt and the kill. It was "open season" on black folks. The Afro-American was the INTERNAL OR DOMESTIC ENEMY that had to be controlled, subjugated, dominated, (p. 191) much as wolves or snakes are threats that have to be destroyed. But what made the Afro-American such a terrible threat was that he could not be simply driven out or exterminated or pushed into extinction. His labor was necessary to the economic welfare of the planters. So he had to be kept around, even as he was hated and dreaded and needed to be controlled.

All of this shows just how sick and pathological our society (or a part of American society) was. It shows the horrendous and monstrous extent of what Afro-Americans have had to endure and suffer through in this country. What Afro-Americans went through was nothing less than hell on earth. But this chapter of American history is so pathetic that most people prefer to ignore it; forget it; sweep it under the rug; develop amnesia; pretend or forget that it ever happened. America, sometimes, is like Germany trying to pretend that the Nazi Holocaust never happened, trying to deny or forget the past. In the name of preserving white power and white dominance and white supremacy--and black submission and subservience and subordination-- the monsters of America's past even resorted to burning people alive; human sacrifice; sadism; mutilating and castrating people; taking body parts as trophies to be displayed in jars in barbershops; and behavior that borders upon cannibalism and in some cases might even have been actual cannibalism. This is the ugly truth that so much of America does not want to know.

How does one maintain sanity in the midst of a society that is (or was) insane? Or a society in which such psychopathology is explained away? or excused away? or swept under the rug as somehow "normal?" When we "white this out" of history we present a cheery, romanticized picture of the American past that is a lie. It is a history of omissions. It is a history that shows us as we wish we had been rather than how we as a country really were. In that case, we are lying to ourselves. We refuse to see our country as it truly was, and as it really has been. It is like telling the story of Jeffrey Dahmer and leaving out the fact that he went to prison, and killed and ate more than fifteen people.

What is equally appalling is that so often we gloss over this pathological aspect of American history, and instead tell a story that says America was a great, wonderful society with liberty FOR ALL, and justice FOR ALL, and equality and opportunity FOR ALL, and America welcomed the immigrants; and they came with nothing; and pulled themselves up by their boot straps; and everyone could have done the same thing; and we should pat ourselves on the back and celebrate how wonderful this country is, for being the savior of the world, the lighthouse of freedom, the beacon of democracy, so free from prejudice and discrimination and bigotry. We should be proud for being such a generous country, so willing to share, so willing to accept everyone and respect difference.

Orlando Patterson asks us to delve deeply into the psychotic mind of the lynch mob, and the thousands who came to see and enjoy the spectacle of the lynching. He asks, "what was wrong with the people who participated in the lynching?" "What was wrong with the people who watched with rapt fascination and did nothing to stop it?" "What was wrong with the society that tolerated this sickness in its midst?" What does the indifference and inaction of the "majority" say about the complicity and depravity of the larger majority?

For Afro-Americans, as Malcolm X said, the American dream was the American nightmare; and slavery followed by segregation (down to 1964) and lynching (as a common practice right down to the 1930s) was nothing less than domestic racial TERRORISM. The cruel fact is that the relationship of the white planter elite to the black laborers (whether as slaves or sharecroppers) was a PARASITIC relationship, with the planters as the parasites. And the relationship between white supremacists and blacks in the South, and the North too, was a PREDATORY relationship

Finally, a word about syllogisms.

Example: A sparrow is a bird
Birds can fly
A sparrow can fly

A fruit develops from a flower and tastes sweet
An apple develops from a flower
An apple is sweet

A penguin is a bird (or ostrich, or emu)
Bird can fly
A penguin can fly

A tomato develops from a flower
A tomato is a fruit
A tomato is sweet

God is white
We Europeans and Euro-American are white
Therefore white people are God (or gods)

In the last case, one goes from worshipping God to worshipping "whiteness." In this case one might end up worshipping ONESELF, or one's "racial" group, in place of God. One ends up exalting whiteness and white people, and reshaping God in one's own human image; and worshipping the god of white supremacy. This is what happened to some people in the South (maybe the North too). Thus religion is twisted around and perverted to serve the cause of human self-exaltation and conceit. Religion (Christianity) was used and abused and tampered with to justify white supremacy. This is why pride is such a dangerous human trait. After all, it was vanity and pride and a high opinion of himself that led Lucifer to become jealous of God, and desire to rule in HIS place. When people begin to think of themselves as God, they feel that they have the right to do whatever they want, and it is okay. The feel that they are ENTITLED to take whatever they want. They feel that they have a God-given right to rule over everyone else and to control everything. They think that they can do no wrong. And even if they are wrong, they are still right anyway. When we begin to grasp this mindset, we begin to understand American history and the tortured experience of Afro-Americans in America.