Legacy of Slavery - White Privilege

From http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/whiteprivilege.htm

[This essay builds on the discussion of white privilege from Peggy McIntosh's essay "White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences Through Work in Women's Studies."]

Image via Wikipedia

by Robert Jensen

Here's what white privilege sounds like:

I am sitting in my University of Texas office, talking to a very bright and very conservative white student about affirmative action in college admissions, which he opposes and I support.

The student says he wants a level playing field with no unearned advantages for anyone. I ask him whether he thinks that in the United States being white has advantages. Have either of us, I ask, ever benefited from being white in a world run mostly by white people? Yes, he concedes, there is something real and tangible we could call white privilege.

So, if we live in a world of white privilege--unearned white privilege--how does that affect your notion of a level playing field? I ask.

He paused for a moment and said, "That really doesn't matter."

That statement, I suggested to him, reveals the ultimate white privilege: the privilege to acknowledge you have unearned privilege but ignore what it means.

That exchange led me to rethink the way I talk about race and racism with students. It drove home to me the importance of confronting the dirty secret that we white people carry around with us everyday: In a world of white privilege, some of what we have is unearned. I think much of both the fear and anger that comes up around discussions of affirmative action has its roots in that secret. So these days, my goal is to talk openly and honestly about white supremacy and white privilege.

White privilege, like any social phenomenon, is complex. In a white supremacist culture, all white people have privilege, whether or not they are overtly racist themselves. There are general patterns, but such privilege plays out differently depending on context and other aspects of one's identity (in my case, being male gives me other kinds of privilege). Rather than try to tell others how white privilege has played out in their lives, I talk about how it has affected me.

I am as white as white gets in this country. I am of northern European heritage and I was raised in North Dakota, one of the whitest states in the country. I grew up in a virtually all-white world surrounded by racism, both personal and institutional. Because I didn't live near a reservation, I didn't even have exposure to the state's only numerically significant non-white population, American Indians.

I have struggled to resist that racist training and the ongoing racism of my culture. I like to think I have changed, even though I routinely trip over the lingering effects of that internalized racism and the institutional racism around me. But no matter how much I "fix" myself, one thing never changes--I walk through the world with white privilege.

What does that mean? Perhaps most importantly, when I seek admission to a university, apply for a job, or hunt for an apartment, I don't look threatening. Almost all of the people evaluating me for those things look like me--they are white. They see in me a reflection of themselves, and in a racist world that is an advantage. I smile. I am white. I am one of them. I am not dangerous. Even when I voice critical opinions, I am cut some slack. After all, I'm white.

My flaws also are more easily forgiven because I am white. Some complain that affirmative action has meant the university is saddled with mediocre minority professors. I have no doubt there are minority faculty who are mediocre, though I don't know very many. As Henry Louis Gates Jr. once pointed out, if affirmative action policies were in place for the next hundred years, it's possible that at the end of that time the university could have as many mediocre minority professors as it has mediocre white professors. That isn't meant as an insult to anyone, but is a simple observation that white privilege has meant that scores of second-rate white professors have slid through the system because their flaws were overlooked out of solidarity based on race, as well as on gender, class and ideology.

Some people resist the assertions that the United States is still a bitterly racist society and that the racism has real effects on real people. But white folks have long cut other white folks a break. I know, because I am one of them.

I am not a genius--as I like to say, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I have been teaching full-time for six years, and I've published a reasonable amount of scholarship. Some of it is the unexceptional stuff one churns out to get tenure, and some of it, I would argue, actually is worth reading. I work hard, and I like to think that I'm a fairly decent teacher. Every once in awhile, I leave my office at the end of the day feeling like I really accomplished something. When I cash my paycheck, I don't feel guilty.

But, all that said, I know I did not get where I am by merit alone. I benefited from, among other things, white privilege. That doesn't mean that I don't deserve my job, or that if I weren't white I would never have gotten the job. It means simply that all through my life, I have soaked up benefits for being white. I grew up in fertile farm country taken by force from non-white indigenous people. I was educated in a well-funded, virtually all-white public school system in which I learned that white people like me made this country great. There I also was taught a variety of skills, including how to take standardized tests written by and for white people.

All my life I have been hired for jobs by white people. I was accepted for graduate school by white people. And I was hired for a teaching position at the predominantly white University of Texas, which had a white president, in a college headed by a white dean and in a department with a white chairman that at the time had one non-white tenured professor.

There certainly is individual variation in experience. Some white people have had it easier than me, probably because they came from wealthy families that gave them even more privilege. Some white people have had it tougher than me because they came from poorer families. White women face discrimination I will never know. But, in the end, white people all have drawn on white privilege somewhere in their lives.

Like anyone, I have overcome certain hardships in my life. I have worked hard to get where I am, and I work hard to stay there. But to feel good about myself and my work, I do not have to believe that "merit," as defined by white people in a white country, alone got me here. I can acknowledge that in addition to all that hard work, I got a significant boost from white privilege, which continues to protect me every day of my life from certain hardships.

At one time in my life, I would not have been able to say that, because I needed to believe that my success in life was due solely to my individual talent and effort. I saw myself as the heroic American, the rugged individualist. I was so deeply seduced by the culture's mythology that I couldn't see the fear that was binding me to those myths. Like all white Americans, I was living with the fear that maybe I didn't really deserve my success, that maybe luck and privilege had more to do with it than brains and hard work. I was afraid I wasn't heroic or rugged, that I wasn't special.

I let go of some of that fear when I realized that, indeed, I wasn't special, but that I was still me. What I do well, I still can take pride in, even when I know that the rules under which I work in are stacked in my benefit. I believe that until we let go of the fiction that people have complete control over their fate--that we can will ourselves to be anything we choose--then we will live with that fear. Yes, we should all dream big and pursue our dreams and not let anyone or anything stop us. But we all are the product both of what we will ourselves to be and what the society in which we live lets us be.

White privilege is not something I get to decide whether or not I want to keep. Every time I walk into a store at the same time as a black man and the security guard follows him and leaves me alone to shop, I am benefiting from white privilege. There is not space here to list all the ways in which white privilege plays out in our daily lives, but it is clear that I will carry this privilege with me until the day white supremacy is erased from this society.

Frankly, I don't think I will live to see that day; I am realistic about the scope of the task. However, I continue to have hope, to believe in the creative power of human beings to engage the world honestly and act morally. A first step for white people, I think, is to not be afraid to admit that we have benefited from white privilege. It doesn't mean we are frauds who have no claim to our success. It means we face a choice about what we do with our success.

Jensen is a professor in the School of Journalism in the University of Texas at Austin. He can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.

Olaudah Equiano

Here is some information accompany the video we watched on 17 February 2010.

From http://www.brycchancarey.com/equiano/

Image via Wikipedia

According to his famous autobiography, written in 1789, Olaudah Equiano (c.1745-1797) was born in what is now Nigeria. Kidnapped and sold into slavery in childhood, he was taken as a slave to the New World. As a slave to a captain in the Royal Navy, and later to a Quaker merchant, he eventually earned the price of his own freedom by careful trading and saving. As a seaman, he travelled the world, including the Mediterranean, the Caribbean, the Atlantic and the Arctic, the latter in an abortive attempt to reach the North Pole. Coming to London, he became involved in the movement to abolish the slave trade, an involvement which led to him writing and publishing The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, or Gustavus Vassa the African (1789) a strongly abolitionist autobiography. The book became a bestseller and, as well as furthering the anti-slavery cause, made Equiano a wealthy man.

Slavery and the Social Rupture

Image via Wikipedia

Here are my lecture notes from 17 February 2010.

SLAVERY LECTURE

For African American Rhetoric

Thanks to Nathan Huggins for his research and thoughts.

LIFE IN AFRICA BEFORE SLAVERY

Mainly from West Africa and southwest Africa.

The village – a collection of family compounds.

Nature is at the heart of village life.

It is necessary to hold together to guarantee existence.

Isolation was unthinkable. “Outlaw”

Alone a person is nobody, because it was your place in reference to others.

A cowardly brother was shame to you

A glorious uncle was glory for you

What one was was the village, what pone would be was the village.

Elders were respected because they had knowledge. They could be called on to unravel knots of dispute.

When the family could not, manage or when it was one family against another the elders would be consulted.

The village can be thought of as the family writ large.

But some decisions were too big for the family: when to plant and harvest, when to cut and burn the fields, what crops to plant.

But most of that was kept within the family.

Family was an anchor to those set adrift by death. No orphans, no homeless, no abandoned old people.

There was little between families in terms of material possessions or standards of living. There were no extremes in wealth and want.

Your world is centered in your mother’s house with her other children.

There would be their wives and their children. There would be a senior wife.

Each wife had things that were hers – land, chickens, and goats. She received these when she agreed to become a wife to a husband. Any surplus belonged to the wife, and she could trade it for what she wanted.

She would go to market in the village to try and trade what she had for what she wanted. Clever wives could benefit the entire family in this way, as well as herself.

At the core of the universe is your father, wealth determined by children and land.

You are tied to those in the compound, beyond to the village and perhaps beyond to other villages.

Family compounds had other people as well. People may have been given to the family or taken refuge there. While called slaves they were not so in our current construct.

They were given status based on talents and character. They would merge into the family my marriage. They could not be sold, but belonged to the family.

The family was the economic unit. No one was surplus. Each member of the family gave what they could to increase the well being of all.

If you went to another village you would also know there a relative and a family link.

There was no assumption of equality.

You had a position in your family and the community.

Age, experience and resourcefulness could give you status.

Your character reflected your membership in an age group, clan and family.

You learned to appreciate patterns that had existed for centuries, they worked.

There was a rigid etiquette learned through ritual, routine and religion.

Little thought was given to innovation, as age-old problems of farming, health and warfare were solved by traditional means or remained unsolved.

The real meaning of the individual was that you existed and where you fit into relationships.

As a child you rose through the structures being cared for by others and caring for those younger than you.

Boys would go through rituals marking a transition into manhood, gaining knowledge of mysteries through special experiences.

As girls grew they became more involved with children and pregnancy of others and such until her own time came.

No important decision was really personal.

Marriage was too important to be left to you. Mating must serve the old and the young and those who would depend on the family.

Young man has collected bridal dues given to the family of the woman who was to be his wife.

The couple would establish their house near the bride or groom’s family to maintain contact.

If there was a disaster it was the village and the family that reacted.

One could never deny helplessness before the great surges and ebbs in life and history.

Te European would see evil as a part of moral corruption and sin. The African would see it as a natural part of the hand that was dealt. Evil comes to one as it comes to all in turn. The best defense was to respect and fulfill traditional obligations and remain strong in character.

The life force itself remained an unfathomable mystery.

Death was but punctuation in the story. It began before you and would last long after you.

It was held together by the oral history of the family and the village. All could find their place in it. One could share in the greatness of ones people because one really was a part of them.

There was a spiritual quality to all things. To you, to those around you, to all animals and plants and to the land itself.

The wood had a spirit as it came into the artisan’s hands and through cooperation was revealed in the carving.

Music, dance and celebration were united in all parts of the life cycle – birth, marriage, and death – lifting them to cosmic significance. None of us are irrelevant.

All worked together to link each and all to the world and the universe.

The drums pounded, dancers turned and twisted, libations and offerings invoked the ancestors, bells and beads tang together with flutes.

Some special person would be infused with a spirit, possessed, given some special knowledge, twirling and writhing, and then left spent and empty.

Yet, it was no paradise.

There were extremes of suffering and joy, perhaps greater because they were shared.

Droughts, floods and other events could spell total devastation, with resulting starvation and death for nearly everyone.

A community might make the wrong choice together and suffer collectively.

Any illness could be the threshold of death.

Senses were sharp and felt everything in a way that might be hard for us to understand.

THE RUPTURE AND THE ORDEAL

Community, identification, mutual support.

Then, all of a sudden, alone, isolated, lacking in any support.

The transatlantic slave trade was far outside of their experience of “slave” family members.

One went from being a person to a thing.

This was the true rupture, much greater than the simple cruelty and mistreatment that we often focus on.

First capture, suddenly and without warning.

You might hear of something like this happening in the region. You might prepare, but the goal was to steal people, not conquer or rule. Spears and knives were little use against guns and surprise.

Some decided to attack first when there were signs of slave traders in the area.

Others waited and were the victims for it.

p. 29

Some were simply disgorged by their communities as offerings to the Europeans. Non-conformists, element of evil forces, etc.

Captives might be held in a village to be gathered into larger groups. They might even work within a family group. But then, a march along a trail to nowhere might begin.

Tales of terrible fates at the hands of monsters, of the end of the world.

His name was meaningless, his connections useless. The young and strong were honored, not the elder and wise. The weak were not assisted but dropped and died, as they had less value.

They reached a market they could recognize but they were the goods to be bargained for and exchanged. It was not for the use of those who acquired them, but for their profit. The captive lost his intrinsic value. One was bound with others that spoke unknown tongues but all with the same fate.

Earlier pain experiences, such as circumcision and scarification had brought manhood, this pain meant the end of being a human being.

Many attempted or achieved suicide. But, the disorganization and disorientation made organized resistance difficult.

The Europeans called their handling and sorting points factories.

Questions of profits overruled all issues of ethics and morality. A $10 African man could yield $600 in the New World.

Packed into ships they were sent to a land to built an empire and create profit for others.

The ships were poorly designed and risky at best. The crews were the dregs of European society. They brought syphilis to the Africans, who brought yellow fever and malaria to the Europeans.

The ship[s were incubators of infection and parasites.

Rations were short and made things worse.

More tightly packed ships meant more losses but perhaps more results, while less packed ships would involve lower losses but perhaps lower rewards. In the end, it was seen as better to fill every possible space with human flesh.

There was dysentery and disease, poor hygiene, and many lie for months in their own filth.

The sea was an unknown element to most Africans. Shortage of air and light. Harsh seas and storms. Doldrums and calms. Rations could get shorter.

Those who died were gathered and thrown overboard in the morning. If one were too weak to be expected to survive, they would be thrown overboard to save on rations. Many simply died of shock, or gave up trying to live. Others might engage in resistance, by biting the legs of jailers as they walked by.

Trails of sharks would follow the ships.

The action against the slave trade in 1807 only increased suffering. The trips were longer and less healthy but more profitable.

Each station in the journey had been passed and never seen again. All knew it was a one-way journey.

There were slave mutinies. The rage and revenge was specific and targeted. But then what?

1. Who would sale the ship? White crews would try and fool the new captains and sale the ships back into captivity.

2. Where to go? If they reached land they faced almost immediate recapture. All Europeans were in solidarity with these sailors. They had a racial consciousness of working together against Africans that the Africans lacked.

3. A woman might seek escape through a sexual liaison. These were rarely successful, as they met only temporary needs.

4. A man might gain service to the slavers based on language skills or organizational abilities. They were often used once and then sold at a higher price.

As the journey neared its end things livened up. Rations increased, exercise was more common and an attempt was made to freshen up the freight. Weaknesses were covered up, bodies were rubbed with oil. Those who could not be made presentable for sale might be cast into the sea or left on the wharf to die.

Just before sale an African man would be sent amongst the captives to talk. It may have been the first encouraging voice in quite some time. The messages included:

The white man will not eat you

There are no evil spirits at work

You will be asked to work as you have always done

There will be many of you working there.

Hope you arte purchased by a rich man, not by a poor man. Look and act your best so that you might gain such a position.

Do not run away as there is no place to run.

If you look mean only mean men will want you.

If you act properly things might yet go well.

Then, the sale. Women were to become breeding stock along with men.

THE SLAVE COMMUNITY

Everything continued to work towards the destruction of the community they had been raised ion and hoped for.

Slaves were now the pawns of those who owned them, and they were fragile and not rooted to place and kin.

It was hard to create a community among themselves:

No meetings

No drums or dancing

No religious services or libations or offerings.

Families might be left together, but could be broken at any moment.

Times when men and women could be together were often strictly regulated.

Special ability might mean privilege, but would only increase the value as a slave. A craftsman would avoid field labor, but also the company of his fellows.

Managerial blacks had to serve the master, and were tolerated but never trusted by their fellows.

House slaves vs. field slaves. Malcolm X was right. Many were good people who were co-opted by the system. They often avoided personal and family tragedy by working against their fellow Africans. Negation and nihilism were multiplied.

Slaves could gain freedom by earning it from a master or by escape. Both were rare and very risky. Yet, in any slave state you were a slave as long as you were black. Slavery was a condition of race.

Some Africans gained authority of a spiritual kind. They held a rank unknown to the masters but clear among the slaves. Often this was used to soothe and comfort, but could also be used to victimize and tyrannize. Spells of protection were important. Slaves could not deal with anti-social elements in their midst, as all were simply property.

The family continued to be of high importance. Even in difficulty, there was an urge to belong and to regenerate. Yet, their work could not benefit the family. The family could not be extended. The family could not be a transmitter of history and values.

Slave masters assumed that without their supervision it would descend into anarchy. They believed that African families existed because of their support and tutelage. Even abolitionists believed this.

Slave families maintained many customs and beliefs, such as that cousins should not marry, whereas southern whites did this often. The bonds of families were still strong, because these intimate bonds were hard to see and hard to repress. Slave families were broken up like white families, but for different reasons. While families did not become extended because the young struck out on their own for new opportunities. In slave families they were sold off without consent.

The idea of family became more important to blacks than whites. The idea of marrying by choice, raising children, and watching them grow and develop was the central feature of freedom they dreamed of, while family for whites continued to degrade. When weddings did take place, sanctioned by the masters, they were a central element ion life. While whites got god’s blessing, the slaves only got the masters’ blessings. Many masters saw allowing slave families as a way to strengthen their slave worker population. When a man was married to a woman who did not conceive, he might be paired with another, hopefully more fertile. Whites, masters and their sons, might become sexual interlopers on a slave family.

Sexual relations among slaves were more open than among whites. Virginity was not a value and enjoying sex as not a sin. While white women were protected, black women were treated lie and worked like the men. Women often did more work than men, such as caring for cabins and preparing meals. But the slave cabins were not male dominated.

An African man felt great pride at being a father, but slave men were often denied this right. They were more easily separated from children than women. But, children were even more valuable because of high mortality, and men protected them and guided them when they could.

Children were guided by other children, with the older ones teaching, often through games. Small children had lighter tasks. By 12 and 134 it was heavier work for them. By 15 full work in the fields. White and black children played, but all too soon began playing their appointed roles. White children would be separated to learn reading and writing, and black children associated magical powers with the book and the script. In general it was forbidden to tech slaves to read and write, although some did learn. All black children were taught to stay in line or suffer.

At night families would gather around fires and stories would entertain. Stories about Africa. Stories that would not die. They also heard stories of free black men who lived wild and stole what they needed.

Slaves were often not Christianized because of the inherent contradictions in accepting slaves as fellow believers. Would Jesus have had slaves?

Slave Christianity became a tool of Black people to preserve their dignity and create their own fellowship. Often it had to be kept secret from masters.

The Bible stories of slaves of Babylon and Egypt being set free held a special fascination. God could deliver the faithful from almost anything. Christ was a special being, unknown to the powerful, who was the Son of God. And the oppressors killed him.

Black Christian spiritual leader adapted to the needs of their new flocks. The Black church became the most important institution for African Americans. It allowed them to transcend the role of victim and take their souls into their own hands.

Slaves faced character disintegration based on fear, deception and hatred, all easy to foment in a climate of slavery. But, the African spiritual experience operated against these threats. Not to fear, for their will be deliverance. Not to deceive, but to recognize the truth for what it is and celebrate it. Not to hate, for that violates the law of love. Oddly enough, it was in Black Christianity that many of the virtues of Africa were preserved.

Applying Afrocentric Rhetorical Theory to Specific Discourse

Image via Wikipedia

WATCH THE LECTURE HERE:

http://www.uvm.edu/~debate/watch/afrocentrhetapplyto5.mov

Lecture - African American Rhetoric - Apply Afrocentric Rhetorical Theory from Alfred Snider on Vimeo.

The lecture above is the video of the notes that are contained below. The notes certainly are not complete, but might be appropriate for browsing.

APPLYING AFROCENTRIC RHETORICAL THEORY TO AFRICAN AMERICAN RHETORIC

We examine five works of rhetorical criticism here. These are all designed to examine and understand bits of human discourse that emerge from the African Diaspora on this continent.

The purpose of rhetorical criticism is to investigate a piece of discourse and understand it better as well as to understand its importance to us.

My contention is that the use of Afrocentric rhetorical theory should help us in understanding and appreciating African American rhetoric.

To do this, I have examined four pieces that have Afrocentricity as their core, as well as one that does not.

ELLA FORBES, RHETORIC OF RESISTANCE IN THE MID-19TH CENTURY

Whites wanted blacks to be seen as docile, but they were not, they were demanding.

Constant themes are: resistance, redemptive violence, and achievement of manhood.

Manhood = courage, self-determination, expression of civil rights, defense of self-esteem.

Difference between redemptive self-defense violence and the violence of whites, which was oppressive, not self-defense, offensive.

Organizations were founded to promote these values and to represent two points of view.

Garrison – moral suasion, not violence.

Garnet – resistance and redemptive violence.

Frederick Douglass was divided, but then switched to a more pro-resistance approach.

Examples of rhetoric are in the reading.

Pp. 168-169: Why whites prefer quiet resistance and fear redemptive violence.

WALKER, EXAMINING JOHNNIE COCHRAN’S CLOSING AT THE O.J. SIMPSON TRIAL

As an African American speaking to a largely African American jury, it is quite appropriate to use an Afrocentric method to examine this.

Factors at work:

1. Rhythm

2. Stylin’, way in which verbal and non-verbal cues are demonstrated to achieve a desired effect.

3. Narrative style.

4. Call and response.

5. Rappin’, an engaging lyrical presentation enwrapped in a natural conversation, it involves a distinctive personal flair.

6. Signifyin’, in which a speaker humorously puts down, talks about, needles some part of the listening audience.

Examples:

See article

Justification: p. 261

SHAUNTAE BROWN-WHITE, Emanuel Cleaver II

Double consciousness, in the words of W. E. B. Dubois:

“One ever feels his twines, an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreonciled strivings.”

This is specifically true for African Americans in public life, where they have to speak to two audiences, black and white, on different occasions and often at the same time. How does one do that? And when one speaks to just one of those audiences, how does one adapt a change, to avoid the problem of speaking untruthfulness, and violating the tenets of Kemetic rhetoric?

Emanuel Cleaver had been a successful pastor, and then ran for office and became Mayor of KC. He was recognized for his gifted speaking ability. He served two four-year terms and was prevented by term limits from running again. He left office with a 71% approval rating.

Afrocentric theory:

Is culturally specific

BUT does not neglect the entire human family. All are important.

Liberation of all is important to the Afrocentric rhetorician.

It is also rhetoric of reconciliation, to reach out to those of all origins, it must transcend barriers.

The study contends that Cleaver’s rhetoric fulfilled these functions of AFROCENTRIC DISCOURSE while at the same time transcending barriers.

Three points in this study:

1. Afrocentric rhetoric can transcend cultural barriers

2. African American speakers can maintain their cultural integrity while appeal to those outside of his or her culture

3. Emanuel Cleaver is true to his African rhetoric roots no mater who his audience is.

25 texts of Cleaver speeches were used. 12 sermons and 13 political speeches. Transcriptions were created. There was minimal editing and the precise words that Cleaver spoke are in the transcript.

Three themes of interest to Afrocentric rhetorical scholars were clear:

1. Liberation: social justice and the exercise of agency and responsibility. Care and concern for everyone, Jewish audiences, Hispanics, etc.

2. Principle of community. We must not separate the I and the WE. Collective achievement is more important than individual achievement. Pride, selfishness and ingratitude are characteristics he opposes. People may be failures because they succeed, forgetting how they got there. Reconciling opposing views about Bill Clinton’s welfare policies and about Hilary Clinton’s book It Takes a Village. He calls on his personal experience to tell his story and prove what he is saying.

3. Relational ethics. This is a standard of conduct one should use to govern relationships with others. These include compassion, humility, gratitude and respect for the community. Many of these interrelate with #2. He indicts people who are cold, cold hearted, insensitive and self-absorbed. He has similar messages in a sermon in his church and in trying to defuse a police brutality situation against black citizens.

Cleaver succeeds in being legitimately African in his roots, while at the same time relating successfully to others, using Afrocentric themes.

FELICIA MIYAKAWA, 5% RAPPERS

Black nationalism is a historical theme in African American rhetoric. The notion is that there needs to be a black nation, an African nation for those taken from the homeland, or a new black nation here in North America.

It is a theme that comes back again and again, from the middle of the 19th century to Marcus Garvey and now into the ‘90’s and beyond.

Rap music is one example of this. “Conscious” rap uses Black Nationalism, Pan-Africanism, and Islamic doctrine.

Black nationalism has always been posed as a rhetoric to teach and inspire other African Americans to do the right things. It has consistently been an outreach and a teaching, a consciousness raising effort.

The 5% Nation rap movement hopes to educate African Americans into spiritual self-knowledge and awareness.

Content features:

Pan Africans – the fates of all African descended people are linked together.

Race pride and race solidarity. We stick together or we are going nowhere. There is a religious bent to this as well.

Afrocentric worldview that places African descendants at the center of history.

Many miss these teachings:

Many miss them totally.

Many hear them but cannot decode them.

Many decode them for their own purposes.

But the rap lyrics of today are based in African American traditions of the past. You understand them better when you know that.

CHARLES LARSON, TRUST ESTABLISHING FUNCTION OF THE RHETORIC OF BLACK POWER

This comes from a 1972 reader produced by Arthur L. Smith, who later changed his name to Molefi Keti Asante. It was selected and edited by him in his pre-Afrocentricity days. So, it does control for some variables there.

Larson takes the concept of trust from the work of interpersonal scholar Kim Giffin, someone I studied with and was one of my references. Trust is seen as being able to predict how people will act and what will happen. You can trust Malcolm X to resist oppression, for example. You can also trust Black Power advocates to do the same. By being able to predict what they will do, it helps whites understand what is going on and to take the rhetoric seriously but in a responsible way.

That is it. Whiles can now understand it better.

There are a number of problems with this approach:

1. This rhetoric was probably not constructed with that in mind. Stokely Carmichael did not conceive of his discourse because he wanted whites to understand. It may have had this effect, but I doubt the intention. I can’t be sure, but it is my belief.

2. There is no indication that this is how African descendants think of trust, but an imported notion from broader white society.

3. So what? What does it mean? It means that they want justice and will act to get it. What kind of keen insight is that? Anyone could have told you that. Chinese readers could have told you that. Why is it necessary to dress it up in white interpersonal communications theory so that we can understand it?

4. Perhaps because Eurocentric rhetorical scholars could not understand it on a scholarly level, or not tolerate it on a scholarly level, unless it was couched in their terms, brought to them on a plate of white scholarship.

When we look at Afrocentric investigations of Black Power we will see a lot more than can be discovered.

So, in conclusion:

1. We see how afrocentrict rhetorical theory can be applied to works of discourse.

2. We see history, language characteristics, and values and approaches used, just like the lists of rhetorical markers we have been examining.

3. We see how the rhetoric has been opened up for a fuller understanding.

4. We see how a purely Eurocentric focus does not.

Hopefully this will give you some guidelines for your papers.

Afrocentric Rhetorical Theory, Part 2

Image via Wikipedia

Afrrocentric Rhetorical Theory Part 2

VOCABULARY

ONTOLOGY:

What it is to be a human, our theory of what human beings are. Organisms, spiritual, animals, computers, etc.

EPISTEMOLOGY

The theory of knowledge – data, problem solving, practical, spiritual, genetic, instinct, intuition.

METATHEORY

Metatheory is culturalized epistemology.

Metatheory is defined AS A FORMULATED PARADIGM THAT OUTLINES HOW A GIVEN SET OF THEORIES SHOULD BE STRUCTURED.

Mary John Smith:

The term metatheory refers to the beliefs about the nature of theory. Thus, metatheoretical assumptions address the types of theoretical explanations that are appropriate to human communication. Consistent with the hierarchically interrelated nature of paradigms, a researcher’s ontological and epistemological views will largely determine the sorts of theoretical explanations he or she deems suitable.

CULTURE AND RHETORIC

Every culture has its own unique perspective on rhetoric, the warrior in the struggle for human liberation is powerless without the armor of cultural consciousness.

Afrocentricity is a direct counter narrative to the most obvious and hegemonic grand narrative presupposing that all that is not of Europe is not of worth. “Classical” rhetoric is reserved for Greek and Roman rhetorical theories.

Chinese, Native American and African are examples.

Afrocentricity is one step in the demythologization of “classical” rhetoric.

It is a lot more than just classical speech acts.

BASIS OF AFROCENTRICITY

Assumptions underlying it:

1. Consciousness determines being

2. Ontology is communal

3. Epistemology validates reality by combining historical knowledge with intuitions

Afrocentric worldview:

1. Interconnectedness of all things – circularity, rejects the bi-polar of Marcuse: something is because of what it is not.

2. Collective identity. Reject the I-other distinction, because responsible to the same community, pairs that travel together.

3. Consequential morality. Speakers are judged by how they moved the audience, responsible for the impact of the communication, not so much the intent.

4. Oneness of body, mind, spirit. Western medicine is a contrast. Rhetoric can effect all three.

5. Spirituality. Spiritual focus to rhetoric, whether in a church spiritual, a civil rights speech, a ceremony for t=ancestors, or prayer for future generations.

6. Time. Timing and rhythm is important. Context is important. History is important.

Magara Principle:

Comes from the Bantu tradition. Magara is a system of operations where spirit force and material force are united in the production of life and meaning. It can be life strengthening or life weakening.

It helps us understand persuasion from an African perspective that is completely in tune with modern European understanding of persuasive processes. We do not “change” opinions, we “move” them through persuasion and its depiction of spirit and reality.

Ntu is the universal life force that represents itself in patterns and rhythms. It is fundamental to living. Let us illustrate in civil rights rhetoric.

1. Nomo operates within the context of ntu to engender magara within and across rhetorical communities. The generative power of speeches from the civil rights movement had a rhythm that catches people’s attention and strengthens their acceptance of full participation.

2. Nommodic rhetorical behaviors are evident in strategies and behaviors of particular communicators and other participants in rhetorical communities. Civil rights leaders actively used words to change the world. “Language is the last weapon left to the powerless.” Zora Neale Hurston.

3. Magara effects are observable in a rhetorical community’s responsiveness to rhetorical strategies and behaviors over time. People are strengthened or weakened towards ideas over time. Begin to accept full African American participation.

4. Rhetoric, as proscribed by ntu, is the evidence of rhythmic patterns urging shared meanings within and across rhetorical communities. “I have a dream.”

NOMMODIC RHETORICAL BEHAVIORS IN AFRICAN AMERICAN DISCOURSE, OFTEN IGNORED IN EUROCENTRIC RHETORICAL APPROACHES

1. Rhythm as a frame of mentality. Language and the flow of speech. Pauses, modulation of pitch, rate, loudness and other paralinguistic attributes reflect the important of rhythm. Much more of a focus in African American rhetoric.

2. Stylin’ out as a quality of oration. Mannerisms are used to influence the audience: gestures, posture, bodily movement, facial expressiveness, and other extra verbal behaviors. They communicate visual messages.

3. Soundin’ as verbal artifact. Vocal mannerisms that focus similarly to stylin’ out. The way you say certain words. Johnnie Cochran.

4. Lyrical approach to language. Used poetic language, insert poetic elements, rhyming is an example. Up with hope, down the dope.

5. Preference for improvisational delivery. Roll with the crowd. No totally set text. Take advantage of the situation as it evolves. Like jazz.

6. Call and response participation. Give the audience space to participate, to express themselves. Speaker gives a call, and the audience responds. Much more likely to be influenced by something they participate in.

7. Reliance on mythoforms. There are standard stories we use to understand our lives and our reality, as well as the past and the future. They should be shared and accepted forms.

8. Use of indirection. Circuitous approach to an issue. In a European style we state a claim and then follow it with logic and reasoning that demands acceptance of that claim. In African tradition, you view a thing from various angles before landing at a point to be made. This is the “stalking” of an issue. Malcolm X.

9. Repetition for intensification. Repeat essential ideas until saturation is reached. I have a dream. I am somebody. The clarity of a point is enhanced each time.

IS THERE AN AFRICAN WORLDVIEW?

Worldview vs. view of the world. Many European thinkers seem to embrace a worldview that would be consistent, such as Carl Jung. Chief Fela Sowande. As well, European theorists like Mikhail Bakhtin, Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida have produced important work on the relationship of language to thinking, knowledge, power, discipline and the reproduction of systems of domination. Ivan Illich has spoken about the power of formal language to restrict modes of thought to ways preferred by those in power.

While theorizing about African rhetorical approaches should not be privileged to Europeans using European tools, thus we should not necessarily privilege Africans analyzing rhetoric using African tools. Sowande suggests that we need a global worldview that embraces and empowers all, and that integration of an Afrocentric approach will be essential to this, just as European approaches must not be universally rejected. Work by McPhail and Greeson on these issues has been largely invisible in the conflict of Afro vs. Euro.

The power of the Afrocentric perspective might be that it is integrative and inclusive as opposed to hegemonic. McPhail argues that we need to seek “dialogic coherence” as a capacity to integrate diverse conceptions of reality, culture and identity.

THE REALIST/SCIENTIFIC WORLDVIEW AND HOW IT FAILS US (Wright)

1. Objectivist ontology. Reality consists of objects or entities with fixed properties and relations, which re amenable to observation and description. NOT: We impose on what we observe what we know. Anthropologists impose their social order on those observed, we see what we know. Snow.

2. Essentialism. All entities have essential properties which make the thing what it is, and without which it would not be the thing that it is. Other properties are purely accidental. NOT: This creates a bi-polar structure, male or female, white or black. Things may lack essential characteristics of a category and still be within that category. Our identification of essential categories is in many ways arbitrary. Bamboozled Wayans character.

3. Objectivist categorization. All the entities that share a given property form a necessary category. The set of essential properties constitute the conditions that define the category. NOT: Same. Our needs determine which categories we deem essential.

4. Objectivist knowledge. Knowledge consists in correctly conceptualizing, categorizing and articulating the identified objects and relations that constitute the real world. NOT: Knowledge is different for all. What are the standards for “correctly” categorizing? Again, we impose our own ideas on what we observe.

5. Language isomorphism. Language is an adequate instrument for the formulation and communication of knowledge. Properly used, language is isomorphic in expression with the world that exists external to language (it shares the same characteristics). Language reflects reality. NOT: Loosely true, but only in intention. Many important things have no acceptable language equivalent. Many important things cannot be expressed in words.

Touchstones to understanding different perspectives:

Who are you?

* Eurocentric: I think, therefore I am.

* Afrocentric: I am relating and related to, therefore I am.

What do you want?

* Eurocentric: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

* Afrocentric: Do what is right so that others may also do.

What does rhetoric do?

* Eurocentric: It represents thoughts and ideas

* Afrocentric: It generates and creates reality

CRITICISMS OF AFROCENTRIC THEORY

Criticisms of afrocentric rhetorical theory:

* Anti-white

* Hostile takeover

* Debased through its use – KFC, etc.

* All good things come from Africa

* Ignores cultural hybridization

* Does not discover issues of class

* Retrograde views of women and homosexuals

* Mystical essence of blackness

* Essentialist criticism. Singular perspective

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS AS A METATHEORY (Jackson)

Strengths:

1. Historically grounded and conditional

2. Culturally particular, contextual

3. Demarginalizes African descendants and recenters them as agents in human interaction

Weaknesses:

1. Does not deal with the element of economics as a liberation metatheory

2. It is not a full theory: understand, predict and control

3. Can be misunderstood as being essentialist and hegemonic due to over enthusiastic proponents.

Malcolm X - Speech to the Grass Roots

Today we are going to look at a Malcolm X speech to try to see elements of African rhetorical techniques.

From http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=1145

Message to Grassroots Image via Wikipedia Malcolm X October 10, 1963 We want to have just an off—the—cuff chat between you and me —— us. We want to talk right down to earth in a language that everybody here can easily understand. We all agree tonight, all of the speakers have agreed, that America has a very serious problem. Not only does America have a very serious problem, but our people have a very serious problem. America’s problem is us. We’re her problem. The only reason she has a problem is she doesn’t want us here. And every time you look at yourself, be you black, brown, red, or yellow —— a so—called Negro —— you represent a person who poses such a serious problem for America because you’re not wanted. Once you face this as a fact, then you can start plotting a course that will make you appear intelligent, instead of unintelligent. What you and I need to do is learn to forget our differences. When we come together, we don’t come together as Baptists or Methodists. You don’t catch hell ’cause you’re a Baptist, and you don’t catch hell ’cause you’re a Methodist. You don’t catch hell ’cause you’re a Methodist or Baptist. You don’t catch hell because you’re a Democrat or a Republican. You don’t catch hell because you’re a Mason or an Elk. And you sure don’t catch hell ’cause you’re an American; ’cause if you was an American, you wouldn’t catch no hell. You catch hell ’cause you’re a black man. You catch hell, all of us catch hell, for the same reason. So we are all black people, so—called Negroes, second—class citizens, ex—slaves. You are nothing but a [sic] ex—slave. You don’t like to be told that. But what else are you? You are ex—slaves. You didn’t come here on the "Mayflower." You came here on a slave ship —— in chains, like a horse, or a cow, or a chicken. And you were brought here by the people who came here on the "Mayflower." You were brought here by the so—called Pilgrims, or Founding Fathers. They were the ones who brought you here. We have a common enemy. We have this in common: We have a common oppressor, a common exploiter, and a common discriminator. But once we all realize that we have this common enemy, then we unite on the basis of what we have in common. And what we have foremost in common is that enemy —— the white man. He’s an enemy to all of us. I know some of you all think that some of them aren’t enemies. Time will tell. In Bandung back in, I think, 1954, was the first unity meeting in centuries of black people. And once you study what happened at the Bandung conference, and the results of the Bandung conference, it actually serves as a model for the same procedure you and I can use to get our problems solved. At Bandung all the nations came together. Their were dark nations from Africa and Asia. Some of them were Buddhists. Some of them were Muslim. Some of them were Christians. Some of them were Confucianists; some were atheists. Despite their religious differences, they came together. Some were communists; some were socialists; some were capitalists. Despite their economic and political differences, they came together. All of them were black, brown, red, or yellow. The number—one thing that was not allowed to attend the Bandung conference was the white man. He couldn’t come. Once they excluded the white man, they found that they could get together. Once they kept him out, everybody else fell right in and fell in line. This is the thing that you and I have to understand. And these people who came together didn’t have nuclear weapons; they didn’t have jet planes; they didn’t have all of the heavy armaments that the white man has. But they had unity. They were able to submerge their little petty differences and agree on one thing: That though one African came from Kenya and was being colonized by the Englishman, and another African came from the Congo and was being colonized by the Belgian, and another African came from Guinea and was being colonized by the French, and another came from Angola and was being colonized by the Portuguese. When they came to the Bandung conference, they looked at the Portuguese, and at the Frenchman, and at the Englishman, and at the other —— Dutchman —— and learned or realized that the one thing that all of them had in common: they were all from Europe, they were all Europeans, blond, blue—eyed and white—skinned. They began to recognize who their enemy was. The same man that was colonizing our people in Kenya was colonizing our people in the Congo. The same one in the Congo was colonizing our people in South Africa, and in Southern Rhodesia, and in Burma, and in India, and in Afghanistan, and in Pakistan. They realized all over the world where the dark man was being oppressed, he was being oppressed by the white man; where the dark man was being exploited, he was being exploited by the white man. So they got together under this basis —— that they had a common enemy. And when you and I here in Detroit and in Michigan and in America who have been awakened today look around us, we too realize here in America we all have a common enemy, whether he’s in Georgia or Michigan, whether he’s in California or New York. He’s the same man: blue eyes and blond hair and pale skin —— same man. So what we have to do is what they did. They agreed to stop quarreling among themselves. Any little spat that they had, they’d settle it among themselves, go into a huddle —— don’t let the enemy know that you got [sic] a disagreement. Instead of us airing our differences in public, we have to realize we’re all the same family. And when you have a family squabble, you don’t get out on the sidewalk. If you do, everybody calls you uncouth, unrefined, uncivilized, savage. If you don’t make it at home, you settle it at home; you get in the closet —— argue it out behind closed doors. And then when you come out on the street, you pose a common front, a united front. And this is what we need to do in the community, and in the city, and in the state. We need to stop airing our differences in front of the white man. Put the white man out of our meetings, number one, and then sit down and talk shop with each other. [That’s] all you gotta do. I would like to make a few comments concerning the difference between the black revolution and the Negro revolution. There’s a difference. Are they both the same? And if they’re not, what is the difference? What is the difference between a black revolution and a Negro revolution? First, what is a revolution? Sometimes I’m inclined to believe that many of our people are using this word "revolution" loosely, without taking careful consideration [of] what this word actually means, and what its historic characteristics are. When you study the historic nature of revolutions, the motive of a revolution, the objective of a revolution, and the result of a revolution, and the methods used in a revolution, you may change words. You may devise another program. You may change your goal and you may change your mind. Look at the American Revolution in 1776. That revolution was for what? For land. Why did they want land? Independence. How was it carried out? Bloodshed. Number one, it was based on land, the basis of independence. And the only way they could get it was bloodshed. The French Revolution —— what was it based on? The land—less against the landlord. What was it for? Land. How did they get it? Bloodshed. Was no love lost; was no compromise; was no negotiation. I’m telling you, you don’t know what a revolution is. ’Cause when you find out what it is, you’ll get back in the alley; you’ll get out of the way. The Russian Revolution —— what was it based on? Land. The land—less against the landlord. How did they bring it about? Bloodshed. You haven’t got a revolution that doesn’t involve bloodshed. And you’re afraid to bleed. I said, you’re afraid to bleed. [As] long as the white man sent you to Korea, you bled. He sent you to Germany, you bled. He sent you to the South Pacific to fight the Japanese, you bled. You bleed for white people. But when it comes time to seeing your own churches being bombed and little black girls be murdered, you haven’t got no blood. You bleed when the white man says bleed; you bite when the white man says bite; and you bark when the white man says bark. I hate to say this about us, but it’s true. How are you going to be nonviolent in Mississippi, as violent as you were in Korea? How can you justify being nonviolent in Mississippi and Alabama, when your churches are being bombed, and your little girls are being murdered, and at the same time you’re going to violent with Hitler, and Tojo, and somebody else that you don’t even know? If violence is wrong in America, violence is wrong abroad. If it’s wrong to be violent defending black women and black children and black babies and black men, then it’s wrong for America to draft us and make us violent abroad in defense of her. And if it is right for America to draft us, and teach us how to be violent in defense of her, then it is right for you and me to do whatever is necessary to defend our own people right here in this country. The Chinese Revolution —— they wanted land. They threw the British out, along with the Uncle Tom Chinese. Yeah, they did. They set a good example. When I was in prison, I read an article —— don’t be shocked when I say I was in prison. You’re still in prison. That’s what America means: prison. When I was in prison, I read an article in Life magazine showing a little Chinese girl, nine years old; her father was on his hands and knees and she was pulling the trigger ’cause he was an Uncle Tom Chinaman, When they had the revolution over there, they took a whole generation of Uncle Toms —— just wiped them out. And within ten years that little girl become [sic] a full—grown woman. No more Toms in China. And today it’s one of the toughest, roughest, most feared countries on this earth —— by the white man. ’Cause there are no Uncle Toms over there. Of all our studies, history is best qualified to reward our research. And when you see that you’ve got problems, all you have to do is examine the historic method used all over the world by others who have problems similar to yours. And once you see how they got theirs straight, then you know how you can get yours straight. There’s been a revolution, a black revolution, going on in Africa. In Kenya, the Mau Mau were revolutionaries; they were the ones who made the word " Uhuru" [Kenyan word for "freedom"]. They were the ones who brought it to the fore.The Mau Mau, they were revolutionaries. They believed in scorched earth. They knocked everything aside that got in their way, and their revolution also was based on land, a desire for land. In Algeria, the northern part of Africa, a revolution took place. The Algerians were revolutionists; they wanted land. France offered to let them be integrated into France. They told France: to hell with France. They wanted some land, not some France. And they engaged in a bloody battle. So I cite these various revolutions, brothers and sisters, to show you —— you don’t have a peaceful revolution. You don’t have a turn—the—other—cheek revolution. There’s no such thing as a nonviolent revolution. [The] only kind of revolution that’s nonviolent is the Negro revolution. The only revolution based on loving your enemy is the Negro revolution. The only revolution in which the goal is a desegregated lunch counter, a desegregated theater, a desegregated park, and a desegregated public toilet; you can sit down next to white folks on the toilet. That’s no revolution. Revolution is based on land. Land is the basis of all independence. Land is the basis of freedom, justice, and equality. The white man knows what a revolution is. He knows that the black revolution is world—wide in scope and in nature. The black revolution is sweeping Asia, sweeping Africa, is rearing its head in Latin America. The Cuban Revolution —— that’s a revolution. They overturned the system. Revolution is in Asia. Revolution is in Africa. And the white man is screaming because he sees revolution in Latin America. How do you think he’ll react to you when you learn what a real revolution is? You don’t know what a revolution is. If you did, you wouldn’t use that word. A revolution is bloody. Revolution is hostile. Revolution knows no compromise. Revolution overturns and destroys everything that gets in its way. And you, sitting around here like a knot on the wall, saying, "I’m going to love these folks no matter how much they hate me." No, you need a revolution. Whoever heard of a revolution where they lock arms, as Reverend Cleage was pointing out beautifully, singing "We Shall Overcome"? Just tell me. You don’t do that in a revolution. You don’t do any singing; you’re too busy swinging. It’s based on land. A revolutionary wants land so he can set up his own nation, an independent nation. These Negroes aren’t asking for no nation. They’re trying to crawl back on the plantation. When you want a nation, that’s called nationalism. When the white man became involved in a revolution in this country against England, what was it for? He wanted this land so he could set up another white nation. That’s white nationalism. The American Revolution was white nationalism. The French Revolution was white nationalism. The Russian Revolution too —— yes, it was —— white nationalism. You don’t think so? Why [do] you think Khrushchev and Mao can’t get their heads together? White nationalism. All the revolutions that’s going on in Asia and Africa today are based on what? Black nationalism. A revolutionary is a black nationalist. He wants a nation. I was reading some beautiful words by Reverend Cleage, pointing out why he couldn’t get together with someone else here in the city because all of them were afraid of being identified with black nationalism. If you’re afraid of black nationalism, you’re afraid of revolution. And if you love revolution, you love black nationalism. To understand this, you have to go back to what [the] young brother here referred to as the house Negro and the field Negro —— back during slavery. There was two kinds of slaves. There was the house Negro and the field Negro. The house Negroes — they lived in the house with master, they dressed pretty good, they ate good ’cause they ate his food —— what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near the master; and they loved their master more than the master loved himself. They would give their life to save the master’s house quicker than the master would. The house Negro, if the master said, "We got a good house here," the house Negro would say, "Yeah, we got a good house here." Whenever the master said "we," he said "we." That’s how you can tell a house Negro. If the master’s house caught on fire, the house Negro would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house Negro would say, "What’s the matter, boss, we sick?" We sick! He identified himself with his master more than his master identified with himself. And if you came to the house Negro and said, "Let’s run away, let’s escape, let’s separate," the house Negro would look at you and say, "Man, you crazy. What you mean, separate? Where is there a better house than this? Where can I wear better clothes than this? Where can I eat better food than this?" That was that house Negro. In those days he was called a "house nigger." And that’s what we call him today, because we’ve still got some house niggers running around here. This modern house Negro loves his master. He wants to live near him. He’ll pay three times as much as the house is worth just to live near his master, and then brag about "I’m the only Negro out here." "I’m the only one on my job." "I’m the only one in this school." You’re nothing but a house Negro. And if someone comes to you right now and says, "Let’s separate," you say the same thing that the house Negro said on the plantation. "What you mean, separate? From America? This good white man? Where you going to get a better job than you get here?" I mean, this is what you say. "I ain’t left nothing in Africa," that’s what you say. Why, you left your mind in Africa. On that same plantation, there was the field Negro. The field Negro —— those were the masses. There were always more Negroes in the field than there was Negroes in the house. The Negro in the field caught hell. He ate leftovers. In the house they ate high up on the hog. The Negro in the field didn’t get nothing but what was left of the insides of the hog. They call ’em "chitt’lin’" nowadays. In those days they called them what they were: guts. That’s what you were —— a gut—eater. And some of you all still gut—eaters. The field Negro was beaten from morning to night. He lived in a shack, in a hut; He wore old, castoff clothes. He hated his master. I say he hated his master. He was intelligent. That house Negro loved his master. But that field Negro —— remember, they were in the majority, and they hated the master. When the house caught on fire, he didn’t try and put it out; that field Negro prayed for a wind, for a breeze. When the master got sick, the field Negro prayed that he’d die. If someone come [sic] to the field Negro and said, "Let’s separate, let’s run," he didn’t say "Where we going?" He’d say, "Any place is better than here." You’ve got field Negroes in America today. I’m a field Negro. The masses are the field Negroes. When they see this man’s house on fire, you don’t hear these little Negroes talking about "our government is in trouble." They say, "The government is in trouble." Imagine a Negro: "Our government"! I even heard one say "our astronauts." They won’t even let him near the plant —— and "our astronauts"! "Our Navy" —— that’s a Negro that’s out of his mind. That’s a Negro that’s out of his mind. Just as the slavemaster of that day used Tom, the house Negro, to keep the field Negroes in check, the same old slavemaster today has Negroes who are nothing but modern Uncle Toms, 20th century Uncle Toms, to keep you and me in check, keep us under control, keep us passive and peaceful and nonviolent. That’s Tom making you nonviolent. It’s like when you go to the dentist, and the man’s going to take your tooth. You’re going to fight him when he starts pulling. So he squirts some stuff in your jaw called novocaine, to make you think they’re not doing anything to you. So you sit there and ’cause you’ve got all of that novocaine in your jaw, you suffer peacefully. Blood running all down your jaw, and you don’t know what’s happening. ’Cause someone has taught you to suffer —— peacefully. The white man do the same thing to you in the street, when he want [sic] to put knots on your head and take advantage of you and don’t have to be afraid of your fighting back. To keep you from fighting back, he gets these old religious Uncle Toms to teach you and me, just like novocaine, suffer peacefully. Don’t stop suffering —— just suffer peacefully. As Reverend Cleage pointed out, "Let your blood flow In the streets." This is a shame. And you know he’s a Christian preacher. If it’s a shame to him, you know what it is to me. There’s nothing in our book, the Quran —— you call it "Ko—ran" —— that teaches us to suffer peacefully. Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery. That’s a good religion. In fact, that’s that old—time religion. That’s the one that Ma and Pa used to talk about: an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and a head for a head, and a life for a life: That’s a good religion. And doesn’t nobody resent that kind of religion being taught but a wolf, who intends to make you his meal. This is the way it is with the white man in America. He’s a wolf and you’re sheep. Any time a shepherd, a pastor, teach [sic] you and me not to run from the white man and, at the same time, teach [sic] us not to fight the white man, he’s a traitor to you and me. Don’t lay down our life all by itself. No, preserve your life. it’s the best thing you got. And if you got to give it up, let it be even—steven. The slavemaster took Tom and dressed him well, and fed him well, and even gave him a little education —— a little education; gave him a long coat and a top hat and made all the other slaves look up to him. Then he used Tom to control them. The same strategy that was used in those days is used today, by the same white man. He takes a Negro, a so—called Negro, and make [sic] him prominent, build [sic] him up, publicize [sic] him, make [sic] him a celebrity. And then he becomes a spokesman for Negroes —— and a Negro leader. I would like to just mention just one other thing else quickly, and that is the method that the white man uses, how the white man uses these "big guns," or Negro leaders, against the black revolution. They are not a part of the black revolution. They’re used against the black revolution. When Martin Luther King failed to desegregate Albany, Georgia, the civil—rights struggle in America reached its low point. King became bankrupt almost, as a leader. Plus, even financially, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference was in financial trouble; plus it was in trouble, period, with the people when they failed to desegregate Albany, Georgia. Other Negro civil—rights leaders of so—called national stature became fallen idols. As they became fallen idols, began to lose their prestige and influence, local Negro leaders began to stir up the masses. In Cambridge, Maryland, Gloria Richardson; in Danville, Virginia, and other parts of the country, local leaders began to stir up our people at the grassroots level. This was never done by these Negroes, whom you recognize, of national stature. They controlled you, but they never incited you or excited you. They controlled you; they contained you; they kept you on the plantation. As soon as King failed in Birmingham, Negroes took to the streets. King got out and went out to California to a big rally and raised about —— I don’t know how many thousands of dollars. [He] come [sic] to Detroit and had a march and raised some more thousands of dollars. And recall, right after that [Roy] Wilkins attacked King, accused King and the CORE [Congress Of Racial Equality] of starting trouble everywhere and then making the NAACP [National Association for the Advancement of Colored People] get them out of jail and spend a lot of money; and then they accused King and CORE of raising all the money and not paying it back. This happened; I’ve got it in documented evidence in the newspaper. Roy started attacking King, and King started attacking Roy, and Farmer started attacking both of them. And as these Negroes of national stature began to attack each other, they began to lose their control of the Negro masses. And Negroes was [sic] out there in the streets. They was [sic] talking about [how] we was [sic] going to march on Washington. By the way, right at that time Birmingham had exploded, and the Negroes in Birmingham —— remember, they also exploded. They began to stab the crackers in the back and bust them up ’side their head —— yes, they did. That’s when Kennedy sent in the troops, down in Birmingham. So, and right after that, Kennedy got on the television and said "this is a moral issue." That’s when he said he was going to put out a civil—rights bill. And when he mentioned civil—rights bill and the Southern crackers started talking about [how] they were going to boycott or filibuster it, then the Negroes started talking —— about what? We’re going to march on Washington, march on the Senate, march on the White House, march on the Congress, and tie it up, bring it to a halt; don’t let the government proceed. They even said they was [sic] going out to the airport and lay down on the runway and don’t let no airplanes land. I’m telling you what they said. That was revolution. That was revolution. That was the black revolution. It was the grass roots out there in the street. [It] scared the white man to death, scared the white power structure in Washington, D. C. to death; I was there. When they found out that this black steamroller was going to come down on the capital, they called in Wilkins; they called in Randolph; they called in these national Negro leaders that you respect and told them, "Call it off." Kennedy said, "Look, you all letting this thing go too far." And Old Tom said, "Boss, I can’t stop it, because I didn’t start it." I’m telling you what they said. They said, "I’m not even in it, much less at the head of it." They said, "These Negroes are doing things on their own. They’re running ahead of us." And that old shrewd fox, he said, "Well If you all aren’t in it, I’ll put you in it. I’ll put you at the head of it. I’ll endorse it. I’ll welcome it. I’ll help it. I’ll join it." A matter of hours went by. They had a meeting at the Carlyle Hotel in New York City. The Carlyle Hotel is owned by the Kennedy family; that’s the hotel Kennedy spent the night at, two nights ago; [it] belongs to his family. A philanthropic society headed by a white man named Stephen Currier called all the top civil—rights leaders together at the Carlyle Hotel. And he told them that, "By you all fighting each other, you are destroying the civil—rights movement. And since you’re fighting over money from white liberals, let us set up what is known as the Council for United Civil Rights Leadership. Let’s form this council, and all the civil—rights organizations will belong to it, and we’ll use it for fund—raising purposes." Let me show you how tricky the white man is. And as soon as they got it formed, they elected Whitney Young as the chairman, and who [do] you think became the co—chairman? Stephen Currier, the white man, a millionaire. Powell was talking about it down at the Cobo [Hall] today. This is what he was talking about. Powell knows it happened. Randolph knows it happened. Wilkins knows it happened. King knows it happened. Everyone of that so—called Big Six —— they know what happened. Once they formed it, with the white man over it, he promised them and gave them $800,000 to split up between the Big Six; and told them that after the march was over they’d give them $700,000 more. A million and a half dollars —— split up between leaders that you’ve been following, going to jail for, crying crocodile tears for. And they’re nothing but Frank James and Jesse James and the what—do—you—call—’em brothers. [As] soon as they got the setup organized, the white man made available to them top public relations experts; opened the news media across the country at their disposal; and then they begin [sic] to project these Big Six as the leaders of the march. Originally, they weren’t even in the march. You was [sic ] talking this march talk on Hastings Street —— Is Hastings Street still here? —— on Hasting Street. You was [sic] talking the march talk on Lenox Avenue, and out on —— What you call it? —— Fillmore Street, and Central Avenue, and 32nd Street and 63rd Street. That’s where the march talk was being talked. But the white man put the Big Six [at the] head of it; made them the march. They became the march. They took it over. And the first move they made after they took it over, they invited Walter Reuther, a white man; they invited a priest, a rabbi, and an old white preacher. Yes, an old white preacher. The same white element that put Kennedy in power —— labor, the Catholics, the Jews, and liberal Protestants; [the] same clique that put Kennedy in power, joined the march on Washington. It’s just like when you’ve got some coffee that’s too black, which means it’s too strong. What you do? You integrate it with cream; you make it weak. If you pour too much cream in, you won’t even know you ever had coffee. It used to be hot, it becomes cool. It used to be strong, it becomes weak. It used to wake you up, now it’ll put you to sleep. This is what they did with the march on Washington. They joined it. They didn’t integrate it; they infiltrated it. They joined it, became a part of it, took it over. And as they took it over, it lost its militancy. They ceased to be angry. They ceased to be hot. They ceased to be uncompromising. Why, it even ceased to be a march. It became a picnic, a circus. Nothing but a circus, with clowns and all. You had one right here in Detroit —— I saw it on television —— with clowns leading it, white clowns and black clowns. I know you don’t like what I’m saying, but I’m going to tell you anyway. ’Cause I can prove what I’m saying. If you think I’m telling you wrong, you bring me Martin Luther King and A. Philip Randolph and James Farmer and those other three, and see if they’ll deny it over a microphone. No, it was a sellout. It was a takeover. When James Baldwin came in from Paris, they wouldn’t let him talk, ’cause they couldn’t make him go by the script. Burt Lancaster read the speech that Baldwin was supposed to make; they wouldn’t let Baldwin get up there, ’cause they know Baldwin’s liable to say anything. They controlled it so tight —— they told those Negroes what time to hit town, how to come, where to stop, what signs to carry, what song to sing, what speech they could make, and what speech they couldn’t make; and then told them to get out town by sundown. And everyone of those Toms was out of town by sundown. Now I know you don’t like my saying this. But I can back it up. It was a circus, a performance that beat anything Hollywood could ever do, the performance of the year. Reuther and those other three devils should get a Academy Award for the best actors ’cause they acted like they really loved Negroes and fooled a whole lot of Negroes. And the six Negro leaders should get an award too, for the best supporting cast.