by Mary Green
Student, University of Memphis
The rhetoric of African American men and women during the Civil Rights Era challenges the racial discrimination inherent in America’s political, social, and economic structures and demands the “complete dismantling of racial segregation in all aspects of American public life” (Marable and Mullings 343). Although the rhetoric reflects a variety of political ideologies, the influential speeches and texts of both African American men and women during this period protest the American government’s repression of African Americans and seek to revolutionize and transform American social and foreign policy. As African American men and women re-imagine a radically “new” America and express solidarity and unity as an African American community, the rhetoric of African American men is shaped by concepts of Black manhood/masculinity, signified by the use of gendered and exclusive language, and reveals problematic implications regarding the role in which African American women will play within the restructured American system.
During the Civil Rights Movement, both male and female African American activists demanded a “social and political restructuring of American life” and, hence, their rhetoric reflects the need to destroy and rebuild its political, social, and economic systems in order to eradicate political, social, and economic inequalities in American society (Marable and Mullings 343-48). In W.E.B. DuBois’s essay “The Salvation of American Negroes Lies in Socialism,” he expresses dillusionment with the American political system—a one-party system masquerading as two political parties although neither party represents the voices and/or concerns of the African American community: “Our last presidential election was a farce. We had no chance to vote for the questions in which we were really interested: Peace, Disarmament, the Draft, unfair taxation, race bias, education, social medicine, and flood control. On the contrary we had before use one ticket under two names and the nominees shadow-boxed with false fanfare and advertisement for the same policies...” (394-95). Expressing a similar response in a speech given at the University of California-Berkeley, activist and leader of the Students Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (S.N.C.C.) Stokely Carmichael calls for a new American political structure that meets and responds to the needs of the African American community. He asserts that the African American community must “fight to control the basic institutions which perpetuate racism by destroying them and building new ones.” He reiterates in his essay “What We Want” that in order “for racism to die, a totally different American must be born” (Carmichael 422). Refusing to assimilate and accept American society as is, their rhetoric acknowledges that the institutions and power structures that influence and define American life and society are innately flawed and therefore destroyed.
Like her male counterparts in the Civil Rights Movement, Black-feminist theorist and activist Angela Davis emphasizes the failure of American “democracy” and points to the role of American capitalism in hindering black liberation by perpetuating racial oppression. In her essay “I Am a Revolutionary Black Woman,” Davis expresses outrage at the American economic system that creates wealth for the small, [white] ruling class and, subsequently, forces the [non-white] working class into disproportionate levels of poverty. Moreover, Davis shatters the notion of American justice and exposes its hypocrisy: “We are the victims, not the recipients of justice. It is obvious that democracy in America is hopelessly deteriorated, when the courts, allegedly guardians of the rights of the people, have enlisted to play an active role in the genocidal war against black people” (461). Paralleling such sentiments in his 1964 speech “The Ballet or the Bullet,” revolutionary activist Malcom X also calls into question the notion of American “justice” and shatters the myth of the “American Dream”: “I’m speaking as a victim of this American system. And I see American through the eyes of the victim. I don’t see any American dream; I see an American nightmare” (406). Interestingly, the historical rhetoric of previous periods typically sought to appeal to such images (American “justice” and/or the “American Dream”) yet the rhetoric of Davis and Malcom X express a distain for them; their rhetoric emphasizes the fallacy of such imagery since it conflicts and in no way complies with the African American community’s realities as an exploited and marginalized people.
Another theme present in the rhetoric of both male and female African American Civil Rights leaders and activists affirms the critical need to unify—regardless of sex, religion, or economic class—, declares that oppression and racial discrimination affects all African Americans, and therefore the African American community must resist as a unified, collective group. S.N.N.C organizer and activist Fannie Lou Hamer remarks on the class division within the African American women’s community but confirms the linked struggles of all African Americans. Reminding her audience of the similar realities of all African American women, she states: “A few years ago throughout the country the middle-class black woman—I used to say not really black women, but the middle-class colored woman, didn’t even respect the kind of work that I was doing. But you see now, baby, whether you have a Ph.D., D.D., or no D, we’re in this bag together. And whether you’re from Morehouse or Nohouse, we’re still in this bag together” (398). Also, Malcom X addresses class and religious differences, and, like Hamer, notes the similar subjected position of all African Americans: “It’s time for us to submerge our differences and realize that it is best for us to first see that we have the same problem, a common problem—a problem that will make you catch hell whether you’re a Baptist, or a Methodist, or a Muslim, or a nationalist. Whether you’re educated or illiterate, whether you live on the boulevard or in the alley, you’re going to catch hell just like I am [...] Whether we are Christians or Muslims or nationalists or agnostics or atheists, we must first learn to forget our differences” (405). Thus, the shared struggles African Americans transcends religious, class, or educational differences, binds them together, and strengthens their fight for black liberation.
Nonetheless, a significant difference between the rhetoric of African American men and women during this period is their response to American militarism and warfare, particularly the American invasion of Vietnam. The speeches and essays of Ella Baker, Davis, and Hamer lack a condemning response to American militarism, whereas the rhetoric of Carmichael, King, and Malcom X emphasizes the blatant hypocrisy and immorality of the Vietnam War. In “The Ballot or the Bullet,” Malcom X stresses America’s “moral bankruptcy” and, highlighting the hypocrisy of the American government, declares to his audience: “The same government that you go abroad to fight for and die for is the government that is in a conspiracy to deprive you of your voting rights, deprive you of your economic opportunities, deprive you of decent housing, deprive you of decent education” (407-408). Moreover in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “To Atone for Our Sins and Errors in Vietnam,” King exposes the American government’s hypocrisy and calls into question America’s financial and public support for French colonialism in Vietnam and its alliance with and support for Ngo Dinh Dien, South Vietnam’s oppressive and authoritative leader (441).
Yet, the Civil Rights rhetoric of African American men and women seeks to express and further the goals of the Civil Rights Movement, possesses a revolutionary spirit, and aims to obtain black liberation, the most startling and problematic contrast concerns the use of gendered language. In the eight assigned speeches and essays by African American men, the terms “man”, “mankind”, and “brotherhood” as connotations for “human being(s)”, “humankind”, and/or “unity” were used approximately 88 times ; out of the four speeches and essays by African American women, the term “mankind” (implying “humankind”) was used only once (in Angela Davis’s “I Am a Revolutionary Black Woman”). The problematic implications of using such language suggest an obvious (though perhaps unintentional) exclusion of African American women. The rhetoric of African American women during this period, however, is overwhelmingly more inclusive and illustrates an understanding of the important roles in which African American men and women collectively play in challenging political, social, and economic inequalities as Hamer and Davis both address the need for African American women to work with African American men, as equals, in their fight against oppression and their struggle for liberation (Davis 461-62, Hamer 397-98). The use of gendered language is problematic in the rhetoric of this period because it exclusively focuses on the significance of African American men, rather than the entire African American community, in reshaping American society and consequently suggests that the creation of “a new black establishment” will still maintain hierarchal divisions between men and women—paralleling the “old” patriarchal power structure of white America.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Fighting the “global war for freedom”: Black Nationalism, Marxism, and early Black Feminist Thought in African American Rhetoric from 1915 until 1954
By fighting for their rights now, American Negroes are helping to make America a moral and spiritual arsenal of democracy. Their fight against the poll tax, against lynch law, segregation, and Jim Crow, their fight for economic, political, and social equality, thus becomes part of the global war for freedom.
–A. Philip Randolph, “Why Should We March?” (1942)
In the early twentieth century, a segregated political and social environment in America led to “new developments in the political character and protest organizations of African American people” and created an insurgency of “protest ideologies and formations” (Marable and Mullings 219-20). These “protest ideologies and formations” produced radical ideas and inspired arguments that not only demanded equality and opportunity, but defiantly and boldly questioned, challenged, and indicted all aspects of the American social and political system. African American speeches and essays from 1915 until 1954 call for the “complete dismantling of institutional racism, the democratization of the U.S. state and the fundamental redistribution of economic wealth and resources throughout society” (Marable and Mullings 222). Heavily influenced by Communism and the Labor movement(s), African American rhetoric during this period explores the connections between race, class, gender and power in American society and demands the immediate reconstruction of American society and its institutions. Constructed within theoretical frameworks of Black Nationalism, Marxism, and early Black feminist thought, significant arguments from this period explore and reclaim the African identity, analyze the subjected position of the African American woman as a woman and a worker, and attempt to reconcile tension between the prejudiced Labor movement, white progressives and African American workers.
Encouraging unity amongst African Americans and all Africans “at home and abroad,” Marcus Garvey and the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) sought to organize all individuals of African ancestry as a unified and distinct culture, civilization, and continent—an “Africa for the Africans.” In a passionate address, Garvey’s “Explanation of the Objects of the Universal Negro Improvement Association” expresses militant and bold Black nationalism and, for “the common purpose of bettering their condition,” he argues for total unity amongst all Africans: “The great problem of the Negro for the last 500 years has been that of disunity. No one or no organization ever took the lead in uniting the Negro race [...] If anything praiseworthy is to be done, it must be done through unity. And it is for that reason that the UNIA calls upon every Negro in the United States to rally to its standard. We want to unite the Negro race in this country. We want every Negro to work for one common object, that of building a nation of his own on the great continent of Africa.” Moreover, Garvey claims Africa—not America— as the ideal Motherland, the African American’s rightful home, and reintroduces the notion of “returning” to Africa and reclaims the African American’s African identity. Establishing a sense of pride and respect for one’s distinctive African identity and culture, Garvey and the UNIA encourage an unwavering and unashamed concept of racial pride amid white America’s incessant physical and psychological violence and acts of terrorism against the African American community. As a result of such threatening hostility, his “Appeal to the Conscience of the Black Race to See Itself” urgently calls upon the need for a nation of their own: “The Negro needs a nation and a country of his own, where he can best show evidence of his own ability in the art of human progress [...] The race needs workers at this time, not plagiarists, copyists, and mere imitators; but men and women who are able to create, to originate and improve, and thus man an independent racial contribution to the world and civilization” (249-50). Interestingly, Garvey challenges the notion of American democracy and liberty as a wholly “Western” ideal, demanding America to respect and uphold an African American’s rights as an African citizen. The UNIA’s “Declaration of Rights of the Negro People” declares “all men, women, and children of our blood throughout the world free citizens, and do claim them as free citizens of Africa, the Motherland of all Negroes” (243). Thus, Garvey uses the African American’s status as an African in calling for justice and equality and presents a unique approach quite different from African American rhetoric in previous historical periods by demanding full equality and just treatment for the African American on the grounds of his/her rights as an African—not American—citizen.
Another significant argument that arises from this historical period emphasizes the power of the African American woman in shaping and determining the social and political success of the African American community, but, also focuses on her marginalized status as an African American woman worker. Such arguments acknowledge that black women’s work—domestic and physical labor—is not recognized as “work.” The African American woman, thus, receives the lowest wages and is largely without the support of the Labor movement and labor unions. In Elaine Ellis’s “Women of the Cotton Fields,” she notes the similarities between the position of the African American woman workers, particularly field workers, with the position of the laboring slave woman, arguing that the current economic and social system is a continuation of American slavery due to its exploitation of black women’s labor. As she details its characteristics, depicting it as a slave/caste system, Ellis argues that African American women’s exploited role as poor laborers enforces such labor to be generational, like slavery, as it determines and influences the future occupations of their children; most children of poor laborers, as Ellis points out, will become poor laborers as well and such traits mimic the legal nature of American slavery— the child of a slave follows the condition of the mother. Therefore, the African American woman’s labor and body (reproduction) is exploited, as she is laborer and “breeder” to future laborers: “But it is from her loins, no less than from the earth itself, that the world’s greatest cotton industry has sprung. A slave, and a breeder of slaves, hundreds of thousands of her kind have been crushed in its gigantic and merciless machinery. And as long as the tenant system continues, she must be sacrificed to greed [...] for children, as well as women, generally represent a labor that does not have to be paid” (Ellis 301). Black women—as exploited workers and breeders—provide the labor to maintain an exploited, limitless source of labor. Furthermore, Naomi Ward’s “I Am a Domestic” gives personal insight into the struggles of a domestic worker, and like Ellis, she compares such [exploited] work to American slavery. In her essay, Ward recounts how white women continue to practice behavior based on conventions of antebellum black-white women power structures. White women do not use the domestic workers last names, referring to them by their own last names, and use the term “my” worker or “my” Negro to denote possession and further dehumanize and objectify the domestic worker (Ward 303-05).
Moreover, Claudia Jones’s “An End to the Neglect of the Problems of the Negro Woman” gives an “analysis of gender within the African American community from a Marxist perspective” (Marable and Mullings 316). Like Julia Anna Cooper and Alice Moore Dunbar-Nelson, Jones emphasizes the significant role women play in the African American community: “The bourgeoisie is fearful of the militancy of the Negro woman, and for good reason. The capitalists know, far better than many progressives seem to know, that once Negro women undertake action, the militancy of the whole Negro people and thus of the anti-imperialist coalition, is greatly enhanced” (316). However, unlike the rhetoric of African American women before her, Jones examines the status of African American women within the theoretical framework of Marxism and early Black feminist thought; and, although Jones’s essay precedes the work of black feminist scholar Patricia Hill Collins, Jones situates the African American woman within, what Collin’s termed, the matrix of domination. Analyzing the ways in which sex, class, race determines the African American woman’s status and economic position, Jones argues that “Negro women—as workers, as Negroes, and as women—are the most oppressed stratum of the whole population” (317). She reveals how the white American public shapes the images of African American women, constructs and, then, reinforces destructive stereotypes to further maintain dominance and power over African American women: “In the film, radio, and press, the Negro woman is not pictured in her real role as breadwinner, mother, and protector of the family, but as a traditional ‘mammy’ who puts the care of children and families of others above her own” (Jones 319). Furthermore, Jones argues that white women must “realize that the fight for equality of Negro women is in their own self interest, inasmuch as the super-exploitation and oppression of Negro women tends to depress the standards of all women” and, therefore, in self-interest, must “link their own struggles to the struggles for the full democratic rights of the Negro people” (322-24).
Lastly, influenced by Marxism and the growing power of the Labor movement(s) in the United States, a critical focus of African American rhetoric during the early twentieth century concerns the interconnections of race and class; such rhetoric expresses a linked understanding of the position of poor, white workers and the position of African American workers. Similar to Ellis and Ward’s argument, African American labor organizers and activists compare the social, political, and economic position of workers to that of a slave, revealing how the current state of organized labor functions as a generational, caste system (Herndon 284-85). Labor organizer and African American activist Angelo Herndon argues that the Labor movement, particularly Marxist and Communist ideology, understands the intersection of racial and class inequality and addresses both struggles: “I heard myself called a ‘nigger’ and ‘darky,’ and I had to say ‘Yes, sir’ to every white man, whether he had my respect or not. I had always detested it, but I had never known that anything could be done about it. And here, all of a sudden, I had found organizations in which Negroes and whites sat together, and worked together, and knew no difference of race or color. Here were organizations that weren’t scared to come out for equality for the Negro people, and for the rights of the workers” (286-87). However, despite Herndon’s exclamation of racial cooperation within the movement and regardless of the similar economic situation of poor white workers and African Americans, Dr. Abram Harris, in his essay “The Negro Worker: A Problem of Progressive Labor Action,” exposes the blatant racism within the Labor movement and amongst white progressives, and argues, like Jones, that it is in the collective self-interest of white and black workers to establish solidarity. He warns of establishing a “bi-racial” movement, claiming a divided movement will consequently endanger its overall success in obtaining “work and wage” equality (276-78). Yet, while on trial for “insurrection,” Herndon’s speech before a Georgia jury argues that African American and white workers will come together in organizing and demanding economic justice and equality: “And it seems that this question is left up to the Negro and white workers to solve, and they will solve it by organizing and demanding the right to live, a right that they are entitled to. They have built up this country, and are therefore entitled to some of the things that they have produced. Not only are they entitled to such things, but it is their right to demand them” (284). Therefore, Herndon argues that the similar struggles of white workers and African American workers will unify and strengthen a collective movement for social, racial, and economic equality, as all workers will come together to achieve common goals.
Works Cited
Garvey, Marcus. "Explanation of the Objects of the Universal Negro Improvement Association." New York City. July 1929. <http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/
blackspeech/mgarvey.html>
Marable, Manning, and Leith Mullings. Ed. Let Nobody Turn Us Around: An African American Anthology. 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefied Publishers, Inc., 2009.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Reconstruction and Post Reconstruction Rhetoric
by Nadalyn Criner
The Civil War and Post Reconstruction Rhetoric has many similarities and differences from the antebellum period. One of the main similarities is the role and importance of the black woman and the desire to earn her rights. One of the main differences is that the men focus on voting rights and their position in American society.
I find it interesting that the last reading selections were of black women fighting for their rights, but these readings focus more on the rights of black men, particularly respect and voting. The speeches are more demanding and the militancy in their voices is more evident. Black men were beginning to take more of a stance and made valid points that were difficult to be argued against. How can the country expect a man to honor the country yet treat that man inhumanely? Some of the topics that I encountered are lynching, burning people, and intimidation from voting.
During this era, black men focused on voting rights and their position in society. Each of the speeches that I read exemplified this. Frederick Douglas’ 1865 speech “What the Black Man Wants” demands voting rights for blacks and demands that whites not harass blacks once given these rights. One of his defenses for blacks receiving voting rights was that in 1776, blacks were citizens and had voting rights in 11/13 states because the nation was in trouble (p. 127). He argues that black men are still in slavery (in that year, 1865) in a sense. They were granted freedom but his position was that “to tell a man when he shall work, where he shall at, what he shall work, and for what he shall work is slavery (p.123).” I agree with him. During that time, blacks were granted their freedom, but I agree that blacks were not free. They were not free to do whatever wherever with whomever. He states that some have proposed the question of why do black men want voting rights and argue that some men have got along very well without voting rights and that women have gotten along very well without voting rights as well. Douglas’s defense is that one wrong does not make another wrong right. He admits inferiority but not natural inferiority. He argues that society has had a major role in the inferior feeling of blacks and that the feeling of inferiority is mental. He compares the oppression of blacks to that of the Anglo-Saxons by the Normans six centuries earlier (p. 126). He uses that as support for why the white should support the blacks in their fight for voting rights—they were once oppressed too so they know the feeling of oppression. I like one of the analogies that he makes stating that blacks know enough to vote if “they can be hung, if they can pay taxes to support the government, if they can shoulder a musket and fight for the flag, fight for the government, and if they know as much when he is sober as an Irishman when he is drunk” (p. 126). This statement is very true. How can the country belittle a race of men and argue incompetency, yet rely on that same man to support the country in various ways. This mention of the government transitions us to the speech made by Henry McNeal Turner “Black Christian Nationalist.” His speech speaks of the inequalities against blacks, especially black men. He proposes the question of “Am I not a man” (p. 131) which defends his position of why black men should have right. White men had rights then and those rights were only appointed to men, so why couldn’t black men have rights? I agree with him 100%. In relation to his mention of the government, he argues that black men should not do anything for the country until the country respects him as a man and gives him the rights of a man. This is demonstrated through his statements “never lift a finger nor raise a hand in defense of Georgia, unless Georgia acknowledges that you are men, and invests you with the rights pertaining to manhood” (p.131) and his mention of war stating “the black man cannot protect a country if the country doesn’t protect him.” He mentions that of all the things that blacks have done for the country and state, the only thing that they want in return is rights (p.131). Ida B. Wells-Barnett’s “Crusader for Justice” pays close attention to the issue of lynching. She gives three facts about lynching “color-line murder, crimes against women is the excuse, not cause, and national crime and requires national remedy” (p. 192). She states that lynching was used to prevent blacks from voting and some even went as far as to burn people.
As previously stated, the position of women differed in the era than the previous. In the previous era, women fought for and demanded their rights. In this era, women took a step back and supported the men. Women’s speeches were more supportive of men and their cause. For example, as I have previously mentioned, Ida B. Wells-Barnett’s message was about lynching and intimidation from voting specifically in regards to black men voting. Anna Julia Cooper’s 1892 speech “A Voice from the South” speaks of the woman and her need in this country. She speaks of women in a political sense to be supportive of men in voting. This is demonstrated through her statement that black women keep the black men solid in the Republican Party.
All in all, the antebellum period and the Civil War and Post Reconstruction Rhetoric era have similarities in that they both involved blacks fighting for their rights, but in the first era, the women took precedence and in the second, the women took the position of supporting the men. Furthermore, it was obvious that the tolerance level of blacks in regards to the cruelties and negligence of whites was decreasing drastically.
The Civil War and Post Reconstruction Rhetoric has many similarities and differences from the antebellum period. One of the main similarities is the role and importance of the black woman and the desire to earn her rights. One of the main differences is that the men focus on voting rights and their position in American society.
I find it interesting that the last reading selections were of black women fighting for their rights, but these readings focus more on the rights of black men, particularly respect and voting. The speeches are more demanding and the militancy in their voices is more evident. Black men were beginning to take more of a stance and made valid points that were difficult to be argued against. How can the country expect a man to honor the country yet treat that man inhumanely? Some of the topics that I encountered are lynching, burning people, and intimidation from voting.
During this era, black men focused on voting rights and their position in society. Each of the speeches that I read exemplified this. Frederick Douglas’ 1865 speech “What the Black Man Wants” demands voting rights for blacks and demands that whites not harass blacks once given these rights. One of his defenses for blacks receiving voting rights was that in 1776, blacks were citizens and had voting rights in 11/13 states because the nation was in trouble (p. 127). He argues that black men are still in slavery (in that year, 1865) in a sense. They were granted freedom but his position was that “to tell a man when he shall work, where he shall at, what he shall work, and for what he shall work is slavery (p.123).” I agree with him. During that time, blacks were granted their freedom, but I agree that blacks were not free. They were not free to do whatever wherever with whomever. He states that some have proposed the question of why do black men want voting rights and argue that some men have got along very well without voting rights and that women have gotten along very well without voting rights as well. Douglas’s defense is that one wrong does not make another wrong right. He admits inferiority but not natural inferiority. He argues that society has had a major role in the inferior feeling of blacks and that the feeling of inferiority is mental. He compares the oppression of blacks to that of the Anglo-Saxons by the Normans six centuries earlier (p. 126). He uses that as support for why the white should support the blacks in their fight for voting rights—they were once oppressed too so they know the feeling of oppression. I like one of the analogies that he makes stating that blacks know enough to vote if “they can be hung, if they can pay taxes to support the government, if they can shoulder a musket and fight for the flag, fight for the government, and if they know as much when he is sober as an Irishman when he is drunk” (p. 126). This statement is very true. How can the country belittle a race of men and argue incompetency, yet rely on that same man to support the country in various ways. This mention of the government transitions us to the speech made by Henry McNeal Turner “Black Christian Nationalist.” His speech speaks of the inequalities against blacks, especially black men. He proposes the question of “Am I not a man” (p. 131) which defends his position of why black men should have right. White men had rights then and those rights were only appointed to men, so why couldn’t black men have rights? I agree with him 100%. In relation to his mention of the government, he argues that black men should not do anything for the country until the country respects him as a man and gives him the rights of a man. This is demonstrated through his statements “never lift a finger nor raise a hand in defense of Georgia, unless Georgia acknowledges that you are men, and invests you with the rights pertaining to manhood” (p.131) and his mention of war stating “the black man cannot protect a country if the country doesn’t protect him.” He mentions that of all the things that blacks have done for the country and state, the only thing that they want in return is rights (p.131). Ida B. Wells-Barnett’s “Crusader for Justice” pays close attention to the issue of lynching. She gives three facts about lynching “color-line murder, crimes against women is the excuse, not cause, and national crime and requires national remedy” (p. 192). She states that lynching was used to prevent blacks from voting and some even went as far as to burn people.
As previously stated, the position of women differed in the era than the previous. In the previous era, women fought for and demanded their rights. In this era, women took a step back and supported the men. Women’s speeches were more supportive of men and their cause. For example, as I have previously mentioned, Ida B. Wells-Barnett’s message was about lynching and intimidation from voting specifically in regards to black men voting. Anna Julia Cooper’s 1892 speech “A Voice from the South” speaks of the woman and her need in this country. She speaks of women in a political sense to be supportive of men in voting. This is demonstrated through her statement that black women keep the black men solid in the Republican Party.
All in all, the antebellum period and the Civil War and Post Reconstruction Rhetoric era have similarities in that they both involved blacks fighting for their rights, but in the first era, the women took precedence and in the second, the women took the position of supporting the men. Furthermore, it was obvious that the tolerance level of blacks in regards to the cruelties and negligence of whites was decreasing drastically.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Communication Realities in a "Post-Racial" Society: What the U.S. Public Really Thinks About Barack Obama
""Orbe has executed an ambitious project, undertaken with extreme care and attention to the personal and political facets of Obama's impact on people every day. This book sets a tone and a standard for future research, and provides the kind of intimate details we need to get beyond polls and punditry. A must-read for anyone concerned about how we communicate about race in the Obama Era.""—Catherine R. Squires, University of Minnesota
See all reviews
This book seeks to go beyond existing public polls regarding Barack Obama, and instead offers a comprehensive treatment of public perceptions that resist mass generalizations based on race, gender, age, political affiliation, or geographical location. Drawing from a large national qualitative data set generated by 333 diverse participants from twelve different states across six U.S. regions, Mark P. Orbe offers a comprehensive look into public perceptions of Barack Obama's communication style, race matters, and the role of the media in 21st century politics. Communication Realities in a "Post-Racial" Society: What the U.S. Public Really Thinks about Barack Obama is the first of its kind in that it uses the voices of everyday U.S. Americans to advance our understanding of how identity politics influence public perceptions. The strength of a book such as this one lies within the power of the diverse perspectives of hundreds of participants. Each chapter features extended comments from rural volunteer fire fighters in southern Ohio, African American men in Oakland, CA, religious communities in Alabama; New England senior citizens; military families from southern Virginia; Tea Party members from Nebraska; business and community leaders from North Carolina; individuals currently unemployed and/or underemployed in Connecticut; college students from predominately White, Black, and Hispanic-serving institutions of higher learning; and others. As such, it is the first book that is based on comments from multiple perspectives - something that allows a deeper understanding that hasn't been possible with public polls, media sound bites, and political commentary. It is a must read for scholars interested in contemporary communication in a time when "post-racial" declarations are met with resistance and political junkies who seek an advanced understanding of the peculiarities of rapidly changing political realities.
About the Author
Mark P. Orbe is professor of communication and diversity at Western Michigan University.
See all reviews
This book seeks to go beyond existing public polls regarding Barack Obama, and instead offers a comprehensive treatment of public perceptions that resist mass generalizations based on race, gender, age, political affiliation, or geographical location. Drawing from a large national qualitative data set generated by 333 diverse participants from twelve different states across six U.S. regions, Mark P. Orbe offers a comprehensive look into public perceptions of Barack Obama's communication style, race matters, and the role of the media in 21st century politics. Communication Realities in a "Post-Racial" Society: What the U.S. Public Really Thinks about Barack Obama is the first of its kind in that it uses the voices of everyday U.S. Americans to advance our understanding of how identity politics influence public perceptions. The strength of a book such as this one lies within the power of the diverse perspectives of hundreds of participants. Each chapter features extended comments from rural volunteer fire fighters in southern Ohio, African American men in Oakland, CA, religious communities in Alabama; New England senior citizens; military families from southern Virginia; Tea Party members from Nebraska; business and community leaders from North Carolina; individuals currently unemployed and/or underemployed in Connecticut; college students from predominately White, Black, and Hispanic-serving institutions of higher learning; and others. As such, it is the first book that is based on comments from multiple perspectives - something that allows a deeper understanding that hasn't been possible with public polls, media sound bites, and political commentary. It is a must read for scholars interested in contemporary communication in a time when "post-racial" declarations are met with resistance and political junkies who seek an advanced understanding of the peculiarities of rapidly changing political realities.
About the Author
Mark P. Orbe is professor of communication and diversity at Western Michigan University.
The Issues of Racial Discrimination Regarding the Civil War, Reconstruction and Post Reconstruction Rhetoric (1861- 1915)
by Bianca Loyd
During the period of Civil War, Reconstruction and Post Reconstruction Rhetoric (1861-
1915), African Americans were beginning to get a little more specific about the issues of their
suppression in an all-white society. They began to feel how their status of being inferior was
tending to affect them psychologically with serious, yet deep emotions. Blacks were starting to
feel inhuman. They felt as if the white society were not only denying them their rights as
citizens, but also their rights as human beings. The themes of inequality and injustice seem to be present in this period as they were in the Revolutionary and Antebellum Rhetoric period (1768-1861). However, the theme of inhumanity instead of religion seems to present in this period. African Americans seemed to still include religion throughout their speeches, but there was obviously a more visible, yet luminous light that shined upon the theme of inhumanity in this period. The themes that were a part of this period in African American rhetoric were inhumanity,inequality, and injustice.
First of all, the theme of inhumanity was expressed by the entire African American society
through a more emotional and personal perspective. Black people felt as if white people did not
acknowledge them as human beings under any circumstances. African American rhetoric
recognizes the fact that black people were treated as people lacking integrity and intelligence.
They were not given nor were they allowed to better themselves as people. One African
American speaker who emphasized the theme of inhumanity was Alexander Crummell in his
speech, “The Democratic Idea is Humanity” (1888). He speaks about the amalgamation between
the black race and the white race. Crummell seems to be baffled as to why whites who are
related to blacks through the intermingling of blood lines could have the audacity to place the
white race on a pedestal and place the black race into the ground. Crummell labels this type of
situation as inhumanity. However, he wants both races to abide in humanity. Crummell feels as if
the amalgamation factor has been ignored by the white society for years. He speaks about how at
some point the white race decided that there race would be the ultimate superior race and that the black race would always be considered as inferior. He indicates in his speech that white people were classified as superior and black people as inferior due to their capabilities. For instance, black people were always being degraded and insulted by the white race because of the fact that they lacked the intelligence of being capable to read, write, and learn. They were also constantly being blasphemed by the white race for lacking the integrity of being capable to better themselves. This however, classified them as inferior. Crummell believed that blacks were just as capable in fulfilling the same dreams, goals, and opportunities as the white race due to the fact that they obtained the exact same natural abilities by blood. In addition, he feels that this stereotype of the black race is due to the fact that the intelligence and integrity of blacks was devalued during slavery. Crummell wants the race problem to be eliminated. He believes that in order for humanity to be achieved that both the black and white race must come together through brotherhood and sisterhood as one nation. Crummell believed that humanity was something that both races should strongly consider. However, Crummell implies to ask the question, “how can humanity be achieved if the white race continues to take so much pride in being superior and the black race continues to take on low self-esteem by being inferior?” He answers this question by basically stating that democracy must be fulfilled first in order for humanity to be achieved. “The democratic spirit I am speaking of is that which upholds the doctrine of human rights; which demands honor to all men; which recognizes manhood in all conditions; which uses the State as the means and agency for the unlimited progress of humanity” (Crummell 156). He knew that it was going to take a while before democracy was fulfilled and humanity achieved without all of the hatred between both races and the constant denial of human rights for blacks. Crummell believed that if both races did not come together and achieve humanity as a nation that America itself and all that is stands for will dwindle, diminish, and die. Therefore, the people would have failed as a nation.
Second of all, inequality was still a theme that was present throughout African American
rhetoric. Black people were still faced with the discrimination of racial inequality. Blacks wanted to permanently demolish racial inequality. One person who further explained the problem of racial inequality was Booker T. Washington. In his speech, “Booker T. Washington and the
Politics of Accommodation”, he speaks about the certain issues regarding racial segregation. One
of his famous quotes that he used in racial segregation was “Cast down your bucket where
you are”─cast it down in making friends, in every manly way, of the people of all races by
whom we are surrounded (Washington 175). He wanted to break down the racial barriers
between the black and white races. He argues that inequality is an unnecessary matter that needs
to be settled by both races on both ends. For example, he argues that whites refuse to be affiliated with the black society under any conditions and that blacks are not good enough to attend the same schools and colleges as whites, work in the same buildings as whites, or even live in the same neighborhoods as whites because they are considered to be inferior. However, Booker T. Washington tends to correspond to this argument by stating the fact that during slavery blacks were good enough to be affiliated with whites by being their maids, cooks, and servants in which
they catered to and nurtured the white community. Washington tends to see absolutely no
difference in the manner. On the other hand, he also argues that white people are good enough to
invade the Negro community, but blacks are not good enough to be allowed in their
communities. For example, he states that white people are allowed to bring their white
businesses into the black community in order to make a profit off black people. Washington
seems to imply the fact that black people may have been classified as not being good enough by
whites, but however, their money was good enough to support white businesses. Another example that Booker T. Washington mentions about the segregation issue was regarding black
people living in white neighborhoods. He believed that there could be a positive side to
desegregation. He believed that by black people living in white neighborhoods that they could
adapt culturalistic ways from the white society, such as manners and behavior to better
themselves as people. For example, they would learn how to be able to take care of their
families, learn how to be decent, and act in such a way that they portray intelligence and not
ignorance. Whites would feel less intimidated by them and would change their racial
perspectives about black people. Washington felt as if this could be one way that racial
inequality and racial segregation could be overlooked. Consequently, Washington believes that
by continuing to place black people in segregated neighborhoods that they will never learn how
to be a more cultured set of people. However, they will be influenced by others around them to
become rebels and will continue to have the same dire hatred and animosity toward whites that
will keep growing. They would always live up to the rebellistic and unintelligent stereotype that the white society has placed upon them for years. Equality would not be established and peace would not be gained. Washington knows that racial segregation will do nothing, but cause more turmoil and will continue to support racial inequality. Booker T. Washington feels that at this rate blacks will never be able to get along with whites and vice versa. He believes that if both races came to witness the unnecessary racial disparities between each other with their own eyes instead of going by hearsay that they will learn to change their attitudes toward one another. He feels that racial inequality is an issue at hand that can easily be resolved. Washington wants both races to come to the realization that they are not accomplishing anything through racial inequality and that both races must come together in agreement to work together and learn to get along with each other for their means of life in order to grow and prosper as a nation.
Third, injustice is still another issue that is present in African American rhetoric. Black people were still being denied their rights as citizens. One right that was strongly denied toward blacks was the right to vote. One speaker who strongly supported the right to vote was Frederick Douglass. In his speech, “What the Black Man Wants” (1865), he believes that blacks being denied the right to vote is definitely a strong stance of injustice. Douglass feels as if denying blacks the right to vote is like depriving them of their rights as citizens according to the U.S Constitution and the Proclamation of 1863. This type of behavior tends to portray both of these extremely important documents of citizenship as unrealistic and based upon lies and deceit. He feels as if blacks deserve to elect to office in government who they feel will better serve them as
people. However, during this time period, blacks primarily considered themselves to be
democrats. For years, white people have voted and usually most of the time republicans won the
candidacy elections. Black people wanted to have a say so in voting by at least being able to
elect a democrat who would hold office in government. Someone who could relate to their racial
issues in society instead of just allowing another republican to win yet another candidacy
election who would place blacks back into slavery and would just continue to give the whites
what they wanted. Blacks wanted the knowledge of their opinions regarding politics to be
acknowledged. Douglass felt as if blacks had obtained the proper knowledge to be able to vote.
He uses one example in his speech by stating that if black people obtained the knowledge to be
able to learn how to fight in a war for American freedom, then they have the knowledge to vote.
“If he knows enough to shoulder a musket and fight for the flag, fight for the government, he
knows enough to vote” (Douglass 126). Douglass argued that black people may have been freed
from slavery, but they still maintained the status of a slave in a white society. Douglass feels that black people should be able to go through life without the assaults of racial discrimination,especially when they are doing absolutely nothing wrong, but abiding and existing in America as any other U.S. citizen. Another person who was against racial injustice was Henry McNeal Turner. In his speech, “Henry McNeal Turner, Black Christian Nationalist”, he spoke about the injustice of manhood. He spoke about how black men were constantly being denied their rights
as freed citizens. He felt as though black men were being robbed of their manhood through their
unclaimed rights as citizens. He believed that black men were classified as cowards and had no
voice because they were inferior to white men due to the color of their skin. Turner argues that
black men are not offered the same opportunities as white men. For example, Turner states black
men were not able to obtain the right education, the right jobs in order to be able to support their wives and children, nor are they able to protect their families because they are not protected themselves as far as being intimidated with fear towards the white man. Turner also argues that black men should not agree to fight and die in senseless wars for a country that deprives them of their citizenship and manhood. Turner feels that the black man is an oppressed person of racial injustice and is a victim of having their dignity stripped from them. However, Turner wants black men to portray maturity and to not allow the white man to cripple their mentality. “Pay your taxes, however, obey all orders from your employers, take good counsel from friends, work faithfully, earn an honest living, and show, by your conduct, that you can be good citizens….”(Turner 131). Henry McNeal Turner feels that black men should continue to prove that they are worthy of their rights of citizenship and justice and can uplift themselves through their labor and conduct.
In conclusion, I feel as if this period was not only reflecting on humanity, but also upon
blacks wanting to unite with whites as one. Blacks were willing to find peace within the white
society if the whites would only acknowledge them as people of U.S. citizenship instead of
inferior people who were once slaves. Black people wanted to find clarity and closure in their
fight to abolish racism. I feel as though blacks realized that the only way for America to be a
prosperous country was that both races and even all races had to work together without the
chaos. African Americans not only wanted to achieve humanity for themselves, but also wanted
it to grow and be significantly relevant throughout society.
During the period of Civil War, Reconstruction and Post Reconstruction Rhetoric (1861-
1915), African Americans were beginning to get a little more specific about the issues of their
suppression in an all-white society. They began to feel how their status of being inferior was
tending to affect them psychologically with serious, yet deep emotions. Blacks were starting to
feel inhuman. They felt as if the white society were not only denying them their rights as
citizens, but also their rights as human beings. The themes of inequality and injustice seem to be present in this period as they were in the Revolutionary and Antebellum Rhetoric period (1768-1861). However, the theme of inhumanity instead of religion seems to present in this period. African Americans seemed to still include religion throughout their speeches, but there was obviously a more visible, yet luminous light that shined upon the theme of inhumanity in this period. The themes that were a part of this period in African American rhetoric were inhumanity,inequality, and injustice.
First of all, the theme of inhumanity was expressed by the entire African American society
through a more emotional and personal perspective. Black people felt as if white people did not
acknowledge them as human beings under any circumstances. African American rhetoric
recognizes the fact that black people were treated as people lacking integrity and intelligence.
They were not given nor were they allowed to better themselves as people. One African
American speaker who emphasized the theme of inhumanity was Alexander Crummell in his
speech, “The Democratic Idea is Humanity” (1888). He speaks about the amalgamation between
the black race and the white race. Crummell seems to be baffled as to why whites who are
related to blacks through the intermingling of blood lines could have the audacity to place the
white race on a pedestal and place the black race into the ground. Crummell labels this type of
situation as inhumanity. However, he wants both races to abide in humanity. Crummell feels as if
the amalgamation factor has been ignored by the white society for years. He speaks about how at
some point the white race decided that there race would be the ultimate superior race and that the black race would always be considered as inferior. He indicates in his speech that white people were classified as superior and black people as inferior due to their capabilities. For instance, black people were always being degraded and insulted by the white race because of the fact that they lacked the intelligence of being capable to read, write, and learn. They were also constantly being blasphemed by the white race for lacking the integrity of being capable to better themselves. This however, classified them as inferior. Crummell believed that blacks were just as capable in fulfilling the same dreams, goals, and opportunities as the white race due to the fact that they obtained the exact same natural abilities by blood. In addition, he feels that this stereotype of the black race is due to the fact that the intelligence and integrity of blacks was devalued during slavery. Crummell wants the race problem to be eliminated. He believes that in order for humanity to be achieved that both the black and white race must come together through brotherhood and sisterhood as one nation. Crummell believed that humanity was something that both races should strongly consider. However, Crummell implies to ask the question, “how can humanity be achieved if the white race continues to take so much pride in being superior and the black race continues to take on low self-esteem by being inferior?” He answers this question by basically stating that democracy must be fulfilled first in order for humanity to be achieved. “The democratic spirit I am speaking of is that which upholds the doctrine of human rights; which demands honor to all men; which recognizes manhood in all conditions; which uses the State as the means and agency for the unlimited progress of humanity” (Crummell 156). He knew that it was going to take a while before democracy was fulfilled and humanity achieved without all of the hatred between both races and the constant denial of human rights for blacks. Crummell believed that if both races did not come together and achieve humanity as a nation that America itself and all that is stands for will dwindle, diminish, and die. Therefore, the people would have failed as a nation.
Second of all, inequality was still a theme that was present throughout African American
rhetoric. Black people were still faced with the discrimination of racial inequality. Blacks wanted to permanently demolish racial inequality. One person who further explained the problem of racial inequality was Booker T. Washington. In his speech, “Booker T. Washington and the
Politics of Accommodation”, he speaks about the certain issues regarding racial segregation. One
of his famous quotes that he used in racial segregation was “Cast down your bucket where
you are”─cast it down in making friends, in every manly way, of the people of all races by
whom we are surrounded (Washington 175). He wanted to break down the racial barriers
between the black and white races. He argues that inequality is an unnecessary matter that needs
to be settled by both races on both ends. For example, he argues that whites refuse to be affiliated with the black society under any conditions and that blacks are not good enough to attend the same schools and colleges as whites, work in the same buildings as whites, or even live in the same neighborhoods as whites because they are considered to be inferior. However, Booker T. Washington tends to correspond to this argument by stating the fact that during slavery blacks were good enough to be affiliated with whites by being their maids, cooks, and servants in which
they catered to and nurtured the white community. Washington tends to see absolutely no
difference in the manner. On the other hand, he also argues that white people are good enough to
invade the Negro community, but blacks are not good enough to be allowed in their
communities. For example, he states that white people are allowed to bring their white
businesses into the black community in order to make a profit off black people. Washington
seems to imply the fact that black people may have been classified as not being good enough by
whites, but however, their money was good enough to support white businesses. Another example that Booker T. Washington mentions about the segregation issue was regarding black
people living in white neighborhoods. He believed that there could be a positive side to
desegregation. He believed that by black people living in white neighborhoods that they could
adapt culturalistic ways from the white society, such as manners and behavior to better
themselves as people. For example, they would learn how to be able to take care of their
families, learn how to be decent, and act in such a way that they portray intelligence and not
ignorance. Whites would feel less intimidated by them and would change their racial
perspectives about black people. Washington felt as if this could be one way that racial
inequality and racial segregation could be overlooked. Consequently, Washington believes that
by continuing to place black people in segregated neighborhoods that they will never learn how
to be a more cultured set of people. However, they will be influenced by others around them to
become rebels and will continue to have the same dire hatred and animosity toward whites that
will keep growing. They would always live up to the rebellistic and unintelligent stereotype that the white society has placed upon them for years. Equality would not be established and peace would not be gained. Washington knows that racial segregation will do nothing, but cause more turmoil and will continue to support racial inequality. Booker T. Washington feels that at this rate blacks will never be able to get along with whites and vice versa. He believes that if both races came to witness the unnecessary racial disparities between each other with their own eyes instead of going by hearsay that they will learn to change their attitudes toward one another. He feels that racial inequality is an issue at hand that can easily be resolved. Washington wants both races to come to the realization that they are not accomplishing anything through racial inequality and that both races must come together in agreement to work together and learn to get along with each other for their means of life in order to grow and prosper as a nation.
Third, injustice is still another issue that is present in African American rhetoric. Black people were still being denied their rights as citizens. One right that was strongly denied toward blacks was the right to vote. One speaker who strongly supported the right to vote was Frederick Douglass. In his speech, “What the Black Man Wants” (1865), he believes that blacks being denied the right to vote is definitely a strong stance of injustice. Douglass feels as if denying blacks the right to vote is like depriving them of their rights as citizens according to the U.S Constitution and the Proclamation of 1863. This type of behavior tends to portray both of these extremely important documents of citizenship as unrealistic and based upon lies and deceit. He feels as if blacks deserve to elect to office in government who they feel will better serve them as
people. However, during this time period, blacks primarily considered themselves to be
democrats. For years, white people have voted and usually most of the time republicans won the
candidacy elections. Black people wanted to have a say so in voting by at least being able to
elect a democrat who would hold office in government. Someone who could relate to their racial
issues in society instead of just allowing another republican to win yet another candidacy
election who would place blacks back into slavery and would just continue to give the whites
what they wanted. Blacks wanted the knowledge of their opinions regarding politics to be
acknowledged. Douglass felt as if blacks had obtained the proper knowledge to be able to vote.
He uses one example in his speech by stating that if black people obtained the knowledge to be
able to learn how to fight in a war for American freedom, then they have the knowledge to vote.
“If he knows enough to shoulder a musket and fight for the flag, fight for the government, he
knows enough to vote” (Douglass 126). Douglass argued that black people may have been freed
from slavery, but they still maintained the status of a slave in a white society. Douglass feels that black people should be able to go through life without the assaults of racial discrimination,especially when they are doing absolutely nothing wrong, but abiding and existing in America as any other U.S. citizen. Another person who was against racial injustice was Henry McNeal Turner. In his speech, “Henry McNeal Turner, Black Christian Nationalist”, he spoke about the injustice of manhood. He spoke about how black men were constantly being denied their rights
as freed citizens. He felt as though black men were being robbed of their manhood through their
unclaimed rights as citizens. He believed that black men were classified as cowards and had no
voice because they were inferior to white men due to the color of their skin. Turner argues that
black men are not offered the same opportunities as white men. For example, Turner states black
men were not able to obtain the right education, the right jobs in order to be able to support their wives and children, nor are they able to protect their families because they are not protected themselves as far as being intimidated with fear towards the white man. Turner also argues that black men should not agree to fight and die in senseless wars for a country that deprives them of their citizenship and manhood. Turner feels that the black man is an oppressed person of racial injustice and is a victim of having their dignity stripped from them. However, Turner wants black men to portray maturity and to not allow the white man to cripple their mentality. “Pay your taxes, however, obey all orders from your employers, take good counsel from friends, work faithfully, earn an honest living, and show, by your conduct, that you can be good citizens….”(Turner 131). Henry McNeal Turner feels that black men should continue to prove that they are worthy of their rights of citizenship and justice and can uplift themselves through their labor and conduct.
In conclusion, I feel as if this period was not only reflecting on humanity, but also upon
blacks wanting to unite with whites as one. Blacks were willing to find peace within the white
society if the whites would only acknowledge them as people of U.S. citizenship instead of
inferior people who were once slaves. Black people wanted to find clarity and closure in their
fight to abolish racism. I feel as though blacks realized that the only way for America to be a
prosperous country was that both races and even all races had to work together without the
chaos. African Americans not only wanted to achieve humanity for themselves, but also wanted
it to grow and be significantly relevant throughout society.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)