美国20世纪伟大的100篇演讲Stokeley Carmichael - Black Power
教程:美国20世纪伟大的100篇演讲  浏览:2719  
  • 00:00/00:00
  • 提示:点击文章中的单词,就可以看到词义解释

    AmericanRhetoric.com


    Stokely
    Carmichael


    Black Power

     

    delivered
    October
    1966, Berkeley,
    CA


    AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED:
    Text
    version below
    transcribed
    directly
    from
    audio

    Thank you
    very much. It’s a privilege and an
    honor to be in the white intellectual ghetto of the
    West. We wanted to do a couple of things before we started. The first
    is that, based on the
    fact that SNCC, through the articulation of its program by its chairman, has been able to win
    elections in
    Georgia, Alabama, Maryland, and by our appearance here will win an election
    in
    California, in 1968 I'm going to run for President of the United States. I just can't make it,
    'cause I wasn't born in the United States. That's the only thing holding me back.

    We wanted to say that this is a student conference, as it should be,
    held on a campus, and
    that we're not ever to be caught
    up in
    the intellectual masturbation of the question of Black
    Power. That’s a function of people who are advertisers that call themselves reporters. Oh, for
    my members and friends of the press, my selfappointed
    white critics, I was reading Mr.
    Bernard Shaw
    two days ago, and I came across a very important quote which I think is most
    apropos for you. He says, "All criticism is a[n] autobiography." Dig yourself. Okay.

    The philosophers Camus and Sartre raise the question whether or not a man
    can condemn
    himself.
    The black existentialist philosopher who is pragmatic, Frantz Fanon, answered the
    question. He said that man could not. Camus and Sartre was not. We in
    SNCC tend to agree
    with Camus and Sartre, that a man cannot condemn himself.1 Were he to condemn
    himself,
    he would then have to
    inflict punishment
    upon
    himself. An example would be the Nazis. Any of
    the Nazi prisoners who admitted, after he was caught and incarcerated, that he committed
    crimes, that
    he killed all the many people that he killed,
    he committed suicide.
    The only ones
    who were able to
    stay alive were the ones who never admitted that they committed a crimes
    [sic] against people that
    is,
    the ones who
    rationalized that Jews were not
    human beings and
    deserved to be killed, or that
    they were only following orders.


    Transcription by
    Michael
    E. Eidenmuller. Copyright Status: Restricted, seek permission.
    .2007
    Page
    1



    AmericanRhetoric.com


    On a more immediate scene, the officials and the white population
    in Neshoba County,
    Mississippi
    that’s
    where Philadelphia is could
    not
    condemn [Sheriff] Rainey, his deputies,
    and the other fourteen
    men
    that killed three human beings.
    They could not because they
    elected Mr. Rainey to
    do precisely what
    he did. and that
    for them to condemn
    him will be for
    them to condemn
    themselves.

    In a much
    larger view, SNCC
    says that white America cannot
    condemn herself. And since we
    are liberal, we have done it: You stand condemned. Now, a number of things that arises from
    that answer of how do you condemn
    yourselves. Seems to
    me that
    the institutions that
    function in this country are clearly racist, and that they're built
    upon
    racism. And the question,
    then, is how can black people inside of this country move? And then how
    can white people
    who say they’re not a part of those institutions begin
    to
    move? And how
    then do we begin to
    clear away the obstacles that we have in this society, that
    make us live like human beings?
    How can we begin
    to build institutions that will allow people to relate with each other as
    human beings? This country has never done that, especially around the country of white or
    black.

    Now, several people have been upset because we’ve said that
    integration was irrelevant when
    initiated by blacks, and that in fact it was a subterfuge, an insidious subterfuge, for the
    maintenance of white supremacy. Now we maintain that in the past
    six years or so, this
    country has been
    feeding us a "thalidomide drug of integration," and that some negroes have
    been walking down a dream street
    talking about sitting next
    to white people. and that
    that
    does not begin to
    solve the problem. that when
    we went
    to Mississippi we did not go
    to sit
    next
    to Ross Barnett2. we did not go to
    sit
    next
    to Jim Clark3. we went
    to get
    them out of our
    way. and that people ought to understand that. that we were never fighting for the right
    to
    integrate, we were fighting against white supremacy.

    Now, then, in order to understand white supremacy we must dismiss the fallacious notion
    that
    white people can give anybody their freedom. No man can given anybody his freedom. A
    man
    is born
    free. You
    may enslave a man after he is born free, and that
    is in fact what
    this country
    does. It enslaves black people after they’re born, so that the only acts that white people can
    do
    is to stop denying black people their freedom. that is, they must stop denying freedom.
    They never give it to anyone.


    Now we want to
    take that
    to its logical
    extension, so
    that we could understand, then, what its
    relevancy would be in
    terms of new civil rights bills. I maintain that every civil rights bill
    in
    this country was passed for white people, not for black people. For example,
    I am black. I
    know
    that. I also know that while I am black I am a human being, and therefore I
    have the
    right
    to go
    into any public place. White people didn't
    know
    that. Every time I
    tried to go
    into a
    place they stopped me. So
    some boys had
    to write a bill
    to tell
    that white man, "He’s a human
    being. don’t stop him." That bill was for that white man, not for me. I knew
    it all
    the time. I
    knew
    it all
    the time.


    Transcription by
    Michael
    E. Eidenmuller. Copyright Status: Restricted, seek permission.
    .2007
    Page
    2



    AmericanRhetoric.com


    I knew
    that
    I could vote and that
    that wasn’t a privilege. it was my right. Every time I tried I
    was shot, killed or jailed, beaten or economically deprived. So somebody had
    to write a bill
    for
    white people to
    tell
    them, "When a black man comes to vote, don’t bother him." That bill,
    again, was for white people, not for black people. so that when you talk about open
    occupancy, I
    know
    I can
    live anyplace I want
    to
    live. It
    is white people across this country who
    are incapable of allowing me to live where I want
    to live.
    You need a civil rights bill, not me. I
    know I can
    live where I want to
    live.

    So that the failures to pass a civil
    rights bill
    isn’t because of Black Power, isn't because of the
    Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. it's not because of the rebellions that are
    occurring in the major cities. It is incapability of whites to deal with
    their own problems inside
    their own communities. That is the problem of the failure of the civil rights bill.

    And so in a larger sense we must
    then ask, “How is it
    that black people move?” And what do
    we do? But the question in a greater sense is, “How can white people who are the majority and
    who are responsible for making democracy work?”

    They have miserably failed to
    this point. They have never made democracy work, be it
    inside
    the United States, Vietnam, South Africa, Philippines, South
    America, Puerto Rico. Wherever
    American
    has been, she has not been able to make democracy work. so that in a larger
    sense, we not only condemn
    the country for what it's done internally, but we must
    condemn it
    for what
    it does externally. We see this country
    trying to
    rule the world, and someone must
    stand up and start articulating that
    this country is not God, and cannot
    rule the world.


    Now, then, before we move on we ought to develop the white supremacy attitudes that were
    either conscious or subconscious thought and how they run rampant
    through
    the society
    today. For example,
    the missionaries were sent
    to Africa. They went with
    the attitude that
    blacks were automatically inferior. As a matter of fact, the first act
    the missionaries did,
    you
    know, when they got
    to Africa was to
    make us cover up our bodies, because they said it got
    them excited. We couldn’t go barebreasted
    any more because they got excited.

    Now when the missionaries came to
    civilize us because we were uncivilized, educate us
    because we were uneducated, and give us some literate studies because we were illiterate,
    they charged a price. The missionaries came with
    the Bible, and we had
    the land. When
    they
    left, they had
    the land, and we still have the Bible. And that has been
    the rationalization for
    Western
    civilization as it moves across the world and stealing and plundering and raping
    everybody in its path. Their one rationalization is that the rest of the world is uncivilized and
    they are in fact civilized.
    And they are uncivilized.


    And that runs on today, you
    see, because what
    we have today is we have what we call
    "modernday
    Peace Corps missionaries," and they come into our ghettos and they Head
    Start,
    Upward Lift, Bootstrap, and Upward Bound us into white society, 'cause they don’t want
    to
    face the real problem which
    is a man
    is poor for one reason and one reason only: 'cause he
    does not
    have money period.
    If you want
    to get rid of poverty, you give people money period.


    Transcription by
    Michael
    E. Eidenmuller. Copyright Status: Restricted, seek permission.
    .2007
    Page
    3



    AmericanRhetoric.com


    And you ought not to tell me about people who
    don’t work, and you can’t give people money
    without working, 'cause if that were true,
    you’d
    have to start stopping Rockefeller, Bobby
    Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Lady Bird Johnson, the whole of Standard Oil, the Gulf
    Corp, all of them, including probably a large number of the Board of Trustees of this
    university. So
    the question, then, clearly, is not
    whether or not one can work. it’s Who
    has
    power? Who
    has power to make his or her acts legitimate? That is all. And that this country,
    that power is invested in the hands of white people, and they make their acts legitimate.
    It is
    now, therefore, for black people to make our acts legitimate.


    Now we are now engaged in a psychological
    struggle in
    this country, and that
    is whether or
    not black people will
    have the right to
    use the words they want
    to use without white people
    giving their sanction
    to it. and that we maintain, whether they like it or not, we gonna use the
    word "Black Power" and
    let
    them address themselves to
    that. but
    that we are not going to
    wait
    for white people to sanction
    Black Power. We’re tired waiting. every time black people
    move in this country, they’re forced to defend their position before they move. It’s time that
    the people who are supposed to
    be defending their position do
    that. That's white people. They
    ought
    to start defending themselves as to why they have oppressed and exploited us.

    Now it
    is clear that when
    this country started to
    move in terms of slavery, the reason
    for a
    man being picked as a slave was one reason
    because
    of the color of his skin. If one was
    black one was automatically inferior, inhuman, and therefore fit for slavery. so that
    the
    question of whether or not we are individually suppressed is nonsensical, and it’s a downright
    lie. We are oppressed as a group because we are black, not because we are lazy, not because
    we're apathetic, not because we’re stupid,
    not because we smell, not because we eat
    watermelon and have good rhythm. We are oppressed because we are black.

    And in order to get out of that oppression one must wield the group power that one has, not
    the individual power which this country then sets the criteria under which a man may come
    into it. That
    is what is called in this country as integration: "You do what I
    tell you to do and
    then we’ll let
    you sit at
    the table with us." And that we are saying that we have to be opposed
    to that. We must
    now set
    up criteria and that if
    there's going to be any integration, it's going
    to be a twoway
    thing.
    If you believe in integration, you can come live in
    Watts. You can
    send
    your children to
    the ghetto
    schools. Let’s talk about
    that. If you
    believe in
    integration, then
    we’re going to start adopting us some white people to live in our neighborhood.


    So it
    is clear that
    the question is not one of integration or segregation. Integration
    is a man's
    ability to want
    to move in
    there by himself. If someone wants to
    live in a white neighborhood
    and he is black, that
    is his choice. It
    should be his rights. It
    is not because white people will
    not allow
    him. So vice versa: If a black man wants to live in the slums, that should be his
    right. Black people will
    let
    him. That is the difference. And it's a difference on which
    this
    country makes a number of logical mistakes when
    they begin
    to try to criticize the program
    articulated by SNCC.


    Transcription by
    Michael
    E. Eidenmuller. Copyright Status: Restricted, seek permission.
    .2007
    Page
    4



    AmericanRhetoric.com


    Now we maintain
    that we cannot be afford to be concerned about
    6 percent of the children
    in
    this country, black children, who you allow to
    come into white schools. We have 94 percent
    who still live in shacks. We are going to be concerned about
    those 94 percent. You ought
    to be
    concerned about them too. The question is, Are we willing to be concerned about those 94
    percent? Are we willing to be concerned about the black people who will
    never get to
    Berkeley, who will
    never get
    to
    Harvard, and cannot get an education, so
    you’ll
    never get a
    chance to rub shoulders with
    them and say, "Well, he’s almost as good as we are. he’s not
    like the others"? The question
    is, How can white society begin
    to
    move to see black people as
    human beings? I am black, therefore I am. not that I am black and I must go
    to college to
    prove myself. I am black, therefore I am. And don’t deprive me of anything and say to me
    that you
    must go to
    college before you gain access to X, Y, and Z. It
    is only a rationalization
    for one's oppression.

    The political parties in this country do
    not
    meet
    the needs of people on a daytoday
    basis.
    The question is, How
    can we build new political
    institutions that will become the political
    expressions of people on a daytoday
    basis? The question is, How
    can you build political
    institutions that will begin
    to meet
    the needs of Oakland, California? And the needs of
    Oakland, California, is not
    1,000 policemen with submachine guns. They don't need that. They
    need that least of all. The question is,
    How can
    we build institutions where those people can
    begin to
    function on a daytoday
    basis, where they can get decent jobs, where they can get
    decent
    houses, and where they can begin
    to participate in the policy and major decisions that
    affect
    their lives? That’s what they need,
    not
    Gestapo
    troops, because this is not 1942, and if
    you play like Nazis, we playing back with
    you
    this time around.
    Get
    hip to
    that.

    The question then is,
    How can white people move to start
    making the major institutions that
    they have in this country function
    the way it is supposed to function? That is the real question.
    And can white people move inside their own community and start
    tearing down
    racism where
    in fact
    it does exist?
    Where it exists. It is you who live in Cicero and stop us from living there.
    It
    is white people who stop us from moving into
    Grenada. It
    is white people who make sure
    that we live in the ghettos of this country. it
    is
    white institutions that do that. They must
    change. In order In
    order for America to really live on a basic principle of human
    relationships, a new society must be born. Racism must die, and the economic exploitation of
    this country of nonwhite
    peoples around the world must also die must
    also die.


    Now there are several programs that we have in the South, most in poor white communities.
    We're trying to organize poor whites on a base where they can begin to
    move around the
    question of economic exploitation and political disfranchisement. We know we've
    heard the
    theory several
    times but
    few people are willing to go
    into
    there. The question is, Can
    the
    white activist not
    try to be a Pepsi
    generation who comes alive in the black community, but
    can he be a man who’s willing to
    move into
    the white community and start organizing where
    the organization is needed? Can
    he do
    that? The question
    is, Can
    the white society or the
    white activist disassociate himself with
    two clowns who waste time parrying with each other
    rather than
    talking about the problems that are facing people in this state? Can
    you dissociate
    yourself with those clowns and start
    to build new institutions that will
    eliminate all
    idiots like
    them.


    Transcription by
    Michael
    E. Eidenmuller. Copyright Status: Restricted, seek permission.
    .2007
    Page
    5



    AmericanRhetoric.com


    And the question
    is, If we are going to do that when and where do we start, and how do we
    start? We maintain
    that we must
    start doing that
    inside the white community. Our own
    personal position
    politically is that we don't think the Democratic Party represents the needs
    of black people.
    We know
    it don't. And that if, in fact, white people really believe that, the
    question
    is, if they’re going to move inside that
    structure, how are they going to organize
    around a concept of whiteness based on true brotherhood and based on stopping exploitation,
    economic exploitation, so
    that there will be a coalition base for black people to hook up with?
    You cannot
    form a coalition based on national
    sentiment. That is not a coalition. If you need a
    coalition
    to redress itself to real
    changes in this
    country, white people must
    start building
    those institutions inside the white community. And that
    is the real question, I
    think, facing the
    white activists today. Can they, in
    fact, begin to
    move into and tear down
    the institutions
    which
    have put us all
    in a trick bag
    that we’ve been
    into
    for the last
    hundred years?

    I don't
    think that we should follow what many people say that we should fight
    to be leaders of
    tomorrow. Frederick Douglass said that
    the youth should fight to be leaders today. And God
    knows we need to be leaders today, 'cause the men who run
    this country are sick, are sick. So
    that can we on a larger sense begin
    now, today, to start building those institutions and to
    fight to articulate our position, to fight to be able to control our universities We
    need to be
    able to do that and
    to
    fight to
    control
    the basic institutions which perpetuate racism by
    destroying them and building new ones? That’s the real question
    that face us today, and it
    is a
    dilemma because most of us do
    not
    know
    how to work, and that the excuse that most white
    activists find is to run into
    the black community.

    Now we maintain
    that we cannot have white people working in the black community, and we
    mean it on a psychological ground. The fact
    is that all black people often question whether or
    not
    they are equal to whites, because every time they start to do
    something, white people are
    around showing them how to do
    it. If we are going to eliminate that for the generation
    that
    comes after us, then black people must be seen
    in positions of power, doing and articulating
    for themselves, for themselves.

    That is not
    to say that one is a reverse racist. it
    is to say that one is moving in a healthy
    ground. it is to say what the philosopher Sartre says: One is becoming an "antiracist racist."
    And this country can’t understand that. Maybe it's because it's all caught
    up in racism. But I
    think what you have in SNCC
    is an antiracist
    racism. We are against
    racists. Now if
    everybody who is white see themself [sic] as a racist and then
    see us against
    him, they're
    speaking from their own guilt
    position, not ours, not ours.

    Now then, the question is,
    How can we move to
    begin to
    change what's going on in this
    country. I
    maintain, as we have in SNCC, that the war in Vietnam is an illegal and immoral
    war. And the question is,
    What can we do
    to stop that war? What can we do
    to stop the
    people who, in
    the name of our country, are killing babies, women, and children? What can we
    do to stop that? And I maintain
    that we do
    not
    have the power in our hands to change that
    institution, to begin
    to recreate it, so that they learn to
    leave the Vietnamese people alone,
    and that
    the only power we have is the power to say, "Hell
    no!" to
    the draft.


    Transcription by
    Michael
    E. Eidenmuller. Copyright Status: Restricted, seek permission.
    .2007
    Page
    6



    AmericanRhetoric.com


    We have to
    say to ourselves that
    there is a higher law than the law of a racist
    named
    McNamara. There is a higher law than
    the law of a fool
    named Rusk. And there's a higher law
    than
    the law of a buffoon
    named Johnson. It’s the law of each of us. It's the law of each of us.
    It
    is the law of each of us saying that we will not allow
    them to
    make us hired killers. We will
    stand pat. We will
    not
    kill anybody that
    they say kill. And if we decide to
    kill, we're going to
    decide who we going to kill. And this country will only be able to stop the war in Vietnam
    when the young men who are made
    to fight
    it begin to
    say, "Hell, no, we ain’t going."

    Now then, there's a failure because the Peace Movement
    has been
    unable to get off the
    college campuses where everybody has a 2S and not going to get drafted anyway. And the
    question
    is, How can you
    move out of that
    into the white ghettos of this country and begin
    to
    articulate a position for those white students who do not want
    to go. We cannot do
    that. It is
    something sometimes
    ironic that many of the
    peace groups have beginning to
    call
    us
    violent and say they can
    no
    longer support us, and we are in fact
    the most militant
    organization [for] peace or civil rights or human rights against
    the war in Vietnam in this
    country today. There isn’t one organization that
    has begun
    to meet our stance on the war in
    Vietnam, 'cause we not only say we are against
    the war in Vietnam. we are against the draft.
    We are against the draft. No man
    has the right
    to take a man
    for two years and train
    him to
    be a killer. A
    man should decide what
    he wants to do with his life.


    So the question
    then is it
    becomes crystal clear for black people because we can easily say
    that anyone fighting in the war in Vietnam is nothing but a black mercenary, and that's all
    he
    is. Any time a black man
    leaves the country where he can’t vote to
    supposedly deliver the
    vote for somebody else, he’s a black mercenary.
    Any time a black man leaves this country,
    gets
    shot
    in Vietnam on foreign ground, and returns home and you won’t give him a burial in
    his own
    homeland,
    he’s a black mercenary, a black mercenary.

    And that even
    if I were to believe the lies of Johnson, if I were to believe his lies that we're
    fighting to give democracy to the people in Vietnam, as a black man
    living in
    this country I
    wouldn’t fight to give this to anybody.
    I wouldn't give it to anybody.
    So that we have to use
    our bodies and our minds in
    the only way that we see fit. We must begin like the philosopher
    Camus to
    come alive by saying "No!" That is the only act
    in which we begin
    to come alive, and
    we have to say "No!" to
    many, many things in this country.

    This country is a nation of thieves. It has stole everything it
    has, beginning with black people,
    beginning with black people.
    And that
    the question is, How
    can we move to start changing this
    country from what
    it is a
    nation of thieves. This country cannot justify any longer its
    existence. We have become the policeman of the world.
    The marines are at our disposal to
    always bring democracy, and if the Vietnamese don’t want democracy, well dammit, "We’ll
    just wipe them the hell out, 'cause they don’t deserve to
    live if they won’t have our way of
    life."

    There is then in a larger sense,
    What do
    you do
    on your university campus? Do you raise
    questions about the hundred black students who were kicked off campus a couple of weeks
    ago? Eight
    hundred? And how does that question begin to
    move? Do you begin to
    relate to
    people outside of the ivory tower and university wall?


    Transcription by
    Michael
    E. Eidenmuller. Copyright Status: Restricted, seek permission.
    .2007
    Page
    7



    AmericanRhetoric.com


    Do you
    think you’re capable of building those human
    relationships, as the country now
    stands? You're fooling yourself. It is impossible for white and black people to talk about
    building a relationship based on humanity when
    the country is the way it is, when
    the
    institutions are clearly against us.

    We have taken all
    the myths of this country and we've found them to be nothing but
    downright lies. This country told us that
    if we worked hard we would succeed, and if that were
    true we would own
    this country lock, stock, and barrel. It is we who
    have picked the cotton for
    nothing. It
    is we who are the maids in
    the kitchens of liberal white people.
    It is we who are
    the janitors, the porters, the elevator men. we who sweep up your college floors. Yes, it
    is we
    who are the hardest workers and the lowest paid, and the lowest paid.

    And that it is nonsensical for people to start
    talking about
    human relationships until they're
    willing to build new
    institutions. Black people are economically insecure. White liberals are
    economically secure. Can you begin
    to build an
    economic coalition? Are the liberals willing to
    share their salaries with the economically insecure black people they so much
    love? Then if
    you’re not, are you willing to start building new institutions that will provide economic security
    for black people? That’s the question we want
    to deal with. That's the question we want
    to
    deal with.

    We have to
    seriously examine the histories that
    we have been
    told.
    But we have something
    more to do than that. American students are perhaps the most politically unsophisticated
    students in the world, in the world, in the world. Across every country in
    this world, while we
    were growing up,
    students were leading the major revolutions of their countries. We have not
    been able to do
    that. They have been politically aware of their existence. In South America
    our neighbors down below
    the border have one every 24 hours just
    to remind us that
    they're
    politically aware.


    And we have been
    unable to grasp it because we’ve always moved in
    the field of morality and
    love while people have been politically jiving with our lives. And the question
    is, How do we
    now move politically and stop trying to
    move morally? You can't move morally against a man
    like Brown and Reagan. You've got
    to
    move politically to put
    them out of business. You've got
    to move politically.

    You can’t move morally against Lyndon Baines Johnson because he is an
    immoral man. He
    doesn’t know what
    it’s all about. So you’ve got
    to move politically. You've got
    to move
    politically. And that we have to begin
    to develop a political sophistication
    which
    is not
    to be
    a parrot: "The twoparty
    system is the best party in
    the world." There is a difference between
    being a parrot and being politically sophisticated.

    We have to
    raise questions about whether or not we do
    need new
    types of political
    institutions
    in this country, and we in SNCC
    maintain
    that we need them now. We need new
    political
    institutions in this country. Any time Any
    time Lyndon Baines Johnson
    can head a Party
    which
    has in it Bobby Kennedy, Wayne Morse,
    Eastland,
    Wallace, and all
    those other
    supposedtobeliberal
    cats, there’s something
    wrong with
    that Party. They’re moving
    politically, not
    morally.


    Transcription by
    Michael
    E. Eidenmuller. Copyright Status: Restricted, seek permission.
    .2007
    Page
    8



    AmericanRhetoric.com


    And that if that party refuses to seat black people from Mississippi and goes ahead and seats
    racists like Eastland and his clique,
    it is clear to
    me that
    they’re moving politically, and that
    one cannot begin
    to talk morality to people like that.

    We must begin to
    think politically and see if we can have the power to impose and keep the
    moral
    values that we hold high. We must question the values of this society, and I maintain
    that black people are the best people to do that
    because we have been excluded from that
    society. And the question is, we ought
    to think
    whether or not we want
    to become a part of
    that society. That's what we want to do.

    And that that is precisely what it seems to me that the Student Nonviolent Coordinating
    Committee is doing.
    We are raising questions about
    this country. I do
    not want
    to be a part of
    the American pie. The American pie means raping South
    Africa, beating Vietnam, beating
    South
    America, raping the Philippines, raping every country you’ve been in. I don’t want any
    of your blood money. I don’t want
    to be part of that system. And the question is,
    How do we
    raise those questions? How do we begin
    to raise them?

    We have grown up and we are the generation that has found this country to be a world power,
    that
    has found this country to be the wealthiest
    country in the world.
    We must question
    how
    she got
    her wealth? That's what we're questioning, and whether or not we want
    this country
    to continue being the wealthiest country in
    the
    world at the price of raping everybody else
    across the world. That's what we must begin to
    question. And that because black people are
    saying we do not
    now want
    to become a part of you, we are called reverse racists. Ain’t
    that a
    gas?

    Now, then, we want to
    touch on nonviolence because we see that again as the failure of white
    society to make nonviolence work. I was always surprised at Quakers who came to Alabama
    and counseled me to be nonviolent, but didn’t have the guts to start
    talking to James Clark to
    be nonviolent. That
    is where nonviolence needs to be preached to
    Jim Clark, not
    to black
    people. They have already been
    nonviolent
    too
    many years. The question is, Can white people
    conduct their nonviolent schools in Cicero where they belong to be conducted,
    not among
    black people in Mississippi. Can they conduct
    it
    among the white people in
    Grenada?

    Sixfoottwo
    men who kick little black children can
    you conduct
    nonviolent
    schools there?
    That is the question that we must raise, not that you
    conduct
    nonviolence among black
    people. Can you
    name me one black man
    today who's killed anybody white and is still alive?
    Even after rebellion, when
    some black brothers throw some bricks and bottles, ten
    thousand
    of them has to pay the crime, 'cause when
    the white policeman comes in, anybody who’s
    black is arrested, "'cause we all
    look alike."


    So that we have to
    raise those questions. We,
    the youth of this country, must begin
    to raise
    those questions. And we must begin
    to move to
    build new
    institutions that's going to speak to
    the needs of people who need it. We are going to have to
    speak to change the foreign policy
    of this country. One of the problems with
    the peace movement is that
    it's just
    too caught
    up
    in Vietnam, and that if we pulled out
    the troops from Vietnam this week, next week you’d
    have to get another peace movement for Santo
    Domingo.


    Transcription by
    Michael
    E. Eidenmuller. Copyright Status: Restricted, seek permission.
    .2007
    Page
    9



    AmericanRhetoric.com


    And the question
    is, How do
    you begin
    to articulate the need to change the foreign policy of
    this country a
    policy that
    is decided upon
    race, a policy on which decisions are made
    upon
    getting economic wealth at any price, at any price.

    Now we articulate that we therefore have to hook up with black people around the world. and
    that
    that
    hookup is not only psychological, but becomes very real. If South America today
    were to rebel, and black people were to shoot
    the hell out of all
    the white people there as
    they should, as they should then
    Standard Oil would crumble tomorrow. If South Africa
    were to go today, Chase Manhattan
    Bank would crumble tomorrow. If Zimbabwe, which
    is
    called Rhodesia by white people, were to go
    tomorrow, General Electric would cave in on
    the
    East Coast. The question
    is, How do we stop those institutions that are so willing to fight
    against "Communist aggression" but closes their eyes to
    racist oppression? That is the
    question
    that
    you raise. Can this country do that?

    Now, many people talk about pulling out of Vietnam.
    What will happen? If we pull out of
    Vietnam, there will be one less aggressor in there we
    won't be there. And so
    the question
    is, How do we articulate those positions? And we cannot begin to articulate them from the
    same assumptions that
    the people in the country speak, 'cause they speak from different
    assumptions than
    I assume what the youth in this country are talking about.

    That we're not talking about a policy or aid or sending Peace Corps people in to
    teach people
    how to read and write and build houses while we steal their raw materials from them. Is that
    what we're talking about? 'Cause that’s all we do. What
    underdeveloped countries needs information
    on how
    to become industrialized,
    so they can keep their raw materials where they
    have it, produce them and sell it to this country for the price it’s supposed to pay. not
    that we
    produce it and sell
    it
    back to
    them for a profit and keep sending our modern
    day missionaries
    in, calling them the sons of Kennedy.
    And that
    if the youth are going to participate in that
    program, how do you raise those questions where you begin to
    control
    that Peace Corps
    program? How do you begin
    to raise them?

    How do we raise the questions of poverty? The assumptions of this country is that if someone
    is poor, they are poor because of their own individual blight, or they weren’t born on the right
    side of town. they had
    too many children. they went in the army too early. or their father was
    a drunk, or they didn’t care about school, or they made a mistake. That’s a lot of nonsense.
    Poverty is well
    calculated in
    this country. It
    is well calculated, and the reason why the poverty
    program won’t work is because the calculators of poverty are administering it. That's why it
    won't work.

    So how can we, as the youth
    in
    the country, move to start tearing those things down? We
    must
    move into
    the white community. We are in the black community. We have developed a
    movement
    in the black community. The challenge is that
    the white activist
    has failed
    miserably to develop the movement inside of his community. And the question is, Can we find
    white people who are going to have the courage to go
    into white communities and start
    organizing them? Can we find them? Are they here and are they willing to do that? Those are
    the questions that we must raise for the white activist.


    Transcription by
    Michael
    E. Eidenmuller. Copyright Status: Restricted, seek permission.
    .2007
    Page
    10



    AmericanRhetoric.com


    And we're never going to get
    caught up in questions about power. This country knows what
    power is. It knows it very well. And it knows what Black Power is 'cause it deprived black
    people of it for 400 years. So
    it knows what Black Power is. That the question of,
    Why do
    white people in this country associate Black Power with violence? And the question
    is because
    of their own inability to deal with "blackness."
    If we had said "Negro power" nobody would get
    scared.
    Everybody would support it. Or if we said power for colored people,
    everybody’d be for
    that, but it is the word "black" it
    is the word "black" that bothers people in this country, and
    that’s their problem, not mine they're
    problem.

    Now there's one modern day lie that we want
    to attack and then move on very quickly and
    that
    is the lie that says anything all black is bad. Now, you’re all a college university crowd.
    You’ve taken
    your basic logic course. You
    know
    about a major premise and minor premise. So
    people have been
    telling me anything all black is bad. Let’s make that our major premise.

    Major premise: Anything all black is bad.

    Minor premise or particular premise: I am all black.

    Therefore....


    I’m never going to be put
    in that
    trick bag. I am all black and I’m all good, dig it. Anything all
    black is not
    necessarily bad.
    Anything all black is only bad when
    you
    use force to keep whites
    out. Now
    that’s what white people have done in
    this country, and they’re projecting their
    same fears and guilt on
    us, and we won’t have it, we won't
    have it. Let
    them handle their own
    fears and their own guilt. Let
    them find their own psychologists. We refuse to be the therapy
    for white society any longer. We have gone mad trying to do it. We have gone stark raving
    mad trying to do
    it.

    I look at Dr. King on
    television every single day, and I say to myself: "Now
    there is a man
    who’s desperately needed
    in this country. There is a man
    full of love. There is a man
    full of
    mercy. There is a man full of compassion." But
    every time I see Lyndon on television, I said,
    "Martin, baby, you got a long way to go."


    So that the question stands as to what we are willing to do, how we are willing to say "No" to
    withdraw
    from that system and begin within our community to start
    to function and to build
    new
    institutions that will
    speak to our needs. In
    Lowndes County, we developed something
    called the
    Lowndes County Freedom Organization. It
    is a political party.

    The Alabama
    law
    says that if you
    have a Party you must
    have an emblem. We chose for the
    emblem a black panther, a beautiful black animal which
    symbolizes the strength and dignity of
    black people, an animal
    that
    never strikes back until
    he's back so far into the wall, he's got
    nothing to do but spring out. Yeah. And when
    he springs he does not stop.


    Transcription by
    Michael
    E. Eidenmuller. Copyright Status: Restricted, seek permission.
    .2007
    Page
    11



    AmericanRhetoric.com


    Now there is a Party in
    Alabama
    called the
    Alabama Democratic Party. It
    is all white. It
    has as
    its emblem a white rooster and the words "white supremacy" for the write. Now
    the
    gentlemen of the Press, because they're advertisers, and because most of them are white,
    and because they're produced by that white institution, never called the Lowndes County
    Freedom Organization by its name, but rather they call it the Black Panther Party. Our
    question
    is, Why don't they call
    the Alabama Democratic Party the "White Cock Party"? (It's
    fair to
    us.....) It
    is clear to me that that just points out
    America's problem with sex and color,
    not our problem, not our problem. And it
    is now
    white America that
    is going to deal with
    those
    problems of sex and color.

    If we were to be real and to be honest, we would have to admit
    that most people in
    this
    country see things black and white. We have to
    do that. All of us do. We live in a country
    that’s geared that way. White people would have to admit
    that
    they are afraid to go
    into a
    black ghetto at night. They are afraid.
    That's a fact. They're afraid because they’d be "beat
    up," "lynched," "looted," "cut
    up," etcetera, etcetera.
    It happens to black people inside the
    ghetto every day,
    incidentally, and white people are afraid of that. So you get a man to do
    it
    for you
    a
    policeman. And now
    you
    figure his
    mentality, when he's afraid of black people.
    The first time a black man jumps, that white man going to shoot
    him. He's going to shoot him.
    So police brutality is going to
    exist on that level
    because of the incapability of that white man
    to see black people come together and to live in the conditions. This country is too
    hypocritical
    and that we cannot adjust ourselves to its hypocrisy.

    The only time I
    hear people talk about nonviolence is when black people move to defend
    themselves against white people. Black people cut themselves every night
    in the ghetto
    Don't
    anybody talk about nonviolence. Lyndon Baines Johnson
    is busy bombing the hell of out
    Vietnam Don't
    nobody talk about nonviolence. White people beat up black people every day
    Don't
    nobody talk about nonviolence. But as soon as black people start to
    move, the double
    standard comes into being.


    You can’t defend yourself. That's what you're saying, 'cause you
    show
    me a man who would
    advocate aggressive violence that would be able to
    live in this country. Show him to
    me. The
    double standards again come into
    itself. Isn’t it ludicrous and hypocritical for the political
    chameleon who calls himself a Vice President
    in
    this country to
    stand up before this country
    and say, "Looting never got anybody anywhere"? Isn't it hypocritical
    for Lyndon to
    talk about
    looting,
    that
    you
    can’t accomplish anything by looting and you must accomplish it by the legal
    ways? What does he know about legality? Ask Ho Chi Minh, he'll tell you.

    So that in conclusion we want to say that number one, it
    is clear to
    me that we have to wage
    a psychological battle on the right for black people to define their own
    terms, define
    themselves as they see fit, and organize themselves as they see it.

    Now the question is, How
    is the white community going to begin to allow
    for that organizing,
    because once they start
    to do
    that, they will also allow
    for the organizing that they want
    to do
    inside their community. It doesn’t
    make a difference, 'cause we’re going to organize our way
    anyway.


    Transcription by
    Michael
    E. Eidenmuller. Copyright Status: Restricted, seek permission.
    .2007
    Page
    12



    AmericanRhetoric.com


    We're going to do it. The question is, How are we going to facilitate those matters, whether
    it’s going to be done with a thousand policemen
    with submachine guns, or whether or not it’s
    going to be done in a context where it is allowed to be done by white people warding off those
    policemen. That is the question.

    And the question
    is, How are white people who
    call themselves activists ready to start move
    into the white communities on two counts: on building new
    political institutions to destroy the
    old ones that we have? And to
    move around the concept of white youth
    refusing to go
    into
    the
    army? So
    that we can start, then, to build a new world. It
    is ironic to talk about civilization in
    this country. This country is uncivilized. It
    needs to be civilized.
    It
    needs to be civilized.


    And that we must
    begin
    to raise those questions of civilization:
    What
    it is? And who do
    it? And
    so we must
    urge you to
    fight now
    to be the leaders of today, not tomorrow. We've got to be
    the leaders of today. This country is a nation of thieves. It
    stands on the brink of becoming a
    nation of murderers. We must
    stop it. We must
    stop it. We must stop it. We must stop it.

    And then, therefore, in a larger sense there's the question of black people.
    We are on the
    move for our liberation. We have been
    tired of trying to prove things to white people. We are
    tired of trying to explain
    to white people that we’re not going to
    hurt
    them. We are concerned
    with getting the things we want, the things that
    we have to have to be able to function. The
    question
    is, Can white people allow
    for that
    in this country? The question is,
    Will white people
    overcome their racism and allow
    for that
    to happen in this country? If that does not
    happen,
    brothers and sisters, we have no choice but
    to say very clearly, "Move over, or we’re going to
    move on over you."


    Thank you.


    1
    Probably
    meant to
    say
    Fanon.
    2
    Former
    Governor
    of
    Mississippi
    3 Sheriff
    of
    Selma,
    Alabama


    Transcription by
    Michael
    E. Eidenmuller. Copyright Status: Restricted, seek permission.
    .2007
    Page
    13


    0/0
      上一篇:美国20世纪伟大的100篇演讲Barry Goldwater - Barry Goldwater - Presiden 下一篇:美国20世纪伟大的100篇演讲Newton Minow - Television and the Public Int

      本周热门

      受欢迎的教程