In class today, while we were making our list of
actions to deal with slavery, inequality, and attempted dehumanization, I kept
thinking how every option we came up with would cause full out war between the
states. Even today, some of our resolutions aren't fully in effect. Our
government doesn't provide equal and unfettered voting rights to all its
citizens, providing obstacles and countless hurdles that one has to jump
through to not only attain voting registration but also the necessary materials
to substantiate your "you-ness" such that you have to driver's
license, a car, time to visit the polls, a poll preferably in your neighborhood
(however unlikely), and countless others. Moreover, after class, I kept
thinking about what would happen if we tried to institute equal representation
for black folk in the Senate and the House. I kept thinking about the uproar
(the white rage) both by those racist images that we hold in our head (the
ogres in the hills that come down and do racist things – cite Dr. McKinney) and
those average white folk that live all around us and with us that would scream unconstitutionality
and unfairness. I could see massive strikes and civil unrest while the vote in
the Senate and the House was taking place (that is, if the bill ever got to the
floor or ever popped into the mind or hands of the senate and house representatives).
Ultimately, I kept thinking how much we haven’t moved from a 1830s mindset for emancipation,
equal representation, equality, and “proper” laws (though our laws are “proper”
for a section of our society). Furthermore, if we would try to institute most
of those things we wrote on the whiteboard today, I don’t think we would have
anything less than full out battles on the streets (or rather white rage
playing out in white violence against bodies of color). Even more,
I could see states seceding from the United States. In the end, the only option
that I could think of that could change our society, our constitution, and our
laws would be to rise up and rebel against the system that is unjust. Just
based upon the ludicrousness and unlikelihood of any of those kinds of bills
being heard in the Senate or the House coupled with the backlash of one of them
actually succeeding, the only recourse we have that would bring about a society
that is equitable and just is to make one ourselves. The only way to bring
about equal representation (for black folk, brown folk, women, and countless others),
social justice, and constitutional as well as foundational change is to fight
for it. Viva la Revolución.
I really enjoyed reading your post and couldn't help it to think that all of these actions would lead to war. That is why my group took a more moderate stance in the questions of what to do about the institutions of slavery in the 1830's, in hopes that America could avoid war. However, when reading your post, I now don't think that it would be possible today for all of these events that have occurred over the past two hundred years, such as emancipation, and other laws such as the right to vote, along with many others, could have happened without war. For that reason, I would change my moderate stance that my team had in class to something more radical, and something that would for sure bring war. I thought it was also a really interesting point about instituting equal representation for black folks into the House and Senate. This is a really interesting idea, and maybe something that we should think about more.
ReplyDeletePerhaps war should be avoided. I see that both of you are not advocating for war, but simply for the reparations that would likely cause such an event, but it's important to remember that change brought about through violence rarely results in peace. While instituting all of the reparations we discussed is definitely the morally correct thing, we agree that in reality it woud cause violence in the streets and war, and necessarily loss of life. If this could be avoided, wouldn't it be preferable? May I direct your attention to the steps of nonviolent social change Martin Luther King, Jr. outlines in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail." King contends that discussion and negotiation should be pursued through means of humor, grace, and intelligence, and that the opposition should be presented with a clear list of injustices and plans for redresssing them. Picture congress holding panels and coming to grips with the underlying issues of racial representation. King's philosophy also holds that when discussion and negotiation fail, direct nonviolent action must be initiated. This involves imposing a "creative tension" on those resisting change by hitting them right in the moral obligation. If you can get them to admit something is wrong, you should be able to get them to admit that something should be done. Finally, King points to reconciliation as the only real end to a conflict. This involves compromise, and the goal is not to defeat one's opponent. To this end, many of the white congressmen might interpret having to abdicate for people of color to take their seats as defeat. Perhaps adding more seats in congress to balance things out could keep our "opponents" undefeated. But before we even get to negotiation and discussion, we need to begin with the idea in mind that peaceful resolution is in fact possible. Whether or not that is actually true, we will not find out if we don't believe in it because non-violent social change is difficult aand painful. People die making points non-violently. If we don't steel ourselves against the prospects of violence and hate, then they will overwhelm our reason and goodwill.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thekingcenter.org/king-philosophy
JD, I agree that we need to be careful when advocating for war or violence, especially since hate easily guides us towards immoral actions against one another. And ultimately if we aren't careful, such emotions (justified or irrational alike) could overwhelm us and jeopardize any opportunity for negotiation and discussion. However, when observing huge changes that have been made in our country and in our world, I cannot help but notice (and I could very well be missing a lot) that violence is present more often than not. Even in Martin Luther King Jr.'s nonviolent campaign, you see violent actions carried out against those engaging in the nonviolent protests. You even said, "people die making points non-violently." Non-violent statements and acts of defiance can be very effective and, I agree, moral. It would be very naive to think, though, that violence is absent from these spaces. As we think about our situation today and about enacting legislative action or how to restructure our nation, our education systems, our society, we have to also consider those who are taking the blunt hits of violence from the counter arguments. The brown and black students in our school systems who are told explicitly and implicitly that they are not valued, have no capacity, are not going to succeed, are bad. The brown and black men continuously profiled and held in suspicion. The brown and black men, women, children killed by those who are supposed to be protecting them. Non-violent change is pricey, violently pricey. Though for some that cost may be worth it, can we make that decision for all? We could perhaps even rightly claim that the cost is the most moral route. But this change has been a long time coming, can we rightly expect or require people to persevere forever?
DeleteA proper citation for the website I reference in my reply above:
Delete1. Martin L. King, Jr., “The King Philosophy,” The King Center, October 11, 2017, http://www.thekingcenter.org/king-philosophy#sub2.
Malcolm x and the Nation of Islam.
DeleteNowadays, it is common to only point to a few political and social figures when it comes to the Civil Rights Movement, of course MLK being the biggest name; however, MLK and the SCLC and their non-violent tactics were not the only forces at play. In MLK's speech "It is Not Enough to Condemn Black Power" he explains that out of the 60k peaceful protesters in Chicago, at least 10% of them were militant - willing to fight and die for their cause. He goes on to denounce the violent measures favored by black militants but he also validated their grievances. Moreover, these 10% were no small pie, and their numbers were growing by the day. By the time things were becoming hectic in the early 1960s, the Nation of Islam - who were known and feared (in some cases prematurely) for their militant stance were growing number. Juxtapose this alongside the already vast amount of people for peaceful protest, and the government was forced into a corner - either deal with thes black militants or take what they can get with MLK. I'm sure you can guess which they chose.
Brad and JD, I agree with both of you. You both challenge ideas that are vastly too complex to address in a comment, blog post, or even book, but I will try to respond to you best I can.
ReplyDeleteJD, I would like to respond to your reference to Martin Luther King Jr.'s brilliant, civil disobedience and nonviolent approach to policy change. Do not forget that a lot of white folks saw MLK and his civil disobedience as provocative as well as disruptive and shameful to American values. Today, I'd say the vast majority of Americans view MLK as a hero. Therefore, those same peaceful protests might not work today. Protests are supposed to make people uncomfortable and cause discourse; therefore, maybe Brad's idea of rising up and rebelling is an option that should be considered. Do not hear me wrong: I am not saying violence is the only option. I think it is important to "begin with the idea in mind that peaceful resolution is in fact possible," as you said. (i.e. Right now we are seeing nonviolent protests in the form of kneeling during the National Anthem).
Great ideas, both of you.