Scan barcode
banandrew's review against another edition
5.0
"Stokely Speaks" is, simply, a collection of speeches and essays from Stokely Carmichael.
Carmichael starts by exploring the nature of institutions and what it means to relate to them as a member of an oppressed class. This was shortly after the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, which, in hindsight, is usually taught as a major victory for blacks:
Carmichael takes a strong stand on the importance of identity among blacks:
He reiterates the importance of terms much later, when discussing the power to define, referring to how McCarthy's tactics affected the greater country:
Carmichael takes the importance of defining even further, broadly emphasizing that society cannot be genuinely inclusive of different classes of people if one class at the top defines what an inclusive society looks like:
He often focuses his criticism towards the then-contemporary policies of "integration", describing them as "assimilat[ing] individuals" rather than "integrat[ing] communities", but also looks at Johnson's Great Society (his attempt at another New Deal):
Carmichael can be as funny as he is engaging, though his tone changes noticeably depending on the crowd. When speaking at Berkeley ("the white intellectual ghetto of the West"), he explains civil rights legislation by turning it on its head:
He does not hesitate to be brutally critical of the way the US portrayed granting rights to blacks:
He similarly attacks the British and French for their management of colonies in Asia and Africa; he attacks the institutions set up in several colonies distorting their history, teaching French as the more educated language, and requiring French for important jobs.
He spends time in many of his speeches discussing the nature of war, the place of killing, and the justifications used in different circumstances, particularly relating to Vietnam at the time. He directly encourages his audiences to refuse to participate in the war, identifying as "brothers" with the North Vietnamese, and, in the most dire case, warning of the possibility of an American genocide of blacks. One powerful passage describes killing in terms of legalization:
His speeches become more vitriolic over time, and an evolution of his own ideas is clear as the book progresses. His later speeches focus more on identification with Africa, and talks about the possibility of developing a different society from the ground up located there.
Finally, he acknowledges the importance of knowing history to create any meaningful change, and, when talking with students, admonishes them to study more, read more, investigate more before speaking out on issues:
On a personal level, this is one of the most challenging books I have read. I recommend it to anyone interested in issues of identity and social cohesion, and particularly in understanding "the sixties" better.
FYI: A lot of my interest in delving into this period more came from this documentary, made by a group of Swedish journalists examining the Black Power movement. Would also recommend.
Carmichael starts by exploring the nature of institutions and what it means to relate to them as a member of an oppressed class. This was shortly after the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, which, in hindsight, is usually taught as a major victory for blacks:
"I--a 'qualified' person by virtue of my college education--used to say to the black people there that they should register to vote and then make their voices heard. They could assert their rights, take over the power structure… But these people said they didn't want to do that; they did not think they could; they did not even want to enter a machine headed by George Wallace.
Carmichael takes a strong stand on the importance of identity among blacks:
"To reclaim our history and our identity… we still have to struggle for the right to create our own terms to define ourselves and our relationship to the society, and have these terms recognized. This is the first necessity of a free people, and the first right that any oppressor must suspend."
He reiterates the importance of terms much later, when discussing the power to define, referring to how McCarthy's tactics affected the greater country:
"The power to define is the most important power that we have… If McCarthy said you were a communist, you had to get up and say, no I am not a communist… He had the power to define."
Carmichael takes the importance of defining even further, broadly emphasizing that society cannot be genuinely inclusive of different classes of people if one class at the top defines what an inclusive society looks like:
"For a real end to exclusion in American society, that society would have to be so radically changed that the goal cannot really be defined as inclusion."
He often focuses his criticism towards the then-contemporary policies of "integration", describing them as "assimilat[ing] individuals" rather than "integrat[ing] communities", but also looks at Johnson's Great Society (his attempt at another New Deal):
"President Johnson's concept of the Great Society is preposterous. The definition comes from him, as does the means of entering that society. Excluded people must acquire the opportunity to redefine what the Great Society is, and then it may have meaning.
Carmichael can be as funny as he is engaging, though his tone changes noticeably depending on the crowd. When speaking at Berkeley ("the white intellectual ghetto of the West"), he explains civil rights legislation by turning it on its head:
"I maintain that every civil rights bill in this country was passed for white people, not for black people… I have the right to go into any public place. White people didn't know that. Every time I tried to go into a public 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 the white man, not for me."
He does not hesitate to be brutally critical of the way the US portrayed granting rights to blacks:
"… we must dismiss the fallacious notion that white people can give 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… The only thing white people can do is stop denying black people their freedom."
He similarly attacks the British and French for their management of colonies in Asia and Africa; he attacks the institutions set up in several colonies distorting their history, teaching French as the more educated language, and requiring French for important jobs.
He spends time in many of his speeches discussing the nature of war, the place of killing, and the justifications used in different circumstances, particularly relating to Vietnam at the time. He directly encourages his audiences to refuse to participate in the war, identifying as "brothers" with the North Vietnamese, and, in the most dire case, warning of the possibility of an American genocide of blacks. One powerful passage describes killing in terms of legalization:
"If I were in Vietnam, if I killed thirty yellow people who were pointed out to me by white Americans as my enemy, I would be given a medal… I would have killed America's enemy, but America's enemy is not my enemy. If I were to kill 30 white policeman in Washington, DC, who have been brutalizing my people and who are my enemy, I would get the electric chair. It is simply a question of who has the power to legalize violence."
His speeches become more vitriolic over time, and an evolution of his own ideas is clear as the book progresses. His later speeches focus more on identification with Africa, and talks about the possibility of developing a different society from the ground up located there.
Finally, he acknowledges the importance of knowing history to create any meaningful change, and, when talking with students, admonishes them to study more, read more, investigate more before speaking out on issues:
"Because revolutionary theories are based on historical analyses, one must study. One must understands ones history and one must make the correct historical analysis. At the correct moment you make your historical leap and carry the struggle forward."
On a personal level, this is one of the most challenging books I have read. I recommend it to anyone interested in issues of identity and social cohesion, and particularly in understanding "the sixties" better.
FYI: A lot of my interest in delving into this period more came from this documentary, made by a group of Swedish journalists examining the Black Power movement. Would also recommend.
historicalmaterialgirl's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
informative
medium-paced
4.5
I learned so much from this collection of speeches! Especially about the history and ideologies of Black radical movements of the 60s and 70s. I repeatedly found something I had considered historical fact or had only understood on a superficial level to be challenged and developed: for instance, I had never encountered a critique of the integration movement until this book. These speeches bridge a gap between dense theory and one-on-one conversation, without sacrificing complexity or passion. I highly recommend this to develop a more complicated understanding of Black history, and understanding of race, power, organizing and colonialism currently.
Points docked for random misogyny and the editing of this leading to a lot of repetition.
Points docked for random misogyny and the editing of this leading to a lot of repetition.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Racism
Moderate: Misogyny
alielchaer_'s review against another edition
informative
inspiring
fast-paced
5.0
Loved this book. Could not recommend it enough.
butch's review
challenging
informative
reflective
fast-paced
5.0
I definitely need to read/listen to more of Kwane Ture's work and words beyond the time span covered in this book. Ture is direct, evolving (this book spans the 1960s and 1970s so you can see changes in his thoughts), and incredibly insightful. He doesn't hold back and his words have challenged me in many ways. His points on combating white liberalism are especially poignant: "I think that the problem with the white liberal in America, and perhaps the liberal around the world, is that his primary task is to stop confrontation, stop conflicts, not to redress grievances, but to stop confrontation. ... his role, regardless of what he says, is really to maintain the status quo, rather than to change it. ... The liberal is afraid to alienate anyone, and therefore he is incapable of presenting any clear alternative." I also really enjoyed that he attributes and documents his influences and other revolutionaries whose efforts and ideologies have contributed to his own.