Stokely Carmichael: Two speeches on black power

“A Conspiracy of the Nation”: Case Study of Stokely Carmichael’s and H. Rap Brown’s Arguments in Support of Black Power

“…Thus, labeling arguments as “conspiratorial,” especially by one’s own admission, does little to bolster the ethos or further the goals of those who stand behind them. In the case study presented here, the legitimacy of alternate accounts of SNCC’s objectives posed the greatest obstacle to Carmichael, Brown, and other Black militants who presented explanations of the Black American condition that effectively contrasted those deemed by public opinion to be less flawed or, rather, more “factual.” Claims of conspiracy made by SNCC’s chairmen were challenged by civil rights activists, government officials, media disinformation, and other “factual,” “fanatical,” and derailing counter-considerations, rhetorically allowing detractors to equate Black activism and the pursuit of Black Power with the support of senseless violence (see Brockriede & Scott, 1968). For example, upon the release of Brown’s, 1969 autobiography Die Nigger Die!…”

“…Although neither Carmichael nor Brown sanctioned violence for violence’s sake, SNCC’s demands for Black self-determination—read by many as “black separatism”—were redolent of doctrines of separatism upheld by the Supreme Court and violent resistance sanctioned by Jim Crow laws in the South, remnants of America’s intolerant past which many progressives wished to forget (Brockriede & Scott, 1968; SNCC, 1966). Detractors likened the objectives of Black Power to Black nationalism, a radical conspiratorial cosmological doctrine preached by leaders of the Nation of Islam (NOI; Isserman & Kazin, 2012; “SNCC and Black Nationalism,” 1966).…”

“…Carmichael and Brown seemed to agree, disparaging missionaries of the “white man’s religion” who “turned the Africans’ eyes toward heaven, and then robbed them blind in the process” (Brown, 1969; Ture & Hamilton, 1967, p. 27). Similarly, accounts of civil rights leaders and media drew similarities between Black Power and historically odious beliefs in “White Power” (see Brockriede & Scott, 1968). For instance, according to the New York Times , Brown’s “paranoia” was “little different in kind from that disease which causes the Ku Klux Klan and their ilk to view all blacks as inferior beings” (Stevens, 1969).…”

“…Condemnations of Black militants often included accusations of delinquency, charges of social and psychological dysfunction, and general reproach as ungrateful, chauvinistic young people who refused to recognize contributions by White Americans to the civil rights cause. Mass media presented a predominantly violent and racist image of Carmichael to the public, effectively damaging his ability to communicate the significance of Black power to a White liberal audience (Brockriede & Scott, 1968). Carmichael remembers,We were not only anti-American agents of atheistic Communism .…”

Retrospective on Latin@ Rhetorical-Performance Scholarship: From “Chicano Communication” to “Latina/o Communication?”

“…The ideologies speak to the influence of time, geography, and social tensions in rhetorical approaches undertaken by groups of people. Related is filling a void in rhetorical history, specifically social movement studies that had primarily examined civil rights oratory from African-American leaders such as in the work of Campbell (1971) or Brockriede and Scott (1968). Finally, interesting to note is that 20 years would pass before another special issue about Latina/os would be allotted sanctioned journal space (e.g., The Communication Review, 2004).…”