For essay three I chose to read Stokely Carmichael's speech about racism in America. To briefly summarize his argument, Carmichael argues that the institutions of the United States are clearly racist and need to be changed. But the change that he seeks will only happen once the white population sees the black population as human beings rather than categorizing them based on skin color. The term "black power", which was first coined by Carmichael, shows how he wants to accomplish equality. He believes that the only way to accomplish freedom is for blacks to rise up and take it by asserting their power and freedom. Carmichael's speech has great intentions, but after researching his speech, the organization he was the chairman for, (the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, and the Black Power movement in general, I formed a new opinion on Carmichael's speech. Through my research I came to believe that Carmichael's goal of a strong Black Nationalist party is actually counterproductive to the goals of the civil rights movement.

The first source I found is a journal that analyzes the speech and I was able to take away a few interesting points that allowed me to gain a greater understanding of Carmichaels words. First is the context. Carmichael was giving this speech to a predominantly white audience at UC Berkeley, which is known for being a hot bed of social and political activism during the time period that this speech was given. Administrators at Berkeley knew that this speech would be controversial and in an effort to quell this they initially tried to not let Carmichael speak at all. They then later conceded to letting him speak only if his speech wasn't centered on his phrase "black power". He gave the speech focused on black power anyway despite being told not to. Knowing the context changes my interpretation of the speech because it adds to the controversy surrounding it. Normally, Carmichael would address all black audiences but in this case he was addressing a majority white one while advocating for an entirely black rights group. It puts into context just how strongly he feels about his argument and on the opposite side of the spectrum, just how strongly people would feel against it. In fact, a speech he gave earlier that year, Carmichael had spoke at a rally in Atlanta and a riot broke out after he was done speaking. (Gallagher, 145). The reaction to Carmichael's speeches were passionate, and if the administrators at Berkeley, one of the most progressive institutions in the country weren't even comfortable letting him speak, then why would Carmichael's ideas ever be accepted by the rest of America?

This journal also delves into the concept of how Black America will be able to gain equality. Carmichael calls integration, which most people think is a large step towards equality, a "insidious subterfuge, for the maintenance of white supremacy."(Carmichael 249). This made very little sense to me when I first read it because I assumed integration was a good thing. But after reading the journal I understood his point. He says that one group of people cannot simply grant freedom and equality to another group. This act in itself shows that one group has control over the other because they have control over their freedom. To have true equality, there needs to be a complete change in the mindset of the oppressor. (Gallagher,  151). So in the case of white supremacy, Carmichael would argue that white people simply need to see blacks as regular people, not black or white, just people. However, Carmichael makes that point that white America refuses to accept that they oppress blacks. So instead of waiting for this to happen, he condemns white America and uses the term "Black Power" to show that it is up to blacks to define their own terms of freedom. The primary source that I found is a periodical from The New Republic, written by Simon Lazarus two years after this speech was given. The article gave me a greater understanding of what the term "Black Power" does for African Americans. He says that the term is used as a rallying cry for blacks to rise up. Instead of peaceful protest like Martin Luther King would advocate for, this creates a more assertive mentality that black America has to go out and take what's rightfully its. And in this case what's rightfully its is equality. I think this is also the main point of Carmichael's speech. He says that white America will not acknowledge its oppression of African Americans. So instead of waiting for them to change, he argues that Blacks should assert themselves and take their equality and his slogan for doing so is the almost militaristic "black power".(Lazarus, 28) The point of this is to create a black political group that can gain power in the government and therefore be able to change laws and institutions in the government to stop white oppression.

To me this seems like the wrong way to go about ending racism and oppression. I feel that using the concept of black power to invoke political change would isolate the black population more and would create a "black versus white" attitude that is the opposite of what the end goal of equality and freedom aims toward. I understand that Carmichael feels that this is the only way blacks can change the systems in place in the country but doing it by force is the wrong way to go about it. A source that backs up my point is Black Power and White Reactions: The Revitalization of Race Thinking in the United States by Lewis Killian. A quote I found interesting from this is "While Blacks and Whites in the Civil Rights Movement were still dreaming of the brotherhood of man, black power followers cherished "soul brothers" and "bloods"(Killian, 45). This quote shows that through the black power movement, African Americans in the United States were trying to create a cultural identity that they previously did not have before the civil rights movement. And although I believe it is important for African Americans to establish their own culture, I do not believe that the movement of creating a separate political party based off this movement to directly oppose the current parties would be a successful strategy. Instead, I believe working together is the key to solving the issue not condemning the government and creating a radical political party like Carmichael does in his speech. My research gave me new insight into the thinking behind creating a separate culture for the African American population, but it didn't change my view that a new political party would be unsuccessful.

Creating a separatist black national party is the core of Carmichael's speech and a goal of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), which Carmichael was the chairman of. In his Berkeley speech he addresses a mainly white crowd, so I assumed that since he was addressing a white crowd that his organization would be open to whites as well. Upon researching the SNCC however, I learned that the organization actually expelled white people and consisted solely of black nationalists after 1966(Wallach, 269). Making a racially exclusive group is the opposite of everything that the civil rights movement stood for. Instead of races coming together to improve race relations, Carmichael's group is separating itself from everything else. I feel that doing this takes the focus of Carmichael's speech away from trying to make a society where everyone can live together happily and puts the focus on a confrontational "black vs. white" dynamic. This isn't an attempt to bring people together to work towards a better future for mankind but a way to choose sides in a debate.

Using outside sources really helped develop my understanding of Carmichael's speech and convinced me that his way of going about stopping oppression was the wrong one. Martin Luther King in "The World House" speaks of his dream for a planet where all people live together and actively seek a peaceful society. This should have been the goal of the SNCC, to bring Americans together to stop racism, not to separate blacks from white further and create an exclusive, African American Nationalist group with a confrontational and militant mentality. 

