Racism and inequality has been a colossal issue plaguing America since it's founding in 1776, and is still a hot topic today. The civil rights movement in the mid 20th century marks a time period where steps were taken towards gaining equality for African Americans. However, despite the civil rights movement's success, there were still many who believed there was still progress that needed to be made. Stokely Carmichael was one of these people. He argues in his speech entitled "Black Power" 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 (Carmichael 249). 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, one can see that this movement is counterproductive to the fight for equality and civil rights.

The context of the speech and the listeners overall reaction to it is the first sign that the substance of Carmichael's argument is counterproductive. He 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. In a journal written about Carmichael's speech by Victoria Gallagher, she gives insight into the thinking behind his speech. 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" (Gallagher 145). He gave the speech focused on black power anyway despite being told not to (Gallagher 145). Knowing the context changes the 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 (Gallagher 145). 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 the rest of America would most likely reject his ideas as well. His radical ideas isolate him and his party from the rest of the United States, instead of coming together to solve inequality like what was attempted by MLK in the civil rights movement, he creates a stance on equality that very few Americans can connect to.

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 it is safe to assume that since he is addressing a white crowd that his organization would be open to whites as well. Upon researching the SNCC in Jennifer Wallach's journal on white activism in the SNCC, it becomes apparent that the organization was actually known for expelling white members and consisting solely of black nationalists(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. 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 that goes against all the ideals of this civil rights movement and any type of step toward equality and integration.

Carmichael actually calls integration, which most people think is a large step towards equality, a "insidious subterfuge, for the maintenance of white supremacy."(Carmichael 249). Most Americans think that integration is a great step in the right direction and marks progress. But Carmichael 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 people, not black or white, just people. However, Carmichael makes that point that white people in America refuse to accept that blacks are oppressed. So instead of waiting for this to happen, he condemns American ideals and uses the term "Black Power" to show that it is up to blacks to define their own terms of freedom (Carmichael 259). A primary source that elaborates on the term "black power" is a periodical from The New Republic, written by Simon Lazarus two years after this speech was given. The article gives a greater understanding of what "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 (Lazarus 28). And in this case what's rightfully its is equality. This echoes the main point of Carmichael's speech. Carmichael says that whites will not acknowledge their 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. This method of gaining equality, although valiant, is the wrong way for African Americans to create any type of political change. 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. 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 this point is "Black Power and White Reactions: The Revitalization of Race Thinking in the United States" by Lewis Killian. In this journal, Killian states "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 having this newly formed cultural identity is a good thing, using it to create a separate political party to directly oppose the current parties would result in nothing but failure. Instead, working together is the key to solving the issue, not condemning the government and creating a radical political party like Carmichael seeks in his speech. This research gives new insight into the thinking behind creating a separate culture for the African American population, but it doesn't mean that creating a new political party would be a successful way to gain equality. 

Outside sources develop one's 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. Although all civil rights activists wanted society to work this way, the stark reality of the time was that this was simply not true. Many civil rights leaders proposed ways to end racial inequality, and Carmichael's methods, after researching them, are counterproductive to the goals of the civil rights movement. Carmichael sought to create a separate black political party that opposed the current ones instead of working together towards inclusion. The end goal on Carmichael's mind is the right one, equality for all, but the method to get there doomed the movement from gaining any momentum. 

