Activist Stokely Carmichael’s 1966 speech “Black Power” epitomizes the black nationalist segment of the Civil Rights Movement through criticism of perceived hypocrisy in the United States government’s condemnation of tyranny. The speech is reflective of the intensity of black American’s grievances during the 1960s and the cultural implications of consolidation of power within society. These contributed to racial tensions which resulted in a black nationalist movement which encouraged blacks to establish a separate society. Carmichael’s arguments represent the growing resentment of a predominantly white American society through criticism of the failures of the American government, the inherent hypocrisy of self-condemnation, and the destructiveness of attempts at worldwide democratization. 

Carmichael’s speech is mostly targeted at the predominance of whites in the political class of the United States and their failure in effecting the statutes of the Constitution which ensure equal opportunity. The persistence of racially targeted legislation until the mid 1960s indicates a society that was more interested in consolidating power as opposed to upholding the social contract for all of its constituents. Thus, the racial divisions which were initiated by slavery and white supremacy have been perpetuated by the government’s inadequate lawmaking and law enforcement. This is evinced by the redundancy of laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the bill which effectively ended discrimination in public accommodations. Phrases such as “All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of goods, services facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations,” (Civil 243) strongly echo key points of America’s founding documents which established the tenets of man’s inalienable rights in American democracy. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is merely an expansion on those rights granted to United States citizens, which had to be defined in more detail so they would extend to all members of society rather than a select few. Thus, the law is simply a correction of unfair and unjust practices by whites who circumvented protection of the basic rights listed in the Constitution. This extension of rights took the government 188 years to recognize, a fact which is also responsible for nationalists’ mistrust of the United States’ ability to enforce fair and unrestrictive legislation. The document also frequently refers to the “prevention” of infringement on individual rights, reasserting that the document does not grant any group of people new rights, but reaffirms rights already established to avoid their abuse. So, as Carmichael argues, “Every civil rights bill in this country was passed for white people” (Carmichael 313), meaning that civil rights bills have no effect on the rights of blacks in the United States; they are already assured by the Constitution and the concept of natural law. The laws only effect change upon a white majority's ability to deny these rights to any individual or group.

Another significant criticism Carmichael makes is the ineffectiveness of racial integration because of its initiation by whites. He calls it a form of self-condemnation, something which cannot be sincere without self-inflicted punishment. So whites collectively deciding that they were wrong to deny basic human rights based on race seemed disingenuous to many blacks since they would face no repercussions for a brutal history of racial exploitation, as Carmichael describes it, “were he to condemn himself, he would then have to inflict punishment upon himself” (Carmichael 314). Author E. Frances White of New York University attributes nationalists’ mistrust of American politics is motivated by a response to the negative portrayal of African culture by supremacists and refers to the movement as “an oppositional strategy that both counters racism and constructs conservative Utopian images of African-American life” (White 73). White indicates nationalists’ conscious opposition to American society is a reaction to its ineptitude in dealing with issues of equal political rights. In “Black Power,” Carmichael goes on to explain the nature of freedom, which he claims is universal to humans upon birth and is not something that can be granted, but must be forcefully withheld. This idea is of freedom represented for many nationalists and sympathizers the rights which blacks had been fundamentally deprived of since the nation’s inception.

Carmichael’s most convincing argument for American society’s devaluation of other cultures is the connection he makes from the Civil Rights Movement to American imperialism. He gives the historical example of invasive colonialism justified by religion in which the colonizing party claims its actions are part of some mission promoting God’s will, a notion which for many extended well into 20th century in America (and some would argue to the present day). He points to countries like Vietnam, South Africa and the Philippines as examples of countries that the United States attempted democratize only to either cause damage or provide poorly organized support due to the assumption that their system of governance could be applied to any culture. An interview of an American journalist and Vietnam War veteran aired on the television program “American Interests” detailed the experiences of Americans and Southeast Asians after the war. When the interviewer asks him if American failures to mitigate the spread of Communism resulted from a lack of cultural understanding, he replies, “I think so and I think also the Americans wanted to be expedient … and what we failed to take into account is that in many societies there are many factions that are at play, that either work together or work against each other, and it Vietnam that’s what happens” (Santoli). American involvement in Vietnam failed because of a lack of respect for Vietnamese culture and the destructive nature of the military campaign. The politics of a state or region is a reflection of its society’s most prominent identity’s values, so one which assumes superiority by divine right only to commit injustices against another reveals a sense of morality conflicting with religious values and is even greater evidence of hypocrisy among a group of people. Author Paul W. Harris invokes the term cultural imperialism which, although it carries some undesirable connotations, can be used to denote abusive enforcement of culture upon a less powerful or less developed group of people. (Harris 311) Black nationalism is often presented opposition to the very kind of abuse of power which led to the movement for the American colonies’ independence from Great Britain and in doing so reveal the perpetuation of these abuses deep into history of one of the world’s most developed nations.

Some parts of Carmichael’s assertions are becoming widely accepted truths in modern society.  Although the divisiveness of some of Carmichael and other black nationalists’ language are often condemned, their message still has helped spread consciousness of this nation’s history of extreme racial polarization. Furthermore, the ideas presented in the speech can help society realize the illogic nature racial supremacy and disunity as well as the consequences of pitting different ethnic identities against one another. While the Civil Rights Movement produced some controversial activists, their ideas were an understandable reaction to the condition of blacks in the United States, and helped result in an ultimately in promoting a more just and equal nation.
