| Author |
Message |
    
Viewer
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 10:16 pm: | 
|
There is a retrospective of the 1963 March on Washington. ABC. Let's not forget. |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 10:50 am: |
|
Viewer:
I saw that. I was around when the first one happened and remember the impact--there was a feeling of hope and optimism afterward--that all went down in flames with all the assassinations, riots, Vietnam, police repression etc. Also, later we found out how many viewed it as the "Farce on Washington" and how it was stage managed and co opted by the establishment.
I had reviewed the March and the "I Have a Dream" speech before for a work I did based on it. I was surprised to find that (as was stated in the program) the March on Washington was not the first time he gave it. It was also interesting talking about it with my 16 year old nephew. His questions were illuminating. "Why was his speech picked out as the greatest?" "Was King that good a speaker?" and "Did Dr. King ever go to jail himself?" |
yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 12:13 pm: |
|
CH & Viewer:
The march was a negotiated public presentation, but aren't most things black folk do negotiated; though we're "native" to the US, this is still not our land, and we couldn't ever make the votile speeches that folk wanted to make and receive federal legislative backing.
Wasn't it a great speech, nevertheless? I've read and heard that the speech was an amalgamation of different speeches he wrote, as well as those he heard from other preachers. Also, i've been told that his "borrowing" wasn't/hasn't been unusual for preachers. |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 12:59 pm: |
|
I was impressed with the fact that as MLK, gradually began recognizing the impact of what he would say, and the opportunity the occasion was providing, how he began to feed off the energy of the crowd and ad lib much of the remainder of the speech. He was such a skillful orator. His cadence and flawless timing were mesmerizing, and his message a timeless one. |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 01:16 pm: |
|
Yukio:
Truly another characteristic of a "Great Speech"is the occasion of the speech and the identity of the speaker. Think of this same speech given in a lounge by the neighborhood drunk--does it have the same impact? Also, Dr. King's own rhetorical skills gave the words something extra--try giving the speech a cold reading or read it aloud yourself (and try to block out your memory of his delivery) and see if it has the same effect.
In the context of the times, situation and the speaker, it was a great speech. My feelings about it are mixed to day--five years later Dr. King was lying on the balcony of that motel with his brains blown out, said act possibly aided and abetted by folks who were in Washington on that day. Some parts of it--little black boys and girls and little white boys and girls walking hand in hand seem naive and possibly misdirected--I don't want to hold nobody's hand I want decent housing, education, money, chance at business if I want to, a reasonable chance to live reasonable expectations--the freedom to fail and be wrong, etc.
Yukio, you bring up a good point the one about making a speech folks want--maybe we should forgo the opportunity to appear in some places if we can't say what we want to say. |
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 03:32 pm: |
|
CH:
The comment i made about the march being a "negotiated public presentation" pertained to that particular moment in the 60s, though i still believe that we have similar, but different, contraints. Consequently, i would have to disagree with you about forgoing the opportunity to appear in some places.
I believe that the message has to get out, even if its mediated. I think we have to recognize the power relations, and if we can speak both on television, for example, and the street corner, we can get the message out. Since we don't have the means to communicational power, like Oprah for example, we have to compromise abit....this is the struggle.
Otherwise, if we don't speak then our voices will be limited to our local community or completely silenced. If we're gonna have a national social movement, like the Civil Rights/desegregation movement, for example, we need the message to be national. This is what made King so important, because he went from local preacher to a national leader through the means of the television; this has been the case with all leaders, black and white! Same is the case with Malcolm....then these people get their names in National Newspaper, etc....as well as the grassroots media!
Also, i was told and have read that the movement wasn't about integration, but desegregation. This is what many don't understand, because of the speech. Lots of black people don't want to socialize wit white folk; we have our own culture--music, fine art, cuisine, dance, comedy, etc....our own social organizations, religious institutions,etc...we just want equal opportunity to educational institutions and employment opportunity, public accomodations, etc....
On the other hand, it is natural for people to integrate, especially if different "racial" and ethnic groups attend school together. As i stated in the commentary about Hip Hop, Nuyoricans, and "race," it is not just the color but it is also the culture that we need to consider, and if this young black kids grow up wit white folks, how else do we expect them to behave? Similarly, if white folk grow up with black folk, ie eninem, how else do we expect them to behave?
Anyways, ....i don't know where i'm going so i'll stop! |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 10:39 am: |
|
Yukio:
If the message is mediated, it does not get out. |
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 11:45 am: |
|
CH:
The message still gets out, not neccessarily in its pure form, but it gets out. The point i'm making is that while you have to respect power, the urgency of your message still needs to be conveyed, so that when the modern freedom fighters were marching and organizing, they still sought the funds from white organizations and legislative backing annd protection from the US government, as well as media coverage. Without, the financial support, media coverage, and legislative backing, the movement would've looked very different. I'm not saying, by the way, that we wouldn't have had desegregation w/o whites, but that the history would be very different than what it is now.
King's message was mediated! While Malcolm belonged to the NOI, his voice was also mediated. The Honorable ELijah Muhammad didn't allow Malcom to speakk on certain issues, which is why Malcom was often silenced. Still both MAlcolm and KIng were able to inspire revolutionary action and thought among the black population.
If we don't have control over institutions then we'll have to compromise the integrity of our message.
Slaves mediated their messages enough that the master, slaver, etc...didn't understand what what was said. Nevertheless, the slaves knew that after supper their was a meeting in the woods. |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 02:21 pm: |
|
Yukio:
I do not see how my message gets out if I cannot say what I mean or I want to say. It seems you are confusing merely being present in a place with a message. The whole character of the March on Washington was changed from an angry demonstration to a love in. We did not find this out until years later. John Lewis was not allowed to speak at all. Here, 40 years later, we have to debate whether or not the message was effective.
The only time I recall Malcolm X being silenced was after the "Chickens Coming Home to Roost" remark, and that was after he had been specifically warned not to speak on that, and it turns out, it had less to do with the actual remark than jealousy being stirred up by high placed Muslims close to Elijah in Chicago and noise Malcolm was making about Elijah's alleged infidelities.
Do you understand what you are saying, "then we'll have to compromise the integrity of our message?" Where will it end? How far should one go just to be present, "window dressing" as some say.
The slaves had developed a code over long period of time--this is not necessarily the case with someone getting up and giving a speech.
This is the debate that is going on with regard to black studies. Should you have black studies in white institutions? Can you trust them to teach your history correctly?
I think if you can't say what you want, or what is needed, better not to say it there at all. |
yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 04:06 pm: |
|
CH:
This is true! John Lewis' speech was prohibited, yet King's speech, and the marches'liberalism, instead of radicalism, helped enhance the movement's objective of legislative desegregation. That day was a special moment in African American history, but the possibility of "disrespecting" government at that particular time could've changed everything. BTW, i not into the "what ifs," but Lewis' and SNCC's activism in the rural south and, especially, Miss. made them disenchanted w/King, non-violence, and the government, so that the content of his speech seemed inappropriate. It wasn't about calling names and pointing fingers, but about showing the country how it failed, through non-violence and love. Of course, the CR Act of 1964 and VOting Rights Act of 1965 didn't necessarily change things for the entire black population(which y i say that the freedom movement isn't over). Still the CR legislation was a essential, and the government's intervention into black life, though inconsistent and often limited, has, to some degree, nationalized our struggle.
I'm not stating, btw, that our speech should be mediated, but suggesting that it is often necessary to get a step in the door, which is really what the CR movement was, just a step in the right direction.
I can live w/ a disagreement, however and appreciate your point and agree, for the most part as it relates to particular cases. |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 05:44 pm: |
|
Yukio:
You're very diplomatic. Are you in the foreign service? |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 06:14 pm: |
|
Yukio and Chris, you are both incorrect if you are saying that John Lewis was not permitted to talk. He was allowed to address the crowd after he agreed to tone his speech down but, even so, what he said was remarkably militant. I was surprised at how scathing it was. And are you overlooking the fact that the March on Washington was originally organized by H. Phillip Randolph to demand better job opportunities. Other civil rights leaders just hopped on board along the way. |
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 09:58 pm: |
|
Cynique:
Hmmmmm...you may be right; i don't recall if he actually spoke.
I'm not sure what A. Philip Randolph has to do with my point. Also, i think Randolph's march was the 1941 march, but i'll check.
I suggest, if you're interested, to skim our dialogue. My points: Lewis' speech had to be mediated at such a pivotal point, so that the CR leaders/movement could appeal to the federal government. The larger point was that since we are not in control, we often have to mediate our speech for the greater. Secondly, that though our speech is often mediated, it still can motivate folk. Finally, i don't like that our speech is mediate, but inorder to get some power we have to give a little!
|
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 11:50 pm: |
|
Yukio & Chris,
What I find most interesting about your discussion is I can't help imagining that if Dr. King and Malcolm X had had a chance to meet in 1963 they might have had a debate that was very similar to the one you 2 appear to be having now. |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 10:13 am: |
|
Yukio, I'm sure about both points. A Phillip Randolph, who was so instrumental in unionizing the pullman porters and staged a previous march on Washington on their behalf, was the also the organizer of the 1963 "March on Washington" and his original goal was to demand equal job opportunities. After a while, his plans just took off and other people joined the crusade with their own agendas. I mentioned him because he was not about integration or the eloquent orations that arguably had the effect of being all style and no substance; he was more about getting a fair shake in the employment market. Also, I distinctly remember seeing John Lewis make his speech, reading it from a piece of paper, angry as hell. BTW, Baynard Rustin also played a pivotal role in organizing the march. |
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 11:58 am: |
|
ABM & Cynique:
I'm not debating CH; i actually agree with him, but when i evaluate history, in general and subordinated people in particular, it is clear that they have to mediate their activism if they want a piece of the pie. This is all that i have said...this is not my personal stance. I believe that you do what you have to do.....as long as you can reconcile your actions with ya god, heart, body, and soul, then do ya thing!
Cynique: I'm not sure we're talking about the same things. I do know that Randolph, Rustin, and Lewis wanted different things as it pertains to integration, desegregation, etc....As a matter a fact, i was told that King didn't want social and cultural integration, but economic and political desegregation. I don't know enough about the dynamics of the march to comment, details, etc...(but i'll review it if i can get my hands on a history book. I wasn't even born, so make no mistake, i wouldn't ever question your experiences there nor ya memories).
My points pertaining to my dialogue with CH:
All of these people understood, however, that in order to get the government's support, regardless of their personal politics, they had to mediate/moderate their activism. I do know that the primary goal of the CRM was to get federal protection and legislation, and that accomplishment, i believe is of substance. |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 01:21 pm: |
|
I was talking about what the platform was for each speaker on that particular occasion, not what their general philosphy was vis-a-vis the civil rights movement. I didn't attend the march but I grew up knowing what the specifics of it were, and the history of it was common knowdege among me and my peers. TV has been re-running excerpts of it for 40 years and on any number of these occasions I remember seeing John Lewis reading his speech. It stuck with me because he has a lisp. |
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 01:31 pm: |
|
Sorry CH, i forgot 2 ans. ya question. No, i'm not in civil service. I think arguing is a waste of time, and on this particular issue, we don't disagree.
Have a great day! |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 10:13 pm: |
|
I recently read a synopsis of a book written about the 1963 March that says King's speech was widely minimized, ignored and even criticized by many of his contemporaries. And the book further asserted that it was only after he was tragically assassinated combined with the deadly fears of the ensuing riots that caused folks to create and present a more sentimentalized view of King's altruistic words.
Yukio,
I understand why Dr. King felt as he did. But I wonder is it REALLY possible to achieve real political/economic desegregation without also incurring substantial social/cultural integration? Because it's my humble opinion that Blacks/Whites/Others tend to prefer to work and play with the same folks. |
yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 05:05 pm: |
|
ABM:
No,it is natural for people to assimilate to eachother...white folk have assimilated to us as much as we've assimilated to them. Yet, i believe that those of us who still are African American need to continue to consciously pass down the culture. Our communities are so dispersed, which makes it difficult for all african americans to have the same culture. Yet, throughout the US, there are varieties of african american cultures, though some are influenced and shaped by other ethnic groups that are similarly located.
What do u mean by the last statement:
"Blacks/Whites/Others tend to prefer to work and play with the same folks."? |
|
Email This Page