Malcolm X at the University of California: Striking at America's Myths

In his October 11, 1963 speech at the University of California Berkeley, Civil Rights leader Malcolm X attacked white liberals and integrationists alike. His proposed solution was black nationalism: “the only permanent solution is complete separation or some land of our own in a country of our own. All other courses will lead to violence and bloodshed.” Malcolm X spoke neither for unity nor harmony. Not all civil rights workers wanted to join into the larger American society. In contrast, Malcolm X spoke for division. His goal was to defy America, not to join it.

In 1963, many Civil Rights leaders, including Martin Luther King Jr., advocated integration, fairness, and mutual love and understanding. In contrast to that message, which was (and still is) controversial among white conservatives, Malcolm X spurned integration. To this day, many White conservatives call Martin Luther King Jr. a radical. Malcolm X really was a radical. In his Berkeley speech, Malcolm X sought neither harmony nor compromise. He used polarization as a rhetorical technique. His goal was not to get all people to agree with him. Instead, he spoke to the angry, highly motivated minority. Malcolm X made no effort to get his enemies to love him. Nor did he express love for his enemies. While mainstream Civil Rights leaders wanted United States to live up to its revolutionary values, Malcolm X, as we shall see, rejected those values as utter hypocrisy.

Malcolm X was self-educated, stunningly intelligent and articulate, immaculately-dressed in conservative business attire, and unyielding in his principles. Those qualities came to the fore in his Berkeley speech.


Starting with a Bang

The speaker’s belligerent introduction made his attitude completely clear, when he calmly greeted “friends and enemies” in the audience:

“Mr. Moderator, students and faculty here at the University of California, brothers and sisters, friends and enemies. The bell up there took so long to stop ringing, I began to suspect that it was probably being manipulated by an integrationist!”

Redefining Black History

This speech challenged the received views of American history. Indeed, one of American education’s greatest scandals is to ignore Black history. When I attended school in Virginia in the 1960s, our textbook literally taught that 1619 – when the first African slaves arrived in Virginia – was a “red letter year.” In contrast, Malcolm X denied that either the Civil War or the Revolutionary War was fought for everyone’s freedom:

“According to what we were taught from the white man’s textbooks in school, the Revolutionary War and the Civil War were two wars fought on American soil supposedly for freedom and democracy. But if these two wars were really fought for freedom and human dignity of all men, why are 20 million of our people still confined and enslaved here in America by second-class citizenship?”

That is, of course, a good question.

I think many academic historians of the 21st Century would agree with Malcolm X about the Revolution and Civil War. Yes, people of the time all understood that the Civil War was about slavery. At the same time, Malcolm X had a point – an uncomfortable point – when he added “and democracy.” Furthermore, given the values of the Revolutionary War, Malcolm X inquired why so many Americans were left with “second-class citizenship?” For, indeed, voting rights, educational opportunities, and economic opportunities often remained closed in 1963 to the freed slaves’ descendants. Malcom X’s point was quite radical: for he challenged accepted principles that were, indeed, taught in schools at the time – and which, to a large extent, still are in 2022.

Yet, while Americans routinely call America the land of freedom, Malcolm X asks the same question that Martin Luther King Jr. asked: why is not the same freedom available to everyone? Malcolm X’s disagreement with King was not so much about the problem. All Civil Rights leaders of the time understood the problem quite specifically. Malcolm X, however, disparaged integration as a solution. That is why he specifically challenged American Revolutionary ideology. He said that the Revolution’s goal was “to free the American white man.” Indeed, using the rhetorical trope of hyperbole, Malcolm X insisted that “our people remained slaves here in America:” Instead, he said, American freedom was all about White people’s freedom:

“The truth is that the Revolutionary War was fought on American soil to free the American white man from the English white man. The Revolutionary War was never fought to provide freedom and a democracy in this white country for the Black man. Our people remained slaves here in America even after the Declaration of Independence was signed.

“In fact most of the white Founding Fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence were slave owners themselves.”

Given that history, Malcolm X implied, how could integration even be possible? To Malcolm X, the entire American experiment arose from enslavement and oppression. The majority could triumph by exploiting the minority. What, he wondered, could possibly make the majority agree to give up that power? And, so, his proposed solution was black nationalism, not integration. He did not seek to make his enemies into friends. He greeted his enemies. He challenged them. He sought to separate himself from them. As a rhetorical tactic, polarization does not look for agreement. It looks to separate the hot from the lukewarm.

______________

This concludes my series about Black History Month 2022. Of course, African-American speeches are important all 12 months of the year, and I will continue to often write about African-American speakers.

Here are my previous posts from Black History Month 2022:

James Baldwin's 1963 Speech Ripped Away Two American Myths

In "The Fire Next Time," James Baldwin Warned America Not to Hide from Evil

 

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Sermon about the Power of Love

Oprah Winfrey's Eulogy for Rosa Parks

 
Rev. Theodore S. Wright’s 1837 Speech against Racial Prejudice

Were the Canadian Truckers Treated Worse than Martin Luther King, Jr? Jonathan Turley Made a Ridiculous Argument

______________

P. S. Pretty much everyone comments about Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dramatic, sermonic style of delivery and fiery language. Malcolm X was much different. When he spoke, he often sounded more like a college professor than a radical. Actually, with his conservative suits, neat haircut, un-stylish eyeglasses, conversational speaking style, quirky humor, and extraordinary vocabulary, he could have been mistaken for a college dean. I think, in some ways, his speeches are all the more chilling because he sounded so thoughtful and cogent. Like King, he was martyred by his political enemies. Yes, the enemies of whom he spoke so lightly were quite real. 

Why Do Republicans Praise Vladimir Putin in Their Speeches?

Map of Ukraine

Why are Republican leaders so fascinated by Russian President Vladimir Putin? In this post, I look at Republicans’ own words from their own speeches. What have they said about Putin – openly, and publicly – and, as I said, in their own speeches? (I am not looking at what the mainstream media says about the Republicans, nor am I reading between the lines. I’m looking at their exact words.) And what we find is that certain powerful Republicans have long praised Putin in odd and yet compelling ways. They do not talk about Putin’s moral goodness – how could they? Instead, they praise him as strong and clever. Maybe they mean “crafty” rather than clever. That, in turn, tells us something about the difference between conservatives and liberals. Linguist George Lakoff explains that liberal rhetoric tends to work with what he calls “nurturing mother” metaphors, while conservative rhetoric more often speaks in what he calls “strong father” metaphors. I’m sure that sounds sexist. All the same, Lakoff shows us that conservatives seek forceful leadership, while liberals prefer leaders who will care about them and try to do the right thing. Are conservatives wise to think that strong leaders will protect them? Well, no, and I will write about that at the end.

So, to be clear, Republicans never say that Putin is either a good man or wise leader. They often, however, admire his strength. Since conservatives feel safer if a strong man (rarely, if ever, do they mention a strong woman) protects them, they come to admire Putin. Unfortunately, Putin’s cruel invasion of Ukraine gave Republicans a moral dilemma of their own making. 


Putin Invaded Ukraine

On February 21, 2022, Putin ordered Russian troops to attack Ukraine, supposedly focusing on two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine. Russian troops attacked regions of eastern Ukraine on February 24, and soon assaulted the entire country.

This posed a political problem for Republican leaders, several of whom have long given Putin their close but uneasy admiration. In any case, as the war in Ukraine becomes increasingly brutal, many Republicans are backpedaling about Putin. Well, good for them, and better late than never.


Trump Admired Putin’s Invasion of Ukraine

Putin recognized the independence of Ukraine’s breakaway provinces on February 21, 2022. Former President Donald Trump promptly showed up on the right-wing Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show. Trump said that Putin’s decision to annex parts of eastern Ukraine was “genius.” Commenting about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Trump said: 

“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion ... of Ukraine, Putin declares it as independent.”

Lest anyone think that Trump just tripped over his tongue, he also said:

“So, Putin is now saying, ‘It’s independent,’ a large section of Ukraine. I said, ‘How smart is that?’ And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s [the] strongest peace force.”

Trump continued that United States President Joe Biden should show the same kind of strength on the United States border with Mexico. Trump said about Putin:

“Here’s a guy who is very savvy. We could use that on our southern border.”

Strong, savvy, and a genius. That’s what Trump said about Putin. 

Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference on February 26, 2022, just five days later, Trump harshly criticized the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That was to be expected, since the invasion had become so brutal that for Trump to continue to support it would seem irrational. Consistency has never been his strong point. Trump nevertheless reiterated that Putin was “smart.” Trump continued to compare Putin’s supposed great talent against the supposed weakness of American leaders:

“The real problem is that our leaders are dumb. . . . [Putin] is playing Biden like a drum, and it’s not a pretty thing to watch.”

Trump’s Past Rhetoric about Putin

Trump’s effusive praise should surprise no one. As far back as 2015, Trump told broadcaster Bill O’Reilly that Putin was an exceptional leader:

“I will tell you that I think in terms of leadership, he is getting an ‘A,’ and our president is not doing so well.”

During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump also said:

“We’re going to have a great relationship with Putin and Russia.”

Speaking at a campaign rally a few weeks later, Trump praised Putin as a “strong leader,” contrasting him against President Barack Obama. He also encouraged closer friendship with Putin’s Russia:

“I respect Putin. He is a strong leader, unlike what we have. We have a pathetic leader, pathetic. You don’t have a leader. The word ‘leader,’ you put leader in quotes. We don’t even have a leader. Wouldn’t it be nice to get along with Russia? Wouldn’t that be nice?”

Notice, of course, that Trump emphasized strength. He did not call Putin wise or good. He called him “strong.” The theme continues!

During another 2016 campaign rally, Trump was only slightly less gushing. He repeated that the United States should get along with Russia:

“Putin said Donald Trump is a genius and next great leader of the United States. They wanted me to disavow what he said. How do you call me a genius? How dare you call me a genius, Vladimir? Wouldn’t it be nice if we would get along with Russia?”

Trump was, however, back at full throttle during an Ohio campaign rally when he attacked Hillary Clinton for, of all things, being too tough on Putin:

“She speaks very badly of Putin, and I don’t think that’s smart.”

Trump continued:

“How do you speak so badly of someone?”

Going even farther, Trump continued to praise Putin in a September 2016 Town Hall:

“Well, he does have an 82 percent approval rating, according to the different pollsters, who, by the way, some of them are based right here. Look, look...”

Pressed by the moderator, Trump became even more effusive:

“If he says great things about me, I’m going to say great things about him. I’ve already said, he is really very much of a leader. I mean, you can say, oh, isn’t that a terrible thing -- the man has very strong control over a country.

“Now, it’s a very different system, and I don’t happen to like the system. But certainly, in that system, he’s been a leader, far more than our president has been a leader.”

Again, Trump emphasized Putin’s strength – his power as a leader, his “very strong control over a country.” While disagreeing with Putin’s system of government, Trump admired Putin’s strength.

Okay, that’s enough about Trump. What have other American conservatives said about Putin?


Other Republican Leaders Praised Putin

Former Vice President Mike Pence has said various odd things about Putin. Like Trump, Pence contrasts Putin, as a supposedly strong leader, against Democrats, who he considers to be weak. During the 2016 campaign, Pence offered this remarkable comment about Putin:

“He’s been a leader far more than our president has been a leader.”

Isn’t Pence’s phrasing interesting? Pence neither praised nor criticized Putin’s political ideas or accomplishments. Instead, he focused on strength, as if strength should be a leader’s main, or only, quality.

Prominent Republicans continued to praise Putin as late as January and February 2022, with dark clouds of impending war already hanging over Ukraine. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo extolled Putin, while expressing hope that President Biden could be equally strong:

“He is a very talented statesman. He has lots of gifts. He was a KGB agent, for goodness sakes. He knows how to use power. We should respect that.”

“Power,” Pompeo said. “He knows how to use power.” It was Putin’s strength, not his wisdom, that Pompeo admired. Stunningly, the once-great National Review published an article trying to spin Pompeo’s comments as a warning, not as the fawning praise that they were. 

Most astonishing of all, Fox News host Tucker Carlson delivered a television monologue on the eve of the Russian invasion, savagely attacking Putin’s critics. Carlson compared Putin’s implied goodness against evil things that Carlson thinks liberals have been doing. He even implied that American public health restrictions were worse than what Putin was doing:

“What is this really about? Why do I hate Putin so much? Has Putin ever called me a racist? Has he threatened to get me fired for disagreeing with him? Has he shipped every middle-class job in my town to Russia? Did he manufacture a worldwide pandemic that wrecked my business and kept me indoors for two years? Is he teaching my children to embrace racial discrimination? Is he making fentanyl? Is he trying to snuff out Christianity? Does he eat dogs?”

Carlson’s rant implied value judgments. In Carlson’s moral universe, pandemic restrictions sounded worse than a threatened invasion. In a loud, angry voice, Carlson continued:

“These are fair questions, and the answer to all of them is no. Vladimir Putin didn’t do any of that. So why does permanent Washington hate him so much?”

Carlson sneered that the impending Russian invasion was merely a “border dispute.” Predictably, Russian television made a big deal of Carlson’s pro-Putin comments. Of course, as Russia’s invasion became increasingly brutal, Carlson soon flip-flopped as if he had never made the above comments. Instead, only a few days later, he viciously criticized Putin:

“Vladimir Putin started this war. So, whatever the context of the decision that he made, he did it. He fired the first shots. He is to blame for what we are seeing tonight in Ukraine.”

Conservatives are nothing if not flexible.


It’s Not All Bleak

Republicans have not universally praised Putin. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, for example, recently criticized Putin in harsh terms. More pointedly, former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said that those of his fellow Republicans who supported Putin were nearly traitors. He condemned his fellow Republicans for shillyshallying in their attitudes toward Putin. Romney continued that some of his fellow Republicans were “almost treasonous:”

“Well, a lot of those people are changing their stripes as they’re seeing the response of the world and the political response here in the U.S. But how anybody in this country which loves freedom can side with Vladimir Putin — who is an oppressor, a dictator, he kills people. He imprisons his political opponents. He’s been an adversary of America at every chance he’s had. It’s unthinkable to me. It’s almost treasonous, and it just makes me ill to see some of these people do that. But of course, they do it because it’s shock value, and it will get them more eyeballs and make a little more money for them and their network. It’s disgusting. I’m hopeful you’re seeing some of those people recognize just how wrong they were.”

So, Romney gave the Republican Party a brief taste of patriotism.

What is strange about this is that Republican voters are not particularly pro-Putin. In a recent YouGov opinion poll, 88% of Biden voters had an unfavorable view of Putin, while 76% of Trump voters shared that unfavorable view. Only 5% of Biden voters had a favorable view of Putin, while 9% of Trump voters also had a favorable view of him. So, although Trump voters are slightly more favorable toward Putin than Biden voters, opposition to Putin was high in both groups. Whatever is going on with Republican politicians, they are not pandering to their base voters.


The Politics of Strength

How can we summarize this? First, I took all of this from Republican leaders’ own speeches and other spoken statements. I gave you their own words. Second, from former President Trump on down, many, although not all, prominent Republicans have frequently praised Vladimir Putin. They often compare Putin favorably against Democratic leaders. This praise arises from their perception that Putin is smart, manipulative, and, most of all, strong. Republican politicians are reluctant to endorse Putin’s policies, which they seem to separate from their admiration for him as an individual. Which matters to them more? Putin’s strength, which they admire, or his brutal policies, which they occasionally condemn? I’m not sure that they know the answer themselves.

What Republican leaders often show, however, is a yearning for a strong leader. If we think of a strong leader as decisive and wise, that’s one thing. When we think that strong leadership means to smash people under a tank’s treads, that’s something else. When people perceive danger – and conservatives perceive danger around every corner – they sometimes seek a strong person to defend them.

Do strong leaders keep us safe? If you want to know the answer, you might want to ask the ghosts of the 3.5 million people who died in Stalin’s pogroms, the 11 million murdered in Hitler’s concentration camps, or the untold millions who perished in Pol Pot’s Cambodia purges. You might ask Talat Paşa’s Armenian genocide victims. You might ask the victims of the massacres in Rwanda. Strong leaders typically wreak havoc. 

That’s not the exception. That is the norm. If you want to pretend to feel safe from enemies, real or imaginary, vote for tyrants. If you want to stay safe in real life, avoid leaders who boast of their strength as if they carry the plague. Let’s go back to the strong father metaphor. You might want a strong father, but you don’t need a cruel, tyrannical father. That isn’t true strength. A true father is loving, nurturing, and reliable. Not violent, unpredictable, and vicious.

And, no, I don’t think I misunderstand what Republicans mean when they talk about “strong leaders.” They have been quite emphatic. What they don’t understand is this: a true leader inspires people to be better than they already are. A true leader inspires a nation to go forward, not back into the past. Remember that.

And I convey my hope that the people of Ukraine, my maternal grandparents’ homeland, will soon enjoy peace and justice.

_______________

European President Ursula von der Leyen Called for European Unity during the Russia-Ukraine Crisis

Why Didn’t Vladimir Putin Deny That He Had Compromising Information about President Trump?

_______________

Image: US Dept. of State

“We Are All Republicans, We Are All Federalists:” Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address Urged the United States to Find Unity

Thomas Jefferson

In his First Inaugural Address, delivered March 4, 1801, the United States’ third president, Thomas Jefferson, delivered, to a divided nation, a message of hope, unity, and tolerance. Jefferson became president only after a vicious election campaign that left the nation in bitter ideological conflict. Not only did Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party conflict with the more authoritarian Federalists, but Jefferson badly split with Aaron Burr, his own running mate. The 1800 election was ultimately decided in the House of Representatives.

Jefferson began by stating the basic principle of republican government: majority rule tempered by respect for minority rights. Jefferson further insisted that the majority needed to be reasonable and compassionate. Are those not the lessons that would cure the 21st century’s hateful politics? Just as the nation was divided and imperfect as Jefferson took office, and just as Jefferson was far from a perfect man, so we remain divided and imperfect today. Jefferson’s proposed solution was to hearken back to the nation’s founding values. So, he stated the “sacred principle” of representative government:

“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”

Jefferson further reminded the nation that people should remember what they share in common, and sympathize with those whose political views differed:

“Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.”

Many people, then and now, mistrust government of the people. They think that such governments are weak. Knowing this, Jefferson insisted that republican government – what we today call representative democracy – is strong. Although citizens then and now sometimes crave a strong leader who will take over and solve their problems, Jefferson instead placed his confidence in the people themselves:

“I know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a republican government can not be strong, that this Government is not strong enough; but would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm on the theoretic and visionary fear that this Government, the world's best hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve itself? I trust not.”

In contrast, Jefferson believed that representative government was the strongest, most protective of all governments:

“I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest Government on earth.”

The problems that Jefferson discussed have never disappeared. On January 6, 2021, a little more than a year ago, a screaming, violent horde attacked the United States Capitol and tried to overthrow the 2020 election. Americans’ attitudes about that riot divided according to party. Republicans often supported the insurrection, while Democrats pleaded for accountability and order. As recently as January 2022, an opinion poll showed that most Republican voters still felt that the rioters had a point. (I do not imply that sides are equally at fault on January 6. President Donald Trump’s pretense that Joe Biden’s election was illegitimate is utterly false. The rioters and their enablers must be brought to justice.) At the same time, however, just as Jefferson asked, can Americans find a way to recognize common interests? To understand that we must work together to protect our form of government and way of life?

Faced with a similar division in 1801, Jefferson insisted that orderly government was a moral expectation that all citizens should meet. He reminded the nation that the representative form of government depended on respect for the law. Of all forms of government, a republic was, he said:

“… the only one where every man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern. Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.”

No, we have not found “angels in the form of kings.” Indeed, history continues to judge the United States of America. When the Republican National Committee had the temerity to call the January 6 riot “legitimate political discourse,” it is time to remember Jefferson’s words. We do not only need to fear foreign invasion; we also need, in Jefferson’s words, to “meet invasions of the public order as,” indeed, our “own personal concern.”

Jefferson's 1st Inaugural Address

So, how will history judge the United States of 2022? Does our centuries-long experiment in representative government continue to be the strongest on earth? Or is the United States Constitution failing? Perhaps it is not that our Constitution threatens to fail; maybe it is our failure to remember Jefferson’s values.

As we celebrate Presidents’ Day, Jefferson’s wisdom needs to resonate more than ever. We must remember, as he said, that majority rule must always respect minority rights. We all must remember to act and speak reasonably. We must remember that what we share in common matters more than our differences.

At the same time, as the United States celebrates Black History Month, we also need to remember that Jefferson owned three Virginia plantations, all operated by slave labor and administered by overseers. If we study Jefferson’s writings carefully, we can see that Jefferson valued representative government sincerely and passionately. At the same time, he privately understood that slavery utterly contradicted everything that he spoke for. Also, of course, the reader will have noticed Jefferson’s gender-specific language. By the standards of his time, it seemed inconceivable (to men) that women could even participate in government.

So, just as Jefferson was imperfect, so we are imperfect today. That does not mean that we should undervalue the American experiment. Instead, it means that we, as Americans, should strive to come closer to our value-laden governing philosophy. Jefferson said, “We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.” Today, are not we all Democrats, and are not we all Republicans? Can we not find shared values in our common heritage?

_______________________

Earlier Post: Conservatives Invent a Fake Thomas Jefferson Quotation

Earlier Post: President George W. Bush’s “9/11 Address to the Nation:” An Appeal for Unity

_______________________

Images: Library of Congress

Biden Countered Russian Disinformation about Ukraine. Are People Listening?

Joe Biden, White House photo

Dishonest political propaganda is nothing new. In the ancient Roman Republic, Octavian (the future Emperor Augustus) smeared Mark Antony by stamping propaganda slogans onto coins. People who handled the coins could read that Antony was a corrupt, promiscuous drunk. Unfortunately, in the 21st century the only change is that technology enables governments and media figures to spread disinformation better than ever. Nothing can stop liars from telling lies, but can people learn to stop believing them ? Even minimal critical thinking can help people reject disinformation. This works, however, only if people think about the propaganda.

Yesterday, February 18, 2022, United States President Joe Biden used a White House speech to warn the world that Russian President Vladimir Putin intends to invade Ukraine in the next few days. Frightening news indeed. Biden spent much of his speech discussing a Russian disinformation campaign. Russia falsely accuses Ukraine of starting the conflict. The disinformation campaign presumably helps to solidify Russian public opinion while spreading confusion around the world. The disinformation provides an imposing (but false) moral justification for the impending war. At the same time, however, Biden pointed out that Russia’s disinformation campaign defies logic. That’s no surprise.

The Russia-Ukraine conflict has ancient roots. Europe’s rulers have for centuries divided Ukraine into pieces and kicked the country around like a soccer ball. Many Ukrainians, especially in the east, speak Russian, not Ukrainian, at home. As civil war breaks out, some eastern regions seek to align with Russia. Russia has already annexed the Crimea. A huge Russian army surrounds Ukraine and violence has already broken out. Ukraine’s problems are complex. The propaganda that Biden discussed is not. 

_____________________

Earlier Post: How Do Political Bots Spread Propaganda?
_____________________


The Russian Disinformation Campaign in Ukraine

Biden pointed out that the Russian government is flooding their own public with false information. Let us be clear that disinformation is not just wrong information. Disinformation intentionally replaces truths with falsehoods. Disinformation attempts to remove reality from public discourse. 

Why would Russia spread disinformation? Well, no sensible public actually wants to fight wars. Biden’s point was that the Russian government spreads false information to overcome the public’s natural reluctance. Thus, the Russian government can launch small attacks and blame them on Ukraine, hoping that the fog of war will conceal their intentions. Similarly, the Russian government can claim that Ukraine is marshalling an attack against Russia, hoping that patriotism will blind Russian citizens to the more troubling reality. 

Disinformation must be countered. So, Biden discussed how Russia used misinformation to spread confusion about recent Russian atrocities:

“For example, a shelling of a Ukrainian kindergarten yesterday, which Russia has falsely asserted was carried out by Ukraine. We also continue to see more and more disinformation being pushed out by — to the Russian public, including the Russian-backed separatists, claiming that Ukraine is planning to launch a massive offensive attack in the Donbas.”

What about Critical Thinking?

Biden next showed the obvious holes in the Russian propaganda. His first point was that no evidence supported the Russian perspective. That, in itself, is unlikely to persuade anyone. Disinformation specialists know how to create false evidence. Realizing that, Biden next pointed out that the Russian propaganda was illogical. A moment’s reflection shows that Ukraine has nowhere near the military capacity to take on a major power like Russia. (Propaganda artists, of course, work hard to make sure that their listeners never engage in the tiniest moment of reflection.) Biden explained those points simply:

“Well, look, there is simply no evidence of these assertions, and it and devies [sic] — it defies basic logic to believe the Ukrainians would choose this moment, with well over 150,000 troops arrayed on its borders, to escalate a year-long conflict.”

Continuing, Biden reviewed more of Russia’s falsehoods:

“Russia state media also continues to make phony allegations of a genocide taking place in the Donbas and push fabricated claims warning about Ukraine’s attack on Russia without any evidence. That’s just what I’m sure Ukraine is thinking of doing — attacking Russia.”

Will Biden’s point persuade people? In the 21st century political world, I’m beginning to despair that people will slow down for even a moment to think about basic logic. That, however, is exactly what Biden asked his audience to do.


The Propagandists’ Playbook

Biden next discussed the consistent Russian trend of proposing pretexts to justify their planned invasion. Biden’s persuasion tactic was to establish a trend. Since people expect the future to resemble the past, Biden sought to help people see that the Russian propaganda is not an isolated event, but rather part of a long-standing pattern of deception:

“All these are consistent with the playbook the Russians have used before: to set up a false justification to act against Ukraine. This is also in line with the pretext scenarios that the United States and our Allies and partners have been warning about for weeks.”

Yet, disinformation often works. People often accept it, willingly and uncritically. The New York Times reports that most Russians believe the crisis is not Russia’s fault. Their government’s relentless propaganda campaign has bore fruit. People can, of course, choose to believe one government or another. Or, they can engage in critical thinking to sort good information from bad. 

So, Biden established that the Russian propaganda follows a long-standing pattern. That simple act of logic should, one would hope, help people realize that Russia was spreading propaganda. But will that work? Every time? Will it work this time? Who is listening? Who is thinking independently? 

_____________________

Earlier Post: European President Ursula von der Leyen Called for European Unity during the Russia-Ukraine Crisis

Earlier Post: Former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch Worked Hard to Establish Her Credibility 

_____________________


Is Logic Persuasive?

Believe it or not, persuasion experts have argued for decades about whether logical argument even persuades people. Of course, disinformation succeeds only if people abandon logical thinking. So, it was reasonable that Biden attempted to engage his audience’s rational thought processes.

That might work. Accepted persuasion theory suggests that logic can persuade people, but, alas, only under certain conditions. Logic might persuade people if the audience members feel qualified to analyze the issue and are willing to take the time to do so. Generally, in the absence of logical thinking, people might instead believe whatever they have heard most frequently, or to believe things because they find the source attractive. By trying to get people to think about how illogical the Russian misinformation is, Biden took the high road. Let us hope that more and more listeners take the high road as well. Reason is humankind’s greatest gift. Will we use it?

Biden asked a lot from his listeners. Many people know little about foreign policy, and Ukraine (my maternal grandparents’ home country), seems so far away. Many people worry more about their own finances or health than they do about foreign affairs. Still, a republic’s citizens owe it to themselves to understand matters of world-shaking significance. Will we learn to evaluate propaganda, or will we just swallow whatever is fed to us? Let’s hope for the best.

_____________________

Research Note: The Elaboration Likelihood Model, which I have discussed several times in my blog, says that there are two routes to persuasion. Listeners use the Central Route when they devote time and energy to evaluating the evidence, weighing arguments and counter arguments, and considering whether an argument makes logical sense. Otherwise, people are inclined to respond to persuasion by the Peripheral Route, which requires less effort, but produces less solid attitude and behavior change. You might want to read this excellent explanation written by the Elaboration Likelihood Model’s creators.

Historical Notes: Over the centuries, Russia’s spy agencies have become incredibly skilled at producing sophisticated, often hateful disinformation. This dates all the way back to the czars. Russian governments come and go, but Russia’s secret services live on. 

You might want to read this fascinating article about the Russian government’s 19th Century racist forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The article is written by my communication colleague Marouf Hasian, Jr. Hasian is one of America’s top scholars of public persuasion, and I’ve had the privilege of appearing on the same panel as him a couple of times at communication conventions. The article hides behind a paywall, but most libraries should be able to get you a copy.

On a broader scale, this article by Seth Jones reviews Russian disinformation aimed at corrupting American elections over the past 60+ years. Indeed, the Russian government has long been skilled at spreading propaganda. 

How complex is Ukraine’s cultural history? Just as an example, both of my maternal grandparents considered themselves to be 100% Ukrainian by birth. Yet, neither was born under Ukrainian sovereignty. My grandfather was born in a Ukrainian-speaking area of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.  His hometown is part of modern Ukraine. (I have not yet been able to trace my grandmother’s birth.) As I said, rulers have kicked Ukraine back and forth throughout its history. We are all, I suppose, created by our past. 

European President Ursula von der Leyen Called for European Unity during the Russia-Ukraine Crisis

One of public speaking’s most important purposes is to create unity, to bring people together. That is why European Union President Ursula von der Leyen called for unity against the threat of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Von der Leyen, President of the European Union, spoke on February 16, 2022 to the European Parliament Plenary. Russian leader Vladimir Putin has been threatening to attack Ukraine and annex some of its provinces. In response, von der Leyen’s theme was that Europe needs to be unified against the Russian threat. Indeed, she felt that unity, not armed resistance, was the solution.

Von der Leyen laid out policies strikingly similar to those that United States President Joe Biden has advocated. She promised that the European Union would respond to Russian aggression by imposing economic sanctions, restricting technology, and increasing energy independence. Most important, she promised solidarity. She expressed a view that united action could help preserve peace. Armed conflict among nuclear powers seems unthinkable.

International Cooperation 

That, no doubt, is why von der Leyen pleaded that the purpose of international cooperation is, ultimately, so that nations may stay at peace with one another:

“The very reason why our Union was created is to put an end to all European wars. So it is particularly painful for me to address you today, as we face the largest build-up of troops on European soil since the darkest days of the Cold War.”

In vivid language, she placed blame for the crisis squarely where it belongs, on the Russian government:

“The people of Ukraine are bravely trying to get on with their lives. But many of them keep emergency bags by their front doors, with basic clothes and important documents, in case they have to rush away from home. Others have stockpiled food cans to prepare for the worst. Some have even set up shelters in their basements. These are not stories from the 1940s. This is Europe in 2022. And this is happening because of a deliberate policy of the Russian leadership.”

For her proposed solution, she described the high level of international cooperation – of unity:

“President Macron [of France] and Chancellor Scholz [of Germany] have travelled to Kyiv and Moscow. Several others are also speaking to both sides. I am constantly exchanging with all of them, as well as with President Biden, Prime Minister Trudeau and Prime Minister Johnson. The Transatlantic Community has for a long time not been so united.”

Will Economic And Political Unity Be Enough?

Von der Leyen also described Europe’s efforts to gain at least temporary energy independence. Since few European countries have commercially useful oil supplies, they need to import almost all of their oil. In normal times, much of Europe’s oil comes from Russia. Therefore, von der Leyen described a joint European plan to stockpile oil reserves, ensuring adequate supplies from non-Russian sources.

Nearing her speech’s end, von der Leyen offered a message of hope. On the one hand, Russia could, she suggested, precipitate a terrible war. On the other hand, Russia can cooperate with other nations, bringing peace and prosperity to everyone. Here message of hope came with a stark choice:

“This is a crisis that has been created by Moscow. We have not chosen confrontation, but we are prepared for it. We now have two distinct futures ahead of us. In one, the Kremlin decides to wage war against Ukraine, with massive human costs – something we thought we had left behind after the tragedies of the twentieth century. Moscow's relations with us would be severely damaged. Tough sanctions would kick in, with dire consequences on the Russian economy and its prospect of modernisation. But another future is possible. A future in which Russia and Europe cooperate on their shared interests. A future where free countries work together in peace.”

And she added that, “Europe will be united, on the side of Ukraine, on the side of peace, on the side of Europe's people.”

I often reflect that we, the people of the world, and particularly the United States, have filled ourselves with overconfidence. Although we have had very few years of true peace, we have, for decades, avoided another world war. Many people seem oblivious to the danger – having forgotten that the history of the 20th century was, for the most part, a history of unimaginable brutality and mass-produced suffering. During World Wars I and II, entire towns ceased to exist and disease, starvation, massacres, and, of course, military combat, killed people by the millions. Peace continues only if human beings show some modicum of goodwill and common sense. History gives me little reason to be confident about either. Wisdom is, after all, not a universal human trait.

The President of the European Union does not really have a lot of political power. She does, however, have the power of rhetoric. When she speaks, people listen. Are we listening enough? Von der Leyen appealed for unity. We need prominent speakers to talk about that kind of thing more and more often.

_________________

Earlier Post:  President Ursula von der Leyen's Speech at the European Energy Award
_________________

Political Note: Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France all have thermonuclear arsenals. No one wants to use them. Nevertheless, a return to the nuclear brinksmanship of the 1960s could easily become a terrifying prospect. The horrors of 20th century wars were unspeakable. World War III could end human civilization. Children today have active shooter drills. In my childhood, we had nuclear attack drills and took lessons about how to improvise a bomb shelter in 20 minutes. Not that either would do any good.

The political issue in Ukraine is by no means clear-cut, as Ukraine itself is not unified against the Russian threat. Solving that problem, however, is far beyond the expertise of a retired public speaking professor like me. My maternal grandparents were born in occupied areas of Ukraine in the early 1900s. I certainly hope that their homeland can yet avoid disaster. Ukraine has suffered so very much for so many centuries. 

_________________

Note to My Fellow Americans: Here in the United States, we are hearing a lot about what President Biden plans to do about Russia. In contrast, Von der Leyden reminds us that the free nations of the world are in this together.

_________________

Research Note: My former professor, Charles Urban Larson, wrote that persuaders can use a unifying style or a pragmatic style. The pragmatic style can lead to conflict. The unifying style gives us a chance to work together. 

Were the Canadian Truckers Treated Worse than Martin Luther King, Jr? Jonathan Turley Made a Ridiculous Argument

Let’s talk about word games. Politically-minded people learn to say things that are literally true but completely misleading. Back in the 1960s, pop psychologists called this “speaking Martian.” Fox News legal analyst Jonathan Turley got on Fox News the other day to complain about what he thought was the horrible mistreatment of the demonstrators at the Canadian truckers blockade. Protesters had obstructed several border crossings. The police ticketed and sometimes towed the trucks for illegal parking. The more recalcitrant protestors were threatened with arrest. No one beat them with rubber hoses or baseball bats. The police did not burn their trucks. The protesters did not disappear to the back room of a jail, never to be seen again. Horrified that the police had suppressed the demonstrations, Turley told a Fox News reporter:

“By this rationale, they could have cracked down on the Civil Rights movement. They could have arrested Martin Luther King.”

You can well imagine how Twitter users responded. Martin Luther King, Jr. was, of course, arrested many times – sometimes brutally. He was not sipping tea in a diner when he wrote his famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” King repeatedly acknowledged that people who engage in civil disobedience should willingly accept legal punishment. In his famous “I Have a Dream,” King said:

“With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.” (Italics added)

Even Fox News has posted a complete transcript of “I Have a Dream.” Has Turley ever read that famous speech? Or listened to it? Okay, well, that’s fine. Even famous lawyers make mistakes. Unfortunately, instead of admitting his error, Turley doubled down with this tweet:

“Not to feed the trolls, but I never said that Dr. King was not arrested. I said that the Canadian policy could be used to arrest MLK for the same acts of civil disobedience. The point is that such acts of civil disobedience are not viewed as ‘terrorism’ or ‘insurrection.’...”

The first part of what Turley said in that tweet was, of course, literally true. He never specifically said the exact words that “Dr. King was not arrested.” He had, however, said that “they could have cracked down on the Civil Rights movement.” He showed no awareness of history, no awareness that the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s had been brutally suppressed. No listener could miss what Turley meant. And, Turley did say, “They could have arrested Martin Luther King.” No one who was aware that King had, in fact, been arrested – dozens of times – would have said that. Additionally, Turley’s claim that King’s work was “not viewed as ‘terrorism’ or ‘insurrection’” is dubious. King wrote his "Letter from Birmingham Jail" only after a group of White pastors accused him of inciting “hatred and violence.”

The idea of speaking Martian is to say things that are literally true but completely deceiving. And so, in my opinion, Turley was speaking Martian. Turley said something that was literally true but indescribably absurd. As best I can tell from browsing social media, Turley’s conservative fans are deliriously happy with his ridiculous denial.

Just think – with Black History Month 2022 halfway done – too many conservatives take advantage of every opportunity to show how little they know about Black history. While hordes of parents try to shout down anyone who wants to teach Black history to their children, people like Turley (who, by his impressive credentials, should be well-educated) demonstrate that the American public knows all too little about Black history. Or, for that matter, about any history. Since the whole idea of being a conservative is to learn from the past, ignorance of history defeats the point. Doesn’t it?

__________________

Earlier Post: Martin Luther King's Speech “Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience:” The Radical Tradition

__________________

  

Historical Note: If you want to read about the brutal way that police treated the Freedom Riders during the Civil Rights movement, check this link. If you would like to learn about Martin Luther King, Jr.’s many arrests, here is an excellent summary.

Word of Rhetorical Advice: There is an old saying that, when you are digging yourself into a hole, stop digging. Turley might want to think about that. 

“What, They Demand, Is Your Christianity?" Rev. Theodore S. Wright’s 1837 Speech against Racial Prejudice

Of all the places that should (in principle) be open to everyone, rich and poor, regardless of background or race, should not Christian churches (and, indeed, all religious institutions) be foremost? Yet, almost two centuries ago, Rev. Theodore S. Wright complained bitterly when his fellow ministers locked out African-American worshipers.

Wright, an African-American Presbyterian minster, spoke against racial prejudice. In his 1837 speech to the New York Anti-Slavery Society, he said that it was not just slaves who faced intense discrimination. Even free African-Americans were forbidden to study trades, locked out of colleges, and, he added, “oppressed by a corrupt public sentiment.” Wright pointed out the mistreatment that African-Americans often received in churches, complained that prejudice affected their ability to save their souls, and proposed to rectify the problem by shaming racist clergy. He noted that in evangelical revivals, “which have been blessed and enjoyed in this part of the country, the colored population were overlooked.” Wright explained:

“But sir, this prejudice goes further. It debars men from heaven. While sir, slavery cuts off the colored portion of the community from religious privileges, men are made infidels. What, they demand, is your Christianity? How do you regard your brethren? How do you treat them at the Lord’s table? Where is your consistency in talking about the heathen, transversing the ocean to circulate the Bible everywhere, while you frown upon them at the door? These things meet us and weigh down our spirits.”

We can allow Wright a bit of hyperbole. Obviously, his own church welcomed African-American worshipers. It remained true, however, that African-American worshipers were, as was the custom, often consigned to the balcony. Even worse, they were, as he explained, sometimes excluded from churches entirely.

Having shown the problem, Wright offered a bold solution. His idea was to awaken the consciences of White pastors. On one occasion, Wright himself went around to other church elders to inquire about this failing of theirs. He literally went door to door:

“We went and they humbled themselves. The Church commenced efficient efforts, and God blessed them as soon as they began to act for these people as though they had souls.”

Yet, he noted that even when African-American worshipers were allowed into the churches, they were relegated to the balconies, as if “the value of the pews would be diminished if the colored people sat in them.”

Wright gave his speech at a time of religious upheaval. White and Black churches tended to separate in the 1800’s in The Southern Baptist Convention, for example, was originally created as an act of racial discrimination. My own Methodist denomination split in the 1800s, after African-American worshipers were often rejected or consigned to the balconies. For example, Rev. Richard Allen founded the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church in 1816. Like many African-American Methodist churches, the AME shares doctrines, rules, and rituals with other Methodist Churches. The AME church formed because church ushers in Philadelphia literally dragged Allen off of his knees in the middle of prayer. And yet, even today in 2022, churches sadly remain among the most segregated institutions.

Thank you, Rev. Wright, for pointing out the monstrous injustice and hypocrisy that afflicted the Christian churches in 1837. How lamentable that the issue has not disappeared. Yes, today, it is rare for White-majority churches to expel people of color. Not universal, however, is to welcome them, not as guests, but as brothers and sisters. Rev. Wright was correct when he complained that “These things meet us and weigh down our spirits.”

Indeed, we cannot say today that African Americans are generally debarred from Christian churches. Furthermore, I enthusiastically praise denominations like the AME Church or African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, which offer so much community and spiritual support. That is no excuse for churches that restrict themselves, however unconsciously. We might want to ask why churches, of all places, often remain highly segregated. 

Can speeches help with these problems? Speeches such as Wright’s might affect people’s attitudes and actions. Their effect is greatest if the message is repeated over, over, and over. Wright spoke a long time ago. Do we need to hear his message, updated to suit our times, repeated again?

Among their other functions, public speeches help people recognize social problems. We continue to recognize Black History Month because we look to the past for lessons. Wright complained about discrimination in employment, education, and most of all, religion. What has changed since 1837? What has not changed? If Wright spoke today, what would he say? Would he tell us that everything is fine? Would he complain that prejudice still restricts African-Americans? I think we all know the answer to that question. Don’t we?

______________________  

Earlier Posts:

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Sermon on the Power of Love

John Wesley’s Sermon against Bigotry

Pope Francis' Sermon for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees

Rabbi Cahana’s Sermon on the Power of Love

______________________  

P.S. Wright spoke in cosmopolitan New York City. More western parts of New York state were called the “burned over district” in 1837 because of all the fire and brimstone preaching. Wright’s speech was probably tame compared with what his audience may have heard around the state. I may look into New York’s historical evangelism in upcoming posts. What do you think?

James Baldwin's 1963 Speech Ripped Away Two American Myths

Best-selling author James Baldwin started a brief 1963 speech with this sentence: “The beginnings of this country have nothing whatever to do with the myths we have created about it.” One reason people create myths is to make us feel comfortable about our uncomfortable past. Yet, Baldwin’s first sentence startles the conscience, for his speech sought to rip apart the comforting myths that substitute for history. Baldwin attacked two myths: the glorification of the Mayflower settlers and the minimization of slavery.

Baldwin did not just say that the myths distort history or that we should rethink the past. He went far beyond that. “Nothing whatever” is an absolute. Baldwin said that the myths were utterly wrong.

Making this argument, Baldwin gave his audience a new way to think about white supremacy and African-American history. He did not speak for a policy; instead, he smashed myths. His only weapons were common sense and powerful language. His claims seem self-evident once he explained them. Yet, Baldwin was right that we too often refuse to face obvious truths.

While other African-American leaders of the 1960s engaged in social activism, Baldwin undertook to make America recognize realities that myths had buried. He attacked two myths. The Mayflower Pilgrims soon became a symbol of white America’s greatness. Slavery was shoved into history’s background. These myths created a vision of America, a vision that Baldwin shattered like glass.

No, the Mayflower itself was no myth. Neither was slavery. What Baldwin meant is that American history twists them: the Pilgrims were desperate refugees, but myth turned them into triumphant heroes. Slavery was not, as history often teaches, an afterthought of American society. It was, Baldwin said, basic to early America’s economic triumphs.


Mayflower Myths

Descendants of the Mayflower’s Pilgrims can join a club that, by reputation, includes New England’s blue bloods. “Our members," the Mayflower Society says, “have formed lifelong bonds together while honoring the sacred legacy of our ancestors.” American history often teaches that the early settlers were heroes. We know, of course, that they were white heroes. That is so obvious that it goes unsaid. Baldwin explained:

“The people who settled the country, the people who came here, came here for one reason – no matter how disguised – they came here because they thought it would be better here than where they were. That’s why they came, and that’s the only reason that they came.”

Once he said that, it was just common sense. Nobody risks a sea voyage to go to an unsettled nation with an uncertain future because everything was going well at home. We knew that, did we not? And Baldwin’s inescapable corollary is that the Mayflower’s Pilgrims had struggled in England:

“Anybody who was making it in England did not get on the Mayflower. [Laughter and applause.] This is important. It is important that one begin to recognize this because part of the dilemma of this country is that it has managed to believe the myths it has created about its own past.”

As Baldwin pointed out, the English settlers succeeded because they massacred Massachusetts’s native people:

“We did several things in order to conquer the country. There was, at the point we reached these shores, a group of people who had never heard of machines, or as far as I know, of money, and we promptly eliminated them. We killed them. I’m talking about the Indians.”

So, that was the first myth. (As Nick Bryant points out, the Pilgrims set up an active trade to export Native American slaves and import African slaves. Is that horror the “scared legacy of our ancestors” of which the Mayflower Society boasts?) Having summarily dispatched the myth of the noble Pilgrims, Baldwin moved on to the myths that underestimated African slavery.


Myths about Slavery

Instead of dwelling on the evils of slavery – which he took as obvious – Baldwin pointed out that slavery is inherently an economic and political tool. America’s economic triumphs only occurred, he said, because Africans were kidnapped and brought to the New World to perform unpaid labor. It was on the backs of their work, he reminded his audience, that the American economy came to flourish:

“Now slavery, like murder, is one of the oldest human institutions. So we cannot quarrel about the fact of slavery; that is to say we could, but that’s another story. But we enslaved him because in order to conquer the country, we had to have cheap labor. And the man who is now known as the American Negro, who is one of the oldest of American citizens, and the only one who never wanted to come here, [applause] did the dirty work.”

America needed, Baldwin said, to recognize the people who did the involuntary, unpaid hard work to make its founding possible.

Why Baldwin Is Important Today

Baldwin did not speak for any particular policy. He did not commemorate anything. Instead, his speech ripped away the myths, exposing the reality behind them. We need to see clearly before we can solve our problems.

It is no wonder that book-banning campaigns sometimes target Baldwin’s work. His first novel, Go Tell It on the Mountain, has been banned from Virginia to New York. A documentary film about Baldwin was banned in central Pennsylvania. The ban was reversed after student protest.

No, people don’t try to ban James Baldwin’s books because they mention sexual practices. They would also have to ban the Holy Bible. The Bible, after all, tells how Lot’s daughters got him drunk so he could get them pregnant (Gen. 19). Are book-burners banning the Bible? No. Baldwin’s books get banned because he tore down comfortable myths and exposed raw reality. Were Baldwin’s truths inarguable? Of course. That is precisely why people fear him.

Amazing, isn’t it? It becomes so easy for people to ignore the obvious, and sometimes so unpleasant to face reality. Myths comfort us, but truth frees us. That’s in the Bible, by the way: “the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).

__________________

 
In "The FIre Next Time," Baldwin Warned America Not to Hide from Evil

__________________

Research Note: When I say that history twists the past, I don’t meant to disparage the work of professional historians. Most of them know and report the truth. I mean, instead, history as taught in schools, covered in high school textbooks, and discussed on television. The issues I describe are covered accurately in any number of excellent history books. As a straightforward starting point, I recommend the New York Times 1619 Project, which gives a disturbing account of American heritage, and which really should not be controversial.

In "The Fire Next Time," James Baldwin Warned America Not to Hide from Evil

James Baldwin’s book The Fire Next Time, a 1963 bestseller, attacked American racism in devastating language. Eschewing moderate expressions, Baldwin lashed out against a country that closed its eyes to racial discrimination.

Yet, the fire still burns – even today. The book-burning, book-banning campaigns of 2022 echo the evils against which Baldwin wrote. As people across the United States attack the teaching of Black history, they repeat the evils that Baldwin condemned. Yet, Baldwin argued that people who ignore evil – who refuse to see evidence of evil – are just as guilty as any criminal. He forced the United States of 1963 to face itself. By blaming the entire nation, he forced people to think about American racism in a new way.

And here is Baldwin's accusation:

“…this is the crime of which I accuse my country and my countrymen, and for which neither I nor time nor history will ever forgive them, that they have destroyed and are destroying hundreds of thousands of lives and do not know it and do not want to know it.

“But it is not permissible that the authors of devastation should also be innocent. It is the innocence which constitutes the crime.”

“It is the innocence which constitutes the crime,” Baldwin said. When many parents in 2022 want to shield their children Black history, they are protecting their child’s innocence. But not in a good way. They continue to commit the crime, for they refuse to face truth.

That sounds like a paradox, but Baldwin does not mean that Americans should be found “not guilty.” When Baldwin wrote that they are innocent, he meant that they were deliberately naïve. It was a crime precisely because Americans, on purpose, refused to know the truth.

Baldwin taught a basic lesson: it is our duty not to be naïve. It is our duty to inform ourselves. Germany’s 1933 voters, who convinced themselves that Hitler was not evil – were they not guilty? Was it not their duty to recognize what Hitler intended? It’s not as if he kept it a secret. Was it not the duty of 1963’s white racists to understand the dreadful effects of sending Black children to bad schools? Of forbidding Black people to sleep in the best hotels or to apply for good jobs, while restricting their right to vote and denying them the basic justice of a fair trial before being punished for a crime? Baldwin did not just accuse America of being guilty. He accused the nation of being unaware.

Hitler's Christian Nationalist Speech

Yet too many Americans still prefer to be unaware. The book-banners, the screaming mobs at school board meetings who seek to keep their children unaware of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Jim Crow are protecting their children from things that they need to know. Several states, including Idaho, Oklahoma, Iowa, and Tennessee, have already passed obviously unconstitutional laws to restrict the teaching of race relations. In Texas, librarians are responding to political pressure by pulling books that discuss race. The Florida legislature is, even as I write, contemplating a law that would make it illegal to teach history that makes people feel uncomfortable. Around the United States, some people are celebrating Black History Month by suppressing Black history. These acts of deliberate ignorance can only have one purpose: to make people unaware. To protect their deliberate innocence. 

Baldwin did not accuse individual people. He did not merely accuse the Ku Klux Klan, George Wallace, or any other particular group or person. Long before anyone invented the term “systemic racism,” Baldwin’s searing language accused the entire country: “my country and my countrymen.”

There is much good in the United States. I’m sure that Baldwin knew that. And the Civil Rights Movement accomplished much. The nation has made progress since 1963. That doesn’t mean that things are right today. It doesn’t mean that the reactionary forces at work across the land have suddenly become less dangerous.

So, when many people complain about “woke culture,” we should remember that Baldwin wanted to wake us up. Let us remember history. Let us learn, so we will not repeat the horrors of the past. Let us never protect our innocence by pretending that we do not see. Baldwin’s sharp accusation – “it is the innocence which constitutes a crime” – reminds us that we have a duty to know what is happening around us. It was not just that the United States practiced the evils of racism, but also that, as Baldwin said, the people “do not know it and do not want to know it.” Are the book-banning hordes of today any different? 

Baldwin, who was one of our nation’s greatest writers, was also known as an orator. Indeed, The Fire Next Time itself stands as powerful rhetoric. In 1963, while Martin Luther King, Jr. was organizing his nonviolent protests and Malcolm X threatened revolution, Baldwin made it his task to tear off the curtain and reveal what lay beyond. 

Rhetoric serves many purposes. Baldwin sought to make the nation aware of the horrors that African Americans faced daily. He changed the way the nation thought about civil rights. His writing demanded awareness. His words were so powerful that they could not be ignored. To forget what he said is to risk falling back into the abyss. 

__________________

Previous Posts for Black History Month:

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Sermon about the Power of Love

Oprah Winfrey's Eulogy for Rosa Parks

__________________

P.S. If the Muses cooperate, I intend to post some comments about one of Baldwin's speeches. Stay tuned!

Image: copyright 2022, William Harpine

“Somebody Must Have Sense Enough to Dim the Lights:” Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Sermon about the Power of Love

Strength comes from love.

In November 1957, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. gave a sermon at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama. His theme was Jesus Christ’s commandment to “love your enemies.” King applied that moral precept to the growing Civil Rights movement, insisting that hate must be met with love, and violence with peace. King laid out many of the themes that would come to mark the movement. He warned that hate endangered everyone. He advocated nonviolent resistance and called for the Western democracies to uphold their noble values. Centrally, he insisted on an attitude of compassion and love toward one’s enemies. His sermon delved deeply into Christian theology and political theory. His practical application – the philosophy of civil disobedience – would arise from moral imperatives.

King’s proposition must seem like a massive paradox: for he taught that true strength comes from love and goodness, never from violence and hatred.

King’s eloquence and depth of thought belies the fact that, defying his physician’s orders, he dragged himself out of a sickbed to give this speech. Like most good preachers, he based his sermon on a text, in this case, Matthew 5:43-45 from the Bible.

_____________________________

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”

_____________________________

King felt that his argument was not only moral, but practical. To King, love overpowers hate by its very nature. He explained that by “love,” he meant what the ancient Greeks called agape, which is unselfish love. Such unconditional love often runs against our impulses. Instead, our impulses often drive us to respond harshly when someone wrongs us. This inclination, King told the congregation, only makes things worse:

“Hate for hate only intensifies the existence of hate and evil in the universe. If I hit you and you hit me and I hit you back and you hit me back and go on, you see, that goes on ad infinitum. It just never ends.”

King told a story about when he and his brother were driving across Tennessee. The other drivers were not dimming their lights. King’s brother threatened to shine his brights at the next car. But King protested that this could only cause an accident:

“Somebody must have sense enough to dim the lights, and that is the trouble, isn’t it? That as all of the civilizations of the world move up the highway of history, so many civilizations, having looked at other civilizations that refused to dim the lights, and they decided to refuse to dim theirs.”

That simple analogy led King to a powerful point. If nations respond to anger with more anger, if people respond to hate with more hate, we enter the down-ramp to mutual destruction. That is why King insisted that hate must be confronted with love. Hate does not defeat hate. That never works, he said. Instead, love was the universe’s greatest power:

“Somewhere, somebody must have some sense. Men must see that force begets force, hate begets hate, toughness begets toughness. And it is all a descending spiral, ultimately ending in destruction for all and everybody. Somebody must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate and the chain of evil in the universe. And you do that by love.”

African Americans in the 1950s suffered from horrible injustices. Especially in the states of the former Confederacy, African Americans lacked the most basic rights that other people took for granted. They could not stay in nice hotels or even drink at a cold water fountain. Laws excluded them from the best schools. A Black person in the South registered to vote only at the risk of her life. Emmitt Till had been lynched a scant two years before King’s sermon, and the Mississippi Burning murders awaited the future. By no stretch of the imagination was United States of 1957 a free country for African Americans.

Fannie Lou Hamer’s Voting Rights Speech, "Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired"

Yet, King insisted that monstrous injustices must be met by love.

King’s sermon gives us much to think about in 2022. Recently, people have been going to school board meetings, screaming in rage to stop their children from learning Black history. King’s message would be to confront such hatred with love, not anger.

Similarly, when people in 2022 give in to fear and vote for the angriest, meanest politician because they think that person is strong, do they not contradict King’s teaching? And was King not right? Strong leaders like Napoleon, Hitler, and Stalin did not keep their people safe. Did they?

King’s speech taught a powerful lesson. Isn’t that the best reason to give a speech? And will we listen to his lesson? Can we, as a nation, as a human species, learn that love truly is more powerful than hate? Or will we succumb to fear and ignorance? Can Christian believers find the courage to love their enemies? Not to give in to evil; that’s not what King meant, but to love their enemies? To face down evil with good? Many years later, King said that, “the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.” Can people summon the courage to believe that this is true?

_____________________________

Martin Luther King, Jr. Said, "The Law Can't Change the Heart, but It Can Restrain the Heartless"

Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Speech, "Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience"

Martin Luther King, Jr. at the Mountaintop in Memphis, Tennessee: A Speech for the Ages

Rabbi Cahana's Sermon about the Summer of Love: Is Love the Answer to Nazism?

_____________________________

P.S.: Dexter Avenue Baptist Church is now on the National Register of Historic Places

Oprah Winfrey's Eulogy for Rosa Parks: A Speech about Opposing Traditions

With Black History Month underway, let’s look back at Oprah Winfrey’s eulogy for Rosa Parks. Parks is the woman who refused to give up her seat to a white man, triggering the Montgomery bus boycott. Parks came to symbolize the heroism of ordinary people who inspired the civil rights movement. Speaking in 2005 at the Memorial African Methodist Episcopal Church in Washington DC, Winfrey compared and contrasted two different kinds of tradition. We had, on the one hand, a southern tradition that Black people should defer to white people. But, on the other hand, Rosa Parks started a new tradition. Although her actions shocked southern racists in the 1950s, Parks’ new tradition inspired generations to come.


The Old Tradition: Racial Oppression

We often think that things are good just because they are old. Well, many old things are good. Time and tradition have tested Shakespeare’s plays, homemade ice cream, and the First Amendment. When something works for many years, we think that is good.

At the same time, however, tradition can never excuse injustice or wrongful deeds. A long tradition, enshrined in Alabama law, had deprived African Americans of basic rights. One of those was the simple right to occupy a bus seat that one has paid for. Indeed, just because we have done a wrong thing for a long time does not mean that we should continue to do it. Winfrey explained:

“So I thank you again, Sister Rosa, for not only confronting the one white man whose seat you took, not only confronting the bus driver, not only for confronting the law, but for confronting history, a history that for 400 years said that you were not even worthy of a glance, certainly no consideration. I thank you for not moving.”

Yes, time had tested a 400-year tradition. But when that tradition proved to be wrong, over, and over, and over, it was time to change. Rosa Parks, in her turn, started a new tradition.


A New Tradition Arose

Yes, when Rosa Parks refused to leave her seat, she rejected the old tradition. What she did was new. In Jim Crow Alabama, it was almost unprecedented. But Oprah Winfrey thanked Rosa Parks for making possible new opportunities and new traditions:

“That day that you refused to give up your seat on the bus, you, Sister Rosa, changed the trajectory of my life and the lives of so many other people in the world. I would not be standing here today nor standing where I stand every day had she not chosen to sit down. I know that. I know that. I know that. I know that, and I honor that.”

In part because of Parks’ actions, the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s has now been enshrined in law and (often, but not always) in the way Americans treat one another today. What was once new has become accepted. Every tradition started with an innovation. In her brief eulogy, Oprah Winfrey acknowledged the courage and wisdom of the woman who started the new tradition.


Will We Forget?

This does not mean that the battle has ended. Across large parts of the United States of America, angry people – white people – attend school board meetings to scream in rage because their children are being taught Black history. Many schools are backing down, removing essential parts of American history from their bookshelves for fear of offending white people who don’t want to remember people like Rosa Parks. So, the danger still exists that the evil tradition against which Parks protested could rise like a murderous zombie. Yes, racism can be violent. Black people who confronted law enforcement in the 1950s South often disappeared into jail, never to be seen again. Never underestimate Parks’ courage.

A eulogy’s purpose is to honor a person’s life by showing how that person can inspire us today. It is not enough to honor Rosa Parks. People today need to find the courage and wisdom to stand up against the forces of wickedness, no matter how old – how traditional – those forces might be. That is why Winfrey ended her speech with these defiant words:

“I owe you – to succeed.

“I will not be moved.”

__________________

Barack Obama’s Eulogy of Clementa Pinckney

Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Speech, "Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience"

Frederick Douglass’ 1852 Fourth of July Speech and the Christian Right

__________________

P. S. “I will not be moved” referred to the old Christian hymn, “I Shall Not Be Moved.” Winfrey’s audience surely picked up the illusion instantly.

The Memorial African Methodist Episcopal Church was also the home church of Frederick Douglass. Located a few blocks north of the White House, it is on the National Register of Historic Places.

I continue to express my gratitude to my graduate school classmate, the late Martin Medhurst, and the other good people at Americanrhetoric.com who assembled such a treasure house of American public speeches.

__________________

Research Note: Howard Kahane’s book, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, introduced the idea that it is a fallacy to appeal to tradition. In contrast, Boyd and Richerson’s book, Culture and the Evolutionary Process, argues that people are not very good at reasoning and are often wise to rely instead on tradition. I’m on the fence: I think that tradition is often valuable – if you click on “William D. Harpine’s Publications” above, you’ll see that I’ve often written that tradition helps us make decisions. At the same time, Kahane is right that something is not necessarily good just because it is old. Racial oppression is traditional, but it is always wrong.

Image: Ahmer Jamil Khan, via Wikimedia