B Writes

(Speech for my African American History class final project from last spring, which was a group debate about the role of violence in social movements; I was on the pro-violence side for the debate, as I am personally; to be more accurate, I believe it’s an unfathomably hypocritical demand on a marginalized and harmed group to make change peacefully and ‘properly’ in a system that is built on a legacy and monopoly on both implicit and explicit violence against that group)

From my groupmates, you have heard about the atrocities that Black Americans experienced and made the brave choice to resist and fight against. Now, I’d like to move from the specific acts of resistance of those like Nat Turner or Bobby Seale to a slightly more abstract closing statement that will emphasize the hypocrisy of American double-standards about violence and rhe precise value and role of violent acts in affecting change in inequitable systems.

When one labels Black self defense as simple ‘violence,’ one is accepting a paradigm set up by the ruling class to malign those fighting for change. 

There are two forms of power and violence being applied to Black Americans in the United States. Implicit systemic violence – poverty and its consequences, for example, and explicit racial violence – lynching or police brutality are examples of this. 

The American ruling class and a majority of white Americans have spent their time and energy ignoring, obfuscating, downplaying, or legitimizing these forms of marginalization while attempting to confine Black social movements to being ‘radical’ or ‘dangerous’ or ‘violent’ for advocating for their own interests and acting in self-defense when violence was deployed by the state.

This double-standard begs the question; why continue playing along? Why allow demagogues to determine these bounds of discourse and continue this marginalization while the marginalized play fair and strive for legitimacy white society wil never grant them? Many white Americans CANNOT allow for this equality, for their identity within society has been predicated on inequality; as James Baldwin wrote, “the danger in the minds of most white Americans is the loss of their identity… those innocents who believe that your imprisonment made them safe are losing their grip on reality.” And that is from The Fire Next Time.

White denial is more fervent than ever. The damage done by those yearning to ‘make America great again’ is the direct legacy of the confederacy, and it’s evident the Civil war still rages, at least on one side. 

Thus one is trapped – either you must defend yourself against a force you have been conditioned to believe is impossible to overcome, give yourself over to that force and operate within their rules to try to convince them to stop, or give up entirely. Carter G. Woodson said “at this moment; then, the Negroes must begin to do the very thing which they have been taught they cannot do.” There are two crucial things we as the middle and lower classes have been told we cannot do: unite and fight. 

Nikki Kendall, author of Hood Feminism, wrote “Learning to defend myself, to be willing to take the risks of being a bad girl, was a process with a steep learning curve. But like with so many other things, I learned how to stand up on my own even when other people were certain I should be content to sit down. How must this defense look, exactly? What role exactly does the deployment of violence have in the process of social change and revolution?

The goal is not permanent sustained purges or exacting bloody revenge, it is the destabilization (to add while transcribing this now – interruption and occupation) of spaces rendered desirable and safe specifically by inequality and the violent legacy of American capitalism starting with slavery; it is the reminder that we the people exist, and matter, and beginning to mend and recover from the trauma and harm of American bigotry and inequity with action that protects and inspires the reinforcement of community bonds, compassion, and hope for the future.