I've written a number of entries at this point about black politics, particularly about outmoded conceptions of black leadership. A brother I play ball with (thanks Brian!) dropped Steve Hahn's work A Nation Under Our Feet on me. I haven't picked it up yet but I will soon.
Its basic argument is that even as they were beset upon by mass technologies of terror, enslaved African Americans fought for and sometimes won political victories. These victories were often short-lived, and were gained at the expense of flesh, bone, and blood, but they were victories nonetheless. Furthermore they were won not by porkchop reverends, or charismatic speakers, but by black men and women who met with purpose, in secret.
A couple of times this past week I've been called a conservative by my boys largely because of my critiques against Tavis Smiley's recent tour, and Al Sharpton. And you know what? On this they aren't wrong. I take a very old school position on the ability of black people to mobilize on behalf of their own interests without having to get someone from on high to come down and tell them what they need, whether that someone is Jesse Jackson, Cornel West, or Ice Cube's Barbershop 2 character. Hahn's work justifies my position.
(like i needed it.)
Labels ,LKS what are they, me being old school I can remenber the term grass roots were revolutionary not conservatives.Hence LBJ and MLK cut a deal to silence the grass roots movement for delegates at the Democratic convention.
Tootsie
Posted by: tootsie | February 11, 2004 at 06:25 AM
Your comments remind me that the 'legacy of slavery' is actually more liberating than people generally give it credit for. The more desparate the conditions of slaves, the more you must admire them for perservering - it makes everything we accomplish today seem that much more triumphant (or trivial as the case may be).
Even beyond the context of slavery, as I've talked to my older relatives, they spoke of the expectations of their parents during the depression. There is no way they could have conceived of the achievements blackfolks would be making today. In the 20s people were happy to have three square meals a day, but to think that their grandchildren would be making six figure salaries and flying overseas representing American corporations was beyond imagining.
But specifically to the underground meetings, I don't doubt it for a minute. All the speechification is, in many ways, just an aping of surface of King's oratory. If you think of King's speeches as press releases for the business of his organization, you can see those who seek to earn his mantle today believe in the power of press releases rather than organization. What *is* Al Sharpton's organization? Does it even have a name?
Posted by: Cobb | February 11, 2004 at 10:17 AM
Yah, but can it be duplicated now?
Are disaffected Black folk to distracted or too consumerized to organize nowadays?
I mean, I've working in community development where we (Michigan State) worked with folk who lived in housing complexes to organize and help make their living conditions better...but how do Black folk organize for "writ large" projects without the so-called "charismatic leader?"
Posted by: Michael R Hicks | February 11, 2004 at 02:49 PM
It not only CAN be duplicated now...it HAS been duplicated now. But that stuff doesn't get in the press. There are all types of local efforts in places like Detroit (check out boggscenter.org), Chicago and others. We've NEVER needed charismatic leaders. It's only been easier to focus on them.
Sharpton runs the National Action Network. If I could change the structure of the english language, the acronym of his group would be SHAM.
Posted by: lks | February 11, 2004 at 03:12 PM
Very good LKS,and the point being that grass roots by nature does not get the pub. but it takes people like yourself and others to shed light.
tootsie
Posted by: tootsie | February 12, 2004 at 07:37 AM