There are various similarities and differences between the classical and pragmatic approaches to Black Nationalism. During Dr. Hart’s lecture, we learned that both versions of nationalism rest on the idea of black solidarity. Nationalist believe that any movement to improve the lives of black men, women, and children will increase solidarity of blacks within the US, regardless of being classical or pragmatic. Both classical and pragmatic want to identify the collective interest of black people and build the bonds of political solidarity. Even with some similarities there are also very different. In Dr. Hart’s lecture, she explains how classical nationalism is a political program of black’s solidarity and voluntary separation, under conditions
World War I, which lasted from 1914 to 1918, and had a huge impact on the world throughout the twentieth century. This conflict is commonly referred to as the Great War and primarily involved Europeans. Although, other countries, particularly European colonial holdings, did participate. Before World War I began, no one expected such a destructive conflict, as many nations approached the idea of war with enthusiasm. Throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, European nations began to expand their colonial holdings, strengthen their militaries, and in 1914 Archduke Franz Ferdinand was shot. The primary cause of World War I was nationalism, as European imperialism, militarism, and the assassination of Ferdinand are examples of nationalism
After the war of 1812, there was a strong sense of nationalism since the young United States had won a war against the powerful British Army. However, the loss of thousands of southern slaves and the British embargo led both the north and the south to lament over the cost of the war. The time period from 1815 – 1825 that some historians call the era of good feelings was not as positive a time period as the title implies; factions ran rampant on the verge of causing an implosion for our country’s political system.
In the case of Amanda America Dickson, “her personal identity was ultimately bounded by her sense of class solidarity with her father, that is, by her socialization as David Dickson’s daughter, her gender role as a lady, and her racial definition as a person to whom racial categories did not apply.”1 This may mean that her freedom was less proscribed by race because she was not a male seeking political advantage. Some people of mixed-race in the nineteenth century South managed to create a personal identity and
The author skirts around the central issue of racism by calling it a “class struggle” within the white population of Boston during the 1960s and 1970s. Formisano discuses the phenomenon known as “white flight”, where great numbers of white families left the cities for the suburbs. This was not only for a better lifestyle, but a way to distance themselves from the African Americans, who settled in northern urban areas following the second Great Migration.
The concepts of Reform and Revolution are nearly polarizing by their very nature, with one seeking to modify, and the other seeking to destroy and rebuild. If an organized Black movement was to find itself in an opportunistic position -whatever that may be- with which to attempt a radical movement (in either case; reform or revolution, the resulting movement would need to be large and radical if it would hope to accomplish its goals before the opportunity for change ceases to present itself) it would only serve to befall their efforts if they found themselves in a splintered state of conflicting ideologies. But, in either case, be it reform or revolution, a reconfiguring of the thought processes behind how one looks at the nature of American politics is undoubtedly necessary in order to look into the potential for future Black liberation.
Marable, Manning. Race, Reform, and Rebellion: The Second Reconstruction and Beyond in Black America, 1945-2006. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2007.
the sense that they must stand together against the suppression of the whites and that they must endure their "non-Americanism" amongst the company of one another,. Yet, as soon as he has done this, Malcolm X. turns to make, what might seem, a paradoxical and fairly non-artistic.
Black and white abolitionists shared common assumptions about the evil of slavery, the "virtue of moral reform", and the certainty of human progress"(1). Schor, Garnet,1877, & Lanngston, 1989). This shared understanding provided "the basic for the interracial solidarity" and cooperation so vital in the crusade against slavery"(2). (Schor and Garnet, 1877). But blacks also brought a distinct perspective to the antislavery movement. Their abolitionism was shaped profoundly by their personal experience and racial oppression. Unlike most white abolitionists, they conceived of antidlavery as an all-encompassion struggle for racial equality, and they took a more pragramatic, less doctrinaire approach to antislavery tactics. The contrast between the two abolitionists -- black and white -- become increasingly apparent in the 1840s and 1850s as black expressed a growing militancy, asserted greater independence, and called for racially exclusive organization and initiatives.
“The New Negro” as described by Alain Locke is seeking social justice, however he is doing so in a way different from the various forms of resistance that preceded him. Locke describes a shift from radicalism in the fight for social justice to a need to build a relationship between races. The “New Negro” has come to the realization that assimilation into American culture is not a viable answer; therefore he has decided to build his own culture in collaboration with American culture. The construction of this culture became known as The New Negro Movement or The Harlem Renaissance. This was the attempt of the black community to birth for themselves a status quo in which they were no longer defined by their oppressors’ views. It was with in
In this paper I will be using the African American Criticism to critique the speech of Fredrick Douglas 1849, speech in Faneuil Hall [on Henry Clay 's gradual emancipation plan and role of American Colonization Society. This text has the tenets and overtone of the African American criticism which makes it the perfect text to use for this criticism. The major thing that this speech does is help change the fundamental ways in which not only the country, but the world views racism. In this paper I will use the three terms from the African American criticism to show how this paper encompasses the ideologies and tenets of what the African American criticism is about. Those three terms are the institutionalized racism, voice of color, and double consciousness/double vision. These terms are a constant overtone through Douglas’s speech to combat the idea that racism is not something you are born with but something that you are taught and developed over time.
He discussions about blacks and how it was “the greatest betrayal of the America idea.” The reason why it was the greatest betrayal of the American was because the blacks were treated as slaves and that isn’t what America is thought to be. America is suppose to the the “land of the brave and the home of the free,” but blacks were taken for granted as a low division, under-class peasant. Upon his written article, he tries to persuade the African Americans not to join a multicultural movement that may leave off with what was originally plan. The set goal for what America stands for is to stay unified as one. If the African Americans don’t stay unified then the goal that was set is for no reason. Salins concludes that he hopes that the United States will continue to embrace the welcoming of immigrants from around the world, and that peace with one another, will prosper. Salins then wishes that both native-born and naturalized Americans can join force in facilitating new incoming immigrants to assimilate, and as well that multiculturalism will be
Teague, Robert L. “Negroes Say Conditions in U.S. Explain Nationalists’ Militancy.” New York Times 2 March 1961: 1+.
As I began my research for this essay, it became clearly obvious that there is no consensus on the roots of nations. From Gellner to Smith, a million little points in time and space can be credited for the creation of a nation, which in itself carries various meanings and connotations. Believing that both modernists, who interpret nationalism as being associated with industrial economy and centralized authority, and primordialists, who argue nations are ancient and natural phenomena, make valid points, I have opted to adhere to Michael Mann’s explanation that the structure of nations ‘had multiple causes and stages cascading on top of each other in unexpected and unfortunate ways. They were contingent because different causal chains, each of which we can trace and explain quite well, came together in a way that we cannot explain in terms of either of them, yet which proved timely for the outcome’ (Mann 2012: 3). Nevertheless, despite the range of explanations for nationalism, one concept is reoccurring. Humans, either in their local, state or international societies, are driven by power, and those who have the ability to force their decisions upon others yield power. Regardless of the fact that colonialism and imperialism are no longer recognized as current practices, international society still exists under the umbrella of neo-colonial influences, of which globalization is a product of.
...tory, racism been present through issues of politics, philosophy, and other facets of life. Mills brought attention to the separation of black and white philosophy based upon the certain values that existed between the two races during the times of racial discrimination. He also used the theory of the racial polity in order to explain issues such as imperialism and colonialism. Ta-Nehisi Coates focused on more intimate cases of discrimination through the eyes of figures like Clyde Ross, who faced the devastating effects of redlining in his community. Although the government’s plan of redlining certain areas has passed, the consequences of it have ruined the demographics that appeal to a community. By looking more carefully at the African American experience from a philosophical perspective, one may more fully understand the significance of reconceptualizing politics.
Nationalism and imperialism both had good intentions individually, but when you combine the two, that’s when the results become disastrous and uncontrollable. Nationalism is the belief that one’s country should support everything it does, even the bad decisions. Imperialism is the belief that if someone truly supports their country that they would be willing to spread these ideals to other countries through democracy or in this case, war. The terrible effects of these combined were shown throughout the First World War. Many countries started getting a more advanced sense of excessive pride to their country and when imperialism began spreading decided to spread their “supreme” ideals to the rest of the world. The balance of powers that were established in the Congress of Vienna made all other countries scared of this sudden uprising and so war was inevitable. The war also started based off alliances and pacts tying together most countries. Once Serbia and Austria-Hungary went to war, every country followed, but not all followed because they were bound to do so. Most of the countries in the war were influenced heavily by nationalism, imperialism and somewhat of militarism. All together the war started because of these beliefs and continued because of them as well. If it wasn’t for the beliefs spread with nationalism and imperialism the First World War might never have started. Nationalism showed everyone that it was good for them to have excessive self-pride in their country, combined with imperialism teaching them that they should spread their supreme ideas, the results could have been worse. With just those two, some countries would try democracy and spreading that way. Militarism was also present during these times, which taught...