Black Power Mixtape: 1967-1975 - An Invitation for Rhetorical Exploration

I recently had the privilege and pleasure of watching “Black Power Mixtape 1967-1975”. This film is great for a number of reasons. I was excited to see different perspectives, representations, and voices from the black power movement in the late sixties and early seventies. One of my favorite things about this film was the rhetorical displays by Angela Davis and Stokely Carmichael. These two people, and their rhetoric in this film, are inspiring to say the least. I am enamored by them, and even more so when I get to see rare footage of them in this film. A particular scene in the movie shows Angela in jail being interviewed. During this interview she is questioned about violence and her answer is inspiring on a number of levels, and speaks to a number of different audiences.

She said “that’s why when someone asks me about violence I just I just find it incredible because what it means is that the person who’s asking that question has exactly no idea what black people have gone through, what black people have experienced in this country since the time the first black person was kidnapped from the shores of Africa” (1).

This excerpt from her response is just a glimpse but highlights some very important things.

First, when we think about rhetoric of movements, and particular the rhetorics of the Black Power movement(s) there are people then and still today that find these rhetorics inherently violent. But why? Studies of whiteness may suggest that some whites, for example, fear Blacks movements, rhetorics, and empowerment rhetorics, because those rhetorics threaten white placement in society and white power. Also, for those who may not fear these rhetorics but may still see them as violent, I believe as is suggested by Davis, that these people don’t understand. And, in a sense- for example, how could a white truly understand the experiences of Black racial suffering from oppression? Is it possible? I don’t know. But it seems that sometimes discourse and rhetoric that may seem violent to some, isn’t (as is evidenced in this film). And although people outside the communities may not be able to truly understand, they can seek their best to be compassionate to, listen to, and understand what they can.

In fact, as the film shows or suggests, the rhetoric by these leaders was uplifting, mobilizing, empowering, important, of value, and not inherently violent.

On the other hand, this film also shows White rhetorics and it seems as though, the more we can uncover about the history and current practices of white communities and power structures we can see that their have been rhetorical, as well as practiced, structural and institutional oppressions that in themselves are inherently violent. For example, in the film it talks about the police abuse that was directly targeted at Blacks and without this context one may not understand why a group would speak about gathering arms and protecting themselves. But, with this context, it seems quite reasonable to want to be able to protect yourself, family and friends. In fact, is this not what the US believes is reasonable, considering our large defense budget?

This film offers what a lot of the textbooks in K-12 do not. It provides more context. It provides rhetorical examples from great black leaders besides the well known Dr King (not to in any way diminish him, but to highlight the need for people to be exposed to more Black leaders than a single one), it provides Black narratives, it humanizes the Black power movement, it exposes some of the problems with the state and white privilege, and it does so many more things that can’t be adequately addressed by listing them.

Finally, when thinking about rhetoric and argument differently this film offers room for exploration into: “normalized rhetorical practices”- what that means, and why we should step outside of the box when thinking about rhetoric, movements, argument, and power.

1-      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeJJI6YkmxQ