Kimberlé Crenshaw argued in her 2011 article, “Twenty Years of Critical Race Theory,” that “what nourished CRT and facilitated its growth from a collection of institutional and discursive interventions into a sustained intellectual project was a certain dialectical misalignment” (p. 1259). Just as the Montgomery Bus Boycott became the “touchstone of the Civil Rights Movement,” according to Aldon Morris, due to an alignment of frames, including “cultural institutions and the media, the existence of an activist infrastructure, and the galvanizing force of charismatic leadership,” so the CRT movement coalesced in the time and places that it did due to lack of alignment between anti-racist legal scholars in the late 80’s and the prevailing Civil Rights Establishment (CRE), the “New Left,” and the “New Right.”
As discussed over the last few posts (especially Part 3), the CRE had long been committed to the notion of slow, steady, and inevitable “progress,” largely by means of continued litigation premised on the integration imperatives of Brown v. Board of Education and subsequent national civil rights legislation. As we have seen, much of this “progress” was not only halting and limping by the ascendance of Reaganism and the New Right, but had long since proven to be of only marginal value in changing the actual society-wide subordinated circumstances of African Americans.
In this post, we will focus primarily on the ideology of the Civil Rights Establishment.
The Ideology of Integrationsim
Both the CRE and the mainstream of “not racist” Americans had, as early as the mid 1970’s, adopted and incorporated into the American psyche an approach to “race relations” dubbed by Duncan Kennedy, “color-blind meritocratic fundamentalism,” or more simply by Gary Peller, the “ideology of integrationism.” Though an ideology that is all too familiar to Americans, it has existed so close to our noses that we rarely if ever recognize that it is, in fact, an historically contingent ideology in its own right.
Gary Peller details this entrenched ideology in his 1990, “Race Consciousness”:
[I]ntegrationism should be understood to comprise a set of attitudes and beliefs for perceiving the meaning of racist domination and for identifying the goals of racial justice. The concepts of prejudice, discrimination, and segregation are the key structural elements of this ideology. Each idea embodies a different manifestation of what is seen as the central aspect of racism—the distortion of reason through the prism of myth and ignorance.
Racism, according to integrationism, is seated in the consciousness. It consists primarily of irrationally according any weight or significance to the “arbitrary fact of skin color.”
The mental side of racism is accordingly represented as either “prejudice”—the prejudging of a person according to mythological stereotypes—or “bias”—the process of being influenced by subjective factors. (p. 767)
The problem, at root, is a matter of knowledge and enlightenment. The problem with Southern segregationists, on this account, is that they were backward hicks who held irrational and unjustifiable beliefs about Black people. They assumed there were important characteristics connected with color—like laziness, dullness, and hyper-sexuality vs. industriousness, intelligence, and moral piety.
The cure, therefore, is knowledge. One must clear away his backward, archaic thinking and recognize the falsehood of these stereotypes. In fact, according to integrationism, one must see no significance in “race” whatsoever; it’s best not to notice it at all, if you’re going to be enlightened.
Prejudice translates into social action as “discrimination,” that is, allowing race to count in social action, decision making, policy, etc. It is, according to integrationism, racist to allow race to enter into social calculations. If one has overcome prejudice, one will not allow himself to make decisions based on race, for race is only skin deep and makes no actual difference in any sense to the enlightened. Therefore, the solution to discrimination is to make race neutral-decisions and create race-neutral decision procedures and policies. This, for most integrationists is perfectly possible, for “integrationists assumed that fair, impersonal criteria simply would be what remained once the distortion of race consciousness was removed” (p. 799). That is, once consciousness of race is removed from interpersonal and social decision making, neutral categories were already present, intact, and ready to be applied, including assessment of individual “merit,” objective “value,” and neutral “standards.” These latter guaranteed equal treatment would be achieved so long as prejudice and race-consciousness were removed from the social calculus; that is, so long as people were treated as individuals rather than racial group members.
Segregation is, of course, the institutionalization of prejudice and discrimination. Paradigmatic examples of de jure segregation include South African apartheid and the Jim Crow South. These represent institutionalized prejudice in the form of White supremacy. Simply enough, the solution is integration. Integration at the level of consciousness means overcoming “bias” and sweeping away mythologies and stereotypes and seeing that there is no difference at all between “races.” At the level of discrimination, it means treating everyone as an individual, as un-raced, as equal, “according to neutral norms.” At the institutional level, integration means what the segregationists called “race mixing”; that is, the dismantling of “the social system of racial segregation” (p. 769).
In sum, the cure for racism would be equal treatment on an individual level and integration on an institutional level. In any event, integrationists believed the two would go hand in hand. Once neutrality replaced discrimination, equal opportunity would lead to integrated institutions; experience in integrated institutions would, in turn, replace the ignorance of racism with the knowledge that actual contact provides. (p. 770)
Thus, the social problem of racial domination is understood to stem from ignorant prejudices and “bias,” leading to irrational “discrimination” and partiality, institutionally manifested in segregation. In order to address the social problem of racial domination, according to the integrationist ideology, one must overcome prejudice through knowledge, overcome discrimination through “neutrality,” and overcome segregation through integration. This ideology contains a theoretical and practical framework to not only diagnose the social ill, but also to address it.
The Ongoing Negative Consequences of Integrationism
But this ideology, as common as it is and as natural as it may seem, carries within many of the seeds of retrenchment which would quickly grow into a full reversal of the original goals of the Civil Rights Movement (CRM). Again, in the words of President Lyndon B. Johnson (from Part 2),
You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.
You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, “you are free to compete with all the others,” and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.
Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates.
This is the next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result. (“To Fulfill These Rights”)
That is, the goal of the CRM was not just to destroy legal segregation and to bring about racial diversity, but to substantively address the subordinated circumstances of a long exploited and marginalized people-group. But how is this possible under the ideology of integrationism?
To begin with, integrationism blocks all race-conscious remedies. Affirmative action in education and the workplace must be seen as “discrimination” and therefore as illicit as anti-Black discrimination. Any notion of reparations from the White community to the Black community is likewise out of court. These may be allowed to a limited degree for a limited time in order to achieve enough “diversity” to begin eradicating prejudice and disprove stereotypes, but not as a matter of redistributing social power and resources from one community to another. To suggest the latter is to be racist, whether Black or White, according to the integrationist model.
Further, the ideology of integrationism served to legitimize the continued subordinated circumstances of African Americans following the end of Jim Crow and the national adoption of civil rights legislation. Since the legal removal of segregation, discrimination, and eventually prejudice had left “neutral” standards intact and ready for individualistic employment, then whatever the social circumstances followed these reforms must be understood as natural, inevitable, and race-neutral. For integrationists,
the same criteria that defined the “standards” during the period of explicit racism continue to be used, as long as they cannot be linked “directly” to racial factors. Within liberal integrationism, racism, seen to consist of a deviation from neutral, impersonal norms, focused on the exclusion of people of color, with the idea that all the rest of the cultural practices of formerly segregated institutions would stay the same. (Peller, p. 778)
Therefore, under the “not racist” regime of “neutrality”—in the words of Alan Freeman,
the actual conditions of racial powerlessness, poverty, and unemployment can be regarded as no more than conditions—not as racial discrimination. Those conditions can then be rationalized by treating them as historical accidents or products of a malevolent fate, or, even worse, by blaming the victims as inadequate to function in the good society. (“Legitimizing Racial Discrimination Through Antidiscrimination Law,” p. 1103)
And, for White Americans, integrationism was well-suited to function as a “self-justifying ideology of privilege and status.”
The realm of “neutral” social practices from which to identify bias and deviation constitutes a whole realm of institutional characteristics removed from critical view as themselves historical, contingent and rooted in the particularities of culture—a realm that is itself a manifestation of group power, of politics. This obscures the possibility that the very core values of liberal integrationists—the ideals of objectivity, rationality, and neutrality—were historically constructed out of particular perspectives and as responses to specific historical situations rather than representing the transcendence of perspective itself. (Peller, p. 779)
Finally, the ideology of integrationism is at the heart of our common expectation that racial progress is inevitable, and that the best remedies to be applied are time and patience. Yet, as professor Derrick Bell had observed—as discussed at length in Part 3—
even a rather cursory look at American legal history suggests that in the past, the most significant political advances for blacks resulted from policies which were intended and had the effect of serving the interests and convenience of whites rather than remedying racial injustices against blacks … . Racial discrimination, stifled but not stilled by a generation’s worth of civil rights laws and court decisions, continues to flourish wherever the spur of profit or the fear of loss is present. (“Racial Remediation,” pp. 6, 5)
Integrationism as an Historical Development
But those of you familiar with the traditional Black abolitionist and Civil Rights discourse, as discussed in Part 1 of this series, are sure to see the overly narrow and historically abstracted nature of this ideology. It is certainly not what led unifying CRM leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. to declare such things as,
The dilemma of white America is the source and cause of the dilemma of Negro America. Just as the ambivalence of white Americans grows out of their oppressor status, the predicament of Negro Americans grows out of their oppressed status. (Where Do We Go From Here?, p. 109)
[o]ne of the great problems that the Negro confronts is his lack of power. From the old plantations of the South to the newer ghettos of the North, the Negro has been confined to a life of voicelessness and powerlessness. Stripped of the right to make decisions concerning his life and destiny, he has been subject to the authoritarian and sometimes whimsical decisions of the white power structure. The plantation and the ghetto were created by those who had power both to confine those who had no power and to perpetuate their powerlessness. The problem of transforming the ghetto is, therefore, a problem of power—a confrontation between the forces of power demanding change and the forces of power dedicated to preserving the status quo. … There is nothing essentially wrong with power. The problem is that in America power is unequally distributed. (p. 37)
On the contrary, as Peller notes,
At one time, the idea of racial integration represented a powerful, spiritually-rooted social resistance movement that threatened to destabilize the status quo of American institutional life in profound ways. Under the banner of integrationism, hundreds of thousands of people mobilized to challenge the political, economic, and cultural power relations in cities and towns across the country, employing tactics that included mass protest, economic boycotts, civil disobedience, sit-ins, and strikes. There is therefore nothing intrinsic to the concept of racial integration that demands that it be understood in the way I … describe it. (p. 767)
Like every other ideology—as I hope we are coming to see in this series—the ideology of integrationism was forged in the furnace of history, not found in the pages of the Bible, the imprint of nature, conscience, common sense, or what have you. It needn’t have been so; there were other analytics available. No, the ideology of integrationism, which had become the standard view of proper “race relations” in America by the mid 1970’s, was an historically contingent product of two powerful convergences: (1) the mainstream absorption of the CRM discourse into the prevailing ideology of abstract liberalism and (2) an unstated compromise between White progressives and the Black middle class to reject the discourse of “Black Power” and the Black nationalist movement.
Integrationism: Absorption of the CRM Discourse into Liberalism
In the first place, progressive White Americans were able to absorb the message of the CRM into their existing ideals of liberalism by casting the CRM as part of a broader social movement from particularism to universalism. Racism, according to this analysis, is just a specie of the general mythological, backward, and irrational emphasis on the particularities of humanity, as opposed to the more enlightened, universal understanding of humanity, human nature, and the attendant ideals of transnational/transhistorical normative social relations.
Consequently (again, Peller),
Social domination based on race, gender, sexual preference, religion, age, national origin, language, and physical disability or appearance, can all be categorized as the same phenomena because they all represent bias—understood as a deviation from a neutral, rational standard.
Further, any “racism” between “whites” and “blacks” is really no different than “ethnic” conflicts between, e.g., English-, Polish-, Irish-, or Italian-Americans—despite the very specific and different set of circumstances, laws, economics, and scientific theories which had historically constructed the concepts of “Black Race” and “White Race.”
From this structure, it begins to appear that the social subordination of various groups does not have a complex, particular, and historical context, but rather is a formal, numeric problem of the relations of majorities to minorities, unified under the concept “discrimination.” (p.773)
Second, the CRM was folded into the general liberal ideal of individualism and individual freedom as the goal of social progress.
Like classical images of the common law, the vision underlying integrationist ideology is of American culture working itself pure by overcoming the distortions of various kinds of prejudice in favor of the increasing rationalization of institutional forms, which in turn provides greater individual liberty to choose, free of coercive social power. Freedom from racial discrimination is but one instance of the historical move from status to contract, from caste to individual liberty.
“Racial integration” then becomes “one part of a web of meaning that constitutes the dominant ideology of the nature of social progress itself.”
The meaning of race has been grafted onto other central cultural images of progress, so that the transition from segregation to integration and from race consciousness to race neutrality mirrors movements from myth to enlightenment, from ignorance to knowledge, from superstition to reason, from the primitive to the civilized, from religion to secularism, and, most importantly, the historical self-understanding of liberal society as representing the movement from status to individual liberty. In other words, integrationist ideology comprehends the issue of racial domination by viewing race relations through stock images about the nature of progress in liberal society…. (p. 774)
Thus, the radical message of the CRM was successfully absorbed into the broader liberal ideology already present within White Americans’ social tool kit. And not only was this radical edge lost, but the stage was early set to substitute the ideals of neutrality and formal equality for the ideals of genuine substantive change in circumstances, as discussed above (and in the last few posts).
Integrationism: The Compromise to Reject Black Nationalism
Next, the ideology of integrationism was a compromise between White upper-class liberals and the Black middle-class to reject both White supremacy and Black nationalism as two sides of the same bigoted coin. There had, of course, been a long tradition of Black nationalism among abolitionists and CR activists, going back more than 100 years. But most all of these movements seemed to coalesce, for a time, in the peaceful, though confrontational, direct action movements led by Dr. King. By the late 1960’s, however, this alliance had thoroughly fractured and Black nationalism and Black Power soon became the dominant movement among the Black masses.
The Ideology of Black Power and Black Nationalism
Though legal integration had become the norm throughout the South and the federal government had imposed civil rights reforms throughout the nation, the majority of African Americans saw little change in living circumstances. Even more, they had begun to see their own institutions being destroyed, their talent and leadership absorbed by the White community, and were witnessing, according to Robert S. Browne, “a sort of painless genocide.” Stokely Carmichael—who originally popularized the slogan, “Black Power!”—and Charles Hamilton captured these popular sentiments well in their 1967 book, Black Power : The Politics of Liberation:
“Integration” as a goal today speaks to the problem of blackness not only in an unrealistic way but also in a despicable way. It is based on complete acceptance of the fact that in order to have a decent house or education, black people must move into a white neighborhood or send their children to a white school. This reinforces, among both black and white, the idea that “white” is automatically superior and “black” is by definition inferior. For this reason, “integration” is a subterfuge for the maintenance of white supremacy. It allows the nation to focus on a handful of Southern black children who get into white schools at a great price, and to ignore the ninety-four percent who are left in unimproved all-black schools. Such situations will not change until black people become equal in a way that means something, and integration ceases to be a one-way street. Then integration does not mean draining skills and energies from the black ghetto into white neighborhoods. To sprinkle black children among white pupils in outlying schools is at best a stop-gap measure. The goal is not to take black children out of the black community and expose them to white middle-class values; the goal is to build and strengthen the black community.
“Integration” also means that black people must give up their identity, deny their heritage. We recall the conclusion of Killian and Grigg: “At the present time, integration as a solution to the race problem demands that the Negro foreswear his identity as a Negro.” The fact is that integration, as traditionally articulated, would abolish the black community. The fact is that what must be abolished is not the black community, but the dependent colonial status that has been inflicted upon it. (pp. 54-55)
Hence, Black nationalists, drawing on the works of Marcus Garvey, W.E.B. Du Bois, Oliver Cox, Malcolm X, and many others, offered a different approach to “race relations.” As, we have seen, integrationism came to analyze racial domination in terms of prejudice, discrimination, and segregation; Black nationalists, alternatively, had come to see racial domination in terms of “power, subordination, and colonialism” (Peller, p. 829).
According to Black nationalists, an extreme power differential between two communities was at the heart of racial domination. Their analysis began with race-consciousness, the recognition that there are somewhat stable entities that we can call the Black community and the White community. Black nationalists did not come to this conclusion based upon any racial biology or the like, but rather by contextualizing present circumstances within the actual history of American society, economics, and politics.
[N]ationalists articulated what might be seen as an “historicized” view of social relations. In opposition to the universal vantage point used by integrationists to identify bias and prejudice, nationalists presented the time-bound, messy, and inherently particular social relations between nations as the central ground from which to perceive race. In opposition to the essentializing of race engaged in by white supremacists, nationalists located the meaning of race in history, in the social structures that people—rather than God or some objectified nature—have created. (Peller, p. 794)
Thus, nationalists saw the particularism of racial difference, and the particularity of racism itself, as historically rooted realities that could not simply be ignored or absorbed into broader neutral categories. The problem of racial domination was not, contrary to integrationism, some general lack of liberalism, viz., too much ignorance, irrationality, and inability to “progress.” If anything, by the 1960’s, it was too much liberalism and integration. And the solution, in short, was Black power.
Just as White men had intentionally enslaved African peoples, separated them from the rest of humanity, obliterated their disparate heritages, erased their family names, enshrined their social status into law, beat, lynched, and raped their wives, mothers, and daughters—all with intention to exploit them for personal gain and psychological superiority—so the White power structure continued to dominate and subordinate African people-groups in America. There was simple continuity. The “race problem” in America was not primarily a matter of consciousness, psychological and internal, but rather material and external.
In contrast to the integrationist image of discrimination as the social practice of racism, the nationalist image was subordination, the hierarchy of the white community over the black community. (Peller, p. 808)
The solution, then, is to break the White power structure, liberate Black people and Black communities from White control, and to allow Black people to control their own social institutions, determining their own fate in America. The solution was not to let the dominant White community absorb the subordinate Black community—destroying the latter’s identity, institutions, and culture—but rather to build a table of equal power brokers, wherein African Americans could explicitly and unapologetically control and effect the interests of Black lives.
The goal of black self-determination and black self-identity—Black Power—is full participation in the decision-making processes affecting the lives of black people, and recognition of the virtues in themselves as black people. (Carmichael and Hamilton, Black Power, p. 47)
This, of course, directly contradicted the vision of integrationism, which presumed the objective, neutral, “race”-less character of “integrated” White institutions.
Finally, the predominate metaphor of Black nationalism was colonialism. Black Americans, according to nationalists, were functionally a conquered, dominated, and subordinated nation within a nation. Thus, American society was not seen as an un-raced set of neutral laws, institutions, and people-groups into which Black Americans could be integrated without loss; rather, the predominating culture, society, and institutions in America constituted an imperial White nation who had committed countless crimes against a colony within, the Black nation. Again, the solution was not to let the dominant nation absorb the subordinate nation, but rather to transfer power from the oppressor nation to the oppressed nation within. Thus, a reparation model, a transfer of power and resources from one nation to another, for past and continued crimes and injustices, was the properly “historicized” means to a peaceful and civil society for both Black and White Americans.
The Black Nationalist Critique of Liberalism
An important part of this nationalist critique of integrationism was its rejection of the liberal assumptions which had undergirded the ideology. Nationalist sociologists rejected integrationists’ supposition that “neutral” practices and policies were replacing “discriminatory” practices and policies. This included broad critiques of the categories “knowledge,” “merit,” “qualification,” and, of course, the concept of “neutrality” itself. For nationalist sociologists,
[t]here could be no neutral theory of knowledge—knowledge was itself a function of the ability of the powerful to impose their own views, to differentiate between knowledge and myth, reason and emotion, and objectivity and subjectivity. In the historicizing perspective of black nationalists, knowledge was necessarily a social construct. Understanding what society deemed worthy of calling “knowledge” depends on a prior inquiry into a social situation. …
[T]he nationalist approach challenged the objectivity of the category of merit by viewing it in terms of the particular social practices by which whites historically distributed social goods. … The concepts of merit and qualifications have a function only in relation to existing social practices; black nationalists insisted that the existing social practices should not be taken as the standard since those practices were created by a culture that considered it normal to exclude blacks—that is, a culture itself in need of transformation. …
In short, the nationalist approach emphasized and criticized the self-justifying character of meritocratic assumptions about qualifications. Once we consider the possibility that existing social practices might reflect the domination of particular racial groups, those practices can no longer provide a neutral ground from which to defend existing definitions of either qualifications or merit as functionally correlated with necessary social roles. (Peller, pp. 806 – 87)
Like the ideology of integrationism, Black nationalism also presented a complete ideology—complete with both diagnosis, remedy, and challenging philosophical underpinnings.
The Convergence Against Race-Consciousness
It was this nationalist movement which ultimately led to the convergence of upper-class White liberals and middle-class Black Americans around the modern ideology of integrationism. Black Power and Black nationalism struck at the very liberal foundations of White social and political liberal ideology.
The integrationists saw two problems with Black Power. First, the concept assumed that power should be distributed on a racial basis, thereby assuming that American society should be thought of in terms of separate white and black communities. Black Power thus violated both the integrationist principle to transcend race consciousness at the ideological level and the integrationist program to end the segregation of whites and blacks at the institutional and community level.
Second, the Black Power concept troubled integrationists because it assumed that power determined the distribution of social resources and opportunities, rather than reason or merit. It was not simply the theory of Black Power that engendered the charged reaction, but rather the resistance to the reigning liberal idea of progress through reasoned discussion and deliberation that the Black Power movement, for a time, embodied. The clenched fist of the Black Power salute and the militaristic affectation of many black nationalist groups were the overt physical manifestations of this dimension of the movement. (pp. 789 – 790)
Further, Black Power and Black nationalism also threatened the progress enjoyed, nearly exclusively, by the Black middle-class. It was seen by many as a destabilizing force, threatening to undo the successful integrationist litigation programs, predicated on Brown v. Board Education and the more recent civil rights acts, especially in the eyes of the NAACP and LDF. As a result, both Black and White power brokers in America condemned Black Power as a “racist philosophy” and nationalists as “black neo-segregationists,” “advocates of apartheid,” and the like. “In fact; the virulent and extreme denunciation of Black Power symbolized the unity of what would quickly become the new center of American consciousness about race” (Peller, p. 789); that is, of course, the ideology of integrationism discussed above.
And the historical upshot has been, and continues to be, “that the price of the national commitment to suppress white supremacists would be the rejection of race consciousness among African Americans” (p. 760). Once the ideology of integrationism was adopted, both Black nationalists and White supremacists could together be rejected as backward, prejudiced, unenlightened, anti-liberal enemies of racial progress in America—and, more realistically, the status quo. Seeing race, “allowing race to count for anything,” making decisions based upon race, even protecting racial cultures, histories, and institutions became the hallmark of racist violations within the new integrationists’ social order, symmetrically applied to both White and Black Americans.
Thus, we may conclude that one major aspect of the misalignment that led to the creation of CRT was the clash between the integrationist ideology of the traditionalists within the Civil Rights Establishment and the burgeoning young anti-racist legal scholars in the late 1980’s. According to these latter scholars, the ideology of integrationism had stunted the work of civil rights activists since the mid 1970’s and had facilitated the retrenchment observed over the decade and a half leading up to the first CRT conference. Rather than addressing the subordinated circumstances of Black Americans, the CRE had long been employing the analytics of prejudice, discrimination, and segregation, thereby eschewing race-consciousness in favor of “neutral standards” and idealized “merit.” Sure, some endorsed remedies like affirmative action, but only in order to overcome “ignorance” through “diversity,” an extension of a broader liberal project. And further, as we have seen, the ideology of integrationism had also served to remove the historical specificity of “race” and racism in America, to legitimize ongoing vast social and economic disparities, to blame subordinated peoples for their own suffering, and to counsel more time and patience as the enlightened solution.
And what we absolutely must see is that none of this needed to be so. Our ideas about race, racism, “race relations,” what have you, are simply not transcendent ideologies. They have a history and a context. Integrationism, again, was not discovered in the Bible, nor in nature or conscience. It was a convergence of group interests and an ideological appropriation. Even more, we could say it was a successful effort to maintain the dominance of White liberal categories and to reject any radical changes to the status quo. The rejection of race-consciousness, therefore, is a recent historical development—not an eternal verity—and it exists to dull the radical edges of the Civil Rights Movement.
In our next post, we will continue to explore the misalignment of frames leading to CRT, particularly the interpretation of civil rights offered by the “New Left” and the “New Right” in the 1980’s.
Further Reading for Part 5
“Race Cosciousness,” by Gary Peller
“Race Liberalism and the Radicalization of Liberal Reform,” by Kimberlé Crenshaw
“Liberal McCarthyism and the Origins of Critical Race Theory,” by Richard Delgado
Black Power : The Politics of Liberation, by Charles Hamilton and Stokely Carmichael