We Were Eight Years in Power: An American Tragedy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лип 2024
- Live from the National Museum of African American History and Culture, Michele Norris, founder of The Race Card Project, interviews Ta-Nehisi Coates, Author of We Were Eight Years in Power: An American Tragedy.
One of the greatest works I've read to date. Peace to the brother.
I’m definitely buying your audio book. My entire perspective of race in America is starting to change!
Jesse Girl congratulations ,better late than never
What was it before?
loser
Such a brilliant person.
Intelligent and down to earth. ❤🎉 Love it
Great book.
I watched Birth of a Nation early this morning.
Maybe an old production but still a very important position to hear
16:45-19:46 Being referred to as Boys rather than Men warranting the "I am a Man" posters seen in protest. Would becoming a soldier mean that you would embody or finally be acknowledged as a man?
Marsha Creary Black Soldiers weren’t even given the Respect They wished for
When they volunteered in Putting their Black Bodies On the line. It was miserable to find out how many were passed over for the medals they deserved in fighting for an ungrateful nation! Think That Over!!
They all need to thank KIRK FLOOD
America is a representative republic - and this is by design. There are pros and cons for this structure. But what the US of A cannot claim is that they practice democracy... and many countries in the world also don't have democracy.
The representative republic is design for the elite and mostly white people to make the rules for the working class and middle class (which is shrinking every year). But the rules more often than not, benefit the ruling class and are designed for the rich to siphon money from the poor into the bank accounts of the rich.
We are falsely educated that the constitution of the US of A is designed to allow people to be free... it was written so that landowners and the elites could be liberated from the Monarchy. That is why there are so many amendments... because the first document needed improvement... and if we do the analysis - the high court stating the corporations are people - means that corporations now, can exercise great influence on the "people's" representatives. The Representative Republic is now - representative of the corporations and not of the people.
That is the sad truth of the state of politics in the US of A. And do you think corporations are in favor of equality and getting rid of racism?
Stephen Cotton though I don’t agree with you as USA claims to be the greatest democracy but hypothetically assuming you are right, shouldn’t USA strive to be a better democracy, justifying the flaws of American and saying it can’t be improved is just the argument pseudo intellectuals and deplorables make
You, unfortunately, do not have a clear understanding of that which you speak. Race litterally has nothing to do with it. Our system was set up for the people, the poor, rich and in-between. Pure democracy is mob rule and dangerous popularity contest more akin to a highschool of teenagers than a form of functioning government. Our democratic republic focuses on all personal freedoms being of utmost importance so far as to not infringe upon any others freedom. All are equal. All have the full freedom. As for race... the only ones concerned with race are the racists.
Connie, the United States did not allow poor people to vote when it first began. The US also didn’t allow Black people, Native Indians, or women to vote. The notion of a few ruling over the many has its merits, but the history of the US is not an ethical implementation of a republic. And I judge ethics based on the moral teachings of The Bible, a text both known and supported in 1777.
@@conniecoates3311 bs. bob.
"We" were in power? Who is "We"?
These people have brain damage. They think that skin color defines a person. They are racists.
We must all look at everything thru the prism of race. And if you are a white male, fuck off.
anonwoohoo White people made up the notion of "whiteness". If you don't know that, you aren't on the same intellect level to question the speaker.
I am going to include the following excerpt because it's literally in the first page of the book. As he says in the talk, as his interviewer says in the talk, it's a quote and the Introduction of his book explains it pretty well.
In 1895, two decades after his state moved from the egalitarian innovations of Reconstruction to an oppressive "Redemption," South Carolina congressman Thomas Miller appealed to the state's constitutional convention:
"We were eight years in power. We had built schoolhouses, established charitable institutions, built and maintained the penitentiary system, provided for the education of the deaf and dumb, rebuilt the ferries. In short, we had reconstructed the State and placed it upon the road to prosperity."
By the 1890s, Reconstruction had been painted as a fundamentally corrupt era of "Negro Rule." It was said that South Carolina stood under the threat of being "Africanized" and dragged into barbarism and iniquity. Miller hoped that by highlighting black achievement in governance and marshaling a credible defense of black morality, he might convince the doubtlessly fair-minded people of South Carolina to preserve the citizenship rights of African Americans. His plea went unheeded. The 1895 constitution added both literacy tests and property requirements as qualifications for enfranchisement. When those measures proved insufficient to enforcing white supremacy, black citizens were shot, tortured, beaten, and maimed.
Assessing Miller's rebuttal and the 1895 convention, W.E.B. Du Bois made a sobering observation. From Du Bois's perspective, the 1895 constitutional convention was not an exercise in moral reform, or an effort to purge the state of corruption. This was simply cover for the convention's true aim--the restoration of a despotic white supremacy. The problem was not that South Carolina's Reconstruction-era government had been consumed by unprecedented graft. Indeed, it was the exact opposite. The very successes Miller highlighted, the actual record of Reconstruction in South Carolina, undermined white supremacy. To redeem white supremacy, that record was twisted, mocked, and caricatured into something that better resembled the prejudices of white South Carolina. "If there was one thing that South Carolina feared more than bad Negro government," wrote Du Bois, "it was good Negro government."
I appreciate you taking the time, hopefully beyond the cliff notes?