Class Eight:
Late 1968-1969: Moon Landing, Woodstock, Nixon’s “Silent Majority”
Frankly, as a white person, I have a tough time listening to the rage and the four-letter words coming out of some of these black radicals’ mouths. But, these are important voices to listen to, even if you just take a sample of each of them. Their rage, in most respects, was more than justified. Even though important legislation had been passed in the 60s, thanks largely to the nonviolent demonstrations for civil rights and voting rights, there was no such thing as equality or social justice. America was—and still is in many respects—the racist society that the Kerner Commission Report labeled it in 1968.
I also realize that you can’t lump all these voices into one group. There are definitely nuances in what they say and why they say it. Yet, in the 60s, I am not sure we really took the time to hear what each was saying. Our judgments were quick and very superficial. Now is the time to be more discerning.
These men must have felt that they were picking up the lance that was dropped by the fallen Malcolm X. They have some of his humor and use some of his words to preach an updated version of Black Nationalism and call for Black Power. Like Malcolm, they want black people to have pride in themselves, and to unite and take charge of their destinies. But in the case of Carmichael and Brown, it’s a much more adversarial approach. They are calling for revolution. And, in my eyes at least, they lack his charisma. Their voices are strident, their language course, and that rage was scary.
For Cleaver and Hampton, the message is more inclusive. The former is running for president; the latter, heading up a coalition of white people, Black people, and Latinos.
Fred Hampton: Deputy Chairman and spokesperson of the Illinois Black Panther Party. Also, a leader of the “Rainbow Coalition”—a multi-racial group trying to help communities in Chicago. It’s this latter role that makes him so important to study. The fact that he can help unify poor whites from the South, gang members from Puerto Rico, and Black Panthers is amazing to me. These are natural adversaries, yet they realized that their real enemy was the “system”—in the guise of Mayor Richard Daley—that relegated them to the ghettos they lived in. They wanted better treatment of their people and understood that they were stronger together than apart. The mayor and the police and the Federal government realized that as well and feared the coalition. And violently put them down. Hampton was killed by police when they raided his apartment on December 4, 1969.
Eldredge Cleaver: Author of Soul on Ice and the well-known phrase, “If you’re not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.” Like Malcolm X, a self-educated man. Also, like Malcolm, an ex-con. A spokesperson for Black Panthers who flees to Cuba and then Algeria and other nations to avoid arrest after a shootout with police. Comes back to the States and, on a plea deal, gets community service instead of additional jail time. He becomes a born-again Christian in a “Road to Damascus” type conversion. Later he’s an entrepreneur (purveyor of pants), a drug addict, and a dealer, and eventually completes his circuitous, political journey as a conservative Republican. Even a supporter of his former nemesis, Ronald Reagan.
Stokely Carmichael: Replaced John Lewis as head of the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). Very involved in the South for civil rights and voting rights with King and others, but ultimately breaks with King and starts espousing Black Power. A leader in the Black Panthers who eventually breaks with the militant group to emigrate to Guinea and changes his name to Kwame Ture.
H. Rap Brown: In high school, he advocated for voting rights and later volunteered during the “Freedom Summer” voter registration drive in Mississippi. He directed the voter registration drive in Alabama and followed Carmichael as SNCC chairman. Arrested for robbery, sent to Attica Prison, and converted to Islam. After release, became a spiritual leader in Atlanta, but was later charged and sentenced to a life sentence in prison for shooting two deputy sheriffs.
Background Programs and Videos
Fred Hampton 50th Anniversary News Coverage 2019
PBS Independent Lens Documentary on the First Rainbow Coalition excerpt: WATCH (00:02:20)
MSU archive footage and a good overview of Vietnam protest activity: RESOURCES
November 15, 1969 Moratorium against the war in Vietnam: WATCH (00:01:44)
Curtis Austin TEDx Talk on Black Panthers 2016 (Note: interesting perspective)
PBS American Experience on Stonewall Riots 1969
Documentary on 60s Counter Culture (Hippies, Drugs, Summer of Love, etc.)
Woodstock: Three Days That Defined a Generation
Speeches
Excerpts of H. Rap Brown and Stokely Carmichael Speeches in Oakland 1968
The occasion seems to be a rally in support of the Black Panther founder, Huey P. Newton. Both praise Huey Newton who is in jail and both say particularly provocative things about white people. Carmichael looks as if he has notes because he occasionally looks down as if he is referring to them. Brown, on the other hand, just talks. There doesn’t seem to be any script. Neither man is a preacher. There isn’t the smooth and elevating rhetoric of a Dr. King or the humor and the cadence of a Malcolm X, but rather a strident, repetitious urging for revolution and a call for Black Power. At the same time, both are very witty and dynamic speakers.
Brown calls for revolution and asks the provocative question: “How many whites have you killed today?” which gets an interesting, almost awkward response from the audience. Perhaps, not knowing whether he was serious or not. Like Malcolm X, he can get away with calling the audience “chumps” if they believe that their fate and their freedom depend on whites. Also, like Malcolm, he seeks to rid them of any illusion that the Democrats are any different than the Dixiecrats. And he quotes Che Guevara: “There are only two ways to leave the battlefield, victorious or dead.” He says that since Black people didn’t make the laws in this country, they are neither morally nor legally constrained by those laws.
Carmichael preaches solidarity. First and foremost, he tells them is, “developing an undying love for our people”. The only enemy is the honky and his institutions of racism. He says that this is a battle for survival. That the Black race won’t survive if everyone doesn’t come together. His mantra: Black Power. And his main way of getting his points across is by repeating them.
He does a good job of convincing this audience that they can’t trust white people because of their history of treating other people–Native Americans, South Americans, and even the Japanese since they were the only people to have the atomic bomb dropped on them. White men have a history of killing, conquering, and ruling.
Taken literally, they seemed to be calling for an armed revolution against white people. It’s no wonder these men were feared and targeted by governments and law enforcement agencies.
Interesting to note that despite how enraged both men appear to be in their talks, there was a lot of laughter and camaraderie on the stage before they each got up to talk. That kind of contradiction between how the speakers appear before the talks and during the actual speech can create a credibility problem for them. I am not sure it mattered in this venue, but it’s important to remember that the speaker is always “on” and being judged as long as he or she is in view and/or the microphone is on.
Eldridge Cleaver UCLA speech 1968 (audio only)
A lengthy, unscripted rant from the former convict and Peace and Freedom Party candidate for president. Perhaps this was his “stump” speech.
He confronts the Governor again and again. He talks about his time in prison and his book. His anger is not directed against white people per se, but rather directed at the “Pigs—the greedy businessmen, the demagogic politicians, and their law enforcement agencies.” It’s the oppressed against the oppressors.
Unlike Brown and Carmichael, he has a concern about everyone—who isn’t a Pig—and not just Black people. He’s not just about Black Power, but about all people having power. He has a good sense of what’s happening, not just in this country, but also in the world, including the destruction of the planet.
The man is intelligent. And he’s aware. He knows about Eisenhower’s “Military Industrial Complex”. He takes it one step further. He says it should be called the “Police Military Industrial Complex” since the police are perhaps the most disciplined and best-organized force of all.
When the speech is finally over and the student host says there was going to be a question-and-answer period, I was dumbfounded. How could anyone have anything to add or to ask after listening to him for so long? As someone said in class, 20 minutes is plenty of time to speak.
I am also amazed by how UCLA (students at least) over the years were so open to all voices—especially the outraged Black radicals during the 60s. They were willing to face the ire of the administration and the State’s Board of Regents, if necessary, to get them in to speak. Or even teach. Carmichael spoke in 1967, Cleaver in 1968, and Angela Davis in 1969.
Fred Hampton speech excerpts 1969(?)
Fred Hampton’s “People’s Trial” Statement 1969
Fred Hampton Interview 1969
Although young—twenty-one—Hampton was known for his speaking skills. You get a good sense of them in these clips. If I was his public speaking teacher, I would have him slow down a bit, but I certainly wouldn’t want him to do anything that would rein in that passion that he has. That’s his power.
What strikes me most about what he’s saying is that he is inclusive rather than exclusive. He says that “we will work with anyone who has revolution on their mind” and you see white people in the audience. Also, he makes it very clear that everything they are doing is for the people. And that they get their power from the people and aren’t better than the people. And while he’s espousing revolution, he’s getting volunteers to join him in feeding and caring for those who need it. There’s humanity and a certain humility in him that I don’t get from most of his contemporaries. Unlike Brown and Carmichael and Cleaver, his call for revolution seems less threatening to my ears. Perhaps this “softer touch” and his profession of love, not hate are what scared law enforcement so much. He might attract more followers and, therefore, represent more danger than some of the more extreme activists. He could appeal to a larger audience with a call for “All Power to All People” versus just Black Power.
I loved his allusion to MLK when he says, “it’s nice to be on the mountaintop, but we’re going back to the valley.”
People’s Trial speech—I don’t know the history of this excerpt, but it certainly makes it very clear that the Black Panther organization that he heads is much more against capitalism than it is in fomenting violence against white people. Again and again, he espouses socialism and the need for all oppressed people to get together to counter exploitation.
The interview on the street with the white TV reporter is telling. He seems to want one thing: to get Fred to admit that there’s a connection between the extremists like the Weatherman and the Black Panthers. When the reporter doesn’t get the answers he wants in the first take, he starts the interview all over again. And when Fred starts saying some of the same things, he stops him and says he doesn’t want to hear that again. What a pompous ass. Note that Fred remains calm and composed and sticks to his message. In his patience and his respectful listening under the pressure of an arrogant inquisitor, he reminds me of Malcolm X and JFK.
Another take on him is when he’s part of a press conference about Bobby Seale. He reads a very formal, very stilted statement challenging the media to step up and report on what’s going on in Judge “Adolph Hitler” Hoffman’s courtroom. He also proposes that the charges be dropped against the defendants in the Chicago Seven (originally eight with Seale) Trial as a means of freeing US POWs in North Vietnam.
Hampton is very reasonable and articulate when he answers questions from a reporter. Note, that the much less visible, but nonetheless influential civil rights leader, C.T. Vance, is also in the press conference. What an impressive speaker he was.
Moon Landing and Armstrong’s Historic Words 1969
The astronaut’s words compile the shortest speech in the course. But who can forget what Neil Armstrong said as he steps out on the lunar surface? “One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind?” In a decade full of tragedy and tumult, perhaps the most joyous and proudest moment for the nation and the world. The speech was perfect for the occasion.
President Nixon’s “Silent Majority” Speech on Vietnam Policy November 1969: WATCH
It’s a bit ironic that the last speech we look at in the course is by the vice president of the man whose important farewell message is discussed in the first class. Nixon wrote this speech. According to an article that appeared the following day in The New York Times, it took 10 drafts. But it was vintage Nixon. Compare it with his “Checkers” speech which he undoubtedly wrote himself as well. Same basic structure—answering a series of rhetorical questions and providing the necessary evidence to support his claims; sharing the “truth”; doing something “unprecedented”, etc.
For more on Richard Nixon’s Checkers Speech, visit my thoughts on Persuasion.
As we’ve seen, a good speech anticipates and answers the questions the speaker knows are on the audience’s mind. And Nixon was a master at this. The questions he lists help provide a framework for the argument that he wants to make. But before he even begins, he wants everyone to be on the same page so he reviews his version of the history of the war and what he inherited when he took office.
As in his successful Checkers speech, the good lawyer that Nixon is puts forth the easy solution first. In this case, ending the war once he took office. But he chooses the more difficult, less politically popular course of action. That gives him an emotional edge, making him appear to be someone who has the courage to make the hard choices, is putting the nation and its people first over and above politics, and willing to take the hit to his popularity.
He also reframes the issue. The major question is not whether some are for peace and others against it, not who’s war this is (Nixon’s or Johnson’s) but “How do we win America’s peace?” He’s a master at phrase-making. In his March 31, 1968 speech, we heard Johnson talk about the many things that he’d done to try to get the North Vietnamese to the peace table. But Nixon just puts himself above all that and makes it look like he’s the one initiating an “American peace” (whatever that means). It’s ironic that he talks about peace, but the war will go on and another 27,000 Americans will die on his watch before the war ends. Not to mention invading Cambodia.
Nixon continues to adhere to the Washington mantra that we can’t leave Vietnam without causing undue hardship to the Vietnamese and a collapse of Southeast Asia. He gains credibility in this by quoting his former opponent, JFK. And also alluding to Eisenhower and Johnson. With so many presidents on both sides of the political spectrum believing this, it must be true.
He says this eloquently: “A nation cannot remain great if it betrays its allies and lets down its friends.” And notice the way he says this. It’s very convincing. Also, note how these words fit him, his style, and his natural cadence. He’s the got the best speechwriter: himself.
If Johnson was the consummate persuader when he was face-to-face with people and could twist their arms or get in their face, Nixon could do it with his words. He basically convinces you that the only alternative is the one that he has selected. But he gets there by going through those other alternatives and helping you to see that they are either so easy to be unseemly or too dire to risk.
(Note the drips of sweat that occasionally come down his face, from beside his nose, which he wipes away on several occasions. I had never noticed this before. I wonder what a master interrogator would say about his credibility. Then again, Nixon was known to sweat heavily.)
In this speech, the president is speaking to different audiences over the course of the speech, but most importantly, solidifying his relationship and common ties with those whom he calls, the “Silent Majority”. He’s calling for unity, but in reality, only widening the gulf between the young and the old, the working class and the college-educated. As the shrewd lawyer he was, he knows what he is doing. He’s confident and in command. Playing the patriotism tune. And it worked. He achieved his highest approval rating that November—67%. He would win his second term in a landslide victory despite the illegal Cambodian incursion and the brutal response to peaceful protests at Kent State and elsewhere.
Like the Checkers speech, Nixon isn’t trying to convert any Democrats to his point of view; he is appealing to patriotic and older independents who might still be on the fence about him while reinvigorating his base with his argument. His blatant fear-mongering and divisiveness remind me a lot of Trump.
There are many “quotable quotes” as speechwriters call those lines that sound so good they get picked up by the media after the speech. Among them—
“Instead of war on many fronts, I initiated a pursuit of peace on many fronts.”
“(his choice) is not the easy way; it is the right way.”
“North Vietnam cannot defeat or humiliate the United States…only Americans can do that”
And his concluding rhythmic triad:
“…in accordance with your hopes,
mindful of your concerns,
sustained by your prayers.”
Even though he stumbles over Woodrow Wilson’s name, his conclusion is still extremely effective.
I am no Nixon fan. But I have to admit that he is probably one of the most effective speakers when it comes to trying to persuade an audience that he is speaking the truth and doing the right thing for the country. I assume that he believed what he was doing and saying. In my opinion, he, not Reagan, was the “Great Communicator”. But he was also a master manipulator…and a liar.
In Conclusion
It has been a wild ride, this journey through the 60s. We saw again the tragedy and the triumph, the successes in human rights, the coming together of a nation in mourning, and later in appreciation and pride in landing men on the moon. But we also saw it falling apart over Vietnam. Some of us might feel relief at not having to go through that again. Others might pine for what now seems like simpler times—when the enemy was known and some progress was made and things seemed possible. Compared to what now feels like bottomless chasms of political division and a dearth of spans to cross them, the 60s look hopeful. Especially after the recent Supreme Court decisions.
But maybe that’s an even better reason for studying the 60s anew. We can still learn lessons from them that might help heal the nation today.
May 31, 2022
Buck Benedict 