Coates & King

If King and Coates sat down for a debate regarding the role of anger, extremism, and violence in social justice movements, I believe they would have very different opinions. Coates’s article discusses the death of Freddie Gray. A black man who’s spine was severely severed due to police brutality. He mysteriously died a week later. Coates expresses how unfair it is for those who abuse authority to demand nonviolence when they themselves have disobeyed the laws that they so much enforce. Coates and King obviously disagree about the appropriate way to protest. Coates argues, “When nonviolence is preached as an attempt to evade the repercussions of political brutality, it betrays itself” (Coates). In the debate I believe Coates would argue that violence is necessary when there is an abuse of power. I think he believes that justice can’t be served with nonviolent protests. Coates would most likely argue that anger is the best way to achieve social justice. On the other hand, King is a strong advocate for nonviolent protests. King explains, “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored” (King). I think the two would agree that freedom, or justice, is never easily given. King states, “We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed” (King). Coates knows that no progress will be made without standing up for ones rights. I think although they would disagree on the means of protest or achieving justice, they would agree on the attitude involved which is that it must be demanded. I also believe they would agree on King’s definition of just and unjust laws. Coates and King both feel betrayed by the police violating basic human rights. If I joined the conversation I would share my opinion on the subject. I believe King’s “Letter from Birmingham jail” to be beautifully written with the exact approach that should be taken in regard to social injustice. I do not believe that violence should be stopped with more violence.

Calling for Change

In the letter, " Letter from Birmingham Jail," written Black rights activist, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., he speaks about the importance of staying calm in the call for attention upon the injustice present in the city. In the second text, "Nonviolence as Compliance," by fellow Birmingham resident, Ta-Nehisi Coates, the author explains the difficulty of remaining "calm," as advised by city officials, when their has been violent repeated, unpunished injustice in the city.
If the two author were to be in a debate on the matter, there would be a clear disagreement on the approach of the crisis, but the same goal would be set in mind. It is clear to the readers that the two authors have grown impatient, and demand an urgent change. However, Coates seems to be the most angry. Even as King sits in jails for acting with a nonviolent response, he still advises and intends to act in such a way. Reasonably, Coates has grown disgusted with such violence coming from the part of police officers in the city. From under age children to Senior citizens, there has been a violent act that injured or killed an innocent individual. As Coates would argue with King that the time has come to give back what has been dissed out, King would argue that remaining calm would enforce his idea of "direct action." This would give the protesters the upper hand in the ongoing debate of better rights for the minority groups.
Personally, King would have the right idea, since acting out violently would prove officials right. If protest was done in the right way, that would show the upper hand, and ability to come to some sort of agreement. In addition, acting out violently would just result in more injures and deaths, which should be avoided as much as possible.

King V. Coates

            I feel like Coates and King would agree that about the whole just and unjust laws theory. They both kind of explain how just because it’s a law doesn’t means its morally right. Honestly, other than that, it is hard for me to come about another point that they would agree on. I feel that the two have to very separate opinions, Coates would say something along the lines of, “That you should not be allowed to prevent violence behavior on a crime that involved violence for absolutely no reason.” That might actually be exactly what he said, if not, close. He would argue that if the community is to receive “hollow law and failed order” that the community should be able to do the same. Kind of like… if they wanna fight dirty, so will we. King would respond with something like, “You don’t fight fire with fire Coates, that’ll only worsen things.” I almost feel like Martin Luther kind of had a more mature feel to how he wanted things to be solved. That might sound a little weird, but he believed that morality was most important in this situation and that violence would only show our government that we are, in a way, disobedient. He explains, “Oppressed people can not remain oppressed forever”.

            If I were to sit down with the two and be able to discuss the situation, I think I would try and discuss their view on a “fix” to this disrespect and discrimination. Because (unlike Carson) I believe that there are possible ways to, in a way, resolve racism. I believe that in order to enlighten our futures/future relationships with others, we must not continue to bring up the past; you can’t expect thing to physically and mentally change if all you are constantly stuck on how things use to be instead of on how things should morally be now. No there isn’t something that the government can forcedly do about the attitudes of their people, but because it has been such a problem in America for so long, you’d think people are ready for a damn change.

King vs. Coates

I believe if Coates and King began to discuss their very different opinions on whether or not violence is the right choice to solve political and social issues they would both be very frustrated with each other. I think Dr. King would tell Coates that by being violent people just reinforce the stereotypes and stigmas politicians and police have for certain racial and economic demographics. He would tell Coates that if he wants anything to change they need to first show that they can be peaceful about their protest. I believe Coates would come right back and tell him that if people stopped showing violence in protests just because the people in power tell them they should then they’re telling those people that they’re right in their actions and that they can do whatever they want because everyone will just stop when they’re told to. I think both authors are educated but they’re both from such different times. While discrimination is still an issue I think the types of discrimination have vastly shifted (not saying their worse or better, just different). If I could sit down and talk to them both I would tell them that neither of them are right, and neither of them are wrong this world isn’t black and white, or yes and no The way to deal with injustice isn’t one way or the other. There is nothing that will just “solve” the issue of discrimination or police brutality. Peaceful protests can project a lack of passion and an admission or correctness of political leaders. While violent protest can create a world of correctness in the leader’s minds because “how can we expect them to comply when pulled over if they can’t even protest peacefully. Sadly, I’d tell them that either way they’re playing into the hands of those who have power, but that doesn’t mean they should stop what they’re doing. I would tell them that at some point if they keep compromising with each others methods of protest they might find “the golden ticket” of protesting that can’t be undermined by politicians or police men.

Obama/Ally

Barack Obama’s speech is full of emotions and greatly displays how different emotions, of varying scales, can complement each other in a speech. Obama does start with a patriot tone to capture the audience’s attention. Who doesn’t like to get behind the “Merica” bandwagon? As he talks about the signing of the Constitution, he mentions slavery and that sets the tone for next couple of pages that a serious and uncomfortable issue is about to be discussed. With this uneasy topic on the audience’s mind. Obama can freely talk about the racial disparities in his life, such as Reverend Wright. Obama begins talking about Reverend Wright as the man who used “incendiary language” to make comments that could potentially widen the racial inequality gap. The emotions he uses transition from slight disappointment in the Reverend to that of respect of the man who helped Obama find his way in this world. He uses similar emotional transitions as he talks about what is wrong with the country in regards to racial divides in society to make the audience sympathize with those affected. He, then, moves to get the audience “pumped” by intelligently transitioning to how we can better change society if we acknowledge what is wrong and try to change the wrongs by working together as one cohesive unit.

            In “Ally’s Choice,” The emotions that are triggered are mainly that of anger, shame, and compassion with hints of frustration. The anger is introduced after the tone is set up with the background of the town’s demographics and the story of Ally’s and Charlotta’s school experiences. The shame and frustration started during the telling of the high school experiences where Ally felt ashamed of being referred to as black, due to the harassment she faced, when she was “really cream…lots of cream” colored. The frustration was displayed in a clear fashion when Ally spoke about having to explain that she was not black or Negro and when Ally disowned Charlotta in front of Ally’s friends. The compassion comes about when Clarice, Charlotta and Ally say that they still love each other even if they have differing views regarding their racial identities. 

Ally's Choice/ Barack Obama speech

Commenter: There were no blogs to comment under 

Barack Obama’s race speech at the Constitution Center starts off with “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union”. This famous start of the Preamble to the Constitution sets the tone to be very patriotic, prideful, and serious. He later changes emotions and uses phrases like “racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe”. As he gets deeper into his ethnicity background he starts to get angry and passionate. He goes on to be outraged because “those are his people”. He feels emotional because he is apart of the stereotypes he’s describing. 

Ally’s choice podcast is about Ally following the Barack Obama campaign and her experience while doing so. Ally finds a woman named Clarice that looks white but will go out of her way to prove she is negro. He daughter on the other hand says she's white. This creates aggravation in her Mother Clarice. She wants her to be proud of being negro. Ally sets the tone of curiosity as she gives history on Clarice’s home town. Even though Clarice is only 1/16th black, she still considers herself as a negro because that’s what she was told when she was growing up. The emotions change to hatred because Clarice’s daughter talks about being bullied for being black in front of everyone while the teacher didn't do anything. She was so ashamed of being negro that she changed her life before the beginning of high school started. She disowned her own sister because she was so ashamed of being “dirty”. 

White Privilege, Yo

I think it was personally important for her to create an inventory of unearned privileges she received as a white person because she wants to identify these things and work on “working on” herself. Making this list helped her realize how privileged she is and how much other aren’t. McIntosh expresses her concern for white privilege by stating, “In proportion as my racial group was being made confident, comfortable, and oblivious, other groups were likely being made unconfident, uncomfortable, and alienated” (McIntosh 85). McIntosh also explains how men may say they are for improving women’s rights but they will not admit to being over privileged. She explains the phenomena of not acknowledging the advantages they receive from the disadvantages of women. McIntosh later relates this back to white privilege and expresses how the problem is denial or even obliviousness. She explains how obliviousness is deeply rooted into the culture of the citizens of the United States. We wish to be democratic and present equal opportunity but with white privilege, this cannot happen. I think McIntosh created her inventory of unearned privileges to in turn encourage others to do the same. In her conclusion she states that it may take decades to for systematic change to occur but it starts by raising ones daily consciousness as she did.