But who does not know of literature banned because it is interrogative; discredited because it is critical; erased because alternate? And how many are outraged by the thought of a self-ravaged tongue?
For language to truly live, there must be no restrictions put on it. When restrictions are placed on language because it makes people uncomfortable or does not uphold the status quo, it is slowly being killed.
“Finally”, she says, “I trust you now. I trust you with the bird that is not in your hands because you have truly caught it. Look. How lovely it is, this thing we have done – together.”
With the knowledge the children receive from the old woman, they learn to understand life in a sense and the power of language. From the knowledge they receive, they catch the bird that was never in their hands.
That silence is deep, deeper than the meaning available in the words she has spoken.
Perhaps the silence says the children must define language for themselves and write it.
A straightforward question worthy of the attention of a wise one. An old one. And if the old and wise who have lived life and faced death cannot describe either, who can?
The old lady perhaps wants them to discover it for themselves. To tell them without them having experienced it would be futile.
Language can never “pin down” slavery, genocide, war.
Although language is very powerful, it only alone cannot contain the horrors of slavery, war or the genocide. The horrors of such events are forever living even when not spoken about.
there will be more of the language of surveillance disguised as research; of politics and history calculated to render the suffering of millions mute
Governments can use language to silence the people. Language disguised as research for instance takes place in poor countries where vaccines are delivered only to end in the disabling of the people and even death. Developed countries use their resources to spy on other countries in order to gain leverage or control over them.
Underneath the eloquence, the glamor, the scholarly associations, however stirring or seductive, the heart of such language is languishing, or perhaps not beating at all – if the bird is already dead.
If we fail to use language the right way, despite the appearance of "eloquence, the glamor, [and] the scholarly associations," language is dying.
For parading their power and her helplessness, the young visitors are reprimanded, told they are responsible not only for the act of mockery but also for the small bundle of life sacrificed to achieve its aims. The blind woman shifts attention away from assertions of power to the instrument through which that power is exercised.
The old woman makes the children realize that in their attempt to mock her, they have wasted a life (if they killed it) and they only are responsible.
“nationally acceptable message” was that white people would choose when to grant a little freedom to benighted black people.
Wow, so the idea of black people fighting back for their rights annoyed the nation so much that they could only accept it if they chose when to show a little mercy.
Worthy black people receive it gratefully.
This statement makes me cringe. Where in the declaration of independence did it state that man must be worthy before treated equal?
Americans can believe that our nation has now transcended racism,”
It's 2020 and this statement is still false. It's perplexing to see that a nation so old and physically developed is still plagued with racial inequality.
“an exemplar of citizenship and responsibility—success, mobility, hard work, sacrifice, individualism.” This was the only person who was, according to the media scholar Aniko Bodroghkozy, “the worthy beneficiary of the civil-rights movement.”
A person deserves racial equality simple because that person is human first and foremost before anything else not because they are a model citizen.
Black people being dragged in the streets. Black people being hit by police fire hoses. Black people chased by white men on horseback. Martin Luther King Jr. saying, “I have a dream.” Black people pulled from lunch counters. Black people walking bravely through mobs of screaming white people.
These are some of the main images of the civil rights I have in my head.
“The capacity to see themselves—both figuratively and literally—as political actors was something long denied black activists in the South, where local papers generally refused to cover black protest,”
That is so powerful. Finally, black activists had been some screen time.
The reporters out in the field also became subject to violence by the same forces that were attacking civil-rights demonstrators.
One would think the reporters would be excluded since they were white too but this only goes to show how deeply rooted their racism was to attack anyone trying to expose their evil.
For southern segregationists, the violence was a way to keep the status quo, the white-supremacist order.
oh wow, not only was all the evil they had done enough but to be able to hold on to their power, they engaged in more violent attacks against black people. This makes me really wonder if they even knew what a conscience is.
This precipitated an armed showdown between different parts of the government, eventually forcing President Dwight Eisenhower to send in federal troops to secure the students’ rights.
This just reinforces how truly divided and broken America was; that federal troops had to be sent in just so nine black children could go to a white school.
They knew that the country had never taken black people’s word for the horrors that they had endured
For those who didn't believe the horrors that black people had suffered through, in their minds it was an exaggerated account of details but with the help of the television, they would get to see with their own eyes a portion of the horrors rendered on black people.
It was not only backward white folks in Selma who saw racial hierarchy as a key component of American culture.
Black people who moved from the south in search for a better life in the west and north did not find it any better there as what they were met with was a reflection of the prison they thought they had just escaped. It was there they realized that the "American culture" was plagued in the "virulence of its white supremacy" not only in the south but in the north as well.
By 1966, 63 percent of the country had a negative view of King, according to Gallup polling at the time
Of course the majority of the nation would have a negative view on him considering he had upset the status quo albeit peacefully. It's easy to dislike a person who shakes things up especially when you are the one who's been at peace the whole time. Although, King used peaceful methods in protesting, the majority of the country disliked him for trying to fix a broken system that was functioning well in their eyes.
Americans merely needed to see what was really going on and the country came to a moral reckoning
Although majority, if not all Americans knew of the racial discrimination against African Americans, it was easier to push the issue aside than confront it because it was not right in their faces. However, with the invention of the television and coverage on the civil rights movements, the issue was no longer avoidable. It was right in front of them, in the houses, and their conscience could only lead them to a "moral reckoning".