篇一：美国经典英文演讲100篇Black Power
美国经典英文演讲100篇:"Black Power"
Stokely Carmichael
Black Power
delivered October 1966, Berkeley, CA
[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio. (2)]
Thank you very much. It’s a privilege and an honor to be in the white intellectual ghetto of the West. We wanted to do a couple of things before we started. The first is that, based on the fact that SNCC, through the articulation of its program by its chairman, has been able to win elections in Georgia, Alabama, Maryland, and by our
appearance here will win an election in California, in 1968 I'm going to run for President of the United States. I just can't make it, 'cause I wasn't born in the United States. That's the only thing holding me back.
We wanted to say that this is a student conference, as it should be, held on a campus, and that we're not ever to be caught up in the intellectual masturbation of the question of Black Power. That’s a function of people who are advertisers that call themselves reporters. Oh, for my members and friends of the press, my self-appointed white critics, I was reading Mr. Bernard Shaw two days ago, and I came across a very important quote which I think is most apropos for you. He says, "All criticism is a[n] autobiography." Dig yourself. Okay. The philosophers Camus and Sartre raise the question whether or not a man can condemn himself. The black existentialist philosopher who is pragmatic, Frantz Fanon, answered the question. He said that man could not. Camus and Sartre was not. We in SNCC tend to agree with
Camus and Sartre, that a man cannot condemn himself.1 Were he to condemn himself, he would then have to inflict punishment upon himself. An example would be the Nazis. Any prisoner who -- any of the Nazi prisoners who admitted, after he was caught and
incarcerated, that he committed crimes, that he killed all the many people that he killed, he committed suicide. The only ones who were able to stay alive were the ones who never admitted that they committed a crimes [sic] against people -- that is, the ones who rationalized that Jews were not human beings and deserved to be killed, or that they were only following orders.
On a more immediate scene, the officials and the population -- the white population -- in Neshoba County, Mississippi -- that’s where Philadelphia is -- could not -- could not condemn [Sheriff] Rainey, his deputies, and the other fourteen men that killed three human beings. They could not because they elected Mr. Rainey to do precisely what he did; and that for them to condemn him will be for them to condemn themselves.
In a much larger view, SNCC says that white America cannot condemn herself. And since we are liberal, we have done it: You stand
condemned. Now, a number of things that arises from that answer of how do you condemn yourselves. Seems to me that the institutions that function in this country are clearly racist, and that they're built upon racism. And the question, then, is how can black people inside of this country move? And then how can white people who say they’re not a part of those institutions begin to move? And how then do we begin to clear away the obstacles that we have in this society, that make us live like human beings? How can we begin to build institutions that will allow people to relate with each other as human beings? This country has never done that, especially around the country of white or black.
Now, several people have been upset because we’ve said that
integration was irrelevant when initiated by blacks, and that in fact it was a subterfuge, an insidious subterfuge, for the maintenance of white supremacy. Now we maintain that in the past six years or so, this country has been feeding us a "thalidomide drug of integration," and that some negroes have been walking down a dream street
talking about sitting next to white people; and that that does not begin to solve the problem; that when we went to Mississippi we did not go to sit next to Ross Barnett2; we did not go to sit next to Jim Clark3; we went to get them out of our way; and that people ought to understand that; that we were never fighting for the right to integrate, we were fighting against white supremacy.
Now, then, in order to understand white supremacy we must dismiss the fallacious notion that white people can give anybody their freedom. No man can give anybody his freedom. A man is born free. You may enslave a man after he is born free, and that is in fact what this
country does. It enslaves black people after they’re born, so that the only acts that white people can do is to stop denying black people their freedom; that is, they must stop denying freedom. They never give it to anyone.
Now we want to take that to its logical extension, so that we could understand, then, what its relevancy would be in terms of new civil rights bills. I maintain that every civil rights bill in this country was passed for white people, not for black people. For example, I am black. I know that. I also know that while I am black I am a human being, and therefore I have the right to go into any public place. White people didn't know that. Every time I tried to go into a place they stopped me. So some boys had to write a bill to tell that white man, "He’s a human being; don’t stop him." That bill was for that white man, not for me. I knew it all the time. I knew it all the time.
I knew that I could vote and that that wasn’t a privilege; it was my right. Every time I tried I was shot, killed or jailed, beaten or economically deprived. So somebody had to write a bill for white people to tell them, "When a black man comes to vote, don’t bother him." That bill, again, was for white people, not for black people; so that when you talk about open occupancy, I know I can live anyplace I want to live. It is white people across this country who are incapable of allowing me to live where I want to live. You need a civil rights bill, not me. I know I can live where I want to live.
So that the failures to pass a civil rights bill isn’t because of Black Power, isn't because of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating
Committee; it's not because of the rebellions that are occurring in the major cities. It is incapability of whites to deal with their own problems inside their own communities. That is the problem of the failure of the civil rights bill.
And so in a larger sense we must then ask, How is it that black people move? And what do we do? But the question in a greater sense is, How can white people who are the majority -- and who are responsible for making democracy work -- make it work? They have miserably failed to this point. They have never made democracy work, be it inside the United States, Vietnam, South Africa, Philippines, South America, Puerto Rico. Wherever American has been, she has not been able to make democracy work; so that in a larger sense, we not only condemn
the country for what it's done internally, but we must condemn it for what it does externally. We see this country trying to rule the world, and someone must stand up and start articulating that this country is not God, and cannot rule the world.
Now, then, before we move on we ought to develop the white supremacy attitudes that were either conscious or subconscious thought and how they run rampant through the society today. For example, the missionaries were sent to Africa. They went with the attitude that blacks were automatically inferior. As a matter of fact, the first act the missionaries did, you know, when they got to Africa was to make us cover up our bodies, because they said it got them excited. We couldn’t go bare-breasted any more because they got excited.
Now when the missionaries came to civilize us because we were uncivilized, educate us because we were uneducated, and give us some -- some literate studies because we were illiterate, they charged a price. The missionaries came with the Bible, and we had the land. When they left, they had the land, and we still have the Bible. And that has been the rationalization for Western civilization as it moves across the world and stealing and plundering and raping everybody in its path. Their one rationalization is that the rest of the world is uncivilized and they are in fact civilized. And they are un-civil-ized.
And that runs on today, you see, because what we have today is we have what we call "modern-day Peace Corps missionaries," and they come into our ghettos and they Head Start, Upward Lift, Bootstrap, and Upward Bound us into white society, 'cause they don’t want to face the real problem which is a man is poor for one reason and one reason only: 'cause he does not have money -- period. If you want to get rid of poverty, you give people money -- period.
And you ought not to tell me about people who don’t work, and you can’t give people money without working, 'cause if that were true, you’d have to start stopping Rockefeller, Bobby Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Lady Bird Johnson, the whole of Standard Oil, the Gulf Corp, all of them, including probably a large number of the Board of Trustees of this university. So the question, then, clearly, is not whether or not one can work; it’s Who has power? Who has power to make his or her acts legitimate? That is all. And that this country, that power is invested in the hands of white people, and they make their acts legitimate. It is now, therefore, for black people to make our acts legitimate.
Now we are now engaged in a psychological struggle in this country, and that is whether or not black people will have the right to use the words they want to use without white people giving their sanction to it; and that we maintain, whether they like it or not, we gonna use the word "Black Power" -- and let them address themselves to that; but that we are not going to wait for white people to sanction Black Power. We’re tired waiting; every time black people move in this country, they’re forced to defend their position before they move. It’s time that the people who are supposed to be defending their position do that. That's white people. They ought to start defending themselves as to why they have oppressed and exploited us.
Now it is clear that when this country started to move in terms of slavery, the reason for a man being picked as a slave was one reason -- because of the color of his skin. If one was black one was
automatically inferior, inhuman, and therefore fit for slavery; so that the question of whether or not we are individually suppressed is nonsensical, and it’s a dowight lie. We are oppressed as a group because we are black, not because we are lazy, not because we're apathetic, not because we’re stupid, not because we smell, not
because we eat watermelon and have good rhythm. We are oppressed because we are black.
And in order to get out of that oppression one must wield the group power that one has, not the individual power which this country then sets the criteria under which a man may come into it. That is what is called in this country as integration: "You do what I tell you to do and then we’ll let you sit at the table with us." And that we are saying that we have to be opposed to that. We must now set up criteria and that if there's going to be any integration, it's going to be a two-way thing. If you believe in integration, you can come live in Watts. You can send your children to the ghetto schools. Let’s talk about that. If you believe in integration, then we’re going to start adopting us some white people to live in our neighborhood.
So it is clear that the question is not one of integration or segregation. Integration is a man's ability to want to move in there by himself. If someone wants to live in a white neighborhood and he is black, that is his choice. It should be his rights. It is not because white people will not allow him. So vice versa: If a black man wants to live in the slums, that should be his right. Black people will let him. That is the difference. And it's a difference on which this country makes a number of logical mistakes when they begin to try to criticize the program articulated by SNCC.
篇二：美国经典英文演讲一百篇!练口语和演讲的好材料,值得收藏!!!
美国经典英文演讲一百篇！练口语和演讲的好材料，值得收藏！！！ 来源： 梁志埠的日志
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
·美国20世纪经典英语演讲100篇（MP3+文本） ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Farewell Address to Congress ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:1984 DNC Address ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:We Shall Overcome ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Shuttle’’Challenger’’Disaster Address ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Checkers ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Pearl Harbor Address to the Nation ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:I Have a Dream ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Civil Rights Address ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:A Time to Break Silence-Beyond Vietnam ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:1988 DNC Keynote Address ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Atoms for Peace ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:The Truman Doctrine ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:First Inaugural Address ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:The Great Arsenal of Democracy ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Acres of Diamonds ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:The Great Silent Majority ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Farewell Address ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Oklahoma Bombing Memorial Address ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:A Crisis of Confidence ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:1992 DNC Address ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:On Vietnam and Not Seeking Re-Election ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Cambodian Incursion Address ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Eulogy for Robert Francis Kennedy ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Black Power ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Chappaquiddick ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:40th Anniversary of D-Day Address ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Presidential Nomination Acceptance.. ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:The Marshall Plan ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:A Whisper of AIDS ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:1988 DNC Address(下) ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:I’ve Been to the Mountaintop ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Statement on the Articles of Impeachment ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:1984 DNC Keynote Address ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Houston Ministerial Association Speech ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:The Ballot or the Bullet ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:1976 DNC Keynote Address ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Inaugural Address ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Television News Coverage
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Against Imperialism ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:The Four Freedoms ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:American University Commencement Address ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:First Fireside Chat ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:The Evil Empire ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:A Time for Choosing ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Ich bin ein Berliner ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Duty, Honor, Country ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Remarks on the Assassination of MLKing ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Message to the Grassroots ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Address on Taking the Oath of Office ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Sproul Hall Sit-in Speech... ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:1980 DNC Address ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Statement to the Senate Judiciary... ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Television and the Public Interest ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Presidential Nomination ... ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Religious Belief and Public Morality ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Vice-Presidential Nomination... ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Truth and Tolerance in America ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:The Great Society ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:1988 DNC Address(上) ·美国经典英文演讲100篇:Brandenburg Gate Address
篇三：美国经典英文演讲100篇Sproul Hall Sit-in Speech
美国经典英文演讲100篇:Sproul Hall Sit-in Speech...
delivered 2 December 1964, The University of California at Berkeley
[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio]
You know, I just wanna say one brief thing about something the previous speaker said. I didn't wanna spend too much time on that 'cause I don't think it's important enough. But one thing is worth considering.
He's the -- He's the nominal head of an organization supposedly representative of the undergraduates. Whereas in fact under the current director it derives -- its authority is delegated power from the Administration. It's totally uepresentative of the graduate students and TAs.1
But he made the following statement (I quote): "I would ask all those who are not definitely committed to the FSM2 cause to stay away from demonstration." Alright, now listen to this: "For all upper division students who are interested in alleviating the TA shortage problem, I would encourage you to offer your services to Department Chairmen and Advisors." That has two things: A strike breaker and a fink. I'd like to say -- like to say one other thing about a union problem. Upstairs you may have noticed they're ready on the 2nd floor of Sproul Hall, Locals 40 and 127 of the Painters Union are painting the inside of the 2nd floor of Sproul Hall. Now, apparently that action had been planned some time in the past. I've tried to contact those unions. Unfortunately -- and [it] tears my heart out -- they're as
bureaucratized as the Administration. It's difficult to get through to
anyone in authority there. Very sad. We're still -- We're still making an attempt. Those people up there have no desire to interfere with what we're doing. I would ask that they be considered and that they not be heckled in any way. And I think that -- you know -- while there's unfortunately no sense of -- no sense of solidarity at this point
between unions and students, there at least need be no -- you know -- excessively hard feelings between the two groups.
Now, there are at least two ways in which sit-ins and civil disobedience and whatever -- least two major ways in which it can occur. One, when a law exists, is promulgated, which is totally unacceptable to people and they violate it again and again and again till it's rescinded, appealed. Alright, but there's another way. There's another way. Sometimes, the form of the law is such as to render impossible its effective violation -- as a method to have it repealed. Sometimes, the grievances of people are more -- extend more -- to more than just the law, extend to a whole mode of arbitrary power, a whole mode of arbitrary exercise of arbitrary power.
And that's what we have here. We have an autocracy which -- which runs this university. It's managed. We were told the following: If
President Kerr actually tried to get something more liberal out of the Regents in his telephone conversation, why didn't he make some
public statement to that effect? And the answer we received -- from a well-meaning liberal -- was the following: He said, "Would you ever imagine the manager of a firm making a statement publicly in opposition to his Board of Directors?" That's the answer.
Well I ask you to consider -- if this is a firm, and if the Board of Regents are the Board of Directors, and if President Kerr in fact is the manager, then I tell you something -- the faculty are a bunch of employees and we're the raw material! But we're a bunch of raw
materials that don't mean to be -- have any process upon us. Don't mean to be made into any product! Don't mean -- Don't mean to end up being bought by some clients of the University, be they the government, be they industry, be they organized labor, be they anyone! We're human beings!
And that -- that brings me to the second mode of civil disobedience. There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart that you can't take part! You can't even passively take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus -- and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people
who run it, to the people who own it -- that unless you're free the machine will be prevented from working at all!!
That doesn't mean -- I know it will be interpreted to mean,
unfortunately, by the bigots who run The Examiner, for example -- That doesn't mean that you have to break anything. One thousand people sitting down some place, not letting anybody by, not [letting] anything happen, can stop any machine, including this machine! And it will stop!!
We're gonna do the following -- and the greater the number of people, the safer they'll be and the more effective it will be. We're going, once again, to march up to the 2nd floor of Sproul Hall. And we're gonna conduct our lives for awhile in the 2nd floor of Sproul Hall. We'll show movies, for example. We tried to get -- and [they] shut them off. Unfortunately, that's tied up in the court because of a lot of squeamish moral mothers for a moral America and other people on the outside. The same people who get all their ideas out of the San Francisco Examiner. Sad, sad. But, Mr. Landau -- Mr. Landau has gotten us some other films.
Likewise, we'll do something -- we'll do something which hasn't
occurred at this University in a good long time! We're going to have real classes up there! They're gonna be freedom schools conducted up there! We're going to have classes on [the] 1st and 14th
amendments!! We're gonna spend our time learning about the things this University is afraid that we know! We're going to learn about freedom up there, and we're going to learn by doing!!
Now, we've had some good, long rallies. [Rally organizers inform Savio that Joan Baez has arrived.] Just one moment. We've had some good, long rallies. And I think I'm sicker of rallies than anyone else here. She's not going to be long. I'd like to introduce one last person -- one last person before we enter Sproul Hall. Yeah. And the person is Joan Baez.
《美国经典英文演讲100篇》出自：百味书屋
链接地址：http://www.850500.com/news/90436.html
转载请保留,谢谢!