H. Rap Brown’s Integration And Democratic Party::: Highlighting Chapter Five Of “Die Nigger Die”

If you have not read my highlights of Chapter One of H. Rap Brown and ‘Die Nigger Die!”, please click here. I have included an important disclaimer that I wish to apply to this post as well. Also, in case you have read that, but not my highlights on Chapter Two of “Die Nigger Die!”, you can click here. If you have not read highlights of Chapter Three, those are linked here. Those of you seeking chapter four highlights can click here.

 

In his opening paragraph, H. Rap Brown revisits his conceptual framing of Blacks and Negroes in United States of America. Within this framing, he also extends his theme of definition that we have found throughout this entire book.

 

The biggest difference between being known as a Black man or a negro is that if you’re Black, then you do everything you can to fight white folks.
If you’re negro, you do everything you can to appease them. If you’re Black, you’re constantly in and out of trouble, because you’re always messing with “the man”. If white folks say it’s more cultured to whisper,
you talk loud. If white folks say gray suits are fashionable, you go buy a pink one. If they say america is great, you say america ain’t shit. Chairman Mao says, “Whatever the enemy supports, we oppose. Whatever the enemy opposes, we support.” I hadn’t read Chairman Mao when I was in high school, but I already understood that fundamental revolutionary principle.
I knew white folks couldn’t do wrong right, so whatever they thought was good, I knew wasn’t.

“Die Nigger Die!”, H. Rap Brown, pg. 55

 

I believe reading this out of context could provide a dangerous and simplistic justification for anti-intellectualism in US Black communities. I speak English. Regardless of whatever idiolect, dialeact, or sociolect my St. Louis upbringing wraps that language in, my mastery of this bastard tongue influences my social network. H. Rap here is not being that literal.

 

However, it can be difficult to delineate where behaviors stemming from a need to appease Whytes starts and ends in this social spectrum of USAmerican acculturation. What H. Rap Brown leaves us here with is a guide, similar to what I present in US Black Media Trust, that seeks to at least question why we might define one style as “high culture” as opposed to another style. He also offers us clear explanation for why some US Blacks adopt styles that are often presented as counter-culture or rebellious.

 

It is from this crux that H. Rap Brown primes us for his anecdotal analysis of integration.

 

Integration was never our concern. In fact, integration is impractical. You cannot legislate an attitude and integration is based upon an attitude of mutual acceptance and respect between two racial or cultural groups in the society. A law can govern behavior, but attitudes cannot be forced or enforced, and what the Civil Rights Movement was concerned with was controlling the animalistic behavior of white people.

“Die Nigger Die!”, H. Rap Brown, pg 55-56

 

I highlight this not only because it is crucial to this chapter, but also because it is data crucial to contextualizing what many of us simply romanticize. Without me linking to anyone’s poll, I do believe there are enough of us that share similar beliefs about integration’s limits, and psychological suggestions of Black inferiority. From an economic stance, integration has only worked to devalue US Black dollars even more than they already were. For someone deeply entrenched in organizing that involved tactics associated with integration to state that “integration is impractical” is refreshing and strategically rewarding.

 

In this chapter’s concluding paragraph, H. Rap discusses, and I have highlighted, United States Of America’s 36th President, Lyndon Baines Johnson specifically, and Democratic Party in general.

 

The anti-war movement now recognizes what Black people have learned. Johnson was elected in 1964 because he said that Asian boys (you dig him calling grown men “boys”?) should fight an Asian war. And Johnson got the biggest popular vote in american history and proceeded to fight the war like he was defending ol’ ugly Ladybird from an attack. He did not recognize the popular vote. He recognized the Democratic Party. And it should be clear to all by now that there is no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties. There’s only one party in america and that’s the party of white nationalism. Both parties have made it clear that they will not tolerate dissent, it wouldn’t mean a damn thing, because dissent does not change policy. A hundred thousand people went to the Pentagon, and Johnson escalated the war. People took over the streets of Chicago and the Democratic Party nominated Hump the Dump. When the people cannot find a redress of their grievances within a system, they have no choice but to destroy the system which is responsible in the first palce for their grievances. The government is the lawbreaker. The people must become the law enforcer. We cannot allow the government to be an outlaw, particularly when the crime is against the people.

“Die Nigger Die!”, H. Rap Brown, pg. 62-63

 

Once again, it is important that someone who worked with those people that brought US Blacks to Democratic Party speak on illusive nature of USA’s two party politics. It is also necessary to that H. Rap Brown frames this analysis along with a set of fairly transparent examples of Democratic Party hypocrisies and opportunisms.

 

Also highlighted here, is a reflection I have looked over in my past readings of this text. He states, and I quote again:

 

Both parties have made it clear that they will not tolerate dissent from Blacks or from whites. And even if they did tolerate dissent, it wouldn’t mean a damn thing, because dissent does not change policy. A hundred thousand people went to the Pentagon, and Johnson escalated the war. People took over the streets of Chicago and the Democratic Party nominated Hump the Dump.

 

It has to be noted again that these words were first published in 1969. Over a course of a little less than 48 years, they still are characteristic of modern Democratic Party policy towards its constituents. In 2008, US Blacks suffered from predatory lending that still impacts predominantly Black areas like metro Atlanta and Prince George’s County. In 2009, after historic support from this same bloc of voters, within Y’all’s Daddy Obama’s first 100 days(why is that so damn coveted anyway?) he signed a bill that would give those that harmed that same bloc of voters billions of dollars. A bill, mind you, that was originally crafted and unsuccessfully pushed by Republican President George W. Bush’s administration. In 2017, after disavowing everyone but Trump’s children, Hillary Clinton made a “suggestion” to bomb Syria, and guess what, GOP President Donald Trump launched missles targeting Syria.

 

Through both periods, college students, hackers, hicks, street niggas and opportunists branded in blue vests rallied, protested, and grievanced everything from College Tuition Hikes to Police Savagery, from Obama’s Birth Certificate to Trump’s taxes. Not one of these national instances of public dissension can claim an outcome that redressed their initial and specific claims for public mass dissent. Not one.

 

There’s only one party in america and that’s the party of white nationalism.

 

Surely a sentiment that needs to resonant from when he wrote this to beyond my present writing of it…