Anti-Government Pro-Intervention

As we transition into thinking about the Black anti-war movement, I want to bring attention to Bayard Rustin’s “Jim Crow Army” as an example of the challenge to segregation posed by opposing war and military growth. Aside from the fact that war seeks to disenfranchise the most marginalize members of societies, the segregation of the US military reflects the violence against Blacks.

Given in 1948, Rustin’s speech encouraged Blacks to actively protest the draft and refuse enlistment. This is a continuation of the stipulation held by many other Black male activists during the World War 2 era and focused on White awareness in addition to Black action.

His speech urges the intolerance of human rights abuses which, he argues, is not a reason to support war but a reason to condemn it. If one values human rights, violations of those rights in one’s own country should be attacked first. The goal of eliminating intolerance nationally before internationally should be a priority of the United States. This is a pick-and-choose value system in which an individual’s race determines their humanity. One could also argue, though Rustin does not, that the United States has a long history of international political interference, especially when violence in concerned. Furthermore, the United States is symptomatic of a marriage of the White Savior complex and Voluntourism.

Additionally, the United States projects an international reputation of progressive authority while national racial tension continually builds. With suppressive actions aimed at degrading progressive movements, the US likes problems that are both distant and solvable, meaning that US government intervention in social affairs is most commonly manifested in foreign politics that appear easier than systemic racism and poverty. Inequality is a difficult issue that requires effort, funds, and experts, while foreign affairs require less monetary and official investment to claim success.

The US government continually prioritizes ease and prestige over domestic welfare and minority security. It is for this reason that Rustin and so many other leaders utilize the capital available to them, individual bodies, to protest and prevent the actions removing funds and attention from their dire cause.

In the construction of his speech, it is worth noting which pieces of the above opinions Rustin includes to form his point. The focus on community autonomy over government actions illustrates his perception of the issues that will move his audience and are markedly similar to Philip Randolph’s “Why We Should March” as well as other speeches from the March on Washington Movement even though it comes at a later time. This becomes especially interesting when we study activism and rhetoric.