Analysis Of Internal Colonialism And Ghetto Revolt By Robert Blauner

In the Internal Colonialism and Ghetto Revolt by Robert Blauner, he discusses the three major developments in Black protest, including the urban riots, cultural nationalism and the movement for ghetto control. He provided the traditional definition of colonization and compares it with the definition of internal colonization. Unlike the traditional colonization, there has been no formal recognition of differing power since slavery was abolished; however, the informal recognition of differing power exists. Although the requirements and components of traditional colonization and internal colonization are different, Blauner argues the outcomes and effects are similar. Administer and authorities are from outside the community, labor power was exploited (slave trade) by the whites and only benefit to the whites.

Having the premise of Black Americans are colonized, riot should be seen as revolt, the revolt of the condition that the community’s control is taken over by the dominant group.

The first step is to destroy the control from outside the black community. For example, “the property of white business man and police who are protecting the interests of outside exploiters and maintaining the domination over the ghetto by the central metropolitan power structure.” Blauner then end his paper with three possible parameters and what he thinks freedom should be in the American colonization: have the choice between joining the dominant society and in their own independent structures. I think the most difficult part of his ideology is to have their “own independent structures.” Blauner only mentioned the condition where freedom can be achieve: no control from outside, training of expert in black community, but to what degree the “independent structures” will be formed? If the area of Black community was not control by the police from the dominant group, are the people in the independent structures following the same law as the

America?
In the Souls of Black Folk, Du Bois used the word “double-consciousness" in Chapter I which related to the case that Omi and Winant opened their Chapter 4 with. Phipps was conflicting both with her inner-self-identity and the identity that assigned by state, while Du Bois “feels his twoness, - an American, a Negro”. The conflict of categorization and self-identification also mentioned in Bonilla-Silva’s Rethinking Racism, where Bonilla-Silva thinks categorization has a certain influence to the self-identification and lead to the react of Loveman. In the same chapter of Du Bois, he writes “He simply wishes to make it possible for a man to be both a Negro and an American, without being cursed and spit upon by his fellows, without having the doors of Opportunity closed roughly in his face.” I found this ideology very much alike the one that Blauner propose: “Freedom in the special conditions of American colonization means that the colonized must have the choice between participation in the larger society and in their independent structures. They are both suggesting that African American should be able to have the choice to join the white society or stay within their structure. In the chapter of “Of the coming of John”, John Jones left his home town for higher education and after his return, his veil was leaved; he became political aware and have the sense of mission which lead to his own death. The Black John was told by both Black and white that not to teach anymore notion about freedom. What seems to be “common sense” to other resident doesn’t seem to be the case for the black John.