But like conciliatory voices of the past, these voices also define and expound upon Americas black rage. James Weldon Johnson, in his 1935 book, Negro Americans, What Now?, advocates integration as the only logical way out. But he also writes, Our history in the United States records a half-dozen major and a score of minor efforts at insurrection during the period of slavery. This, if they heardit, would be news to that big majority of people who believe that we have gone through three centuries of oppression without once thinking in terms of rebellion or lifting a finger in revolt. Even now there comes times when we think in terms of physical force. (149)Although he does not advocate violence, as a black literary spokesman, he admits the presence of, as well as the justification for, rage. He concludes, We would be justified in taking up arms or anything we could lay hands on and fighting for the common rights we are entitled to and denied, if we had a chance to win (149). Johnson claims he does not support violence as a logical solution to the races plight -- but the thought is there.In like manner, Ralph J. Bunch draws similar conclusions in his 1935 essay, A Critical Analysis of the Tactics and Progress of Minority Groups. He concludes that because of the vast outnumbering by whites, and because the Negro masses are so lacking in radical class consciousness . . . any possibility of large scale identification of the Negro population with revolutionary groups can be projected only into the future (167). Not now. But how long? How near in the future?Dissenting thought, capitalizing on the rage of an oppressed race, insisted on bringing the future closer. Claude McKay writes, If we must die, O let us nobley [sic] die, / So that our precious blood may not be shed / In vain . . . (344). Promoting violence as the only defense against violence and the only means to overcome oppression, McKay proclaims,Though far outnumbered...
