LINGUIST List 3.512

Sat 20 Jun 1992

Disc: Free Indirect Discourse by Sr. Souljah?

Editor for this issue: <>


Directory

  1. , Sister Souljah's discourse

Message 1: Sister Souljah's discourse

Date: Fri, 19 Jun 92 19:33:28 EDSister Souljah's discourse
From: <elc9jprime.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Subject: Sister Souljah's discourse

[Moderators' note: The following is being posted because of its
content as discourse analysis. We would _greatly_ appreciate it
if responses would try to address the linguistic aspects of Sister
Souljah's remarks, not the political. Yes, we know, it's hard
--some say "impossible"--to make such distinctions. But LINGUIST's
charter confines us to "the academic discussion of linguistics."
And we appreciate your co-operation in our attempt to maintain this focus.
--Helen & Anthony]

 Bill Clinton created a stir recently by rebuking Jesse
Jackson for including rap singer Sister Souljah in a Rainbow
Coalition panel, on the grounds that Sister Souljah had made
inflammatory remarks that encourage racial strife. Leaving aside
Clinton's underlying motives for picking a fight with Jackson at
this point in the presidential campaign, the focus of Clinton's
reproach was a quote from a May 13 interview with Sister Souljah
that had appeared in the Washington Post, where she was asked to
comment on the Los Angeles uprising. Sister Souljah was quoted
as saying, "If black people kill black people every day, why not
have a week and kill white people?", a statement that Clinton
condemned as incitement to violence. Sister Souljah has denied
that charge, claiming that the Post quoted her out of context.

 In case anyone is curious, here is a fuller text than that
appearing in the original Post article. This longer text,
described as "a partial transcript" (of a tape? written notes?
not specified) of the original interview, appeared in the June
16th edition of the Washington Post [original punctuation
preserved, except that "Q" and "A" replace original
boldface/normal type respectively]:
 ---------------------------------------------------------------

Q: A lot of people look at the violence that was unleashed and
say... let's talk now about white America and middle-class black
America-- will see the videos of the looting, the burning, people
with their kids walking away with merchandise, people shooting at
firemen, and think, you know, "Thank God for the police, because
the police is what separates us and our property and our safety
and our lives from them, because look what they're capable of."

A: They [middle-class blacks] do not represent the majority of
black people, number one. Black people from the underclass and
the so-called lower class do not respect the institutions of
white America, which is why you can cart as many black people out
on the television as you want to tell people in the lower and
underclass that that was stupid, but they don't care what you
say.
 You don't care about THEIR lives, haven't added anything to
the quality of their lives, haven't affectuated anything for the
quality of their lives, and then expect them to respond to your
opinions which mean absolutely nothing? Why would they?

Q: But even the people themselves who were perpetrating that
violence, did they think it was wise? Was that wise, reasoned
action?

A: Yeah, it was wise. I mean, if black people kill black
people every day, why not have a week and kill white people? You
understand what I'm saying? In other words, white people, this
government, and that mayor were well aware of the fact that black
people were dying every day in Los Angeles under gang violence.
So if you're a gang member and you would normally be killing
somebody, why not kill a white person? Do you think that
somebody thinks that white people are better, or above and beyond
dying, when they would kill their own kind?

Q: I'm just asking what's the wisdom in it? What's the sense
in it?

A: It's rebellion, it's revenge. You ever heard of Hammurabi's
Code? Eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth? It's revenge. I
mean, that seems so simple. I don't even understand why anybody
[would] ask me that question. You take something from me, I take
something from you. You cut me, I cut you. You shoot me, I shoot
you. You kill my mother, I kill your mother.

Q: And the individuals don't matter?

A: What individuals? If you killed my mother, that mattered to
me. That's why I killed yours. How could the individuals not
matter? You mean the WHITE individuals, do they matter? Not if
the black ones don't. Absolutely not. Why would they? If my
child dies, your child dies. If my house burns down, your house
burns down. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. That's what
they believe. And I see why. [Washington Post, 6/16/92, p.A7]
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
 Many people might justifiably take issue with Sister
Souljah's remarks as quoted here, but it seems to me that,
considering the remarks in their wider context, she has a case
when she denies that she was INCITING violence. Incitement
refers to encouragement of future action, whereas the fuller
transcript of her remarks looks like "free indirect discourse",
i.e. SS's paraphrase of the thinking of the people who were
participating in the insurgency. In particular, the (in)famous
utterance "why not have a week and kill white people?" was a
response to a question about what the people who had engaged in
violence were thinking at the time they committed the violent
acts. SS's rhetorical questions in her response are separated by
a statement in the past tense ("this government, and that mayor
were well aware of the fact that black people were dying every
day..."), which can be interpreted as locating the questions
themselves in the past, i.e. in the state of mind of the
participants at that time. Further evidence that these opinions
were intended as free indirect discourse rather than SS's own
views is her explicit statement, at the end of the excerpt,
"That's what they believe." She does, of course, say "And I see
why", but understanding is not necessarily the same thing as
endorsement. If this reasoning is sound, then the charge of
incitement to violence should be laid at the door of the Post,
for misleadingly suggesting that these are the opinions of an
influential public figure. What do y'all think?

Ellen Contini-Morava
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue