Question

REWRITE THESE TWO PARAGRAPHS IN A WAY THAT IS DIFFERENT USING TOOLS USCH AS A THESUARUS!

But is he a revolutionary? Baraka can be said to be a revolutionary only in the sense that anyone who considers himself revolutionary and is somehow committed to sweeping political and economic change is a revolutionary. He cannot be said to be a revolutionary if it includes being a part of a mass political movement with both the desire and a potentially viable strategy for challenging the authority of the existing social order. Even at the height of his involvement with black cultural nationalism, Baraka could not accurately be viewed as having been a member of a movement that threatened the power of the state. A revolutionary must possess a normative vision, one that appears simultaneously utopian and realizable given the constraints of the status quo. Such a dialectical vision has never been present in Baraka’s thought.

Despite the romanticism and exaggeration often associated with this narrative of Baraka’s political journey, his activities in Newark between 1967 and 1974 were marked by a quality of political engagement that has rarely been rivaled in the twentieth century by traditional American intellectuals. It was unremarkable for poets to write poems and essays about political issues. But joining picket lines was rare. It was exceptional for an American poet to be arrested and imprisoned as a political prisoner. It was unheard of for an established poet/playwright of Baraka’s stature to take the lead in formulating political actions (e.g., establishing picket lines, leading boycotts, disrupting school board meetings, organizing electoral candidates, trying to build needed public housing) while continuing to write. Baraka, the writer who was politically engaged, became indistinguishable from Baraka, the political activist who wrote. Baraka became the model of the revolutionary black man from his political art.

Answer 1

Baraka - The Revolutionary?

Who was Amiri Baraka as a revolutionary? Was he indeed one? A revolutionary as defined is someone pertaining to, characterized by, or of the nature of a revolution, or a sudden, complete, or marked change. So does Baraka fit this definition? An analysis of his actions can probably tell us the answer. The term revolutionary has always been used in the sense of economic or political change that has been achieved from an idea that did not belong. An idea that is so far fetched but is still the need of the hour. To begin with, Baraka was an African-American writer of poetry, drama and the likes. By all means, he was a playwright by profession and a music critic by choice. A person who engages in activities that try to overthrow or in some way affect the image of the existing political order either by mass movements or by individual inciteful thoughts cannot be considered a revolutionary. Even during his peak in the black cultural nationalism, he did not threaten the powers vested in the state. All thoughts expressed by Baraka were both enlightening as well as thought-provoking to the common man without invoking hate. As part of his activities between 1967 & 1974 - Baraka wrote and spoke about a lot of issues concerning Black nationalism and even went on to court multiple controversies because if his specific animosity towards Jews and the Nation of Islam. He went on to become a Marx-Lenin supporter and became a part of third world liberation. Even though he was this controversial, most of his thoughts concerning the black movement were an important step in the right direction, especially concerning the fact that he was a playwright! No one had heard of political actions as part of poetry and drama! By doing so, he had essentially become the poster boy for black nationalism who exhibited his political ideas through art.