"We had no more courage than Harriet Tubman or Marcus Garvey had in their times. We just had a more vulnerable enemy"

Stokely Carmichael’s statement draws a direct line between the courage of civil rights activists in the 1960s and that of legendary Black leaders such as Harriet Tubman and Marcus Garvey. He suggests that the level of bravery required for their actions was not fundamentally different across generations. Harriet Tubman operated during slavery, leading people to freedom through immense personal danger. Marcus Garvey challenged colonialism and white supremacy at a time when global racism was brutally entrenched. Carmichael places the civil rights activists of his era within this lineage, explicitly rejecting the idea that their courage was any greater or more extraordinary.

The crucial distinction he notes is not in the character of the activists, but rather in the nature of the adversary they confronted. By describing the enemy as “more vulnerable,” Carmichael highlights historical context: the civil rights movement faced a United States whose global image relied increasingly on ideals of freedom and democracy, especially during the Cold War era. International scrutiny, the rise of mass media, and a growing awareness of human rights made the American system more susceptible to challenge. The blatant violence and segregation became publicized, forcing society to confront its contradictions.

Through humility, Carmichael acknowledges that Tubman and Garvey exhibited immense bravery in eras when the risks were often greater and the possibility of success seemed more remote. He refuses to place himself or his contemporaries on a higher pedestal, emphasizing that shifts in social, political, and historical circumstances created new openings for resistance. Courage, he implies, is a constant in the struggle for justice, but its impact is also determined by the strengths and vulnerabilities of the systems it confronts.

Carmichael’s reflection serves both as an act of respect for his predecessors and a reminder that progress comes from seizing opportunities afforded by history, not because of unique or unprecedented personal virtues.