Yet, such a denial of the external responsibility of the Black underclass should not blind us to our internal responsibility towards our group. Our function as petty bourgeoisie elements within the society is to continue to struggle to structure enabling discourses and practices which will subvert and destroy the white bourgeoisie system of class exploitation and racial opression. Such at any rate is the manner in which Paulo Freire defines the function of education in his work, Pedagogy of the Opressed. Secondly, we should make the so-called Black underclass aware of our mutual opression and the necessity to unite and to struggle against the beast which creates such an underclass and overclass in the first place.

Any such discourse, however, must proceed from two basic assumptions on the part of the Black intellectual. First, we must strive to become the revolutionary ideologist of our people. To disagree with Dr. Clark, no white American could ever structure any dialogue or practice whereby we can begin to come to terms with our own enslavement. The oppressor has never taught the oppressed a liberating ideology or education nor will he ever do so in any class society. While progressive whites may assist in the structuring of such discourses and practices the essential responsibility must remain within the group that is oppressed.

Secondly, before the Black intellectual can begin to structure any revolutionary discourse, we have to carry out "a radical revolution in...(our)...ideas; a long, painful and difficult re-education. An endless external and internal struggle." (Louis Althusser, Lenin and Philosophy, P.12) The African revolutionary theorist, Amilcar Cabral puts it this way: "In order to fulfull the role in the national liberation struggle, the revolutionary petty bourgeoisie must be capable of committing suicide as a class in order to be reborn as revolutionary workers, completely identified with the deepest aspirations of the people to which they belong." (Revolution in Guinea, p. 110)

While there are many Black intellectuals who, in the words of Brother Walter Rodney, "will make conscious choices to be reactionary," those of us who choose to serve our, people have no choice but to carry on the ideological struggle so that our people may understand the magnitude of our oppression. For those of us who wish to continue the struggle our choice must be clear: revolutionary discourse; revolutionary practice.

The issues must also be made very clear to the underclass. Like the intellectual, they must be made to understand that for the oppressed to be oppressed, they must participate in their own enslavement. THIS IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE BLACK BOURGEOISIE. This is the main objective of a society which boasts of the "survival of the fittest," "the nobility of competition and the sanctity of the free market place," the "elimination of ghettos" (that is, people rather than social structures), "the redundancy of people," and the creation of weapons that will wipe out people and leave cities intact. This is the legacy (and burden) of white capitalist America.

Together, we must seek a better overstandingof our oppressed condition. We must recognize that the chief weapon in the hands of the white bourgeois class is that of its ideology which is used to control and to manipulate our people. The trick of the ruling white class, however, is to make these ideas appear as though they were as natural as any law of physical nature. Therefore, if the Black underclass can't make it in the country, it is the Black bourgeoisie who is responsible for their failure.

However, in spite of what the dominant white bourgeoisie press says, the Black underclass is organizing itself to confront the dominant white class of exploiters. In the summer of 1980, over 1,000 delegates from all over the country went to the Brooklyn Armoury to from the Black United Front.

It was not in the interest of the white press to cover this important convention since it was important to prevent other Black and progressive white people from knowing what was happening. There were many progressive Black intellectuals at this conference and we did help to structure the discourses which took place.

Yet, there remains the persistent tendency of the white dominant class to want to structure the nature of our discourses and the attempt of the Klitgaards to delegitimize the value of the achievements of young Black scholars. Revolutionary Black scholars, however, must not be bound by these limits nor should we be persuaded by their demagogy. Our responsibility must be determined by the internal rather than the external demands of our situation. As Minister Louis Farrakhan warned a group of Black scholars at Cornell University on September 28, 1980, "the black intellectual is being set up by the white American power structure to be scapegoats of the country's failure to deal with black America. If we allow this to happen, we will be doomed by history forever."

The question of the self-accountability of the Black intellectual remains the predominant concern. We must structure our discourses and practices in such a manner that we assist in the liberation of our group. But to accept the burden of white America's failure is something we must never do. Mr. Gershman and Mr. Robert Klitgaard (as spokesmen for the dominant white class) will always try to put us into an ideological trick-bag. It is important that we never fall prey to such pseudo-intellectualism and militant racist assumptions.

Selwyn R. Cudjoe, an assistant professor in the Afro-American Studies Department, is the author of Resistance and Caribbean Literature.