I keep reading that last year was the year of peak woke. If true, the surmise would spark either joy or sorrow, depending on predisposition.
However, for the wordsmith, the intriguing question is not whether “wokeism” is on the decline; it is how the word acquired its current social and political significance.
As it turns out, most sources get the origin wrong.
Dictionaries tell us that woke refers to a sensitivity to injustice, racial and otherwise. This definition is incomplete. Yes, what divides the woke from the unwoke (and the fake woke) is often the tough question of what constitutes injustice; but experience suggests that the dividing line is more often about the appropriate response once injustice is spotted.
Like so many words we twist to political advantage — “patriotism” comes to mind; so does “un-American” — “woke” possesses a daunting fluidity. What the word encompassed yesterday will be enlarged when tomorrow dawns. Depending on where you sit, this aspect might be a feature or a bug. For the wordsmith, it presents an irresistible challenge.
Those who have searched for woke’s origin have coalesced around a particular story. In this tale, the trail stretches backward from the present day to a 1962 article in the New York Times Magazine by novelist William Melvin Kelley, then to a 1940 quotation from a Black United Mineworkers official, next to a 1938 song by Huddie Leadbetter, known as Lead Belly, in which he advises his listeners to “stay woke” lest they run afoul of white authority, and then to a 1923 volume of Marcus Garvey’s aphorisms in which he beseeches his readers, “Wake up, Ethiopia! Wake up, Africa!”
Given this origin story, some observers have berated progressives for appropriating a term coined by black advocates. Kelly’s 1962 essay in the Times addressed this very subject. Titled, “If You’re Woke You Dig It,” the piece argued that black people living in a white world needed a way to talk to each other that outsiders would not understand. Each time a word entered the mainstream, he wrote: “the Negro knows that part of his code is being broken.”
Kelly’s point is powerful, but the etymology of “woke” does not quite fit his thesis. Even granting the proposition that a race can “own” a word, a better description of where the term came from would acknowledge that it has been traded back and forth.
To begin with, Garvey is not relevant. True, the phrase appears in the aforementioned 1923 volume, but there is no evidence that “woke” was associated with him by the black public of the day. Small wonder, given that Garvey was merely borrowing a term black leaders had long ago adopted.
Examples abound. “Wake up, wake up!” a 1904 editorial cried in the Baltimore Afro-American on the subject of voting rights. “Race in Chicago Must Wake Up!” was the headline on a 1912 essay in the Chicago Defender, arguing that there was more black activism in Florida than Illinois.
As for Lead Belly, his 1938 usage of “woke” was likely a repurposing of the key line in Sawmill Moan, a song recorded a decade earlier by the great blues artist Willard “Ramblin’” Thomas:
“If I don’t go crazy, I’m sure gonna lose my mind/’Cause I can’t sleep for dreamin’, sure can’t stay woke for cryin’.”
Although on the surface the song laments a lost love, historians have suggested that the lyrics were a veiled protest against the atrocious conditions faced by black workers in southern sawmills, where Thomas and other blues artists often performed.
This interpretation makes sense, and not only because blues songs often included hidden meanings representing opposition to cultural norms, particularly norms about race.
The timing is also right. Black mill workers had previously been transients whose principal occupation was farming, but by 1928, when Thomas’ song was released, they were flooding into the permanent workforce in the southern lumber industry. There they suffered exactly the indignities one would predict.
As the historian William Jones notes, mill owners believed “that the only way to secure labor from a black man was to ‘keep him broke.’”
There is an additional reason to give Thomas rather than Lead Belly the credit. The worry about pain so great that one cannot “stay woke” is consistent with the idiom of the labor movement of the day, which well before the song became popular had already adopted “wake up” as a common trope.
A 1903 editorial in a socialist paper urged the working class to “wake up” and recognize “that you have nothing that they may have much.” In 1918, a union magazine celebrated a new contract with these words: “[A]fter being asleep for a long time, like Rip Van Winkle, we finally woke up.”
And again, the timeline fits: When Thomas’ song was released on the eve of the Great Depression, the 1912 massacre of protesting mill workers in Bon Ami, Louisiana, was still fresh in memory.
Thus, the proper way to understand the history of our current usage of “woke” is that the metaphor was popularized by the labor movement, then borrowed by black activists early in the 20th century before bursting into blues music in the 1920s.
However, the word remained a part of labor discourse all along and is still used by organizers today.
Moreover, for all that we identify the metaphor with a particular politics, it carries much the same meaning in everyday conversation. (“Wake up and smell the coffee.”)
We study etymologies so that we might use language to unlock history. Here, the history is far more complex than the commonly accepted origin story suggests.
So whether or not wokeness has passed its peak, understanding how the word first came to be adopted by activists more than a century ago suggests it will remain a part of our political conversation this year — and for decades to come.
Stephen L. Carter is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. A professor of law at Yale University, he is author, most recently, of Invisible: The Story of the Black Woman Lawyer Who Took Down America’s Most Powerful Mobster.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
Media said that several pan-blue figures — among them former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), former KMT legislator Lee De-wei (李德維), former KMT Central Committee member Vincent Hsu (徐正文), New Party Chairman Wu Cheng-tien (吳成典), former New Party legislator Chou chuan (周荃) and New Party Deputy Secretary-General You Chih-pin (游智彬) — yesterday attended the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) military parade commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. China’s Xinhua news agency reported that foreign leaders were present alongside Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, North Korean leader Kim
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) is expected to be summoned by the Taipei City Police Department after a rally in Taipei on Saturday last week resulted in injuries to eight police officers. The Ministry of the Interior on Sunday said that police had collected evidence of obstruction of public officials and coercion by an estimated 1,000 “disorderly” demonstrators. The rally — led by Huang to mark one year since a raid by Taipei prosecutors on then-TPP chairman and former Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) — might have contravened the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法), as the organizers had
Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) last week made a rare visit to the Philippines, which not only deepened bilateral economic ties, but also signaled a diplomatic breakthrough in the face of growing tensions with China. Lin’s trip marks the second-known visit by a Taiwanese foreign minister since Manila and Beijing established diplomatic ties in 1975; then-minister Chang Hsiao-yen (章孝嚴) took a “vacation” in the Philippines in 1997. As Taiwan is one of the Philippines’ top 10 economic partners, Lin visited Manila and other cities to promote the Taiwan-Philippines Economic Corridor, with an eye to connecting it with the Luzon