Kimberle Crenshaw argues that a single axis framework marginalises those who face the brunt of multiple oppressions. She argues that feminist theory and antiracist policies are limiting and fail to take this into account. She advocates for a rethinking of framework that is not equal to the sum of sexism and racism but rather takes into account their interaction. Crenshaw illustrates her argument by pointing towards courtroom proceedings that did not take seriously the plight of black women. The law does not cater to their experiences and tries to fit them within either discrimination against women or black people but not both, together. Court cases would give importance to discrimination based on existing categories; but those were based on either white women or black men, and there was no room for black women and their experiences.  Crenshaw emphasises how the multiple oppressions places the burden on those who have been marginalised doubly to bring their struggle to the forefront.

bell hooks, too argued that the feminist movement in the United States did not represent the experiences of black women nor it make space for black women to voice their concerns. It is important to recognise the multidimensionality of experience and to think about multiple interlocking sets of powers. At the same time it is important to be wary of essentialising the subject.

Judith Butler argues against naturalising experiences and using categories to fight for justice because they are exclusionary. Hers is an important insight because a liberation that is revolutionary and can overthrow power completely can only be all inclusive if it based on a common thread that is not based on experience born out of nature. Perhaps, a humanity that is not based on an established universal experience can unite the marginalised and allow for a liberation that frees all from the violence inflicted upon them. I question if such a universal humanity can be established since experience and identity do increasingly drive people towards liberation struggles. Perhaps for such a struggle to even be possible, there has to be a larger recognition of the existence of multiple dimensions of violence and for radical empathy to drive people’s political agendas.

The politics of intersectionality is important because experience holds significance but it is important to understand the limits of an intersectional approach and to challenge it when it becomes limiting. Butler also leaves us with the question of what to make of experience if we remove it as the basis for our politics? Whether an overthrow of the oppressive power relations can be based on shared humanity? Where does that leave us as organisers and as political agents? How would such a movement be organised? How will it function and how will play out in reality rather than ideas? Is it being too optimistic about the world and the possibilities that exist? Or can it be a source of direction, hope and alignment that does not prioritise one experience over the other? Does Butler’s subject and its liberation leave no space for experiences to be valued? 

In Aint I woman, Bell Hooks challenges the language used in feminist discourse to understand and analogue the circumstances of women and the conditions of blacks. The sentence alone, according to Hooks, stated and thus created a reality where all women were white and all blacks were men. Hence, language itself “had no place for black women”.  This helped inspire a critique and deconstruction of the narrow categories of both “women” and “race” and bring about an intersectional analysis of socio-economic divisions. For this blog, I will be focusing on the intersectionality of black women.

The term intersectionality was coined by Kimberly Crenshaw in 1989, when she attempted to name the oppression that black women faced all fronts. And, though at times the wording seems clunky, one cannot deny their importance. It emphasizes that people can be disadvantaged by several discriminations. It acknowledges people’s experiences in order to comprehend how there are different avenues for marginalization and how these avenues overlap. Kimberly Crenshawstated that the goal of intersectionality was “to facilitate the inclusion of marginalized groups for who it can be said “when they enter, we enter[1]“.

For Kimberly Crenshaw, as with Bell Hooks, the Combahee River Collective and other black female activists, the first goal was to name the oppression. They wanted bring to light, a systematic subjugation that had been largely ignored. According to them, black women were doubly oppressed; both because they were black and because they were women. Their unique position meant that they understood that “there is such a thing as racial-sexual oppression which is neither solely racial nor solely sexual[2].” For example “For instance, a black man and a white woman make $0.74 and $0.78 to a white man’s dollar, respectively. Black women, faced with multiple forms of oppression, only make $0.64[3]”. U Realizing the politics of intersectionality is vital to contesting the overlapping prejudices people face in their daily lives . Hence, the importance in intersectionality in understanding and fighting the overlapping prejudices that people face in their daily lives.

However, intersectional politics run the risk of creating hierarchies of oppression. Accepting that there are different avenues of oppression and that these avenues of oppressions overlap mean that at any point, there is always someone being oppressed. Then the question, arises, “what and who to fight for? There is also the problem of naming the oppression since the currently stated categories do not work for them. As one constantly keeps trying adding different types of oppression, the idea of fundamental oppression begins to crumble.

Another and bigger problem of intersectionality is that it leads to a politics of difference. That is the same problem that Judith Butler talks about in Politics of Performativity, according to her when an identity is naturalized, it is taken for granted. Judith Butler points to the subject of women as the basis of critique. According to her, when the subject of woman is naturalized, it no longer takes into account the power relations that created the subject in the first place. The same can be said for race or gender or even both. There is nothing natural about an identity they are produced because of hierarchy of power and we risk losing out on the productive element when we naturalize it. However, though intersectional politics can lead to this, it is not a naturalization of identity. Identity as Kimberly Crenshaw understands is a construct created out social reality and lived experiences and social position. While to simply define yourself with one identity is essentialist, accepting that a part of your multifaceted reality can be shared with others is not monolithic or essential and that is what intersectional politics tries to emphasize. Describing communal identity means trying to analyses the power relations that created those identities and imposed them on us in the first place. Intersectionality helps see through the naturalization by showing how different social realities both empower and restrict different people be it class, gender, sexuality, race etc. Being aware of these prejudices makes one aware of the sufferings in the world that one is not party to, rendering the veil as DuBois calls it.  Hence, there is great value in intersectional politics if we want to create a world where the most oppressed and vulnerable are listened to and protected.

---

[1] Crenshaw, Kimberle () “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics,” University of Chicago Legal Forum

[2] Ibid.

[3] Alemán, Rosa, “What Is Intersectionality, and What Does It Have to Do with Me?” YW Boston. April 25, 2018, https://www.ywboston.org/2017/03/what-is-intersectionality-and-what-does-it-have-to-do-with-me/.

Simply put, intersectionality is the understanding of multiple oppressions that one can be subjected to, and the consequent degree of marginalization. It focuses on interlocking oppressions, human agency, historical evolution of norms, and identity politics; each of which is a broad and complex topic. However, intersectional politics is not free of paradoxes. To me, the most interesting paradox is its power to be hopeful and hopeless at one time.

Beginning with how intersectional politics can lead to hopelessness, it produces a vast number of intersections such that it becomes impossible to know which should be emphasized at any particular time. Creating a hierarchy of oppressions is also a hopeless idea because it cannot be unanimous. For example, race would be on the top of the hierarchy for a black man, gender for a white woman, and both race and gender for a black woman. Then, from where does one start? Another cause of hopelessness stems from intersectional politics’ fixed conceptualizations of structure and power. In other words, by focusing on agency and experience, intersectionality reduces an individual to an essence, such that it takes differences for granted, and ignores how the difference is produced in the first place. As for power, hopelessness results from the nature of power to seep into all spheres of life and action. No one and nothing exists outside of power relations, and hence, there is no unlimited capacity of action. In this sense, intersectional politics becomes constraining.

However, at the same time, intersectional politics is also hopeful. It is empowering and liberating. By eliminating the dichotomy between nature and social, and material and discourse, Judith Butler suggests that identities are fluid. In other words, they are socially constructed. To restore given identities to history and not to nature means that there is nothing natural about being born, for example, as a black lesbian woman. As a result, there is room for movement; towards an identity that is not given by the system due to mere birth in it, but an identity that is taken upon willingly. Intersectional politics teaches one to argue to refuse to accept what was given as a natural norm. Then, intersectional feminists’ rejection of biological determinism against historical evolution becomes emancipatory. It allows space for change. Another way in which intersectional politics is hopeful is because it rejects binary identities. By claiming that identities are multiple, any attempt to pen one down as this or that becomes difficult. Then, humans cease to be understood as subjects because of subjugation. Instead, they become subjects because of their subjectivity. Intersectional politics enables them to exceed categories which have been imposed on them, and to view themselves through their own lived experiences. In other words, it allows humans to exist on their own terms. When they cease to take what was given to them as destiny or natural, they push towards destabilizing the norm and making themselves heard and seen. In this sense, intersectional politics is liberating.

To conclude, intersectional politics is hopeless and hopeful, and constraining and liberating, at the same time. However, it is not unproductive. Even if a new identity does not lie independent and outside of existing structures of power, it is productive to refuse the congenital identity and take up a new identity. Even if a struggle is carried out from a position within the existing structures of power, it is productive to be carried out. Even if one is faced with multiple oppressions that do not synthesize with the larger solidarity against oppression, it is important to speak about them. Identity does not mean complete escapism, struggle does not mean complete revolution, and uniqueness does not mean unimportant. Each of these matters. It matters because it disrupts the oppressor’s tactic of shutting down the oppressed through lies of ‘not yet’, ‘step by step’ and ‘not most urgent’. It matters because it makes space, little but alive. It matters because it is a refusal to be treated lesser. Therefore, to find unity in diversity and not be misguided by difference and categorization, and to keep trying to destabilize the norm from whatever position and to whatever capacity, should be the aim of intersectional politics.

Catharine Mackinnon and Judith Butler have been prominent feminist thinkers of the late 20^th Century who sought to reframe feminism in order to encompass its many interpretations or sub-categories like black feminism, queer theory etc. Although Mackinnon and Butler have been on different sides of the argument, it is not impossible to reconcile between the two as there is common ground between them. They sought to bring about a broader definition of feminism that has space for intersectional politics, by determining what oppression and struggle looked like for all women.

On a surface level, it has been difficult to see common ground between them because both represent differing sides the of structuralism vs. post-structuralism debate. Mackinnon, a lawyer as well as a theorist focused on creating a feminist method that arose from the private, emotional, institutional workings of women – a feminist method created from a women’s consciousness. Butler dismissed all of that, denying the possibility of truth and “consciousness” that existed independent from power relations. Her main approach was that nothing about womanhood is natural or innate: if the oppression was socially constructed then so is the “consciousness”. For example, Mackinnon explained the role of sexuality in a woman’s life, stating that although nothing is inherently sexual about a woman’s body. But the experience of recognizing and resisting objectification would allow women to recreate a newer understanding of the power of their sexuality. Butler would reject the possibility of creating a new definition for sexuality altogether because this new definition would still depend on language which no one had no control in shaping.

Though their aim is similar, their methods then differ in terms of structure and language. Mackinnon sought to find a theoretical solution within specific issues like legal issues and class struggle. It has been very easy for those like Mackinnon to misunderstand Butler’s words as hopelessness. Saying there was no agency outside an existing realm of power relations could encourage capable women to abandon material resistance in favor of more discursive or detached politics. But Butler’s critique for those like Mackinnon would be to question what is “common sense” because common sense has been constructed (equal rights for all women might be common sense for some and not others). To question this status quo was the first part of resistance. For Black feminists to subvert the racist norms of their white counterparts, they needed to articulate their struggles within the context of a society that sees it as subversion – i.e. the society of the 70 and 80s in which black feminists began to reassert their existence as both black and women. Butler refused to see anyone as a victim because all of humanity is chained to language they did not take part in creating, and there has been no neutral arbitrator in the matter.

But both come together to create a theory that is unifying and not dividing. Mackinnon lamented the lack of method in understanding feminism: instead of a unifying theory there are only “loose collection of factors, complaints and issues which…describe rather than explain” sexism. Butler extended this argument by arguing that women should not simply focus on issues of womanhood (reproductive choice, equal pay etc. as opposed to environmental policy or taxation) because some women may not recognize their interests or may not consider themselves oppressed. One can take an example of black feminists like bell hooks and Kimberly Crenshaw who felt alienated from both the feminist and civil rights movement because their aims were defined without their presence. White feminists simply did not see the issue of race being important because race and gender were two exclusive realms. hooks’ response to this was, “the question we must ask again and again is how can racist women call themselves feminist.” Then, the issue of subverting the patriarchy is also an issue of bringing down other structures and hierarchies that support it, because those other structures (like class or race) facilitate the patriarchy and vice versa. This line of thinking is perhaps best summed up in Crenshaw’s iconic line “when they enter we all enter.”

There might be other ways in which Butler’s work interacts with Mackinnon’s work. But it is important to know that such a reading has been possible if one wishes to imagine an inclusive feminism. Using both viewpoints, one can understand feminism as radical (in its questioning the status quo) and practical (in its support for on-the-ground resistance). Butler encouraged women to go beyond issues which simply involved women such as housing issues and environmental policy because they affect what is common to us (as opposed to identity politics which could divide us). And Mackinnon taught us that even if we as women still work under existing frameworks, our ability to act and create communities for each other allow us the opportunity to subvert the structures which oppress us. Through the recognition of history and struggle, mediation and negotiation, feminism can be seen as truly intersectional.

My project will attempt to bring Pulitzer Prize winning artist Kendrick Lamar’s jazz-infused album To Pimp a Butterfly into conversation with the works of prominent African American authors including W. E. B. Du Bois, James Baldwin, and Ta-Nehisi Coates. Such authors have penned literary masterpieces focused on the issues that continue to deeply affect the African American existence. Kendrick’s music can be interpreted in a similar light despite it being a different form of expression. The commentary done within the project will dissect the following tracks from Kendrick’s third album:

1. Institutionalized
2. These Walls
3. Alright
4. How Much a Dollar Cost
5. The Blacker the Berry
6. i
7. Mortal Man

The significance of this project lies in the contemporary themes that Kendrick addresses through his music. His poetic expression stands out amongst his peers within hip-hop whose content never seems to digress beyond wealth and fame. The musical composition of To Pimp a Butterfly incorporates elements of funk, jazz, and soul. The lyrics address an array of issues faced by African Americans ranging from socio-economic marginalization to police brutality. Kendrick himself has stated in an interview that his songs seek to capture emotions. Not only does he tell his own story through his music, he also seeks to tell the stories of those around him. Through the influence of his art, Kendrick tries to both represent and empower. Finding the connections between his music and renowned literary works is important to understand both the message he tries to convey and what it means to those who are inspired by him.

I will be submitting this project in the form of a video essay that will suture together his songs, music videos, and interviews to express a visual understanding of Kendrick’s creative process and artistic ambition. The composition and lyrics of his music will be analyzed by drawing comparisons to the works of the aforementioned African American authors to show how the thematic correlations resonate with listeners in this day and age.

I heard this song on the night the Dankpuna group post was made public and I only started to think about it after my initial anger had dissipated into a sinking depression. Even then, Aretha’s song seemed too upbeat. I was annoyed- I wish she had been more angry. more demanding. more sad. Maybe she should have sang Respect the way Nina Simone had sung Mississippi River. Maybe that would have done justice. Maybe that would have communicated the loss I felt when I read “It ain’t gonna suck itself”

After the song became a radical feminist anthem in the 60’s Aretha said in an interview:

“I don’t think it’s bold at all. I think it’s quite natural that we all want respect — and should get it”

Respect. It was all about respect. And I think we all found ourselves having to prove we were worth  respecting. The last week was a fight, for some of us it felt like nothing short of a battle. Here was a crisis that demanded we prove to an institution that we were worth respect. Respect: Of friends who were nothing short of family. Of Teaching Assistants that were supposed to be teaching us-and teaching us only. Of Professors we respected, and loved. Of partners we loved and more than anything, trusted. Of an Institution that lied about being a family.

Listening to Respect in this environment got me thinking, what was Aretha so happy about? Why did she choose to sing her song like this? Up beat- complete with back up singers. And it was only at my fourth or fifth time listening to the song that I realised there was value to singing it the way she had. Aretha’s song is not apologetic. Her song communicates to the fullest- that she is worth that respect. And that she believes she is. There is no shrinking away from it and I think in a lot of ways I needed to hear that too.

Franklin’s song is a rendition of an earlier version sung by Otis Reddington.  Reddington’s version was released in 1965 and is a song about a man demanding more respect when he comes home at the end of the day. He sings:

Hey, little girl, you’re so sweeter than honey

And I’m about to give you all my money

But all I’m askin’, hey

Is a little respect when I get home

Hey hey hey, yeah now

Respect is what I want from you

Respect is what I need

Respect is what I want

Respect is what I need

Got to, got to have it

Got to, got to have it

Got to, got to have it

Got to, got to have it

Talkin’

Give us, give us, give us, give us

Give us, give us, give us, give us

Give us, give us some baby, everything I need

It is supposed to be a humble appeal by a hard working man returning home to his family. I read it as entitled- “Got to, got to have it” sounded a lot like the men in my family. I thought of a man coming home from work and demanding that he be treated like an honorary guest. Cue Hum TV scenes of women serving chai to irritated men. Franklin’s version spins the song on its head and genders it. Her song affirms that she does not need Otis’ money “Baby, I got it/What you need/Do you know I got it?”

Franklin’s response becomes important in the context of the civil rights movement of the 50s and the wave of black feminism that followed it. The decade is characterized by women like Audre Lorde, June Jordan (See one of my favourite poems by her: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/48762/poem-about-my-rights), Alice Walker and others that write of being displaced by two conflicting political movements. hooks writes of this as the “double bind”. Where black women faced racism in a movement dominated by white women and sexism in the civil rights movement. Inevitably, disowned by both. Black women found themselves up against black leaders that demanded women conform to more subservient roles. The independence that black women were forced into as a consequence of racism needed to be reversed so that the black man could have the white dream-complete with the suburban home and the beautiful docile housewife. Further, racism was believed to be a greater evil and women were demanded to be silent about their needs so that the black man could “restore his manhood”.

Franklin’s song thus pushes against this image of the black woman as supportive or docile, which happens to be the kind of woman that Otis is writing about. By using her upbeat tempo and back up singers Franklin communicates that black women did not need black man for anything other than their respect. She tells them that she has everything she already needs and if they don’t give her respect she can just as well leave. And the ong communicates that- I hear the song and I hear a woman who believes she is worth respect and will not stop short of anything else. Franklin chooses to do her song with her sisters. I think decision communicates the sisterhood and the unity that most black feminists were trying to create.  

On a completely different note (I apologise if this seems like hawaye fire) I also thought of Ismat Chugtai and her exchange with her husband in The Lihaaf trial  (Available here: http://www.urdustudies.com/pdf/15/28naqviExerpt.pdf) when I heard Respect. I think this more in line with political movements and not being supported by men on your side, a crisis the left is all too familiar with. Chugtai writes: “The Progressives neither berated nor commended me, and I found that reassuring” But she was berated. The friend she stays with in Lahore, Shahid Sahab, demonishis her for her vulgar writing style.  When she says:

“And what about the filthy sentences you have written in Gunah ki Raten (nights of sin), actually giving explicit details of the sex act, just for titillation?”

His response is: “It’s different in my case, I’m a man.”

And again:

“You are an educated girl from a respectable Muslim family.”

We see men holding different standards or values to women fighting by their side.  Whether it was the black civil rights movement or Chugtai writing in the 1940’s or even ‘allies’ responding to memes, women find themselves fighting for a degree of respect from their male counterparts. In the civil war, black men actively demanded women to be more subservient. In Ismat Chugtai’s case, the reaction she got from people on her side was silence. It was a nothingness reaction. She never wrote the same again.

 

Aretha, we’re still waiting on that respect.  

 

Out of all the singers, for me, Nina Simone stood out the most. Her use of tone, her expression and her lyrics all send out a message. A message of pain and misery and constant struggle. Her songs paint pictures for the listeners, but these are unfortunately not imaginations. She merely describes the environment she grew up in. She describes the harsh realities of the lives of black people in the struggle for civil rights.

As an artist she faced discrimination, owing obviously to her gender and race. Coming from an oppressed background she remained resilient. But initially, she did not use her music to be political. Gradually, she started channelling her anger and her frustration into an art form and created masterpieces like Mississippi Goddam, which was considered revolutionary therefore was banned in several places.

In it, she explains the atrocities that were prevalent within the South such as police brutality and murders. The violent and anxious times are compared to walking a land mine, the people of colour would never know what could set it off. She takes names and points out specific political figures while talking about current affairs.

The more striking piece by her was undoubtedly Strange Fruit. The song describes the lynchings and hangings which were prevalent across the United States, especially the South. It is a commentary, I believe, on how unnatural human looks across a beautiful natural canvas of trees and the sun and the sky and wind. It’s beautiful the way it’s been described but also very eerie. The words help to paint the most horrific picture which gives you a complete understanding of the depth of the situation.  Even though the lyrics are not originally her own but the tone of her voice as well as her expression which seeps through so perfectly only add to the narrative. I felt there was something unforgiving in her voice. Unforgiving yet hopeless. Her take on the song was so much more impactful, just by way of how she changes her tone with the words she speaks, to place emphasis.

Nina Simone grew up in an environment where she did not have opportunities to sing except at church. She was economically disadvantaged and had to bear the brunt of racism in America. She had witnessed inequality and was denied opportunities like admission into an institute for music. Nina Simone channeled her anger and contributed to the civil rights movement. Mississippi Goddamn was a song that described the context she was living is and how the lives of black people are shaped by brutality and injustice.

Medgar Evers, a civil rights activist was murdered in Mississippi and 4 girls were murdered in Birmingham, is what pushed her to write the song. The song was banned in several places and she received a lot of backlash for the song. She used the medium of music to protest against the injustices. She also performed at the Selma-to-Montgomery march that took place.

She started off the song with the words, “I mean every word of it”.When she herself spoke of the song and what it meant, she described that it ‘erupted’ out of her and it took her only 2 hours to write the song because the song described her lived realities. “Governor Wallace has made me lose my rest” She refers to the governor because he had refused to protect the marchers by refusing them police protection. Amidst all this, Nina Simone rose and sang Mississippi Goddamn which was an act of bravo because the Alabama National Guard was present at the March and it posed anger and courage as the lyrics were representative of the reality and white people were reminded of their culpability. Simone, as a child too was isolated because of the skin of her colour.

When she refers to how black people were told to “go slow” when they wanted to protest against the injustice that they faced, she expresses her dissatisfaction with being told to wait by leaders for they always had other issues to take care of, as their lives exacerbated. Nina Simone, before the bombing was not actively taking part in politics. After it, however she sang the song at multiple occasions, it became revolutionary and was banned. Nina Simone was courageous as she had a white audience and she chose to first perform her song in front of the white audience, and not only got backlash from it.

“My skin is black

My arms are long

My hair is woolly

My back is strong

Strong enough to take the pain

inflicted again and again”

The lyrics above are from another song by Nina Simone called Four women. They  encapsulates the pain of black people and how their bodies were inflicted by this pain. She wrote a number of other songs that were representative of this pain, ‘Strange Fruit’ being one of them, the song is about lynchings in the South and how they became increasingly common. Nina Simone was legendary and her music was revolutionary and brought light to the plight of black people.

The song Ol’ Man River, the first version of which was recorded in 1927 as part of the musical titled Show Boat, juxtaposes the endless flow of the Mississippi River with the struggles and hardships experienced by black Americans.

He must know somethin’
But don't say nothin’
He just keeps rollin'
He keeps on rollin' along

He don't plant tators
He don't plant cotton
Them that plants them 
Is soon forgotten

Perhaps one of the most surprising facts about this song is that it was written by a white man. This is important to note because of some of the language used, which makes it seem as if the lyricist has gone through the experience of slavery themselves.

You and me
We sweat and strain
Body all aching
And wracked with pain

I get weary
And sick of tryin'
Am tired of livin'
And scared of dyin'

This reminds me of our discussion on CLR James and the first chapter of The Black Jacobins, which offers a very detailed descriptive account of what it was like to be on a slave ship, despite him never having been on one himself. This raises questions of who should have the agency to comment on or describe experiences individuals haven’t gone through themselves, or in the case of Show Boat (which was both written and produced by white men, and based on a book by a white woman), to ‘appropriate’ black struggle for profit.

Theater, music, and other forms of art have played a very significant role in African Americans’ struggle for desegregation and the repealment of the Jim Crows laws. Show Boat, being the first racially integrated play (where both black and white actors appeared on stage together) ever performed in America and also being the first Broadway musical to depict an interracial marriage, is often considered an important production for the black movement. Despite its many critics, some of whom have valid concerns (such as Nourbese Philip’s claim that the play appropriates black music for the profit of the very people who oppressed blacks), Alan Berg’s description of the musical score being “a tremendous expression of the ethics of tolerance and compassion” is not inaccurate. Covers of the song Ol’ Man River by influential white artists, particularly by Frank Sinatra, enabled the message of the song (and the struggles of the African Americans) to get across to large white audiences it might not have been able to reach otherwise.

The five renditions of the song that I listened to (which just happen to be across five decades) are as follows:
Jules Bledsoe - 1927 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mawj2HbZ3EA
Paul Robeson - 1936 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh9WayN7R-s
Frank Sinatra - 1946 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTnw_MmVptQ
William Warfield - 1951 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSzYRo9j7YM (my personal favorite)
The Temptations - 1967 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JynlddDl-X4