The conversation about invisible leadership is one that is so important to remember as one studies history, and more specifically in the context of our reading and podcast, the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s and 70s. As Bezio discussed in the podcast episode, the Civil Rights Movement did not happen because MLK single handedly spoke so well that it changed the minds of all racist white people. The movement happened because of the people. We are lucky that unlike the Elizabethan era of England we actually have documentation from the so called “common people.” We don’t have to make assumptions about the real emotions, opinions, and actions people were taking during the Civil Rights Movement. We know that black churches became a central organizational point to all parts of the movement. We can understand how communities came together to pay bails or to find rides during bus boycotts. Because of historical documentation, we know the myth that MLK did all the work on his own is not true. He was important, but he was important because he had a huge group of people ready to take his words into action right alongside him.

In the city of Richmond, invisible leadership sprung up in the fight to ensure equal voting rights policy. As Bezio discussed, sometimes the most effective forms of change are through court cases. This article outlined the importance of the Courts’ decisions throughout the struggle to maintain equal voting rights in Richmond. Each individual that brought a case to court to fight for what was legal showed up as an invisible leader. Going to court and defending yourself does not look the same as making a speech to a big crowd, rallying potential voters, or any of the other images that come to mind when we picture a “leader” fighting for change. But that’s the point of invisible leadership. Many times, it does not match the stereotypical images we automatically come up with even if the lawyer in court or the black women in the church basement really are the leaders we should be imagining. Hayter does a great job in bringing to light a story full of invisible leaders. She works to argue that the change made at the Richmond city level impacted the national voting rights movement. By making this argument, she allows for different faces and names to be brought to light when it comes to the success of the Civil Rights Movement. Diversifying the history we are constantly told is a really important thing and actually learning about people like Oliver Hill, Claudette Colvin, and Curtis J. Holt brings to light a more complex and truthful history. 

Listening to this podcast reminded me of the “silences” in history that I learned about in my “Slavery and Freedom” history class last semester. Silences are basically what they sound like, parts of history that have been silenced because no one thought they were important enough to write down, and if they were written down somewhere, they were most likely destroyed or hidden and definitely never taught in schools. One thing that I learned was that freed Black men in America were a huge part of starting the abolitionist movement, the fight to abolish slavery. The way it was always taught to me was that black men and women were the slaves, and white men were the abolitionists who came in to save the day. I was never taught about all the black heroes who worked tremendously hard in the fight against slavery, and they never get any credit. They were just as important as all the white people and white abolitionists, but unfortunately people during that time did not think so. That’s also one of the reasons why there are not many stories and records of slaves. Even when we were trying to track down the slaves that worked on the land that UR currently stands on, our class barely found any records of the slaves that lived here. No names, no birthdays, maybe just a death certificate when owners needed to list the amount of slaves they owned and how many they lost. They were just numbers. It is sickening, and so sad. There is so much history we don’t know, and so much we will never get back.

I really appreciated Dr. Bezio’s Podcast #9 because it reminded me of my Slavery & Freedom class I took last semester. In that class, my professor taught my peers and me how to reinterpret history by critically reading and analyzing primary and secondary sources for what wasn’t said. In other words, this is colloquially known as the silences in history that predominantly people of minority demographics write about yet are “silenced” by dominant groups who want to maintain power and authority in a society. Even now, as a Jepson student, I still find myself engaging in Historiography because while it is important to understand what a particular author was trying to convey to a certain audience during a particular time period, it is equally important to investigate the relevant context surrounding that author’s background and the background of their audience to see how historical events shaped literature and what consequences have modern-day society grappled with as a result of those events.

A popular example of this would be the focus of my research paper, which has a normative claim that American society should not continue to pride itself on extending independence to all Americans on the Fourth of July when a large segment of the United States population- namely, enslaved Africans, women, and indigenous peoples- could not claim such liberties and rights that may have been outlined by the Declaration of Independence, but was really only meant to benefit property-owning, white American men. Moreover, in studying how the celebration of the Fourth of July as America’s sole day of independence has led to negative consequences for certain groups in the U.S., I’ve found that a majority of Americans- Black Americans- are advocating for Juneteenth to be federally recognized as a national day of Independence. And this is significant because of the constant forms of oppression and inequality Black Americans face on this campus and in the larger realm of society that continuously reduce us to second-class citizenship.

I found the reading by Hayter to be really interesting. The reading was effective in showing the struggle for voting rights and the effect it had locally in Virginia. The growth of black voting was vital in challenging ideals such as Jim Crow Laws. As Hayter points out, by 1960 the African American Community had out-registered the white community in voting. This promotes changes and tries to challenge the systematic environment we live in. I can connect these challenges and ideas to my own final project that I am working on. I am studying leadership through the handmaid tale, so I am analyzing the misrepresentation of women within government or other leadership positions. Alike to what Hayter is saying, if people do not put themselves in places of power, they do not have the option to change their own fate. Looking at it locally, it was interesting how local voting had large impacts nationally.

In this week’s podcast, we learned about the real meaning of history, and why it isn’t just dates and people. History is so largely important to the humanities because it drives much of the research that’s done in each discipline. Specifically, historiographers study the history of history, including why things were recorded the way they were, who recorded these events and how they could affect a broader scope of history. After listening to the podcast, I believe that students should be taught about both history and historiography. So many of us are stuck in the quintessential historic narrative taught in school, but studying historiography may help us to understand that what we understand to be true is not the full story. There’s always more to learn when it comes to history, and Hayter’s article illustrates that.

In the Hayter reading, he reveals striking differences in how history is taught and history really unfolds. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 took the efforts of nationally recognized organizations and well-known individuals, but what history fails to include is the story of local, everyday people. The Crusade, for instance, played a huge role in giving Black residents the chance to vote, but I had never heard of that group before this reading. I also never learned about the annexation of Chesterfield County and that’s literally where I went to school (although not in the majority-white region). It’s absolutely crazy to me that my history teachers glossed over these important facts, but after this reading and podcast, I understand that, unfortunately, it’s the norm. There are very few institutions that promote an environment where individuals can become fully well-versed in any aspect of history — mainly because nobody knows it.

Both the reading and the podcast  for today were really interesting, and made me think about my own education as well as some of the terms used in context. First off in the podcast, I knew about the Great Man Theory because it was discussed both in my leadership 101 and leadership 102 courses, but I never really thought about why in very past history there was not much recorded about common life besides white, rich men. It made perfect sense when Dr.Bezio described that if you wanted something recorded on that day you had to pay for it, meaning the history of the time that was recorded was about rich, white kings, guardsmen, and knights. This shows us that even in ancient times, records of events are distorted and only parts are recorded based on those recording it. This can be related to any way that the media distorts information today, as depending on which news station or magazine or website records information, it can be displayed very differently and from specific perspectives. This idea that  People who seem to do everything in history are white, christian men with money made me think about my own education, especially middle and high school. Besides from MLK, Rosa Parks, and Fredrick Douglass, I did not learn about many other people of color who made an impact on history. I also did not learn about many women, or even the way that common people lived, and if I learned about the way common people lived, it was told from the perspective of comparing their lifestyles or in the context of the “leader” or nobles. 

Continuing with this idea of only learning about specific people in history, When Dr.Bezio brought up the idea of Invisible Leadership, it reminded me of a lesson I had last semester in Leadership 101 with Dr.Henley. We spent a day in class learning about people of color in the Civil rights movement that are not normally taught about in classrooms, giving us just a taste of these people who were truly leaders in their own right, but their work seems invisible to us. This idea is strengthened when Dr.Bezio in the podcast bringing up MLK and how although he was the speaker and face of the moment, most of the people who were leading it were behind the scenes, many being women. This is also Strengthened with the reading from Dr.Hayter, as the whole article basically discusses how local people, or people that may be “invisible leaders”, can have a national level impact.

I thought that both the podcast and reading were very interesting and they left me with a lot of thoughts. I find it wild how much the collection and recording of history have changed in the past, especially in the past few decades alone with so many technological advances. Just the other day I saw a post about how historical archivists have already collected and saved many items that relate to the COVID-19 pandemic. This has lead me to question that with so many current historical records, will the past be overshadowed by the present? In some ways, I think that it already has, which is unfortunate because there are so many stories that will be forgotten or that we will never get to hear. Still, even with so many current ways to record things, facts and events continue to get misconstrued.

Part of the reason that I see for the misconstruction of history is because of oversimplification and convenience. I think that the American education system is severely flawed and leaves out or gets wrong a lot of things, but a lot of it has been done because it is the easier way. For one thing, it is nearly impossible to teach everything in school. While it is true that Rosa Parks was not the first to give up her seat, or that MLK Jr. was not solely responsible for leading the Civil Rights Movement, it is a lot easier to tell elementary and middle school students that. Discussing the other factors of those events takes time, and would necessitate covering other complex topics in order to gain a full understanding. This is not to say that we need to leave in things like telling students that Christopher Columbus was a great guy or that George Washington was a perfect man, but I find it unrealistic to expect people to learn the full history and stories from all of the past. Of course, no one is saying that we need to learn everything, but I think it makes the debate about fixing our education system very complicated. I think a good start to creating positive change in education would be to look at who is writing our history books. At the end of the Civil War, the United Daughters of the Confederacy wrote their skewed perspective of history in textbooks that have continued to have a lasting impact on the education of students in southern states. Textbooks need to be written by diverse groups of people, not just the historical white and rich people of the past. With all this said, education is still a luxury and privilege that not all have, and there is always more to learn. You can’t learn everything, but you can do your best to learn the truth.

I think the Hayter reading was really interesting and really gives insight into how local people can have an impact on the national level with his focus on voting policies. Despite all of the stress put on voting in your elections and your civic duties as citizens of getting engaged in your local and national politics, there is this harmful idea that your vote does not count or make a difference. But as Hayter points out through his Richmond example, people have the ability to generate change and push progress forward. I think back to the November’s election with so many questions over the legitimacy of local and national elections. It was very evident to see how the results were questioned, especially in states like Georgia, when looking at the statistics it just goes to show the power of people showing up to vote (many of those new voters being  minorities which have had their voices denied in the past). With the new Georgia voting law, we are seeing the rise in people supporting companies pulling out of the state like with the MLB moving the all-star game out of Atlanta. With legislative bodies having the power to limit people’s voices and make the final decisions in the end, it is so important to not forget the power that voters and organizations can have in these decisions as well.

This weeks reading from Hayter really reminded me a lot of a main topic I have been studying in my Justice in Civil Society class with Professor Coetsee. In this class, we have talked about annexing, redlining, white flight, and even got a little bit into some of the effects of white flight from a tax base standpoint. It was very interesting to read this with that context in mind. First, Hayter writes on page 14 that the annexation of Chesterfield “gutted black’s ability to elect council majority”. It would be so easy to say that “well the majority really does choose the elections, so whoever is chosen should be the best candidate”. However the more you think about it, the more you realize that situations like this even into the 1970s stifled the black community. The annexation of chesterfield meant that blacks had such a small percentage of total votes in such a polarized area that they really could never realistically elect a candidate that would represent them well because their votes were drowned out in a sea of additional white votes.

Hatyer also discusses a potential counter argument on page 22. he cites that Burger and company claimed that it is “is not a statutory violation as long as the post-annexation electoral system fairly recognizes the minority’s political potential.” However, what good is “potential” if the group with potential can never act upon it? “Recognizing potential” would mean granting complete and full social and political equality, which was evidently not the case. Lastly, Hayter discusses the idea that “interracial cooperation was always governed according to terms dictated by whites” (p. 8). This sheds light on the fact that throughout history, minority communities have not have the political power to stand up for themselves. While the majority groups make decisions, minority groups follow and unwillingly comply, as shown in this reading. Full citizenship would move past this and avoid issues mentioned in this writing.

First off, I think it is really interesting and cool that one of our own professors wrote this article. Being able to learn from someone who is so involved and knowledgeable about the history of the city we have all chosen to come to is a priceless opportunity. I think Dr. Hayter’s article about the history of the city council and voting in Richmond provides details that would be hard to put together otherwise. Dr. Hayter pulls everything from Supreme Court cases to local election results to population densities to exemplify and explain his argument. I found his exploration of Holt’s influence on voting in Richmond and political equality to be very demonstrative of just how much has been done to try and change the political landscape of Richmond City and how there is still so much to be done. Particularly, I found the section on Holt’s lawsuit against the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fifteenth Amendment to be spot on of what Hayter was trying to explain. Reading that Holt was saying how the annexation of Chesterfield County diluted the voting strength of Blacks in Richmond City was what made me understand what the annexation of Chesterfield County truly meant. Connecting this to the podcast, I really enjoyed the way that history was portrayed in this article. Though I am very aware that recorded history is very Eurocentric, I find that it is still difficult to challenge what has been so consistently taught even though it is likely very narrow-minded and white washed. I found this article to be a very factual report of the history of voting and political equality in the city of Richmond. I appreciated the explanations of all of the lawsuits and feel that this helps me to better understand what has actually happened. I would be really interested to look more now at what the political landscape of Richmond city is district by district and how it has changed over time.