I really was interested in Zinn’s chapter, “Or Does it Explode?” The civil rights movement was a topic in which I was very excited to hear the details that were “left out” through Zinn’s eyes. Black culture throughout the 20th century had further pushed the idea that a rebellion would be coming soon. If this was through poetry or music, these artists hinted that enough was enough, and change needed to happen. What I never knew was that the government was influenced by their image perceived by the rest of the world to start trying to obtain racial equality. This was also very noticeable when the government did not protect the protestors as the violence got worse. It took the death of five protestors to finally get the government to intervene. Laws were passed promising certain rights that were never enforced. This further shows me that the government was still hesitant in helping to obtain racial equality.
Another part of the chapter that I found extremely important was the divide that Zinn puts between MLK and Malcolm X. Everyone in school was taught about how MLK believed in non-violent protesting which became the norm for civil rights movement. What I did not know, or forgot, was that there were many cases in which black people did not agree with MLK and thought that the more violent approach was better before Malcolm X. What I never realized was that these ideas came before Malcolm X started the Black Power Movement. I wonder if there was a period of time in which blacks were fighting about the proper way to go about the civil rights movement before Malcolm X started the Black Power Movement. Did the black people that did not agree with MLK’s approach stand in his way? I just found it interesting that some people pushed away from the idea of obtaining equality for the idea that there could be even more separation between races, even though this is the problem that they are fighting in the first place.
In high school I knew of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. however I didn’t recognize the divide between them until reading Zinn. I knew that MLK believed in non-violent protesting while Malcolm X supported violent riots, and groups like the Black Panthers; however, I did not know that they were viewed as joint leaders. I feel as if Malcolm X gets left outside the spotlight.
When reading the chapter, I was disappointed but not surprised to learn that a part of Truman’s Committee for Civil rights was because of national appearance.
You raised some good questions about the different “sides” of the civil rights movements. I think that in every movement, there are going to be several groups of people that all think that their methodology is the best way to solve the problems at hand. Without a doubt, some people will turn to peaceful protests, while others will turn to violence. Quite frankly, groups may share some common goals but want radically different outcomes as seen in separatist idealogy verse hopes of full integration.
It seems that the main reason the laws and initiatives were pushed out by the government in the first place was to stop the spread of the movement causing unrest. It doesn’t seem like much care or thought was put into it considering the way they went about it.
I also think it’s really interesting to consider the different approaches represented by MLK and Malcolm X. I think the coordinating influence between violent and nonviolent action was likely a very important role in the progression of the Civil Rights Movement. While many people point to MLK’s rhetoric to denounce violent civil disobedience, I think it’s important to note that MLK and Malcolm X held equally influential roles in the movement. Considering the simultaneous influence of peaceful and violent approaches to activism, I think it’s very hard to point to one as more productive than the other. In reality, I think these two forces likely benefited from one another, peaceful approaches garnering wider support by appealing to moderates while violent approaches inspired more active mobilization.