In our presentation last week, Brittney and I began discussing how the previous chapter had outlined Charles Houston’s philosophy of leadership – namely, the important relationship between active litigation in the courts and active involvement in the community. In this chapter we find Houston leaving his post at the NAACP in 1938 after seeing his vision being realized and passing the torch to Thurgood Marshall; it is important to note that Houston’s involvement with the organization did not come to a screeching halt at this point (249). To me, this embodies a rare leadership quality which I think is important – knowing when your time is up in a specific position without abandoning your commitment to your vision.
We also see how the structure of the NAACP began to undergo some changes as a discussion of how to properly incorporate the national branches was taken into consideration and slightly more emphasis was placed on field work – as evidenced by the importance of Ella Baker. The discussion of the future of the NAACP during such an uneasy time – financial constraints as well as continued political constraints – had an emphasis on the localization of the struggle. As we discussed when reading Barbara Ransby’s book on Ella Baker, Baker’s philosophy of leadership and social change was based in grass roots organizing and focusing on allowing communities to combat their struggles. The analysis offered by Robin D.G. Kelley in “We Are Not What We Seem” speaks to the emphasis of localization. In order to combat the politics of oppression it is important to consider the everyday, seemingly insignificant forms of resistance which may not have been groundbreaking protests but are in themselves politically important.
Two take away phrases from this set of readings are as they appear in the title of this post, “local” and “personal”. I think it’s important for social movement organizations to consider the power that lies within local issues and personal struggles to ultimately bolster the overall vision for change.
Here are some questions I would like to offer for consideration:
- What do you make of Houston’s decision to depart from his
position in the NAACP in 1938? Do you think it is important for leaders in
social movement organizations to know when to “pass on the torch”? - How do you interpret the description of Ella Baker’s early
work in the NAACP in this book as it is contextualized within the examination
of organization’s history? Do you find any similarities or differences from
what we read in Barbara Ransby’s book? - Considering the frame of Robin D.G. Kelley’s article,
do you think that the personal can be political? If so, can you think of any
other examples of such in other social movements we have or have not discussed
in class?
I think it was both valiant and wise of Houston to step down from his position in 1938. Often leaders are reluctant to give up their power and this just reaffirms for me that Houston was always in it for the benefit of the people, not for himself. Changing times call for new policies and often new leadership styles. Houston did what he could in his position and realized his limitations in regards to the coming future of the NAACP. Instead of putting up a fight like W.E.B. Du Bois, he kept his grace intact and made the lives of others in the NAACP a lot easier. Groups need new people and new ideas to keep them refreshed and moving along. Houston leaving the NAACP was necessary in order for the organization to develop a new chapter in civil rights.
I’m glad to hear that you are as impressed with this move made by Houston as I was, Lucie. In the chapter they describe Houston as the “architect” of some of the NAACP’s programs during this time. Once he saw his plans go into action he had the foresight to pass much of the work onto Thurgood Marshall. This shows that Houston was not interested in garnering acclaim but was really focused on the efforts of the organization.
To answer your second question, I thin that the description of Ella Baker is consistent with Ransby’s. Across the board, she is seen as an energetic organizer who values local involvement. She is diligent, humble, and willing to stand in the shadows while others shine. This description of Baker recognizes her impact, likening it to Marshall’s, in advancing the movement and seems to reflect an appreciation for those efforts. The consistency of description within the two works are testament to Baker’s character.