While reading chapter 9, one quote in particular stood out to me. Marshall wrote, “it is quite difficult to show many people in the Deep South the evils of segregation when they have…lived in segregated areas all of their lives” (336). I think that it is easy when looking back on history to see clearly who and what was “right” and “wrong.” This quote made me think of how people of different places and times can see the same situation very differently. People within the movement and of the time were still forming their ideas and opinions on segregation. It is easy for us now in the 2012 to see “the evils of segregation,” but I can see how if that is all that people have ever known, it might be a different story. Changing deeply rooted social customs and beliefs can be a tough struggle, as we have seen through Sullivan’s book. I think that it is important to remember when studying historical social movements that not everything is as clear-cut as we like to think, and things that are obvious to us today were not as obvious in the past. Now in the 21st century, if you ask someone what they think about segregation, you would almost universally get a negative response. This was clearly not the case in the 40’s.
The beginning of chapter 9 says, “it had been twenty years since Du Bois called for a crusade against the wretched state of black education in the South and more than a decade since Charles Houston offered his stark visual documentation of separate and unequal schools in South Carolina” (334). The people working with the NAACP amaze me with their perseverance and dedication. After 20 years of fighting the same fight with minimal improvement, how did the people working for the NAACP and the people within the movement not give up hope? How did this movement sustain itself for so long after so many set backs and so much opposition? I think that these are important questions for any social movement, since no movement will be able to achieve all its goals overnight.
Sullivan goes on to describe the movement as a “slow, steady insurgency against the edifice of Jim Crow” (335). I think that looking at history, movements often bring about this slow, steady social change. People within the movements often insist on change now, though. While I think that the people who are upset and fighting for change would like to see instantaneous changes, things do not usually happen abruptly in society. Do you think that slow and steady change is better, or would swifter social changes be better? Do you think that social changes that happen too quickly could have unwanted consequences since you need to give people in society time to adjust?
–Kristen Bailey
