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
I agree that social movements usually bring about steady change and that the driver of the movement comes from its members who are always asking for more. I think it is vital that members voice their opinions to the movement leaders so that they can channel it into a focused legal argument that ties in outside aspects of the cultural to make it more inclusive. I think change that occurs too quickly awaits an attack of equal force from the opposition that can divide people even more which sets back the movement’s progress. In the cases of the NAACP, resilient legal battles that made incremental strides helped their war effort against inequality on a national level. I think steady change allows both sides of the movement to more accurately gauge a situation and help assess what tactical measures should be taken. I think trying to solve the problem with one stroke leaves behind too many uncertainties and implements and inefficient system that doesn’t meet the full needs of the movement. In particular, slow change allowed the NAACP to change the perspectives of blacks in the Deep South who couldn’t imagine a life without segregation. Marshall pointed out that in some instances the topic of integration left expressions of apprehension on the faces of its members. To be an effective leader you have to be out in front of your followers, but this case is an example of the leadership being too far out in front of its followers. The only reason Marshall realized this is because the chapter explains that he interacted with followers at different levels of the movement whereas White wouldn’t have noticed this. I think it’s also important to note that slow change doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t fight with all the resources at your disposal, but that effectively utilizing those resources will result in steady progress.
I appreciate the perspective you provide in your first paragraph about the importance of understanding context in relation to the progress of social movements. It is sometimes easy to forget that some measures that were taken now appear to us as a natural progression but were then seen as something revolutionary.
I do not really think that change can truly be instantaneous. Even when protestors demand for “change now” I think that deep down they understand that change is not simple and it cannot be effective overnight.
“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?”
Kristen, you ask some very interesting questions. It is indeed amazing that people are able to remain dedicated throughout such a long period of minimal success. I believe, however, that “set backs” can be just as affirming and serve the purpose of an affirming victory. Since this period of little hope or progress is characterized by World War 2, I would like to use a related example to make my point.
After World War 1, the Treaty of Versailles made Germany pay money to the victors, forced the German people to claim full responsibility for the war and led to a state of shame and national resentment. This “set back” of sorts and the injustice eventually led to the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party; many Germans were affirmed in their support of the social movement towards Nazism by this injustice and the post-war setbacks.
Medger Evers, a NAACP leader during this time and the subject of my research project, was similar in the sense that he was motivated by “set backs” and a lack of progress against injustice. A decorated war veteran, his biggest motivators were the lynching of Emmitt Till and the lack of respect he was given on his return from the war. He lamented the fact that the people of France gave him more respect than even his own countrymen.
Motivated exclusively by negative events, Medger Evers is an example of a person who stayed motivated throughout the period of little progress and shows that “set backs” and continued injustice can be just as powerful motivators for a social movement as progress and victories.
btw, this was written by JP
Kristin,
I also appreciated your discussion of the perseverance of the leaders in the NAACP despite so many setbacks. I was thinking to myself that I probably would have given up despite my often cheerful mood. Even in Chapter 9, we see that the organization has been around for over 35 years at that point in the late 1940s and still had yet to see any major change. I would say that the combination of the legal campaigns and the collective identity established in the communities by leaders like Marshall and Ella Baker were the main things that led people to continue to believe. Having leaders that were fun, genuinely interested in getting to know people, and good spirited would eventually transform the spirit of the whole movement towards such characteristics.Despite financial hardship, I believe that NAACP should have put fieldwork to the top of the agenda because putting these positive and hopeful leaders out there can really work to convince blacks, and maybe even whites.
After our previous studies of social movements so far, I would say that social movements are long processes that need steady pressure and lots of commitment. I do not think that social movements can happen quickly. Based on the amount of policy change and culture change that needs to occur, the movement is going to be a slow process. And maybe those that gain too much change too fast end up also dying out and not having a lasting effect. An example of this, I think, is the Kony 2012 video. Which circulated strongly for about a week. However they did not give us much to do about the issue and also we are so far removed from the situation it is easy for people to hide behind their computer screen. The re-post the video and feel as if they have contribute when in actuality the man is still out there and the hunt for him is non-existent.
I think the reason why the NAACP was so successful and remained committed after so many disappointments was due to their leaderships. Due to the leaders working in the central hub as well as in the field, the NAACP was able to manage control over a large area and were able to affect a lot of people. The leaders were also very charismatic leaders who were able to empower people to get over their fears and take ownership of their lives. The examples that they set really inspired the African American people to not be afraid which I think was a big setback at this time. Another important issue was the way the NAACP handled the government the white people in general. They had to be patient in order to establish respect, trust and prestige.
Eliza McLean
I’d like to answer your question Kristen about “slow and steady” or change “now!” For something like the civil rights movement and desegregation I think the only true way possible is slow and steady. Yes, there needs to be a way in which legislation is changed which was work of Charles Houston and Thurgood Marshall, however on a more social level the change that came about was slow and steady. The reason for this is because these are people’s mindsets and ways of thinking. If you were to grow up your whole life in antebellum South, you may have a negative view of blacks or see them as subordinates. Then your children may also see them as subordinates. Then, desgregation begins to happen and the next generation goes to school with black students. All of a sudden, mindsets begin to change and the older generation may still be stuck in the past. I believe there is no way of truly changing someone’s mind, but that each generation on a social level will feel differently from their parents.
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 believe that these questions and the quote that you presented by Marshall are connected. It is hard for the NAACP to change the minds of both the Whites and Blacks in the South when segregation had been present for as long as it was. Desegregation was a process and I believe that the NAACP leaders understood the difficulties that they were going to face from the start. They prepared themselves mentally to fight for their race and the rights of being a citizen of America. This also reminds me of what someone in our class said earlier this year that Ella Baker would have never stopped working to better the rights for African Americans. Even if the NAACP was successful at the time, all the leaders would have still continued to work and sustain the movement.