What I enjoyed most about Robin D. G. Kelley’s article “‘We Are Not What We Seem:’ Rethinking Black Working Class Opposition in the Jim Crow South,” was that it brought an unexpected and refreshing new angle to the world of social movements. I was beginning to think of social movements as a game between institutions and organizations. Those in power would make their move, and then those who had organized to fight the power would make another move to influence the next move made. Kelley radically redefined that by showing me that while coalitions are undoubtedly important, they do not have to be made quite as consciously as I previously thought. They can form organically through friendships, community, and culture.

This approach I believe more effectively acknowledges the earlier constraints on social movement by African Americans. As Kelley points out, “when thinking about the Jim Crow South, we need always to keep in mind that African Americans, the working class in particular, did not experience a liberal democracy.” (110) This means that working with the institutions of power was not an option, at least not initially.

African Americans who did not have even the most remote access to power created their own power through civil disobedience and deviance. This was displayed particularly in the work place. Black men and women created a defiant culture by working together to control the pace of work in exploitive working conditions. Black women were subjected not only to racism by white male employers, but also to sexism, and supported each other through creating “networks of solidarity” (98). Public space also functioned as a forum for expression of frustration with race relations, especially public transportation. Individuals began to protest racism in the public transportation before it ever became an issue for social movement organizations like the NAACP. The people set the agenda for what to change, not the institutions.

While organization and structure are undoubtedly important to the progression of a social movement, I appreciated how this article put the power of social movements back into the hands of individuals. It recognized the importance why the movement started and not how it moved. Why the movement started undoubtedly frames how it plays out, and I appreciated Kelley’s emphasis on where the unrest unfolded and how resistance organically materialized from that.

Again, however, I think the most important takeaway from this article is that individual African Americans made their own power through civil disobedience in the workplace and in public spaces (although still within a strong community with communal purpose). The “unorganized, seemingly powerless black working people brought these issues to the forefront by their resistance, which was shaped by relations of domination as well as the many confrontations they witnessed on the stage of the moving theater” of public transportation (109). Without these rebellious individuals to create a culture of protest, even on a small scale, could organizations like the NAACP even begin? In the end, which is more important: the protest culture or the protesting coalition?

The implementation of the New Deal by the newly elected president Franklin D. Roosevelt marked a pivotal turn in the fight for African American rights. After a long and arduous struggle attempting to infiltrate both the federal and state governments, African Americans were finally making measurable progress. Racial caste systems still dominated Congress but with the determination of the NAACP, inspiration from the New Deal, and the individual efforts of many such as Charles Houston, Walter White, and Thurgood Marshall new reformations were made. The NAACP decided to take economic and employment issues into their own hands and developed both acts and groups such as the National Industry Recovery Act and National Recovery Administration (NRA) to ensure black representation in social reforms (192). Anti-lynching reform continued to be an integral part of the NAACP’s policy agenda. With the help of newly trained African American lawyers as discussed in Chapter 5, anti-lynching proposals flooded the courts.

Mounting tension between White and Du Bois eventually resulted in Du Bois’ resignation from the NAACP. They disagreed on issues such as voluntary segregation and neither party was budging. White argued that accepting any form of voluntary segregation would completely undermine the NAACP’s mission to help foster a harmonious and racially intermixed country (200). Throughout the history of the NAACP, fieldwork had been an essential part of the organizations base, and headquarters continued to emphasis the importance of local branches involvement in local reformation (205).

The reason why the NAACP was so “successful” despite the Depression was due to the emphasis placed on training and incorporating African American lawyers into the core of the NAACP as well as support from the New Deal. The process of teaching blacks to become lawyers and then hiring them as their representatives in court cases was a huge boost to the NAACP’s reputation and legitimacy. Despite the New Deal having various racist restrictions, funding was still provided to African Americans institutions and inspired many groups such as the NAACP to develop their own forms of reconstruction (226). I use the word successful in quotations because the term is relative. The NAACP may not have accomplished their broader goals in Chapter 6, but they did win minor battles while on their way to tackling those larger issues.

How important is it for long-term organizations to adapt to the demands of changing times? Do you think W.E.B. Du Bois’ greatest fault was his inability to accept the growing need to intermingle with different races? Or was he just in his thinking that in order for African Americans to succeed, they must fully rely on themselves and their own race?

(Shout out to Ella Baker on page 243)

Lucie Dufour

In Charles Houston’s Article, “Education Inequalities Must Go”, we see a definitive action plan to solve educational inequalities, instated by the N.A.A.C.P. Although I appreciated this concrete and unwavering plan, the part that I found most valuable to their argument is when he touches on this philosophical idea of human existence and how we all wish to be treated with respect and equality. When he states “To the N.A.A.C.P ‘amicable race relations’ means mutual helpfulness in promoting the common welfare allowing to everybody concerned the full benefit of the law and equality of opportunity.” In the statement following he says it is not “whether the whites and Negroes can remain friends while the Negro is at the little end of the horn”. Right here Houston has posed a great challenge to all races of America. He is making a statement about humankind and how we all need to treat one another equally because we are all humans and want the same thing. Inclusion, respect, we are social beings after all. Personally, I don’t think that stating your action plan is going to intimidate of change the whites in power as much as this statement which almost digs at all human feelings. It can be understood by all and really causes people to think and reflect on their actions and test if they are truly acting, as they would want to be treated.

I also found interesting how much the circumstances of our presidents changed the course of the civil rights movement. In another leadership class we have read numerous books by Malcolm Gladwell. One of his books, titled The Tipping Point examines those little instances that change a situation dramatically. I think this truly occurred in the context of the Civil Rights Movement when FDR became president. His presidency began a domino effect of positive changes towards solving the social injustices of African Americans. The Joint Committee on National Recovery also dramatically changed the course of the civil rights movement. Finally, the concert at the Lincoln Memorial and Eleanor Roosevelt’s resignation from the DAR, demonstrate the constantly changing mindset of the nation at the time.

A few questions to reflect upon:

1. What are other examples of “tipping point” like situations that have occurred during the Civil Rights Movements?

2. Without people like the Roosevelts would the civil rights movement have gained so much momentum as quickly? Would they have attained goals?

3. Did you find Houston’s article statement on humanity as moving? Do you think it changed the mentalities of whites in Virginia at the time?

– Eliza McLean

After reading the article Educational Inequalities Must Go! and the short film by Charles Houston, I find it interesting that in both accounts Houston uses the laws and constitution of the U.S. to show how much the American government on a local level, is ignoring its own laws and policies. The article in particular presents a new plan put on by the NAACP to figure out a way that can help to eliminate all inequalities for education of whites and blacks.

One of my critiques of the article is that it seems to be focusing on higher education as it mentions the two cases of black students and their admittance into graduate school. My only problem with this is that for these two students to make it to the graduate level, they must have been privileged in order to make it that far in their schooling. As shown in Sullivan’s book, Houston was interested in educating other black men to become lawyers. However, in order to raise the standards of education across the board, I believe it to be necessary to work at the local levels in elementary schools in order for all children to have an equal education. Houston certainly mentions this method as well in his articles and short film, but I think more could have been done right away with policy changes.

The plan that Houston and the N.A.A.C.P. laid out to equalize education was one that we have not seen a great deal of in our studies so far in this class. That is they sought to “insist that the U.S. respect its own Constitution and its own laws” (The Crisis). At a time when African-Americans were placed into categories based on their looks, this was an excellent way in which they could have legitimacy in the American legal system. There could not be any denial of the law and this was a beneficial method for the N.A.A.C.P. in order to reach their goal of educational equality.

Here are a few questions I have:

1. In what ways are W.E.B. DuBois and Houston’s goals relatable to one another?

2. Based on our discussions in class, what other ways could the N.A.A.C.P. and Houston approached educational inequality in America?

-Kate Fleischer