“I hope you will not sell your birthright of freedom for a mess of segregated pottage. Nothing is more sublime than suffering and sacrifice for a great cause. But there can be no growth without pain.” These words from Martin Luther King Junior epitomized the struggle of black members of society during the Prince Edward County schooling crisis. Even after the court’s decision in 1959 to outlaw segregation, the white schools were not compelled to change their institutions, but rather to close them down to even further impede the black population’s access to educational resources. They closed their public schools for 5 years, launching the community into an educational crisis and forcing them to migrate outward. Because many of the older generation of the black community did not have formal educations or resources, they could not educate their children on their own, and they could hardly afford to send them elsewhere to school. For those that could, migrating to other communities was the next step to get education. But the others, who either could not afford the travel or demanded to post up in Prince Edward County for protest, had to suffer the consequences of no educational opportunities. At one point, the Negro’s were offered a chance to attend a separate black private school, which would give them a chance at education but would ultimately curtail their long-fought goal of desegregation. White leaders of schools were increasingly irritated by the continued demand for better facilities or more equal treatment, but as their “intransigence” grew, so did the determination of the black population.

After seeing the hardships that Prince Edward County black citizens were facing, it is clear why Martin Luther King’s statement is so provoking. His reference to the Biblical story of Jacob and Esau is a perfect representation of the decision that they all had to face. In the book of Genesis, Esau has just returned home and is faced with severe hunger to the point of bodily pain. His brother and adversary, Jacob, offers him soup, a temporary relief for what he feels like he readily needs, to satiate his hunger. In order for him to obtain the soup from Jacob, he has to give up his birthright to him, which was Esau’s personal right given to him at birth for the riches of his father. Paralleling that story, if the Negro’s of Prince Edward County were to accept the white leaders’ substandard offers of separate schools during the time which they were the most starved of education, then they would ultimately give up their dreams and rights of having integrated schooling and a better education for their children. Indeed, they had to suffer through momentary pain in order to see growth.

-What do you think would have happened if the Prince Edward County black members had settled for the separate schooling in order for their kids to have any education at all in the midst of the school closing crisis?

-The reverend Martin Luther King Jr. often refers to Jesus Christ’s supreme sacrifice when encouraging the suffering and eventual victory of the black citizens. I am curious what you all think about the Biblical rhetoric he uses. What is the importance of Jesus Christ and religion to the people and their morale? How does the emulation of Jesus Christ’s sacrifice translate into their fight for equality?

Since we did not have an opportunity to discuss the Hall article in greater detail today in class I felt that it would be a good idea to discuss it here. While reading about civil rights activism in Virginia during the 1960 I couldn’t help but notice the tension between numerous different civil rights activists fighting for the same cause. Fighting for civil rights in the Jim Crow South was hard enough given the numerous political restraints. It was imperative that civil rights activists remained a cohesive group that worked together to accomplish a common goal, and the last thing that civil rights activists needed to be doing was fighting with each other. However, the Hall article informed us that civil rights activists were not one big happy family.

I was surprised that the group of civil rights activists was riddled with rifts and factions that did not get along with each other. I always thought that all African Americans were on the same page when it came to the Civil Rights Movements, and that although there were different organizations and tactics, the different organizations supported each other. This was evidently not the case, and animosity existed both between and within organizations. First, although we have somewhat lionized the NAACP as the architect of the Civil Rights Movement, Hall discussed in the article that the organization was not beloved by all African Americans. The NAACP had “an uneasy relationship with the direct-action wing of the Civil Rights Movement” (252) and constantly but heads with the youthful, more radical organizations. Also, tension existed between national organization and its local branches. For example, the national SCLC office had rocky relationships with its local branches due to “ an inadequate support from the national office” (259). Another source of tension amongst civil rights activists existed between white and black activists. Although they were fighting for the same cause, “hostility surrounded white involvement in the movement” (261). Furthermore, tension existed between black male and female members of the same civil rights organizations as well. As a result, activists not only had to worry about fighting segregation during the Civil Rights movement, but they had to worry about fighting each other as well.

The question I kept asking myself is weren’t these guys all on the same team? If they were all trying to accomplish the same goal why were they fighting? There were enough enemies out there trying to stop civil rights activists from accomplishing their goals it seems extremely detrimental to the cause to be fighting with each other. I understand that different perspectives and strategies are needed to advance a social movement, but I believe that if these organizations and individuals would have worked together rather than quarrel more could have been accomplished faster. When you are on the same team, bitterness usually leads to a lack of production, and I believe this could have been the case during the Civil Rights Movements.

So what do you guys think about the tensions between different organizations during the Civil Rights Movements. Do you think it was as detrimental as I do? Could the hostility and separation amongst the different organizations actually have been beneficial for the movement?

Ethan Wolf