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 response to your question, I believe that it is vital that long-term organizations adapt to the demands of changing times. Flexibility in social movements is key in my opinion. Social movements by definition are fluid and constantly changing, and if a movement becomes too rigid, I think that it is almost always going to fail or fall apart. I think the success and popularity of social movements is that they offer a flexible way for people to enact change. Especially if a movement is hoping to stick around for a while and become long-term, they must adapt with changing circumstances. No one technique will ever work in changing circumstances, and the same goes for social movements. They must change with the times. Constant re-evaluation of techniques and goals is how movements such as the civil rights movement managed to keep going and ultimately become successful in enacting social change.
I agree that social movement organizations have to be flexible and adapt to the changing contexts around them. If not, the organization will not gain support and cannot address the issues at hand.
Brittney and I raised a similar question to this in class when we talked about whether organizations need to broaden their agenda in order to be successful in the long run. In addition to this, I also think it’s important for organizations to build coalitions, as discussed by Meyer. I think we can see how the NAACP really starts to build coalitions during the 1930s in Dr. Fergeson’s draft, e.g. the Joint Committee on National Recovery.
I think we addressed your question, Lucie, in a new perspective today in class. We viewed the issues of cultural changes through the lens of videography. It is crucial for organizations to adjust to the changing times, not only through their protesting strategy, the way they recruit, and the tasks on their agendas, but also by means of adjusted advertising strategies. As we discussed earlier, the silent films that flash images and statistics would simply not capture the audiences in todays’ culture. At the time, it was brilliant to use video displays of inequality in schools and disparity of literacy rates, and Houston was aware that this type of strategy could possibly appeal to the emotions and allow the devastating reality of inequality resonate in the viewers.
Organizations today, however, realize that the world, the West in particular, too often hear stories about inequality and soon forget about what they hear. It takes captivating videography, loud and nearly offensive sound effects, and gruesome pictures at professional angles in order to divert our attention from our own lives to the lives of others under oppression. So my answer, in short, is yes. Yes organizations must adjust to the needs of the public that they are trying to attract as times change and people change.
I completely agree with both the posted responses. A group will fail very quickly if they do not constantly adapt to the changing demands in the world. The purpose of a social movement organization is to help the people, if they do not change their goals to match those of the people then they will lose supporters. We talked about Du Bois’ resignation in class and I wanted to bring that up again. I thought it was essential that he left the NAACP because he is the perfect example of someone who will not adapt to necessary changes. His idea of voluntary segregation completely undermined everything the NAACP had worked to achieve. In order for the NAACP to survive as a respected and unified division it had to remove people like Du Bois who would settle for such ideas as voluntary segregation.
I thought that it was extremely unfortunate that White and Dubois allowed their personal quarrel to be played out in such an unprofessional and immature manner. Although I have to agree with the board’s decision to push Dubois out, I think before he started blatantly attacking the leadership of the NAACP he mainly tried to offer a perspective within the black community that was hesitant to support integration due to the widespread practices of historic racial tension and persecution. However well placed White’s intentions may have been, the chapter portrayed him as almost promoting the movement from his own personal vision and at times boarding on being an egomaniac. I think both Dubois and Houston held understandable reservations about trusting those in power while African Americans’ social status hung in the balance which is why they could both support programs focusing on making African American communities more sustainable in case of a fall out. It’s important that long-term organizations take constant open-minded inventory of their mission and also leadership self-reflection. Although White grew to resent Dubois for seeing the potential in segregation through self-empowerment, there are similarities in White’s actions that illustrate Dubois point such as his unwillingness to see the Negro Congress as an ally to the NAACP. By isolating the NAACP from the Negro Congress White was in fact doing what Dubois preached, just in a different way. I thought the partnership between the two organizations had great potential if White didn’t view them as competition. I saw this as a missed opportunity that can be blamed on the leadership’s failure to adapt to the external environment.
I agree that in order to advance a social movement organization’s goals on a long-term basis leaders need to be able to adapt to changing times and opinions. I think that it was detrimental to the NAACP as an organization that Du Bois stayed for as long as he did and used a very public forum (The Crisis) to voice an opinion on segregation that varied greatly from the other NAACP leaders’ ideals. So while in the context of the NAACP specifically I would say that Du Bois’ inability to see eye to eye with White is an example of a leader who could not adapt. In a larger ideological context, however, I think that Du Bois’ stance on segregation was legitimate and that many activists at the time agreed with him that in order to advance their cause blacks had to work exclusively with one another. Du Bois’ leadership would have been more effective and appreciated at an organization that shared these ideals.
I agree with the majority of responses that it is important for an organization to adapt to changing times, however I think organizations must always remain true to their core values. For the NAACP, the ultimate goal was freedom and equality for blacks. While the goal never changed, the approach to attaining the goal did, and it fluctuated between voting rights, education, anti-lynching, and homesteading. For any organization to succeed, the group must have key players who consistently champion the overall goal. With changing times, leaders must be able to quickly adapt and strategize to advance the group’s goals. When leaders cannot make such adaptations, they become hindrances to the organization. It was therefore necessary for DuBois to split with the organization because of his fundamental disagreement with the organization and its leaders.
How important is it for long-term organizations to adapt to the demands of changing times?
Earlier in the semester, we discussed as a class what it means to have a successful social movement in America. I believe that the class agreed then that America is an extremely diverse nation that is constantly changing over time, so in order for a movement to be successful it must change and adapt along with the nation because the needs of the movement could change. The NAACP was trying to tackle so many issues that were present at the time for African Americans, but over time they realized that they were not going to be able to tackle every issue. This is why I believe that social movements need to be specific in what they are working towards because it will strengthen the goals and simplify the progression in what the movement is trying to achieve. For example, Charles Houston specifically started working towards strengthening African American representation in the South by teaching and empowering African Americans to become lawyers and help their race. This was a specific issue that he tackled and adpated to, which I believe will dramatically help African Americans in the end.
I agree with most all of the above statements. I think it was unfortunate what happened to Du Bois. He brought a great passion and energy to the NAACP. However, in the end, the NAACP had to look out for what issues were best going to advance their cause. I think Du Bois was being protective of his race and realistic to the fact that, although some whites may help, they may not follow through with their plans. After being mistreated for so long, it is understandable why Du Bois lacked trust in the white race.
Yet, at the same time I can see why White began to issue the help of other races. As a leader, he is faced with tough decisions, and for him, allowing their help was doing more good than harm. After all of the conflicts they have had to deal with in the past, I think he felt this couldn’t really hurt them that much more. I personally think his decisions were vital to the civil rights movement for they allowed for African Americans to be seen in a different light. The more they worked with other races the more people would realize that they are all just people.
To conclude, I believe that organizations need to have charismatic leaders like Du Bois to make risky decisions that will take the movement in a new direction or force it to adapt to new circumstances.