Author Archives: s12ldst304

School closings in Prince Edward County, VA

Posted on by

Both the Murrell and Bonastia articles brought up some interesting points about the Prince Edward County school closings and the actions taken by both sides.  The Murrell article discusses the general feeling of civic spirit throughout the county previous to the Brown decision.  The citizens of the county were proud of the positive relationship between blacks and whites within their community and appreciated that civic spirit was needed to make a community develop and progress.  The county had a reputation for being one of few places in the South where both races worked together to make the community a better place.  What is interesting is that, after the Brown decision, white leaders used this portrait of the community against the black citizens in order to gather support from other community members.  Even though the Brown decision came down from the Supreme Court, white leaders of Prince Edward County blamed the African Americans within the community for disturbing the peaceful balance that had been maintained.

The media also played a significant role in the aftermath of the Brown decision in Prince Edward County.  Murrell describes The Herald, the local newspaper, as a hub of communication for community members to voice their civic concerns.  The Herald became a “key link between segregationist leaders and white residents.”  It was interesting to read about media being such an important instrument for molding public opinion because we have talked about the power of social media numerous times in out class discussions but mostly related to current events.  The way The Herald was described in the article, however, sounded very similar to how we see social media being used to rally support for civic issues today.

One thing I found very interesting about the Bonastia article was the idea that “no single tactic or combination of tactics promised optimal outcomes for social movement organizations.”  The article presented the question of whether the NAACPs heavy emphasis on legal mobilization prolonged the educational stalemate in Prince Edward County.  Some residents of the county were ambivalent about civil disobedience believing that protesting would bring too much trouble and would only increase tensions within the community.  Others believed the school shutdowns would not have lasted as long if protests had started immediately after the schools were closed.  Towards the end of the article, Bonastia maintains that “without question the addition of direct action to the tactical repertoire of groups fighting for civil rights furthered the cause.”  In fact, direct action did lead to African Americans winning certain concessions from the white elites as well as convincing others that they could contribute personally to the fight against racial inequality.

 In light of these arguments, do you agree that the NAACPs focus on litigation discouraged citizens of Prince Edward County from taking direct action and if so, did this help to prolong the school closings?

Laura Bailey

Continuing Conversations

Posted on by

In the wake of our class discussion last week about the Trayvon Martin case, John McAuliff wrote this op-ed in USAToday College about journalists’ use of the term “social media lynch mob.”  McAuliff points out that sensitivity to America’s long history of racial violence is warranted.  Check it out:

http://www.usatodayeducate.com/staging/index.php/ccp/opinion-history-trayvon-martin-and-the-court-of-social-media

— Dr. Fergeson

Lift Every Voice, Chapter 9

Posted on by
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

Chapter 6: Crossroads

Posted on by

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

Social Movements and Public Policy

Posted on by

Following up on our discussion today about the relationship between social movements and public policy, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell withdrew his support of the latest bill requiring a woman to have a transvaginal ultrasound before having an abortion.  Was his change of heart due to public protest and media attention or due to his own political aspirations?  Hard to tell.

See the New York Times latest coverage of the issue here.  That article also describes some of the social movement organizations on both sides of the debate.

See John Stewart’s The Daily Show coverage of the issue here.

Fox News has an article describing the protest on Monday.  Read that here.

You can also read the AP News story about the protest here.

This image comes from the Rachel Maddow blog.  You can read the blog here.  The people standing in the far left of the picture include a faculty member and students from Longwood University.

 

Chapter 9: The Policy Connection

Posted on by

In Chapter 9: The Policy Connection, Meyer addresses the interaction of movements and the policy process.  Using the Bonus Army as an example, Meyer highlights specific techniques employed by protesters in social movements that impact the movements effect on policy.  These techniques include: personally carrying their claims to Washington to bring them to the direct attention of policy makers, not giving in to intimidation or efforts to suppress their demonstrations, and using the media to gain allies across the nation.  Meyer describes effective demonstrations as an expression of a cause, the representation of a constituency, and the analysis of what should be done.

 

One of the main points Meyer highlights throughout this chapter is that social movements influence, develop, and affect politics over a long period of time and often in unexpected ways (165).  Social movements often get criticized for not having specific goals and showing no focused means of obtaining their goals or enacting specific changes.  However, much of this criticism stems from the issue that social movements cannot create immediate change.  Meyer points out that Madison and the other founders purposefully created our political system in a way that slows the process of political change (168).  The political policy changes that social movements bring about take a long time to pass through the system and much of the process occurs behind closed doors.  Unfortunately, by the time these changes come about, the social movements that called for them are not always given due credit.

 

Meyer presents an example of this slow political process using the antiwar and antidraft movements of the 1960s.  Although draft regulations did not change much during the Vietnam War, they have changed drastically since then.  The political fallout resulting from the antiwar movement affected the United States foreign policy for nearly thirty years (167).  It also led to more hesitancy before committing troops to foreign missions.  In addition, antidraft movements led policy makers and the military to improve the quality of life of military personnel in an effort to attract and accommodate a stable volunteer military force.  By the time these changes came about, little credit was given to the activists who participated in those social movements.

 

Keeping these issues in mind, it is interesting to think about what social movements that have occurred recently and are currently in progress will bring about political change in the future.  The OWS movement has been heavily criticized for not having any specific goals and not petitioning for specific changes within the system.  However, it is possible that major changes stemming from this movement have yet to be seen.  What policies may come about that began as reactions to the Occupy movement?

— Laura Bailey

Why Everyone Protests (Why Nothing Gets Done)

Posted on by

Firstly I would like to provide a summary of the key points of this chapter for review. Meyer begins this chapter acknowledging the power of incorporating politics into social movements. Protesting at social movements, for example the Democratic national convention in Chicago in 1968, is a great way to gain the attention of the federal and state governments but also to gain political allies. Originally Meyer states that political protest was greater in the past than now, and contrastingly fewer issues were protested about in the past than are now. This increase of issues protested about alludes to JP’s question as to whether civil disobedience has become overused. Meyer admits in this chapter that the increase of social movements has created a “cluster of issues” (146) and each issue receives less attention as a result.

From there, Meyer then moves on to discuss the double-sidedness of political protests. Meyer uses the examples of abortion and civil rights to present the case that each political movement has a countermovement. He briefly states that although these movements may be the direct opposite of one another, they still often use the same tactics as mentioned in Chapter 5. Political protests have so many components to them due to the fact that each one has a countermovement. Meyers writes “Activists on more than one side of an issue must deal not only with each other, but also the outsiders drawn into the conflict” (150). Activists not only have to worry about organizing and promoting their side of the issue, but also have to stay on top of the counter movement’s plans and rebut their statements.

Not only is there countermovement to every movement, but also there is bipartisanship within both the state and federal government. So therefore you have the two sides of one issue fighting against each other, Republicans and Democrats fighting against each other, and the state and federal governments fighting against each other as well. It’s no wonder political protests never make any real progress. Political protests often have more resources than non-political protests because they engage politicians with power into the equation. These politicians can act as representatives for each side of the issue and make sure their opinions are debated in government meetings. However, because the state and federal governments often have different rulings and do not come to similar conclusions on rulings, there is a lot of gray area within these hot button issues. For example with abortion, Roe v. Wade ruled that a women can terminate her pregnancy during the first trimester, the state holds power in the third trimester, but during the second trimester, there needs to be a “balancing of rights” (152). This balancing of rights leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Take gay marriage, the federal government does not recognize gay marriage, yet they give states the right to make their own individual decisions. Well not all states have the same policies, so there again is a gray area of indecision.

In conclusion, Meyer states that the reason why political protests take so long to resolve, or might never be resolved is because of the split in government and the continued existence of movements and countermovement. Also, because political protest has become more commonly accepted in the present, people risk less by joining a movement. Therefore, there are more issues being debated and lots and lots of clutter.

Okay now for the fun part…some questions for you to think about:

1.)    Going back to JP’s question has the increase of political issues being debated taken away from their overall meaning? Would it be more conducive to focus on only a few hot button topics (gay marriage, abortion) at a time?

2.)    In what ways does a bipartisan government create standstills for social movements? Are these standstills necessary to keep the peace? Could these standstills ever realistically be removed somehow?

3.)    Is there a countermovement to Occupy Wall Street? If so, does that mean OWS is a political protest? If not, does that mean OWS does not qualify to be a political protest?

– Lucie Dufour

Next Steps for the Occupy Movement?

Posted on by

Sunday’s New York Times  featured this article about the different avenues the Occupy Movement is taking — planning larger protests to draw in more people to their movement, renting office space, organizing general assemblies and work groups.  The activists they quote in the article have experience participating in other social movements.

The article quotes David Meyer, the author of The Politics of Protest. “’Some of the stuff you do to get attention often puts off your audience,’ said David S. Meyer, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, who studies social movements. ‘It’s a delicate balance, being provocative enough to get attention and still draw sympathy.’”

In what ways does the article reflect other themes in Meyer’s book?

Also pay particular attention to the activists quoted by the reporters.  How is the New York Times portraying the Occupy Movement?

 

 

Chapter 6: Civil Disobedience

Posted on by

There are several important takeaways that the author wishes us to absorb from chapter 6 on civil disobedience. The first is that the term “civil disobedience” is described and defined very broadly by its famous users to incorporate many behaviors. These more famous users include the likes of Henry Thoreau, Ghandi, and MLK. Their definitions range from “to wash one’s hands of [an enormous wrong]… and not give it practically his support,” to disobeying an “unjust” law because it violates a “higher law,” such as moral conscience, the constitution, or the bible.

The next point of absorption is that due to this vagueness of terms, civil disobedience can be can be overused, both as a term and a practice, and be employed by both sides of the same argument. This becomes problematic because anything can be rationally justified as civil disobedience and Americans tend to view it as the trademark of a justified cause, which can lead to misconceptions. For example, the author uses the example of pro and anti-abortion demonstrators and how they both use acts of “civil disobedience.” If I were an American with a positive stigma towards “civil disobedience” due to our countries history of it, I would not be able to rationally choose, with those definitions, which side of the abortion argument was truly civil disobedience and which one was a protest of a justified practice or non-practice. Also because users of civil disobedience appeal to “higher laws” the users believe, sometimes falsely, that no secular authority can ever disagree with them. In other words, labeling something civil disobedience is highly subjective.

Next, the author wishes for us to recognize the many instances of successful use of civil disobedience. MLK’s tactics, the story of Lysistrata, and Ghandi’s practices are the most famous. The author also wants to point out several characteristics of these usages. The first is people who did not otherwise have voice in society carried them all out. This shows that civil disobedience is often a last resort and a way for an outsider or marginalized person to affect the status quo. After all, “Dissidents are unlikely to march outside the White House if the can have a meaningful audience inside.” (114) The second is that civil disobedience was not the cause of the positive results of each movement; civil disobedience was used to generate publicity that eventually got the people who could change the status quos to change them. This is significant because it reveals that even though civil disobedience itself goes outside of a system to affect it, the real actual act of changing the system still comes from within. Thirdly, Civil disobedience is the most effective when the participants have strong emotional or personal connections to each other. I found this interesting because OWS does not have this characteristic.  Finally, civil disobedience can be adapted and employed in any number of social movements with good affects, however, they tend to be more successful when they share the above characteristics.

So, keeping in mind the main ideas of this chapter, I was wondering what the forum has to say about civil disobedience and anything else the chapter discussed. Is “civil disobedience” overused? Do you think Americans have been overexposed to those types of actions and don’t take them as seriously as they once did? Does anyone have good answers for the questions that the book poses on the bottom of page 111? “Do the politics and government of the United States encourage the development of certain kinds of strategies for social movements? Do the dominant strategies change over time? Are there certain kinds of constituencies who will choose to use civil disobedience, or are there certain issue areas for which the tactic is most relevant?” (111)

 

-JP Shannon

Chapter 5: Strategies & Tactics of Social Protest

Posted on by

I thought that chapter 5, The Strategy and Tactics of Social Protest, was actually very interesting. Just like the title says, this chapter focuses on different strategies and tactics that various social movements have employed over time. First, the author defines a strategy as, “a combination of a claim (or demand), a tactic, and a site (or venue)” (82). He then goes on to define three common types of tactics. The first is a candlelight vigil, which demonstrates commitment to a cause. The second type can be called disruptions. These are usually impossible to ignore, and demand a response from others. The third example of a tactic that the author gives is something like The Quilt used to protest AIDS. This category is somewhat like a candlelight vigil, but gives participants something concrete to show in protest. These are only three of the many tactics that may be used, and the author says that often, social movements “employ multiple tactics at the same time” to work towards their goal (84). The context and situation determines which strategies will be most effective and which are even possible (the “match of tactics to resources is critical”) (86).

The author then goes on to describe 4 distinct audiences for social movement tactics: authorities, activists, bystanders, and the media. He says, “a tactic sends a message to authorities about a group’s commitment, size, claims, and potential to disrupt. A tactic also sends a message to activists about the same things. And a tactic sends a message to bystanders about a group’s concerns, intentions, and worthiness. In every case, activists hope and plan for responses” (87).  He also asserts that the bystanders are the most important audience for a social movement. Do you agree?

The end of the chapter focuses on the role of the media in social movements. Social movements generally rely on the media to disperse their ideas and let others know about what they are doing. As many of us probably already know, the media tend to cover breaking news and dramatic events rather than societal conditions or issues. Thus, activists and social movements sometimes need a news opportunity, or “news peg,” in order to talk about these things.

This chapter had a lot of information in it, and brought up some other questions for me as I was reading:

1. What do you think about the use of violence in social movements? Is it sometimes necessary or should violence never be used as a means to an end?

2. Of the three main tactics that the author presents, which do you think is usually most effective?

3. The author says, “although such dramatic action can sometimes draw attention to the issues activists care about, it also carries the inherent risk of deflecting attention away from those very issues” (97). What do you think? Is dramatic action good or bad for a movement?

4. The very end of the chapter brings up the idea that there are distinct patterns in the tactics that social movements use over time, and movements do not tend to use a wide variety of strategies. Why do you think this is?

–Kristen Bailey