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

The chapter was a bit choppy in my opinion, so I’ll do my best to discuss what I thought were the major points. Myers uses chapter 9 to discuss the complex and multi-dimensional relationship between social movements and public policy. Myers outlines how public policy can be both a cause and response to social movement. The examples Myers juxtaposes to illustrate this point are the expansion of the draft during the Vietnam War and the distribution of benefits as a result of the Bonus March following WWI. The expansion of the draft played a pivotal role in inciting the anti-war movement. Myers uses this example to generalize that “changes in policy provide the concerns that drive people into mobilization” (171). The distribution of benefits to veterans returning from the war was the culmination of the Bonus March and years of protesting for well fare. This example is used to demonstrate how the policy process “responds to social movement” (171). The key point Myers tries to make is that public policy influences social movements, and social movements influence public policy.

Myers dives deeper into how social movement effects policy by describing four ways in which social movements alter policy networks. In summation, social movements can

1. Lead to the replacement of existing political figures, meaning “throwing a rascal out and putting and ally in office instead” (173).
2. Lead to the conversion of beliefs where existing political figures change their beliefs on policy to benefit the movement
3. Lead to the creation of a completely new policy area, agency, habit, or institutional setting
4. Lead to the reconfiguration of current policy monopolies by introducing to new individuals to them

The key question I asked myself when I was reading all of this was whether policy should even be the desired outcome of social movement. Myers briefly hints at this at one point in the chapter on page 170, but I wish that he had explored this issue more. History has shown that public policy is not always capable of achieving societal change. The Emancipation Proclamation is just one of many policies in our country’s history that epitomize the principle that policy cannot change hearts. In order for policy to have its desired effect the mindsets and values of those it affects have to change as well. Therefore, the most important outcome of social movement is not one of the aforementioned changes to the policy networks, but rather changes in societal values and beliefs. I feel that this aspect of social movements is often ignored in favor of striving for direct policy changes.

What are all of your opinions on this issue? Am I downplaying the power that policy changes can have or is changing public values and opinions as important as I think? I feel as if I would be remiss in my blog duties if I didn’t mention OWS, so do you guys think that the OWS movement needs to change public opinions on wealth distribution in order to accomplish its broad goals?