What Happened to the Civil Rights Movement?
Being in this conversation is like being a kid in a candy store. As I said at the outset, Rick, Tom, Todd, and Peniel are all writers I look up to and draw from. Now I get to ask them questions! So here's one, building off the current conversation: What was the impact of King's death for the civil rights movement?
It's a question I touch on but don't grapple with sufficiently in my book. But I see two possibilities. On the one hand, his death, and the riots that followed, spurred a new era of community activism; while black local activism was certainly nothing new in 1968, the loss of the national community's de facto leader let (to use a perhaps inapt analogy) a thousand flowers bloom. I don't want to imply that King was in any way preventing them from action; rather, it seems like his death convinced many at the local level to take up his mantle, even though the results were not necessarily extensions of King's philosophy per se. Likewise, the evisceration of so many communities by riots caused helped catalyze "self-help" organizing nationwide.
On the other hand, what we understand as the core "movement"--the SCLC and its associated organizations--certainly did suffer. Ralph Abernathy was no Martin Luther King, nor is Jesse Jackson. In my book I compare it to the breakup of the Macedonian empire after the death of Alexander the Great, with his powerful but lesser adjutants unable to maintain control over the whole. Moreover, the movement couldn't keep pace with the proliferation of grassroots local organizations, many of which borrowed more heavily from secular, Black Power ideas than the religiously intoned groups around King.
But this is mostly speculation on my part; Tom and Peniel both get into the issue in their books, so I'd love to hear what they have to say.
The problem I see with Mr. Risen's question -- and his two-handed theories -- is that they continue the simplistic notion that within the black community there can only be one "seat of power," only one acknowledged "leader" at a time and that all black leaders must be cut from the same cloth.
That is unfortunate (and to my mind, either willfully naive or deliberately marginalizing.)
Anytime any movement loses its charismatic leader, it stumbles, and then it evolves. That is exactly what has happened with the civil rights movement in this country.
In "Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?," Dr. King spoke of black leadership.
That significance did not go unnoticed nor did it fail to be acted upon by black America. Part of the evolution after King was killed was in the acquisition of political clout, north and south. And this past election, when "black folks woke up" as Michelle Obama said, and candidate Obama was "dissed" by certain other candidate's spouse, that cohesion was on full display.If it is more convenient to think that "a thousand flowers bloomed" after King's assassination, that means one is overlooking all of the contributions made during King's lifetime by other civil rights leaders whose help, participation, ideas, influence and guidance King relied upon.
Dr. King wrote:
But that cohesive nature comes with a price. Dr. King continues:
Two points: When Jesse Jackson suggested that Obama was "talking down to black people," and threatened to figuratively "cut Obama's nuts off," the competitive side of black leadership.
But, I submit that you can substitute "Caucasian" for "Negro" in the second paragraph and that describes whites just as accurately. And one need only look at the carping, backbiting and in-fighting of the Republican/conservative party for proof. Just look at Rush Limbaugh bringing to heel the white politicians and pundits who disagree with him. Or look at the sniping between Mitt Romney and John McCain.
It may be inconvenient to recognize that the Nation of Islam, for example, was just as activist before and after King's death under Elijah Muhammed (before and after the assassination of Malcolm X and the splintering of the Nation) and Louis Farrakhan. The largest march on Washington in recent history was the Million Man March, led by Farrakhan.
The problem is that in defining "black leadership" far too often only those black leaders who appeal to whites because they fit the mold, are considered "real leaders." Risen makes that mistake, too. The assertion that Ralph J. Abernathy or Jesse Jackson was no Martin Luther King underscores what is the central problem white America has when dealing with black America.
The National Urban League, the NAACP, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) did not come to a screeching halt April 5, 1968.
Many of those leaders moved into politics, because, even before King's death, it became abundantly clear that reliance white politicians to carry forward "black issues," would have mixed results at best. Political expedience would require white pols to satisfy their white constituents first. And they did.
If one wants to suggest that it was solely the riots which devastated black communities, as a matter of historical convenience, then one must overlook the decimation of black neighborhoods in the wake of "urban renewal," which "renewed" precious little. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of homes were torn down to make way for interstate highways, expand urban college campuses, build baseball and football stadiums and convention centers. In some cases, neighborhoods were razed and never rebuilt. But no houses, no schools, no supermarkets or essential services to rebuild crumbling neighborhoods and attract homeowners to bolster the tax base.
To suggest that black communities were not "activist" before King, is to overlook the rich history of blacks in America. To suggest they have not been since King, is simply wrong. The mass demonstration by and large has been replaced by organized boycotts of corporate America. (That it is the "illegimate black leader" Rev. Al Sharpton that leads many of these boycotts is icing on the cake.) To see the results of black activism elsewhere, pick up a copy of the State of Black Union, or Convenant With Black America.
The shorter answer to Risen's question is that nothing "happened" to the civil rights movement. It has changed. It has evolved. It survives. And this year, it elected a President, just as Dr. King prophesized.
April 1, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The American Civil Rights movement needs to do some serious soul searching over its position on California's Prop. 8.
I'm not black (we didn't call it "African American" back then, since we're all originally from Africa), and I'm not gay. But, I do support full civil rights for all.
If the American Civil Rights movement finds itself getting too comfortable with its astonishing victories, perhaps it is not picking the right targets.
April 1, 2009 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you are not blaming the loss of CA's Prop 8 on black Americans. Study after study of the election has shown it was not "black" votes that cost gays the right to marriage.
If you support "full civil rights for all" you'd know who and where to target your "outrage." Right now, you're pointing in the wrong direction.
April 1, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jade7243,
You're right; it was much more the Latino community than other minorities.
However, let's not forget that the black civil rights movement failed to support the Women's rights (ERA) movement, too.
That's why I like the ACLU: when one job is done, there's always another.
April 2, 2009 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not persuaded the civil rights movement moved into many local struggles, even though many local struggles did exist.
Here's the thing: the civil rights movement as a national entity died with King, partly because in one sense it had succeeded. The CIVIL rights of African-Americans had been largely won by the time he died. Blacks could vote with little hindrance (compared with earlier times, anyway); overt discrimination in hiring was no longer legal; de jure segregation was no longer legal. Lynching almost disappeared. These were the goals of the civil rights movement, and they were, for the most part, achieved.
The more difficult goals were the ones King understood to be central at the end of his life: eliminating the enormous burden of poverty that slavery and a century of discrimination had saddled the black community with. The African-American community built up far less capital -- black-owned real property, capital available for starting businesses, for taxation to build schools, all the accumulated wealth that allows a community to grow, improve its living conditions, and prosper -- than the white community. This legacy has crippled the black community, and will continue to do so until and unless there is massive investment in that community, investment which has not been forthcoming.
Discrimination, of course, hasn't vanished just because it's no longer legal; it takes more subtle forms, but it's still out there. Red-lining, steering, and the automatic assumptions of white HR staff that people with typically African-American names are less able than people with typically Euro-American names, despite identical resumes. (Yes, someone did the experiment; if your name is Lakeesha you're less likely to be called for an interview than if your name is Jane, even if the resumes are comparable and there's no other indication of race.) That battle is much, much harder to fight, because the discrimination is more subtle and sometimes not even conscious. (I'm not counting things like red-lining, of course; that's always conscious.)
So did the movement move to local stages rather than a national one? I think the answer differs in different localities. In St. Louis (my city), there are certainly political activists and activist groups, but the net condition of *most* blacks in this city has not improved, and for many life has gotten worse, even during the "boom" years of the 90s. A black middle-class has expanded, even as formerly solid black communities have disintegrated and turned into hell-on-earth. The school system, despite nominal efforts at integration, remains de facto segregated and, for blacks, horrific. Political leaders have arisen and been elected -- William and Lacy Clay, to take the most obvious local examples -- but there has not been the strong voice for progressive solutions and economic justice that Dr. King provided.
Perhaps President Obama can take up that challenge. I don't know. I do know that in the last years of his life Dr. King understood that the movement must move from civil rights to economic rights, and that the new struggle would be far harder. Unfortunately, he was right.
By the way, one more word on this: when we look at the aftermath of Dr. King's assassination, can we also please remember that he was not the only leader of the African-American community who was murdered in those years? I speak particularly of the other great genius of the time, Malcolm X, who also understood at the end of his life that his movement had to change. Malcolm X and Dr. King created a dialectic on change and political action that could have been transformative -- if they had lived to continue it. The tragedy of twentieth-century America is that they did not.
Peace,
Paul
April 2, 2009 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
And do not forget, among others, Medgar Evers, murdered in his front yard.
You speak to exactly what I tried to point out: this notion that only one "legitimate" black leader at a time is allowed. And that that "leader" must be "acceptable" or "approved" by white Americans. Thus, Risen is free to suggest that only King was a leader, Abernathy, Jackson and by extension no one else, could be.
And you're right that Malcolm X and Martin Luther King were just reaching a point where a whole new dynamic could have come into play had they both lived.
April 2, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Permit me to offer a differing perspective from here in the Sonoran Desert. Thus, my Chicano Perspective. And if memory serves correctly, I have posted here for a couple of years, so, my thanks to all for drawing me out and into this conversation.
We, societally-speaking, tend to forget the genius of LBJ. In the legislation that was enacted and titled, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, this Force of Law and the subsequent use of Taxpayer Largesse, led to the implementation of an actual "participatory" Democracym and where none had existed historically. As such, the poor and the elderly were provided a vehicle to mount their political activism, and where this activism was led by the decision-makers, i.e., the poor and the elderly. Consequently, this activism morphed in a manner in which this activism became institutionalized within "The Man."
In our Spanish-speaking communities all across America, a variety of 'players' gained their knowledge base at the altar of the EOA of 1964, despite the notionals advocated by Saul Alinsky, and thus, all the political operatives and outfits, owe their inception and history to the EOA.
And of course, historians tend to forget the existence of the Pinata One. This is a short story in which then Governor Jimmy Carter, Coretta Scott King and Governor Raul Castro (Arizona) traveled throughout the nation during Carter's campaign for the presidency. And while on this airplane, America's human rights agenda was crafted, and eventually implemented and what today, passes for progress. And yet, this story has never been recognized and articulated by the Academy.
And among Chicanos, our political leadership, commenced with the railroads, and yet, our Indigenous history is 50,000 years old, and continuing. Although, I am both a Yaqui Indian and an Apache, my history straddles both 1607 and the demise of America in 1965 (as per Newt Gingrich, and others).
Someday, America's equitable historians will each sit down, and write a chapter of a book on Indigenous Societies that did practice "egalitarianism" despite the current conventional wisdom. When that happens, another step in the direction toward Progress will take place.
Additionally, President Obama will be measured by me and many others on the platform or nexus for reinventing a "participatory" Democracy in form and function and equivalent to LBJ. If not, he will be recognized as a 'second stringer' ala William Clinton.
Jaango
April 2, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
You bring up some very significant points.
We tend to present "history" as as a chain of individual "links" that can be added or removed as the historian or political times dictate. Thus, it is easy to "overlook" the problems, challenges, contributions and achievements of ethnic and racial minorities. Currently, it is vogue to suggest that one is being "color-blind." Except that in order to ignore the "colored," you have to see that they exist first so they and their problems can be specifically "ignored."
Progress on school desegregation by black leaders was preceded a major school desegregation victory by the Latino/a community in southern California.
It's convenient to keep the various oppressed groups working against one another, instead of with one another.
April 3, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a white civil rights activist, I was in the sunny south the summer of '61, when the Integration Movement became the Civil Rights Struggle. The peak of energy later moved to Black Power advocates (excluding me, but that's ok)and then to H. Rap Brown and the like. All along the way, participants remained, each at his own level of comfort.
The Urban League seemed to coalesce the black dentists and doctors and morticians - the financial leaders of communities - into remedying social ills. They provided funding. They worked within the system.
The NAACP followed them onto the scene and provided lawyers. They moved cases through the courts, but they needed cases.
The SCLC demonstrated and cases appeared.
CORE turned demonstrations into mass actions, national in scope.
SNCC was formed by the 1961 Freedom Riders who were on the first bus, the one that got torched. When CORE leadership was hesitant about proceeding, they determined to take that bus to Jackson. So I was told.
All these organizations did overlapping projects, and many people were members of several. Together, they provided a fabric that stretched from the stable financial rock of the black middle class all the way out to the most activist of demonstrators.
To those of us on the radical edge, Martin was compromised. The FBI had something on him. As the Vietnam War developed, he more and more toed the line. Then he broke from their grasp, condemned the war, and very soon he was killed.
Killing the most edgy leader tames the rest. Management by capitation.
Bill Clinton broke free of his string, too, and he was taken down.
April 2, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except the release of the FBI files on the surveillance of King showed they had nothing on him. And he didn't "toe the line" on Vietnam, rather he very pointedly broke with Johnson and came out against the war.
I do not recall -- and I will research just to confirm my recollection -- that Bill Clinton did anything that expanded or promoted or preserved any of the gains of the civil rights, and you can include the debacle known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
It was Clinton's faulty zipper, among other vices, that tarnished his presidency. Clinton paid only enough attention to black America to secure his re-election.
April 3, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of windows high availability
April 28, 2011 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink