Ever since Aram Goudsouzian visited our class, I have been stuck on the concept of reframing the Civil Rights Movement and complicating the popular narrative in order to make sense of the current moment and ultimately help us provoke substantial change, and ultimately achieve social justice. Dr. Goudsouzian’s lecture also left me with questions about the best way to bring about change.
The “old civil rights history” often begins with the legal triumphs (typically, Brown v. Board of Education), then discusses a series of nonviolent protests and ends with MLK, Jr.’s I Had A Dream Speech (of course, with the federal government as an ally the entire time). Some versions of this history include a sliver of the Black Power Movement, but it is emphasized that the loud, rowdy and outspoken black power activists, ‘did not represent the Civil Rights Movement.’ The master narrative is set in the south, seeing as issues of racial justice and equality were considered ‘southern problems.’ Of course, this is a superficial and very problematic narrative.
The first issue with this narrow perspective--whether intentional or not--is that it casts people of color as a monolith. It suggests that essentially all people of color were on the same page about how equity should be achieved, with only a small group of people who used violence and aggression to provoke change. Secondly, the familiar narrative leaves out entire groups of people, such as women (especially women of color), who were often times more involved than men in the movement. Of course, with the exclusion of these groups, women and others are erased from the history, and not seen as important figures--allowing sexism and misogynistic views to prevail. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, this thinking causes us to view the Civil Rights Movement as a thing of the past. In doing so, we fail to recognize the lasting effects and larger institutional and social implications of the movement. This explains the bashing of Black Lives Matter and other modern-day movements--people fail to recognize that these protests and marches are simply a continuation of previous work being done, not some wild, out-of-nowhere thing. By learning and understanding historical context and creating a fuller framework that does not exclude critical information, we can better understand this particular moment. What is going on today is not at all random, and if people really want peace and quiet, it is critical that they understand what folks are fighting for, how long they have been fighting for it and why they are fighting for in this particular way.
I am at a constant battle with myself about how to produce change. While I recognize that due to deeply rooted institutional oppression, and systems that work to keep power structures and dynamics in place, substantial change has only been made when people take matters into their own hands--coming together, and making themselves seen and heard. That realization has driven me to participate in and help organize protests. However, I also see the value in trying to create legislation and share a dialogue with those in currently in control. I guess my question is, ‘Should change attempt to be created within or outside of ‘the system?’ I recognize that historically, change ‘within the system’ has not worked, and that is why protesting has been necessary. So then I wonder if protesting is the only solution? As Dr. McKinney says frequently, ‘There is no compromise when it comes to freedom.’
I think the solution takes a complex series of choices and actions--What do y’all think those are? Or do you think there is one more simple solution? Comment below!
WC of Blog Post: 609
Pledged: Annie Jaffee
Hey Annie,
ReplyDeleteNice blog post, excellent job highlighting the sexism issues with the master narrative as well as this weird phenomenon of the civil rights being viewed as a disconnected thing of the past. Why is that, I wonder? Perhaps if people could more readily connect that moment to this one with history that bridges the gap from 1968-2017, we wouldn’t have so much resistance to BLM and legislative reform. Why do we hear so little about history in this period concerning ongoing civil rights issues and progress? What happened to the Black Power movement, SNCC, CORE? I feel like I only really ever hear about the NAACP and even then not a ton. I imagine it has to do both with the fact that people in power benefit from the disconnection of the master narrative from the present moment, and also that the history in that interum period is not as dramatic as the classic civil rights period, making it harder to proliferate? To try to answer your question about how to enact change, I think we need to tackle education first. What I mean is that if more Americans knew about the reality of structural violence, there would be more of a voice pushing for legislative reform and less resistance to black movements and institutions like BLM. Ignorance is a powerful tool of those morally deficit people in power, and it’s being used to get a huge part of white America somewhat unwittingly on board with racial inequity. Reaching more people is going to be an effort that will need to take place both within systems and outside them in the form of protests and campaigns, so a little of both I think.
These are great observations on Dr. Goudsouzian's lecture. His book and his commentary on the civil rights movement really helped place an amazingly influential movement in the correct framework for understanding and applying to present day. I would challenge the idea that protesting works outside of the 'government system.' Individuals in a democratic system are seen as just as important to the government and are understood to be equal under the government. If not, individuals have the freedoms within a democracy to speak out against the government to voice their opinions and attempt to enact change. In this way, protest is an anticipated part of the function of democracy and can seen as a form of democratic participation. Viewing protest as a necessary part of democratic function makes the current criticisms of protest even more inaccurate. Protests are meant to be inconvenient and to disturb the status quo -- in true democracy this idea would be more widely accepted.
ReplyDelete