Run: Book One

“The only way to end this kind of protest is for local, state, and federal governments to bring about a true democracy in which all Americans, regardless of class and color, will have an equal stake and share in the economic and political life of this country.”

This excerpt from Julian Bond’s statement regarding the 1965 Watts riots signals a major shift in the civil rights movement. For years, the focus had been on the distinct institution of segregation, and now that that fight has been (mostly) won, it must tackle broader issues like police violence and severe economic inequality, focusing more on The Challenge Against Systemic Racism. This will require moving beyond the Jim Crow South and a much more ambitious political agenda.

“The students were determined to demonstrate, which caused hand-wringing among the older SNCC staffers who could empathize with the students’ desire to participate. It was in keeping with the principles of SNCC. But the SNCC staffers also knew that the students would likely be arrested or beaten, and that could jeopardize voter registration efforts.”

Disputes over tactics were a constant feature of SNCC work, and over time, one line of division was between the older, more experienced leaders of the movement and younger students just getting started. The latter were eager to prove themselves as activists, while the former were more concerned about preserving resources (especially human ones) in anticipation of a long struggle. Many subject to arrests or beatings were loath to repeat the experience, and so taking on too much too soon could deplete the movement.

“Images of a major American city in chaos stoked white fears about integration and public safety. The movement wasn’t facing segregationist foes like Bull Connor or Jim Clark anymore. Integration was now the law of the land. But confronting systemic racism and economic injustice meant asking white people one question: is America ready to share its abundance with people of color?”

Movements like SNCC succeeded as well as they did by appealing to the sentiments of the American people, who were generally opposed to seeing police dogs and firehoses unleashed on peaceful demonstrators asking for their basic rights as American citizens. Such sympathy was less readily given when the images on TV were of a city on fire and violent clashes between protestors and police. The grievances may have been just as valid, but the story was one that the general public was less likely to accept.

“Even with the new protections of the Voting Rights Act, what could we do if they kept killing us? We had the right to vote—on paper at least—but the white supremacist power structure continued to be willing to murder in cold blood to stop us from using it.”

The civil rights movement had won tremendous victories by 1965, but as Lewis points out, federal laws could not necessarily overcome local resistance, especially of the kind willing to use deadly force to keep the segregationist status quo intact. It helps to explain why the rhetoric of civil rights began to shift from nonviolent resistance to “Black Power,” as the latter came to be understood as the only workable counterforce to the white power establishment.

“By the fall of 1965, the Vietnam War involved hundreds of thousands of American troops, drafted into the army with little recourse, and too poor to afford college and receive a student deferment…a disproportionate number of whom were Black…to me war was…and is…unacceptable. There is no such thing as a ‘just war.’”

The Vietnam War had an extraordinary impact on the civil rights movement, and largely a negative one. In addition to drawing countless young men away from the movement and taking the Johnson Administration’s attention away from its domestic agenda, the sheer scope of mismanagement and horror helped turn a generation against the government, feeding into the more assertive attitude of Black Power activists that would, in Lewis’s view, lead to the end of the movement.

“The Lowndes County program has to deal with the feelings of local people who have no dignity and no power. They feel overwhelmed in front of people with power because they have none themselves.”

Even before the LCFO generated the most potent symbol of the Black Power movement (the black panther), the campaign hinted at many of the themes that would later animate that movement. Its focus on making ordinary people feel empowered, especially as a group, was seen as more important than a tangible political concession. While efforts for that time were concentrated on voting, the focus on that issue was meant as a stepping stone to the development of a genuine Black political consciousness.

“We ask, where is the draft for the freedom fight in the United States? We believe that work in the civil rights movement and with other human relations organizations is a valid alternative to the draft. We urge all Americans to seek this alternative…knowing full well that it may cost them their lives as painfully as in Vietnam.”

Lewis issues a blistering statement denouncing the US government for its hypocrisy in claiming to fight for Vietnamese freedom while in fact suppressing their fight for self-determination and, in doing so, harming the cause of racial equality at home. In a language that may be surprising coming from a committed advocate of nonviolence, he compares the civil rights struggle to war, one requiring a mass mobilization of young people to challenge the enemy force of racism.

“We are more and more going to different places around the world, and we’re going in the name of peace, and to stop the spread of communism. We’re going to the Congo and to the Dominical Republic and to Vietnam, and after Vietnam we’ll be going someplace else, saying that this is part of a peacekeeping effort. We have a war economy, and we hate to do any serious thinking or contemplation about peacetime economy.”

Here Lewis makes the most explicit connection between racism in the United States and foreign policy. A thoroughgoing commitment to anti-communism often leads to the support of governments who treat their (mostly nonwhite) populations brutally, thereby normalizing the poor treatment of all such people. Additionally, it consumes governmental attention and resources in the production of war materials, depriving domestic populations of much-needed support in overcoming structural obstacles to their well-being and dignity.

“I went back to Selma on the anniversary of Bloody Sunday. It felt like something was telling me I had to be there. I don’t remember much of a to-do to mark the occasion. There were no reporters or cameras. Only nonviolent soldiers remembering their fallen brethren, renewing their faith in the cause.”

Bloody Sunday is now marked as a pivotal date in the civil rights movement, with an intense public campaign to change the name of the Edmund Pettus Bridge (possibly to the John Lewis Bridge). This was not always the case, and one year after suffering grievous injuries, Lewis can only reflect on both the enormous progress he made and the many people who have suffered and died for that progress to occur.

“Within the SNCC, there had long been a growing consciousness of struggles like ours in other parts of the world as well as the pan-Africanist movement. As clashes intensified between the all-white South African government and local black political groups, we felt a moral obligation to express our solidarity and bring attention to the plight of our South African brothers and sisters.”

South Africa’s apartheid system emerged by the mid-1960s as a particularly potent example of international linkages between civil rights activists. In addition to the sheer brutality of the apartheid system, Nelson Mandela had emerged as a global representative of the freedom struggle, and the United States faced embarrassment for its mostly consistent support of a government for towing an anti-communist line. South Africa would remain a focus of activists for many years, helping to contribute to the ultimate downfall of that system in 1994.

“Nonviolence is irrelevant. What King has working for him is a moral force. But we’re building a force to take power. We’re not a protest movement.”

In this pithy line, Carmichael gives a nod of acknowledgment to Martin Luther King Jr. while insisting on the need for his own path, speaking to The Promise and Limits of Nonviolence. He concedes that King achieved moral authority through his Christian commitment to nonviolence. Having none of those commitments himself, Carmichael insists that he is not simply protesting injustice (which implies a willingness to work with the power structure to address those injustices) but a bid for independent political power that will take what it wants, not ask for it.

“It doesn’t matter anymore. The truth is, there were many people irked to hear me preaching love and tolerance and nonviolence. They were irked to see my admiration for Dr. King. They did not like to see me stick up for the Kennedys. And I have no doubt it irked them to see me trying to work with President Johnson…in one simple moment, everything was back on the table.”

After Lewis is deposed as chairman of the SNCC, he recognizes that it was not just a tricky move by Carmichael and his allies. King is a beloved figure now, but was profoundly controversial in his own time, including within the civil rights movement, and so Lewis's close association with him was seen as a liability as the Black Power movement gained traction. Perhaps most importantly, Lewis had relied on a partnership with a Democratic administration which was proving extremely problematic as the Vietnam War escalated.

“The only way we gonna stop them white men from whuppin’ us is to take over. We been sayin’ ‘freedom now’ for six years, and we ain’t got nothin’. What we gonna start sayin now is…BLACK POWER!”

Carmichael reaches the peak of his influence at this exact moment, climbing onto the roof of a car and issuing a slogan that, while not original, had found its moment. Most noteworthy is Carmichael’s rejection of “freedom”—not that he opposes the concept itself, but sees it as a sign of dependency on the goodwill of politicians, where power will enable them to make demands rather than accept concessions.