|
|
|
|
|
|
by chrissam
2742 days ago
|
|
|
The objective of sit-ins was to protest, not to buy lunch. If you wanted lunch, you'd go to a place that would serve you and the status quo would be maintained. It's immaterial whether people participating in sit-ins had money or planned to eat. You might say that the long term objective of sit-ins was to gain service, but only inasmuch as "gaining service" fell under the umbrella of "equal rights". Finally, as a possibly unwelcome aside, I find it somewhat irritating to see civil rights protestors referred to as "people of color". The Civil Rights Movement was about acknowleging shared humanity, not dividing people into groups based on privilege. Also, Americans, dark-skinned and otherwise, participated in these movements. Many sit-ins involved large groups of white people sitting down with at least one black person, so all of them would be refused service. The Civil Rights Movement of the 60s sought allies regardless of race, which is perhaps why it was so successful. |
|
|
This is rather revisionist.
The term "privilege" in its contemporary usage hadn't been coined then, but if you go back to the writings of early civil rights leaders, it's pretty clear that the purpose was not about "acknowledging shared humanity". It was specifically about liberation of Black people, and the fight to secure equal rights for Black people. It was not uniformly welcoming to "allies" of other races, and in fact, many of its most successful leaders were skeptical at best of support from people who weren't black.
We've since whitewashed the legacy of its most famous leaders, such as Martin Luther King Jr., but even he was a lot less interested in "shared humanity" and non-black "allies". Yes, if you go by popular representation of him today, that's the impression you'll get of him, but as often is the case, the primary sources tell a very different story.
The statement "the Civil Rights Movement sought allies regardless of race, which is perhaps why it was so successful" is only correct if you are referring to the Civil Rights Movement as a retroactive construct: the way that contemporary society has essentially retconned the history of the real civil rights movement. Yes, that depiction of it has been very successful, because that depiction is more palatable and appealing to people who aren't black (specifically: less threatening to white people), and that's why we think of Martin Luther King, Jr. as a milquetoast nonviolent preacher who gave speeches but didn't really step on anyone's toes, instead of the revolutionary, armed radical man that he really was.