The Totality Of The Storm: A Critque of the Modern Day Civil Rights Narrative

Have you ever marveled at a storm? What is so invigorating about weather’s roar? For is it the site of screeching lightning, the blusterous sound of violent thunder, or the darkness cast by immense storm clouds? Perhaps the most stimulating aspect of a storm is the eerie pleasantness of the purple overcast that can engulf a stormy sky. To single out any one of these aspects that makes a storm amazing is to disrespect the other aspects. It is the totality of a storm that makes it truly amazing. Now let us compare the storm to the modern day narrative of the Civil Rights Movement. For if we examine the modern day narrative of the Civil Rights Movement as it is written in today’s elementary, middle, and high school text books, we will find that the Civil Rights Movement has been glanced over in an account of Dr. Martin Luther King’s life, or in a paragraph description of the Brown v. Board of Education victory. The modern narrative of the Civil Rights Movement respects only a few key figures, and fewer key events. While the novel of American history has been scripted with a vast amount of characters, events, ideologies and “isms” (such as Hamiltonianism and Jeffersonianism), the Civil Rights narrative has been confined to the short story of Black history, and warrants discussion only in the month of February (Sharpe 10/29/07). What Dr. Bruce Dierenfield and Dr. Clayborne Carson’s work does is give proper respect to the vastness of the Civil Rights Movement. Their work sheds the misconception of a monolithic movement and marvels at the totality of the storm.
In order to have the necessary conditions for a storm the proper elements must be in the proper place at the proper time. In more literal terms a storm needs opposing forces such as a warm front and a cold front to come together. The modern day narrative of the Civil Rights Movement does not respect all the elements of the movement. This narrative, which holds Dr. King at its peak, does not acknowledge the opposing elements that did not fall into Dr. King’s non-violent philosophy. Such opposition can be witnessed in Dr. King’s and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference’s migration to Chicago, to fight discrimination in the North. Having traveled to Chicago after the Los Angeles Watts riots of 1965, Dr. King tried to bring the exploitive nature of Northern discrimination to the forefront. Negotiating with Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, Dr. King attempted to establish fair housing and economic opportunities for the city’s African-American population. After coming to an “agreement” in the negotiations with Mayor Daley, as a show of good faith Dr. King called off a march into notoriously racist Cicero, Illinois. As Dr. Carson’s Eyes on the Prize explains not everyone agreed with Dr. King’s calling off of the march. Cicero, Illinois was the Northern version of the South’s Selma, Alabama and many people believed not marching would be to acquiesce to white authority. An excerpt from an interview with Chicago native Linda Bryant Hall documented in Eyes on the Prize describes the sentiment of many Chicago African-Americans.
When he called off the march, we were surprised; we were shocked. This is the march we looked forward to. The other marches were nice. But the one in Cicero had special meaning for us. The Cicero community has been a very hostile community to blacks for years, ever since I can remember (Carson 313).

Unlike the modern day narrative of the Civil Rights Movement, the Eyes on the Prize interview gives a perception opposing that of Dr. King’s. This is not the only circumstance in which there has been internal disagreement amongst participates of the Civil Rights Movement. Again, in order for the Civil Rights Movement to gain its proper respect, there needs to be a diversification of the public dialogue concerning the movement.
It is not the intent of this essay to discredit any of the accomplishments of Dr. King. Rather, it is my intent to show that the Civil Rights Movement had several key players, many key events, and contrasting perceptions on how to protest American hypocrisy. There are endless accounts of bravery that get lost in the modern day Civil Rights narrative including James Meredith’s enrollment into the hatred he encountered at the University of Mississippi (Dierenfield 69), CORE, SNCC, and other civil rights groups tireless efforts to get southern African-Americans to vote (Carson 180-186/ Dierenfield 85-120), and numerous others. All of these efforts were needed to get the point we find ourselves today. For without the public outcry of Emmett Till who was savagely beaten to death for whistling at a white woman, perhaps we would have even more Amadu Dialos, who was an unarmed man shot forty-one times by plain closes officers of the NYPD. Everything is interconnected but the modern day Civil Rights narrative does not respect this.
Part of the Civil Rights Movement that is almost never recognized is the brutality, insanity and backwardness of many southern whites. In countless excerpts Dr. Dierenfield’s work portrays the persona of southern whites with an unprecedented honesty. In documenting the Freedom Rides, Dr. Dierenfield notes the barbarity of whites adamant about maintaining the existence of segregation. The Freedom Rides which “…would test the compliance with a court decision [Morgan v. Virginia and Boynton v. Virginia] by sending an interracial group traveling through southern cities (Dierenfield 62)” were subjected to numerous accounts of violent resistance. The most violent resistance occurred while the trip ventured through Alabama. As the bus stopped in Anniston, Alabama a mob of about two hundred “…surrounded the bus, dented the sides, smashed the windows, and slashed the tires (62).” The modern day Civil Rights narrative does not admit this atrocious behavior. For if it did the narrative would have to admit that the this angry mob not only set fire to a bus with people on it, it would have to admit that the mob also sought to burn down the hospital in which these victims were seeking medical attention. Perhaps this part of the narrative is hidden because “[i]t is not natural for one to wish death upon other, no matter what the circumstances (Sharpe 10/22/07).” With many believing, in pre-Reconstruction, that slaves were too barbaric to be freed or to govern themselves, this atrocious behavior contradicts the notion that whites are superior intellects.
I don’t think we realize how vast the history of the Civil Rights Movement actually is. We may study how Thurgood Marshall won the monumental Brown v. Board of Education case, but we do not recognize that the Brown decision was built on precedents argued by Marshall’s mentor Charles Hamilton Houston. The Civil Rights narrative may recognize the non-violent ideology of Dr. King, but the narrative does not recognize more militant ideologies of Malcolm X and Stokley Carmichael. I bring up these issues in the modern day narrative of the Civil Rights Movement because the narrative implies that the Brown victory could exist without Charles Houston, or that Dr. King could exist without Malcolm X or Carmichael. This just simply isn’t true. The narrative of American history does not assume that America’s independence could be accomplished without Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, or George Washington. The American history narrative does not mention the Civil War without a discussion of the Emancipation Proclamation. The same respect needs to be given to the Civil Rights Movement by diversifying the discussion of it.
It is ironic that I am writing a paper about the narrowness of the modern day Civil Right narrative. For this essay does absolutely nothing to correct this ignorance in American history. I have mentioned just a few points that are neglected in the public dialogue but it should be recognized that there are countless others. It should also be recognized that while Dr. Dierenfield’s and Dr. Carson’s work diversifies the narrative of the Civil Rights Movement there are still stories untold. It is more than likely that there are men, women and children that were beaten and lynched whose stories have not been told, whose offenders have not and will not be brought to justice. It is more than likely that there was a brave man that stood up to the intimidation of the Ku Klux Klan whose testimony we will never hear. To give respect to the untold narrative of the Civil Rights Movement we need to recognize that the movement did not start when Rosa Park took a seat. To give respect to the untold narrative of the Civil Rights Movement we need to recognize that movement was not birthed nor did it die with the life of Dr. King. I pray that the work of Dr. Dierenfield and Dr. Carson prevent us from falling into the trap of American history that gives little acknowledgement to the totality of the Civil Rights Movement. I pray that we recognize that the storm that was the Civil Rights Movement had many elements. I pray that we recognize the totality of the storm.

Works Cited

Carson, Clayborne. “Interview with Linda Bryant Hall.” The Eyes on the Prize Civil Rights Reader. New York: Penguin Group. 1998

Dierenfield, Bruce J. The Civil Rights Movement. New York: Person Longman. 2004