The 'black power' philosophy pinpointed 'powerlessness' as the key issue, one that went to the very heart of the failings of black Americans to gain real participation in the decision making process. The solution, Carmichael and Hamilton argued, must come through a radical redefinition of society, to eradicate the institutional racism of the (white) power structure that perpetuates the inequitable distribution of power.
Instead, it is argued, a power base must be created outside the established (white) political bodies, to challenge conventional political relations (Carter,1973). The importance of black control of the black community was stressed, with the creation of political and social institutions separate from those of white society. Black Americans must speak for themselves, make their own decisions and develop strong group solidarity before they "can operate effectively from a bargaining position of strength in a pluralistic society" (C.& H.1967,p.58). A premise fundamental to the concept of 'black power' is that "[b]efore a group can enter the open society, it must first close ranks" (C.& H.1967,p.58), as historically, they argue, other ethnic groups have done, eg the Irish, Italian and Jewish communities.
The rejection of the values and goals of the white power structure and the development of this economic, political, social and cultural power base, meant that belief in the ability to effect fundamental change through coalitions with 'sympathetic' white organisations (ie liberal, labour, church groups etc) especially with the Democratic Party, favoured by Rustin and King, was eschewed. Such relationships were regarded as 'paternalistic', of 'doing for' blacks, because however 'liberal' the coalition partners declared themselves to be, they cannot (C.& H.argued) escape the inculcation of " the sense of superiority that pervades white America" (1967,p.73). If there was no willingness to question and condemn racist institutions, and if the coalition's goals were perceived in terms of the adoption of Western norms and values, 'Anglo-Conformity'(M.M.Gordon in C.& H.1967,p.74),the assumption being that what was good for (white) America was good for black people, then the coalition would not be acting in the interests of black Americans. Likewise, if the coalition partners were not equally powerful, there could be no equality of interest, and a relationship of 'dependency' would ensue.
Similarly, appeals to the conscience of the white power structure, a mainstay of the NVDA philosophy, was rejected as being founded on an unrealistic conception of political relations. The 'Statement of Black Power' that appeared in the New York Times on 31-7-66, cited the experience of other ethnic groups, arguing that they "sought not love but justice", that "without justice, love can only be acquiesence". "Honest interrelationships" could only be achieved through a balance of strength it claimed, and that although "conscience may speak to conscience, power alone may address itself effectively to power" (N.Wright Jr,1967,p.37). Therefore, the only way to confront the power structure was from a position of strength, not begging but demanding, as Carmichael and Hamilton noted "politics results from a conflict of interests, not of consciences" (1967,p.88).
In dismissing the tactics and goals of the NVDA movement as ineffective in dealing with the reality of institutional racism and oppression, advocates of 'black power' did not rule out the use of violence. In 'Black Power', Carmichael and Hamilton argued that "[i]f a nation fails to protect its citizens, then that nation cannot condemn those who take up the task themselves" (1967,p.66). It was essentially a philosophy of self-defence and nowhere in the book did they advocate rioting or other acts of aggressive and destructive behaviour (Ross,1971). However, the evolution of the 'black power' concept was contemporaneous with and in part developed out of the urban unrest during the years 1964-67, and although groups such as CORE and Carmichael's SNCC argued for the use of violence only in self-defence, media exaggeration, the paranoid white reaction to the assertive challenge of the black power movement, and their associative linkage to the rioting, meant that 'black power' became synonymous with 'black violence' (Carter,1973).
Although there was a brief period where 'black power' was misrepresented as a strategy based on violence (Carter,1973), with the continued rioting, especially that in Detroit and Newark in 1967, and the increasing acceptance of the legitimacy and justification of such violence by black intellectuals, supporters of the burgeoning 'black power' movement progressively came to accept and even advocate revolutionary violence and guerilla warfare. The writings and speeches of figures such as Malcolm X, Franz Fanon and Robert F. Williams, came to have a great deal of influence on radical thought during this period as the 'black power' movement, across the spectrum from the SNCC to the extreme nationalists, began increasingly to believe that violence was the most effective means of forcing change.
The transition of goals and tactics of the civil rights struggle in the mid-1960's, can therefore be presented in terms of a debate between the civil rights movement led by King, and the 'black power' movement whose philosophy was perhaps best articulated by Carmichael and Hamilton. King, whilst locating the locus of discrimination and prejudice, as the racist (white) power structure of American society, believed the most effective method of challenging this was by the use of NVDA. The aims were essentially those of enabling integration into American society after certain adjustments had been made, and the tactics of NVDA, whilst sometimes illegal, were generally regarded as being morally defensible.
The 'black power' movement on the other hand, rejected integration into American society as it currently existed, there having to be a radical restructuring of the power arrangements so that black Americans were given the opportunity to play a full participatory role in the decision making process on equal terms, before such involvement would be sanctioned. Their methods involved tactical separation, to build group solidarity, racial pride, community control and to develop a sense of unity and strength. There existed also a commitment to self defence, with arms if necessary, that was later broadened by many 'black power' groups to the advocation of the tactical use of violence to achieve their ends.
The debate can therefore be seen in terms of 'integration' versus 'separation', 'reform' versus 'revolutionary means', and 'non-violence' versus 'violence'.
Section Two: Historical Background
Throughout American history there have been individuals who have advocated and sought the achievement by black Americans of full racial equality. Any impression that civil rights became an 'issue' in the 1950's is seriously misguided, for both philosophies of black advancement and actual instance of black protest date from the days of slavery. Therefore to fully comprehend the events of the 1950's and 1960's an awareness of the various currents that have characterised American black thought is important. These currents are responsible for, and interwoven into the tapestry of black American history and the debates, conflicts, complexities and ambiguities of the earlier years of this century frequently inform and provide the basis of similar debates in the 1950's and '60's.
The previous section outlined the 'debate' of the mid-1960's in terms of two differing analyses of the American power structure. The NVDA movement was characterised as acting in terms of a pluralistic notion of the power relationships within the American power structure, in essence a reformist movement that sought total integration of blacks into that society. The 'black power' movement's conception of power was, conversely, regarded as fitting the elitist framework with a consequently more revolutionary strategy of action rejecting integration into society as it then existed and demanding its restructuring and redefinition by whatever means were deemed necessary.
Towards the end of the last century and throughout this one, "racial ideologies tended to cluster into 'conservative' and 'radical' outlooks" (Broderick & Meier,1965,p.xxxvi), and in terms of these 'categories' the NVDA movement can be viewed as essentially 'conservative' in contrast to the 'radical' nature of the 'black power' movement, though these broad groupings have always encapsulating a wide range and diversity of opinion.
It is important to recognise also that although the history of the struggle for racial equality can be characterised in terms of these two broad outlooks, these 'labels' have not in themselves remained static with fixed definitions. On the contrary the concepts are relative and their terms of reference have altered as the character of protest has changed. Legal action and active propaganda in the first decades of this century were considered radical techniques in contrast to the 'conservative' forces of conciliation and accommodation, but by the mid-1950's these 'radical' tactics were themselves being attacked as too gradualist and conservative, the advocation and participation in direct action ie boycotts, sit-ins, pickets etc then becoming identified as 'radical'. Likewise in the mid-1960's a redefinition occurred with the King led NVDA movement increasingly being seen as ineffective and too conservative in its methods in contrast to the more radical 'black power' movement, advocating self-defence, self-help and race pride and even espousing the use of violence.
By placing the 'radical/conservative' debate in its historical context and by tracing these currents of black thought, it can be shown that the ideological conflicts and their consequent practical manifestations in the 1960's had echoes in earlier times. That different conceptions of the political power structure and the perceived ability of being able to participate fully in the decision-making process had important consequences in terms of the strategy of political action advocated and undertaken.
The dominant philosophy at the turn of the century, and one that clearly fits into the 'conservative' framework, was that of accommodation, whose foremost proponent was the prominent black American, Booker T. Washington. Washington believed that the condition of the black race in America could best be improved through a policy of conciliation and gradualism. He down played the level of racial discrimination and prejudice encountered and accepted segregation and the separate-but-equal doctrine. Economic accumulation was regarded as of greater import than political agitation and Washington emphasised the importance of vocational training and 'useful' work rather than higher education and the achievement of professional status, to lay the "material foundations" (B.& M.1965,p.13) for succeeding generations. Through the "cultivation of Christian character" (B.& M.1965, p.x) and middle-class values, the black American could best progress. "By helping themselves, by proving their usefulness to society through the acquisition of wealth and morality, Negroes, he believed, would earn the respect of the white man and thus eventually gain recognition of their constitutional rights" (B.& M.1965,p.x). Washington's supporters believed that his "characteristically ambiguous phraseology...and unabashed flattery of the white South" (B.& M.1965,p.8), would enable means to be mistaken (by whites) for ends, and that by securing the goodwill of whites by such tact and indirection these rights would be recognised.
In response to this conciliatory philosophy, the Niagara Movement was formed in 1905 by a group of black intellectuals led by WEB DuBois, who opposed Washington's programme as ineffectual. They repudiated conciliation and complaint, advocating protest and agitation, rejected the separate-but-equal theory and castigated the inequity of the Jim Crow laws. Political activity rather than economic accumulation was seen as the key to black advancement (B.& M.1965). Though achieving relatively little under the auspices of the Niagara Movement, they enlisted support from influential white liberals and socialists and formed the NAACP in 1909, "with the avowed aim of agitating for the Negro's constitutional rights" (B.& M.1965,p.xxi). It attacked racial prejudice through propaganda, legal action and via petitions to executive officers and was perceived as "daringly radical" for its time (B.& M.1965).
However, despite the 'debate' in the early years of the century being depicted in terms of 'conservative' and 'radical' antagonists, and acknowledging their considerable differences, the conflict was more a matter of strategy and tactics than a questioning as to whether their aims were the achievement of full constitutional rights, or the rejection of American society and its ideals. The ultimate goal of both was "an integrated, racially egalitarian society" (B.& M. 1965,p.xix), using tactics to effect this, that although ranging from winning the white man's respect to legal action and protest, were consistent with the pluralist framework of legitimacy. Although considered 'radical' at the time, the Niagara Movement and the NAACP were not attempting to overthrow the existing social and political arrangements, but were concerned with making adjustments to them to enable the full inclusion of black Americans, and were therefore in line with the 'conservative', reformist outlook.
Tactically, the NVDA movement of the 1960's, drew to an extent, on certain strategies that had been used in earlier years of the struggle. Between 1894 and 1906, when accommodation was at its peak, organised boycotts of segregated trolley cars occurred in approximately twelve Southern cities (B.& M.1965). The obvious significance of this tactic with regard to the later civil rights struggle lying in the fact that it was the bus boycott in Montgomery in 1955 that launched the movement of the 1950's and '60's and brought Martin Luther King Jr to prominence.
The 'don't-buy-where-you-can't-work' campaigns that occurred during the Depression especially, were mirrored in the mid-1960's with 'Operation Breadbasket', which undertook a boycott of manufacturers that were not employing blacks, whilst making a large percentage of their profits from sales to the black community.
A.Philip Randolph's 1941 'March on Washington Movement', was the first to advocate a mass protest march by black Americans to draw attention to their plight. The threatened march was successful in that President F.D.Roosevelt bowed to its pressure and met the movement's demands by establishing a Fair Employment Practices Committee. Randolph himself suggested affinities between the mass action technique and Gandhi's non-violent direct action in India, and called for the tactic to be utilised in fighting other forms of discrimination (B.& M.1965). King was highly influenced by the practical application of non-violence demonstrated by Gandhi and used the mass demonstration as a tool of his movement in the 1950's and '60's. Randolph, King and other civil rights leaders joined forces to lead such a 'March on Washington' in 1963, when 200,000 people converged on the capital to demand civil rights legislation.
Another tactic of the NVDA movement of the 1960's was the 'freedom ride', which was again a technique used in earlier years. CORE, an interracial civil rights group, sponsored the first 'freedom ride' (then called 'Journey of Reconciliation') in 1947, testing the then recent Irene Morgan decision outlawing segregation in public interstate travel, in five Southern states (N.Wright Jr,1967). CORE's NVDA programme "became a model for increased and effective efforts at the lowering of barriers to Negroes in all forms of public accommodation...in housing and...employment" (N.Wright Jr,1967,p.123), one which was extensively used in the late 1950's and early 1960's.
Radical analyses of power and their consequent strategies of action, as expressed in the concept of 'black power', likewise have long historical roots. The 'black power' theme has been continually reiterated since the days of the slave uprisings of Nat Turner and Denmark Vesey who challenged the stereotypical image of the black slave, that of a passive, ignorant, lazy, 'childlike' figure (Young,1970) and proved that blacks "were not inherently passive. The black man acquiesced in his own subjugation only as long as he remained under absolute physical and psychological control" (Young,1970,p.5), slavery and Jim Crow being the forces that prevented large-scale black violence.
The abolitionist Frederick Douglass emphasised self- determination, self-help and self-direction, arguing that the oppressed must themselves speak to the oppressor. He was probably the foremost black leader of the nineteenth century and "symbolised the indomitable will and determination to realise the fullness of human dignity in the mind of the nineteenth century Negro" (N.Wright Jr,1967,p.160). To Carmichael and Hamilton, he was someone who understood the nature of protest, and include an extract from his West India Emancipation Speech of August 1857 in 'Black Power' (1967), (the articulation of their own analysis of American society and its power structure in relation to blacks). " Those who profess to favour freedom yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without ploughing up the grounds...Power concedes nothing without demand." Douglass argues that the "exact measure of injustice and wrong" imposed on any people can be determined in relation to that which they "will quietly submit to", believing "[t]he limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress" and that such injustice must be "resisted with either words or blow, or with both" (in C.& H.1967,p.14). Clearly Douglass' analysis of the nature of power subsequently had considerable influence on the development of 'radical' thought.
The period during and immediately after the First World War saw a major upsurge in overt discussion by black intellectuals with regard to the merits and desirability of violent retaliation against whites (Meier & Rudwick in Geschwender,1971), a debate fundamental to the NVDA/'black power' conflict of the mid-1960's. This discussion paralleled numerous incidents of black retaliatory violence against white mobs, sometimes triggering race riots. DuBois, though a member of the legalistic NAACP, wrote in 1916, that "war is hell, but there are worse things than hell, as every Negro knows" and "admonished Negro youth to stop spouting platitudes of accommodation and remember that no people ever achieved their liberation without an armed struggle" (M.& R.in Geschwender,1971,p.405).
Claude McKay's poem in 1921 reflects this militant tone, with the words, "...If we must die; oh let us nobly die / dying but fighting back" (in Young,1970,p.476). A.Philip Randolph, then editor of the militant socialist magazine 'The Messenger', also advocated physical resistance to white mobs, arguing that "[t]he black man has no rights which will be respected unless the black man enforces that respect" (in M.& R.in Geschwender,1971,p.406).
Major race riots occurred in East St.Louis and Houston in 1917, Chicago and Elaine,Arkansas in 1919 and Tulsa in 1921. Later in 1935 in Harlem and in 1943 in Harlem and Detroit, further rioting occurred, though they differed in the respect that they were not clashes with white mobs, instead white-owned property became the target of aggression. In both the 1960's and the years during and after World War One, discussion of the advisability of violent black retaliation and actual violent incidents were prominent and in both periods retaliatory violence accompanied a heightened militancy among black Americans (M.& R.in Geschwender,1971).
In the 1920's and 1930's extreme nationalist groups such as Marcus Garvey's 'Back to Africa' movement and then later Elijah Muhammad's 'Nation of Islam' (or 'Black Muslims'), rejected the possibility of achieving racial equality. As Garvey states in 'The Aims of the UNIA' in 1923, "the white race will never stand by the ascendancy of an opposite minority group to the favoured positions in a government, society and industry that exist by the will of the majority" (in B.& M.1965,p.88). Their objectives were, therefore a total separation from (white) American society and the creation of a black nation, either in Africa, Latin America or using territory within the United States. These movements articulated the alienation of the urban masses, particularly those in the ghettos of the Northern cities, who were faced with the realities of poverty, unemployment, poor housing and race riots, and to whom the vision of their own nation free from their white oppressors, was a potent one. The Nation of Islam, though established around 1930, did not really grow rapidly until the recession of 1954 when unemployment and increasing deprivation, along with rising expectations, created a climate in which they thrived (B.& M.1965). Whilst expounding the dream of a separate state, both Garvey and the Nation of Islam on a more practical and immediate level "espoused economic nationalism" (B.& M.1965,p.82), believing that businesses should be created, owned and supported by blacks. Garvey's UNIA aimed to establish trade between black Americans and those in Africa and the West Indies, through the Black Star Steamship Line, and the Nation of Islam offered a programme of "building up Negro business through hard work, thrift and racial unity" (B.& M.1965,p.xxxv). This economic nationalism as well as the emphasis on racial identity and pride, was a considerable influence on the later articulation of the 'black power' ideology. Garvey's inversion of the standard that made 'white' the test of good, by replacing 'white' with 'black', can be seen as an early example of the 'black is beautiful' affirmation, of the 1960's.
With the onset of the depression in the 1930's, WEB DuBois, though editor of its magazine 'The Crisis', became increasingly critical of the NAACP for not modifying its approach to incorporate an economic programme. DuBois' own programme had always gone beyond that which the 'conservative' NAACP advocated, believing that blacks should control their own organisations (NAACP was white led) propounding their own ideals and with their own identity, and was deeply concerned with the impoverished condition of the black masses. The NAACP's rejection of his proposal for a 'Negro co-operative economy' led to his resignation from the organisation in 1934. He increasingly came to espouse the merits of separatism, claiming that "[i]t is the race conscious black man co-operating together in his own institutions and movements who will eventually emancipate the coloured race" (in B.& M.1965, p.144).
The importance of all black organisation was emphasised by A.Philip Randolph whose 'March on Washington Movement' was, he argued, to be "an all-Negro movement" its essential value being "that it helps to create faith by Negroes in Negroes in vital matters" (in B.& M.1965 p.204). These ideas prefiguring Carmichael's demand that black people must "confront the white power structure themselves" to overcome psychological feelings of inferiority "[a]nd they can't do that with white people getting everything for them" (in Young,1970,p.463).
The speeches of Malcolm X in the late 1950's and early 1960's were very influential in generating black nationalist feeling and in the development of the 'black power' philosophy, with their insistence on the development of black self-awareness, independence, integrity and manhood and the use of whatever means were necessary to achieve these ends (Ross,1971).
The increasing appeal of black nationalism in the 1960's and the calls for separatism, whether tactically or as the final desired outcome, mirrored this development in the 1920's and '30's. James Weldon Johnson (a former executive-secretary of the NAACP), writing in 1934, argued that the majority of black opinion lay in "the making of the race into a component part of the nation, with all the common rights and privileges, as well as duties, of citizenship" (in B.& M.1965,p.152). However, he recognises a tendency towards isolation as latent within all black Americans, a tendency that "springs from a deep-seated, natural desire for respite from the unremitting, gruelling struggle; for a place in which refuge might be taken" (in B.& M.1965,p.157). It is a tendency that emerges at times when seemingly, in spite of years of effort, little gain appears to have been made. In the 1930's despite the struggle of the previous three decades, Jim Crow, discrimination, segregation and lynching still existed. In the 1960's the growing advocacy of separatism came at a time when the preceding ten years of struggle by the civil rights movement increasingly came to be perceived as having made only minimal improvements in the condition of the majority of black Americans, who notwithstanding formal legal equality, suffered acute economic deprivation along with prejudice and discrimination.
As has been illustrated, the 'NVDA' and 'black power' philosophies, the protagonists in the 'debate' of the mid-1960's, can be perceived in terms of the 'conservative' and 'radical' outlooks that have characterised the history of the black struggle for racial equality. As has been already noted these categories are broad and the dividing line between them is not always clear cut. As a consequence of black America's inability to gain access to, or participation in, the political and social power structures, ethnocentric loyalty to the race has frequently received additional impetus. As a result, the doctrines of self-help, race-pride, economic nationalism and racial solidarity have blurred the boundaries of these categories by providing common ground for such figures as Douglass, Washington, DuBois, Garvey, Randolph, Malcolm X and Carmichael, whose philosophies and conceptions of power are otherwise highly diverse.
Section Three: From Non-Violence to Black Power
Differing conceptions of the power structure of American society and of black America's ability to participate in the decision making process led, as indicated in the previous sections, to the development and adoption of different strategies and tactics in the struggle to achieve racial equality.
The Supreme Court's 1954 declaration that segregation in public education was unconstitutional, ushered in a decade of active, largely non-violent protest against the Jim Crow laws of the Southern states. The civil rights movement of this period attacked racial inequality in its various manifestations, challenging segregation in transport, public accommodation and education, whilst demanding equal voting rights.
The Montgomery bus boycott of 1955/56 illustrated black America's new militant mood in the wake of the lengthy, gradualistic, legal strategy of the NAACP. The large-scale use of tactics such as boycotts, pickets, sit-ins, freedom rides and marches, came as a sharp contrast to the more 'conventional' methods of legal action and political pressure, that had previously been dominant.
However, although perceived as 'radical' in the mid-1950's, these tactics, as earlier noted, can be considered consistent with the pluralist framework of social change. Though increasingly militant, the emerging civil rights organisations provided a reformist, rather than radical analysis of the political arrangements of American society, and black American's potential for effective participation within it. By demanding the enforcement of desegregation and by challenging racial inequality, the movement aimed to achieve integration into society as it currently existed.
The Montgomery protest, whilst providing the first major victory for the rapidly developing civil rights movement, was also of significance for catapulting Martin Luther King Jr to national prominence. His involvement in the boycott enabled a practical application of his theoretical perspective on the philosophy of 'non-violence'.
This philosophy was to underpin the civil rights movement for a decade, and it is therefore of value to examine its various elements and theoretical basis. An important influence on King was the work of Hegel which introduced him to the methodology of 'dialectical inquiry', the explanation of life in terms of a struggle to unify opposing forces and create a synthesis. It was through this synthesis, Hegel argued, that partial truths were fused, enabling a fuller understanding and higher level of maturity to be achieved (Hutcherson,1988). For King "the strong man holds in a living blend, strongly marked opposites" (1981,p.156), and the struggle to synthesise these opposites formed part of the philosophical ground for his theory of non-violence.
The practical effectiveness of non-violence was revealed to King through his study of the life and teachings of Gandhi, whose concepts of 'satyagraha' (truth- or love-force) and 'ahimsa' (a refusal to do harm to an opponent or violate another's essence) (Ramachandran & Mahadevan,1967), were again highly influential in the development of his own philosophy of non-violence, the tactics of non-cooperation and civil disobedience becoming the backbone of the NVDA movement.
King's influences were fused into his own philosophy, grounded firmly in the Christian notion of love, which he saw as referring not "to some sentimental or affectionate emotion", but rather an "understanding, redeeming goodwill for all men", "not a weak passive love", but a "love in action" (in B.& M.1965,pp.26-7). Non-violence he argued, did not seek to humiliate opponents, but to win them over, the intention being the defeat of injustice rather than of the unjust persons (B.& M.1965). For King, a non-violent resister must be "willing to accept violence if necessary, but never to inflict it", unearned suffering was, he believed, redemptive and had "tremendous educational and transforming possibilities" (B.& M.1965,p.265).
Having, in Section One, placed King in a 'reformist' perspective, through which society was accepted as basically sound but in need of alterations, achieved through generally accepted means, it would appear difficult to reconcile with this the open advocacy of law breaking. Surely it could be argued that this was an indication of a rejection of the 'system' rather than an acceptance of the standard political channels through which laws, if deemed unjust, could be remedied. Was this approach not more consistent with Carmichael's 'radical' position, his total rejection of white America and its laws, his belief that the system is "rotten through and through" (in Young,1970,p.459)?
For King, such criticisms were not considered valid, for he did not advocate the general breaking of laws on the basis of personal inconvenience, rather, he reasoned that there are two types of laws, 'just' and 'unjust', and whilst accepting the existence of a legal and moral responsibility for obeying just laws, he argued that there existed an equal legal and moral obligation to disobey unjust laws, which he defined as a man-made "...code that is out of harmony with the moral law" (in Young,1970.p.336). He cited Thoreau's belief that [u]nder a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison" (1963,p.13), and argued that such disobedience did not undermine the law, the basis of the social order, but on the contrary, through open, peaceful and willing acceptance of the penalty for its breach, the civil disobedient "is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law" (in Young,1970,p.337).
King's philosophy of NVDA, both its theoretical and ethical basis and the strategies of action it proposed were reflected, to a large extent, in his prognosis on the nature of the American political and social order and the ability of effecting social change. Its emphasis on persuasion, on winning over the opponent, on reconciling opposing forces to resolve injustice, and on the creation of a 'beloved community', seem to be mirrored to a certain degree, in a conception of political participation that perceives decision-making as a consequence of competing interests, as an outcome of compromise and negotiation, and provides a basis for the overall acceptance and approval of the existing framework of society and its values.
The civil rights movement that emerged in the mid-1950's arose in response to the system of racial segregation, Jim Crow, that existed in the South. Jim Crow was identified as the foundation of racial inequality and it was to its destruction, rather than a total restructuring of the American political and social order that efforts were focused. It was through the termination of this system of segregation that black Americans, it was believed, could become part of society on an equitable basis, participate in the decision making process and share in its rewards. As a consequence, localised campaigns targeted segregated facilities, segregated education, promoted voter registration and sought, through NVDA, to ensure federal enforcement of existing Supreme Court decisions and the promotion of new Congressional legislation (Carter,1973).
The burgeoning civil rights movement, throughout the 1950's and early 1960's, increasingly made the 'race question' a matter electoral importance for both the Republican and Democratic parties, though this importance can be viewed less in terms of some altruistic championing of the cause of racial equality and more the result of self-interest.Opportunities were seen by both parties to exploit the issue for electoral gain, either by playing on white fear in the South or appealing to the expanding black electorate of the North. Whatever the motives, the growing size and instability of the black vote (increasingly the Democrats could not simply assume their support in the North), meant that the civil rights issue had to be taken seriously.
The civil rights movement sought to capitalise on this 'interest', believing that it was through persuading, influencing and pressuring these institutional bodies that gains would be made. Involvement by and coalitions with sympathetic white organisations and forces such as liberal, labour, church and student groups, as well as the 'liberal left' wing of the Democratic Party, was considered essential to aid this process and in the eventual achievement of equality. This was reflected in the fact that the 'big five' civil rights organisations of the 1950's and early 1960's; the National Urban League, NAACP, CORE, SNCC and King's SCLC, were all, to varying degrees interracial and reliant upon the support and finance of 'friendly' whites in the North (at least whilst the struggle was focused on the South!). Working within the system via such a policy of coalition, paralleled by continuing direct action, it was argued that publicity and attention could be generated and used to prod a reluctant Congress and Administration into action.
Voter registration drives in the South initiated by the SNCC in 1961, running in tandem with direct action to integrate public facilities were of important political significance considering the vast numbers of unregistered, potential black voters. For example in 1960 in Alabama, approximately 35% of the population were black, yet only 14% were registered to vote, and in Mississippi where 45% of the population were black only 4%, were registered (Carter,1973). The potential threat to Southern whites from a new black electorate was obvious and the delaying tactics, state police banning orders, intimidation and outright mob violence that accompanied voter registration and challenges to segregation, was the brutal but predictable outcome.
Paradoxically, it was lack of restraint and outright brutality of police officers and white mobs that formed a vital element of the tactic of NVDA used by King's movement. This tactic was "a response to the behaviour of others, effective directly in terms of the ferocity of the resistance it meets...It depends on the reactions of others for its own strength" (Clark in Young,1970,p.286). Overt injustice and cruelty made front page news nationally, even internationally, and forced the issue of civil rights to the very top of the political agenda. In Birmingham, Alabama, "the symbol of racial segregation" (King in Muse,1968,p.22), in April 1963, dogs, whips and hoses were used on demonstrators, including large numbers of children, protesting non-violently, and made 'Bull' Connor, the City Commissioner directing the Birmingham police, a national by-word. Likewise, state violence could be seen to assist the civil rights cause again in March 1965 in Selma, Alabama, where a peaceful march demanding voting rights was attacked by state troopers, some mounted, with 'nightsticks' and tear gas, causing numerous injuries, for refusing to turn back. The protesters appeals to the nation's conscience on these and other occasions, using NVDA to highlight the barbarity and blatant injustice of the South, forced Presidential action and led in 1964 and 1965 to the passage of civil rights legislation.
It would therefore appear from a pluralist perspective, with its focus on observable conflicts and decisions, that the civil rights legislation which sounded the death knell of the separate-but-equal doctrine and which initiated a formal commitment to 'colour-blind' equality of opportunity, heralded the successful conclusion to the battle for racial equality.
However, the eruption of urban unrest in successive summers between 1964 and 1967 in Northern cities forced a reassessment of the achievements of the NVDA movement. For Northern blacks 'formal racial equality' was not the issue, instead the poverty and deprivation highlighted by the riots indicated the necessity of a deeper analysis of the meaning of equality.
Having benefited little from the gains won by the King-led movement in the South, the black ghetto dwellers became increasingly disillusioned with its leadership, considering it bourgeois and 'out of touch' (Garrow,1988), "their tone of voice [being] adapted to an audience of middle-class whites" (C.& H.1967,p.64). As had already been experienced, legal guarantees of equality of opportunity and the right to vote did not mean 'Freedom Now' for the black masses having suffered generations of deprivation and isolation from mainstream (white) society (Killian in Young,1970), and did little "to help the majority of black people who [were] poor and ill-equipped to compete in an advanced industrial society" (Young,1970,p.10).
Increasingly 'conventional' forms of politics and protest were perceived as having failed to improve ghetto conditions. Such 'conventional' politics had formed the basis of King's integrationist vision, but with the fading lustre of the notion of integration, the demanding of the "elimination of explicit racial barriers which prevented blacks from enjoying those opportunities available to white Americans" (Silverman,1970,p.ix), would no longer suffice, and the belief that these demands could be achieved through peaceful persuasion of the (white) majority, was seen to be unrealistic.
The acclaimed triumph of the March on Washington, where King powerfully articulated his dream of freedom, and the ensuing civil rights legislation, had seemed to indicate that this freedom was finally to be within reach. The sense of optimism and achievement gave way, in the ensuing months however, to disillusion, frustration and anger, the rhetoric and raised expectations merely creating an increased awareness of the marginal impact of such 'victories' on ghetto life.
Sympathetic white media and other white liberals praised the NVDA movement's successes, emanating a generally felt conviction that the major problems facing black Americans had been remedied and that the legislation of 1964\65 signalled the successful conclusion to the civil rights struggle.
With little perceptible improvement in urban conditions, dissatisfaction with the federal government at its half-hearted efforts at implementation of the Act's provisions and subsequent feelings of discontent among ghetto dwellers, faith in the sincerity of white commitment to true equality was increasingly questioned with a consequent rise in the appeal of black nationalist philosophies, ( due especially to the fiery oratory of Malcolm X), and a growing gulf between blacks and whites.
Malcolm X ridiculed the Washington rally as the 'Farce on Washington', arguing that its endorsements by the White House and the involvement of white liberals and white money, had removed all the 'anger'. "How was a one day 'integrated ' picnic going to counter-influence these representatives of prejudice rooted deep in the psyche of the American white man for four hundred years?" he asked (1965,p.388). The march, he claimed was merely a 'safety valve', a device to let off steam and channel grievances into a cul-de-sac. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was similarly, he argued, a vent to release black frustrations and in fact was "not designed to solve our problems" at all (Speech of 7-1-65,1965,p.23). The murder of a black activist in Georgia and three civil rights workers (two white, one black), in Mississippi shortly after the act was passed, and the slovenly response with regard the apprehension of the assailants, was he claimed, an indication of the hollowness of white commitment to racial equality (1965).
The combination of the failure by the civil rights movement over the previous decade to meet the expectations that they had themselves helped raise and the seeming inadequacy of conventional politics to lead to improved conditions in the ghettos proved explosive (Young,1970). The urban rioting indicated that legal reforms by themselves were inadequate to deal with the deeper, structural problems of the gross inequalities in wealth and power between whites and blacks.
The ideology of 'black power' emerged as a reaction to these events and the perceived failure of the 'middle-class' black leaders to address the problems of the Northern cities. Its philosophy provided a more radical analysis of power relationships and the black person's position within American society. Reform of the system was, it believed, inadequate and no meaningful 'integration' could take place until the gross imbalance of power between blacks and whites had been rectified. Only through the 'closing of ranks', the development of a strong racial unity and identity, could a strong power base be created. Only on the basis of such a "position of strength" (C.& H.1967,p.58) could black Americans participate fully in the decision making process (C.& H.1967). Belief in the possibility of effectively aligning black and white 'life-chances' through peaceful persuasion using acceptable institutional channels, including peaceful protest, was rejected as being premised on a misconceived understanding of the nature of political arrangements. Carmichael and Hamilton argued that the political and economic institutions of American society were themselves inherently racist and that these "institutions...must be completely revised if the political and economic status of black people is to be improved...We do not see how those same institutions can be utilised... to bring about that revision" (1967,p.78).
For advocates of 'black power' the King led civil rights movement's faith in their ability to use these institutional structures to achieve equality, through compelling changes in the law, or by demanding enforcement of that law, totally misconceived the nature of the power structure. Theirs is an essentially elitist analysis of power, one in which the real basis of power was disguised and hidden. The 'rules of the game' were, they argued, determined by an elite, and operated systematically and consistently in favour of these persons or groups at the expense of others (Bachrach & Baratz,1970). These rules of the game were used to block opposition by limiting decision-making to certain 'safe' issues, ones which would not fundamentally alter the structure of inequality (ie desegregation of facilities or voter registration). This, they claimed, was achieved through the 'mobilisation of bias' (B.& B.1970), whereby certain issues were prevented from reaching the point of decision (a 'non-decision'), the elite organising some issues into the 'democratic arena', and organising others out (B.& B.1970). In this way competing interests played the democratic game within a framework that gave the illusion of genuine participation and responsive government, but which in reality, restricted the 'actors' to the middle-levels' of power (Mills,1959), allowing various interest groups to vie for influence only in respect of these 'safe' issues.
For the 'black power' advocate, the King led movement's understanding of American society was too shallow and one dimensional (Lukes,1974), their heralding of legal victories and legislation as proof that they were a powerful interest group indicating a failure to probe beneath the surface, and thereby excluded the possibility that power might be systematically used in favour of some groups (ie whites) and against others (ie blacks).
For Malcolm X, the civil rights movement were operating within this first dimension, within parameters set by the white power structure, claiming that "[w]hen you go to Washington DC expecting some kind of civil rights legislation to correct a very criminal situation...you are...encouraging the black man, who is the victim, to take his case into the court that's controlled by the criminal that made him the victim" (Speech of 8-4-64,1965,p.11). The 'black power' perspective being consistent with this analysis, regarded rejection of the institutional set-up of American society as essential, with alternatives having to be founded on a totally redefined and restructured basis.
This redefinition, as noted in Section One, can it is argued only be achieved through the creation of an independent 'power base' founded in the black community. Until such a 'position of strength' had been achieved, coalitions with whites, an important strategy of the civil rights movement, were rejected as inevitably leading to a relationship of dependency. If the coalition relationship was not built on the basis of mutual interest and strength, then it could not be founded on solid ground, and the white support, whether influence or money, could be quickly revoked if a conflict of interest arose.
Equally Carmichael and Hamilton rejected 'appeals to conscience', again a vital element of the King led movement, as "operating from a powerless base" (1967,p.90). Reliance on 'national sentiment' and on appeals to the 'good graces ' of society to achieve civil rights legislation, they argued, cast them "in a beggar's role, hoping to strike a responsive chord" (1967,p.90). Without an independent power base there could be no assurance that whatever gains, however limited, "would not be revoked as soon as a shift in political sentiments occurs" (1967,p.90). Congressiona
