As I read these chapters I’m reminded of two recent but quite different public revolutions: Tahrir Square in Egypt this Spring, and the riots we’ve watched in London this past week. Though there were elements of collective action and individual opportunism in each, what sticks in my mind are the neighborhood groups that banded together to keep the revolution on track and protect individuals and property in Egypt. In London we’ve seen images of protestors shouting at the government while running off with merchandise grabbed from a storefront. Both actions have a feeling of “We’ve had enough,” but one has vision and direction, while the other degenerates into chaos.
(BTW, did you hear about the guy in London who was arrested for looting after he Tweeted a picture of himself and the stuff he’d stolen? http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/london_police_to_arrest_tweeting_looters.php)
As the drama unfolded in Mendenhall (back to Chapters 16-17), Perkins remembers that while the community needed to stand up for itself, it was important that the community act in ways that would bring about long-term transformation.
“Even as I warned our people that we could only hurt ourselves seeking revenge, I reminded them that we could also hurt ourselves – and our children as well, if we simply caved in and did nothing” (142).
When given the opportunity, Perkins uses the platform created by his position to call for changes that would benefit the entire Black community in Mendenhall (149). It’s vision that motivates Perkins to focus beyond his particular situation (“Let me go,” or “Follow proper protocol for arrests”) to address the larger issues in the community (street conditions, employment, government representation, etc.). Instead of seizing the opportunity to release pent-up rage, the community joins Perkins’ call by enacting the boycott and organizing marches. The good of the whole keeps the actions of the individual in check and on track.
In all of this there’s evidence of tension between blacks who were willing to stand up to the oppressive system under which they struggled and others who had found a stable place within the White-dominated society:
“The officials kept up their efforts to hurry me out of jail. Of course, the quickest way, dropping charges, was out of the question as they saw it. So they sent up some blacks to urge me to come out – blacks they through might be willing to forget injustice in the name of ‘cooperation.’ But as each one came up I would convince them of what we were doing. All understood, except for one or two who were so sold-out to the system that they couldn’t think for themselves anyway” (148).
I’m interested to think about where I might have landed in this situation. So, question, with no judgment or right/wrong answers:
Which character in these chapters do you think might best represent the way you’d have acted in this situation?
As I said in my email last week, I'd like to think that in a situation like these chapters I'd be like Doug Huemmer - standing on the side of justice even in a situation that outsiders might not perceive as "my issue."
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'm afraid that too often I've felt like the NAACP president whose desire to not rock the boat or create unneeded controversy led him to oppose Perkins' moves for equality and rights. I can be pretty risk-averse at times, which has probably led me to situations in which I should have acted, but didn't.
To combat that tendency, I need to observe the long-range view of things and consider legacy over immediacy. While springing to action on every issue all the time would quickly lead to burnout, nothing good comes from tacitly contributing to ongoing injustice.