Important events/dates in the civil rights movement:
-NAACP focused on winning freedom, gaining ground, in the federal courts. Crucial victory in May 1954, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, which nullified Plessy v. Fergusson. Declared public school segregation unconstitutional.
-Dec 1955, Rosa Parks defies segregation on city buses in Montgomery, Alabama. Arrested. Bus boycotts began, lasting until Nov, 1956, ending in success; buses become desegregated.
-The black church functioned as the driving force and institutional (spiritual, moral, cultural, political, organizational, and financial) base of the movement
-Feb 1960, lunch "sit-ins" begin, attempting to desegregate lunch counters in restuarants (SCLC guided this movement)
-1960, SNCC (student non-violent coordinating committee) created as an offshoot of the SCLC (by Ella Baker). The SCLC had charimastic leaders and used media attention as a lever, while the SNCC focused more on group-centered leadership. These differing strategies resulted in later tensions between the two groups.
-1961, "freedom rides" campaign to desegregate bus terminals in the Deep South (spear-headed by CORE (Congress of Racial Equality)); encountered much violence. Sep 1961, segregation in interstate terminals banned by the ICC.
-fall 1961-summer 1962, Albany, Georgia desegregation campaign first defeat of movement; SNCC and SCLC differed on strategies. Police Chief Laurie Pritchett studied MLK's tactics and
arrests masses of demonstrators (counters non-violence with non-violence?)
-lessons from Albany: need a clear-cut goal; need strategy and careful planning; need to be unified; need brutal response from police (Pritchett's response took the steam out of the demonstrations in Albany)
-March 1963, desegregation movement in Birmingham, Alabama. MLK wrote famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail". Police response brutal, attracting media attention. Protests paralyze city, and business elite agree to demands of SCLC
-1963, only about 1 percent of Southern black children attended school with whites. 1954 Supreme Court decision still far from a reality.
-1963, CUCRL (Council on United Civil Rights Leadership), an over-arching organization encompassing many other groups (SNCC, SCLC, CORE, etc.) formed
-August 28, 1963, 250,000 convened in Washington D.C. to march peacefully for civil rights
-early 1964, SNCC campaign to register large numbers of black voters; encountered much violence; tried to counter Democratic power in Mississippi; FDP (Freedom Democratic Party) formed; only slight political gains made
-1964, Malcolm X (a Muslim) seeks to internationalize the struggle of African-Americans; not a pacifist, endorsed militance; "Black is Beautiful"
-1964, Martin Luther King, Jr. wins the Nobel Peace Prize
-February 21, 1965, Malcolm X assassinated
-March 7, 1965, "Bloody Sunday" Selma to Montgomery march; SCLC and SNCC defied Governor George Wallace's ban on marching; police used force against marchers
-March 15, 1965, in response, Lyndon B. Johnson endorses Voting Rights Act, not signed into law until summer
-August 1965, Watts riot in Los Angeles. Other riots soon followed...
-1965-66, SNCC encounters growing pains as factions within the movement develop; Black Power movement develops as offshoot, black nationalsim emerges (political and cultural groups); divergence with MLK (difference: conflict between seperatist vs integrationist perspectives)
-late 1966, Black Panther Party founded (in Oakland); goal-enforce civil rights laws and constitutional guarantees; militaristic and highly-centralized; no solid base in black community; support mainly from white left
-1967, MLK takes anti-war stance on Vietnam; criticized from both sides for his actions (criticized by "liberal media" for mixing anti-war and civil rights issues together; criticized by black leaders for jeopardizing delicate civil rights coalition)
-April 4, 1968, MLK assassinated in Memphis
-1969, SNCC breaks up
-1971 and beyond, black liberation movement loses momentum with the collapse of the SNCC and the Black Panthers
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
legacy of torture
The independent film "Legacy of Torture" premiered this Sunday (1/28/07) at the Roxie in SF. There was a long line of people waiting to see the movie, and an impromptu screening was held after the first to accomodate those waiting in line who couldn't get in to see the first show.
The film provided first hand accounts from 5 men who were detained in the case surrounding the death of SF cop Sgt. John Young in 1971. Those accounts included detailed information on the techniques that were used (i.e. torture) to make them submissive enough to sign confessions, the contents of which they had little or no knowledge. Naturally, those confessions became part of the evidence used against them, though that evidence was later dismissed after it was discovered that it came about as a result of torture at the hands of the police involved in the interrogation.
When I saw the film, I knew very little about the case. After it was over, I tried to think about the positives and negatives of the film. Remember, this is coming from someone who knew little about the case. What impression would such a person walk away with?
The film provided first-hand accounts of 5 men who were detained by police. Their stories were very moving. But...
- the larger context of the story was not clear. Yes, there was information presented about the Black Panthers and the Free Children's Breakfast Program, which several men were involved in, but it was hard to connect the dots between this story and the stories of the men.
- The death of Sgt. John Young wasn't mentioned. (Should it be?) Supposedly their involvement in his death is the reason why these men have been continually harassed by police ever since. But that information, that connection, was not presented.
- Result? For someone not familiar with this story, and assuming that they only saw this film, it would be hard for them to understand the context in which the events took place.
- The film mainly focuses on the accounts (interview-style) of 5 men who were former Black Panther members, in which they recount the torture they underwent and the scripted confessions they signed. But confessions to what? The viewer walks away knowing that these men experienced extreme unjustices at the hands of the police; but the viewer doesn't walk away with any ideas as to why those unjustices were committed. Is that the point of the film? That the events were that random? These men were detained, tortured, and signed confessions under extreme duress, but for what reason? That is the question that loomed in my mind after watching this film...
The film provided first hand accounts from 5 men who were detained in the case surrounding the death of SF cop Sgt. John Young in 1971. Those accounts included detailed information on the techniques that were used (i.e. torture) to make them submissive enough to sign confessions, the contents of which they had little or no knowledge. Naturally, those confessions became part of the evidence used against them, though that evidence was later dismissed after it was discovered that it came about as a result of torture at the hands of the police involved in the interrogation.
When I saw the film, I knew very little about the case. After it was over, I tried to think about the positives and negatives of the film. Remember, this is coming from someone who knew little about the case. What impression would such a person walk away with?
The film provided first-hand accounts of 5 men who were detained by police. Their stories were very moving. But...
- the larger context of the story was not clear. Yes, there was information presented about the Black Panthers and the Free Children's Breakfast Program, which several men were involved in, but it was hard to connect the dots between this story and the stories of the men.
- The death of Sgt. John Young wasn't mentioned. (Should it be?) Supposedly their involvement in his death is the reason why these men have been continually harassed by police ever since. But that information, that connection, was not presented.
- Result? For someone not familiar with this story, and assuming that they only saw this film, it would be hard for them to understand the context in which the events took place.
- The film mainly focuses on the accounts (interview-style) of 5 men who were former Black Panther members, in which they recount the torture they underwent and the scripted confessions they signed. But confessions to what? The viewer walks away knowing that these men experienced extreme unjustices at the hands of the police; but the viewer doesn't walk away with any ideas as to why those unjustices were committed. Is that the point of the film? That the events were that random? These men were detained, tortured, and signed confessions under extreme duress, but for what reason? That is the question that loomed in my mind after watching this film...
Watada case
Olson no longer required to appear in court
A story in the SF Chronicle ("Writer's wont' be called in Army officer's case", 1/30/07) stated that journalists Sara Olson and Gregg Kakesako are now off the hook regarding possible testimony in the Watada case. This is because Watada stated that he was quoted accurately by the journalists. Olson stated that she did not want to aid in the prosecution of a news source, particularly in a case regarding freedom of speech.
A story in the SF Chronicle ("Writer's wont' be called in Army officer's case", 1/30/07) stated that journalists Sara Olson and Gregg Kakesako are now off the hook regarding possible testimony in the Watada case. This is because Watada stated that he was quoted accurately by the journalists. Olson stated that she did not want to aid in the prosecution of a news source, particularly in a case regarding freedom of speech.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)