Thursday October 30th, 2014, 12:43 pm (EDT)

Dear Reader,

We place these articles at no charge on our website to serve all the people who cannot afford Monthly Review, or who cannot get access to it where they live. Many of our most devoted readers are outside of the United States. If you read our articles online and you can afford a subscription to our print edition, we would very much appreciate it if you would consider purchasing one. Please visit the MR store for subscription options. Thank you very much. —Eds.

SNCC: What We Did

Julian Bond was Communications Director of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) from 1960 until 1965, when he was elected to the Georgia House of Representatives. Today, he is Distinguished Professor in Residence at the School of Government at American University in Washington, D.C., and a professor of History at the University of Virginia. In February 2000, he was elected to a third term as Chair of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Copyright ©2000 by Julian Bond.

2000 marks the fortieth anniversary of the southern sit-in movement, the emergence of the civil rights struggle of the 1960s, and the founding of its most dynamic component, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). We believe it is important to look back at the achievements of those courageous men and women, both to celebrate their struggle and to learn from their experience. The following article is adapted from a talk originally given last summer at a seminar far college and university teachers, on the history of the civil rights movement at Harvard’s W. E. B. Du Bois Institute for Afro-American Studies.

The Editors

“Strong people don’t need strong leaders,” Ella Baker told us. We were strong people; we did strong things. These are some of the things we did.*

It began for me as it did for many others in early 1960. On February 4, I was sitting in a cafe near my college campus in Atlanta, Georgia. It was our hangout, a place where students went between—or instead of—classes. A fellow student named Lonnie King approached me with a copy of that day’s Atlanta Daily World, the local black newspaper. The headline read: GREENSBORO STUDENTS SIT-IN FOR THIRD DAY!

In exact detail, the story told how black college students from North Carolina A & T University in Greensboro had, for the third consecutive day, entered a Woolworth’s Five and Ten Cents Store and asked for service at the whites-only lunch counter. It described their demeanor, their dress, and their determination to return the following day—and for as many days as it took to gain the service they were denied.

“Have you seen this?” Lonnie demanded.
“Yes, I have,” I replied.
“I think it’s great!”
“What do you think about it?” he inquired.
“Don’t you think it ought to happen here?” he asked.
“Oh, I’m sure it will happen here,” I responded. “Surely someone here will do it.”

Then it came to me, as it did to many others in those early days in 1960—a query, an invitation, and a command: “Why don’t we make it happen here?”

The two of us and our friend, Joe Pierce, canvassed the cafe, talked to students, invited them to discuss the Greensboro events and to duplicate them in Atlanta. The Atlanta student movement had begun. We recruited schoolmates and with them formed an organization, reconnoitered downtown lunch counters, and within a few weeks, seventy-seven of us had been arrested.

In an early 1960 Freedom Song, “Ballad of the Student Sit-ins,” written by Guy Carawan, Eve Merriam, and Norma Curtis, the young students who joined together to create the southern student movement were described this way:

The time was 1960, the place the USA,
That February 1st became a history-making day.
From Greensboro across the land, the news spread far and wide,
As quietly and bravely, youth took a giant stride.

(Chorus) Heed the call, Americans all, side by equal side.
Sisters, sit in dignity, brothers sit in pride.
From Mobile, Alabama to Nashville, Tennessee.
From Denver, Colorado to Washington, D. C.
There rose a cry for freedom, for human liberty.

The time has come to prove our faith in all men’s dignity.
We serve the cause of justice, of all humanity.
We’re soldiers in the army, with Martin Luther King,
Peace and love our weapons, nonviolence is our creed.

(Chorus)

This is a land we cherish, a land of liberty.
How can Americans deny all men equality?
Our Constitution says we can’t and Christians, you should know
Jesus died that morning, so all mankind could know.

(Chorus)

No mobs of violence and hate shall turn us from our goal,
No Jim Crow laws nor police state shall stop my free bound soul,
Three thousand students bound in jail still lift their heads and sing,
We’ll travel on to freedom, like songbirds on the wing.

(Chorus)

As former President Jimmy Carter told former SNCC worker and author Mary King, “if you wanted to scare white people in Southwest Georgia, Martin Luther King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference wouldn’t do it. You only had to say one word—SNCC.” SNCC was founded in 1960 by southern student protesters engaged in sit-in demonstrations against lunch-counter segregation. Within a year, it evolved from a coordinating agency to a hands-on organization, helping local leadership in rural and small-town communities across the South participate in a variety of protests, as well as in political and economic organizing campaigns. This set SNCC apart from the civil rights mainstream of the 1960s. Its members, its youth, and its organizational independence enabled SNCC to remain close to grassroots currents that rapidly escalated the southern movement from sit-ins to freedom rides, and then from voter drives to political organizing.

By 1965, SNCC fielded the largest staff of any civil rights organization in the South. It had organized nonviolent direct action against segregated facilities, as well as voter-registration projects, in Alabama, Arkansas, Maryland, Missouri, Louisiana, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Illinois, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Mississippi; built two independent political parties and organized labor unions and agricultural cooperatives; and given the movement for women’s liberation new energy. It inspired and trained the activists who began the “New Left.” It helped expand the limits of political debate within black America, and broadened the focus of the civil rights movement. Unlike mainstream civil rights groups, which merely sought integration of blacks into the existing order, SNCC sought structural changes in American society itself.

In 1960, the dominant organization fighting for civil rights was the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Its preferred method was litigation and it had achieved its greatest victory in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education, outlawing segregation in public schools. The NAACP lobbied Congress and presidents to adopt antisegregation measures. Its local branches were often the main civil rights outposts in communities. The NAACP—and similar groups and many individuals—fought against a system of racial domination that whites had solidified over time. The system, as Aldon Morris wrote in The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement, “protected the privileges of white society and generated tremendous human suffering for blacks. In the cities and rural areas of the South, blacks were controlled economically, politically and personally,” relegated to the worst jobs, prevented—often by force and terror—from free participation in the political process, and denied due process of law and personal freedoms that all whites routinely enjoyed.

Ironically, a consequence of segregation was the development of institutions in close-knit communities, churches, schools, and organizations that nurtured and encouraged the fight against white supremacy. The young people who began the 1960 student sit-in movement lived and learned among such institutions. The student movement’s goals were described to the Democratic Convention’s Platform Committee in 1960 by SNCC’s first Chair, Marion Barry, as “seeking a community in which man can realize the full meaning of self, which demands open relationships with others.” Barry declared southern students wanted an end to racial discrimination in housing, education, employment, and voting. SNCC’s goals were set out in similar terms by Executive Secretary James Forman in 1961 as “working full-time against the whole value system of this country and by working toward revolution;” in 1963, as a “program of developing, building and strengthening indigenous leadership;” and by third SNCC Chair John Lewis, at the 1963 March on Washington, as building “a serious social revolution” against “American politics dominated by politicians who build their careers on immoral compromises and ally themselves with open forms of political, economic and social exploitation.”

SNCC pioneered first-time electoral races by blacks in the deep South in the 1960s, while adding foreign-policy demands to the black political agenda, thus broadening the acceptable limits of political discourse. SNCC was in the vanguard in demonstrating that independent black politics could be successful. Its early attempts to use black candidates to raise issues in races where victory was unlikely expanded the political horizon. SNCC’s development of independent political parties mirrored the philosophy that political form must follow function and that nonhierarchical organizations were necessary to counter the growth of cults of personality and self-reinforcing leadership.

For much of its early history, SNCC battled against the fear that had kept rural southern blacks from wholeheartedly organizing and acting on their own behalf. It strengthened or built aggressive, locally led movements in the communities where it worked. While organizing grassroots voter-registration drives, SNCC workers offered themselves as a protective barrier between private and state-sponsored terror and the local communities where SNCC staffers lived and worked.

The rural South that SNCC encountered in 1961 had a long history of civil rights activism; in many instances, however, SNCC staffers were the first paid civil rights workers to base themselves in isolated rural communities, daring to “take the message of freedom into areas where the bigger civil rights organizations fear to tread.” SNCC workers were more numerous and less transient than those from other civil rights organizations and their method of operation was different as well.

The NAACP was outlawed in Alabama in 1956 and did not begin operating there again until 1964, although NAACP activists continued under other sponsorship. In 1962, the NAACP had one field secretary each in South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi, and a regional staff headquartered in Atlanta. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) hired its first field secretary in 1960; in 1964, SCLC staff numbered sixty-two. By summer 1965, SCLG had staff in every southern state except Florida and Tennessee. Much of the organization’s work, like the NAACP’s effort, was conducted through affiliates. The historian Adam Fairclough wrote, “SCLC has to adopt a strategy of ‘hit and run,’ striking one target at a time.” SCLC’s willingness to run as well as hit provoked consistent criticism from SNCC, which organized the same communities for years rather than months or weeks.

“SCLC mobilized,” someone said. “SNCC organized.”

By the spring of 1963, SNCC had eleven staff members in southwest Georgia, and twenty staff members—and six offices—in Mississippi. By August, SNCC had projects and permanent staff in a dozen Mississippi communities; in Selma, Alabama; Danville, Virginia; and Pine Bluff, Arkansas. There were twelve workers in the Atlanta headquarters, sixty field secretaries, and 121 fulltime volunteers.

Typically, SNCC began campaigns by exploring the economic and political history of a target community. Field workers were supplied by SNCC’s own research office with detailed information on a community’s economic and financial power structure, tracing corporate relationships from local bankers and business leadership in a local White Citizens Council to the largest U.S. banks and corporations. Other research, like the report on “The Economic Status of Blacks in Alabama” provided invaluable intelligence on the condition of the state’s black population.

SNCC organizers spent their first weeks in a new community meeting local leadership, formulating with them an action plan for more aggressive registration efforts, and recruiting new activists through informal conversation, painstaking house-to-house canvassing, and regular mass meetings. Registering rural southern blacks, a SNCC worker wrote, “would greatly liberate American politics as a whole. At the very least, these new voters would defeat the powerful, hidebound, Southern Democrats who were holding the reigns of Congress and the Senate on the basis of being elected year after year from districts where Black citizens were denied the franchise. The Southern Democratic legislators weren’t just holding up civil rights legislation, they were a serious impediment to any kind of meaningful social or economic changes.” SNCC and other organizations fought white terrorism and helped create a willingness to risk danger in order to register to vote. By one estimate, reported in Pat Watters’ and Reese Cleghorn’s Climbing Jacob’s Ladder: The Arrival of the Negro in Southern Politics, “a majority of the unregistered had at least been confronted with registration’s challenge” by 1965.

SNCC’s broader definition of the civil rights movement’s purposes was obvious from its beginning. At its founding conference, in April 1960, SNCC Executive Committee member Charles Jones declared that “this movement will affect other areas beyond [lunch counter] services, such as politics and economics.” A report from the conference concluded with a warning about America’s false preoccupations in early 1960: “Civil defense and economic power alone will not insure the continuation of Democracy,” it said:

Democracy itself demands the great intangible strength of the people able to unite in a common endeavor because they are granted human dignity. This challenge cannot be met unless and until all Americans enjoy the full promise of our democratic heritage—first class citizenship.

Another recommendation noted:

Students have a natural claim to leadership in this project. They have pioneered in nonviolent direct action. Now we can show we understand the political implications of our movement—that it goes far beyond lunch counters. We are convinced of the necessity of all local areas joining in the campaign to secure the right to vote. No right is more basic to the American citizen, none more basic to a democracy.

Within four months of these declarations, SNCC volunteer worker Robert Moses was planning a student-staffed voter-registration project in all-black Mound Bayou in the Mississippi Delta for the summer of 1961. The state of Mississippi became a laboratory for SNCC’s unique methods of organizing. SNCC’s work began in southwestern Mississippi in 1961, but when its workers were driven from the area by violence, state suppression, and federal indifference, the organization regrouped in Jackson and in Mississippi’s Delta counties in early 1962.

Earlier in 1961, SNCC’s Nashville affiliate had continued the Freedom Rides, a direct-action campaign launched by the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) that year to integrate interstate bus lines, when Alabama violence threatened to bring them to a halt. After they were released from Parchman Penitentiary, many jailed Freedom Riders had joined the McComb movement. Several became part of the organizing cadre for the Mississippi movement that followed. Unencumbered by allegiances to the national Democratic Party, which frequently constrained other, older organizations, SNCC encouraged two black candidates to run for Congress from Mississippi; Moses served as unofficial campaign manager. They ran, wrote James Forman, “to shake loose the fear” among blacks, and, through their progressive platforms, gave their intended constituents an expanded notion of what meaning politics might have in their lives. They talked about issues that no white Mississippi politicians had ever dreamed of mentioning-ideas which resona te even today. In his book, Jackson, Mississippi, John R. Salter described these ideas

as legislation to improve the school system, a broader plan of medical coverage, and special training facilities to develop industrial skills among the great mass of Mississippians who lacked these completely.

To demonstrate that disenfranchised Mississippi blacks did want to vote, SNCC mounted a “Freedom Vote” campaign in November 1963. Over eighty thousand blacks cast votes in a mock election for Governor and Lieutenant Governor. One hundred white northern students worked in this campaign (including Yale student Joseph Lieberman), attracting attention from the Department of Justice and the national media as black registration workers had never done, and paving the way for the “Freedom Summer” campaign in 1964.

“Freedom Summer” brought one thousand, mostly white, volunteers to Mississippi for the summer of 1964. They helped build the new political party SNCC had organized, the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP); registered voters; and staffed twenty-eight “Freedom Schools” intended by their designer, Charles Cobb, “to provide an education which will make it possible for them to challenge the myths of our society, to perceive more clearly its realities, and to find alternatives, and ultimately new directions for action.”

Over the next several years, SNCC-backed candidates for Congress ran in Albany, Georgia; Selma, Alabama; Danville, Virginia; and Enfield, North Carolina. SNCC helped candidates for Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service Boards in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, North Carolina, and Mississippi; aided school board candidates in Arkansas in 1965; and worked toward “solving the economic problems of the Southern Negro” by organizing the Mississippi Freedom Labor Union and Poor People’s Corporation and mounting economic boycotts against discriminatory merchants.

Among SNCC’s contributions to electoral politics were the formation of two political parties—the aforementioned MFDP and the Lowndes County Freedom Organization (LCFO)—and the conception and implementation of my successful campaigns for the Georgia State Legislature. The MFDP challenged the seating of the regular, all-white delegation from Mississippi at the 1964 Democratic Convention and, in 1965, challenged the seating of Mississippi’s congressional delegation in Washington. The convention challenge ended in failure when pressures from President Lyndon Johnson erased promised support from party liberals. An offer was made—and rejected—of two convention seats to be filled by the national party, not the Freedom Democrats, to which Fannie Lou Hamer declared, “We didn’t come for no two seats when all of us is tired!”

Each challenge served as an object lesson for strengthening black political independence, and the organizing and lobbying efforts for each laid the groundwork for congressional passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The MFDP served as a prototype for the model of Black Power advocated and popularized by Stokely Carmichael. In 1965, the McComb MFDP Branch became the first black political organization to express opposition to the war in Vietnam. State MFDP officials not only refused to repudiate the McComb statement, they reprinted it in the state MFDP newsletter, giving it wider circulation and laying the groundwork for future black opponents of the war.

The MFDP’s legal efforts against white resistance to political equality proved important to black political efforts across the South. An MFDP-directed lawsuit resulted in the Supreme Court’s landmark 1969 decision in Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544 (1969). Frank Parker, in Black Votes Count, wrote that the victory was “critical to continuing black political progress throughout the South. For the first time,” he asserted, “[although in the context of interpreting the Voting Rights Act rather than applying constitutional principles] the Supreme Court recognized and applied the principle of minority vote dilution—that the black vote can be affected as much by dilution as by an absolute prohibition on casting a ballot.”

The mid-sixties were a turning point in the southern human rights struggle. Federal legislation passed in 1964 and 1965 accomplished the immediate goals of many in the civil rights movement. Cleveland Sellers wrote, “When the federal government passed bills that supposedly supported Black voting and outlawed public segregation, SNCC lost the initiative in these areas.” Northern urban riots in the late sixties made the nation and southern civil rights workers aware that victories at lunch counters and ballot boxes meant little to blacks locked in northern ghettoes. “The North was a different thing,” CORE Director James Farmer wrote. “Civil rights organizations had left the Northern poor to Malcolm X….The movement had been means-oriented up until the March on Washington, now as the poor in the streets came in, the Movement ceased being that. Ghetto folks had been politicized by the Muslims, by Malcolm X, and by others. They were not means-oriented; they demanded results, concrete results.” SNCC had long believed its work ought to be expanded to larger cities in the South and outside the region. Executive Committee minutes from December 1963 record James Forman asserting that “SNCC is going to have to go into the poor sections of large cities to work.”

My campaign for the Georgia House of Representatives in 1965 was an attempt to take the techniques SNCC had learned in the rural South into an urban setting, and to carry forward SNCC’s belief that grassroots politics could provide answers to problems faced by urban blacks in the United States. In keeping with SNCC’s style, a platform was developed in consultation with the voters. The campaign supported a two-dollar minimum wage, repeal of the right-to-work law, and abolition of the death penalty. When the legislature twice rejected me, objecting to my support of SNCC’s antiwar position, the resulting two campaigns gave SNCC a chance to successfully test its critique of American imperialism at the ballot box. The campaign—like the MFDP—enabled SNCC to provide a political voice for the politically powerless and inarticulate black poor.

In 1966 in Alabama, SNCC helped to create a black political party called the LCFO, “an independent political party which would prove to be a factor in Alabama politics for years to come….The political consciousness of some of Alabama’s blacks had been raised to another level.” The party was formed in reaction to the racism of local and state Democratic parties. Like the MFDP, the new party was open to whites, but no whites in Lowndes County would participate in a black-dominated political effort.

Concurrently with the organizing efforts of the MFDP and LCFO and the Bond campaign, SNCC was reassessing its concentration on the South. At a retreat in May 1966, Ivanhoe Donaldson argued in favor of SNCC’s replicating its successful southern political organizing efforts in the North, and the staff agreed. Donaldson and Robert Moses suggested that techniques learned in southern campaigns could be employed to ease SNCC’s passage into northern cities. Organizing for political power and community control could mobilize northern urban-dwellers, they contended. Michael Thelwell proposed that the organization move “to the ghetto and organize those communities to control themselves. The organization must be attempted in Northern and Southern areas as well as in the rural Black belt of the South,” Thelwell said.

Projects were established in Washington, D.C., to fight for home rule; in Columbus, Ohio, where a community foundation was organized; in New York City’s Harlem, where SNCC workers organized early efforts at community control of public schools; in Los Angeles, where SNCC helped monitor local police and joined an effort at creating a “Freedom City” in black neighborhoods; and in Chicago, where SNCC workers began to build an independent political party and demonstrated against segregated schools. In each of these cities, the southern experiences of SNCC organizers informed their work.

As SNCC Chair, Marion Barry had written members of Congress in 1960 to “urge immediate action to provide self-government to the vote-less residents of our nation’s capitol, the District of Columbia.” In February 1966, Barry, then Director of SNCC’s Washington Office, announced the formation of the “Free D.C. Movement” (FDCM). He wrote, “The premise … is that we want to organize Black people for Black power.” Barry and the FDCM conducted a successful boycott of Washington merchants who did not support home rule. In New York, SNCC worker William Hall helped a Harlem group working for community control of Intermediate School 201 in Fall 1966. His efforts laid the groundwork for later successful protests for community control of schools throughout the city. In Los Angeles, SNCC worker Clifford Vaughs described his work as “a manifestation of self-help, self-determination, power for poor people.” As the focus of the southern movement had changed, so would the aim of the northern organizer. Desegregation had prov en both illusive and insufficient to the problems of American blacks in the north or south. The black community’s ability to have control over itself and its elected officials had become paramount in rural Mississippi as well as in urban New York.

Just as its concern for social change had never been limited to the southern states alone, SNCC’s concern for human rights had long extended beyond the borders of the United States. It had linked the fight of American blacks with the struggle for African independence from its first public statements. At its founding conference, SNCC first announced its identification with the African liberation struggle. “We identify ourselves with the African struggle as a concern for all mankind,” they said. At SNCC’s Fall 1960 conference in Atlanta, a featured speaker was Alphonse Okuku, an Antioch College student and brother of Kenyan labor leader Tom MBoya. The mass-meeting program said Okuku “brings to our attention the great significance of the African struggle and its relationship to our fight.” SNCC Chairman John Lewis told the March on Washington in 1963, “One man, one vote is the African cry. It must be ours!”

In December 1963, SNCC workers in Atlanta conferred with Kenyan leader Oginga Odinga and, in September 1964, an eleven-member SNCC delegation went to Guinea as guests of that country’s President, Sekou Toure. Two members of the group toured Africa for a month following the Guinea trip. In October 1965, two SNCC workers represented SNCC at the annual meeting of the Organization of African Unity in Ghana.

SNCC’s January 1966 antiwar statement charged the United States with being “deceptive in claiming concern for the freedom of colored people in such other countries as the Dominican Republic, the Congo, South Africa and the United States itself.” Singer Harry Belafonte organized a supportive reception at the United Nations with fifteen African diplomats and myself in early 1966, and on March 22, 1966, seven SNCC workers—John Lewis, James Bond, James Forman, Cleveland Sellers, Willie Ricks, Judy Richardson, and William Hall—were arrested at the South African Consulate in New York, preceding by twenty years the “Free South Africa Movement” that later saw hundreds arrested at the South African embassy in Washington.

At a June 1967 staff meeting, SNCC declared itself a human rights organization, dedicated to the “liberation not only of Black people in the United States but of all oppressed people, especially those in Africa, Asia and Latin America.” At that meeting, Forman became director of SNCC’s International Affairs Commission; in this capacity, he visited Tanzania and Zambia. SNCC Chair Stokely Carmichael visited Algeria, Syria, Egypt, Guinea, and Tanzania in mid-1967. In November 1967, Forman testified for SNCC before the United Nation’s Fourth Committee against U.S. investments in South Africa.

There are many reasons for SNCC’s demise despite its clear historic consequence. The current of nationalism, ever-present in black America, widened at the end of the 1960s to become a rushing torrent that swept away the hopeful notion of “black and white together” that the decade’s beginning had promised. SNCC’s white staff members were asked to leave the organization and devote their energies to organizing in white communities; some agreed, but most believed this action repudiated the movement’s hopeful call to “Americans all, side by equal side.” For many on the staff, both white and black, nearly a decade’s worth of hard work at irregular, subsistence-level pay, in an atmosphere of constant tension, interrupted by jailings, beatings, and official and private terror, proved too much to bear.

Nonetheless, when measured by the legislative accomplishments of the 1964 Civil Rights and 1965 Voting Rights Acts, SNCC’s efforts were successful. But the failure of the MFDP to gain recognition at Atlantic City presaged the coming collapse of support from liberals. The murders in 1963 of four schoolgirls in Birmingham and of Medgar Evers in Jackson, of civil rights workers and others in Mississippi in 1964, and Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968 indicated that nonviolence was no antidote to a violent society. The outbreak of urban violence at the decade’s end further produced a sense of frustration and alienation in many SNCC veterans.

Throughout its brief history, SNCC insisted on group-centered leadership and community-based politics. It made clear the connection between economic power and racial oppression. It refused to define racism as a solely southern phenomenon, to describe racial inequality as caused by irrational prejudice alone, or to limit its struggle solely to guaranteeing legal equality. It challenged U.S. imperialism while mainstream civil rights organizations were silent or curried favor with President Lyndon Johnson, condemning SNCC’s linkage of domestic and international poverty and racism with overseas adventurism. SNCC refused to apply political tests to its membership or supporters, opposing the redbaiting that other organizations and leaders endorsed or condoned. And it created an atmosphere of expectation and anticipation among the people with whom it worked, trusting them to make decisions about their own lives. Thus SNCC widened the definition of politics beyond campaigns and elections; for SNCC, politics encompas sed not only electoral races, but also organizing political parties, labor unions, producer cooperatives, and alternative schools.

SNCC initially sought to transform southern politics by organizing and enfranchising blacks. One proof of its success was the increase in black elected officials in the southern states from seventy-two in 1965 to 388 in 1968. But SNCC also sought to amplify the ends of political participation by enlarging the issues of political debate to include the economic and foreign-policy concerns of American blacks. SNCC’s articulation and advocacy of Black Power redefined the relationship between black Americans and white power. No longer would political equity be considered a privilege; it had become a right.

A final SNCC legacy is the destruction of the psychological shackles which had kept black southerners in physical and mental peonage; SNCC helped break those chains forever. It demonstrated that ordinary women and men, young and old, could perform extraordinary tasks.

They did then and can do so again.

Notes

  1. * This essay has made extensive use of the papers of SNCC, interviews with Ivanhoe Donaldson, William Hall, and letters from and between SNCC staffers. Important books utilized, and recommended for further reading are: Anne Braden, The Wall Between (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1958); Taylor Branch, Parting The Waters: America in The King Years, vols. 1 & 2 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988); Clayborn Carson, In Struggle: SNCC and the Black Awakening of the 1960s (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981); James Forman, The Making of Black Revolutionaries (Seattle: Open Hand Press, 1985); James Forman, 1967: High Tide of Black Resistance (Seattle: Open Hand Press, 1994); Joanne Grant, Ella Baker: Freedom Bound (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1998); Mary King, Freedom Song: A Personal Story of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement (New York: William Morrow & Co., 1987); Manning Marable, Race, Reform, and Rebellion: The Second Reconstruction in Black America, 1945-1990 (Jackson: University of Mississippi Pr ess, 1984); Cleveland Sellers and Robert Terrell, The River of No Return (New York: William Morrow & Co., 1973); Patricia Sullivan, Days of Hope: Race and Democracy in the New Deal Era (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996); Howard Zinn, SNCC: The New Abolitionists (Boston: Beacon Press, 1965). A reference-noted version of this paper is available from the Monthly Review office.
  2. “Ballad of the Student Sit-ins,” words and music by Guy Carawan, Eve Merriam, and Norman Curtis, in Sing for Freedom, Guy and Candie Carawan, eds. (Bethlehem, PA: a Sing Out Publication, 1990). Many thanks to Guy Carawan for permission to reprint.
FacebookRedditTwitterEmailPrintFriendlyShare
FacebookRedditTwitterEmailPrintFriendly