Whitewashing the Civil Rights Movement
Very gradually the history of the Civil Rights Movement has been Disneyfied, stripped of its rough edges.
The new retelling of the Civil Rights Movement has the blacks politely asking for their rights, and eventually wearing down white America through moral persistence. Any and all violence that happened at the time is viewed outside of the Civil Rights Movement and was detrimental to it.
This is all bull.
You probably already know about the most obvious example, MLK.
That hated and feared, radical socialist is now Santa Claus + Mother Teresa.
This is so well-known that I won't bother going into it.
“The evils of capitalism are as real as the evils of militarism and evils of racism.”
(Dr. King, 1967)
"Many white Americans of good will have never connected bigotry with economic exploitation. They have deplored prejudice but tolerated or ignored economic injustice."
From Why We Can't Wait, 1964
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the finishing touch of civil rights legislation and it was all because of Democrats.
18 southern Democratic Senators led a 54-day filibuster.
80% of House Republicans voted for it versus 61% of House Democrats, while in the Senate 82% of Senate Republicans voted yes versus 69% of Senate Democrats.
The narrative being pushed by the media, and by white liberals in general, is that any violence, even the most modest of violence, will instantly discredit a movement.
The story is that violence never solved anything.
The reality is that violence alone never solved anything.
Violence can sometimes be very useful to an organized movement.
If even the most modest of violence will instantly discredit a movement, then how come the Voting Rights Act was passed after the Harlem Riots of 1964?
If it's important to ask TPTB nicely, then how come the Voting Rights Act was passed after the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party embarrassed the Democrats?
An even more striking example was the Civil Rights Act of 1968 being signed into law during the King assassination riots. According to the media, those riots should have stopped the Act from becoming law.
Another series of civil disturbances followed, including one in Washington, D.C., that required the President to call out the National Guard and impose a night-time curfew. The crisis in race relations in our country forced Congress to come to grips with these tensions.
The Rules Committee, jolted by the repeated civil disturbances virtually outside its door,finally ended its hearings on April 8. The next day, it reported to the full House a rule for debate that agreed to the Senate amendments, including the compromise fair housing title,and prohibited any additional amendments.
The following day, April 10, the House debated for one hour the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and passed it 250–71. The very next day, President Johnson signed the bill into law.
All it took was nationwide riots to force the political establishment to act.
The opposite of what we are being told today.
I have one last example to give from 1967.
The Detroit riot left 43 dead and more than 2,000 buildings destroyed, but it also got white people's attention.
State and local governments responded to the riot with a dramatic increase in minority hiring.
However, the big changes were in housing rights.
The governor publicly warned that if the housing measures were not passed, "it will accelerate the recruitment of revolutionary insurrectionists." He urged "meaningful fair housing legislation" as "the single most important step the legislature can take to avert disorder in our cities." This time the laws passed both houses of the legislature. The Michigan Historical Review wrote that:
The Michigan Fair Housing Act, which took effect on Nov 15, 1968, was stronger than the federal fair housing law ... and than just about all the existing state fair housing acts. It is probably more than a coincidence that the state that had experienced the most severe racial disorder of the 1960s also adopted one of the strongest state fair housing acts.
Instead of riots holding back civil rights progress, the reality is that the violence put pressure on the ruling class to find solutions to end the violence. Those solutions could be found with the parallel non-violent civil rights movement, which ironically actually owed much of its success to that violence.