In previous discussions we have considered 'common enemies' as a strong unifying force. I have also considered that our nation has a reactive identity, where opposition to a movement or to an idea unifies an anti-party (anti-communism, for instance). In a pre-midterm reading, one of the books considered the idea that Americans tended to define themselves by what they were not, but rarely address what/who they were; much like a process of elimination, if an American wasn't this than he/she would act like that often causing an anti-movement. We see this within America as well. The consumer republic warranted anti-movements within our borders: the hippies, the religious rights groups and the environmentally sensitive Green groups. So, how then does a minority group speaking up against the government (and social norms) cohere to these ideas of national identity, or does it contradict the ideas we have considered in class thus far?
I think that they minority groups of the time fit rather nicely into the former categories: common-enemy unification and deductive-identity unification. Much like the hippies rejected mass consumption and indulged material life, the Black Civil Rights and the Chicano Civil Rights movement rejected the standard racial hierarchies. Their movements were anti-discrimination, anti-racial superiority, anti-democracy-for-whites-only. These minority groups defined themselves on what they were not by rejecting the segregation and discrimination laws of the land. They were united by an idea of what they thought was wrong, something they were not. Although I am sure that many of the members of each movement had similar ideas on what they thought was right, it was their idea of injustice (wrong) that initiated and fueled their anti-movements.
I agree that much of the Black Civil Rights and Chicano Civil Rights movements were fueled by the idea of injustice. However, I feel that the focus of these movements wasn't so much on what the members believed was wrong, but rather on what they believed was RIGHT. Although they were clearly against discrimination, I think that rather than focusing on the "anti" aspects, these minority groups tried to portray their movements more as being pro-equality. From what I can tell it seems like these groups used positive and uplifting messages that centered around the idea of attaining equal equal rights. For example, MLK's "I have a dream" speech described his hopes and aspirations for a future of equality for all. I think it was important for these movements to focus on their specific goals and what they believed was right, and not get bogged down in the negative aspects in order to finally achieve equal rights.
ReplyDelete