To what extent is the character of contemporary conflict distinctive?- with reference to Mary Kaldor

[This blog post is an edited essay of mine from my final year at University of Birmingham©]

Mary Kaldor’s ‘New Wars’ thesis argues that ‘new wars’ are distinctive from ‘old wars’ by their differences primarily in goals, methods of warfare and sources of finance. I will argue that her theory is an incorrect analysis to use as a guide for decision-making and policy-research because of its many inconsistencies. Kaldor offers some useful insight into modern warfare but the distinctions she makes are only accurate to some extent, such as when she details globalisation and state failure as some of the causes and processes of warfare. Her analysis of war must be fully explained in order to critically evaluate its accuracy and usefulness to determine any substantial distinctions.

Kaldor considers new wars to be post-Cold World War and that “during the 1980s and 1990s, a new type of organized violence has developed, especially in Africa and Eastern Europe, which is one aspect of the current globalized era.” (Kaldor, 1999, p1). Her New Wars thesis explains how these wars have come about through the ‘collapsing of external supporting mechanisms’ within ‘weak states’ and thus the central characteristics of warfare is distinct from older wars. She explains that “new wars involve a blurring of the distinctions between war (usually defined as violence between states or organized political groups for political motives), organized crime (violence undertaken by privately organized groups for private purposes, usually financial gain) and large-scale violations of human rights (violence undertaken by states or politically organized groups against individuals).” (Kaldor, 1999, p2). Kaldor believes that the goals of older wars were a collective and geopolitical ideology that attempted to build a better state for themselves. War would be interstate and fought with large and strategic national armies that would capture territories and usually be financed through a wartime economy and heavy taxation, “In conventional or regular war, the goal is the capture of territory by military means; battles are the decisive encounters of war.” (Kaldor, 1999, p7). This is in contrast to newer forms of warfare in which battles are intrastate and privately fought, having identity-based or ambiguous aims. Instead of state-building, they are ‘state-toppling’ as territorial capture is achieved through “political control of the population…and battles are avoided” (Kaldor, 1999, p8), mainly observed within guerrilla warfare. This, she demonstrates, is where distinctions can be made between old and new methods of war. Old wars used conventional tactics and combatants were always separate from civilians. Whereas with new war methods, civilians are increasingly killed or forcibly displaced, which she argues is intentionally done, stating that “military to civilian casualties is approximately 1:8” (Kaldor, 1999, p8) in more recent times. She reinstates that this is because of a disintegration of authority in newer wars which in turn blurs the division between private and public combatants and with civilians. The final main contrast she makes is that older wars financed their warfare externally and through taxation (if it was a state) and thus their economy was “centralized, totalizing and autarchic.” (Kaldor, 1999, p9). Whereas new wars have a decentralised and illicit economy where finances are internally gained “through plunder and the black market or through external assistance.” (Kaldor, 1999, p9). There are certain subtle differences between older and newer wars that can be observed and acknowledged, so it can be said that to a limited extent, Kaldor is accurate in her theory.

Some believe her analysis is relevant for important policies and decisions surrounding development, safety and conflict. This is because she highlights the roles state failure and social transformation have due to new liberal economics and globalisation on newly emerging wars. However it only offers some insight to an extent. It can be observed that in many contemporary wars “state-building efforts (are) crushed between traditional tribalism and postmodern globalization... (so they have) no opportunities to achieve development and the necessary degree of robustness.” (Münkler, 2005, p9-10) which aids the perpetuation of war in these societies. However, her theory only really resonates within corrupt and ‘third world’ warfare “in which state revenues decline because of the decline in the economy as well as the spread of criminality…violence is increasingly privatised both as a result of growing organized crime and the emergence of paramilitary groups…” (Kaldor, 1999, p5). It can be said that these wars seem to have ‘no end’ as they rely “upon an ideological ally or a strategically interested regime, or by gaining new access to the new forms of shadow globalization.” (Münkler, 2005, p10). Many recent wars involve the corruption and manipulation of the economy, which Kaldor states is because they are ‘mutual enterprises’, rather than in old wars that would have a decisive end. Naturally, warfare will always differ when powerful and fully developed countries engage in conflict than when poorer developing countries do. Her distinctions are more likely to be relevant if she categorised contemporary conflict by economic standing, not just whether it is old or new. There are some differences between most wars and so this should be taken into account when creating solutions or peace-keeping negotiations. For example, stereotypical counter-insurgency methods created during ‘old wars’ were used in the recent wars in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Some consider this to be out-dated and should no longer be used in newer wars around the world. For this reason, Kaldor’s theory aids research into new concepts more in keeping with contemporary conflict as she emphasises the distinctive features of modern warfare. Most successfully, the New Wars thesis provides a complex analysis of human and social dynamics within conflict that have naturally changed due to economy, culture and the era it occurred. She also offers a good understanding of the interrelationship between development and security, “Development is understood as individual security, not in state-based, territorial terms of GDP, economic growth or macro-economic stabilisation but as an approach which emphasises ‘partnership, local ownership, (and) engagement with civil society and gender sensitivity’” (Chandler quoting Kaldor, 2008, p267). This is further explored by Mark Duffield as he states, “the discourse of human insecurity is one of permanent emergency and unending war…human security is a key reflection of the dominance of biopolitical framings of international relations—interconnecting security and development concerns—through having ‘life’ or the population as a reference point rather than the state.” (Chandler paraphrasing Duffield, 2008, p268). Failures by the state to uphold authority, the globalisation of populations and stratified markets into the economy have all lead to social transformations which are distinct from older wars. Kaldor strengthens and legitimizes her theory by using Bosnia-Herzegovina as a case study of a new war.

Kaldor cites Burundi, Chechnya, Rwanda, and so on as examples of new wars. However, she focuses predominantly on the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina as an “archetypal example, (of) the paradigm of the new type of warfare.” (Kaldor, 1999, p31). She states that “Some 260,000 people died and around two-thirds of the population were displaced from their homes. Violations of human rights took place on a massive scale, including forced detention, torture, rape and castration.” (Kaldor, 1999, p31). Amongst this, the involvement of paramilitary groups and aggravated national identity politics alongside the use of genocide and the practice of ethnic cleansing, all led her to conclude that this war as an exemplar case of new war. This included intimidation tactics through nationalistic ideologies between religious groups, most of the populations being Muslim, “the Serbs were Orthodox and the Croats were Catholic.” (Kaldor, 1999, p33). The growth of criminality and the collapse of both authority and the economy also demonstrate this war as having many hallmark features of new war. “Croatians were…expelled or chose to leave from parts of Central Bosnia captured by Bosnian forces during the Muslim-Croat conflict, and this was also true of the Serbs…” (Kaldor, 1999, p43). She believes terrorism and guerrilla warfare are more common within more recent wars. These characteristics “that have emerged in the last few decades are not…limited to military strategies but have also affected the political rationality and international legitimacy of war and preparations for war.” (Münkler, 2005, p29-30). Yet, by labelling all new wars as limited or simplistic and thus politically invalid, it can seem somewhat belittling or condescending, especially to those affected by that conflict. Overall, it seems that the New Wars thesis encapsulates the Bosnia-Herzegovina war including other post-Cold War conflicts on the grounds of loose coalitions of participatory actors, violence to meet political ends, manipulation of the economy and identity politics as being the driving force within these types of conflicts. Nevertheless, these characteristics are often found within conflicts in developing ‘third world’ countries rather than it being just a result of contemporary warfare. It can also be said that all of her new war distinctions have actually been features of old wars too with slight differences due to globalisation, but with the dynamics usually the same. This is more difficult to prove because of how little information we have on warfare compared to now. Even so, she only focuses on old European wars whilst not accounting and analysing enough old wars throughout history to be fully convincing.

The New Wars thesis is empirically inaccurate as many of the distinctions that are made can also be seen in pre-Cold War conflicts, thus she does not offer anything that ‘new’ to her analysis. Differences noted between formal and non-formal combatants are not necessarily relative to pre or post-Cold War, but are thought to be linked to the Enlightenment period around the 17^th century. It is thought that military administration and formalities were “much more haphazard and tenuous” (Ostwald, 2012, paragraph 4) than seen in modern ‘first world’ countries. Kaldor’s analysis of military distinctions begins in the 18^th century, which many argue should not be considered ‘old’. She does not provide enough evidence of wars that are undeniably considered old or ancient such as conflicts that occurred a few millennia ago. Additionally, her concept of ‘mutual enterprises’ being the underlying foundation of new conflicts is not a new concept. War can often provide economic opportunities from strict rationing, mass employment, trade, humanitarian aid and so on which can be used towards a profitable wartime economy. Continuing warfare because of the advantages it brings to the economy is an aim both old and new wars have exhibited as peaceful resolutions are not always as beneficial as ongoing mutual conflict. Some argue that “war leads to the utilization of unused capacity and brings underutilized factors into the production process…increased participation in the labour force by women and minorities in heterogeneous societies during wartime.” (Stein, 1980, p412). The increase of labour within production has been a constant feature of old as well as new war. Specifically in old wars, “wartime mobilization once served to draw peripheral geographical areas into a national market…wartime increases in demand and resource coordination (which) can lead to a more efficient utilization of factors of production by increasing concentration and scale and thus increasing productivity as well.” (Stein and Russett paraphrasing Tilly, 1980, p412). Mobilization during wartime also increases technological innovation and so both new and old wars use ‘advanced methods’ (relative to its time) of gaining success. Globalisation may create economic opportunities in newer wars but it can be equally said that ideas of old “war also involves a redistribution of wealth and income, and this too promotes growth…the disruption of international trade leads to substitution for imported raw materials and to the development and protection of infant industries producing previously imported goods.” (Stein paraphrasing Wright, 1980, p412).  Furthermore, old wars have not always been fought by states in defence of their territory, despite Kaldor maintaining they were all centralized and more ‘principled’. She states that they were “rationalized” (Kaldor, 1999, p15) and incorrectly implies that they were more upright. This underlying bias undermines the overall accuracy and cogency of her argument. In addition, she frequently references old European wars but does not go into enough detail on old wars from other cultures unless she is discussing contemporary conflict. She fails to analyse differing cultural standards towards warfare and her thesis has been interpreted by some critics for containing subtle but damaging racial undertones.

Kaldor somewhat romanticises earlier wars by asserting that they were hierarchical, complexly strategic and abided by war laws such as the ‘Geneva Conventions’. She argues that “state interest became the dominant legitimation of war” (Kaldor, 1999, p17) and so violence by non-state actors is therefore unjust. To argue that old wars have only exhibited purely ‘legal’ methods of warfare would be a fallacy. Ambiguity within the laws created loopholes for anyone aiming to manipulate it, for example, “interpretation of the concept of occupation…is not universally shared. The German Military Manual for example states: ‘Occupied territory does not include battle areas’ (Dörmann, 2003, p62). Moreover, illegal criminal activity is not just seen in new wars. Identity politics and war crimes such as rape have notoriously been a reality that has affected civilians in many older wars as well. Genocide as a method of ethnic cleansing can be seen in World War 2 with the Holocaust or (for example) in 1915, when Armenians experienced “forced deportation marches and deaths due to disease in concentration camps… estimated to have killed more than 1 million ethnic Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks between 1915 and 1923.” (United to End Genocide, 2016, part 1). War has always been barbaric and the civilian population are often targeted in order to further certain political aims. Yet, Kaldor maintains the idea that “‘new wars’ base politics on  identity  rather than ideology,  and  they  mobilize  popular  support  through  group  resemblance  rather  than party  adherence.”  (Nickels, 2009, p3).  It is more plausible however, to argue that “Patterns of victimization are more correctly seen as a reflection of contextual and not temporal variables…circumstances obtaining in a particular situation. In terms of the human security impact of conflict, especially civil war, the deliberate targeting of civilians, rape, ethnic cleansing, and other atrocities are not peculiar to wars of the latter part of the 20th century.” (Newman, 2004, p181). An example of an earlier Western intra-state war that witnessed many atrocities is the ‘Nine Years War’ (1594-1603), to which “Victory was only achieved by waging a brutal war during which terrorizing and massacring the Gaelic Irish and numerous other atrocities were commonplace. Crops and food supplies were routinely burned, causing widespread hunger and even the depopulation of some areas at the end of the war.” (O’Neill, 2013, paragraph 3). Some interpret her thesis as jingoistic and arrogant, implying that Kaldor considers ‘new wars’, or more specifically wars in developing countries, to be savage and illegitimate compared to old wars. Her theoretical inconsistencies point to a larger problem with her thesis; the emergence of the concept of ‘Good War’ (a moral interpretation of certain warfare being just) and the aggrandizement of old Eurocentric warfare.

Kaldor argues that new wars are constantly on-going and seem endless, even though the ‘Argentine Civil Wars’ (for example) first started in 1814 and ended in 1880. State failure as well as other factors such as new wars being mostly ‘rampages or controlled by gangs’, led Kaldor to claim that the “political legitimacy (of new war) is disappearing” (Kaldor, 1999, p5). However, a concept like state failure is not peculiar to recent wars. As Helen Dexter explains, “the narrative of the ‘new war’ and the return of the ‘Good War’…has not only been used to describe, explain and excuse western intervention but that, through de-politicizing, de-contextualizing and criminalizing non-western warfare, the new war theory has helped to create the conditions that support the ‘war on terror.’” (Dexter, 2007, part 1). Kaldor ‘others’ conflicts from developing countries and trivializes their problems as being almost trifling. “Identity politics has always been central to war. Because nationalism as a defining political idea raises the claims of a particular community against others…All nationalisms, even the most progressive, must involve the subordination to a greater or lesser extent of other nationalities, or national groups.” (Dexter, 2007, paragraph 2). Her depiction of actors in the developing world is one of primitivism, such as when she states that new wars have a “retrograde set of social relationships, which is entrenched by law, (and) has a tendency to spread across the borders through refugees or organized crime or ethnic minorities.” (Kaldor, 1999, p9). However, some new wars like the war in Syria, is very serious and should not be depoliticised or deemed illegitimate. The Syrian war is a revolutionary political conflict (just like her description of old wars) because of the aim to overthrow President Assad, but because they have failed to democratically manage conflict it has resulted in sectarian violence, which she considers to be a new war characteristic. She seems to unconvincingly dismiss examples that counter-act her claims as well as erroneously ignore the significant role media has in her new war analysis. The New Wars Thesis can be interpreted as morally justifying old European wars and condescendingly invalidating newer wars from disadvantaged parts of the world. This is a “worrying aspects of the Good War revival…because the roles of the criminal and law enforcer appear at this stage to be geographically fixed. The narrative of policing crimes to explain the use of violence does not have the same legitimacy when used by the non-western world.” (Dexter, 2007, last part). Overall, “many so-called ‘new’ civil wars…reflect types of conflict that are not particularly ‘modern’, and in fact reflect rather enduring patterns over the last century” (Newman, 2004, p185), thus rendering Kaldor’s thesis imprecise and unpersuasive.

Kaldor’s theoretical iterations are mostly inconsistent and are overall not an effective guide for policy-making and research. Many of her new war distinctions can be said to have also occurred in ‘old wars’, and she does not tackle this problem enough in her limited analysis of old war. Nonetheless, she adequately details globalization and state failure as features of conflict which can be used to further research into warfare, both old and new. This, aided by Duffield’s insight into social transformation, is a valid and significant distinction for contemporary conflict. Characteristically, war generally follows a similar pattern of conflict with some slight differences due to context such as economic standing, political goals, standards and issues relating to culture and less so, time period.

xx

Bibliography

Chandler, D. (2008), Review Article- Conflict, Security & Development 8:2 pp 265 — 276, published by Routledge, page 267, 268.

Dexter, H. (2007), New War, Good War and the War on Terror: Explaining, Excusing and Creating Western Neo-interventionism, published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., part 1, chapter 5 paragraph 2, last part.

Dörmann, K. (2003), The legal situation of “unlawful/unprivileged combatants Vol. 85 No. 849, published by the International Committee of the Red Cross, page 62.

Kaldor, M. (1999), New and Old Wars- Organized Violence in a Global Era, published by Stanford University Press, pages 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 5, 31, 33, 43, 15, 17.

Münkler, H. (2005), The New Wars, published by Cambridge Polity Press, chapter 1 pages 9-10, 29-30.

Newman, E. (2004), The ‘New Wars’ Debate: A Historical Perspective Is Needed-Security Dialogue Vol. 35 No. 2, published by Sage Publications, pages 181, 185.

Nickels, B. P. (2009), Journal of Military and Strategic Studies Vol. 12 Issue. 1, published by the Centre of Military and Strategic Studies, page 3.

O’Neill, E. (2013), English Atrocities in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Ireland, posted onto academia (full date unknown), available at http://www.academia.edu/4622372/English_Atrocities_in_Sixteenth_and_Seventeenth_Century_Ireland, paragraph 3.  

Ostwald, J. (2012), A Military Enlightenment? – Historiography Research, posted onto WordPress (August 1^st), available at https://jostwald.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/a-military-enlightenment/, paragraph 4.

Stein, A. A. and Russett, B. M. Edited by Gurr, T. R (1980), Handbook of Political Conflict: Theory and Research pp. 399–422-Evaluating War: Outcomes and Consequences, published by New York: The Free Press, page 412.

United to End Genocide (2016), Past Genocides and Mass Atrocities, posted onto endgenocide (full date unknown), available at http://endgenocide.org/learn/past-genocides/, Armenia-part 1.   

Why, if at all, was the Civil Rights Movement so successful?

 [This blog post is an edited essay of mine from my final year at University of Birmingham©]

The ‘Civil Rights Movement’ was a revolutionary political and social reform of the way America treated its black citizens. It is rightly considered one of the biggest leftist accomplishments in American political history. I will argue that the Movement was overall extremely successful, especially for its time, in that it gained so much support that it aided African-Americans in their aims to end discrimination, segregation and to achieve voting and civil rights. Power in numbers as well as strong leadership carried out by influential strategists and organized groups were just some of the methods that made the Movement revolutionary. However, to argue that it did not have its downfalls and that Blacks and Whites are fully equal today in America would be a fallacy. As with any historical oppression, remnants of these social divisions and discrimination still survive today but in different forms.

The first action that was highly influential in aiding the Movement was the legal action taken to establish rights for Blacks through the judicial system. The ‘National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People’ (NAACP) argued that The Jim Crow laws, embodied by the ‘Plessy vs. Ferguson’ case, was unconstitutional because of its contradictory ruling that Blacks were ‘separate but equal’ within education. This long-standing segregation was challenged in ‘Brown vs. Board of Education’ in 1954. This was the first important and successful legislation for the Civil Rights Movement gaining and amassing support for their cause and significantly legitimised their political activism. It sparked a new wave of rights-based legalism and signified the first legal victory for black civil rights. “This change from a ‘substantive due process’ vision of the Fourteenth Amendment to an individual rights-based model generated a formidable body of jurisprudential theorising and a long period of Constitutional and statutory interpretation that fundamentally changed the language of law in the United States.” (White, 2002, p304). Conversely, many liberal legal scholars now criticize it for being relatively ‘weak standing’ in the law as ‘Brown II’ was created in order to deliberately delay any desegregation of Blacks and Whites in southern schools, “One of the central battles of the Civil Rights movement—desegregated schools—was basically lost. Michael Brown’s school in Ferguson, for example, was deeply segregated, and it wasn’t an aberration in Missouri or the country as a whole.” (Berlatsky, 2015, paragraph 5). Nevertheless, this law enshrined legal rights for desegregation, gave the people behind the Movement confidence and hope, as well as rousing the attention and interest of the media and generated more sympathetic supporters, all because “the highest federal court…had raised a powerful voice on behalf of racial equality” (Lawson, 1998, p11). This was the first essential legal victory for the Movement, yet more still needed to be accomplished for their legal rights.

It can also be said that the “‘Civil Rights Act’ is the most important and potentially powerful anti-discrimination law ever enacted by the U.S. Congress.” (Rosenberg, 2004, p1147). Equality enshrined by the Fourteenth Amendment was finally meaningfully enforced in the ‘Civil Rights Act’ (passed in 1964) by it stating that racial discrimination in any public place, by any employers and by state governments was now illegal. Yet, “Washington had shown its capacity to act under the right political circumstances, but its efforts still left 70 percent of Black southerners unable to exercise the franchise” (Lawson, 1998, p16). Although it now existed, the Act still did not ensure fair voting rights for Blacks and discrimination was still rife in housing for example. White supremacy was still widespread and extremist organizations such as the ‘Ku Klux Klan’ (KKK) used intimidation as well as violent tactics against anyone who tried to exhibit any freedom that the Act was meant to ensure. Nonetheless, this Act guaranteed the rights of black people were not being ignored by government as the widespread political mobilization that it created meant that their cause was not going unnoticed. This act safeguarded the protection of basic rights for Blacks. However, it was not until they finally won the right to vote that they were considered, valued and represented within government and politics.

 In terms of legislature, the ‘Voting Rights Act’ (passed in 1965) was the last key success of the Movement. “The Selma to Montgomery March…hastened passage of the law, (and) brought to a climax the succession of massive demonstrations aimed at pressuring the national government to legislate an end to racial segregation and disfranchisement in the South.” (Lawson, 1998, p33). Despite this, some argue that the historical events surrounding this landmark Act was so violent that it is difficult to call it a full success. The brutality displayed by law officers on ‘Bloody Sunday’ that occurred in 1965, revealed police officers who “shot teargas and waded into the crowd, beating the nonviolent protesters with billy clubs and ultimately hospitalizing over fifty people.” (Kindig, date unknown, paragraph 3). The violence however, was witnessed by the nation as it was all televised which brought tremendous media attention as to how Blacks were being so unjustly treated. The feelings generated by the public from both Blacks and the Whites who were sympathetic to their cause, catapulted the events into a nationwide debate. For many Americans, it was an awakening and a realisation that in order for change, they had to lend their voices in support. In effect, the backlash from these open displays of brutality experienced by Blacks by law enforcers created such a furore that it forced the government to push through the Act. This Act is still considered one of the most important victories for the black community as they finally had legitimate and direct access to politics through this legal doctrine. The goal to ensure Blacks were recognized and treated fairly by government was finally attained through legal action. This made the Civil Rights Movement so successful. This assured that justice and equal rights for Blacks were enshrined through legislation and that they were recognized by the law of their country. However, further grounds were needed to be covered for black people’s value of life within society to be improved.

The Movement should overall be praised for its non-violent protests as a form of civil disobedience, which helped to gain more support and change stigma around African-Americans. Martin Luther King championed this approach in order to create more allies than enemies, “To address racial injustice, ‘you don’t do it by magnifying the problems’,” (Sebastian quoting Huckabee, 2015, paragraph 1). This is possibly one of the most controversial and widely disputed methods as many considered it to be extremely violent, especially towards the end. The NAACP took up arms as racial tensions grew because protesters were being continually intimidated for speaking out. ‘Bloody Sunday’, the ‘Watts Riots’ and the mass demonstration held in Birmingham were just some of the examples used to demonstrate how brutal clashes became. Conversely, to criticize this generally nonviolent Movement because of sporadic episodes of violence is unfair, considering how much aggression and opposition they received. Even the most peacefully organised protests such as the ‘Freedom Rides’ saw many unarmed protesters being frequently attacked. “‘The violence was being perpetrated by the oppressors, not the oppressed and that was an incredibly powerful message and an incredibly important tool during the movement’, said…an attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Centre” (Simkins quoting Cohen, 2014, paragraph 9). It was evident to many observers that violence was mainly initiated by law officers or by the opposition. Media (especially television) showcased to the American public how mistreated and abused Blacks were. Violence inflicted upon protesters was frequent throughout the Movement’s peaceful demonstrations, especially during the sit-ins across the South.

The ‘Sit-In Campaign’ is an example of a successful civil disobedience mass protest against segregation. It first started in 1960 on a small scale in Greensboro, but quickly gained momentum spreading throughout the South, eventually galvanising 700,000 protesters. It attracted more student and youth groups to the cause, providing the Movement with growing numbers and new strategies that emphasised direct action and participatory democracy, “activists also revealed new relationship dynamics between students and adults and merged nonviolent direct action with voter registration, a combination considered incompatible.” (Lee, 2010, part 1). However, “early sit-ins had very little impact beyond the local level and was no real threat to segregation as a whole…There was no follow up plan and no way to export the initiative to other places due to a lack of strategic grassroots organizing that will be seen in the early 1960s.” (Lee, 2010, p65). It did not succeed in ending segregation in the South and some argue it did not contribute much to the national campaign. Nevertheless, it gained extensive publicity broadcasting the demonstrators’ commitment to the cause and winning relative respect across America. The Sit-ins exposed many injustices experienced by Blacks that usually went unnoticed by the white masses. It highlighted how racist attitudes were as many Blacks were attacked, “planned attacks from white thugs, assaults that the police intended to ignore, hoping to discourage and intimidate the activists” (Lee, 2010, p177) frequently occurred during these peaceful protests. By the end, it had achieved desegregation in many restaurants throughout the South, thus “These successful protests established a pattern of Black protest in the city that were repeated during the Civil Rights Movement: successful student-adult collaboration against white racism.” (Lee, 2010, p13). Although this made a small change to segregation practices, it had little impact on desegregation. The bus boycott however, was more effective as it directly impacted on the economy in order to further its aims.

The ‘Montgomery Bus Boycott’ (from 1955-1956) was possibly the most influential protest because it demonstrated how peaceful protest could still make an impact. Rosa Parks’ undeserved arrest for not giving up her seat for a white person generated a year-long widespread boycott, “its effectiveness was the result of leaders’ decisions about tactics and strategies and their capacity to mobilize thousands of ordinary people in a complex, year-long grassroots challenge to the city’s political and economic establishment.” (Dreier, 2006, p88). The black community displayed incredible resilience and restraint against aggressors, which in turn changed negative attitudes around them. After Parks’ arrest, “What followed is one of the most amazing examples of effective organizing in American history. That night, several black community leaders met to develop an action plan.” (Dreier, 2006, p90). Similarly, “In August 1963 thousands of African Americans and whites gathered for the March on Washington. It was peaceful with no arrests.” (Simkins, 2014, paragraph 10). Critics of the Movement claim that King incited violence in his speeches and protests. Nevertheless, it is entirely unrealistic to expect a revolution and a reversal of people’s attitudes and convictions to have no violence whatsoever. It is implausible to think that King would have wanted his people to be assaulted or killed, but as with any huge uprising, there are risks. “King…faced editorials admonishing him for provoking riots and isolating those sympathetic to his cause with his ‘excessive’ demonstrations. Progressive white Americans, who distinguished themselves from the ‘bigots and hatemongers’ in the South, turned against King when he came into their de facto segregated neighbourhoods to protest racist housing practices.” (Sebastian, 2015, paragraph 12). Protesting the rights of a long oppressed people was considered provocative and inconvenient to some, but this claim was unjustified and superficial. It is true that the Movement had some violence surrounding it, however this was never their intention or goal and most of their methods were passive. Overall, peaceable civil disobedience coupled with effective organization led the Civil Rights Movement to victory.

The most important method that the Movement used which undoubtedly propelled its success was its charismatic leaders and speakers, which aided the revolution in gaining the numbers it needed to push their agenda. King used the religious connections he had as a Minister to make sure the church was behind him when he led the Movement to success. His Baptist religion helped gain some backing for his cause as America was, and still is, considered mostly Christian and sought to “convert the hearts and minds of white racists through appeals to their Christian consciences”(Lawson, 1998, p18). With the dominant religion on his side, he led with the belief of non-violence; essentially encouraging harmony and peaceful protests. His historically famous ‘dream’ speech is one of the most thought provoking and studied speeches of the 20^th Century. This alongside being supported by over 200,000 protesters marching to Washington in 1963 gained widespread attention from the public and media and thus brought their cause to the forefront, forcing a response from President L. Johnson. His leadership and organization of the ‘Southern Christian Leadership Conference’ (SCLC) brought to light the role black churches had in the beginning of the Movement. This role was important in gaining success because the churches already had existing authoritative figureheads and networks of black civilians that could be easily organised by them. Some critiqued the SCLC for its heavy reliance on King’s charismatic personality and leadership skills in order to be successful, however it can be argued that a key feature to any organisation is a strong and effective leader. The March on Washington was potent and effective nevertheless, the demonstration was divided between the restrained and cautious older generation of the SCLC and the more defiant youth who preferred more direct forms of activism in the ‘Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee’ (SNCC). The Movement was fractured into many subsections, as with any Movement on this scale, it cannot wholly be contained, but this allowed it to gain success through varying strategies of protest. Just as King’s method was to gain success through peaceful methods, Malcolm X sought independence for Blacks through more aggressive means. Both were inspiring and influential in their own rights but the differences in their leadership meant there was a leader for all kinds of African-Americans to follow and support within the Movement. There were also lesser known speakers who played a significant role in directly affecting the Civil Rights Movement and its overall success.

Fannie Lou Hamer used similar methods to King in her leadership, centring “on acts of public prayer in a prophetic style—through public speaking and discourse—and a pastoral style—through the use of sung prayer.” (Barber, 2015, part ii). Her involvement in the ‘Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party’ (MFDP) was mainly to set up a delegation because of the thousands of blacks failing to register to the Democratic Party during ‘Freedom Summer’ in 1964. Hamer effectively “verbally pushed back against a racist white social structure throughout her speeches while also using Biblical references to strengthen the message she believed God had sent her to deliver equality for all American citizens.” (Barber, 2015, p1). By offering comfort to her people through the use of music and emotive spoken word, she in turn changed the mind-sets of Whites by placing emphasis on their religious duty and consciences. Although she was not as educated as other black leaders, her fortitude and leadership were more easily relatable to many Blacks at that time. These powerful speeches put significant additional pressure on the government and enabled the Civil Rights Movement to gain support (even convincing both the tentative and the disapproving at times) and finally gave a voice against institutional racism.

The Civil Rights Movement was extremely successful in its aims, albeit they were not achieved quickly. All the struggles and pitfalls were diluted by the overall influence and lasting impact the Movement had. Methods such as legal action as well as civil disobedience and nonviolent means of protest meant the Movement could permeate institutional racism to its governmental core and change stigma surrounding African-Americans at that time. The most important method the Movement utilised was its powerful emphasis on emotive and religious spoken language by important figureheads and leaders. This propelled its success to become historic in its own right. The Voting Rights Act, The Montgomery Bus Boycott and Martin Luther King were all the most integral and successful aspects of the Movement. Although racial discrimination still remains on a reduced scale at a political, social and economic level, it does not mean that the Movement was not successful (especially for its time). It is not often that an ‘ethical revolution’ will defeat all moral injustices and so the continuation of the Movement’s aims are necessary for the evolution and development of society. The Civil Rights Movement has allowed black people to have entrenched rights as people and not property. It also enabled them to be integrated and valued in society, becoming a significant part of American political history. Therefore, the methods mentioned were the most important reasons for the overall triumph of the Movement.

xx

Bibliography

Barber, B. K (2015) Tell It On the Mountain: Fannie Lou Hamer’s Pastoral and Prophetic Styles of Leadership as Acts of Public Prayer, published by University of Montana ScholarWorks Undergraduate Theses and Professional Papers, part ii, page 1.

Berlatsky, N. (2015) The Civil Rights Movement Didn’t Succeed, posted onto splicetoday (31^st August), available at http://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/the-civil-rights-movement-didn-t-succeed, paragraph 5.  

Dreier, P. (2006) Rosa Parks: Angry, Not Tired- Urban and Environmental Policy (Dissent), published by Occidental College OxyScholar, pages 88, 90.

Kindig, J. (date unknown) Selma, Alabama, (Bloody Sunday, March 7, 1965) - Racial Conflict, posted onto BlackPast (2007-2015), available at http://www.blackpast.org/aah/bloody-sunday-selma-alabama-march-7-1965, paragraph 3.   

Lawson, S.F. and Payne, C.M. (1998) Debating the Civil Rights Movement: 1945-1968- The View from the Nation, published by Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc., pages 11, 16, 33, 18.

Lee, B. E. (2010) The Nashville Civil Rights Movement: A Study of the Phenomenon of Intentional Leadership Development and its Consequences for Local Movements and the National Civil Rights, published by Georgia State University ScholarWorks at Georgia State University, part 1, pages 65, 177, 13.

Rosenberg, G. (2004) The 1964 Civil Rights Act: The Crucial Role of Social Movements in the Enactment and Implementation of Anti-Discrimination Law in Saint Louis University Law Journal, published by University of Chicago Law School-Chicago Unbound, page 1147.

Sebastian, S. (2015) Don’t criticize Black Lives Matter for provoking violence. The civil rights movement did, too, posted onto the Washingtonpost (1^st October), available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/01/dont-criticize-black-lives-matter-for-provoking-violence-the-civil-rights-movement-did-too/?utm_term=.38ecb64de312, paragraphs 1, 12.

Simkins, C. (2014) Non-violence Was Key to Civil Rights Movement, posted onto voanews (20^th January), available at http://www.voanews.com/a/nonviolencekey-to-civil-rights-movement/1737280.html, paragraphs 9, 10. 

White, J. V. (2002) Brown v. Board of Education and the Origins of the Activist Insecurity in Civil Rights Law-Scholarly Works in Ohio Northern University Law review, published by Scholarly Commons UNLV Law, page 304.