Defending The Legacy Of Rosa Parks And The Freedom Movement

Last week I heard a program on National Public Radio (NPR) dealing with myths. One of the “myths” highlighted was the story of Rosa Parks, the great African-American freedom fighter. The radio narrative picked up on the story that Rosa Parks is often portrayed as someone with limited political consciousness who acted spontaneously in refusing to move to the back of the bus in the segregated south. In fact, she had some left-wing political training and consciousness before she made her historic and planned decision to act publicly against institutionalized racism. And she went on to develop her political consciousness through the freedom movement, moving closer to Pan-Africanism and speaking at Robert F. Williams’ funeral in support of the man and his mission.

The story sought to discredit, if only in general terms, the legacy of Rosa Parks and the civil rights movement by pointing out a particular “myth” of the movement and criticizing the movement for not being more open about her political leanings and background.

If we look back 55 years we see an America still very much in the grips of anti-communism and McCarthyism and experiencing at the same time the tremendous stirrings of an on-going but modern freedom movement that promised democratic advances and civil rights for all. The core demands put forward by that movement promised to improve the lives of every oppressed person. The radical nature of that movement and its demands were obvious, but the specific backgrounds and political leanings of its leadership—and especially its grassroots leadership—were somewhat beside the point. The question is not about the “myths” of the civil rights movement at a particular point, but about the democratic trajectory that that movement was launching. A time inevitably arose when sharper political questions could be raised—needed to be raised—but the anti-communism of the 1950s needed to be lifted and defeated first.

The story referred to the “myth” of Rosa Parks but failed to take into account that good political organizing requires control of a social conversation. Had the civil rights movement of 1955 allowed the social conversation to rest with the left leanings of its established leadership at the grassroots, we might still have officially sanctioned and legal segregation and McCarthyism might still be with us. Instead, the civil rights movement won historic victories by asserting the humanity and personhood of Black people. The right-wing is still smarting from this loss and is still seeking to roll time backwards and undo these victories. They are reacting against democratic progress and this is why we call them “reactionaries.”

What is at stake here is not just the legacy of the civil rights movement, which is tremendous and important by itself, but also an understanding of how things change. We move through barely-disguised democratic battles in order make life better for every oppressed person and also in order to exploit social contradictions and raise the level of social struggles. Social questions can open and develop slowly or quickly, but they have the capacity to accelerate and fundamentally alter society once they gain traction. We can move forward or backward, but movement never stops. One fundamental question we constantly face is who determines the course, direction and speed of that movement.