This is an indepth study of the major occurrences during the civil rights movement. It basically was a review of what I've learned from previous books.

Eyes on the Prize utilizes the tactic of revisionist history -- that is, telling historical events from perspectives not often considered. For instance, the master narrative or textbook version of the Civil Rights movement is generally focused on Martin Luther King and how he empowered a repressed people.

Eyes on the Prize approaches the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s with a different perspective. It starts by introducing the social elements and people between the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1964, and explains how the second Civil Rights movement gained momentum and spread.

I was particularly struck by the story of Kenneth Clark and how his Dolls Study was used as evidence in the Briggs v. Clarendon County case. I think this instance is a great example of the combination of legal strategy and action with the intent to change public opinion. It is clear they were aware of the charged nature of this decision from the quote on page 20,

"It was highly unorthodox evidence to present in a courtroom, but the situation called for unusual legal ammunition."

I think this choice must have had more impact in the legal and public spheres than is focused on in this book, as it is now relatively common for a court of law to seek the expert opinion of a mental health worker. Psychologists and others who work with the mentally ill are often tainted with a sort of stigma-by-association, yet in a high-stakes trial, they chose to highlight not only a psychological study, but a study done by a black psychologist. It is clear why: Not only is the study itself sound, the ramifications are unsettling on an instinctual level. To prove the effect of discrimination on innocent young minds is an extremely effective way of inciting both sympathy and desire to act in the viewer -- it draws on the innate human desire to protect our children from harm.

In many ways, both the legal strategy and the public action danced around this concept. Charles Houston drew on it when he focused his initial efforts of educational desegregation oat the higher education levels, knowing that it would be less threatening to whites if it started in adult institutions rather than with children. He drew on this human instinct, too, whether consciously or not, when he filmed the contrasting situations of white and black children in their segregated learning environments. I suspect it is easier for a moderate white to be unconcerned about the plight of black children if they are not aware of the reality of that plight.

Clearly, hard-core racist segregationists didn't particularly care if black children were in school, in the gutter, or dead. But it wasn't the hard-core segregationists they needed to sway; it was the moderates and public opinion in general. I think Martin Luther King's advocacy of nonviolent, passive resistance also appealed, in a sense, to the parent's desire for their children's safety. The nonviolent movement showed through both word and actions that blacks were not the threat segregationists were trying to paint them as. Indeed, as the movement progressed, the juxtaposition of dignified non-violent resistance of the blacks and their white allies to the lashing anger and rage of the of segregationists highlighted who the real danger to society was.
This is further alluded to on page 113, in an interview with a white student at Central High in Little Rock, Arkansas:

"Other Whites, however, lost sympathy for the governor. 'I began to change,' remembers Craig Rains, a white senior at Central during the 1957-1958 school year, 'from being . . . a moderate, who, if I had my way, would have said, 'Let's don't integrate, because it's the state's right to decide.' I changed to someone who felt a real sense of compassion for those students, and felt like they deserved something that I had, and I also developed a real dislike for the people that were out there causing problems." (pg 113)

I wouldn't go so far as to argue that the entire civil rights movement was predicated on the human urge to protect the children, but I do think that a sensitivity and awareness of this shared instinct permeates the movement. It present in the cases they choose to argue and the order they chose to pursue them in. It was a consideration in the way blacks and their white allies presented themselves to the public.

In the arena of national attention, they often focused on the violence done to black children. In the arena of legal cases, they chose defendants who were either children or adults who were not considered a threat to those who needed to be protected. They also chose to focus on litigation that either did not affect children and was therefore not perceived as a threat to white children, or that focused on the harm done to black children, which incited sympathy in moderate whites. On top of these choices was the conscious decision to employ children in many marches and boycotts, which both made for moving publicity and allowed their parents more freedom of movement behind the scenes. Whether these choices were conscious or subconscious, they positively impacted both the participants in and the observers of the freedom movement on a very instinctive level.

The impact of this was even evidenced by segregationists, who in the immediate wake of the Emmet Till murder were, "outraged at what happened,"(43) and promised justice would be done. As it turned out, justice was not done -- but I do think it's telling that in the immediate aftermath of the murder, the reported reaction of, "all 'decent' people," was outrage and horror. The Southerners did not initially respond with a meh, or (worse), glee: They reacted with the disgust any right-thinking person should feel upon learning of such an incident. As the media attention grew and swelled, the white community drew back on itself and became defensive and angry, but their first reaction to the murder of a child was one of horror.

Today, many social activist groups say, "Think of the children," when they try to defend or argue some stance or other. I suspect the segregationists said this phrase, too, or some 1950's equivalent of it. It is interesting that a successful social movement is the one that does think of the children, and that considers the impact of their movement on all children, rather than just their children. ( )