Patriotism and the history of the U.S. Civil Rights Movement
February 14th, 2008
Juan William's Eyes on the Prize provides a quality introduction to the African-American civil rights movement between the years 1954-65, but not one without flaws. It lacks a clearly stated thesis, which is probably its biggest weakness. It does, however, have certain implied arguments including nationalism, a critique of the Great Man theory of history, and an endorsement of the non-violent wing of the civil rights movement. The fact that these arguments largely aren't explicitly argued for weakens the book.
The subtitle America's Civil Rights Years, the American flags on the front cover, Julian Bond's introduction and much of the book's content all imply a nationalist conception of the movement. Yet the book doesn't explicitly make the case for one, so it is a rather weak argument. Bond's claim that “the civil rights movement is a great testament to the Constitution's strength” and that “the Constitution was their ultimate shield” are completely unsupported (p. xiv). If the constitution were such a great shield Jim Crow wouldn't have been implemented in the first place. Nor is there any reason why a civil rights movement couldn't succeed in making change under a different constitution or with no constitution at all.
Although Eyes on the Prize includes African and Caribbean independence in its time-line at the beginning and end of the book it otherwise largely ignores international dimensions of the movement. Many activists in the movement were connected with or inspired by other movements against colonialism and white supremacy. One of the main reasons the federal government reluctantly gave into some of the movement's demands was due to the Cold War and anti-colonial rebellions. If the U.S. just drowned the movement in blood it would alienate other nations (particularly ones with large African populations) and drive them into the hands of the Soviets or at least out of the U.S. sphere of influence. The civil rights movement was really the U.S. branch of a much broader international rebellion against colonialism and white supremacy. Neglecting international dimensions of the movement makes it easier to portray the movement in nationalist terms.
Eyes on the Prize also argues against the 'Great Man' theory of history by including activists who were not national leaders. Although historians rejected the Great Man theory of history some time ago, a lot of laymen and mainstream media outlets still believe it and will, for example, attribute all or most of the civil rights movement to Martin Luther King, Jr. or other leaders. If the only thing you know about the civil rights movement are those famous leaders you would benefit from reading Eyes on the Prize.
Eyes on the Prize also implies that legal strategies and non-violence were the best methods and that activists who advocated other tactics marginal during this time period. Malcolm X is barely mentioned. In reality many of the same people who later became leaders or supporters of the black power movement and supported or carried out violent actions were also involved in earlier non-violent actions (Kwame Ture, for example). The distinction between violent and non-violent activists need to be scrutinized more than Williams does.
Although I seem to have written mostly critical comments, Eyes on the Prize is more good than bad. Even though it misses some things, it still provides a good overview of key events from Brown v. Board of Education to Selma. It's a good introduction to the topic and thus a good first book for those new to the topic.