Civil Rights, Change, and the Sit-in's 50th Anniversary

From a three-volume history of the "King years" I've been slowly making my way through:

"No one had time to wonder why the Greensboro sit-in was so different.  In the previous three years, similar demonstrations had occurred in at least sixteen other cities.  Few of them made the news, all faded quickly from public notice, and none had the slightest catalytic effect anywhere else.  By contrast, Greensboro helped define the new decade.  Almost certainly, the lack of planning helped create the initial euphoria.  Because the four students at Woolworth's had no plan, they began with no self-imposed limitations.  They defined no tactical goals.  They did not train or drill in preparation.  They did not dwell on the many forces that might be used against them.  Above all, they did not anticipate that Woolworth's white managers would -- instead of threatening to have them arrested -- flounder in confusion and embarrassment.  The surprise discovery of defensiveness within the segregated white world turned their fear into elation."

The Greensboro sit-ins galvanized the civil rights movement -- 4 students without a plan turned into more than 80, and the sit-in spread to other cities in North Carolina and gathered momentum as it went. The spontaneous demonstration of the illogic of the segregation laws gave powerful proof that people would respond to the ideas that had been percolating in the South for some time.  I'd like to think there was a direct line between the events of 50 years ago (today) and our present difficulties, but I know it's much more complicated than I can probably address here.  There are still people who oppose change, even democratic change (small "D" there) that comes from the ground up. The "Tea Party" protests may be "grass roots" to an extent, but they are also motivated in part by political gamesmanship played in Washington, D.C.  The history I've read shows that there was no shadowy political organization behind the sit-ins, no "profit motive," as some have accused the Tea Party groups of having.  The organization that was there in the 1960's capitalized on the momentum the sit-ins generated, to be sure, and there was a group of students who emerged as leaders in the movement around the sit-ins.  But times were different, and the need for change was real.  Now, President Obama may be styling himself as a change agent, and I hope that he becomes a real change agent in Washington.  But real change from the bottom up has more to do with societal change than it does with elections and politics.  Real change in society comes when people are willing to sacrifice something, when people meet up with other like-minded people and express not just outrage but also constructive ideas for how things can be made better.  Non-violence was one such constructive idea.  More later, perhaps...