Example Of Freedom Riders: Movie Analysis Critical Thinking

In May 1961, America was experiencing growing pains. The issue of racial segregation was increasingly thrown into the spotlight. Each individual had a different perspective on the issue based on different motivations, and a different degree to which they would defend this perspective. These perspectives are illustrated through four key players in the freedom rides, as examined in the PBS documentary Freedom Riders (2010).
The freedom rides were the brainchild of Jim Farmer, the national director of the Committee of Racial Equality (CORE) at the time. His radical idea was a kind of public dare, to test constitutional rights, particularly in the southern states. Farmer was initially met with a fair amount of opposition from his supporters, who believed the plan was risky and may not in fact serve the cause. He was convinced of their importance and eventually he was able to persuade two small groups to participate. Shortly after commencement, Farmer had to leave the group to attend to family issues, before the group headed to Alabama. In this sense Farmer acted as an initiator of action, rather than a long-standing participant. He recognized that the civil rights had to exist in more than
just words, and that the movement had to have public support in order to succeed. With the benefit of hindsight we can see that his leadership was
extremely important in commencing an important series of events. His exit may have been seen by his supporters as desertion, though in fact, somewhat
serendipitously, his absence from the leadership position may have incited others to intervene and to create new kinds of leadership.
John Patterson, the governor of Alabama, maintained he wanted to keep the peace, which for him meant maintaining the status quo. As one group of riders was beaten and firebombed by a mob in Anniston, the other reached Birmingham shortly after, where they were severely beaten an awaiting crowd. Unbeknownst to Governor Patterson, the mob was given a window of free reign by the Chief of Police, Bull Connor. The fact that the Chief of Police did not inform Patterson about this speaks volumes of the power dynamics. When a second group of riders returns to Birmingham and are arrested, public and political tensions are rising. Patterson shirks his responsibilities my screening calls from the Attorney General, alarming the Kennedy administration. Patterson was in my opinion not acting as a leader. In order to lead, one must be decisive, and take responsibility for those actions, even if that involves a decision to do nothing. Patterson maintains this lack of responsibility in his interview many years later. He says ‘the Governor has nothing to do with the daily operations of the Police Department’. The Kennedy administration eventually presents an ultimatum and says that if the state of Alabama will not protect the freedom riders than the federal law enforcement will. The effect of Patterson’s leadership style is evident in the reaction of his Head of Safety to his comment ‘ tell this man, (John Seigenthaler, representative of the Kennedy administration) these rabble rousers are asking for trouble and that we can’t protect them’ to which the
Head of Safety responds ‘if you tell me to protect them I’ll protect them’. This comment highlights the absence of decision making, and the lack of respect those under Patterson yield.
Following the mayhem in Alabama, a new set of circumstances had been created. Diane Nash, a student at Fisk University, and her counterparts were convinced that now, more than ever, was a time to continue the freedom rides. The viciousness in Alabama was waiting for a response, and here, doing nothing would have said just as much as continuing. Nash was at an ideological crossroads. In one direction, the satisfaction of short-term safety and the acceptance of violence as a defeater of civil rights, and in the other was a commitment to principle and the future despite the insecurity it brought for the individual. Nash was able to see past her own needs for safety and education, and acknowledge the symbolism of the event and her involvement.
The Kennedy administration was initially very quiet about the freedom rides, seeing them as a distraction from more pressing European relations. The Democratic Party was based on a large percentage of southern voters and the John Kennedy did not want to antagonize them. He wanted both peace and votes. Kennedy was trying to ‘save face’ first and foremost, and only when a point was reached where it would be undoubtedly immoral not to act, did he take control.
The aforementioned participants all had different desires and different reasons to act. Leaders are catalysts. Sometimes their actions lead to more harm, more justice, or both. At various points in this series of events, certain players were called to action by preceding events. Their success or failure seems to reflect their level of commitment. At one end of the spectrum is John Patterson,
who takes minimal responsibility and does not win the support of his peers or the leaders of other groups. At the other end is Diane Nash, whose principled commitment to the cause helped to inspire the hoards of riders that continued after her own journey. This scale of course riddled with grey areas, demonstrated by the positions of John Kennedy and Jim Farmer. In both instances, more could have been done, and a stronger position held. Though in both instances their actions incited positive change.