How to change stuff?

"You're going to have to go, Sammy. You can't live or work here at the church anymore. When my phone starts ringing this morning I need to be able to say you're already packing."
"Today? You want me out today?"
"It's a delicate political situation. Please understand"(122-123).

In retrospect, the civil rights movement may seem to have been morally black and white: you were either in support of or against racial equality. However, when Father Morris, who had up until this point been portrayed as a staunch advocate of gay and black rights, is faced with the difficulty of dissociating with Sammy after a slew of negative publicity, we are reminded that things were far more complex. In the days of ruthless lynching and mob violence, even associating with the wrong person was a life or death matter.

It could be argued that Sammy made himself a dangerous target with his "outrageous" behavior, but his behavior was only a reaction to the recent acts of violence committed against civil rights protesters. The whole movement seems to have been tempered by a tension between peaceful protest and the oftentimes necessary use of force and violence against vicious racists and gay bashers, which often excited even more violence in return. We see this tension earlier on, when Reverend Pepper, who emphasizes the nonviolent nature of the "crusade," tells Toland that he thinks Mabel ought to be disincluded from further demonstrations because of a rumor circulating about her having hit a police dog with a brick in her purse. Toland comes to her defense, "But to tell the truth, I don't see much wrong with hittin' a dog when it's snappin' its teeth at you" (110). Reverend Pepper explains that, while he understands Toland's logic, he feels that the pitfall of civil rights protesters is "tak[ing] their bait," "their" referring to "the opposition." He feels that responding to violence with violence, even when seemingly necessary, is holding the whole movement back and potentially subjecting them to more violence; what protesters ought to be doing is wielding "psychological leverage" against their oppressors by remaining peaceful no matter what.


Let's talk about the (in?)effectiveness of the "Occupy" movement! I know it's nothing near the civil rights movement, but it's worth talking for reasons discussed above. Should they be more extreme or forceful to get their point across? Is violence sometimes a necessary evil? Is anyone taking their peaceful occupation seriously? How best to go about catalyzing social change? Is it necessary to "speak the language" of those to whom you're trying to appeal? Do Toland and co. make any efforts to speak the language of their oppressors?

Lauren Gore