Looking back at everything we’ve read and discussed this semester, it’s hard for me to pick a favorite text. All the texts we read convey powerful and personal testimonies of the divisive conflicts riddling American and Northern Irish society in 1968. Reading the stories of civil rights leaders, excerpts of court trials of protesters in the US, and the historically-rooted plays about Northern Irish citizens offered me a lens into the deeply emotional effects this traumatic and tense period had on peoples’ personal lives. The witness of these authors enables us, even fifty years later, to feel some of the emotion they felt in the midst of that chaos, and it allows their stories to continue to engage and effect social change in new audiences.
What I think many of these authors give witness to is the need for a personal sense of solidarity to overcome violent divisions. The Troubles, the U.S. civil rights movement, and the Vietnam War protests all grew violent because people refused to build relationships and truly encounter the “other.” When oppressive systems continually deny people their rights, frustration and a loss of hope provoke the oppressed to turn to violence as a last-ditch effort of calling attention to their struggles and prompting an immediate reaction from the larger society. Most of the texts we’ve read, however, affirm that violence is not the answer to violence. From the agape love promoted by MLK to the “Christ in each of us” that Marian recognizes in Pentecost to the revolutionary suicide that Huey P. Newton espoused, an overarching theme of the texts is the call for solidarity–the ability to look beyond yourself and commit to the common good—that enables us to fight injustice while bringing about reconciliation and community in times of conflict.
At the beginning of the semester, I didn’t understand how a whole course could be devoted to two nations’ experiences with a single year. Why learn so much about 1968? Was it really that special of a year? After reading all the texts from this class, I understand the significance of this tumultuous year and can see why it matters today. I think it’s crucial to recognize that remnants of the conflicts of the 60s often still exist in 2020—Northern Ireland is still grappling with its violent past and the wounds left by the Troubles, and this summer woke white America up to the undeniable persistence of systemic racism in our nation. These texts, then, are not just historical literature. They offer us insight into how to deal with modern conflicts, showing us how both violent and nonviolent responses to conflict have played out in the past. The overarching messages of justice and a love that overcomes division by recognizing the humanity of the opposing side, however, are timeless. Drawing on these texts gives us a framework for contextualizing conflict and finding a path forward to reconciliation, even today.
I really enjoyed reading this blog post. I think that the concept of witness is very important when analyzing historical literature. At the beginning of the class, I, too, was struggling to find the connections between America and Ireland. Yes, they both had groups of oppressed people, and yes, they were attempting to enact change, but did the connection go any deeper than that? One way in which the connection is strengthened is through this idea of witness. You state that one thing that these authors give witness to is “the need for a personal sense of solidarity to overcome violent divisions.” While I agree with that assessment, I think you can take the connection a little bit further. Although a lot of the authors seem to come to the conclusion that violence is not the answer, there seems to also be a general consensus that after years and years of oppression without progress, activists seek violence as a last resort. This is evident in MLK’s speeches. MLK was a prominent proponent of non-violence. However, towards the end of his life, we can see that the tone in his writing changes to one that doesn’t necessarily promote violence but accepts it as an avenue for change.
I completely agree with your point that this class has provided an excellent opportunity to contextualize and attempt to understand not only the conflict in ’68 but the movements we’re seeing today. We’ve mentioned similarities between the civil rights movement in ’68 and the Black Lives Matter protests that happened this summer. While the similarities are undeniable, my question is do you think protesters today have a firm grasp of prior movements like the civil rights movement in ’68 or is there just an innate attitude that certain activists have that is timeless? Many consider ’68 to be a failure because of the conservative backlash that occurred in the following decades, so while I believe almost all activists have a basic understanding of, say, the civil rights movement I think a large role in what drives activists to behave in similar ways of those that came before them is a romanticization of protest.
I also think that it is extremely important for us to look to the past for guidance on how to get to a better future. The concept of not taking the time to understand the “other” seems to be a problem that is not unique to 1968 or even today, but gets exaggerated in times of extreme division. I think that people have the tendency to see things from their own perspective and dismiss others’ experiences if they do not support our previously held beliefs. Recognizing that changing our minds and finding unity with others is not something that is embarrassing or degrading, but a sign of growth and learning. For that, an important resource to utilize is history and the feelings and struggles of people in our shoes in the past. By seeing how those before us fixed issues, we can come to a more efficient way of doing things and avoid repeating history.
I couldn’t agree more with your statement that we need to recognize the humanity of the other side. It seems that we are selfish people, and this makes it difficult for us to do such a thing, and get out of our own little worlds to stand up for others and drive for change not for our own selfish purposes, but rather for the benefit of our country and those suffering in it. I think that seeing the big picture by looking beyond ourself is great advice for many in this country today, but I still think that keeping a part of ourself is important as well. If we give ourselves wholly to a protest or movement, it can be good for the movement, but dangerous for us. We still need to remember who we are and why we are doing what we are doing. If we lose ourselves completely in a movement, who are we when that movement is finished? When we finally achieve our goals, we must remember who we are as a singular person as well, not just as a group.