Civil Rights Activism

This weeks articles have brought to the forefront certain questions about how historians should view the civil rights movement. The first is clearly mentioned in the articles, and that is the problem of competing theories on the best course of action. The various approaches that encompassed the civil rights movement are usually glossed over for a more homogeneous and less controversial view. To do that, the emphasis is placed on Martin Luther King Jr. and the approach of non-violence and to a lesser degree, the legal works of the NAACP. The influences of Cold War rhetoric, or instances of violence explained in the articles however plainly contradict this image. In addition, the fault for a lack of federal backing is placed on southern democrats although we know a northern suburb was just as racially exclusive and still had a political voice. Do these omissions indicate an attempt to gloss over the culpability of the entire United States in racial discrimination? Or is this the more unintentional creation of a valorous peaceful protagonist group against a racist federal antagonist group? What does this potential alteration of the civil rights movement mean for people today?