Storming Historiography

If we are to compare this book to last week's readings there exists a stark contrast between who is responsible for change. In Storming Caesar's Palace we have a Civil Rights movement that we are accustomed to and understand. One that fits nicely with our notion of how civil rights were fought for in this country. Unlike some of the articles from last week which sat uncomfortably with a few of us in class, this weeks book seems to relax the fear of downplaying the significance of the Civil Rights movement. I suppose my comment/question is to those who were somewhat uncomfortable with last weeks readings. Do histories that situate events as "we feel they should have been" become more successful than those which go against the grain of "righteousness" perhaps?