Rebecca Conseillant
9/22/23
Jonathan Gray
“For the Ears of the Prejudiced”
The Civil Rights Movement was the African-American strike against segregation in the
South from the 1950s to the 1960s. Although this movement is often associated with Martin
Luther King, March: Book Two by Andrew Aydin and illustrations by Nate Powell highlight
prominent civil rights activists like John Lewis and Stokely Carmichael. John Lewis's choice of
media allows the younger audience to feel dehumanizing moments through visualization in this
era. During this movement, John Lewis, chairman of SNCC, stood by the philosophy of
‘non-violence’ against racists but was often challenged by Stockley Carmichael's point of view.
Although John Lewis’s tactics worked, his approach was often in line with Martin Luther King.
March: Book Two begins with John Lewis stating, “Using Nonviolent sit-ins, our young
organization had successfully ended segregation at the lunch counters downtown. Next, we
turned our attention to fast food restaurants and cafeterias, using the same strategy” (March,9).
At this point, Lewis was twenty years old, barely in school, and devoted to fighting for
African-American equality in Nashville, Tennessee. The very first achievement in the book was
described as a great success due to the non-violence strategy being used. As readers, we begin to
fall in love with this strategy without knowing the consequences. Quickly after this, in November
1960, a few students requested to be served at a segregated restaurant named “Kyrstals.” The
prejudiced staff refused and decided to turn on fumigation used for killing pets, leaving John
Lewis and several other black activists to die. From this fatal event, we start to notice the flaws
and weaknesses in the ‘non-violence’ strategy. Lewis states, “ At first, I didn’t believe that man
could’ve really left us there to die. Were we not Human to him?”(March,9). John’s question
helps draw the conclusion that African Americans were seen as inhumane, and retaliating against
racists would give them more of a reason to believe this. John seemed to hope politely asking for
equality and being answered with death would stir sympathy in the opposed hearts. After all,
leaving someone to die can be seen as hatred, so to change this injustice, there must be other
emotions like love.
March: Book Two also introduced people like Stokely Carmichael to show different points
of view concerning non-violence. It was sometime in June 1961 when most freedom riders were
arrested and sent to the Mississippi State Penitentiary. Freedom riders were activists who rode
buses into the ‘heart of the beast,’ the South, in order to challenge non-enforced Supreme Court
rulings. The Freedom Riders spent sixty days in jail suffering. It started with the striping of
clothes and carried on to the shaving of facial hair, one letter per week, and most of all, the
removal of mattresses. The prison guards stated, “ If you don’t quit singin’ them damn songs,
I’m gonna take every last one-A-yall’s mattresses”(March,103). Singing was a non-violent way
for the activists to cope, and the mattresses were just another tangible thing to let go of, so they
did, all except Fred Leonard and Stokley Carmichael. As readers, at this moment, we are met
with reality. In such a harsh moment in history, it is hard to believe there were people like John
Lewis who did not fight back. Instead, Carmichael demanded respect, whether or not it came to
physical lengths against racists. He believed that violence relayed a message of power. Violence
was a way not to be overlooked but felt by the opposition. This goes to show why John Lewis
stated, “To them, nonviolence was just a tactic, not a personal philosophy or a way of
life”(March 104). Although this perspective shows power, we are left with the statement, “ But
in the end, they lost their mattresses, too”(March, 104). This calls attention to the weakness of
Stokely Carmichael's argument because questions like, did violence fail, or did Carmichael get
nowhere with violence arise?
Later in the graphic novel, Stokely passes through Nashville to help protest, leading to
problems between him and John Lewis. John Lewis states, “That is not how we protest in
Nashville! Stokely later said he never saw it fit as his responsibility to be the moral and spiritual
reclamation of some racist thug. But his behavior was threatening to derail our
efforts”(March,112). The diction used in this sentence could mean that Stokely's tactics were
strong enough to change the point of view of other activists, altering the non-violence strategy.
But it wasn’t long before Jim Lawson, creator of SNCC, told Carmichael, “The committee would
like to offer you an invitation to continue your protest activities…elsewhere” (March,112).
Despite SNCC’s efforts, Stokely Carmichael was present at the “The Student Nonviolent
Coordinating Committee Conference.” At this conference, many people with Stokely's mindset
spoke, and their speeches resonated with some activists, including Jim Lawson. Due to Jim's
change of heart, SNCC needed someone who stood by the non-violence philosophy. They chose
John Lewis to become the executive coordinator.
John Lewis not only kept the same philosophy as Doctor King but associated with him
throughout the civil rights movement. Throughout the novel, Martin's persona is proven to be
wise and slow to anger. The graphic novel states, “There he goes, just like Jesus”(March,128);
this allusion gives clarity on who Marin really was and what his fate was like. John’s fate and
character were proven to be similar because he stated, “ But the fact that I’d been arrested and
beaten and jailed so many times held a lot of weight with my SNCC colleagues, old and
new”(March,118). As shown, the SNCC ran on non-violence, and the organization needed a
person whose morals were questioned by anti-blacks time and time again. It goes without saying
that Martin Luther King's morals were also tested. In particular, when Robert Kennedy said, “
That is not going to have the slightest effect on what the government is going to do in this field
or any other. The fact that they stay in jail is not going to have the slightest effect on ME, Dr.
King”(March,95). Even though Martin was somehow seen as ‘human’ by chauvinists, they still
spoke to him as if he weren’t. It would have been understandable if Dr. King grew tired and
retaliated with violence, but he always chose his non-violent ethics. Moreover, John Lewis
became the chairman of the SNCC, allowing him a seat at the white house on June 22, 1963.
This meeting took place to discuss the March on Washington. John had observed, “ The meeting
went on nearly for two hours before Dr. King spoke up for the first time” (March,147). The
conversations during the meeting indicate there was much to say, but when Marting spoke, it was
something of value, which John Lewis also shared. Lewis stated, “I said nothing at the meeting,
just listened. It was not my place to talk. My time would come later” (March, 148).
John Lewis’s time ultimately did come on August 28, 1963. Lewis was the sixth person
to speak at the March on Washington. Surprisingly, his speech was the most contradicting.
Members of the Big Six( Martin Luther King Jr., James Farmer, John Lewis, A. Philip Randolph,
Roy Wilkins, Whitney Young) and Bayard Rustin fought for John’s speech to be ‘tweaked’, and
John gave in. John’s original speech said many things, like, “ We won’t stop now. All of these
forces of Eastland, Barnett, Wallace, and Thurmond won’t stop this revolution. The time will
come when we will not confine our marching to Washington. We will march through the south,
through the heart of the Dixie, the way Sherman did. We shall pursue our own “scorched earth”
policy and burn Jim Crow to the ground–nonviolently”(March, 187). John Lewis was clearly
chosen to speak because of his non-violent philosophy, but his speech suggested otherwise. On
August 28, 1963, Lewis said to Mr. Wilkins backstage, “I’m not just speaking for myself -- I’m
speaking for my colleagues in SNCC and for the people in the Delta and the black belt. You
haven’t BEEN there, Mr. Wilkins. You don’t UNDERSTAND”(March,163). We can account for
John Lewis’s words as emotions. He has always seen non-violence as the successful route, but
this doesn’t mean he is without feeling. His speech revealed what should be done if they didn’t
fight righteously, it revealed what could happen if African-Americans were always told to ‘wait,’
and it revealed how fearless black people really were against Racists.
Media played a massive role throughout March: Book Two. Before this book, many
people knew the civil rights movement entailed people like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King
because that is what schools taught. March: Book Two tells many sides to the story, without
words but with graphics. As humans, what we see goes along with what we hear. A case in point
is when King stated, “ …I think I should choose the time and place of my Golgotha”(March,91);
the illustrations chosen raise suspicion in the mind of the audience on how Martin Luther could
have meant this. These graphics allow the reader to be in the moment and formulate their own
opinions. The graphics permit the opposition to be seen directly. On May 2, 1963, many black
children were arrested, and an officer stated, “What do you want? - and a black girl replied, “
F’eedom” (March,135). The words on this page matter, but the illustration is especially
significant because, without it, readers couldn’t identify that it was a child speaking to an adult.
The absence of the drawing would not express how insane it looked and how it was to hate
someone with this level of innocence.
In my opinion, the philosophy of nonviolence will always be the righteous and prudent
way to face violence. We, as a minority, should not give the racists in power the opportunity to
fight back if we fight lyrically. As we know, words hold great power; with expression, change
commences. Violence ultimately leads to consequences, so how will change begin if we are
suffering from those consequences? Actions speak louder than words, and how will prejudiced
people hear us if our actions overpower our words? Above all, non-violence wasn’t John Lewis’s
inner reaction, but it is what he chose. It is how he stood in front of millions and delivered a
message that might have altered the minds of the prejudiced majority.