Engaging examination of the historical roots of armed self-defense in MS; this reads more like a history text than a polemic on theory of why you would need armed self-defense. The focus is much more specific and granular, a real region by region organizational look at the antecedents to the Black Power movement heyday, and the ongoing local use of armed defense into the 1980s.
Loved that the book focused a lot on tactics that were combined in various programs/protests based on community preference or need to achieve local goals, whether that was voter registration, pushing back on nightriders and terrorist white supremacy violence, access to jobs or education. The book does a great job problematizing and contextualizing the established non-violent narrative of the civil rights era. Non-violence was just the velvety glove outstretched for diplomacy, and was only accepted (begrudgingly!) by white power structures because inside that velvet glove was an iron fist the community became more and more adept at clarifying was the alternative to not allowing the black community to exploit it constitutional rights not being acknowledged equally, and do so without the implied threat of racist violence in the community.
This book finally answered a question I always had about boycotts as a strategy, like "how the hell do you keep whole communities from breaking a boycott or scabbing a strike?" I naively assumed it was exclusively the higher calling of the enterprise, liberation(!) that had whole communities participating comprehensively. Turns out, a much more straightforward was found, "Spirit" young guys who were organized to "make examples" of those who tried to head downtown and buy during boycotts, or ride buses...basically you were beat into line as an example for rest of community or advised why your actions were counter-intuitive to larger liberation goals. So yeah, that actually makes much more sense how those boycotts were so danged effective! I can imagine this method may have had lots of opportunity to be abused, but seems not to have been on the whole and DID keep the boycotts comprehensive and effective. I feel a bit stupid now, because it makes perfect sense in retrospect and also recalibrates the peak altruism non-violence narrative spoon fed Americans in school. The ability for a well-meaning group to do some dirt to make the end justify the means, actually seems much more authentic to me, more complicated, but at least now I have seen how that jigsaw piece fits into the puzzle of that era, thanks Akinyele!
Unfortunately, I'd propose the boycott as a genuinely effective tool of protest in the 1960-70's, seems to be a loss-leader in the present, where multinational corporations have vast markets and there is no amount of boycotting locally that will hurt a company's interests enough to make them advocates for your change; also almost none are owned locally, or even privately for that matter...late-stage capitalism has kicked out another leg of protest, there are no local business enterprises in most urban areas that would be beholden to an economic boycott, sure government and transportation are still vulnerable, but there's no more viable threat to "I'll withhold my monies to get you to the table..."
And you know what else? The more I learned about the fraternal relationships of the KKK in shadowy/vague collaboration with local governments and law enforcement in MS to obstruct normal process of free speech and protest. The more I see all these modern day police and military dudes posting in social media questionable or implied affiliation to these right-wing causes scares the crap out of me. These Proud Boy, Neo-Kluxer, paramilitary camp bozos I could easily see doing the same obstruction and denial of public sphere space tactics that were used to disenfranchise protest in MS throughout the book. These modern white supremacy groups baiting legitimate police brutality protests in 2020 with their "we're just protecting the population in case the police need support" while carrying martial weaponry to intimidate actual legal non-violent protest. Their presence is actually just to antagonize, shut down the entire dialogue/protest; this is right out of the Segregationist era KKK playbook, so maybe we should be looking back again for ways that worked in combatting this kind of crazy as it again is rearing it ugly mug.
Raise the cost to racists for intimidation of minority voices; if its easy, they will bother, if it costs them their health they will have to reflect on how much they really want you disenfranchised. This is the deterrence of armed self defense in a nutshell..."How bad do you want it really? I know you think you are willing to sacrifice ME for your cause, but are you ready to also sacrifice us both?" Because that's the choice you are offered when I am clearly wiling to defend myself.
Not shockingly, this book gave me a great deal to reflect on, very happy it was written and I had the chance to read it.