From Countermemory to Collective Memory: Acknowledging the “Mississippi Burning” Murders

When and how do movements influence policy change? We examine the dynamics leading up to Kennedy's decision to pursue major civil rights legislation in 1963. This marked a key turning point in shifting the executive branch from a timid and gradualist approach. Although it is widely taken for granted that the civil rights movement propelled this shift, how the movement mattered is less clear. While most protest targeted local economic actors, movement influence was exerted at the national level on political actors. Thus, movement influence was indirect. We focus on the relationship between local movement efforts to desegregate public accommodations (restaurants, movie theaters, hotels, etc.) and federal responses to movement demands. Although exchanges between movement actors and the federal government took place throughout the period, the logic of federal response evolved as political actors sought strategies to minimize racial conflict. Specifically, the Kennedy administration shifted to a dual strategy. First, the Department of Justice attempted to promote "voluntary" desegregation by working with executives of national companies and civic groups. Second, administration officials worked with these same groups to build support for major legislation among key interest groups. This shift toward a more assertive and proactive intervention in civil rights stands in contrast to the pessimism regarding the prospects for federal policy only a few months earlier. We examine the logic of this response including the impact of civil rights protest on the administration's policy proposals. 4

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Local Protest and Federal Policy: The Impact of the Civil Rights Movement on the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Andrews¹,

Gaby²

2015

“…Empirically, we aim to illustrate how this tension is negotiated by planners and redevelopment proponents. Although many strategies are exclusively available to state actors and other powerful institutions, other groups can influence the course of urban change by using collective memories “from below” to contest or reframe development strategies and dominant historical narratives (Pelak ; Whitlinger )…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Architectures of Memory: When Growth Machines Embrace Preservationists

Loughran

Fine

Hunter³

2018

Studies of urban redevelopment demonstrate how growth coalitions and city residents use ideas about local history and culture to facilitate or oppose interventions in the built environment. Building on this literature, we introduce the concept of architectures of memory to describe methods of remaking urban space, relying on historical representations. We argue that preservation, demolition, and reproduction are practices that are often conflated but that have different dynamics in the relationship between growth and preservation. Although each advances urban planners’ visions of a historicized cityscape, they recapture that past through different design processes. Using case studies of redevelopment in Philadelphia—Independence National Historical Park and the adjacent Society Hill neighborhood, both of which were transformed through urban planning interventions post–World War II—we examine how interpretations of the built environment's economic and symbolic value influence redevelopment projects. The multiple interpretations and collective memories about the built environment create frameworks that advance, as well as contest, strategies of redevelopment. We argue that growth machines and preservationists do not inevitably have contradictory goals and strategies, but on occasion preservation and reworking of public spaces through a historical imaginary can support both growth and memory, two components of an urban elite.

“…This article is part of a special issue entitled “Commemorating the Fiftieth Anniversary of the 1960s Civil Rights Laws.” Other authors include Andrews and Gaby (), Bonastia (), Massey (), McAdam (), Pettit and Sykes (), Santoro (), Valdez (), and Whitlinger ().…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Family Reunification and the Limits of Immigration Reform: Impact and Legacy of the 1965 Immigration Act

Lee

2015

Immigration scholars and politicians recognize the importance of family reunification, lauding its role in diversifying the United States’ racial and ethnic makeup, modernizing the American immigration system, and uniting families. As the centerpiece of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, family reunification replaced the racially discriminatory national origins quota system. Commentators typically view family reunification policy as a uniquely modern political achievement connected to 1960s civil rights–era laws and emblematic of democratic liberalism. I challenge this characterization by examining immigration policy during the exclusion era and show that family reunification has been a crucial element of American immigration policy since the United States began regulating immigration. In addition, support for family unity sometimes results from exclusionary efforts. I illustrate this further by tracing the legislative history of passage of the 1965 Immigration Act. I conclude that a reassessment of the liberal valuation of family reunification policy is warranted and suggest that there may be limits to immigration reform that targets family.