John Cabot University

Department of Political Science and International Affairs

Bachelor of Arts in International Affairs
Minor in Psychology

Roots, Rights, and Riots:

The Civil Rights Movement (1954-1968) and the American Indian
Movement (1968-1978) in the lens of social movement theories

Francesca Casamassima

First Reader
Andrea Lanzone

Second Reader
Lars Rensmann

Fall 2015
Abstract
The purpose of this dissertation is to identify the factors of success of social movements.
This has been achieved through the analysis of social movement theories resource

mobilization theory, political opportunity structure, political process model, framing

theories, new social movement theories and the application of said theories to the Civil
Rights Movement and the American Indian Movement.
An analysis of social movement theories, the Civil Rights Movement, and the American
Indian Movement is provided to then test the applicability of the theories to the two
movements. Upon examination of the above-mentioned topics, it becomes clear that the
Civil Rights Movements success is clearly explained in the application of the theories.
The American Indian Movement, instead, resulted successful according to the definition
of success provided in Chapter I, but failing according to social movement theories.
Through the assessment of the two movements in the lens of the above-mentioned
theories, this research highlights the most influencing factors in social movements
outcomes and the importance of assessing said factors.

To the gone, but not forgotten

Acknowledgements
I would like to start by thanking my daily heroes: Mom and Dad. In their lives they
have made many sacrifices to give me all the best. This is why they are my beacons in the
night and I hope, in a future, to be to someone else what they are to me today.
I would then like to thank my whole family that has always taught me to appreciate
the small things in life, and to never give up my values and dreams. We have been through
much and will be through much more but will do so as we have always done: together.
I could never forget to mention my friends back home. Despite the distance they
have always shown their love and support. A special thanks goes to Nicole Sebben, Tobia
Tognon, and Gianluca Leandro for having always encouraged and incited me to achieve
my objectives, and took last-minute trains to cheer me up when I was feeling down.
I would like to thank my cherished friends Giulia Conti, Maria Luisa Ricciardi and
Luigia DAlessandro with a quote by Fabrizio De Andr: Quei giorni perduti a rincorrere
il vento un giorno qualunque li ricorderai. Thanks for the memories.
JCU staff and academics deserve to be thanked too. A special thanks to Professor
Lanzone, life teacher who has taught me how to paint the darkness; Professor Rensmann,
for having walked with me throughout this journey; Professor Costagli, for having always
pushed me to give my best; Professor Clough, friend and adviser.
A very special thank you to all the people that have made this experience the best of my
life.

Table of Contents

I. Roots and Riots...................................................................................................................1

II. Theoretical Background....................................................................................................5
Resource Mobilization Theory.....................................................................................6
Political Opportunity Structure.....................................................................................7
Political Process Model................................................................................................8
Framing Theories........................................................................................................12
New Social Movement Theories................................................................................14
III. Black Power: The Roots of Rights.................................................................................18
IV. Red Power: The Roots of Riots......................................................................................32
V. Application of Theories...................................................................................................48
Resource Mobilization Theory...................................................................................48
Political Opportunity Structure...................................................................................51
Political Process Model..............................................................................................54
Framing Theories........................................................................................................57
New Social Movement Theories................................................................................59
Success.......................................................................................................................63
VI. Winners, Losers, and Consequences..............................................................................67
The Legacy of Social Movements..............................................................................70

VII. Appendix.......................................................................................................................71
American Indian Movement Twenty-Point Position Paper:.......................................71
VIII. Bibliography................................................................................................................73

I. Roots and Riots

Social movements are an integrant part of society and most of the times represent
symptoms of a rupture between the latter and the population of the movement. Many social
movements scholars have assessed the importance of social movements through the
development of theories that identify their structures and analyze the factors that influence
their outcomes, whether positive or negative. The purpose of this thesis is, thus, to assess
what are the factors of success of social movements and it will be done through the
analysis of social movement theories applied to the African American Civil Rights
Movement (1954-1968) and the American Indian Movement (1968-1978). More
specifically, it aims at determining whether the American Indian Movement was not as
successful as the Civil Rights Movement because of a lack of basic criteria necessary for
movements to achieve their pre-established goals.
Success is a very broad and subjective concept, thus, to assess the factors of
positive outcomes of social movements, a definition for success must be provided. The
literature on the definition of success of social movements is vast and differentiated.
Gamson (1975) defines success as being the gradual achievement of objectives by the
movement, acknowledging thus the possibility that not all objectives will be met by the
end of the movements operative term. However, his definition was expanded to include
also the acknowledgement of the existence of the movement as a legitimate opponent and
the achievement of benefits for the participants of said movement (Gamson, 1990).

Other scholars such as Rochon and Mazmanian (1993), instead, defined the
movement as being successful if it has an impact on the political process, such as the
implementation of new policies or variations in social principles. Meyer and Whittier
(1994), on the other hand, define success as being the effect that social movements have on
future movements. More specifically, they refer to the adoption of tactics, organization,
ideas, and style by other future social movements. For the purpose of this dissertation, the
definitions of success provided by Gamson (1975, 1990), and Rochon and Mazmanian
(1993) will be used to assess whether the Civil Rights Movement and the American Indian
Movement achieved positive or negative outcomes.
The definition of success provided above will be applied to five social movement
theories that were selected to achieve the goals of this dissertation: resource mobilization
theory, political opportunity structure, political process model, framing theories, and new
social movement theories.
Resource mobilization theory (RMT) takes into consideration the movements
ability to gather human and economic resources (Jenkins, 1983; Killian, 1984). Success,
according to the RMT, is thus defined by the successful ability of the movement to
mobilize individuals and increase the amount of economic and human resources gathered.
The political opportunity structure, instead, focuses on the relationship between the
social movement and the political context in which it is placed (Giugni, 1998). In this case,
success is determined by the presence of external political allies that allow an increase in
the mobilization of the movement (Olzak & Ryo, 2007).
The political process model was developed to provide a clear distinction between
the structure of the political context in which the movement operates and the internal

structures of the movement (Andrews, 1997). Thus, strong leadership skills or

organizational tactics are the factors that lead to the positive outcome of a social
movement.
Framing theories focus more on how the media and social movements work
together to determine the character and the course of the movement (Benford and Snow,
2000; Gamson and Wolfsfeld, 1993). According to scholars such as Baylor (1996), social
movements and the media are symbiotic entities that work together for mutual benefits,
whilst others (Benford & Snow, 2000; Gamson & Wolfsfeld, 1993) claim that movements
need media more than media needs movements. Extensive and positive media coverage,
thus, is what defines success under framing theories.
The last set of theories assessed is new social movement theories that focus on the
ability of the movement in encouraging independence and self-determination (Buechler,
1995; Killian, 1984; Weir, 1993). Scholars such as Weir (1993), however, tend to resist the
idea of new social movements as being new since the essence of these phenomena is a
shared one. This set of theories defines success as being the development of a solid and
shared idea of collective identity amongst the members of the movement and the
community they represent.
To analyze the applicability of social movement theories to the Civil Rights
Movement and the American Indian Movement, this research will be mostly based on
scholarly articles and books, and will be prevalently focused on the collection of
qualitative data to explain how social movement theories relate to the two movements.
Gaps within the literature of social movement theories and the two social movements used
as case studies will limit the investigation into the factors of success.

This dissertation will be divided into four parts to assess the factors of success of
social movements. Chapter II will further discuss the theories behind social movements
and what factors affect their outcomes. This analysis will be followed by an analysis of the
Civil Rights Movement in Chapter III; it will consider the structure, the goals, the
development, and the achievements of the movement to determine a series of salient
factors in its development. The same will be done in Chapter IV for the American Indian
Movement. The last one, Chapter V, will test the theories on the movements previously
analyzed and will determine which factors have played a leading role in shaping the
outcome of the two movements.

II. Theoretical Background

The 1960s in the United States, but more generally in Western democracies, were
characterized by a great emergence of social movements that were aiming at changing the
social status of their members. This phenomenon has increased interest in scholars seeking
to understand how social movements work and most importantly how to determine
whether their outcome will be successful or not. Many theories in the social movements
field have been developed to explain this phenomenon, and they are considered to be
equally important because they all provide insight in different social and political spheres.
However, it must be taken into consideration the fact that it is challenging to clearly map
the causal links between social movements and outcomes. Despite this challenge, the
importance of assessing the most relevant theories regarding social movements lies in the
need for scholars to identify those factors that lead to successful outcomes to be able to
predict, in the future, whether a newborn social movement will be able to succeed in
achieving its pre-established goals.
The most important theories are resource mobilization theory (RMT), political
opportunity structure (POS), political process model (PPM), framing theories, and new
social movement (NSM) theories. Each one of them focuses on a different aspect of
society. More specifically, RMT focuses on the economic aspect of social movements, POS
focuses on the political aspect, PPM focuses on the internal structure of the
movement,whilst framing and NSM theories focus on the psychological and social aspect
of social movements respectively.

The Civil Rights Movement and the American Indian Movement provided scholars
with the opportunity to analyze and study a structure that was never before seen. Indeed,
new theories were developed after the insurgence of the above-mentioned movements that
will be the focus of this thesis. The following theories will be thus analyzed so as to allow
this dissertation to observe their applicability on the Civil Rights Movement and the
American Indian Movement in Chapter V.

Resource Mobilization Theory

The resource mobilization theory (RMT) was introduced in the 1970s to try to
explain the link between movements outcomes and the availability of resources. More
specifically, it analyzes the ability of the movement to collect resources and, consequently,
to mobilize its members in order to achieve the aims of said movement. Before the
introduction of this theory, social movements were seen as non-institutionalized entities
aiming at achieving social change (Jenkins, 1983; Killian, 1984).
The RMT, however, shifted this view to a more political one making social
movements to be viewed as extensions of institutionalized actions attempting to change the
structure of society or represent the interests of people excluded from the polity (Jenkins,
1983, p. 529). The resource mobilization model holds that social movements are
constituted by actions committed to achieve pre-established goals through the use of those
resources deemed to be vital for success: human labor which builds connections amongst
participants of the movement , money, elite support intended as charitable funding ,
and indigenous resources measured through membership of specific ethnicities to the
group (Jenkins, 1983; Killian, 1984; Martin, 2008; Olzak and Ryo, 2007; Tsutsui, 2006).

However, this is not enough. Indeed, the crucial element is how these resources are used,
more specifically how able the movement is in pooling individual resources into collective
ones to incentivize collective action. According to Martin (2008), resources must be
dispersed strategically during the course of an organizing effort in order to ensure success
(p. 503).
Even though it is clear that resources are important variables for the success of
social movements, their effects are subject to the use social movements make of them, thus
making it difficult to determine their actual effectiveness (Martin, 2008). Moreover,
another limitation of the RMT is that it does not take into consideration the shift in cultural
values, which would determine a different use of resources (Jenkins, 1983). It also does not
take into consideration the effects inflows of resources have on movements such as the
adoption of repression by the State, or creation of counter-movements to subjugate and
ultimately repress the initial movement. Again, the latter can be considered as a major
limitation since it becomes more challenging for social movements to achieve their goals
when countermobilization is pervasive (Martin, 2008, p.510)

Political Opportunity Structure

The political opportunity structure (POS) can be considered as the second most
important theory in the study of social movements and their outcomes because, unlike the
RMT, it gives scholars the possibility to investigate the relationship between the social
movement and the political context in which it is placed. Moreover, it considers social
movements as strongly dependent on the activation of third parties to be successful in the

long run (Giugni, 1998, p. 381), thus allowing for the examination of the role of alliances,
oppositions, and the state itself in the outcomes of social movements.
According to the POS, the success of social movements is given by the support
provided by allied political elites, a divergence in the structure of the latter, and the states
tendency to use repression (Andrews, 1997; Giugni, 1998; Olzak and Ryo, 2007; Tsutsui,
2006). Indeed, ruptures within political elites at a global level could help social movements
since pressure would be added on the hosting country. For example, the Civil Rights
Movement benefitted from the political rupture between the United States and the Soviet
Union due to the criticisms made by the latter to the United States that were considered to
be incapable of addressing racial issues in their society (Tsutsui, 2006).
Scholars such as Olzak and Ryo (2007) have found a link between shifts in the
political opportunities and an increase in the mobilization of resources, which, in turn,
encourages individuals to join the movements thus introducing new goals and tactics.
However, just like the RMT, the POS presents some weaknesses. The most important is
that there still exists some lack of information and there are voids in the literature. The
second weakness is that the POS implies that social movements use traditional political
openings to achieve their goals, whilst they usually operate outside of the political system
(Killian, 1984).

Political Process Model

The political process model (PPM) was introduced to mark a clear distinction
between the internal dynamics of social movements and the dynamics of the political
scenario in which they operate. More specifically, it tries to go beyond the typical

psychological explanations for social movements to develop a more complete framework

for the explanation of the insurgence of this phenomenon. The PPM contrasts what stated
by the political opportunity structure, which implies that social movements engage with
traditional political avenues to accomplish their objectives, but at the same time requires
insight into it, as well as into the POS, RMT, and framing theories (Andrews, 1997;
Goodwin and Jasper, 1999; Mello, 2007).
One of the main strengths of the PPM is that, given the dual focus it offers, it
allows for the investigation into the consequences of social movements. Unlike the POS,
which focuses on the relationship between social movements and the political context in
which they are inserted, the PPM focuses on internal factors such as leadership skills or
organizational strengths to examine the origins of said movements (Andrews, 1997;
Killian, 1984).
Andrews (1997) has identified three main points that must be assessed to
understand the relationship between social movements and outcomes: temporality,
resistance strategies, and the selection of outcomes. In the temporality aspect he has
identified three dimensions that should be taken into consideration when analyzing social
movements and their outcomes. The first dimension is given by the relationship between a
movements internal strength and the impact of the actions of the movement itself; the
greater the internal strength, the more impact the actions will have on the environment,
whether social or political, surrounding the movement. The second dimension is identified
in the delayed success of social movements. Indeed, its impact may be observed well after
the decline of the movement. The third and last dimension focuses on the case in which the

impact and results of a movement can be clearly observed during the initial period of a
movement and are gradually eroded.
The role of resistance strategies, instead, focuses on whether the use of repression
by the State diminishes the protest or leads to its escalation. Repression comes under many
forms such as nonviolent or violent actions adopted by institutional actors, or a small-scale
use of intimidation to undermine the movement.
In the long run, it has been observed that repression leads to an increase in
mobilization within as well as outside of the boundaries of the movement. On the other
hand, in the short run, the protests power, and consequently the movements one, is greatly
weakened. Indeed, repression can, and often does, escalate protest, yet repression can also
undermine the success of movements (Andrews, 1997, p. 802). This variable is closely
linked to the temporality aspect of social movements because whether the use of repression
will be successful or not depends on the strength of the movement itself, which, again, has
been observed to come in waves.
The last point to be considered is the selection of outcomes. This aspect focuses on
all the different methods used to analyze either the failure or the success of specific
outcomes in relation to their goals. Indeed, it holds that movements are neither monolithic
nor uniform in their distribution, strength, or impact (Andrews, 1997, p. 803), thus
experience small-scale successes or failures daily.
The PPM has been greatly criticized by critics and supporters too, who claim that it
focuses too much on opportunity whilst it should give insight in how both opportunity and
threat are perceived, and also how international factors, rather than just internal or
domestic factors, affect social movements outcomes. In order to fill these gaps, scholars

have suggested focusing on four mechanisms to assess movement formation and its
internal structure: identity formation (the creation of a link between previously unrelated
social sites), category formation (the establishment of sub-categories within the
movement), object shift (scope broadening), and certification (validation of a movements
importance through other political actors). These mechanisms, however, work differently
depending on the context of the movement, the order of the sequence in which they occur,
and their use the insight into the creation of a social movement provided is thus partial
(Mello, 2007).
Goodwin and Jasper (1999) have identified a series of structural biases that
undermine the power of the PPM in explaining social movements and their relationship to
outcomes. The first bias is linked to the assumption that political opportunities are
constantly expanding and are necessary for movement mobilization. Scholars such as
Goodwin and Jasper (1999) do not see the vitality of political opportunities, thus claim that
the PPMs failure needs no further explanation.
The second bias, on the other hand, is linked to the use the PPM makes of RMT and
framing theories. More specifically, it asserts that the RMT and the mobilizing structure
adopted by social movements have been explained in a very broad way, thus making the
PPM seem irrelevant and tautological. Indeed, social theorists have failed in providing a
clear and unanimous definition for mobilization and mobilizing structures. This issue is a
great challenge for scholars attempting at investigating social movements and their
outcomes because it is not possible for them to find other mobilizing structures since they
are all somehow included in the broad definition (Goodwin and Jasper, 1999).

Framing theories, instead, have been specified so narrowly that they do not allow
for the investigation of more important cultural values. Like he challenges posed by the
broad definition of mobilizing structure, the narrow definition of framing theories excludes
all the cultural dimensions that might be useful in understanding social movements. This
exclusion greatly limits the understanding of social movements since culture can be
defined as a vital element that enables or constrains collective action through traditions,
common sense, or rituals.
Despite the various biases and limitations presented by this theory, the PPM allows
for an investigation, whether superficial or not, into the relationship between the internal
dynamics of the movements and its outcome, as well as the relationship between its
internal dynamics and the political ones of the society in which it operates. Moreover,
paired with all the other theories, the PPM could allow for an investigation into most
aspects of social movements.

Framing Theories

Framing theories have been considered as vital in the determination of the character
and course of social movements (Benford and Snow, 2000; Gamson and Wolfsfeld, 1993).
According to framing theories, media and social movements are interdependent entities
that work together to allow social movements to reach a greater public and communicate
their main goals (Baylor, 1996). Gamson and Wolfsfeld (1993), on the other hand, hold
that movements are generally more dependent on media than the reverse (p. 166).
Framing theories are very important in the study of social movements because the way in
which the media decides to frame the issues of social movements will determine whether

they will get contribution and support from external factors (Baylor, 1996; Gamson and
Wolfsfeld, 1993). However, media coverage presents three main biases that could severely
hinder the successful outcome of social movements: class bias, commercialization of mass
media, and the nature of routine news (Baylor, 1996).
Class bias refers to the close ties between the owners of the major media and
political leaders, which could lead to negative media coverage of the movement to keep the
close relationship with the owner of the media company. The process of commercialization
of mass media, on the other hand, refers to the price media coverage has. Therefore, the
media will not focus on events that will not trigger interest by the public, nor will it focus
on movements that do not possess enough resources money to cover for the costs. The
last bias is given by the nature of routine news. Indeed, most routine news include
government press releases thus, just like with class bias, could lead to negative coverage of
the movement (Baylor, 1996).
Despite the clear weaknesses brought by media framing, some scholars (Benford
and Snow, 2000; Gamson and Wolfsfeld, 1993) have identified the reasons for which social
movements need media framing. These are mobilization, validation, and scope
enlargement. Indeed, mobilization is essential for movements that wish to reach all those
individuals who are part of the mass media, validation works as a means to further stress
the importance of the movement, whilst enlarging the scope of the movement attracts and
involves third parties.
Baylor (1996) has identified five frames under which events are categorized: the
militant frame focuses on violence and the violation of the law; the stereotype frame
focuses on the portrayal of typical actions reporting thus a part of the reality; treaty rights

frame focuses on the use of treaties to justify a movements actions; civil rights frame
focuses on the social and economic issues that lead to the creation of a social movement;
and factionalism that analyzes the fragmentations within a movement into smaller groups.
Though most of them apply to all news regarding social movements, the treaty rights frame
can be applied only to certain movements that rely on past treaties such as the American
Indian Movement. Moreover, even though used more frequently, the militant and
stereotype frames provide a negative view of the movement.
A main limit of framing theories is that they exclude small social movements that
do not possess the necessary tools to buy services provided by the media, thus these
theories can only be applied to large-scale movements that involve a large number of
participants and external supporters (Baylor, 1996).

New Social Movement Theories

New social movement (NSM) theories emerged due the inadequacy and limitations
of other theories on social movements in explaining all the possible factors and causes for
a determined outcome. Unlike the theories discussed above, NSM theories do not focus on
the use of strategies by social movements to maximize their control and external impact.
Rather, they focus on the ability of the movement in encouraging independence and selfgovernment, as well as supporting individual freedom and the reclamation of society. More
importantly, they have identified ethnicity, gender, and sexuality as being the basic
definition for collective identity (Buechler, 1995; Killian, 1984; Weir, 1993). What truly
characterizes and distinguishes NSM theories is that, in differing ways, all versions of

new social movement theory operate with some model of a societal totality that provides
the context for the emergence of collective action (Buechler, 1995, p. 442).
Another important difference between NSM theories and other social movement
theories is that NSM theories are based upon two main debates. The first one focuses on a
shift in the nature of the movement, thus from aggressive to defensive movements, even
though there is little evidence available to confirm this assumption. The second debate,
more plausible than the first one, concerns the nature of the goals rather than the nature of
the movement itself. Indeed, the goals of social movements have shifted from achieving
material results to achieving cultural results (Haiven & Khasnabish, 2013), more
specifically social integration since they bring with them a new politics concerned with
quality of life, projects of self-realization, and goals of participation and entity formation
(Buechler, 1995, p. 446).
Scholars like Weir (1993), however, tend to resist the idea of new social movements
as being new since the essence of these phenomena is a shared one. Unlike Buechler
(1995), Weir has identified three common themes that explain the rise in NSM: failed
expectations by the state, politicization of every-day life, and the creation of new cultural
values.
NSM theories, thus, tend to focus more on the why aspect of social movements
rather than the how factor. By doing so, they are able to allow the understanding of their
social structures by offering historically specific formulations of societal totalities (Weir,
1993, p. 460). This strength, with respect to other theories, however, can also be considered
a limitation. Indeed, by providing a historical specification, NSM theories limit their use to
a small number of movements. More importantly, by focusing on the why question, it gives

little insight into how, when, and where movements succeed (Weir, 1993). Furthermore, by
focusing on the internal structure of the movement, its immaterial goals, and the logic of
social order, NSM theories tend to discard the violence, oppression, and exploitation whilst
giving credit to struggles that usually belong to more privileged social classes (Haiven &
Khasnabish, 2013).
It is clear thus that NSM theories are best used when coupled with other theories
that cover all the gaps left behind NSM theories. However, there is still not enough
literature to trace a complete picture of NSM theories (Buechler, 1995; Weir, 1993).
Social movement theories are useful in giving a background to social movements,
and more importantly they are vital in allowing scholars to address this phenomenon.
Indeed, with the help of theories developed through the years, scholars are able to identify
and classify social movements accordingly. Even though the literature on social movement
theories is vast, there still exists a gap in it. As scholars have noted, theories are able to
give a concrete explanation as to why social movements are created and succeed (or fail).
However, they are not able to give a three hundred and sixty degree vision of the structure
of the movement. Indeed, theories tend to focus on single or few aspects of movements,
thus categorically excluding all the minor aspects that do not play a central role but, despite
this, are equally important. Moreover, most theories tend to overlap thus it becomes a
challenge when trying to clearly distinguish them from one another. This commonality
hinders classification of movements since it becomes unclear where one theory starts and
another ends.
Despite these hindrances, for large movements such as the African American Civil
Rights Movement (AACRM) and the American Indian Movement (AIM), which will be

the focus of this thesis, the above-mentioned theories will allow this dissertation to
establish whether the AACRM and the AIM were successful in achieving their goals, and
to what extent. Moreover, they will allow for the testing of their applicability on the two
American movements to determine what have been the most influential factors in the
development and outcome of the above-mentioned movements.

III. Black Power: The Roots of Rights

The idea of Black segregation in the United States was deemed as being morally
and legally right by White supremacists who claimed that African Americans were
satisfied with the existing situation (Morris & Clawson, 2005) , as well as necessary in
order to maintain a state of peace (ORourke, 2012). Prior to the creation of the Civil
Rights Movement, African Americans were subject to the Jim Crow laws1 (Morris, 1999;
Morris & Clawson, 2005) that provided for the separation of environments, such as
cinemas, bathrooms, schools, water fountains, were so as to keep the Black community
separate from the White one (Morris & Clawson, 2005; ORourke, 2012). Segregation
against the African American community was exercised also within the working
environment. Indeed, White employers possessed a right to discriminate based on race and
color that affected not only who was to be employed, but also the customers to be served if
they belonged to the Black community (Morris & Clawson, 2005).
The treatment African-Americans were subjected to stirred within members of the
Black community a desire to achieve social change, namely to end segregation in all
spheres of society, to obtain equality within employment and housing, and basic social
rights such as voting (Payne, 1989). The leading factor that led to the creation of the Civil
Rights Movement and all the social movements that followed was the existence of an
unequal social hierarchy that saw Black people at the lowest level, and White ones at the
1 The Jim Crow laws were adopted to mandate and enforce racial segregation of African
Americans, especially in the South. These were applied in all spheres of society and in all
public places that saw a separation of environments.

apex of the pyramid. The White regime was maintained through an extensive use of
violence deemed as necessary for the protection of the White community against the
savagery of the Black one. As a response to this regime of terror, people advocating for
Black Power emerged to protest against violence (Drabble, 2008).
The Civil Rights Movement was the first of a kind: it reestablished the parameters
of social movement theories given the fact that its structures and dynamics were not
compatible with what observed prior to its formation. Indeed, it was formed by a series of
smaller pre-existing organizations2 that each intervened in different areas of society and
gained the necessary resources to engage in collective action. They were responsible for
the organization and coordination of resources gained in the above-mentioned collective
action thus created an inter-organizational network that allowed scholars to better
understand the structure of the Civil Rights Movement (Morris, 1999; Morris & Clawson,
2005). It was, fundamentally, a movement composed of a large number of people who
acted together to mobilize society and disrupt it through a series of unconventional
strategies (Morris & Clawson, 2005). The great diversity provided by the large number of
people involved and the co-operating organizations that operated within different styles of
protest resulted in a dynamism that provided stability to the movement (Olzak & Ryo,
2007).

2 Prior to the creation of the CRM, these organizations were in competition amongst each other and already
worked to secure rights to African Americans. With the creation of the CRM, however, they came together
and operated unified. While at times the relations between them were not always agreeable, the presence of
other alternative groups helped soothing the contrasting situation.

Thanks to the extensive studies done on the Civil Rights Movement, scholars have
observed the importance of these smaller organizations that worked amongst themselves
through cooperation, competition, and conflict. What resulted from their studies was that,
when competing and cooperating, smaller organizations are able to achieve a greater
collective action. On the other hand, when in conflict, smaller organizations can be the
reason for the failure and consequent collapse of social movements as a consequence of a
rupture within the latter (Morris, 1999).
The diversity of the Civil Rights Movement allowed for the amplification of goals,
objectives, tactics, and strategies. Indeed, it had a series of well-defined objectives in mind,
which ranged from social, to economic, to political achievements. Its main purpose,
generally speaking, was that of allowing members of the Black community to acquire a
greater range of rights (Morris & Clawson, 2005). Indeed, it fought to secure better
opportunities, including better education and employment, and voting rights for the Black
community (Altbach, 1966). It aimed at creating a basic infrastructure that would sustain
the movement over a long period of time so as to secure the achieved rights even after the
possible decline of the movement. Furthermore, it advocated for the immediate access to
voter registration, improved education, and alleviation of poverty (Andrews, 1997). The
Civil Rights Movement worked to obtain social change through individual growth and
empowerment, the regeneration of self-sufficiency, self-determination, and independence.
In order to achieve them, it engaged in a series of fundraising events conducted by the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) to stress the
importance of the organization in Black peoples lives. Despite this huge effort, leaders of
the movement were excessively apprehensive of White recognition and acceptance, thus

focused too much on the size of the movement rather than involving its members in a more
meaningful way. Indeed, according to Ella Baker, one of the most active members of the
Civil Rights Movement3, the organization [was] the victim of its own success (Payne,
1989, p. 888).
As predicted by Ella Baker, the Civil Rights Movement faced periods of severe
crises brought about by a division within the movement itself. Indeed, most members of
the Black community, which at the time constituted the 11% of American population, were
frustrated by the fact that the Civil Rights Movement was failing to implement the kind of
far-reaching revolution in race relations (Altbach, 1966, p. 233). In order to compensate
for this lack, the movement increased its level of militancy by responding to the adoption
of the slogan Black power.
Indeed, during the last years of the Civil Rights Movements efficiency, between
1964 and 1966, members who had at first embraced non-violent tactics to achieve change
became extremely frustrated at the fact that the government was not taking the necessary
measures to protect them from brutality. As a result, sub-organizations like the Student
Non-violent Coordinating Committee and the Congress of Racial Equality abandoned nonviolence to engage in other means for self-defense based upon violence as a response to
violence. The Federal Bureau of Investigation realized that a successful way to disrupt and

3 A few words should be spent to highlight the importance of Ella Baker within the
movement. Indeed, despite her current state of anonymity, Ella Baker was vital in the
creation and consequent development of influential sub-organizations such as the Student
Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). After a series of determining roles within
the NAACP during the 1940s, Ella Baker joined the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference (SCLC) and became the first full-time executive director. During this period
she helped creating and shaping one of the most influential organizations of the 1960s, the
SNCC.

discredit the movement was to cut any kind of financial contribution coming by third
parties (Drabble, 2008).
As Drabble (2008) points out, the amount of support the movement received,
however, hardened the task for the FBI that sought to show, even by counterfeiting proofs,
the revolutionary and violent nature of the movement to make it look shady to the abovementioned contributors. It decided, thus, to launch a series of covert operations under the
name of COINTELPRO, acronym for Counter Intelligence Program, between the 1950s
and 1970s, which targeted organizations and individuals who threatened the capitalistic
and racial hierarchy existing in the United States, and sought to limit their influence. More
specifically, as stated by Frederique (2009), it had the purpose of discredit[ing] and
neutraliz[ing] organizations considered subversive to U.S. political stability (p. 133). The
covert operations were of an illegal nature and included the leaking of false information,
the distortion of the movements image, intense surveillance, infiltrations within the
organization, police harassment, anonymous mailings, and targeted killings. Another way
in which the FBI, through COINTELPRO, attempted to repress the Civil Rights Movement
was through the acquisition of recordings aimed at portraying its members negatively to
create factionalism. For example, as stated by Drabble (2008), Hoover attempted to
neutralize King by sending microphone recordings of sexual liaisons to journalists, and to
his wife4 (67). (Drabble, 2008; Frederique, 2009; Mello, 2003; Oppenheimer, 2014).

4 The FBI had, under surveillance, Martin Luther King and the Southern Christian
Leadership Conference because of its association with the communist party that, at the
time, was capitalisms greatest enemy. Indeed, all individuals or movements that opposed
John Edgar Hoovers, director of the FBI, ideologies were put under the control of the
COINTELPRO.

It seems that one of the main goals of COINTELPRO was that of greatly limiting public
assent by impeding the movements ability to sustain its collective identity and, as a
consequence, destroying opportunities necessary for the movement to act. Furthermore, it
sought to prevent alliances between social movements, to target key leaders so as to make
them lose credibility, to discredit the movement and its leaders not only amongst the Black
community but amongst the White community too, and to prevent its mobilization and
consequent recruitment of new members. (Drabble, 2008; Frederique, 2009).
The FBI, however, did not just limit itself to the act of discrediting the movement; it
also started portraying its members as devious, immoral, and criminals. The adoption of
these disruptive tactics led to the creation of dissension within the movement, and a
consequent loss of members. Indeed, new members of the Civil Rights Movement SNCC
and CORE were in favor of an increase in the level of militancy of the movement as a
reinforcement of the slogan Black Power, whilst old members, such as Martin Luther
King Jr., preferred to continue with the adoption of non-violent direct action. Because of
these ideological differences, in 1961, the movement suffered a minor split that
temporarily arrested the development of the movement (Drabble, 2008; Payne, 1989).
Notwithstanding the ideological differences between the old and new Civil Rights
Movement, the new sub-organizations were fundamental to promote the idea of selfsufficiency amongst Black people and to recruit new members, who started to develop a
sense of self-importance, belonging, and achievement (Morris & Clawson, 2005; Payne,
1989). Most importantly, they were able to recruit many White college students who were
willing to embrace the Civil Rights Movements cause; this success is considered as the
greatest escalation of the movements mobilization (Andrews, 1997). However, given the

rapid growth of the movement and popularity of the Black Power concept, the portrayal of
members as violent subjects was used as a double-edged sword. Indeed, it increased their
magnetism that created public support and sympathy. On the other hand, though, the rapid
and uncontrolled growth of the movement destabilized the discipline of the party, thus
providing opportunities for law-enforcing agents to adopt violent measures as well as
helping portraying all members as violent (Drabble, 2008).
To justify its actions, which appeared to be in 1971, after being investigated by
the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with
Respect to Intelligence Activities found to be illegal and against the Constitution, the FBI
developed the argument that since the organization it was facing was of a violent nature, it
was trying to keep the level of violence under control. It resulted, however, that the only
organization adopting violence was indeed the FBI, since Kings SCLC was explicitly nonviolent. The FBIs extreme interest in the Civil Rights Movement was due to the fact that it
was successful in mobilizing the community, thus close to achieving economic and social
change (Mello, 2003).
The importance of assessing the Civil Rights Movement is that it allows for a clear
insight into movements structure, tactics, and strategies. It gave spark, in the mid-1960s,
to a wave of movements advocating for social change in the United States. This is because
new emerging movements tried to replicate the Civil Rights Movements structure, and
embraced the idea that collective action is the factor leading to success (Morris, 1999). One
of the many important lessons drawn from the movement was the importance of acting on
the legal side too. With the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which essentially eliminated the
majority of discrimination, the Civil Rights Movement created the legal framework

through which other groups gained the constitutional right to demand changes for their
own population (Morris, 1999, p. 528). Moreover, it was responsible for the creation of a
series of collective actions that other movements, born after it, adopted, such as sit-ins,
mass marches, songs, etc. Most importantly, it provided other movements with an idea of
the vitality of organization through the use of sub-movements such as the Students Nonviolent Coordinating Committee or the Southern Christian Leadership Conference where
other activists were trained, and were thus able to bring what was learnt at the headquarters
to their own population (Morris, 1999). Nowadays, the Civil Rights Movement is
considered as the most influential movement in the United States since it has been capable
of mobilizing hundreds of thousands of people [] for any political purpose (Altbach,
1966, p. 233). As a result of this unprecedented mass mobilization, people began to study
African American history rediscovering slave narratives and connections to Africa , and
also started to interact with the movement itself. Indeed, White Americans started to
embrace equality after learning about the injustice of segregation under the Jim Crow
regime. At the more concrete level, the greatest accomplishments of the Civil Rights
Movement were the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed segregation and racial
discrimination, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which guaranteed members of the Black
community the right to vote (Andrews, 1997; Morris & Clawson, 2005).
The successes achieved by the Civil Rights Movement, however, obscure the many
failures it encountered during its path. Indeed, though in the collective mind, nowadays, it
is remembered as being a movement that collected plenty of successes, it must not be
forgotten that it too had to face a series of incidents that temporarily hindered its

development5. These incidents, however, helped the movement to acquire experience and
paved the way for future successes since, instead of giving up, it devised new plans and
strategies to achieve its goals (Morris & Clawson, 2005).
It is important to assess also how the Civil Rights Movement was able to obtain
social changes within American society. Given the limited social and political power
possessed by Blacks during the 1950s, members of the protests hoped in the intervention of
third parties such as White judges, courts, and Whites who supported the cause. However,
the roles played by external third parties did not work as promoters for social change,
rather they emerged as a response to Black mass mobilization. The factor that really shifted
the role of Blacks in American society was the adoption of direct non-violent action that
robbed the White power structure of its ability to openly crush the movement violently
without serious repercussions (Morris, 1999, p. 525) especially because the media and
television broadcasted the protests on a national and international level, including Europe,
the Soviet Union, and Africa, thus increasing the visibility of their message. Moreover,
according to Morris (1999), what really promoted the insurgence of a Black protest was the
development of new communication technologies during the 1950s and 1960s. Indeed, the
high percentage of American households owning a television set allowed the Civil Rights
Movement to raise awareness regarding their issues. Similarly, during the early years of the

5 The Montgomery bus boycott from 1955 to 1956 - started by Rosa Parks who refused to
surrender her seat to a White man despite its final success, led to a series of harsh
consequences against the Black community such as shootings and beatings. The Albany,
Georgia, incident in 1961, despite the fact it saw thousands of people arrested including
Martin Luther King, is nowadays considered as a key lesson in tactics and strategies
adopted by social movements. The Selma to Montgomery marches in 1965 saw an extreme
use of violence by police forces to repress demonstrators.

1960s, satellite communications were established thus expanding the effect of the protest
on the global arena.
Social changes can only be obtained if members of a given movement work
together to generate a power strong enough to destabilize the environment surrounding it.
The main reason for which the Civil Rights Movement succeeded in achieving them is
because it generated the power necessary to overthrow the Jim Crow regime (Morris &
Clawson, 2005, p. 685). The power created was aimed at causing disruption within
American society through non-violent direct action so as to demand change and
disestablish racial segregation.
Leadership within the movement was another crucial factor that led the Civil Rights
Movement to be heard and achieve social change in the United States. Leaders were,
indeed, capable of attracting crowds and convincing people to join the movement and fight
together, and were crucial also to the formulation of new strategies and tactics to set and
reach their goals (Morris & Clawson, 2005). However, a single leader, no matter how
charismatic, cannot lead a movement to produce change alone. What is necessary in order
for the movement to successfully spread its message is a team of leaders who engage in
decision-making processes that are dynamic and creative (Morris & Clawson, 2005).
Along with leadership, media coverage is another relevant factor in the success or failure
of a social movement. As for the Civil Rights Movement, media coverage was attracted by
the confrontations generated between members of the Black community and White
segregationists, and the consequent social disruption. Confrontation was generated mainly

through the use of non-violent direct action, which portrayed the confrontation as a war
between good and evil6 (Morris & Clawson, 2005).
The role of the centralized leader, however, was greatly debated amongst members
of the old movements current and members of the new one. Indeed, the role of the
centralized leader supported by the old members of the movement was considered to be a
weak one by the new thinkers, who believed that, since most of the times the media created
the figure of a centralized leader, the media also possessed all the necessary tools to
destroy it. Moreover, the great amount of recognition given to leaders by the media could
have contributed to the polluting of relationships between these media celebrities and lessrecognized activists, who were as involved in the development of the movement as
centralized leaders were. Another problem arising from a centralized leadership with
extreme media coverage was the fact that it started losing its effectiveness, thus, as a
consequence, leading the public to believe that the movement was losing effectiveness too.
As stated by Payne (1989), whether people develop a sense of their own strength depends
partly on the organizational context in which they are working (p. 894).
It is for this reason that centralized leadership was considered as being deteriorating
for the whole movement. The media was seen as being more effective on the American
public when it focused on the organization of the movement, rather than on single
individuals or the process of mobilization. Indeed, whilst mobilization is periodic and
involves a large number of participants for a short period of time, organization is a constant
process that involves the use of groups to achieve permanent change. Mobilization,

6 Evil because White segregationists often responded with violence that further attracted
media coverage and exposed the truth behind the discrimination of the Jim Crow regime
and the violence adopted so as to keep the system in place.

however, is a process that is more public with respect to organization, thus attracts more
attention. As argued by Andrews (1997), mass mobilization has a negative side, which is
the obscuration of all the organization lying behind the movements development and
success. Many people, indeed, tend to remember all the protests and sit-ins, but tend to
forget the fact that members of the Civil Rights Movement held frequent meetings and
individually knocked on each door to involve people to join their cause (Payne, 1989).
The participation of third powerful parties in the movement allowed the Civil
Rights Movement to achieve the desired change. Indeed, before the movement started
gaining fame throughout the United States and, consequently, at a global level, the Black
community was very poor in resources such as money or access to the media. Therefore, it
was predictable that it would have to rely on external powerful allies that provided it with
funding. Despite the fact that the movement did partially beneficiate from outside groups
that provided funding as well as personnel and media coverage, it must also be
acknowledged that external parties intervention came only after the Civil Rights
Movement had demonstrated its power. Initially, it obtained economic resources through
church donations (Morris & Clawson, 2005; Olzak & Ryo, 2007).
The political scenario that prevailed at that time on the American scene contributed
greatly to the achievement of changes within American society. Indeed, during the 1950s, a
change in the political environment given by an increase in pressure on the United States
generated by Cold War politics favored the creation of the Civil Rights Movement. These
shifts in the political opportunity increased mobilization and promoted participation in the
movement. As a result, new goals, tactics, and strategies were introduced within it, thus
greatly increasing its diversity. The opening of these new political opportunities, however,

came to an end with an increase in the countermovement activity. The use of repression by
the state and attacks by counter-movements partially hindered the developmental process
of the Civil Rights Movement since it raised costs of activity, diminished new membership
requests, and destabilized existing support. On the other hand, however, countermovement
activity also greatly motivated the Civil Rights Movement to operate. Indeed, threats by
White supremacists did not destabilize it; rather, it increased mobilization and allowed for
the creation of further organizations (Olzak & Ryo, 2007).
Scholars such as Morris and Clawson (2005) and Olzak and Ryo (2007), in their
studies, have assessed the importance of the creation of a collective identity to mobilize
individuals. Said identity has the purpose of empowering members of the Black
community, as well as promoting participation in the movement. The Civil Rights
Movement was successful in the creation of a collective identity to the extent that people
were willing to make sacrifices7 even at the cost of risking their own lives. Indeed, when
necessary, the movements members always stepped up and supported it. Diversity in the
Civil Rights Movement was vital because it increased the number of supporters by
proposing a vast selection of goals and tactics, thus increasing the possibility of success.
Even after the achievement of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, African Americans still
faced oppression in certain societal spheres. For example, in the political sphere, despite
having achieved also the Voting Rights Act in 1965, members of the Black community still
faced resistance when dealing with the election of Black candidates to office. Resistance
was also expressed through subtle manipulation or indirect intimidation at polling places,
thus greatly limiting the Black communitys political power. The tactics adopted by White
7 Risks included being exposed to physical danger, being arrested, losing jobs, being
evicted from houses, and ultimately death.

supremacists to limit Black peoples power, however, backfired since that only increased
the engagement of collective action. According to Andrews (1997), violence is a doubleedged sword. Whilst on one hand it can increase the movements action, when paired with
media coverage and full strength of the movement, on the other it can greatly hinder the
long-term achievements of the goal. The Civil Rights Movements mobilization within the
electoral sphere shaped the outcomes to almost 20 years after the decline of the movement.
A series of factors have contributed to the achievement of the desired social change
by the Civil Rights Movement. These circumstances have been greatly assessed by social
movements scholars, who have been seeking the factors that play a major role in the
possible success or failure of a certain movement. Indeed, the analysis of the structure, the
aims, the development, and the achievements of the Civil Rights Movement will allow, in
Chapter V, for the testing of the theories discussed in the second chapter of this
dissertation. The analysis presented in this chapter will, indeed, be useful to observe to
what extent can the Civil Rights Movement be deemed successful, and to what extent do
social movement theories apply to explain the factors of success, or failure, of the
movement.

IV. Red Power: The Roots of Riots

In the summer of 1968, hundreds of people belonging to the Minneapolis Native

American community met with some of the most prominent Native American activists
such as Dennis Banks, Russell Means, Clyde Bellecourt, Mary Jane Wilson. The result of
this meeting was the creation of the American Indian Movement, which discussed the
issues of poverty, unemployment, illness, and racist treatment by police that harshly struck
Native American communities (Baylor, 1996; Bonney, 1977; Cohen, 1973; Jeffries, Dyson,
& Jones, 2010; Johansen, 2013; Johnson, 2008; Stotik, Shriver, & Cable, 1994; Wilkins &
Stark, 2011).
The process of urbanization that characterized a great part of American history
destroyed all kinds of Native American heritages and culture and accelerated the process of
assimilation through the alienation of Native Americans from their traditions. The
degradation coming from urbanization led them to be prone to high unemployment,
poverty, alcohol and drug abuse. Being an ethnic minority within the United States, Native
Americans were subjected to discriminatory treatment in employment areas, social areas,
and ordinary life areas (Bonney, 1977; Johansen, 2013). Indeed, not only were they used as
slave labors for the Twin Cities in Minnesota, where the movement was born. They were
also subjected to several arrests not because of a crime committed, but because of the quota
system that expected a certain number of Native arrests per week, circa 200 (Jeffries,
Dyson, & Jones, 2010). During this period, Native Americans realized that the afflictions
hitting their communities were pervasive and had to be faced through a collective effort to

mobilize individuals (Jeffries, Dyson, & Jones, 2010). American cities with an important
percentage of Indian population provided a variety of centers to help Native Americans to
adjust to the city life. However, these services were associated to Christian churches,
which promote[d] a long-range goal of total assimilation and the eradication of Indian
ethnicity, traditional cultures, values, languages, and religions (Bonney, 1977, p.212). For
these reasons, the movement felt the need to create a program that sought reclamation of
Native lands and rights (Johansen, 2013, p.22).
Just like members of the Civil Rights Movement were mobilized to change Black
peoples status, so were those belonging to the American Indian Movement with the goal
of improving life conditions of their community. As described by Johansen (2013), the
creation of AIM was a cry for unity and self-affirmation to address all of these problems
(p.23). The American Indian Movement was, essentially, the product of federal government
programs, piloted by policies dictated by President Eisenhower, aimed at terminating and
relocating Native Americans from the reservation to the cities for over half a century. The
process resulted in the highest number of relocated Native Americans who experienced a
constant non-observance of their human rights (Bonney, 1977; Jeffries, Dyson, & Jones,
2010; Johansen, 2013). More specifically, it advocated for a redistribution of wealth and
resources within the United States so as to give Native Americans and other ethnic
minorities the possibility of building and controlling their communities. The most
important goal for the American Indian Movement was, perhaps, the regaining of selfdetermination and empowerment to re-establish a sense of pride within Native Americans
that would have helped them to adjust to the dominant society without repudiating their
roots (Bonney, 1977; Jeffries, Dyson, & Jones, 2010).

In the 1960s many Native Americans lived in cities, thus the American Indian
Movement was mostly composed of young urban Natives who were born and raised in
urban environments (Johansen, 2013). This determined the movements usefulness within
urban areas at first, and then reservations. The movement became a fusion between young
and old Natives, who worked together to rediscover Native American culture and traditions
but did so in a way that demanded attention from the surrounding society (Johansen,
2013). Members were thus rediscovering themselves whilst, at the same time, changing the
cultural values of the social environment (Jeffries, Dyson, & Jones, 2010; Johansen, 2013).
The main goals that the American Indian Movement wanted to achieve were analogous, or
very similar, to that of other social movements, such as the Civil Rights Movement, or the
Black Panther Party with which it secured a weak alliance. Many were the causes shared
by what appeared to be two different movements in nature. As mentioned above, one of the
main goals of the American Indian Movement was that of re-establishing a sense of a
shared Native identity, and attempted to do so by focusing on issues such as police
harassment, stereotyping, and the recovery of the idea of Native sovereignty and
nationalism. It also focused much on the addressing of alcoholism within Native American
population, as well as cultural renewal, increased employability both in cities and
reservations , and also support to indigenous issues outside of the United States. All the
requests made by the American Indian Movement can be summarized within the Twenty
Points it presented before President Nixon in 19728. As shown by the twenty points,
Native American focus was very much centered on the acquisition and protection of its
sovereignty (Bonney, 1977; Jeffries, Dyson, & Jones, 2010; Johansen, 2013; Stotik,

8 See Appendix

Shriver, & Cable, 1994). Indeed, seven out of the twenty points refer to treaty rights that
were either ignored or downright violated, and used them to justify their actions and
requests (Baylor, 1996).
Similarly to the Civil Rights Movement, the American Indian Movement was composed by
a series of chapters each working in different cities and reservations. By 1972, the
American Indian Movement was able to create seventy-five different chapters within the
United States, and a dozen more in Canada. Because of this expansion, the American
Indian Movement shifted its focus to more political goals such as land-ownership issues
and national treaty (Bonney, 1977; Jeffries, Dyson, & Jones, 2010; Johansen, 2013).
However, the existence of hostilities between different tribes, the differences in
personalities and political orientations led to the creation of antagonistic factions within the
movement itself. For example, many chapters did not agree with the initiatives taken by the
Grand Governing Council of the American Indian Movement, since its initiatives were
perceived as an attempt to seize power rather than an attempt at cooperation (Jeffries,
Dyson, & Jones, 2010; Johansen, 2013).
The first stages that characterized the beginning and early mobilization of the
American Indian Movement were comprised of small-scale actions, such as peaceful local
demonstrations, that required little cooperation and coordination between the various
movements chapters (Baylor, 1996). One of the initial projects implemented by the
American Indian Movement was the Indian Patrol. This was implemented in 1968, and
saw patrollers participating in two main activities: keeping an eye on police activity, and
providing aid to whoever was intoxicated by alcohol so as to prevent him or her from
driving under influence (Bonney, 1977; Cohen, 1973; Johnson, 2008). Moreover, it served

as a symbolic representation of the AIM ideology of social change (Cohen, 1973, p.783).
Indeed, it was used to convey two very distinct messages: that Native Americans should be
the only ones helping Native Americans, and that the only help they needed was when
encountering police. The realization of this project was a result of a belief amongst
American Indian Movements members who believed that an increase in police activity in
reservations was caused by the establishment of a Black Patrol, implemented by the Black
Panther Party, which deterred the police from patrolling Black ghettos. Native Americans
saw police arrests as a form of racial discernment; the police, on the other harm, justified
the arrests as being a sort of protective custody to avoid the arrested to cause harm to him
or others (Cohen, 1973). While at first the police accepted the existence of Indian Patrols,
after its third implementation the relations between police and Indian patrollers hardened.
Indeed, AIMs highly vocal an anti-police ideology (Cohen, 1973, p.782) disturbed the
police.
With the advancement of the movement, however, protests and demonstrations
started to acquire a more violent character as a response to the use of violence from the
government. Indeed, according to American Indian Movement members, they engaged into
violence as a means of self-defense (Baylor, 1996). The American Indian Movement was
modeled after the Black Panther Party, which frequently engaged in violence. Unlike the
latter, however, it lacked the participation of ex-members of the armed forces because the
nature of the movement was anti-establishment and against the system. It was also inspired
by and saw the Irish Republican Army, the Arab Socialist Baath Party, and the Nicaraguan
Contras as models of resistance (Jeffries, Dyson, & Jones, 2010).

The shift towards a more violent nature led the movement to be criticized even
from Native Americans themselves. The highest support for the movement being amongst
young people was due to the fact that elders considered members of the movement as
criminals who did not know how to address Native American issues, who were portraying
a wrong image of Native Americans, and who were not aware of the true issues within
reservations. Indeed, most of them were born and raised in cities, thus used to a reality that
was a far cry from the reality of the reservations. Moreover, they feared that the same use
of militancy would be applied on the reservations (Bonney, 1977; Jeffries, Dyson, & Jones,
2010; Stotik, Shriver, & Cable, 1994). At the same time, though, the prison records that
appeared to characterize the original founders of the American Indian Movement have
enabled many Indians to identify with them more easily than they can identify with
educated Indians who have less difficulty in adapting to the System (Bonney, 1977,
p.213). There was great discord amongst Native Americans regarding their opinion on the
American Indian Movements leaders. While some considered them as criminals, like
discussed above, many others saw in them role models to follow. This was because they
appeared to be extremely proud of their Indian heritage, and expressed said pride through
great charismatic personalities. The latter helped them in being accepted among Native
American communities (Bonney, 1977; Stotik, Shriver, & Cable, 1994).
Factionalism was not present only within the movement, but also between the
movement and the reservations in which it operated. The movements expansion to Pine
Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, where the Oglala Sioux tribe lived, meant that a
political disagreement arose between the American Indian Movement and Tribal Chairman
Richard Wilson. In 1972, the American Indian Movement marched from Seattle and San

Francisco to Washington, D.C., where it occupied and pillaged the Bureau of Indian
Affairs9 headquarters to demand the enforcement of treaties (Bonney, 1977; Johansen,
2013; Stotik, Shriver, & Cable, 1994; Wilkins & Stark, 2011). One year later, in February
1973, American Indian Movement members seized and occupied for 71 days the site of a
major massacre occurred in 1890, Wounded Knee (Johnson, 2008). The occupation10 was
done to protest against the corruption of Richard Wilson, and it provoked an armed conflict
in which two people lost their lives, a dozen were injured, and circa a thousand arrested.
The armed confrontation allowed for the raising of awareness at a global level since it
became a worldwide media event (Wilkins & Stark, 2011). At first the confrontation was
supposed to last one day only. However, activists learned that the Guardians of the Oglala
Nation (GOONs), a squad established by Wilson with the use of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs money, had ringed Wounded Knees perimeter to prevent their escape. This
incident attracted media from all over the world that wanted to witness the development of
the modern Indian war. After the occupation of Wounded Knee, the American Indian
Movement was recognized at an international level (Bonney, 1977; Johansen, 2013; Stotik,
Shriver, & Cable, 1994).

9 The Bureau of Indian Affairs is an agency of the U.S. federal government established in
1824 to manage and administer Native American land and social conditions.
10 Two main events pushed the American Indian Movement to protest against the
treatment reserved to Native Americans: the murders of Raymond Yellow Thunder in 1972
and Wesley Bad Heart Bull in 1973. The former was abducted and beaten by a group of
White men who then dumped his body in a car trunk. The latter was stabbed to death by
Harold Schmidt, an air force Veteran. The perpetrators of the murders were charged with
manslaughter; members of the American Indian Movement were thus mobilized to protest
the light charges (Johnson, 2008).

What the media did not cover, instead, was the use of covert tactics by the FBI to
contain the clash. Indeed, the FBI decided to adopt what was known as the anti-riot act, the
H Rap Brown Act, which
targeted anyone who travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any
facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail,
radio, telegraph or television, with intent to incite, organize, participate in, or in
any way contribute to a riot (Anti-Riot Act 1968). Riot was defined in the act as a
public disturbance involving either acts of violence or threats of violence by
persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons that would constitute a
clear and present danger of damage or injury to the property of any other person.
(DArcus, 2003, p.726)
In a nutshell, the H Rap Brown Act aimed at keeping people in their place through the use
of political boundaries. One of the ways in which the FBI tried to limit the support
protesters received was through a series of monitoring and tracking processes, and arrests
far from the site of the protest. Aids, however, were not easy to contain. The Vietnam
Veterans against the War, for example, were successful in providing the American Indian
Movement with supplies simply because they minimized their visibility when doing so (i.e.
instead of using vans to carry said supplies, they used separate vehicles). The FBI decided,
thus, to change the status of the Act from covert to public, so as to deter individuals from
bringing aid to the movement through public announcements that implied the arrest of
whoever attempted to get near the occupation site. The H Rap Brown Act resulted
successful in its effort to contain domestic dissent [] but also in dissolving AIM as a

significant national political force (DArcus, 2003, p.734) since it decreased its public
visibility.
Following the occupation of Wounded Knee, Richard Wilson used his GOONs squad to
keep track of American Indian Movements members, and, if and when necessary, even
assassinate them. These operations were financed and supported by the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA), which adopted COINTELPRO programs to destroy movements like the
Black Panther Party (Johansen, 2013; Stotik, Shriver, & Cable, 1994). Another way in
which the government resisted the movement was through redbaiting11 and resulted in
being highly effective. The American Indian Movement was born in a period that was
politically unfavorable to it. Indeed, it was formed at the apex of the Cold War, and during
the U.S. intensification in the Vietnam War. The two wars against the above-mentioned
communist regimes, as a result, led to the targeting of any individual or organization that
sympathized for or somehow supported communist regimes. During that period, being a
communist meant being supporter of Russias expansion into Europe and an opponent of
capitalism. Redbaiting would make it difficult for the movement to receive external
support since a great part of American society greatly supported capitalism. The
phenomenon of redbaiting also allowed law-enforcing bodies to adopt certain kinds of war
tactics, rather than those adopted when dealing with U.S. citizens (Jeffries, Dyson, &
Jones, 2010).
Media coverage, as observed with the Civil Rights Movement in the third chapter, can be
used as a double-edged sword. Indeed, in 1975, a shooting at the Pine Ridge reservation
killed two FBI agents and a Native American, who also appeared to be a member of the
11 Harass or persecute (someone) on account of known or suspected communist
sympathies. (Red-Bait, 2015)

American Indian Movement. The FBI blocked the area not allowing access to the media
and the press, claiming, however, that the two deceased agents were drawn into the
reservations because of the movements guerrilla. According to people living in the
reservation, the two FBI agents had appeared spontaneously with a warrant for a theft
(Johansen, 2013).
The tactic most used by the American Indian Movement, which attracted a lot of
media attention thus sparking the interest of other communities and at the same time
recruiting new members, was the use of disruption through demonstrations, protests, and
occupation most of the times of a militant nature12 (Bonney, 1977). It was mainly
aimed at allowing the movement to be heard so that political elites could not ignore it.
Moreover, it aimed at raising awareness amongst the public of the issues within Native
American communities and did so by intervening in the daily governmental affairs and
pressuring it to act according to their demands (Jeffries, Dyson, & Jones, 2010).
Despite the many incidents, the American Indian Movement was a key actor in the struggle
for minority rights. Being part of the movement affected peoples lives because the latter
instilled a new dignity, a new awareness, a new power, and a new strength (Bonney,
1977, p.219) in Native Americans. Indeed, American Indian Movements leaders were seen
as martyr heroes since they were willing to be arrested, prosecuted, beaten, humiliated and

12 The cancellation of an elementary schools Thanksgiving Play; the disruption of a

parade because of objections to one of the floats; destruction of snow sculpture at North
Dakota colleges winter carnival because of negative portrayal of Indians; protesting the
use of high school social studies textbooks which presented only the non-Indian side of
history; participation in the 1972 Thanksgiving Day protest at Plymouth, Massachusetts
(declared an Indian national day of mourning); and the seizure of study collections of
bones believed to be Indians and of artifacts and bones from archeological excavations
(Bonney, 1977, p.215) are all examples of how the American Indian Movement tried to
destroy the stereotypical image of their people.

killed to fight for Indian rights and sovereignty (Bonney, 1977). Contrary to what generally
believed, the American Indian Movement experienced a good amount of success in relation
to the opposition it had to face. Not only did it launch housing programs and centers for
job training, it also developed its own education and health care system. Moreover, it was
able to achieve advocating status at the United Nations, which provided a conduit to
account for mistreatments of Native American rights (Jeffries, Dyson, & Jones, 2010;
Johansen, 2013).
As well as more material achievements, the American Indian Movement was able
to, with the occupation of Wounded Knee, which was noted for its spectacular symbolic
politics (DArcus, 2003, p.719), spread its message to reach a wider public (Baylor,
1996). The occupation not only was erected on a global media platform; it was covered on
the pages of national and even international newspapers, and on the evening news of all the
major television networks (DArcus, 2003, p.720). The use of protest through media
allowed for the intense expansion of attention and support outside of the spaces of the
protest. Overall, the American Indian Movement left behind a rich legacy of solid activism
(Jeffries, Dyson, & Jones, 2010). The American Indian Movement, through its protests and
actions, was able to capture the attention of individuals, the government, and the State that
was clearly against it and did everything in its power to neutralize it (Jeffries, Dyson, &
Jones, 2010).
Generally, identifying with the movements ideology and accepting its definition of
Indian culture and sovereignty allowed Native Americans to highlight their heritage and
distinguish it from the prevailing society, thus giving them a safe structure to interrelate
with the rest of American society (Bonney, 1977).

The American Indian Movements development was characterized by a series of

factors that aided it in achieving, fully or in part, its pre-established objectives. In the two
caravans13 organized by the American Indian Movement to focus on spiritual issues and the
attempts made by the Congress to limit and terminate Native treaty rights, thousands of
people belonging to different communities, ethnicities even from other countries like
New Zealands Maoris and tribes, joined the marches alongside Native Americans.
Personages such as boxer Muhammad Ali, actor Marlon Brando, and Senator Ted Kennedy
also joined the gathering (Bonney, 1977; Johansen, 2013). The U.S. Congress passed, a
week after the last Longest Walk, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, enacted to
preserve the cultural and traditional practices belonging to the Native American population
(Johansen, 2013).
In 1968, when the American Indian Movement was formed, the Native population in
Minnesota was less than two percent, and still one of the largest in urban America. This
gave the American Indian Movement greater visibility with respect to other Indian
movements (Jeffries, Dyson, & Jones, 2010).
It is important to assess also the factors that hindered the development of the
movement. In the case of the American Indian Movement, the factor that hindered its
development the most was the beginning of a war between the movement and the FBI,
which was provoked by the approach of members to issues through media coverage.
During this reign of terror, at least sixty-six people died, as a result of political
assassination including two FBI agents who were shot to death , the movement

13 The Trail of Self-Determination, held in 1976, and the two Longest Walks, held in 1978
and 1988 respectively.

underwent around five hundred indictments and was victim of numerous physical assaults
(Jeffries, Dyson, & Jones, 2010; Johansen, 2013).
As seen in the second chapter of this dissertation, the way in which the media
frames the movement and presents it to the public is essential for the movement to actually
achieve social change. Overall, the American Indian Movement was framed through the
use of specific frames that portrayed a negative image of it (Baylor, 1996).
The adoption of violence as a means for self-defense allowed the media to frame
the American Indian Movement as a militant one. This may have helped the movement to
recruit members amongst young Native Americans, but it harmed the movement to the
extent that it did not attract the publics sympathy and support. The real issues behind the
creation of the movement and Native Americans grievances were obscured by how the
media portrayed the American Indian Movement and its members. Missing news coverage,
except for instances in which the movement was portrayed as violent, further worsened the
public image of the American Indian Movement. Without the necessary material to prove
the use of violence for self-defense or to justify the achievement of certain goals, violence
and conflict were portrayed as occurring without any kind of purpose, and greatly hindered
the movements mobilization process (Baylor, 1996).
The second most used frame to portray the American Indian Movement was that of
the stereotype. Native Americans were portrayed through stereotypical artifacts tepees,
feathers, pipes , actions, and typical Native American behavior such as dancing, singing,
horse riding, etc. The image conveyed stood at opposite poles from one another. On the
one hand, they were portrayed as the noble red men the idealized and sentimentalized
idea of Native Americans ; this was useful in gaining sympathy from the public. On the

other hand, instead, lied the idea of the ruthless savages, whose lives were characterized
by an extreme use of violence. Once again, the attention was shifted from the objectives
and demands of the movement to its portrayal, thus showing the little interest the media
and the public had on Native American issues (Baylor, 1996). Indeed, after the occupation
of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1972, governmental institutions and the media did not
focus on the Twenty Points presented by the movement; rather, they focused on the
occupation and the violence adopted during the occupation (Bonney, 1977; Stotik, Shriver,
& Cable, 1994).
The third frame used to portray the American Indian Movement was the
factionalism frame. Members of the government, who wished to create dissension within
the movement through factionalism, piloted, to a certain extent, the application of
factionalism framing (Baylor, 1996).
Despite the fact it is not greatly discussed, the geographical area in which the
movement develops has a great impact on the achievement of its goals. The American
Indian Movement operated in isolated rural areas in which Native Americans had been
relocated, thus it was not feasible for reporters to maintain their position around the area of
the protest. Moreover, it could not afford to lose reports of big events to cover smaller
events with sporadic use of violence. The American Indian Movement developed in a
period that saw great political turmoil as the main protagonist. The United States were
facing a war in Vietnam, a presidential election, and the Watergate scandal; it was,
therefore, almost impracticable for the media to cover what, according to them, were less
relevant instances compared to the above-mentioned events that brought greater public
attraction. The window of opportunity allowed to social movements to convey their

message is very limited and defined within a finite period since the public has a narrow
attention span. The political opportunity was unfavorable for the American Indian
Movement, which did not get the chance to actually convey its message to the public
(Baylor, 1996).
The proximity to ideas and demands of other social movements driven by ethnic
minorities could have strengthened the movements impact on society. The American
Indian Movement, however, did not cultivate alliances with other social movements like
the Civil Rights Movement did. This helped the U.S. government to disseminate false
information about the American Indian Movement to other movements so as to create
mistrust amongst them (Jeffries, Dyson, & Jones, 2010).
The lack of organization also contributed to the slackening of the movements goals
achievement. Indeed, rather than focusing on the formal structure, it focused on the
actions. As the movement grew, more and more chapters were created autonomously
without referring back to the movements headquarters in Minnesota. It was thus difficult
to distinguish between actual American Indian Movement members and defectors. On the
other hand, though, the lack of organization implied that the movement could engage in
whatever kind of action at any given moment, thus destabilizing the governments attempt
at tracking the movement down (Jeffries, Dyson, & Jones, 2010).
The above-mentioned factors have aided the American Indian Movement to
develop in the American political scenario. Again, the analysis of this movement will
allow, in the next chapter, for the testing of the theories discussed in the second chapter of
this dissertation. The analysis of the American Indian Movement will help to determine
whether the movement was successful in achieving its goals, and to what extent. Moreover,

the above-mentioned factors, along with others, will be tested according to the social
movements theories they belong to in order to determine which factors have been more
influential in the achievement of the movements goals, and which ones, on the other hand,
have hindered the process.

V. Application of Theories

The Civil Rights Movement (1954 1968) and the American Indian Movement
(1968 1978) have been analyzed in the third and fourth chapter of this dissertation
respectively. With the help of said analysis, which focuses on the historical background,
the structure and goals, the development and the achievements of the movements, a series
of factors have emerged that could have aided or hindered the process of the two
movements.
These factors will now be analyzed under the perspective of the social movement
theories assessed in the second chapter. They will include an analysis of their causes and
consequences, so as to reach a greater conclusion and determine which ones have been the
most influential, and to what extent. For a matter of homogeneity, the factors will be
divided amongst the theories analyzed following the same order presented in Chapter II of
this dissertation.
Resource Mobilization Theory
The resource mobilization theory focuses on the ability of the movement to collect
resources such as money, elite sponsorship, and human resources so as to facilitate the
initial process of mobilization and recruitment (Jenkins, 1983; Killian, 1984; Martin, 2008;
Olzak and Ryo, 2007; Stotik, Shriver, & Cable, 1994; Tsutsui, 2006). The three resources
mentioned above are reciprocal to one another. Indeed, the ability to acquire financial

support works as a catalyst for an expansion in human resources14, and vice versa (Stotik,
Shriver, & Cable, 1994).
The Civil Rights Movement, in its initial years, did not possess many resources
because of the poverty-stricken Black community. It had, thus, to support itself through a
series of fundraising activities, church donations, and mass meetings (Morris & Clawson,
2005; Payne, 1989; Fincke, 2010). For example in Birmingham, Alabama, approximately
$300,000 were raised in only three years thanks to the efforts of the local Black community
(Fincke, 2010). Though great effort was made to raise funds internally, the Civil Rights
Movement partly depended on outside sources of money provided by elite groups too
(Olzak & Ryo, 2007).
Institutions such as foundations, the government itself, and corporations even if at
a later stage with respect to the other two institutions and only once they had ascertained its
peaceful nature , provided economic aid to the movement. There currently is limited
information regarding the exact amount of funds received. However, certain chapters of the
Civil Rights Movement like the National Urban League, the Southern Regional Council,
and the Legal Defense and Educational Fund received, in total, an estimated amount of
$7,000,000 in foundation contributions. The reasons behind this high amount of money
given lie in the nature of the movement: as nonviolent action became more frequent and
intense during the early 1960s, outside funding accelerated (Haines, 1984, p.40).
The Civil Rights Movement possessed the ability to attract human resources to it.
Indeed, not only was it supported by the majority of Blacks, it was also supported by
external communities too. Many members of the White community in the United States,

14 Human resources are determined by human labor, which is essentially the connection
amongst the participants of the movement, and indigenous resources, which refers to
membership within the movement belonging to the same race or ethnicity that the
movement represents.

but also abroad, started to embrace the cause of the Civil Rights Movement due its
engagement into nonviolent actions. This allowed it to increase the size of indigenous
resources and human labor, which, as a consequence, resulted in a further increase of funds
by philanthropic organizations (Mello, 2003; Morris, 1999; Morris & Clawson, 2005;
Payne; 1989).
Similarly to the Civil Rights Movement, the American Indian Movement was
greatly supported, at first, by external allies. According to an official report by the United
States Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and
Other Internal Security Laws (1976), the American Indian Movement received financial
support from the government, churches, and private sectors.
Despite the fact that the federal funds lack official reports to confirm it, it is
estimated that the movement received $400,000 from it. Funds raised by churches
amounted to circa $300,000, whilst private funds were provided for a total amount of circa
$60,000 distributed in $10,000 by actor Marlon Brando, $25,000 by the same to support
the occupation of Wounded Knee, and $25,000 from the Columbia Studios for a movie
scripture on the movement (Stotik, Shriver, & Cable, 1994; United States, 1976).
After the occupation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1972, which marked the
adoption of violent actions by the movement to achieve social change, the American Indian
Movement suffered a great loss both financially and socially (Stotik, Shriver, & Cable,
1994). The government revoked its financial support; the churches no longer accepted the
movements requests; and public appreciation greatly diminished (Stotik, Shriver, & Cable,
1994). A diminished support was visible even amongst Native Americans, who regarded
the American Indian Movement as inappropriate, its members as being criminals, and
excessively militant. Because of this, what could have been prospective members were lost
and mobilization subdued (Bonney, 1977; Stotik, Shriver, & Cable, 1994).

The Civil Rights Movement and the American Indian Movement, according to the
resource mobilization theory, stand at opposite poles. Whilst the former was able to gain
and maintain a great amount of funding, elite support, and human resources, the latter
strived to do the same. The use of said resources, whether to sponsor violent actions or
peaceful marches, play a determining role in the movements ability to gain and maintain
said resources. Indeed, as shown above, funds are more easily granted if the lender is sure
of the use the movement will make of them. Moreover, the ability to keep the funds allow
for an increase in the size of the movement, since funds work as insurance for the
significance of the movement.
Political Opportunity Structure
The political opportunity structure is the second most important theory when
assessing the outcomes of social movements. Unlike the resource mobilization theory,
which focuses on the abilities for resource mobilization of the movement, the political
opportunity structure focuses on the environment in which the movement develops. More
specifically, it assesses the political context in which it is placed and operates, and the
political alliances it manages to make (Andrews, 1997; Giugni, 1998; Morris, 1999; Olzak
and Ryo, 2007; Tsutsui, 2006).
The Civil Rights Movement was born in a period that was witness of a great
political change. During the 1950s, the American political environment radically changed
due to the pressure generated by Cold War politics (Olzak & Ryo, 2007). The United
States foreign policy was focused, at the time, on seeking alliances amongst independent
African countries. However, given the historical treatment of Africans during the slavery
era, said countries would not bend under American control (Morris, 1999). This greatly
increased tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union, which took advantage

of the situation of discord between the former and African countries to find alliances
amongst the latter. The government, whose focus was, clearly, on the Cold War, initially
discarded the insurgence of the Civil Rights Movement (Morris, 1999).
Unlike the Civil Rights Movement, the American Indian Movement was born in a
period where the political opportunity was unfavorable to it. In the late 1960s and through
the 1970s, the United States witnessed four main events that further shifted the political
situation dominating the American scenario: the intensified American intervention in the
Vietnam War, the apex of the Cold War, the 1972 Watergate scandal, and a presidential
election following it (Baylor, 1996; Jeffries, Dyson, & Jones, 2010). The United States was
thus facing three-front war: against the Soviet Union, against Vietnam, and against its own
domestic issues. Because of this, in particular the two wars against the communist regimes
of the Soviet Union and Vietnam, any individual or organization that somehow supported
communism or showed sympathy towards it was immediately neutralized, since it was
considered a threat to capitalism and American sovereignty (Jeffries, Dyson, & Jones,
2010).
The American Indian Movement had a series of political allies, or in a way
connected to politics, which initially supported the movement and provided funds.
Amongst these allies were boxer Muhammad Ali, actor Marlon Brando, and Senator Ted
Kennedy (Bonney, 1977; Johansen, 2013). The importance of the above-mentioned
individual political allies, however, was overshadowed by another series of political allies.
The official report provided by the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the
Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws (1976) identified, amidst the
supporters of the American Indian Movement, other movements external to American
society, with chapters within the U.S., that had contacts with or supported the American

Indian Movement. Amongst these supporters there were organization such as the Weather
Underground, the Irish Republican Army, the Palestine Liberation Organization, and the
American Trotskyite Organization. All these movements were categorized as being of a
terrorist or extremely violent nature thus worsened the position of the movement in the
eyes of the U.S. government (United States, 1976).
Similarly to the conclusions of the resource mobilization theory, the Civil Rights
Movement and the American Indian Movement stand, once again, at opposite poles when
examined under the political opportunity structure. The sources accessed to analyze the
Civil Rights Movement, however, do not provide a deep insight into the political allies of
the movement. Moreover, there are fewer details regarding the political opportunity
presented in the period of birth and development of the Civil Rights Movement. As for the
American Indian Movement, more insight is provided into the political opportunity and the
political allies. It is thus easier to conclude that, according to this dissertation and the
findings based on the sources accessed, the political opportunity structure provides a good
explanation of the political opportunity given to the American Indian Movement, but
leaves a great gap and the need for further investigation for the Civil Rights Movement.
Political Process Model
The political process model focuses on the most prominent internal factors of social
movements leadership skills, tactics, organizational strength , temporality the impact
and continuation of success after the decay of the movement , and resistance strategies
the use of repression by the State (Andrews, 1997; Killian, 1984).
One of the factors that aided the Civil Rights Movement identified in the second
chapter was the presence of charismatic leaders. The ability possessed by these individuals
to gather the masses allowed for the recruitment of new members and the development of

new strategies (Morris & Clawson, 2005). The presence of a team of leaders that worked
together in a dynamic and creative way to make important decisions guaranteed also an
extensive coverage by the media at the national and international level (Morris & Clawson,
2005).
The movement was aided also by the nature of the tactics it adopted to spread its
message. The Civil Rights Movement advocated for the use of peaceful means to demand
social change (Morris, 1999; Morris & Clawson, 2005; Olzak & Ryo, 2007). Non-violent
actions included protests, sit-ins, and marches that were aimed at impeding the unnoticed
crush of the movement by the system (Olzak & Ryo, 2007). Indeed, the fact that the
protests were broadcasted globally and that many people were embracing the movements
cause made it difficult for the government and the FBI to adopt violence to suppress the
movement (Morris, 1999).
Nonetheless, the FBI started a series of covert operations under the name of
COINTELPRO to limit the influence of the movement, to create factionalism within it, and
to distort its image so as to prevent the public from being affected by it (Payne, 1989). The
use of repression by the state temporarily hindered the process of development of the latter
since it destabilized initial support. On the other hand, though, it pushed advocates of the
Civil Rights Movement to demand change more intensely (Olzak & Ryo, 2007). The
leaking of false information and the acquisition of recordings, which were other methods
employed by the FBI to suppress the movement, were aimed at creating factionalism that
would have weakened the movements integrity and its consequent achievement of desired
goals (Drabble, 2008).
Despite the fact that the tactics used by the FBI reinforced the union amongst the
members, the Civil Rights Movement still suffered periods of crises that temporarily
deterred its development. Some members, namely the part of the original movement, saw

the adoption of the slogan Black Power as being an anti-White, violence-provoking

statement (Altbach, 1966). The ideological differences between old and new members of
the movement, which encouraged for a shift to violent tactics, further deepened minor
splits within the movement (Drabble, 2008).
According to the political process model, a successful movement is one whose
outcomes are observed well after its decline. Andrews (1997) claims, civil rights
mobilization shaped electoral outcomes 10 to 20 years after the peak of the movement
(p.815). The effects of the 1965 Voting Rights Act can be observed still today in the
electoral sphere. Indeed, todays president of the United States is African American.
The American Indian Movement witnessed a similar political process model to the
Civil Rights Movement. However, whilst in the latter leadership was praised, in the former
there were discordant opinions on the frontrunners of the movement (Bonney, 1977).
Indeed, young urban Natives saw in them heroes to whom they could easily relate.
Reservation Natives, on the other hand, considered them as being un-Indian, and as a
threat to the government programs that benefitted their tribes (Stotik, Shriver, & Cables,
1994, p. 58). This was mainly due to the adoption of violent tactics by the movement
(Baylor, 1996; Jeffries, Dyson, & Jones, 2010; Stotik, Shriver, & Cable 1994). American
Indian Movement members claimed that the adoption of violence came as a consequence
of violence used by the state, and as a means for self-defense (Baylor, 1966). As a result,
the AIM leadership was obliterated by the overwhelming effect of the many federal and
state charges brought against activists (Stotik, Shriver, & Cable, p.61).
The militant nature of the movement allowed the FBI and the state to engage in
violent repressive measures without having to pay for the consequences. Just like the Civil
Rights Movement, the FBI adopted the same tactics to split the movement and destroy it
from within. In this case, the use of repression was more violent with respect to the Civil

Rights Movement due to the nature of the movement itself. The American Indian
Movement, according to Stotik, Shriver, and Cable (1994), however, was not targeted
because of its militant nature, but because it was an obstacle to the states control and
exploitation of natural resources located on tribal lands (p.63). Indeed, the use of violence
was most harsh in South Dakota, where uranium leases in the Black Hills were secretly
issued to corporate interests (Stotik, Shriver, & Cable, p.64).
The political process model gives deep insight into the internal structure of the two
movements. Apart from the differing vision of its leaders, the two movements have been
subjected to repression by the state and factionalism. It must be taken into consideration
that factionalism within the American Indian Movement was of a greater degree with
respect to the Civil Rights Movement. As for temporality, the achievements of the Civil
Rights Movement can still be observed today notwithstanding the fact it no longer exists
since 1968. The original American Indian Movement was dismantled in 1978 due to a
deepening in the fractures within it, and the successful use of repressive means by the state.
However, some chapters are still operative and working to achieve more of the goals
established during its activist years and Native American Rights (Nittle, N.K.).
Framing Theories
Framing theories were developed to study the relationship between the movement and the
media to determine the influence of the latter on the former, especially regarding validation
of the movement, scope enlargement, and mobilization of resources and individuals
(Benford and Snow, 2000; Gamson and Wolfsfeld, 1993).
During its operative years, the Civil Rights Movement received extended media
coverage that was broadcasted at a national and international level (Morris, 1999). Morris
and Clawson (2005) hold that the presence of charismatic leaders who were able to attract

public attention to the movements cause was a leading factor in the attraction of media
attention. Charisma and leaders, in this case, functioned as interdependent factors since
charismatic leaders attracted media coverage, and media coverage broadened the scope of
the movement, mobilized its resources and individuals, and more importantly validated the
movement in the eyes of the American community. Moreover, media coverage was also
increased as a consequence of the confrontations generated between the Black and White
community. (Morris and Clawson, 2005).
In Chapter I the five frames identified by Baylor (1996) to categorize in an orderly
manner the way in which movements are portrayed and how said portrayal affects their
outcome were discussed. The Civil Rights Movement was often portrayed under the civil
rights frame, which greatly highlighted the social and economic issues within the Black
community and enhanced the movements possibility to reach a favorable outcome.
Despite the many biases, due to the close relationship between politics and the
media, the Civil Rights Movement greatly contributed from media intervention during
speeches, marches, sit-ins, and peaceful protests. The march on Selma, 1965, was a
keystone in the positive portrayal of the Civil Rights Movement since the whole world
witnessed the use of violence by police forces to suppress a peaceful march.
The American Indian Movement, on the other hand, did not benefit from media
coverage. The armed confrontation in Wounded Knee in 1973, for example, took
advantage of media coverage to raise awareness globally, since news regarding the
American Indian Movement and the modern Indian wars it was facing reached countries
beyond the Atlantic ocean. However, it allowed for the militant portrayal of the movement
that, as a consequence, facilitated the use of repression by the state and thwarted the

creation of a Native collective identity (DArcus, 2003; Jeffries, Dyson, & Jones, 2010;
Johansen, 2013). Indeed, even though it allowed the movement to recruit members
amongst young urban Natives, at the same time it distanced the publics sympathy and
support. It must be assessed, however, that media coverage was missing in instances in
which the movement operated in a peaceful way, whilst it was emphasized whenever the
movements actions were of a violent nature. As a consequence, without the possibility to
justify the use of violence since media coverage was missing, the American Indian
Movement was portrayed as using violence without a purpose (Baylor, 1996).
Unlike the Civil Rights Movement, whose portrayal under the civil rights frame
greatly helped it, the American Indian Movement was either portrayed under the militant
frame, the stereotype frame, which reinforced the idea of ruthless savages, or the
factionalist frame. The latter emphasized the disunity amongst movement members and the
existence of fractures within it so as to lead the public and Native Americans to believe that
the movement was weak, thus unable to achieve social change (Baylor, 1996). Moreover, it
suffered the effects of one of the biases identified by Baylor (1996). Indeed, the
commercialization of the mass media implies that it will not focus on events that will not
trigger public interest. As seen in Chapter IV, the political opportunity structure was not
favorable to the American Indian Movement, which emerged in a period of great political
turmoil in the domestic and foreign affairs of the United States. For this reason, it received
less media coverage (Baylor, 1996).
Framing theories give clear insight in the relationship between the two movements
and the media. Whilst on the one hand media coverage aided the Civil Rights Movement,
on the other it discouraged the public approval of the American Indian Movement.

New Social Movement Theories

New social movement theories were developed to provide insight into the aptitude
of the movement in encouraging independence, self-government and the development of a
collective identity rather than focusing on the strategies adopted (Buechler, 1995; Killian,
1984; Weir, 1993).
The Civil Rights Movement believed that change could be obtained only through
the promotion of self-sufficiency, self-determination, and independence (Payne, 1989). The
Black community greatly supported it, to the point where it is nowadays considered as one
of the most influential movements because of the mass mobilization it was able to achieve
(Altbach, 1966). The power it generated through mass mobilization was identified by
Morris and Clawson (2005) as being one of the main reasons for which the Civil Rights
Movement was able to achieve social change.
Minor splits within the movement caused by a division in ideologies had minor
effects on the creation of a collective identity. Indeed, the idea of a Black identity was so
shared amongst members if the Civil Rights Movement and members of the Black
community that they were willing to make sacrifices for it, even if it implied physical
damage, convictions, evictions, and even death (Morris & Clawson, 2005). As a result of
the establishment of a solid, shared Black identity, the process of mobilization of
individuals was easier for the Civil Rights Movement, which saw an increase in the
number of members and also the introduction of new tactics and strategies in its nonviolent actions repertoire (Olzak & Ryo, 2007). Contrary to what stated by Payne (1989),
who asserts that large organizations such as the Civil Rights Movement are not as likely
to offer the kind of nurturing of individual growth that smaller ones can provide (p.894),
the Civil Rights Movement skillfully provided individual members with a sense of

belonging through organizational strategies that saw members of the movement knocking
on doors to provide help and recruit new members. The treatment reserved to African
Americans has been a leading factor in the creation of a collective identity. Indeed, through
union, they were able to achieve various social changes, from the abolition of the slavery
practices through a series of revolts, to the achievement of voting rights in 1965.
The American Indian Movement had difficulty in establishing itself as a
movement which could meet the needs of urban and reservation Native Americans
(Stotik, Shriver, & Cable, 1994, p.57). There was great discord between urban and
reservation Native Americans regarding the movements ideologies and means adopted to
obtain them. Discord existed even between Natives living on reservations. Indeed, whilst
some of them supported the movement after it shifted its focus to the violation of treaty
rights, many others still did not accept the idea of pan-tribalism that the American Indian
Movement was trying to establish. Many Natives living on reservations were very
conscious of their tribal heritage and were not willing to abandon it for a general Indian
identity (Stotik, Shriver, & Cable, 1994).
The lack of solidarity amongst urban and reservation Native Americans was one of
the main causes for which the American Indian Movement was not able to establish a solid
collective identity. Moreover, discord between leaders of the American Indian Movement
was reflected on the effects it had on the Native American community (Bonney, 1977;
Jeffries, Dyson, & Jones, 2010; Stotik, Shriver, & Cable, 1994). Whilst some wanted to
focus on local issues, others wanted to broaden their scope to include political issues. In
the end, leaders eventually decided on broader political action, adopting the militant
tactics that alienated some of its supporters (Stotik, Shriver, & Cable, 1994, p.63).
As opposed to the history of African Americans, the history of Native Americans
shows how the presence of a multitude of different tribes, each based on different values

and morals, greatly stalled the possibility for the American Indian Movement to unite the
community under one name.
The second chapter of this dissertation, theoretical background, greatly stressed the
difficulty in tracing a clear border between different social movement theories. Indeed, as
shown in this chapter, many theories are either the causes or consequences of others, and
tend to overlap.
The Civil Rights Movements outcome can be easily assessed through the theories
that apply the most to it. The ability possessed by the Civil Rights Movement to unite the
Black community under a compacted collective identity (new social movement theories)
allowed it to initiate a process of mass mobilization of resources and individuals (resource
mobilization theory) that made it difficult for the state and the government to adopt
violence to suppress it (political process model). Moreover, the extensive media coverage
it received, which put the movement in a positive spotlight (framing theories), allowed for
further mobilization of resources. Even though this dissertation lacks material necessary to
cover the political opportunity structure in which the Civil Rights Movement developed, it
can be stated that it was a favorable one. Indeed, Cold War politics and the failure of
American foreign policy in Africa made it so that the movement, in the initial period in
which mobilization was weak, could develop without being hindered by the government.
Similarly, the outcome of the American Indian Movement can be assessed under
the perspective of all the theories analyzed in this dissertation. Contrary to the Civil Rights
Movement, however, the lack of a collective identity greatly hindered the process of
mobilization thus exposing the movement to the use repression by the state. Indeed, the
weaker the movements collective identity, the more likely the movement is to succumb to
the states social control efforts (Stotik, Shriver, & Cable, 1994, p.65). The adoption of
violence by the American Indian Movement led to the loss of many prospective members

that did not share its use. Andrews (1997) holds that when a movement is at its strongest
(and media attention is highest) violent resistance can be used by a movement to broaden
mobilization (p.815). In the case of the American Indian Movement, which did not benefit
from high media attention and was not at its strongest due to the various fractures within it,
violence backlashed against it and completely blocked the movements possibility to
expand mobilization.

Success

In the introductive chapter of this dissertation, Roots and Riots, a definition of

success was provided to observe, in this final chapter, whether the Civil Rights Movement
and the American Indian Movement were successful, and to what extent. Success, for the
purpose of this thesis, was defined as being the gradual achievement of goals established
by the movement, the legitimization of the movement as an opponent, the achievement of
benefits for the movements participants, and the production of change within the political
process of the state (Gamson, 1975; Gamson, 1990; Rochon & Mazmanian, 1993).
When assessed under the above-mentioned definition, the Civil Rights Movement
can be deemed as being totally successful. The movement was able to achieve an
upgrading of the status of African Americans through the passing of a series of Acts. The
main goals of the Civil Rights Movement identified in Chapter III were to end segregation,
to obtain equality, and be granted basic social rights (Payne, 1989). The 1964 Civil Rights
Act, the abolition of Jim Crow laws, and the 1968 Civil Rights Act were demonstrations of
how the Civil Rights Movement was able to achieve its goals. The 1964 Civil Rights Act
ended segregation and racial discrimination, the abolition of the Jim Crow regime granted

them first-class citizens treatment, whilst the 1968 Civil Rights Act prohibited
discrimination in the housing sector (Fair Housing Act of 1968, n.d.). These achievements
allow for the placement of the Civil Rights Movement within the first element of the
definition of success.
The second element of the definition, the acknowledgment of the movement, lies
within the states use of repressive means to suppress the movement. The Civil Rights
Movement was one of the main targets of the FBI and its covert operations, which engaged
in often-illegal means to obtain information that could be used against the movement itself.
Indeed, the Civil Rights Movement was perceived as a threat to the hierarchical structure
of the state (Mello, 2003). The movement was considered as a legitimate opponent by the
state, thus falling in the second element of success.
Closely linked to the gradual achievement of goals is the achievement of benefits
for the participants of the movement, the third element that comprises success. After the
passing of the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Act, African Americans could enjoy the benefits
reserved for White Americans.
The benefits gained by African Americans were part of the political sphere too.
Indeed, with the passing of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, members of the Black
community were guaranteed the right to vote and be integrant part of the political process
of the United States. This allows for the association of the movement with the fourth
element of success.
The Civil Rights Movement was, thus, completely successful in achieving social
change. Indeed, not only did it achieve all its pre-established goals, it was also able to
guarantee its members the reaching of benefits and to produce political change through its
legitimization as an existing organization.
The American Indian Movement, on the other hand, cannot be deemed as
successful as the Civil Rights Movement had been. Since the twenty points presented to

President Nixon were focused on the acquisition and protection of Native American
sovereignty, it was hard for the American Indian Movement to achieve its goals. Indeed,
the government overruled the twenty points, stating a government makes treaties with
foreign nations, not its own citizens (as cited in Stotik, Shriver, & Cable, 1994, p. 59).
Even though the movement was not able to gradually achieve its goals, it was
acknowledged and legitimized by the state as an opponent. Indeed, just like the Civil
Rights Movement, the American Indian Movement had to face a series of repressive
measures adopted by the state so as to limit its influence and work as a promoter for the
insurgence of other Native American social movements (Stotik, Shriver, & Cable, 1994).
Notwithstanding the fact that the American Indian Movement was not able to
gradually achieve the twenty points it presented to the government, it still secured some
benefits for the Native American community. Indeed, it was able to launch housing
programs, educational and health facilities, as well as creating centers for job training
(Jeffries, Dyson, & Jones, 2010; Johansen, 2013). The American Indian Movement thus
can be placed within the second and third element of success.
The endurance showed by the American Indian Movement and its members has led
to the passing of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act in 1978. This Act was passed
by the Congress of the United States, and sought to assess federal policies regarding the
right for Native Americans to gain access sacred grounds, and the right to exercise their
customary religion (American Indian Movement, n.d.). The American Indian Movement,
in this case, was able to have access to the political process of the United States through
the achievement of the above-mentioned Act.
Assessing the individual elements contained in the definition of success and
applying them to the two movements, it is clear that both of them were successful but to a
different extent. Whilst the Civil Rights Movement achieved its goals, secured benefits for

its participants, achieved changes in the political process and was legitimately
acknowledged to a full extent, the American Indian Movement was successful to a certain
extent. Despite the fact it did not achieve its pre-established goals, it was still able to grant
aids to the Native American community, as well as being recognized as an opponent and
shifting the political process of the U.S. in its favor.

VI. Winners, Losers, and Consequences

The purpose of this dissertation has been that of assessing the factors of success of
social movements through the analysis of social movement theories applied on two case
studies: the Civil Rights Movement (1954-1968) and the American Indian Movement
(1968-1978). Social movement theories have been developed to try to determine the
outcome of social movements through the analysis of its structure and resources possessed.
The importance of assessing the role of the Civil Rights Movement and the American
Indian Movement in the understanding and development of social movement theories and
the factors that contribute or hinder their outcome is given by the peculiarity of their nature
and the way in which they attempted to achieve their goals.
The analyses provided in Chapter III and IV of this dissertation on the Civil Rights
Movement and the American Indian Movement have allowed for the identification of some
major factors that have played a fundamental role in the success of the above-mentioned
movements. The most determining factors identified were money and economic resources
possessed by the movements, the presence of elite sponsorship and human resources, the
political context that allowed for the development of the movements, their political allies,
their leadership skills, the tactics employed to achieve their goals, the resistance strategies
employed by the state, the presence of media coverage, and the creation of a collective
identity.
The application of the theories to the Civil Rights Movement and the American
Indian Movement in Chapter V has identified the extent to which said theories attempt at

explaining the outcome of the movement. It is clear from the analysis presented that the
resource mobilization theory, the political opportunity structure, the political process
model, framing theories, and new social movement theories give clear and full insight into
the reasons for which the Civil Rights Movement was able to succeed. The same cannot be
held true for the American Indian Movement. Despite the fact that all the theories apply
fully to the latter, they do so in a negative way. Indeed, the application of the theories to the
American Indian Movement has shown an opposite outcome with respect to the Civil
Rights Movement. Whilst its success cannot be explained through the lens of social
movement theories, especially through the lens of the political process model, framing
theories, and new social movement theories, it can be hold true that, according to the
definition of success provided by Gamson (1975, 1990), and Rochon and Mazmanian
(1993), the American Indian Movement was successful to a certain extent.
Through the assessment of the applicability of the theories to the American Indian
Movement and the assessment of the definition of success provided in Chapter I, Roots and
Riots, the initial hypothesis was partially disconfirmed. Said hypothesis claimed that the
American Indian Movement was not as successful as the Civil Rights Movement because it
lacked the basic criteria for which a social movement is able to achieve its pre-established
goals. The application of the theories to the movement has shown that the American Indian
Movement did indeed lack the necessary elements to reach a positive outcome. However,
the definition of success provided by the above-mentioned scholars asserts that, overall, the
American Indian Movement was successful in its mission.
Throughout the drafting of this dissertation, some complications arose that made it
difficult to provide a complete explanation of why the factors identified lead to the positive

outcome of social movements. This was mainly due to a lack of sources regarding the
American Indian Movement, and a lack of sources that could not be accessed and that were
necessary for the full determination of the factors of success. Moreover, main gaps within
the theories, especially new social movement theories, have hindered the process of
identification and explanation of said factors. A deeper insight into what determines the
outcomes of movements could have been provided if the literature regarding social
movement theories were more extensive.
To better understand the complex structures lying behind social movements and
how these structures aid or hinder the movement in the achievement of its goals, further
investigation into factors that were not assessed in this dissertation is needed. One of these
factors is the geographical area in which the movement develops and operates. This was
briefly mentioned in Chapter IV, Red Power: The Roots of Riots; what emerged from the
brief analysis is that the geographical area is fundamental in determining the applicability
of framing theories. Indeed, it appeared that, in the case of the American Indian Movement,
the more isolated the location is, the least visibility the movement achieves. Low visibility
implies a low public interest in the issues that are being brought forward by the movement,
thus will result in no or few media coverage. A second important factor that should be
further investigated is the feasibility of the requests demanded by the movement. It appears
that requests that go against the state and could possibly alter its hierarchical power
structure would be considered and granted less with respect to requests that imply changes
within the population of the movement only. As highlighted in the second chapter,
Theoretical Background, and further discussed in the fifth chapter, Application of Theories,
social movement theories tend to overlap each other, thus making it difficult to trace clear

boundaries between them. Moreover, because of this, some factors that fall in neither of the
theories might be overlooked. For this reason, social movement theories scholars should
attempt to develop and publicize hybrid theories that focus on all aspects of social
movements so as to assess all the possible factors that determine their outcomes.
In spite of what is often believed about social movements, they play a determining
role in shifting the status of the members of the movement. For this reason, it is important
to assess how social movement theories apply to social movements to determine how they
are able to influence the society in which they emerge.

The Legacy of Social Movements

The Civil Rights Movement ended in 1968 after the achievement of its goals.
Despite the fact that there still are some inequalities between the White and Black
community, African Americans have been fully integrated into American society. Indeed,
todays American president is African American.
The American Indian Movement officially ended its activist period in 1978.
While it is still present and operative, the American Indian movement remains, in the
minds of those who have been part of it, the period of the great struggles and hopes so
much so that Dennis Banks, founder of the movement, regrets its premature ending.

VII. Appendix

American Indian Movement Twenty-Point Position Paper:

1. Restoration of Constitutional treaty-making authority

2. Establishment of treaty commission to make new treaties
3. An address to the American people and joint sessions of Congress
4. Commission to review treaty commitments and violations
5. Resubmission of unratified treaties to the Senate
6. All Indians to be governed by treaty relations
7. Mandatory relief against treaty rights violations
8. Judicial recognition of Indian right to interpret treaties
9. Creation of congressional joint committee on reconstruction of Indian relations
10. Land reform and restoration of 110-million acre Native land base
a. Priorities in restoration of the Native American land base
b. Consolidation of Indians land, water, natural and economic resources
c. Termination of losses and condemnation of non-Indian land title
d. Repeal of the Menominee, Klamath, and other termination acts
11. Revision of 25 U.S.C. 163; Restoration of rights to Indians terminated by
enrollment and revocation of prohibitions against dual benefits
12. Repeal of state laws enacted under public law 280 (1953)
13. Resume federal protective jurisdiction for offenses against Indians
a. Establishment of a National Federal Indian Grand Jury
b. Jurisdictions over non-Indians within Indian reservations
c. Accelerated rehabilitation and release program for state and federal Indian
prisoners
14. Abolition of the Bureau of Indian Affairs by 1976
15. Creation of an office of federal Indian relations and community reconstruction
16. Priorities and purpose of the proposed new office
17. Indian commerce and tax immunities
18. Protection of Indians religious freedom and cultural integrity
19. National referendums, local options, and forms of Indian organization
20. Health, housing, employment, economic development, and education
(Trail of Broken Treaties 20-Point Position Paper)

VIII. Bibliography

Altbach, P.G. (1966). Black Power and the US Civil Rights Movement. Economic and
Political Weekly, 1(6), 233-234. Retrieved from JSTOR.
American Indian Movement. (n.d.). In Encyclopedia.com. Retrieved from
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/American_Indian_Movement.aspx.
Andrews, K.T. (1997). The impacts of social movements on the political process: The Civil
Rights Movement and black electoral politics in Mississippi. American
Sociological Review, 62(5), 800-819. Retrieved from JSTOR.
Baylor, T. (1996). Media framing of movement protest: The case of American Indian
protest. The Social Science Journal, 33(3), 241-256. Retrieved from Academic
Search Premier.
Benford, R.D., & Snow, D.A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An
overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-639. Retrieved
from JSTOR.
Bonney, R.A. (1977). The role of AIM leaders in Indian nationalism. American Indian
Quarterly, 3(3), 209-224. Retrieved from JSTOR.
Buechler, S.M. (1995). New social movement theories. The Sociological Quarterly, 36(3),
441-464. Retrieved from JSTOR.
Cohen, F.G. (1973). The Indian patrol in Minneapolis: Social control and social change in
an urban context. Law & Society Review, 7(4), 779-786. Retrieved from JSTOR.

DArcus, B. (2003). Protest, scale, and publicity: The FBI and H Rap Brown Act.
Antipode, 35(4), 718-741. Retrieved from Wiley Online Library.

Drabble, J. (2008). Fighting Black Power-New Left coalitions: Covert FBI media
campaigns and American cultural discourse, 1967-1971. European Journal of
American Culture, 27(2), 65-91. Retrieved from intellect.co.uk.
Fair Housing Act of 1968. (n.d.). In History. Retrieved from history.com.
Fincke, H. (2010, January). Inspiration from fundraising history: The Civil Rights
Movement. Retrieved from grassrootsfundraising.org/inspiration-fromfundraisiing-history-the-civil-rights-movement/.
Frederique, N. (2009). COINTELPRO and covert operations. In H.T. Greene & S.L.
Gabbidon (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Race and Crime (pp. 133-135). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Gamson, W.A. (1975). The strategy of social protest. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Gamson, W.A. (1990). The strategy of social protest (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing.
Gamson, W.A., & Wolfsfeld, G. (1993). Movements and media as interacting systems.
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 528, 114-125.
Retrieved from JSTOR.
Giugni, M.G. (1998). Was it worth the effort? The outcomes and consequences of social
movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 371-393. Retrieved from JSTOR.

Goodwin, G., & Jasper, J.M. (1999). Caught in a winding, snarling vine: The structural
bias of political process theory. Sociological Forum, 14(1), 27-54. Retrieved from
JSTOR.
Haine, H.H. (1984). Black radicalization and the funding of the Civil Rights: 1957-1970.
Social Problems, 32(1), 31-43. Retrieved from JSTOR.
Haiven, M., & Khasnabish, A. (2013). Between success and failure: Dwelling with social
movements in the hiatus. Interface: A Journal For and About Social Movements,
5(2), 472-498. Retrieved from interfacejournal.net.
Jeffries, J.L., Dyson, O.L, & Jones, C.E. (2010). Militancy transcends race: A comparative
analysis of the American Indian Movement, the Black Panther Party, and the
Young Lords. Black Diaspora Review, 1(2), 4-30. Retrieved from Indiana
scholarworks.iu.edu/journals.
Jenkins, J.C. (1983). Resource mobilization theory and the study of social movements.
Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 527-553. Retrieved from JSTOR.
Johansen, B.E. (2013). Encyclopedia of the American Indian Movement. Santa Barbara,
CA: Greenwood.
Johnson, T.R. (2008). Occupation of Wounded Knee. In B.E. Johansen & B.M. Pritzker
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of American Indian History (pp. 303-306). Santa Barbara,
CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc.
Killian, L.M. (1984). Organization, rationality and spontaneity in the Civil Rights
Movement. American Sociological Review, 49(6), 770-783. Retrieved from
JSTOR.

Martin, A.W. (2008). Resources for success: Social movements, strategic resource
allocation, and union organizing outcomes. Social Problems, 55(4), 501-524.
Retrieved from JSTOR.
Mello, B. (2007). Political process and the development of labor insurgency in Turkey,
1954-80. Social Movement Studies, 6(3), 207-225. Retrieved from
tandfonline.com.
Mello, F. (2003). COINTELPRO: The FBIs secret war on the Civil Rights Movement.
Retrieved from http://www.socialistalternative.org/no-to-bushs-war-oniraq/cointelpro-the-fbis-secret-war-on-the-civil-rights-movement/.
Meyer, D.S., & Whittier, N. (1994). Social movement spillover. Social Problems, 41(2),
277-298. Retrieved from JSTOR.
Morris, A.D. (1999). A retrospective on the Civil Rights Movement: Political and
intellectual landmarks. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 517-539. Retrieved from
JSTOR.
Morris, A., & Clawson, D. (2005). Lessons of the Civil Rights Movement for building a
worker rights movement. WorkingUSA: The Journal of Labor and Society, 8(6),
683-704. Retrieved from Wiley Online Library.
Nittle, N.K. (n.d.) American Indian Movement profile. About News. Retrieved from
racerelations.about.com/od/organizations/a/American-Indian-MovementProfile.html.
ORourke, S.P. (2012). Circulation and noncirculation of photographic texts in the Civil
Rights Movement: A case study of the rhetoric of control. Rhetoric & Public
Affairs, 15(4), 685-694. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier.

Olzak, S., & Ryo, E. (2007). Organizational diversity, vitality and outcomes in the Civil
Rights Movement. Social Forces, 85(4), 1561-1591. Retrieved from JSTOR.
Oppenheimer, M. (2014). How we found out about COINTELPRO. Monthly Review,
66(4), 54-60. Retrieved from ProQuest Political Science.
Payne, C. (1989). Ella Baker and models of social change. Common Grounds and
Crossroads: Race, Ethnicity, and Class in Womens Life, 14(4), 885-899.
Retrieved from JSTOR.
Red-Bait. (2015). In Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved from oxforddictionaries.com.
Rochon, T.R., & Mazmanian, D.A. (1993). Social movements and the policy process. The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 528, 75-87.
Retrieved from JSTOR.
Stotik, J., Shriver, T.E., & Cable, S. (1994). Social control and movement outcome: The
case of AIM. Sociological Focus, 27(1), 53-66. Retrieved from JSTOR.
Trail of Broken Treaties 20-Point Position Paper (n.d.). Retrieved from
aimovement.org/archives/.
Tsutsui, K. (2006). Redressing past human rights violation: Global dimensions of
contemporary social movements. Social Forces, 85(1), 331-354. Retrieved from
ProQuest Political Science.
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee to Investigate
the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws.
(1976). Revolutionary activities within the United States: The American Indian
Movement. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Weir, L. (1993). Limitations of new social movements analysis. Studies in Political

Economy, 40, 73-102. Retrieved from spe.library.utoronto.ca.
Wilkins, D.E., & Stark, H.K. (2011). Native interest group activity and activism. In
Wilkins, D.E. & Stark, H.K. (Eds.), American Indian politics and the American
political system (pp. 189-209). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,
Inc.