Run: Book One

Nonfiction | Graphic Memoir | YA | Published in 2021

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Download PDF

Summary

Background

Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Pages 1-38

Pages 39-77

Pages 78-115

Key Figures

Themes

Index of Terms

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Tools

Beta

Discussion Questions

Themes

The Internationalization of the Civil Rights Movement

The civil rights movement, while often seen as a quintessentially American struggle, also had global dimensions. From the early involvement of pioneering leaders like W. E. B. Du Bois—who attended the founding conference of the United Nations in 1945 and unsuccessfully pushed for a provision on racial equality—to Malcolm X’s efforts in the 1960s to garner international support for condemning American racism at the UN, the movement always had an eye on global influence. As Lewis’s experience shows, this outward-looking perspective, or internationalization, became more prominent after the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act ended formal segregation, and the movement became more conscious of liberating forces around the world.

A major contributing factor in this shift of perspective, as Lewis notes, was the escalation of the Vietnam War, which by 1965 “involved hundreds of thousands of American troops…a disproportionate number of whom were Black” (40). The grueling experience in Vietnam demonstrated to many Americans that high-minded talk of spreading democracy was a guise for oppressing people around the world, most of them nonwhite. Racism at home was thus a logical component of a broader system of racial injustice. This called for a union of peoples around the world, such as the Pan-Africanist movement which sought unity among “progressive, Black-led political parties like the African National Congress (ANC) and Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) [which] were banned and forced underground” by white supremacist governments (78).

As the civil rights movement developed a more international consciousness, Lewis struggled to contain a revolutionary attitude that often developed as a result. In places like Vietnam or South Africa, violence was among the tools used to (eventually) overthrow oppressive regimes. This directly contradicted Lewis’s commitment to nonviolence, but as the revolutionary urge grew more intense (as the war itself continued to escalate), Lewis’s nonviolent approach was increasingly unpopular within the broader movement.

The Promise and Limits of Nonviolence

John Lewis spent his entire life dedicated to the principles of nonviolent resistance. Inspired by Gandhi’s efforts to secure Indian independence from Britain, as well as the Christian tradition of pacifism, nonviolence was both a practical tool and a moral imperative. As a tactic, nonviolent protestors showed themselves to be dignified people, making entirely reasonable requests to eat a meal or use a restroom. When they met with a violent reaction, as they often did, their fortitude would grant them the moral high ground over their opponents and earn public sympathy. This often proved effective, but for the leaders of the movement, it reflected a much deeper moral sensibility. As James Lawson explained:

[T]hrough non-violence, courage displaces fear. Love transcends hate. Acceptance dissipates prejudice; hope ends despair. Faith reconciles doubt. Peace dominates war. Mutual regards cancel enmity. Justice for all overthrows injustice (19).

Lawson, as well as Martin Luther King Jr., saw nonviolence as the key to achieving a more just and loving society, where an entirely different kind of attitude produced a different kind of politics.

While the civil rights movement achieved many victories, its promises of moral transformation fell far short. The end of segregation was not the end of racism, and activists found themselves dependent on a federal government that struggled to balance its commitment to civil rights and social justice with its increasing fixation on the Vietnam War, causing a “slow depletion of our SNCC staff as, one by one, young men were drafted to serve in the military and cross the Pacific Ocean to fight the North Vietnamese” (42). Attempts to gain real political power within the Democratic Party—to force Johnson’s hand as well as push out the remaining segregationists—fell short. The Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP) was refused a seat at the 1964 Democratic National Convention, and the LCFO described in Run, while succeeding in mobilizing voters, was unable to prevent a segregationist from securing the governor’s seat in Alabama.

In this atmosphere, the demand for “Black Power,” as advocated by Stokely Carmichael and others, seemed like a necessary corrective to the limits of nonviolence. This did not mean that Carmichael and his allies endorsed violence; rather, they believed a more confrontational approach was necessary, assuming the system would change only under pressure, not through a change of heart.

The Challenge Against Systemic Racism

March culminates in the great triumphs of the civil rights movement, the passage of legislation in 1964 and 1965 which brought down the legal system of segregation in the Jim Crow South. Run begins in the immediate wake of that triumph: While work is still needed to break down the remaining vestiges of segregation, an entirely new front is opening up in the struggle. The riots in Watts (later echoed in other cities across the country) signaled a more fundamental challenge than the fight against a single institution like segregation. As Julian Bond writes:

[the riots were the result of] police brutality, economic and social discrimination, and the failure and refusal of men with power to meet the needs of an oppressed people, [requiring] the federal government to bring about a true democracy in which all Americans, regardless of class and color, will have an equal stake and share in the economic and political life of this country (18).

True equality would not be achieved unless the movement tackled what would come to be known as “systemic racism” (or structural racism, among other terms), in which a certain group of people (in this case Black Americans) are consistently disadvantaged in various aspects of social life. For example, Black Americans often receive less economic opportunity, quality housing, healthcare, and education, not because any of those institutions are deliberately depriving them, but because of a broader social milieu that understands such disparities to be normal, and so perpetuates them in ways both conscious and unconscious.

The focus on systemic racism would prove extremely challenging to the movement, for many reasons. Traditional methods of nonviolent resistance were ill-equipped to expose social ills that were much less visible than segregation. It was also difficult for a movement to organize (and stay united) around such a broad set of problems—a contributing factor to the subsequent episodes of spasmodic violence, such as the Watts riots. For those citizens watching on television,

[I]mages of a major American city in chaos stoked white fears about integration and public safety…confronting systemic racism and economic injustice meant asking white people one question: Is America ready to share its abundance with people of color? (30).

Published in 2021, Run’s concern with systemic racism resonated with a moment in American society after the murder of George Floyd forced a public reckoning with the biases and injustices that produce racist outcomes, even without overt racist intentions.