March: Book Two

Content Warning: This section of the guide feature depictions of racism, antigay bias, and graphic violence.

There are two sites of narrative tension within this graphic memoir. First, activists for civil rights experience external conflict, as segregationists use physical violence against them and certain local organizations, like the Birmingham Police Force and Greyhound officials, present them with bureaucratic obstacles. While these are the primary conflicts facing Lewis and other activists, the graphic memoir also depicts the differing philosophies that leaders within the movement adopt, and how this affects their tactics, strategies, and priorities within their organizations.

There are differences in how prominent figures want to approach the civil rights movement. The first exists between Black civil rights leaders and the largely white body of governmental officials who conceptually consider themselves allies to the cause, but practically advance tactics that Black activists find counterintuitive to their struggle. Lewis has a conflict with Will Campbell, a white reverend who wants to suspend all marching upon threats of violence. Campbell accuses Lewis of being selfish, saying, “What it comes down to is that this is just a matter of pride to you. This is about your own stubbornness. Your own sin” (23). Campbell accuses Lewis of being motivated by selfish, individual impulses. However, Campbell cannot truly understand the embodied experiences and motivations of Black Americans in this time period. Other white allies through the graphic memoir, like Jim Peck and Dr. Bergman, use their white privilege to put their bodies on the line for their Black allies in whatever ways are requested of them.

The other major difference occurs within the majority Black civil rights leadership. There is an ideological divide that is best encapsulated in their approach to nonviolence, though other differences exist as well. On one side are the leaders who think that violence should never be used. John Lewis falls into this category. When he sees resistance as subtle as a protester asking a glaring white passerby, “What are you looking at?!” (112), Lewis thinks he is “starting to see [their] discipline erode” (112). Lewis is so committed to nonviolence as a strategy that he interprets any deviation from it as a loss of discipline rather than a strategic choice. In the memoir, Dr. King also falls into this category, though toward the end of his life he expressed more sympathy toward militancy and resistance.

On the other side are figures like Malcolm X and Stokley Carmichael. These two activists believe that violence is justified when employed to resist racist violence and oppression. Carmichael’s perspective is that it isn’t “his responsibility to be the moral and spiritual reclamation of some racist thug” (112). Lewis and King think that protesters should adhere to behavioral codes to demonstrate their civility and good faith, while Carmichael considers such behavior to be pandering to prejudiced ideologies. 

Though Lewis expresses some measure of respect for Malcolm X, he is less sympathetic to Carmichael and is uncompromisingly unsympathetic to both of their approaches. Lewis and others tell Carmichael that they “would like to offer you an invitation to continue your protest activities…elsewhere” (112), essentially kicking him out of Nashville. Similarly, Lewis says he “never felt like [Malcolm X] was a part of the movement” (149). Lewis and others think that they need to have a uniformity of tactics in their fight, so they end up expelling activists whose approaches they interpret as counterproductive.