Hello, I'm Mr. Marchant, and thank you for joining me for today's history lesson.

I'll be guiding you through all of our resources today, and my top priority is to make sure that by the end of our lesson, you are able to successfully meet our learning objective.

Welcome to today's lesson, which is part of our unit on the Civil Rights Movement in the USA, where we are asking ourselves, how successful was the American Civil Rights Movement? By the end of today's lesson, you'll be able to explain the role and impact of direct action in the Civil Rights Movement.

There are four keywords, which will help us navigate our way through today's lesson.

Those are boycott, direct action, publicity, and enhance.

A boycott is when groups of people refuse to use or buy certain products and services.

Direct action refers to the use of demonstrations or protests to achieve a goal rather than negotiation or legal action.

Publicity is widespread notice or attention given to someone or something by the media, and if you enhance something, you improve it.

Today's lesson will be divided into three parts.

And we'll begin by thinking about the Montgomery Bus Boycott.

From 1955 until 1956, African Americans in Montgomery, Alabama, a town in the South, boycotted local bus services.

This boycott was a protest against segregation on local bus services.

The Montgomery Bus Boycott was one of the earliest uses of direct action as part of the Civil Rights Movement.

So let's make sure we have a clear understanding of what we just heard.

What type of challenge to discrimination was the Montgomery Bus Boycott? Direct action, legal action, or violent action.

Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, Well done to everybody who said that the Montgomery Bus Boycott was a form of direct action.

It did not involve violent protests, nor legal action taken through the courts.

Segregation on Montgomery's buses meant that if the bus started to fill up, any Black passengers who were sitting in the front had to give up their seat for any white passengers and move to the back instead.

On the 1st of December, 1955, a 42-year-old woman, Rosa Parks, was arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a bus for a white man.

This followed the arrests of several other African Americans for the same offence.

The day after Parks' arrest, Black community leaders met to discuss how they should respond, and it was decided that they should organise a boycott of the local buses.

So which of the following statements best describes laws about segregated transport by 1955? They were still in place in the South, but rarely enforced by the police or public.

They were still in place in the South, but those who broke them were only given light punishments, or they were still in place in the South, and those who broke them were punished harshly.

Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was C.

Segregation laws in transport were still in place in the South by 1955, and those who broke them, such as Rosa Parks, were punished harshly.

As 75% of people who used the buses in Montgomery were African Americans, it was believed that a boycott could be a huge success.

The Montgomery Improvement Association or the MIA, was formed to coordinate the boycott with Martin Luther King Jr, the pastor of a local church as its president.

20,000 African Americans participated in the first day at the boycott alone, which then continued for a whole year.

Meanwhile, King regularly gave speeches, appeared in newspaper articles, and on chat shows to raise awareness of the issue.

Nevertheless, the bus company refused to desegregate these buses.

In 1956, the NAACP with the support of the MIA, began a legal case against segregation on buses in Alabama.

By November 1956, the US Supreme Court had ruled that segregation on buses was unconstitutional.

In response, the MIA ended its boycott on the 20th of December, 1956, the day before Montgomery's first desegregated bus service was run.

So let's make sure we have a secure understanding of everything that we've just heard.

I want you to change one word to correct the following sentence.

The bus company in Montgomery agreed to change its policies leading the boycott to continue for a whole year.

So think about, which word seems like it's incorrect and what should it be changed to.

Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to check your answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the word "agreed," should it been changed to "refused." The bus company in Montgomery refused to change its policies, leading the MIA's boycott to continue for a whole year.

And let's try another question.

What led the MIA to end the Montgomery Bus Boycott? Was it that the Supreme Court declared segregation on buses unconstitutional, that the President and Congress changed the laws to prevent bus segregation, or that the MIA eventually gave up as the bus company refused to change its policies? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was A, the MIA only ended the Montgomery Bus Boycott after the Supreme Court had declared that segregation on buses was unconstitutional.

So, we're now in a good position to put all of our knowledge about the Montgomery Bus Boycott into practise.

Starting with the earliest, I want you to sort the following events from the Montgomery Bus Boycott into chronological order.

The events we've got are Martin Luther King Jr.

appears in the media discussing the boycott.

Rosa Parks is arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a bus.

The Supreme Court rules that segregation is unconstitutional.

The MIA ends its boycott.

A boycott of local bus services begins in Montgomery, and integrated bus services begin in Montgomery.

When we say integrated, we mean services that Black people and white people could use equally.

So use the numbers 1 to 6 to indicate that correct chronological order of the answers.

Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to reflect on your response.

Okay, well done for all of your effort on that task.

So I asked you to sort our events from the Montgomery Bus Boycott into chronological order, and your answer should have gone as follows.

The first event was that Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a bus.

This was followed by a boycott of local services beginning in Montgomery.

Martin Luther King Jr.

appeared in the media to discuss this boycott, so you should have put that as your third event.

Fourthly, the Supreme Court eventually ruled that bus segregation was unconstitutional.

And in response to this, the MIA ended its boycott.

So you should have had that as the fifth event, and the final event from our list, was the integrated bus services began in Montgomery, the day after the MIA ended its boycott.

So really well done if you got all of those identified correctly.

And now we're ready to move on to the second part of our lesson for today, where we are going to focus on direct action in the early 1960s.

The success of the Montgomery Bus Boycott encouraged other campaigners to use direct action to challenge segregation.

Young campaigners, including members of the new Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, or SNCC, became very active in these types of protests.

Between 1958 and 1962, two of the most high-profile forms of direct action undertaken by young civil rights campaigners, were sit-ins, and freedom rights, so we'll think about each of these in turn.

By 1960, even though many US universities had desegregated, many of the facilities in university towns were still segregated.

In Greensboro, North Carolina, a group of students decided to take action by staging a sit-in in February 1960.

The sit-in began when four Black students sat at a whites-only lunch counter in a local Woolworths store and demanded to be served.

As they expected, they were refused service.

They remained at the counter until the store closed, then returned the next day.

By the fifth day, they were 300 students who had joined the sit-in at Woolworths.

In addition to the rapidly growing number of student protestors, there was national and international news coverage of the sit-ins.

In March, President Eisenhower expressed his sympathy with the protestors.

In July 1960 as financial and media pressure increased, the Woolworths store in Greensboro eventually changed policy and desegregated its lunch counters.

A hundred communities elsewhere in the South, also desegregated their own lunch counters.

By 1962, 70,000 Americans had participated in sit-ins, which spread to other public spaces such as beaches, churches, and libraries, alongside stores.

These sit-ins were often organised by SNCC, and students participated, despite frequently being harassed, attacked, and even arrested by opponents.

So, let's reflect on what we've just heard.

We have a statement on the screen that reads, "By 1960, most universities were still segregated." Is that statement true or false? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that that statement was false, but we need to be able to justify our response.

So two justifications have appeared on the screen.

The first says that most universities had agreed to desegregate at some point, but this had not been achieved in practise by 1960.

The second says that most universities had desegregated, but many of the facilities in local towns and cities were still segregated.

So which one of those two justifications is correct? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct justification was B.

By 1960, most universities had desegregated, but many of the facilities in local towns and cities were still segregated.

And let's try another question.

I want you to change one word to correct the following statement.

Protestors staging sit-ins acted violently to challenge segregation in public spaces.

So think about which word seems like it's incorrect and what should it be changed to, pause the video here and press play when you're ready to check your answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who changed the word "violently" to "peacefully." Protestors staging sit-ins acted peacefully to challenge segregation in public spaces.

In 1960, the Supreme Court ruled that all transport facilities, so things like bus stations, across the USA, had to desegregate.

In May 1961, members of SNCC came together with campaigners from other civil rights groups and decided to test how far the Supreme Court's ruling was being carried out.

The plan was to travel through the South and use white's-only transport facilities, which should have been desegregated.

The Freedom Riders, as they were called, were made up of seven Black and six white Americans.

Whilst their journey began without major problems, when the Freedom Riders reached Alabama, one of their buses was firebombed.

On escaping the bus, the Freedom Riders were brutally beaten by a racist mob and were attacked again after they reached the city of Birmingham.

In Birmingham, the local police refused to take any action to help the Riders.

Other Freedom Rides encountered similar white violence, or else faced arrest for using transport facilities that were still segregated.

Over the summer of 1961, 60 Freedom Rides took place and 300 Freedom Riders were jailed in Jackson, Mississippi alone.

The Freedom Rides received a lot of press attention as journalists shared reports and images of the Rider's experiences, which shocked audiences in the North and abroad.

Eventually, in November 1961, the federal government promised that federal officers would be sent to desegregate transport facilities if states did not do so themselves.

Facing this threat, Southern states began to desegregate their transport facilities, in line with the Supreme Court ruling, and the Freedom Rides came to an end.

Okay, so let's check our understanding of everything that we've just heard.

Which statement is most accurate? Freedom Riders faced opposition from racist mobs in the South.

Freedom Riders faced opposition from local police forces in the South, or Freedom Riders faced opposition from racist mobs and police forces in the South.

Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was C.

Freedom Riders faced opposition from racist mobs and local police forces in the South.

And let's try another question.

This time, I want you to write the missing word for the following sentence.

In November 1961, the, blank, government demanded that Southern states desegregate their travel facilities.

So what's the missing word? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the missing word was "federal." In November 1961, the federal government demanded that Southern states desegregate their travel facilities.

So we're now ready to put all of our knowledge of direct action in the early 60s into practise.

I want you to explain why the use of direct action between 1960 and 1962 as part of the Civil Rights Movement may be considered a success.

You may refer to sit-ins and Freedom Rides as part of your answer, so pause the video here and press play when you're ready to check your response.

Okay, well done for all of your hard work on that task.

So I asked you to explain why the use of direct action between 1960 and 1962 as part as the Civil Rights Movement, may be considered a success, and your answer may have included: "The use of direct action between 1960 and 1962 could be considered a success as it helped ensure that states in the South followed the Supreme Court's ruling that transport facilities be desegregated.

In 1961, Freedom Riders travelling through the South suffered violent attacks, including the firebombing of one of their buses, and multiple arrests.

This demonstrated that segregation had continued in the South and made it impossible for the federal government to ignore.

As a result of the pressure these Freedom Rides created, Southern states were forced to desegregate their facilities by the end of 1961." So really well done if your own response looks something like that model we've just seen.

Alternatively, your answer may have included: "The use of direct action between 1960 and 1962 could be considered a success as it helped pressure many public spaces into desegregating, without relying upon the government.

In 1960, a sit-in at the Woolworths store in Greensboro created growing financial pressure, which helped force the business into desegregating its lunch counter.

Soon afterwards, 100 other Southern communities had desegregated their own lunch counters.

Furthermore, the sit-in movement spread to other public spaces such as libraries and beaches as it proved successful.

As a result, African Americans gained access to many new public areas without the need for new laws and court rulings." So now we're ready to move on to the third and final part of our lesson for today, where we're going to think about direct action and the media.

There were many reasons for the success of direct action in the 1950s and early 1960s.

Amongst these was the role the media played during protests such as a Montgomery Bus Boycott, sit-ins.

and Freedom Rides.

A key aim of direct action was to gain publicity.

Direct action allowed reporters and their audiences to directly observe the protests, as well as what might happen to protestors.

Violent reactions from opponents were likely to gain even more publicity.

So let's think about what we've just heard.

We have a statement on the screen that says, "A key aim of direct action was avoiding violent reactions from opponents." Is that statement true or false? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that that statement was false, but we need to be able to justify our response.

So two justifications have appeared on the screen.

The first, says that civil rights campaigners knew that violent reactions from their opponents would help their protests gain more publicity.

Our second justification says that civil rights campaigners looked forward to opportunities to fight against their opponents and demonstrate their strength.

So which one of those two justifications is correct? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct justification was A, civil rights campaigners knew that violent reactions from their opponents would help their protests to gain even more publicity.

Publicity helped encourage more people to participate in the Civil Rights Movement.

As more people became aware of protests, and were inspired by the actions of those they saw, greater numbers participated in the campaign for African American Civil Rights.

This made it harder for opponents to resist calls for change.

So thinking about what we've just heard, I want you to write the missing word for the following sentence.

Publicity helped increase, "blank," in protests such as the sit-in movement.

So what's the missing word? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to check your answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the missing word was "participation." Publicity helped increase participation in protests such as the sit-in movement, as more people became aware of these issues and inspired by the actions of others.

One of the intended impacts of publicity from direct action was also to put pressure on the federal government.

Publicity for civil rights issues made them harder for American presidents and their governments to ignore.

Presidents would face re-election so needed to maintain public support across the USA, and the US was in a Cold War against the USSR, so it needed to maintain a good reputation abroad.

Both of these things made presidents very sensitive to issues in the media.

We could effectively break down the logic of trying to gain publicity for direct action protests and how this was supposed to put pressure on the federal government.

So let's imagine, that direct action protests are reported on TV, radio, and in newspapers.

This would raise awareness of civil rights issues for African Americans.

Now, as a result, protests would gain more public sympathy within the USA and internationally, especially if these direct action protests face violent reactions.

And as the sympathy of the American public and international audiences grew, there would be more embarrassment for the American government if the situation continued.

Therefore, the US government would be pressured into taking action to resolve this issue, to make sure that a president could maintain their popularity with the public, and to ensure that the US wouldn't look bad compared to its Cold War rival, the USSR.

So thinking about everything that we've just heard, which statement is most accurate? Civil rights campaigners only benefited from publicity in the USA.

The civil rights campaigners only benefited from international publicity, or civil rights campaigners benefited from both international publicity and publicity in the USA.

Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was C.

Civil rights campaigners benefited from both international publicity and publicity in the USA.

Both of these things put pressure on US presidents and the federal government to act.

So we're now in a good position to put all of our knowledge about direct action in the media into practise.

I want you to explain one way in which the role of the media helped to enhance the effectiveness of direct action.

You should refer to specific examples of direct action from earlier in the lesson to support your explanation.

So pause the video here and press play when you're ready to reflect on your response.

Okay, well done for all of your hard work on that task.

So I asked you to explain one way in which the role of the media helped to enhance the effectiveness of direct action.

And your answer may have included: "The role of the media helped to enhance the effectiveness of direct action by increasing pressure on the government.

Direct action protests often attracted considerable news coverage.

For example, during the Freedom Rides in 1961, considerable publicity was given to the attacks suffered by Freedom Riders and their arrests by Southern police forces.

This publicity created outrage in both the US North and abroad.

Subsequently, it was hard for the federal government to continue ignoring the issue as it had to protect its popularity in the North and its reputation abroad.

As a result, publicity for media coverage helped ensure the federal government took action to force the Southern states into desegregating their transport facilities." So really well done one if response looks something like that model, which we've just seen.

And so now we've reached the end of today's lesson, which puts us in a good position to summarise our learning about direct action and the Civil Rights Movement.

We've seen that civil rights campaigners used direct action as well as legal action to challenge discrimination.

The Montgomery Bus Boycott led to the end of segregation on buses.

Young campaigners staged direct action protests in the early 1960s, including sit-ins and the Freedom Rides.

Direct Action intended to gain media attention to raise the publicity of protests, and publicity helped encourage participation in the Civil Rights Movement and put more pressure on the federal government to act.

So really well done for all of your effort during today's lesson.

It's been a pleasure to help guide you through our resources, and I look forward to seeing you again as we think further about the Civil Rights Movement and continue to ask ourselves, "How successful was it?".