Introduction
On March 17, 1966 a group of around sixty Mexican American farm laborers representing the National Farm Workers Association (NFWA) began marching nearly 250 miles from the farming town of Delano through California’s Central Valley to the state capitol in Sacramento. Led by Cesar Chavez, who had founded the union in 1962 and would go on to become one of the foremost labor leaders in the United States, the farmworkers undertook this arduous, twenty-five-day pilgrimage to draw attention to their strikes and boycotts of grape growers in Delano. The Sun-Reporter, a progressive African American newspaper in San Francisco, reported on the march two days into it. In the midst of explaining the particulars of the union’s crusade, reporter Eleanor Ohman abruptly admonished her readers: “Those who march for Negro freedom have to also march for freedom of other men, for economic freedom and justice.” Ohman was echoing criticisms of the black freedom struggle that had arisen by 1966—that the movement needed to more directly confront economic inequality and, particularly in the multicultural West, should include other minorities in the pursuit of racial equality. According to Ohman, supporting the NFWA was both fitting and necessary for the movement’s evolution.1
Although admirable, the potential for cooperation between the civil rights movement and the farmworkers’ struggle—the latter commonly referred to as la causa (the cause)—faced many challenges. While both groups shared similarities, especially experiences of discrimination, their histories and cultures were distinct. For African Americans and Mexican Americans to come together in solidarity meant overcoming racial and ethnic differences, and in some instances those of language and religion. Geography could also divide them. In the South and Northeast, African Americans were generally unfamiliar with Mexican Americans, whose population in these areas was miniscule in the 1960s. In the West, most African Americans lived in urban areas far removed from the rural agricultural areas where the NFWA operated. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, for differing groups to come together in solidarity and cooperation, common interests must contend with self-interests. Forming alliances with others may not be a priority when one is still struggling to achieve unity within one’s own group.2
Despite these challenges, significant cooperation between the civil rights movement and la causa did occur. Moreover, the alliances that developed between the United Farm Workers (UFW, as the NFWA later became known) and the organizations at the center of the black freedom struggle occurred in the context of widespread coalition building between the movements of the 1960s and 1970s. Although technically a labor union, the leaders and members of the UFW envisioned themselves and their struggle as part of “The Movement,” the umbrella term for the various equality and justice struggles that unfolded in the United States from the 1950s to the 1970s. Yet existing histories of this period have tended to treat these movements independently. While providing in-depth knowledge of each movement, these works have created the false impression that each one operated in isolation. On the contrary, the social movements of the 1960s–1970s were marked by a pattern of continuous interaction and dynamic exchange. Sometimes the strategies, philosophies, and accomplishments of one movement merely influenced others. But in other instances, movements physically intersected. Participants overlapped, resources were shared, and efforts were merged to more effectively combat a shared enemy.3
While much historical scholarship argues that African American and Latino relations during the civil rights era were marked by conflict rather than cooperation, widespread coalition building occurred between the Chicano movement and the black freedom struggle. For example, the Brown Berets, a Chicano organization based in Los Angeles, joined with the Black Panther Party (BPP) to demand the release of Party leader Huey Newton from prison. Numerous Chicano activists, including members of the Crusade for Justice and the Alianza Federal de Pueblos Libres, participated in the Poor People’s Campaign organized by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). African American and Chicano students, together with American Indian students, formed the Third World Liberation Front and organized protests that led to the creation of the Ethnic Studies program at San Francisco State University, the first in the nation. It was in just this sort of dynamic give-and-take that the UFW interacted with the black freedom struggle.4
To explore more deeply the relationship between African American and Latino activism and how the black freedom struggle approached multiracial coalition building, this book examines the interaction between the UFW and the five major organizations of the black freedom struggle: the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), National Urban League (NUL), SCLC, and BPP. These five organizations demonstrate the wide range of ideology and activism within the black freedom struggle. The NAACP, founded in 1909, was the largest and most established civil rights organization and pursued integration and equality in employment, education, and public accommodations primarily through the legal system. Founded a year later, the Urban League sought to improve the lives of African Americans in urban areas through employment and social services. In doing so, the League eschewed agitation and protest in favor of cultivating the support of white business leaders. The push for civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s led to the creation of organizations that employed new and varied methods. SCLC, led by Martin Luther King, Jr., sought to end discrimination by appealing to the morality of white Americans through Christianity and nonviolent protests. SNCC, founded by college students during the wave of sit-ins that swept the South in 1960, initially shared SCLC’s commitment to Christian nonviolence, but soon diverged from the clergy-led organization as it embraced direct action protests, voter registration, and participatory democracy in the most violent areas of the Deep South. The movement in the South generally did not address the experience of African Americans in the urban North and West. The BPP was founded in Oakland, California in 1966 to confront police brutality in that city. In contrast to SCLC and SNCC, the BPP pursued social justice and economic and political power through a daring combination of community service and armed self-defense. The prominence and effectiveness of all five of these organizations demonstrates the diversity of activists, ideologies, and protest strategies within the black freedom struggle.5
These five organizations were not only instrumental in shaping the direction of and providing leadership for the black freedom struggle, they all also actively supported the UFW. Comparing and contrasting these organizations’ relationships to the UFW thus conveys the range of attitudes and approaches toward multiracial coalition building within the movement. Some scholars argue that organizations do not truly represent group interests and that “some of the most dynamic struggles take place outside—indeed, sometimes in spite of—established organizations and institutions.” While I acknowledge the importance of this sort of “infrapolitics,” I maintain that organizations are useful tools in the study of coalition building. As