For weeks, the Ottawa drivers’ protests paralyzed Canada’s capital and crippled commerce. The drivers occupied city streets to fight the COVID-19 vaccine requirements of the government. It resulted in debates about what types of less-violent protest is allowed in a democratic society. That said it reminds us of history and traffic disruption for civil rights.
Some critics considered these protests a new and scary development, even conveying a whiff of fascism. Others insist that, whatever their reasons, they are in the grand tradition of civil disobedience. The dispute is taking on new urgency in the United States like Washington, D.C. prepares for a similar group of trucks.
However, vehicular disruptions are not a new form of protest, nor are the talks they have provoked out of the ordinary. Fifty years ago, similar debates and conflicts resulted in a similar protest, albeit in the service of a fundamental cause.
History of Traffic Disruption For Civil Rights: A Timeline
The 1960s
In 1964, to oppose racial discrimination, education, and living conditions in New York, the Brooklyn chapter of the Congress of Racial Equality promised to block traffic on all the highways leading to the World’s Fair exhibition site in Queens.
Thousands of motorists drove onto the bridges and roads and stopped their cars. It prevented visitors from reaching the venue thereby causing additional disruption. They were known as the “stall-in” mounted to bring down segregation. Because of this, the mass action set New York City on edge.
In the early 1960s, young civil rights campaigners studying Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. began organizing peaceful demonstrations to challenge the Jim Crow regime across the American South. College students held sit-ins at segregated lunch counters, movie theaters, swimming pools, and other public places, pressuring businesses and governments to serve customers regardless of skin color.
Although segregation remained widespread several years later, the strategy proved to be incredibly successful. Demonstrators also captivated national attention on the intrinsic unfairness of Jim Crow, and some cities made significant changes toward integration.
The 1980s
By 1983, many Americans had become impatient with the slow pace of transformation. President John F. Kennedy had moved hesitantly on civil rights in his first years in office. President Kennedy introduced a major bill in June of that year. Figures like Malcolm X had gained a podium to deny the mainstream civil rights movement, its principles of non-violence and integration, and to advocate for a more militant posture and set of goals. Within the action itself, young people, especially at CORE and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, became disappointed with King and his methods, calling for more extreme measures.
For the succeeding years, civil rights leaders like Farmer, King and Lewis, and millions of Americans struggled to understand what would amount to legitimate and appropriate forms of nonviolent protest. It involved tactics dramatic enough to make their impact but not so disruptive as to isolate supporters. Everyone could agree on the pride of the original sit-ins, conducted with such dignity that their moral power proved burdensome.
The 2020s
Today, in a new era of the grassroots street campaign, a similar misunderstanding is happening. People who supported a broad group for social disruption during the 2020 protest have welcomed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to finally clear out the truckers while critics of the 2020 activism decry his crackdown. But the desire to maintain a moral position has also produced surprises. Moreover, The New York Times editorial board expressed limited support for the protests. In addition, Fox News’s Geraldo Rivera broke with his network’s consensus in attacking them. Like the 1960s, an uprising against authority changes our politics, creating unforeseen gaps and strange new realignments.
