The Relationship Between the “Invisibility” of African American Women in the American Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s and Their Portrayal in Modern Film

The Triple Constraint

Women participated significantly more in the civil rights movement than their male counterparts, as Charles Payne (1990) came to learn when writing “Men Led, But Women Organized” (p. 9). However, women, specifically African American women, were not allowed to be in formal leadership positions. Sexism and authoritarianism were among factors that prevented women from assuming public leadership roles in the civil rights movement. For example, in the program of speakers for the national 1963 March on Washington, not a single woman was invited to speak, though many women risked their lives alongside men in direct action against the state. With only Marian Anderson and Mahalia Jackson being the two African American females to take part, singing not speaking, it can be argued they were only allowed to sing due to their fame and not for recognition for their involvement in the March. Adams and Lee Anne Bell (2016) note in Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice, the civil rights movement allowed everyone to have their own, personal, and individual battle. “The Civil Rights Movement fired the imagination of millions of Americans who applied its lessons to an understanding of their own situations and adapted its analysis and tactics to their own struggles for equality” (p. 54). This argument can be applied directly to African American women in the sense that they not only suffered racial inequality but also faced sexism. Historian Bernice Barnett’s “Invisible Southern Black Women Leaders in the Civil Rights Movement: The Triple Constraints of Gender, Race and Class” argues that African American women suffered from the “Triple Constraint” of racism, sexism, and classism. This prejudice affected the efforts of African American women’s experiences in the civil rights movement making them have “a history of their own” (p. 54). This theory is evident when looking at personal testimonies from activists during this time. In May 2009, the U.S. Congress authorized a national initiative by passing The Civil Rights History Project Act of 2009, which meant that the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of African American History and Culture had the opportunity to record new interviews with people who had participated in the struggle. One of the interviews features SNCC (Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee) member Gwendolyn Zoharah Simmons where she talks of the “Triple Constraint” she faced within the SNCC. She notes that “one of the things that we often don’t talk about,” is that many women within the SNCC committees faced sexual harassment (Civil Rights History Project, 2016). Civil rights films have missed the opportunity to portray this aspect of African American women’s experiences during the movement. For example, The Help refuses to touch upon Minny Jackson’s (who was played by Octavia Spencer) abusive husband, something that will be expanded on within Chapter 2. It is argued that modern civil rights films not acknowledging this aspect of African American women’s lives is a result of the lack of awareness of sexual harassment and domestic abuse that was so prominent during the movement. Conversely, Derby also claims that she always did what she wanted to do due to the “inner drive” she had. LaVerne Gyant (1996) argues that the “Triple Constraint” was not necessarily a negative. She contends that it empowered women to rise above society’s challenges and let them find freedom from racial oppression. This is evident when Derby states that “if somebody had XYZ skills, and somebody only had ABC, we had to come together. We used to joke about that, but in reality, the women, you know, were strong. In the struggle, the women were strong” (Civil Rights History Project, 2016). Overall, it is argued that the “Triple Constraint” is partially responsible for the absence of recognition these women faced. Like Derby, many other African American women fought the oppression they faced from the “Triple Constraint” and lack of recognition. Diane Judith Nash was not only a co founder of the SNCC but she was also one of the most respected student leaders of the successful sit-in movement in Nashville, eventually integrating lunch counters. In an interview in 1988 at Trinity College, Nash explains to the audience, in order to raise awareness of the lack of recognition her and many other African American women activists faced during the fight, how she used nonviolence to overcome the oppression that came with the “Triple Constraint.”

We used non-violence as an expression of love and respect of the opposition, while noting that a person is never the enemy. The enemy is always attitudes, such as racism or sexism, political systems that are unjust—some kind of system of attitude that oppress. (Powledge, 1991, p. 32)

It is argued that the women were well aware of their oppression, however, as Teresa A. Nance (1996) argues in “Hearing the Missing Voice,” that regardless of the fact that male leaders in the civil rights movement did not consider women as leaders, the women did not believe this attitude to be sexist (p. 551). Despite the fact that these women knew they were facing the “Triple Constraint,” or that this empowered them to rise above society’s challenges, it cannot be denied that the “Triple Constraint” was a major factor behind the lack of recognition of their effort. Nash continues to argue that if one withdraws oneself from a system of oppression, then nonviolent activists would no longer see themselves as victims, therefore putting them in “positions of power” (p. 551). Nash also raises the argument that an essential principle to the philosophy was to recognize “oppression always requires the participation of the oppressed.”

So that rather than doing harm to the oppressor, another way to go is to identify your part in your own oppression, and then withdraw your cooperation from the system of oppression and guarantee if the oppressed withdraw their cooperation from their own oppression, the system of oppression cannot work. (p. 551)

The argument can be suggested that Nash’s theory of the African American women removing themselves from the system of oppression could essentially lead to African American women activists being treated equally to their male counterparts, therefore receiving recognition for their contribution to the movement. However, there are problems with using personal testimonies to recreate the past. Nash’s statement was made in 1988 during a talk at Trinity College and with hindsight, Nash’s theory did not work as she and many other African American women suffered in silence throughout the civil rights movement. Barnett contends that research, which has solely focused on “elite male professionals within the black community,” has made the “invisibility” of black women in the civil rights movement worse. Nance offers a different argument as to why the “invisibility” of African American women has increased. She believes it is down to the male leaders’ attitudes toward African American women. In a report created by Nash from September 17 to 20, 1963 which accounts for her activity while she attended the funerals of the deceased in the Birmingham church bombings, it is made clear that she was more dedicated than her male counterparts in getting an agenda created for Montgomery. The report shows of her meeting with Reverend Shuttlesworth and how he rejects her proposal to take direct action in Montgomery. After the funeral for the three young girls, people started to march without a leader, and Nash became aware of the danger this could cause due to her nonviolent approach to activism, and began to break up the crowd. Nash (1963) argues that the energy among the crowd of students wanting to take action “ . . . could have been channeled into a constructive, disciplined soul force at creatively using this energy to achieve a concrete gain instead of just suppressing it.” She continues,

I expressed these sentiments to Rev. Shuttlesworth who suggested that I talk to Dr. King. I did so as well as showed him the proposal for action in Montgomery. I also suggested that a strategy meeting be set. I did not feel that our conversation was fruitful. (Nash, 1963)

This document is dated 1963, 2 years before the Selma to Montgomery marches in 1965. This highlights Nash’s determination to push for immediate action to be taken in Montgomery along with her proposal getting overshadowed. This shows how easy it was for African American women to become “invisible” by being undermined by male leaders, even though, as previously stated, Nash was pushing for action long before Martin Luther King Jr. This lack of acknowledgment for her effort during the movement results in her mischaracterization in Selma (2015). King solely receives credit for the 1965 Selma to Montgomery march in the film Selma, while Nash is only briefly recognized and her determination for direct action that is evident here is absent from the film. This will be argued in Chapter 2, along with the debate about whether filmmakers should be considered as historians or is it too harsh to criticize filmmakers for not being historically accurate. Fannie Lou Hamer was also an influential civil rights activist, most notably famous for her great desire to attempt to register to vote. In her testimony for the National Democratic Convention in Atlantic City in 1964, Hamer spoke of the sexism and pure violence she faced by men and even authorities during the civil rights movement:

The second Negro began to beat and I began to work my feet, and the State Highway Patrolman ordered the first Negro who had beat me to sit on my feet—to keep me from working my feet. I began to scream and one white man got up and began to beat me in my head and tell me to hush. (Civil Rights Movement Veterans, 1964)

This shows how the oppressor, usually racism or sexism, in this instance the authorities, used the “Triple Constraint” against African American women who wanted to better their lives. As Hamer (1964) stated, “All of this on account of we want to register, to become first-class citizens.” However, the problem with using personal testimony to reconstruct the past is that it could be biased as the focus is just on the individual being oppressed. This is why it is essential to look at other factors such as the male view of women and the role of the media.

The Attitude of Male Leaders

Activist at the time Pauli Murray was disturbed that African American women, who he knew had played a fundamental part in the civil rights movement, were not seen by the public or by Black male leadership as leaders or policy makers.

One thing is perfectly clear. The Negro woman can no longer postpone or subordinate the fight against discrimination because of sex to the Civil Rights struggle but must carry on both fights simultaneously. She must insist upon a partnership role in the integration . . . (Baldwin & Dekar, 2013, p. 77)

He also believed many male civil rights leaders “harbored medieval attitudes toward women” (p. 77). This can be seen when studying Malcolm X’s attitude toward African American women. As Clenora Hudson-Weems (1993) argues, his attitude changed drastically as he grew spiritually and politically (p. 27). For example, when Malcolm joined the NOI (Nation of Islam) when the civil rights movement was in full swing, he held a misogynistic view of African American women. As stated in his autobiography, he demonstrated abusive tendencies and believed women were frail and weak and held the view that they loved exploitation (Haley, 1964, pp. 164-165). If the male leaders of the civil rights movement who were constantly in the public eye held these views about African American women, there is no wonder why these women remained “invisible” to the public. However, William Sales (1994) notes that Malcolm X’s, now El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, attitude toward African American women progressively shifted (p. 15). Malcolm’s new found yearning to protect African American women stemmed from a genuine fear for their emotional and physical well-being. As Farah Jasmine Griffin (2001) argues, “ . . . it was also reflective of the power struggle between black and white men and black men and women,” where she states the relationship as “the woman gets protection; the man acquires a possession” (p. 216). With Malcolm’s declaration to “protect” African American women, it is difficult to ignore the connection to “ownership.” While in the hands of a “protector,” a woman is open to further oppression. The attitude of the males in the civil rights movement toward the women was ultimately a major reason why African American women’s efforts went unnoticed.

The Media

The media played an important role in the “invisibility” of African American women during the movement. In 1955, African Americans were portrayed on television shows with 49% of the characters not having graduated from school and 47% were viewed as having low economic status (Isaacs, 2010). Even in the 1960s, African Americans were still portrayed in stereotypical roles that were created in order to amuse White viewers (Isaacs, 2010). With African Americans hardly making it to the fictional screen, there is no doubt that they, especially women, were not recognized in the media’s coverage of the movement. As Merline Pitre and Bruce Glasrud (2013) suggest in Southern Black Women in the Modern Civil Rights Movement, African American women were not typically consulted by White politicians or were they quoted in the media (p. 1). The lack of recognition of African American women, as Kimberly Springer (1999) notes, can partially be explained by the fact that the recognized leaders of the civil rights movement, who also received the media attention, were Black ministers such as Martin Luther King Jr (p. 243). Regardless of the role they played, African American women were ignored in news coverage as the media sought to follow high profile male leaders. The photo of Ethel Witherspoon’s arrest in Birmingham is an example of the poorly documented civil rights actions of African American women. As Martin A. Berger (2011) explains, to White liberals and conservatives, the main point was that the women in these pictures had behaved incommensurate with the “appropriate” obedience of polite African American women, which led White conservative newspapers to publish such images with this message (p. 119). According to Berger, this photograph was quite obviously featured on the front page of many Black newspapers; however, Berger states that he is unable to locate a single White newspaper with the photo featuring on the front cover. He lists the following as not even publishing the photograph at all: Boston Globe, Brooklyn Eagle, Chicago Tribune, New York Post, New York Times, New York World-Telegram and Sun, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, Washington Post, Life, and Look (p. 114). Annie Lee Cooper, a civil rights activist in the 1965 Selma Voting Rights Movement, believed there was power in numbers as she and many others made a brave attempt to register hundreds of disenfranchised African Americans. Like Witherspoon, Cooper was wrestled to the ground by Sheriffs while attempting to register to vote. However, while the photographs are deemed very similar, the publishing of these photographs saw a contrast. Witherspoon was seen as an assertive woman who “resisted” police orders while Cooper was an aggressor who instigated the “attack.” The fact that newspapers portrayed Cooper to be aggressive and violent most certainly contributed to her efforts to register to vote being unrecognized. Most White accounts such as the Lodi News Sentinel (“Selma Sheriff Slugged by Hefty Negro Woman,” 1965) stressed Cooper’s large size and her decision to abandon her place in line in order to strike at the officer without cause (p. 10). Their headline stated, “Selma Sheriff Slugged by Hefty Negro Woman.” They stated that the Sheriff was attacked by a “5-foot-7 inch 226-pound woman” who smashed him twice in the face” (p. 10). The Chicago Tribune (“Negro Woman Slugs Sheriff in Vote Drive,” 1965) interpreted the event as “Negro Woman Slugs Sheriff in Vote Drive,” with the article featuring on page 9 on the newspaper. The San Francisco Chronicle documented that Cooper “stepped out of the voter registration line” to hit Sheriff Clark (Berger, 2011, p. 212). The Spokesman-Review highlighted that “a heavyset Negro woman,” “without warning,” “stepped out of the line and struck Clark in the left eye.” Not one single White newspaper highlighted the fact that Cooper was in fact trying to register to vote for her and her fellow disenfranchised African Americans, instead decided to highlight her weight and not her courage. The lack of recognition and misrepresentation of African American women in the media was undoubtedly a huge factor that contributed to their “invisibility.” The link between the “invisibility” of these women during the movement and their lack of decent representation in modern civil rights films is evident here as the character of Annie Lee Cooper played by Oprah Winfrey is only featured in a minor way in the film Selma (2015), where her portrayal does not highlight her many efforts to try to register to vote. This is again something that will be expanded on within Chapter 2.

Film as a Historical Source

When studying the use of film along with history it is difficult to ignore the debate of whether or not it is acceptable to refer to film as an accurate historical source. Film and history theorist Robert Rosenstone (1995) recognizes two main approaches that he claims characterize historical film as a corrective to “real history” (p. 6). The first approach is the “explicit” approach, which Rosenstone believes is led by “concrete political and social concerns” during the time a film is made. The second is the “implicit” approach, where an existing cinematic piece is judged by “historical criteria” at a later point (p. 6). Rosenstone offers an interesting interpretation of using film as a historical source. He suggests that historians would not learn about the past through film when studying a field outside their areas of expertise (p. 6). For example, Rosenstone (1982) suggests that many American people would have learnt about Gandhi primarily from the film Gandhi (p.6). This shows the importance of filmmakers’ inaccuracies as many people who seek to learn about history through the source of film will believe the mischaracterizations, something that will be argued later in this section. However, this argument is opposed by many scholars. Historian Peniel Joseph (2015) believes that many celebrated films often dramatize historical events, arguing that films are not scholarly books and believes people should not learn about historical events through films. For example, Steven Spielberg (2012) Lincoln completely dismisses the iconic abolitionist Frederick Douglass from the film, even though Douglass met with President Lincoln 3 times. Joseph argues that Spielberg and Screenwriter Tony Kushner made this difficult choice to erase this from the story which did not affect the films’ chance of being deemed an artistic achievement and worthy of awards. Similarly, Barbara Reynolds (2015) argues that although the misrepresentations of African American activists in film, which will be expanded on later in this section, will not affect those who believe the theory that filmmakers are not in fact historians, it is still wrong to distort history this way. She argues that it is wrong for filmmakers to use false history and to fictionalize civil rights activists as this often diminishes the historic truth of these activists’ lives, particularly when those people, such as Coretta Scott King, who is heavily mischaracterized in Selma, can no longer defend themselves (Reynolds, 2015). Reynolds contends that filmmakers often take a myth and make it seem like reality, especially as it consists of more drama than the truth, as this usually makes an award winning film. However, criticizing a film for not being historically accurate suggests that inaccurate equals bad. Elaine Teng (2015) argues that film making, like all storytelling, is prejudiced—even manipulative. Teng also contends that films are the expression of the director’s dream of a narrative, and one must not take credit away from an award winning film simply for portraying the film how the director envisioned it. Rosenstone offers an insightful solution to the problem of opposing theories of using film as a historical source. He suggests that the unsystematic nature of history on film, and the lack of professional control insofar as a historian does not approve the film’s accuracy before it is released, makes it even more essential that historians who are passionate about public history, must learn how to read and judge film (Rosenstone, 1995, p. 18). To overcome the stigma of turning to film to learn history, one must learn how to intercede between the historical world of the filmmaker and that of the historian. Therefore, historians will have to reassess the standards for history or must learn to negotiate between the standards of historians and those of filmmakers.

Selma

When Selma hit the “big-screen” in 2015, the opportunity arose for director Ava DuVernay to shed light upon the important African American women activists who risked their lives to attempt to gain racial equality. However, the film has been criticized for a number of misrepresentations. Julian Bond, a social activist and leader in the civil rights movement, argues that the film’s inaccuracies are “tremendously irritating” (Blackmon, 2015). As Reynolds points out, supporters of President Lyndon Johnson have condemned his portrayal as an antagonist who only unwillingly supported the Voting Rights Act after attempting to obstruct the Selma effort (Reynolds, 2015). However, all the criticism has ignored the remarkably disconcerting mischaracterization of the movement’s most important figures. As Reynolds (2015) argues, more specifically the portrayal of Coretta Scott King is “pure Hollywood fiction.” She argues that DuVernay’s depiction of King shows her as “timidly” accepting the rumors that her husband corrupted their marriage and tearfully asks whether he loves his mistresses (Reynolds, 2015). This is a truly inaccurate representation of King, and it diminishes her achievements during the struggle of the civil rights movement. King herself explained that she hopes “ . . . someday people will see Coretta,” and not “an attachment to a vacuum cleaner: the wife of Martin, then the widow of Martin,” that she is so often portrayed to be in films such as Selma (2015). She continues to explain that she was “ . . . never just a wife, nor a widow,” in fact, she “was always more than a label” (Reynolds, 2015). This argument that DuVernay portrays these women in a historically inaccurate way is mirrored in other work such as Jesse McCarthy’s (2015) “‘Selma’ Ignores the Radical Grassroots Politics of the Civil Rights Movement.” McCarthy agrees with Reynolds by arguing that Selma and director DuVernay miss an opportunity to evoke a women’s empowerment history. In the film, women are portrayed as consoling, supporting of their men, and enduring—all gender stereotyped roles. The truth is these women were the backbone of the movement, creating strategies and taking action to help the movement. Selma, as McCarthy (2015) notes, portrays the movement through the leadership of Martin Luther King and his “cadre” of SNCC supporters. McCarthy (2015) continues to talk of the false representation of women in the film by arguing that the film is so focused on preserving the charismatic male leadership from Martin Luther King during the movement, that it fails to honor the “female fountainheads” of the movement such as Septima Clark, Ella Baker, and Fannie Lou Hamer whose work on voter registration and literacy were the real “incubators” of activism and irrigators of the civil rights movement. Although the film does in fact include Diane Nash, SNCC’s cofounder, she is only briefly seen among the background of the male leaders and the audience only learns her name as the camera scans over an FBI document. As McCarthy (2015) argues, “nothing in the film illustrates her fiery commitment or talented militancy. Bond (2015) expands on this by stating that the film leaves Nash still as a “forgotten person (p.1).” When talking of the Selma to Montgomery march, Bond contends that it was in fact Nash and her husband James Bevel who created the idea and pushed for direct action, as pointed out in primary documents in Chapter 1. He highlights that it was not Martin Luther King nor was it Lyndon Johnson’s idea as the film portrays it to be. On the contrary, it is also important to consider the opposing views this argument has regarding Selma’s mischaracterizations of African American women activists. Joseph’s “‘Selma’ Offers a Window Into the Civil Rights Movement” believes that DuVernay wisely chooses to ignore the stereotypes of presenting the film solely focusing on Martin Luther King and his efforts during the movement. This argument is difficult to consider when it does not provide any specific examples from the film that highlight this. As McCarthy notes, it is clear that the film portrays the movement through the leadership of Martin Luther King solely. Joseph (2015) also considers DuVernay’s portrayal of main African American women figures such as Annie Lee Cooper (Oprah Winfrey) and Diane Nash as an illustration of the African American woman’s “fierce activist commitment and leadership in civil rights struggles.” Joseph (2015) argues that the film represents a historically accurate portrayal of African American women, although he does state that these are indeed “subtle and nuanced depictions.” One can consider the argument that Selma is a true portrayal of African American women, only in the sense that these women’s efforts were ignored during the time of the movement and therefore by not focusing on them in the film with the recognition they deserve, it comes across as an accurate representation of how they were treated at the time. Another negative portrayal in Selma is Annie Lee Cooper’s character that is played by Oprah Winfrey. The real-life civil rights activist Cooper, as mentioned in section one, was wrestled to the ground by Sheriff Jim Clark while attempting to register to vote. Although this picture of her being tackled to the ground made headlines, it portrayed her as an aggressive woman and did not in fact highlight her efforts to register to vote. Cooper’s contribution in Selma fades as the film does and DuVernay does not give Cooper the amount of recognition that she deserves. Historian Gary May (2015) argues that DuVernay’s biggest failure in representing history in Selma is missing the object of her purpose to highlight Selma’s civil rights movement. May (2015) continues to argue that DuVernay’s false account of what happened between Cooper and Sheriff Clark does not fully enrich the true events. The first piece of crucial information DuVernay dismisses from the film is the fact that Cooper had lost her right to vote on returning to Selma. Second, after attempting and failing, she was unable to gain employment. This is vital information to include in the film if DuVernay truly wanted to showcase the mistreatment of African American women during the movement.

The Help

The Help, set in 1960s Mississippi when the civil rights movement was in full swing, is set through the eyes of White protagonist, Skeeter (Emma Stone). During the period that The Help is set in, legal segregation and economic inequalities limited African Americans women’s employment opportunities. However, the film focuses on two main African American women who work as maids for privileged White families, Minny Jackson (Octavia Spencer) and Aibileen Clark (Viola Davis). There has been much criticism of the film’s accuracies as it was set at a time when the civil rights movement was rife but makes hardly any reference to the movement or to the often violent struggle that African American women faced. One particular inaccuracy The Help features is in relation to the domestic abuse that maids regularly faced. The film even refuses to show Minny’s husband’s violence against her on screen, which was a regular occurrence for African American women during the civil rights movement, as argued in Chapter 1 (Laurier, 2011). Gwendolyn Zoharah Simmons notes in the first Chapter 1, that during the movement, along with many others, she faced sexual harassment within the SNCC. Films such as Douglas Sirk’s (1959) Imitation of Life and Raoul Walsh’s (1957) Band of Angels both point to the source of racism in social relationships and conditions; The Help, however, ignored the reality of the time and removes the blemishes of its “good” characters. The Association of Black Women Historians (2011) argue that The Help’s representation of these women as maids is a “disappointing resurrection of ‘Mammy,’” a mythical stereotype of Black women who were compelled, either by slavery or segregation, to serve White families. Depicted as caretakers of Whites, the humorous distortion of “Mammy” allowed America to ignore the systemic racism that bound African American women to low paying jobs where employers regularly exploited them. They argue that the problem with the popularity of The Help’s representation of these maids as a “Mammy” figure is that it reveals a contemporary nostalgia for the days when an African American woman could only dream of cleaning the White House as opposed to living there. However, these opinions are not supported by John McWhorter. McWhorter (2011) argues that The Help is not a racist film—he suggests that it is the critics that are indeed racist. He argues that, although the film is not essentially all historically accurate, but if it was it would be “psychologically implausible, dramatically reductive, preachy . . . ” to watch, and would not be an award winning film. “I cannot accept that this would be preferable for any reason to the solid, affecting Hollywood drama that I took in” (McWhorter, 2011). Conversely, as Professor Trysh Travis (2016) argues, the more historically accurate the film becomes, it would be deemed less likely to seem realistic to its target audience of White women like the protagonist and also the director of the film and author of the book.

The “Mammy” and the Servant

When studying African American women’s representation of their involvement in the civil rights movement in film, it is important to also examine their representation in films generally. In order to do this, it is essential to examine the popular roles that African American women often take on. This section will examine why African American women are not represented by well-known actresses unlike their male counterparts who are portrayed by famous actors such as Denzel Washington, starring in Malcolm X (1992). In order to do this, this section will look at how “invisibility” becomes an issue for African American women in American film in the sense that their contributions are not often recognized, and when they are, they rarely make it on to the “big-screen.” Stuart Hall’s (1992) “What is This ‘Black’ in Black Popular Culture” argues that the “invisibility” of African American women in film has been replaced by a “carefully regulated, segregated visibility,” meaning they are often stereotyped in certain roles (p. 24). Actress Viola Davis, who stars in The Help, contends that African American actresses are in “crisis mode,” stating that “not only in the sheer number of roles that are offered and that are out there. But in the quality of the roles” (Goldman, Ford, Harris, & Howard, 2014, p. 55). One prominent role that African American women often take on is that of “Mammy.” The “Mammy” image originated in the U.S. South and is one of the most pervasive images of African American women (Love, 2013, p. 57). Micki McElya’s (2009) Clinging to Mammy convincingly argues that this stereotype “is deeply rooted in the American racial imagination” due to the majority of White Americans wishing that African Americans are no longer angry over past and present injustices, “a world in which white people were and are not complicit” and a world in which the injustices of slavery, segregation and institutional racism “seem not to exist at all” (p. 3). This is evident in The Help, as the Association of Black Women Historians (2011) argue, the film’s portrayal of maids is a “disappointing resurrection of Mammy.” Since the early 20th century, the role of “Mammy” has been prominent in film and is often portrayed as an overweight, mother figure that cared for privileged, White families in the South. The problem with this stereotype, as scholars Margaret C. Campbell and Gina S. Mohr (2011) discovered with their research, is that exposure to stereotypes like these can manipulate behaviors that imitate a particular generalization from exposure to representations in film (pp. 431-444). This was a problem during the civil rights movement, as the survival of the “Mammy” figure continued well into the 1950s due to filmmakers at MGM finding that the character could be adapted to the suburban consumerism of the decade without changing her behavior (Lehman, 2007, p. 94). This therefore meant that African American women activists’ efforts in the movement were being ignored on and off the screen, with racist, stereotypical portrayals guiding the public’s opinions of African American even more negatively. It therefore is correct to argue that African American women’s “invisibility” during the movement results in their negative portrayal in modern films. The absence of African American women in starring roles is still an ongoing issue. If the 2011 Oscars are examined, the only African American woman to be nominated and the only African American woman to win an Oscar, Viola Davis playing Aibileen Clark and Octavia Spencer playing Minny Jackson, both played the roles of maids in The Help. This shows that Hollywood has not come far since the first African American woman, Hattie McDaniel, won an Oscar in 1939 for her role as “Mammy” in Gone With the Wind (1939). Brent Staples (2012) argues that these women would not have found starring roles elsewhere had they refused the role of a maid in The Help. With these facts, there is no surprise that when the survey conducted as part of this research asked the question “Out of the films that focus on the Civil Rights Movement, are there any well-known actresses that stand out to you?” Twelve people out of 20 answered that they could not name any actress featured in a civil rights film, and 19 people out of the 39 respondents skipped the question, implying they do not know either. Only eight out of 39 could name an actress and one of those was Emma Stone, a popular White actress, meaning only 18% could name an African American actress in a civil rights film. It is hardly surprising that when asked the question “Can you recall any famous actors that star in Civil Rights Movement films? (e.g., Malcolm X, The Butler),” 14 out of 39 people could name a male actor who starred in a civil rights film. This shows that African American women are not represented by well-known actresses unlike their male counterparts who are portrayed by famous actors such as Denzel Washington who plays the role in the film Malcolm X (1992). The current problem is that African American women’s contributions in American film are not often recognized, and when they are, they rarely make it on to the “big screen,” unlike their male counterparts. With Oprah Winfrey being the exception in films such as Selma and The Butler (2013), the role of important characters in modern civil rights film have been played by well-known African American male actors. For example, Malcolm X (1992) where Malcolm is played by Denzel Washington, Selma where Martin Luther King Jr. is played by David Oyelowo, and The Butler (2013) where Forest Whitaker took on the main character. The problem continues with African American women activists from the movement not being well represented in modern film. Take the made-for-TV film, The Rosa Parks Story (2002), for example, where Angella Bassett plays Parks. One of the most important African American women activists from the movement has only been represented in a made-for-TV film where she was not represented by a very well-known actress; whereas Martin Luther King Jr. currently has 10 films or television films portraying his effort in the civil rights movement.