Most people are familiar with a very specific version of the civil rights movement.

It's the narrative that's taught in schools, the story that's depicted in movies,

and the tale that's told by politicians, preachers, and parents.

It goes something like this.

The civil rights movement began in 1954 when the Supreme Court ruled that segregation was wrong.

Dr. Martin Luther King then emerged on the scene to lead a nonviolent crusade and receive the unwavering support of the federal government.

The movement peaked in 1965 when Congress passed the Voting Rights Act and then unraveled

when African Americans rejected nonviolence and embraced black power.

Fortunately, by that time, America had already righted its racial wrongs, paving the way for

Barack Obama to become the nation's first black president. Historians call this version of the civil rights movement the master narrative.

And although its framing of civil rights history is deeply ingrained in popular culture,

it is rife with inaccuracies. Government support is overblown. White participation is overstated.

Dr. King's role is over-emphasized. Women's leadership is overlooked and non-violence is overhyped.

At the same time, the master narrative downplays grassroots organizing, denigrates armed self-defense,

disparages black power, and denies the existence and persistence of racism outside the South.

Teaching the civil rights movement accurately and effectively requires deconstructing the myths

and misconceptions about the civil rights movement.

This is necessary because the master narrative informs nearly everything that students have

learned about the movement.

And we have to explain what really took place.

Here, we set the historical record straight

by separating civil rights fact from civil rights fiction.

...