On 1 February 1960, Ezell Blair Jr, Franklin McCain, Joseph McNeil, and David Richmond sat down at the lunch counter at Woolworth's in Greensboro, North Carolina, and asked for coffee and doughnuts. They were, of course, refused. For the men were black, and the lunch counter, like most facilities in the segregated south, served whites only.
Nevertheless, the activists remained all that day. They came back in the morning, and they asked again to be served. Over the next week, the sit-in — despite organised harassment from the KKK and other racists — grew and spread, sparking a movement across many southern cities, which culminated in the desegregation of many public places and inspired civil rights activism throughout America.
Today, most people regard the Greensboro Four as heroes. But what would Peter Dutton have said to them?
This week, the Home Affairs Minister called for mandatory sentences for climate protesters who broke the law, claimed that activists who inconvenienced others should be 'named and shamed', and declared that those receiving social security should have their payments stripped. Senior Nationals minister David Littleproud agreed. He, too, denounced protesters, urging magistrates to 'slip into them'. 'What this should be is about respect. When they don't, we've got to call them out.'
All the same arguments were made in Greensboro in 1960. Woolworth's was, after all, just going about its business. Segregation was not only legal — it was mandated. By demanding to be served, the Greensboro protesters (who were, incidentally, like the climate strikers very young) were both breaking the law themselves and asking the staff to join them in criminality.
Their sit-in disrupted normal routines, just as much as any Extinction Rebellion stunt does. The Woolworth's lunch counter was a busy facility, providing food for thousands of hungry workers each day. As the protests spread, they inevitably inconvenienced apolitical men and women who were just trying to get on with their lives. That's why, throughout the south, prosecutors generally charged those defying segregation with crimes like 'disturbing the peace' or 'disorderly conduct'.
So would Littleproud have said that the Greensboro Four 'lacked respect'? If not, why not?
"They don't hate the tactic — they hate the goal."
Perhaps the difference lies in the cause. Few today will defend the moral abomination that was racial segregation. By contrast, the rhetoric from politicians about environmental protests suggests they view catastrophic global warming as a matter about which reasonable people can politely