Two other important men died this week, neither of them as rich or famous or white as Apple founder Steve Jobs, but I didn’t want to let their deaths—and profound contributions to our society—to get lost in the tributes to Jobs and his work.
The first was Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth, one of the great leaders of the American civil rights movement. Born into rural poverty in Alabama, he worked as a truck driver until he could become an accredited minister. While his friend Martin Luther King Jr. was seen as the intellectual and persuasive force of the movement, the physically tough and confrontational Shuttlesworth was its field marshall and gladiator. Dr. King described Shuttlesworth as “the most courageous civil rights fighter in the South.” Alabama’s first black federal judge U.W. Clemon, told the Washington Post that Shuttlesworth was utterly fearless in his activism, despite being repeatedly beaten, bombed out of his home, and living with constant death threats: “He was the first black man I knew who was totally unafraid of white folks.” After the deaths of King and Reverend Ralph Abernathy, Shuttlesworth was the last surviving member of the Civil Rights “Big Three” ministers, seen here:
Left to right: Shuttlesworth, Abernathy, King
After the fervor of the 1960s, Shuttlesworth remained a passionate activist for economic and social justice. In 1988, he founded the Shuttlesworth Housing Foundation to help low-income families become homeowners, and in 2004 he became president of the SCLC. But although he’d helped found that organization, he could not reconcile his uncompromising principles with what he saw there, and resigned within months, saying “deceit, mistrust and a lack of spiritual discipline and truth have eaten at the core of this once-hallowed organization.” In 2004, the city of Birmingham renamed its airport in Shuttlesworth’s honor, and in 2007 he joined a memorial march on Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, where demonstrators were beaten and tear-gassed in 1965. In that march, Reverend Shuttleworth’s wheelchair was pushed by then-Senator Barack Obama.
Less well-known than Shuttlesworth but also a key player in America’s battle against racism and injustice was Professor Derrick Bell, an attorney and legal scholar who was Harvard’s first black tenured professor of law and later the first black dean of a law school at a college that was not a HBCU. Bell’s New York Times obituary said:
He was a pioneer of critical race theory — a body of legal scholarship that explored how racism is embedded in laws and legal institutions, even those intended to lessen the effects of past injustice. Mr. Bell “set the agenda in many ways for scholarship on race in the academy, not just the legal academy,” said Lani Guinier, the first black woman hired to join the Harvard Law School’s tenured faculty, in an interview on Wednesday.
At a rally while a student at Harvard Law School, Barack Obama compared Professor Bell to the civil rights hero Rosa Parks.
Mr. Bell’s core beliefs included what he called “the interest convergence dilemma” — the idea that whites would not support efforts to improve the position of blacks unless it was in their interest. Asked how the status of blacks could be improved, Mr. Bell said he generally supported civil rights litigation, but cautioned that even favorable rulings were likely to yield disappointing results and that it was best to be prepared for that.
Bell was also known for taking a hard personal line against perceived racial injustice—even when it cost him his own paycheck. As a young lawyer at the US Department of Justice, he was told that his membership in the NAACP might lead to a conflict of interest, and was told to resign it. Instead, he resigned from the DOJ. In 1985, he resigned his deanship at the University of Oregon School of Law when an Asian woman was denied tenure. He returned to Harvard but said he would take an unpaid leave of absence until they hired a black woman to join their tenured faculty, something the school had never done. When, after two years, they still hadn’t, he quit.
Derrick Bell's aptly titled memoir
Both Derrick Bell and Fred Shuttlesworth were men of principle who devoted their lives to social justice and racial equality. They worked in different arenas, but both lived out their core beliefs in very active and personal ways.
Thanks for this, Becky.
Also yesterday: the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to three women’s rights activists (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/07/501364/main20117103.shtml)
More on the Nobel Prize winners to come…
IMO, Jobs can’t hold a candle to these men. Great post, Becky. (And yes, I’m thrilled about the Nobels!)
Well said, Becky. These men are models of principle. I read that Shuttlesworth developed many of the strategies the civil rights movement used to get national press and put pictures of racist violence in front of the entire country. He was truly a great soul.
I wish the world were such that we’d hear more about Shuttlesworth and Derrick Bell and didn’t have to listen to constant sermons about St. Steven.
@ PhDork
Laudable though these men be, is it necessary to denigrate Mr. Jobs to praise them? Is it the fault of Mr. Jobs that the Media hails his passing over the passing of those of arguably greater substance?
Is it not the fault of the Media, and by extension us, that the definition of ‘Hero’ is skewed?
@Vagina Dentata Can you look at this post as an illustration of our society’s priorities? I think the spirit is to point out that we almost never get that stuff right even in the very long run.
Your question Is it not the fault of the Media, and by extension us, that the definition of ‘Hero’ is skewed? even gets to this idea, so I know this isn’t news to you.
But I don’t understand why you think PhD expressing her preference makes you think she is denigrating Jobs. I don’t read it that way at all.
Perhaps the word ‘denigrate’, and its implied sentiment, was rather harsh. Apologies. A certain level of unworthiness was implied, however, with the use of the idiomatic phrase, ‘can’t hold a candle to’. I may well be incorrect in my understanding of that phrase though. English is my fourth language and its highly idiomatic nature tends to befuddle me at times. I am not of your culture – born in Myanmar and raised in Colombia and educated in France – I see things differently It would seem.
VD: I happen to not have a very high opinion of Jobs, true. But even apart from that, the worth (if not the value) of his contributions to humanity is comparatively unimpressive next to Bell and Shuttlesworth. That the media is slavering over the death of a rich white dude is no surprise. That we as a culture are weeping for a technocrat and ignoring the lives of champions of social justice is vomitously illustrative of what we actually think it important. Blame me for being a big meanie, that’s fine. I am not in thrall to the Cult of Jobs.
I am not in thrall to the Cult of Jobs either. And as far as being a big meanie – what’s wrong with that? This is ‘Harpyness’ yes?
That Bell and Shuttlesworth have had impressive contributions to humanity is a bit of a stretch – unless you define humanity as those resident in Liberal Democracies primarily located in the continental USA. I imagine the increased ease, and amount, of communication afforded by the products promulgated by Mr. Jobs have also had an impressive contribution to humanity – the rest of humanity that resides elsewhere.
That Bell and Shuttlesworth have had impressive contributions to humanity is a bit of a stretch – unless you define humanity as those resident in Liberal Democracies primarily located in the continental USA.
Tawakkol Karman, the Yemeni winner of this year’s Nobel Prize, has said repeatedly in interviews that she draws inspiration from and models her non-violent resistance on King and the civil rights movement in the US (as well as Gandhi, who, although he lived and died in India, spread his ideas outside India to inspire US civil rights leaders). “The Montgomery Story”, an Arabic-language comic about black civil rights leaders, was distributed by Muslim activists in the Middle East during the Arab Spring uprisings, particularly in Tahrir Square, as an inspiration for protesters to demonstrate the effectiveness of non-violent protest.
As for Bell and race theory, his ideas, especially as carried on by his protegees are widely used in academia and legal circles outside the US, particularly in Europe, which has similar problems with institutionalized racism.
To say that human rights movements and anti-racism ideals and philosophy live and die only in the country of its origin and benefits only the people who live in that country is pretty breathtakingly ignorant.
BeckySharper,
Regarding your last paragraph – That is not at all what I said.
I was attempting to pronounce that the increase in ease of communication, and hence the dissemination of ideas of freedom, brought about by Jobsian Technology is as important as the ideas themselves.
The ‘ideas’ themselves tend to float upon a spectrum of perceived affront to ‘basic’ rights and freedoms. Basic rights tend to be rather full in the West – rather thin elsewhere. I suspect upwards of two billion people, most of whom are female, would consider it a wonderful leap in status if they even achieved what North America called ‘equality’ prior to the Feminist/Civil Rights gains in the 1950/60s. To also achieve what Mssrs. Bell and Shuttlesworth were able to add to the freedom ladder in the West would be icing on the cake.
Jobsian Technology will bring about rapid and profound change – not just the incremental, in an absolute sense, increases proffered by Mssrs. Bell and Shuttlesworth(though they are profound from a North American perspective) – but a massive gain as if from the 1650s in Western culture.
I meant no disrespect.
But you are right about the breathtaking ignorance – mea culpa.
My mentor*, who considers me an unlettered and innumerate Ayeyarwady, via the Orinoco and Seine, wetback has suggested I append the following simile to augment my rather dense and staccato prose:
The levels of freedom are like degree readings on a thermometer. Mssrs. Bell and Shuttlesworth brought the reading from 68(20C) to 72(22C) – from sweaterish to comfortable. Many in the West, having lived their lives at 68 withot a sweater, would consider it a momentous change. Many more, however, outside the 68(now 72) degree Western world, exist at 40(5C). The ease of communication can, and will, crank up the thermostat multiples of 10 degrees such that the work of Mssrs. Bell and Shuttlesworth can be utilised. Messrs. Bell and Shuttlesworth can only help if your house is already at 68 or so.
* He’s one of those Byronic Canadians to which(whom?) was made referrence in a previous comment string regarding the loss of a prized maidenhead. Not the same puck-slapper though – he would not be caught dead deflowering at Oxbridge.
I get your mentor’s point, but isn’t that just taking us straight to a game of Oppression Olympics?
I’m sure as hell not going to say that we should minimize the courage and achievements of someone like Fred Shuttlesworth—who was born in abject rural poverty in Alabama under Jim Crow and lived his life under constant threat of lynching—because comparatively speaking some people live in conditions of even more abject poverty and political oppression.
With a little ‘l’esprit de l’escalier’ I wish to conclude with:
The work of Mssrs. Bell and Shuttlesworth and Mr. Jobs can be seen as like in kind but different in degree.
If I should offend, or appear exhalationally ignorant, please consider my neophyte status in English discourse. My word salads are not very limpid. Limp mostly.
Oppresion Oympics?
I did not mean to minimise anyone. Praising the height of Everest does not minimise K2 – both are huge beasties.
Perhaps I have been arguing ‘apples and oranges’(A curious idiom about which I am still unsure – I mean they are both round and about the same size and grow on trees and are fruits, right?).
Mssrs. Bell and Shuttlesworth have the ideas and with the written word and Mr. Jobs technology dissemination is guaranteed and the subsequent effect multiplied.
@VD There’s not any such thing as Jobsian technology. There sure as anything Jobsian marketing strategies, and Jobsian employee management techniques.
He did not have a great deal to do with opening up the internet in the way that you mean it. In fact it’s not really clear that the internet is the tool for spreading enlightenment ideas that some think it is. If you have time, see the ted talk or read some articles for Evgeny Morozov’s ideas on why the internet is not free.
Jobs also did not have a lot to do with bringing cell phones to people, another technology that some feel will bring enlightenment ideas further than before. Again, if this topic interests you, then Morozov discusses this in the context of the Iranian government.
What Jobs was great at, no doubt, was bringing beauty and ease of use to his products. He was also great great at extracting a premium from his customers.
Also, if you are trying to learn idiomatic English (not that you need to, IMHO, your English is strong) then please ignore my silly typographical errors. If it looks wrong in my post, it’s wrong.
@rodriguez – I don’t think that Jobs really did much for social justice in the world (let alone environmental justice…..), but there certainly is such a thing as Jobsian technology. There are several aspects of product design in personal electronics that were invented and introduced by Jobs and Apple under his leadership.
I don’t think that his projects around product design are the ones that help spread ideas, so I don’t see it the way you and Vagina Dentata see it.
The way I see it, the technologies that aid communication are not the ones that Jobs made his mark in. He was working a couple layers up from there.
@rodriguez – Oh, sorry, maybe I was unclear. I don’t think that Jobs really did anything to help cell phone penetration or mass communications (except transmission of music, where he really did have a large impact). I just disagree with the statement that “There’s not any such thing as Jobsian technology.” There definitely is, it has clear and easily-identifiable hallmarks.
The term ‘Jobsian Technology’ was meant to be satirical and humourous.
The ‘products’ of Mr. Jobs allow for the dissemination of ideas.
Ideas change the world through the agency of social justice activists.
Music is a powerful conduit for these ideas.
So Dennis Ritchie has died.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/13/father-of-c-and-unix-dennis-ritchie-passes-away-at-age-70/
The kind of influence that we think Steve Jobs had, Dennis Ritchie truly did have. But he is unknown outside of tech circles. Hmmmm. Showmanship much, Steve?
…
I’d love to have a thread one time where we talk about expanding modes of communication and the good and bad they represent. I say bad because of course communication is a tool, to be used in all kinds of ways. Like maybe a FFT on whether or not the internet is a vector of freedom.
(And I can hear you asking “That’s what you think is a fun thread?”)
@rodriguez: Would you like to do a guest post with your thoughts?
k. I’ll send you a link.
@rodriguez – I don’t want to harp on, but I’m honestly really perplexed by your seeming insistence that Steve Jobs didn’t have a major influence on the development of personal electronics. Saying that doesn’t take away from the fact that other people did as well, or that other people had other accomplishments that are at least as important if not more so, and I think it’s possible to recognize the man’s impact without deifying him. So I’m not sure why you are objecting to recognizing his impact. Steve Jobs is more famous than dmr outside of tech circles partially because of showmanship, I’m sure, but mainly because non-techies interact with iPods on a daily basis and they don’t interact with C basically ever. I feel that this is like objecting to recognizing Henry Ford’s accomplishments in making the car accessible to people by saying that he didn’t invent the internal combustion engine.
@baraqiel: is this my longest post here? And what a huge derail this is. Sorry.
you: a major influence on the development of personal electronics OK. I didn’t say no. I did say: There are Jobsian marketing strategies, and Jobsian employee management techniques.
So fine, what about the technologies then?
Well, there are Jobsian technologies (VD’s phrase) depending on when and how they become his. Are they his because he promoted them as a powerful CEO? That’s one definition, but that’s not how I would assign “ownership”. Even still, I’ll go with that definition for sake of argument.
Which technologies are his then? Here’s my list, please add what you think I have forgotten: GUI, tablet gestures, the Apple Store, a closed shop for development, and the iTunes store.*
Some of these are great, truly, but I don’t see these as fundamental for purposes of communication. For example, cell phone technology, or the technology that underlies the internet is far more fundamental. I especially don’t see Jobs’s work as fundamental to the things that VD is mentioning. And I do think it fits with the spirit if not the intention of the post.
And why mention Dennis Ritchie? The death of the two of them so close in time, with one death discussed non-stop and the other non, seems like such a perfect illustration of “less famous men”.
It may not seem to you that users interact with C (and Unix), ever, and don’t come into contact with dmr’s work. But in fact they do, every day, because C and Unix underlie pretty much everything OS related that we do. It’s the combustion engine we are using, and the assembly line, right now.
I see Jobs’s contributions as business decisions. I’m sure that’s great in context but it’s just not interesting to me. I don’t want to denigrate, just contextualize. For me, in the really long run, business decisions are not as important as tech decisions. For me, Jobs didn’t invent the combustion engine or even the assembly line.
I’d rather hear about the more hard core tech stuff (and I’d rather hear about the civil rights stuff). This post is about priorities, those are mine.
I see Steven Jobs as the prototype of the famous man that obscures others. And not just famous but famous in a really specific US-American way. Because he’s so good at what we truly value here, more than anything else, ever, at all. And that’s business success.
The business of America is business, right? Well, I want to say publicly, that I wish it weren’t. I wish it were tech, or science, or civil rights.
* and some more boring blablabla from me that maybe you know already
Graphical user interfaces is work that came from Xerox Parc, which Jobs brought to market in the 80′s. So you don’t need to read stuff, you can just look at icons. The gestures thing, such as two finger pinches and drags and what not mean that a user can interact with a screen more directly, (and maybe not have to read words or even look too much at the icons). All this work done elsewhere, by other companies. Jobs was smart enough to spot it. Once spotted, especially in the case of the gestures, he had a big enough engine behind him to bring the ideas to market. The tech part is not his work, but rather the work he promoted. That progression, text to icon to gestures: great idea. Bring these things to market: great idea. Give credit to Jobs? sorta, for business decisions.
I would argue that the iTunes/Apple store is one of his most useful ideas, but I would also classify it as a business idea, not really a tech idea.
Here’s my story about this: Am I, jane doe rodriguez, addicted to sharing music? Yes. Do I want musicians to benefit from their labor? Yes. Great, make it cheap and easy for me to buy lots of music. Let my conscience be easy, and let the artist get exposure to a far larger customer bases than ever before.
The closed shop thing meant that Apple could practice very strict quality control over what appears on Apple machines. In doing so, some of the wilder problems and glitches of using Windows machines are smoothed over. But some development gets cut off too. It’s a trade off. Windows went one way, with predictable results. It makes sense for Apple to go the other way, if they were (once) competing with Windows. Even still, this seems more like a business decision to me, and not really a tech idea.
You could say I have now defined away the arguments by redefining what is tech and what is not. So be it.
@rodriguez – I feel like you’re responding partially to some things I haven’t said (or have explicitly said the opposite of). For example, I asserted that Jobs has done anything “fundamental for the purposes of communication” (in fact, I said above that “I don’t think that Jobs really did anything to help cell phone penetration or mass communications”). But I do think it’s a little…unrealistic to classify his influence in the development of Apple technology as simply business decisions. I’ve never worked there, but there are certainly numerous reports of the kind of hands-on role he took in the design process of all of their major products. Everyone I’ve ever heard describe their time at Apple is very clear that Jobs was personally directing the development of their big releases. Product design is certainly part of technological development when you’re talking about consumer technology. And it’s just false to say that Jobs wasn’t an “ideas” person — that he didn’t himself come up with ideas for where the technology should go, as opposed to just choosing to promote some. It’s true that he didn’t code OSX or prototype out the iPhone himself. But if major contributions were his ideas, I’m not sure how you can imply that he doesn’t deserve credit as a technological innovator. Under your definition, the assembly line isn’t a technological development, either, because Ford didn’t invent the conveyor belt, he just figured out a good way to use it.
I fully understand that we all use C on a daily basis in a real technical sense, in the exact same way that everyone who drives a car uses an internal combustion engine on a daily basis. And if we lived in a more intellectual society, perhaps dmr would be better known than Jobs and Carnot would be better known than Ford. But we live in a consumer society, so the people who can interface with the consumer market are more famous. The question of who anyone would like to hear about is one that is totally separate from the question of determining who in actual fact accomplished important things. Jobs accomplished important things, even if you don’t think they’re interesting or worth the time to talk about. But you can say that instead of saying that he didn’t actually do anything that merits credit.