Question: Was it right for "outsiders" to come to southern towns to spark confrontations over civil rights? In what case is a watcher worse than an oppressor? Have you ever been guilty of this?.
Equality and true fulfillment of the Constitution of the United States of America was very recent. Just four decades ago, lynching was prevalent. Only forty years ago that the now shunned Ku Klux Klan was feared by the country, mainly in the south. Was it right for non-Southerners straighten the ignorant and arrogant minds of the Southerners who openly hated anyone but WASPS (White Anglo Saxon Protestants)? Although not all of the residents in the South were part of the KKK, many were mere bystanders, were they in turn worse than the oppressor?.
The answer is quite obvious that if an "outsider" had not interfered with Southern practices, America would not be America today. First off there were "outsiders" who violated the privacy of the Southerners; the south was part of a whole, part of union, part of a country. During the 1960's, with the civil rights movement spreading rapidly, the government in turn had to go with the flow and at the same time fix corruption. The FBI, and other federal bureaus would be sent to the South to investigate malpractices that clearly violated the Constitution such as lynching and not giving equal rights to minorities. The confrontations could not be avoided because eventually Southerners needed to know that they were not separate from the country and that their practices against non-WASPS were wrong, otherwise America would not be America today.
In the case of the three civil rights activists killed in 1964 in Mississippi, it was evident that the majority of the town knew that the three people were killed. However the majority also did not testify for the victims. Some feared for themselves, others knew the situation well but although having the power to testify against the oppressors, did not.