Sugrue Question

What does Thomas Sugrue’s Sweet Land of Liberty teach us about the nature of  racism?

Sugrue’s Sweet Land of Liberty teaches us that life for African Americans in the North was not the cherry coated tale of equality and fairness most have come to understand.  To the contrary African Americans in the North were forced to endure a great deal of racial prejudice and less than equal opportunities.   Immediately after the Great Migration when a large influx of African Americans who moved from the South to cities like New York, Boston, Detroit, and Cleveland in the North, racial tensions began to stir.

After the 1920s the 1930s also experienced a great deal of racial prejudice in the North, especially in response to the Great Depression and New Deal policies put in place by President Roosevelt.  Then once the war started, people like A. Phillip Randolph worked to secure equal opportunities for African Americans who experienced racial injustices despite their best efforts to contribute to a wartime economy.  Nevertheless they continued to experience racial inequalities throughout the war and the years following.

But after the war came to an end and Americans alike considered themselves a part of one common identity, those facing racial inequalities throughout America fought to secure equal opportunities and rights because as mentioned above, racism was present in the North although common misconceptions attribute such an institution to the land South of the Mason Dixon Line.  Even city blocks and neighborhoods experienced racial separation as a result of legislation which aimed to keep segregation in place.  For example pg 423 refers to the Fair Housing Act  of 1968 and the how the legislation, the writers to win Republican support, had “defanged it.”  According to the text Title VIII “left it up to private individuals or advocacy groups to file suit against housing discrimination.”

Malcolm X questions

1. Keeping X’s advice in mind, how would you assess the changes in his attitudes towards white people over the course of his entire life.

-Malcolm X attitude towards whites was composed of mixed responses towards all the incidents he endured at the hands of white people.  From his early life and his families experience with the KKK, to his retelling of his father’s murder, to his experience with the white individuals who removed him from his home and put him foster care, to white individuals who used the word nigger freely in those homes, and all the way to his re-birth as a Islamic believer, Malcolm’s perception of whites was literally a response to what he lived through.  Even as he got older and eventually chose to move away from his Islamic beliefs, as well as denounce racism, it was all a response to some event. Indeed, Malcolm X was an empiricist whose actions and beliefs were all reactions to prior experiences.

2. How would you assess the changes in his attitudes toward other    African Americans over the course of his entire life?

-Malcolm X’s attitude towards African Americans was kind of similar to his attitude toward whites in that it definitely evolved over time.  Early on Malcolm X explained how black people were oppressed as a result of the ongoing institutions like Jim Crow, which sought to maintain white racial superiority.  He identifies with this issue many times explaining how whites had literally convinced black people that they were truly the inferior race.  For example, when he mentioned to one of his teachers that he would like to be a lawyer some day and she responded by saying that he ought to become a carpenter.  Later when he is in prison he accepts the teachings of Islam, which is when and where he determines that white people were the evil race for convincing his people to settle for less.  Later as he becomes more involved with the Civil Rights Movement and after his trip to MECCA his perspective changes again in that he believes that white and black people could work together to achieve equality but both blacks and whites had to accept certain responsibilities whereas whites worked with whites and blacks worked on their own.

3.Was Malcolm X a racist? [You are allowed to pick any answer you like, as long as you cite evidence from the book to back it up.]

-Malcolm X was a racist at one point in his life although certain experiences did help to shape his attitude over time.  For example, when he was in prison, he accepted the teachings of Elijah Muhammad.  In this view all white men were considered the devil because of their actions as oppressors over time.  The fact that he attributes this characteristic to all white men does indeed make him a racist because white is a race.  On the other hand what he learned after his visit to MECCA proved that his visions changed over time.

Malcolm X The THinker Brought Into Focus

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/14/arts/design/14malc.html?pagewanted=1&ref=malcolmx

This article titled Malcolm X The Thinker, Brought Into Focus is quite relevant to our class.  Not only did we read the autobiography but we also discussed who he was according to what we interpreted from reading the book.  This article explains how his family, as well as scholars across the nation who intend to recognize his accomplishments and preserve his memory through artifacts that offered insight into who he was as a person.

After reading about Malcolm X, I must admit that in my eyes he was a very interesting figure but he was also very extreme in his beliefs.  His reasons for calling white people “the devil” seemed to go a bit too far but in reality it was a reaction to all that he experienced as a result of white people’s actions.

Nevertheless the idea that his belongings have been preserved to exemplify what type of person he was, aside from his role as an activist, shows that there are people willing to overlook all the negative he engaged in.  More importantly his memory will be preserved for future generations to draw new conclusions about his life.

USS Pueblo seized 43 Years ago Today

http://www.chieftain.com/news/local/uss-pueblo-seized-years-ago-today/article_e4ed2c7a-26b5-11e0-b7fa-001cc4c002e0.html

In January 1968, a navy vessel called the USS Pueblo carrying approximately 80 crew members was captured by North Korean patrol boats just off the coast of the North Korea itself.  The boat was operating as a spy boat although it’s original purpose was to carry out “research missions.” At the height of the Cold War the U.S. aimed to acquire military intelligence about enemy nations hoping to prevent the spread of communism.  However, after being captured by enemy patrol boats, crew members frantically worked to destroy top secret information before being taken prisoner and held captive for nearly 11 months.

This article is very significant to what we’ve discussed in class because it’s about an event that occurred during late 1960s while America was experiencing tensions with communist nations around the world. Even though we did not focus so much on the Cold War, we did address the issue along with the Korean conflict in American Dreams by H.W. Brands.  In addition it is very interesting to learn about the different events Americans experienced outside of their own country; especially considering the fact that the U.S. was at war in Viet Nam while also working to secure the rights of African Americans.

In essence this article is very significant to the city of Pueblo but at the same time it does relate to the time period that our class was focused on.  In addition, the U.S. struggle to prevent communism from spreading led to conflict within the nation itself.  People developed different ideologies about the reasons for war and why the U.S. should avoid it.  Also, these differing ideologies led to conflict at home and in many ways, directly influenced the actions of peaceful demonstrators and civil rights activists like Martin Luther King and Malcolm X.

Branch Rickey

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/books/review/the-man-who-hired-jackie-robinson.html?_r=1&ref=jackierobinson

The link I have pasted above is all about Branch Rickey and his role in integrating baseball.  This article directly relates to our class because it focuses on segregation in America’s most beloved game up until 1947, as well as the outcome of such a change in the Northern section of the United States. Without question, the man responsible for implementing this change should be remembered as one of the earliest civil rights activists because he took a stance against one of America’s darkest institutions even though it had been in place for nearly half a century.  It’s very easy to overlook the reality of this significant change because outside of baseball, it had no measured effect on society until other teams followed, although it can definitely be attributed as a leading role in the ongoing struggle for African American civil rights.

Branch Rickey being that he was a white man who previously worked for other organizations in the South probably experienced a great deal of anxiety in making so bold a move.  Especially because of the fact that even though this change was implemented on a team fixed in the North, racism was and continued to be present despite the common misunderstanding that it only existed in the South.   The article describes this stating that “Robinson responded to racial taunts with spectacular play.”  Indeed racist attitudes were present even within the Dodger’s own clubhouse. One such story I can recall comes from a book by Jonathan Eig titled Opening Day, describes an instance where even Robinson’s own teammates responded negatively to the idea of taking the field with a “colored athlete.” Again these kind of issues are often times overlooked because of the misconception that racism was a SOuthern thing due in part to Jim Crow laws.  However, the issue here is but one exception in addition to Thomas Sugrue’s book “Sweet Land of Liberty.”

That said, Jackie Robinson’s role as the first African AMerican to play Major League baseball is definitely an early piece to the Civil Rights Movement that began long before the legislation of the 1960s.  His story inspired others to follow and had it not been for people like Branch Rickey, who’s to say that other white leaders would of ever worked to accomplish what Rickey did?

A Testament of Hope

Among the five articles all of us were assigned to read, I chose to analyze the “I See the Promise Land” speech. After reading this, I can’t help but think, or rather wonder, if King may have felt in his heart that something bad was about to happen. Especially when I got to the end of the speech because it’s almost as though King is predicting his death. Without a doubt, King was well aware that his words in this speech, those which encouraged African Americans to unite and rely on “economic withdrawal,” angered many people. WIthout a doubt he knew that his words might influence some sick person in the our sick country to act violently in response to his encouraging words. On that same note, King tried to influence African Americans to partake in a large movement whereas instead of not purchasing goods, African Americans should only desposit and purchase things like insurance from African American dealers and African American owned banks.

That said, one cannot help but wonder how successful this movement was, or at least how many people carried out this mission. Especially after considering the fact that King was assassinated the following day. Did people continue to be inspired the way King’s words had inspired them in the past? Sure the answer seems quite obvious in that the changes he spoke of eventually did prevail. However, were these changes the result of sympathetic leaders or the result of the movements and the harsh realities those individuals expereinced following the advice given by King? No doubt it was a combination of both but I cannot help but ponder the question as to what was more influential.

Another interesting part of this speech is how King encourages his people to rely on nonviolent protest aside from the boycotts, or “economic withdrawal.” The most influential of Kings words and ideas would be his claim that Negros had been sent to inform others of the injustices being suffered by the “God’s Children.” In this speech as in many other speeches, King relied on bible passages to appeal to many of “God’s children.” In explaining the quote of the man who suffered from injuries alongside Jericho Road, King went on to say something that definately reminded of a famous quote given by President kennedy in the 1960s: “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” The only difference was that King used the issue regarding sanitation workers and and their fight to acquire equal opportunites and rights. Without a doubt the concept presented by King is omething that offers a great deal of insight as to how exactly King incorporated religion into the fight for minority rights.

　

A Testament of Hope

After reading the 5 peices assigned to me, I decided to discuss, with you, my colleagues, article number 43 titled “The Drum Major Instinct.” In my eyes this peice is not only interesting to read, but it serves as an excellent inspiration for anyone who may have questioned their faith in the past. In addition, this article and the content therein, definately relate to some of the issues the world is facing at this very moment. Please, in no way am I trying to appeal to any one person’s religious beliefs; I simply found that some of the points being made by King in this piece are worth reading and definately worth thinking about.

This extraordinary speech was given at Ebenezer Baptist Church on February 4, 1968, approximately two months before King’s assassination. King began this sermon addressing a story in the bible whereas James and John came to Jesus asking for the privelage to sit on the right and left side of the lord himself. Explaining how one might consider the two men selfish for asking for such a favor, King explained how it is a natural inclination for many and most individuals to want, or rather desire recognition and attention. It is something that all humans today and in history work to achieve but for the wrong reasons. He calls this the “Drum Major Instinct” or the desire to to be recognized for reasons unimportant to the Lord. WIth that, he goes on to explain how this instinct has been apart of the human soul throughout history and that it continues then as it does now. It is “a quest for recognition” and the best example included in the text referring to man’s desire to own the best goods (i.e. cars, homes, and other possessions) despite the fact that often times we cannot always afford them given certain circumstances. Nevertheless, the “Drum Major Instinct” prevails.

Similar to the idea of being recognized for possessions, humans tend to desire accomplishments in that same sense. Accomplishments, too, can excite an individual and serve as their reason to be recognized. Again this is the “Drum Major Instinct.” He goes on to explain this further saying that the Church is “the one place where everybody should be the same standing before a common master and savior” and that is what is important, not the “Drum Major Instinct.” In essence, we are put on this earth to serve god and carry out his will, not to work to out do others.

Another excellent example of this demeanor is the idea that nations, including the United States work to acquire the same recognition often times for the wrong reason. King uses the Viet Nam as an example of this claiming that the United States was involved in a war for the wrong reason and that we, as a country, have continued with the same mentality throughout the ages for recognition instead of serving GOd. Indeed this attitude has a “destructive” side to it because it often times leads to bragging and or boasting about oneself. Another good example is the one he describes whereas he was incarcerated in the jail speaking to the prison guards about why they feel superior: however, I believe that I will leave this part out so that you can read it for yourself.

WIth that King simply suggests that it is important to serve God over anything else because it is right. In his eyes, it is wrong to pursue recognition through material goods and achievements and instead, we as humans should work to help others instead of bringing them down. In many ways, I disagree with some of the things he mentions, especially the part about the United States because honestly, who would fulfill the mission if the United States chose not to. In my eyes the U.S. is serving God by saving lives and liberating the oppressed. True there are some unfortunate circumstances that evolve but those are usually the result of a few evil people and their unjust actions that spill over to bring about a bad name for the rest of the country. An example of this is the soldiers who were in Afghanistan killing innocent civilians just a few years back. In no way was this the intent of the U.S. However, the negative story does reflect on our nation and that is unfortunate. We all know that our military is out to complete a just mission and as I mentioned above, who would do it if the U.S. chose not to?