Thursday, August 25, 2011
Film: Eyes on the Prize, Beginnings
At the beginning of the video "Eyes on the Price," it is mentioned that "during the 1950s and 1960s Americans fought a second Revolution...to make America be America for all." Based on our readings and discussions, please provide a reflection that describes how this Revolution was either similar or different from the Civil War. For instance, think about the role of African Americans and Whites, tactics used during the movement (i.e. non-violence vs. full-scale war), Court rulings, and the importance of public opinion, to name a few. Provide at least three examples.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Lauren Fussell (714262901)
ReplyDeleteIn one of the opening lines of the video, one of the black interviewees stated that “my freedom is entangled with the freedom of every other man.” I think that this greatly demonstrates the similarities between the Civil War and the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement for many Americans. During the Civil War, many Northerners especially felt that the preservation of the Union and the abolition of slavery was very much a victory for all Americans, Northerners and Southerners, blacks and whites from all walks of life; a victory for humanity. During the period of the video, it was much the same for blacks in America, they felt that a victory over segregation was not just a victory for themselves, but for the nation and man as a whole. Martin Luther King was quoted in the video as saying that this would be a victory for “man as man,” not for the white or black man.
A second similarity between the Civil War and the beginnings of the Civil Rights Movement portrayed in the video was the violent tactics used during the periods. The Civil War was an outright was fought on battle grounds with weapons and thousands of lives were lost. Although the beginnings of the Civil Rights Movement were monumentally less violent, there was still violent acts that occurred during the period, furthering the “war” between the two sides. The white Supremacists especially used violence to get their point across. Lynchings were not out of the ordinary across the Deep South. Extremely violent attacks such as that on Emmitt Till by white men were somewhat commonplace and resulted in nothing more than a quick acquittal for the offenders. Fiery rallies by the KKK and subsequent terror attacks on black neighborhoods were driven by the same feelings of violence and disgust that fueled southern Rebels in the Civil War. The difference in the amount of violence was the response by the black Americans in the south. Instead of responding with more violence, creating another type of civil war, they responded with passive, non-violent acts, such as bus boycotts, rallies, and protests. This is the salvation of the Civil Rights Movement that kept the United States out of yet another was between the people.
The third similarity between the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement was the reaction of the people to the Supreme Court cases. Following the Dred Scott decision, the nation was divided. Pro-slavery advocates rejoiced in the opinion that stated that blacks were not citizens of the United States, could not sue, and were nothing more than property; also, Congress could not prohibit slavery in federal territories. Pro-slavery advocates took this as a victory for their side, wanting this to have settled the slavery debate for good in the United States. Opponents of slavery saw this ruling as a slap in the face for their cause and were once again at odds with many Americans who supported the decision. This divisive opinion handed down from the Supreme Court was flipped when in 1954 the Supreme Court ruled in the Brown v Board case. This time, it was the black Americans who rejoiced in what they saw as a victory for their cause, that segregation was unconstitutional. White supremacists and segregationists alike despised the decision. In response, they took their time to comply with the rulings. Though the roles were opposite in response to the rulings of the Supreme Court, both cases exhibited the divisive lines of the nation. One could easily tell what side a person would stand on certain issues by their response to the Supreme Court cases in each period.
Eyes on the Prize: Beginnings by Mandy Tompkins
ReplyDeleteThe movie Eyes on the Prize detailed the beginning years of the Civil Rights Movement, mainly the murder of Emmett Till and the Montgomery bus boycott in 1956. The first part of the film said that during the mid-20th century, Americans fought a second revolution, but I do not think there were many similarities to the American Civil War.
The tactics used during the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement were very different. The war was obviously a bunch of battles and fighting where over 600,000 people died. Soldiers marched across the country with muskets and bayonets, ready to kill the enemy the first chance they got. In contrast, most blacks during the 1950s practiced non-violent protest techniques. The movie focused strongly on the boycott where blacks in Montgomery refused to ride the city buses until they were desegregated. This did not require any violence; they simply walked to where they were going instead of riding the bus. Not riding the bus caused serious problems to the bus system and the city, and after 11 months the city finally desegregated the buses. The blacks did not fight or physically hurt anyone; they just hurt the economy. Another example of non-violence was the sit-in, which took place later on in the movement. Blacks would sit at lunch counters until they were given service. Whites fought back by calling them names and throwing things at the people sitting at the counters, but eventually blacks were allowed to sit and be served.
During the Civil War, the majority of blacks in the United States were slaves in the south. They really had no chance to fight back against oppression. If they tried to run away or stand up for themselves, they were beaten or whipped. Many didn’t even try to escape slavery or fight for equal rights because they lived in fear. In the 1950s, blacks had been repressed for too long. They were not the property of the whites, and they had the opportunity to stand up for what they believed in. They were not afraid to speak up. When Emmett Till was murdered, his mother and other family members did not have to hide in fear; they could speak out and say the murder was wrong and that he was killed simply because he was black. Some still feared the whites, but the whites did not have as much control as they did during the 1860s.
The way whites treated blacks and the consequences of white violence were different during the Civil War than throughout the Civil Rights Movement. In the time of slavery, whites could pretty much do whatever they wanted to blacks with no real consequences. Since slaves were considered property, whites could beat them every day if they wanted to. Once slavery ended and blacks were ‘equal’ under the Constitution, whites could not as blatantly torture or hurt them. Whites still used violence towards blacks, but it was more secretive, and they could possibly get in trouble if caught. Emmett Till’s murderers had to go through a trial, and even though they were acquitted, they could have been charged with the murder of a black person, which would have been unheard of one hundred years before.
In the 1950s and 60s, African Americans used non-violent protests and boycotts to fight for equality, and whites had to be more careful about harming or killing blacks just because of the racial difference. In the time of the American Civil War, blacks were hurt constantly and were afraid to stand up for their rights.
720003083
ReplyDeleteThis was a very interesting film which provided many different viewpoints not thought of before. How the film portrayed the early years of the Civil Rights movement in an unbiased and thoughtful way really helped to better understand the issues of that time period. As far as relating this time period to the Civil War, I do not find many similarities between the two other than they both dealt with the issues Black people faced in America.
One difference I noticed was the way the issues were handled in the two time periods. During the Civil War, opposing sides fought face to face in many battlefields resulting in many preventable deaths. After many years of simply dealing with the issue of slavery, Northerners decided war was the only way to solve the issue. During the Civil Rights period however, Black leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr. of Alabama really urged the idea of protesting against segregation in a non-violent, peaceful way. Instead of bringing out guns and weapons, they held peaceful assemblies, protests, and boycotts (such as the bus boycott). Leaders knew that bringing violence into the fight for equality would only make the situation worse, so they decided to gain progress through peace, unlike those of the Civil War.
Another difference between the Civil War and Civil Rights Movement, was the freedom of speech Blacks were allowed during the latter era. During the Civil War, most Blacks were still slaves and therefore bound in their freedoms and speech by the law. They were not able to testify in courts, until the later period were not able to help in the military, and their say in the issue had very little if no effect in what took place. After the outlaw of slavery, Blacks in the Civil Rights movement possessed much more freedom in society. They were able to freely state their opinions on topics and the things they said were often taken into consideration in the public arena. These blacks were also able to testify in courts, as shown with the Emmit Till case, which could, on the right circumstances, provide a helpful push for a just verdict.
The final difference noticed between the two periods was the ability for Blacks grow on both an economic and social status. During the Civil War Blacks were mainly slaves and on very rare occasions a Black would work for a White family as a free man, but they were never given the opportunity to rise in the social status arena, and economically, they were as low as one could get with very small room for improvement. On the other hand, during the early 1950's Blacks were able to grow in many different ways. They were able to attend colleges, earn degrees, work in the political arena, become doctors, nurses or almost anything they wanted to become. They were very much capable and able of raising their social status, and eventually because of their professions, these Blacks were able to rise economically as well. Although they were still seen as inferior to Whites, they had many of the same opportunities and were able to do just as well as Whites in comparison to those who lived during the Civil War.
714251796
ReplyDeleteI found the video very interesting and it brought up several similarities and discrepancies between the civil rights movement and the civil war. First off, the civil war was not just a victory for the slaves and black people as a whole, it was a victory for the entire country, or so the north thought. At the time however, the nation was divided as to how much a victory the civil war was. For the south it was a minor victory for the black slaves, but for the north it was a major victory for blacks and whites together because it represented a changing nation. In this film, it is pointed out how the civil rights movement was a change for the entire nation which also divided the nation on how important the change was. I also thought that video brought up some discrepancies as well. During the civil rights movement it was found that people of all generations were fighting for “freedom.” But during the civil war, normally it was the younger generations who fought for freedom from slavery. This was present in both white and black cultures as the civil rights movement was more widespread and reached deeper than abolition did in the south. Another similarity was that until the revolution was over, people didn’t realize the significance. During the civil war many people thought they knew how the circumstances would change but little did they know how much the country would change. They had no idea the rules and punishments that would soon be enacted on the blacks before things could get better. During the civil rights movement, people didn’t know just how much hatred would come with integration before things could get fully better. A discrepancy I found from the civil rights movement and the civil war time period was the amount the blacks had to gain during this time. Following the civil war, the blacks basically remained at the bottom of the totem pole, under even the lowest class whites. However, after the civil rights movement, the blacks had the opportunity to go to college, get better paying jobs, and ultimately become respected citizens. The opportunities post-civil war represented a time that wasn’t exactly ready to change, but the opportunities post-civil rights era represented a time that was ready to change and a time where change was overdue.
I do believe that the Civil Rights movement and the Civil War were similar, but there are more differences between the two. First, there is the fact that the Civil Rights movement was a coordinated effort by African Americans to end the restraints of Jim Crow, while the Civil War was a fight among two groups of white people for the fate of the African Americans. African Americans could do nothing during the Civil War to help their fate, most of them could not even fight for the North during the war. Furthermore, the rights of African Americans were not the key to the war until President Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. According to the video that we watched, the Civil Rights movement especially in Birmingham, was a concerted effort to fight segregation. The bus boycott was a large-scale, planned event, and the trial of Rosa Parks even seemed to be a planned effort as well. Because of the different degrees of involvement of African Americans and the overall unity of the African Americans in the Civil Rights movement and the Civil War, the two movements were actually not similar.
ReplyDeleteThe Civil Rights movement and the Civil War were also different because of the presence of leadership in the two efforts. African American slaves during the Civil War had no leadership because they had no real connectedness. The leadership in the Civil Rights movement, on the other hand, was incredible. Black and white leadership (Martin Luther King, Mr. Dabbs from the 60 Minutes interview) did what they could to end segregation during the 1950s and 1960s. As the movement went on, the Civil Rights leaders even had the help of President Kennedy.
Finally, the Civil Rights Movement and the Civil War were more different than similar because of the presence of national media. The Civil War was definitely covered by the media, but there was not TV and no radio at the time to talk about the role of the African American. The Civil Rights movement, on the other hand, had incredible coverage. The Emmett Till case was such a story, we read about it in Anne Moody's story. The Montgomery bus boycott became national news in no time, and only increased in exposure as it went on.
Sally Wheeler; PID 714300665
ReplyDeleteThe plight of African Americans during the 1950s and 60s for basic rights differed from the American Civil War in many ways, but the two also shared some similarities. Both were fairly violent, American vs. American action, and were based on issues that divided the country and the opinion of its inhabitants. However, the fight for civil rights was intended to be non-violent and was based around racial conflicts rather than regional differences. Additionally, it involved the search for attainment of basic human rights and of equality of blacks and whites rather than a squabble over the right to control certain tracts of land and certain pieces of legislature, mostly involving slavery.
Both the pre-Civil Rights/Civil Rights Movement and the American Civil War were violent periods in American history. The outright warfare of the Civil War destroyed families and towns, and caused the gruesome deaths of many Americans. The Civil Rights Era, and the period leading up to this era, was also violent in terms of a near "guerilla warfare," where racist whites sought out, hunted down, and killed blacks as if they were animals, committing similarly gruesome crimes of hatred. However, the American Civil War was significantly more destructive as it was warfare rather than random acts of violence of person on person amidst an otherwise non-violent movement. Significantly, all of this violence was American on American and the result of internal conflict; both of the conflicts were within the United States and did not involve outside involvement for the most part.
Both periods also demonstrated a stark division of opinion amongst the American people. The Civil War divided the North from the South, supporters of the federal government from the supporters of states' rights, and abolitionists from die-hard slavery supporters. The entire country divided over this issue; similarly, the country was divided over the issue of African American rights and equality during the Civil Rights Movement. Though the opinion on African American rights was split somewhat along the same boundary as the Civil War (above and below the Mason-Dixon Line), it was not pitting region vs. region, but rather race vs. race. Its conflict did not involve a race for power, but rather an emphasis on equality - it did not focus on giving one sect of government or the country power at the expense of another, but rather equal power for all of America's would-be citizens.