Week Three - Racing and Voting Rights Part I
Share an idea or two from this week's reading. What was most interesting to you? What was most strange? How does the reading this week fit into issues and discussions we have had in this class?
Week Two - The Emergence of Civil Rights as A National Issue in the United States
Share an idea or two from this week's reading. What was most interesting to you? What was most strange? How does the reading this week fit into issues and discussions we have had in this class?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found interesting about this week's reading was Goluboff's analysis of American democratic thought in the context of a threat to democracy abroad. The WWII period has long been suggested in America as a period of universal moral agreement: That Germany was very, very evil and fascism was violent and abhorrently racist. What I had not considered, however, was how this agreement played out at home and catalyzed a reflection on American values as well. It seems that this period of substantial Civil Rights progress ran parallel to the federal government realized they found themselves between an ideological rock and a hard place. The pressure from the War abroad presented the NAACP and the ACLU to put pressure on the federal government to push through Civil Rights reform and rethink the way issues of race were argued in the courts.
ReplyDeleteIn a similar vein, I found Klarman's exploration of Civil Rights in a Cold War context to be particularly compelling. In my experience, curricula have treated the Civil Rights Movement as a purely domestic issue with purely domestic outcomes and implications. But in reality, the Movement cannot be separated from the existential rivalry between superpowers that loomed over much of the 20th century. One manifestation of this connection that Klarman describes are the foreign policy implications of the United States' ugly history of white supremacy; "U.S. democracy was on trial, and southern white supremacy was its greatest vulnerability" (Klarman, 182). In other words, the subjugation and mistreatment of African Americans domestically acted as a rhetorical boon for Soviet propaganda outlets in the ideological battle for the hearts and minds of Third World peoples.
DeleteI agree with both Nick and Junior. Even more, however, I think Klarman accurately depicts in this section how the U.S. very often has had double standards in its belief systems. A very basic example of such is the idea that "All men are created equal," yet this ideal was not and still is not fully upheld by the government. Klarman is able to effectively communicate this theme through his analysis of the WWII period, as it was a time when Americans fought to end fascism in order to liberate global citizens. The irony in this lies in America's inability to give rights to many racial minorities, including Japanese immigrants, who were forced into concentration camps during this period.
DeleteOlivia Thomas
ReplyDeleteIn the Klarman reading for this week, I find myself considering his use of the term "black militancy," wondering if it's not an exhibition of historical presentism. Time and again, Klarman refers to blacks fighting for their rights with heightened force post WWII as 'black militancy,' saying, "The most organized manifestation of heightened black militancy was the March on Washington...", "Heightened black militancy occurred in a context of growing black political power" (178). To my knowledge, 'black militancy' is a term that developed in relation to the Black Power movement of the late 1950s and 1960s, after the time that Klarman was writing about in this chapter. I raise this point because I think, semantically, the term itself and especially its application in the incorrect time-period, could serve the end of demonizing black people demanding fair treatment and not necessarily in a 'militant' manner.
Blakely Summerhays
DeleteI also was surprised by Klarman’s use of the term black militancy when recounting the rise of black empowerment amidst the Second World War. Often times we don’t associate black militancy with civil rights activism before the 60’s. WWII brought about an era where African Americans were able to engage in social protest due to their newfound economic and political power thus leading to many incidents of race related altercations. However, the 60’s are usually viewed as the turning point decade when reflecting upon the progression of the Civil Rights movement and its opposition. This is the decade in which black empowerment heightened and racial violence was at an all time high. This volatile reaction to the progress of the civil rights movement incited the creation of organizations like the Black Panther Party and terms like black militancy. Olivia, I found your concern to using this term in a predated context to be very thought provoking.
In the Klarman reading, I was interested to learn about the attitudes that existed before the U.S. joined World War II in regards to how race relations at home and imperialism and fascism abroad lined up. Klarman writes that the efforts to fight racist and imperialist feelings at home were bipartisan, with statements to that effect coming from both presidential candidates, the secretary of the Navy, the New York Times, and even court justices. He quotes someone who at the time stated the the U.S. was "not fighting against the Hitler in Europe, but against the Hitlers in America." This united feeling against racism is interesting to look back on in today's political context, and I wonder how certain parts of the government now would react to how the powers against whom the Allies were fighting used the inequality and racial injustice against the U.S. and its image.
ReplyDeleteI was similarly intrigued by Klarman’s description of the totality with which the revolutionary sentiments of World War II inspired feelings of rejection towards deep-seated racist beliefs. However, Klarman immediately seems to come into conflict with his own thesis, contrasting this sudden, collective shift to racial equality with the simultaneous feelings of resentment and inferiority felt by the African American community during and immediately after the war. Despite this nominal national shift towards antifascism, racial realities, especially in military conditions remained highly segregated and discriminatory, highlighting a notable divergence between national ideology and practice.
DeleteI too found this aspect of Klarman's piece to be particularly interesting. Similar to what Campbell said, I thought how Klarman discussed the ways in which blacks used the cause of fighting fascism abroad to fight the domestic fascism that coincides with racial discrimination at home to be an intriguing discussion. I personally have never heard a discussion on this topic using the term of fascism in reference to the attitudes and behaviors domestically occurring. However, I think it is a very fitting term considering that although there was a national movement to combat fascism, many of the racial discriminatory practices that were ongoing prior to the war failed to cease to exist. Thus similar to what Anna said showed a notable divergence between national ideology and practice.
DeleteIn the Klarman reading, I found the section regarding the intersection between anti-Soviet Union sentiment and the call for social change within the United States to be very intriguing. In one instance, Klarman notes how "in 1946 Soviet Foreign Minister V.M. Molotov asked Secretary of State James Byrnes how Americans could justify pressing the Soviets to conduct free elections in Poland when America could not guarantee them in South Carolina and Georgia." For me, this highlights how strong the dedication held in during the 40s and 50s to prohibit the black vote truly was. Klarman then goes on to note how black leaders used anti-Soviet propaganda to pave the way for the black vote. By distancing themselves from the communist regime, they were hoping to have their cases heard by more white individuals.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that Klarman's account of civil rights in the WWII era continued to present a pattern of limited progress and consequent push back. As "black militancy" and pressures to avoid feeding the Axis propaganda machine led to government concessions, the number of lynchings increased and the southern Democrats dug in their heels. It seems that this is always the way of progress in the United States, and we are definitely still witnessing this trend today in the Trump era.
ReplyDeleteIn the Klarman reading, I was interested in just how significant World War II and the Cold War were in terms of rights and liberties for blacks. Klarman said multiple times that the impact the wars had could not be overstated. Looking back, we tend to forget that while we were fighting fascism, racism, and anti-semitism abroad, we had our own plate of racial problems that were going largely unchallenged. I also found it interesting on how progressive Harry S. Truman was on civil rights. We usually remember FDR as the progressive, and Truman as the guy that dropped the atomic bomb on Japan, but Truman surprised me that his actions backed up his pro-civil rights rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteIn Klarman's chapter revolving around the civil rights struggle during the WWII era, the writer sheds light on the attempted racial progress for African Americans on the home front. This concept is intriguing that wartime abroad deeply affects the social construct within the racial lines for African Americans in the country. T his reading is reminiscent of a survey from Professor Saxe’s class U.S. in the Twentieth Century in which African American soldiers express their discontent with the state of their country and its supposed “liberalism” concerning civil rights when these same soldiers were treated with dignity and respect in European countries, and yet, they were subject to inferiority upon return.
ReplyDeleteSmith v. Allwright is fascinating for quite a few reasons. First, the case shows the ways in which the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, something that to me seems so clear and simple, can be so wildly misconstrued and misinterpreted. The Democratic Party of Texas, according to the case brief, had arguments that could appear to be abiding by the amendment. This makes it clear to me how easy it is to create policies that on the surface seem legitimate under the law, while simultaneously undermining the very foundation of that law (or amendment in this case). It also shows the ways in which the Court and even Congress are so very limited. If the Court or Congress does not have legitimacy in its decisions, no state government will enforce its decisions. Without the enforcement of a decision by states, the decision is practically irrelevant. That issue really stuck out to me in Smith v. Allwright.
ReplyDeleteI am in agreement with Jess in that the reading on the Smith v. Allwright case is extremely interesting. The case directly juxtaposes the U.S. Constitution and its language such as, “The right of a citizen of the United States to vote for the nomination of candidates…in a primary…may not be abridged by the State on account of his race or color” (1). In contrast, to the language used in the resolution of the Texas Democratic Party which only permits people of the white race membership and participation (5). Despite this resolution’s racist language, it was upheld because “As such a voluntary organization, it was claimed, the Democratic party is free to select its own membership” (5). The difference in language of these two documents regarding participation demonstrates the power of the states and particularly the southern states to remain entrenched in their discriminatory ways. This conflict reminds me of our discussion in the previous class on how the northern states did not put enough pressure on the southern states to change the laws that blatantly discriminated against minorities. While our U.S. constitution, on paper, seems to be a fair and just document, it was not used in this way. I would argue that participation to vote in the primary is equally as important as voting in the election because the candidates who are chosen need to represent the citizens as a whole and not just one group. This case is another example of how both the U.S. government and a state government perpetuated discrimination.
DeleteGoing off of the point that Phoebe brought up, I found it interesting and also troubling how at the same time when African Americans were fighting for there country during World War II, they also faced segregation in "accomodations, recreation, and transportation; forced to perform demeaning tasks from which whites were usually exempt; and subjected to constant abuse from white officers and military police"(Klarman 176). The fact that some blacks believed German prisoners of war were treated better than them opened my eyes to the fact that at the time they were fighting for a country that not only often refused to fight for them, but one that oppossed them.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to Phoebe and Nicholas, I am fascinated by the double standard of black lives being seen as lesser when they were voluntarily risked for what our country considers the most significant showing of honor, loyalty, and worth. Black soldiers were fighting for a country and values system that refused to fully support them, which reminds me of our discussion last week about black people in America always dwelling "beneath the veil". "Despite the tenacity of Jim Crow, World War II provided blacks with powerful ideological support, a renewed sense of mission, the political and economic resources with which to press for reform, and a broad array of white allies" (Klarman 180). For some, this act of conforming to white intellect and ideals enabled a chance to "live above the veil" - or at least empowered them to fight for broader access to their rights.
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting part of the reading for me was how much of an influence the Cold War played in race-relations improving and the advancement of civil rights. The most strange was how some black actually backed the Axis powers to win the war in opposition to an oppressive USA. This reading, specifically the Smith V Allwright case, is a watershed case in the start of aligning what is the modern day equivalent of the interpretation of the 15th Amendment. - Ben Griffith
ReplyDeleteThis ties in with the concept we discussed last class about the technicalities and actuality of equal treatment. It was somewhat surprising to read in the Klarman article that the Supreme Court was so consistently successful in the enforcement equal rights for black Americans in the World War II era. This is because, at the same time, local officials had, for example, deliberately targeted black people such as W.D. Lyons and juries had been using life sentences as a warning. Of course, this is what the Supreme Court is meant to do, but since there was so much racism in other aspects of law enforcement, seeing justice in the justice system was sort of startling. It’s interesting because to be a judge by profession, one is expected to utilize objectivity and shun subjectivity in order to make a fair ruling, but if you neglect to put yourself in the person’s shoes, the surface level equality might seem sufficient. Yet, in regards to the technicalities versus actuality of black law schools, the Supreme Court highlighted the “intangible differences” like the quality of the teaching staff and the opportunity to interact with people who are already established in the law community – mainly white people. To do this, a judge would need to consider actual experience of going to such a school and the outcomes of doing so, rather than simply the legal wording of a document.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that courts seem to decide how they will rule on a decision prior to considering the constitutional basis for that ruling. For example, during more conservative times in American history, courts hindered progress on civil rights fronts and then came up with constitutional reasons for these decisions. However, during WWII and the Cold War, when American opinion and foreign policy favored progressive racial policies, the courts began to reverse precedent and develop new constitutional bases for these policies.
ReplyDelete