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?
The Webb article was spot-on in it's argument that "Southern race relations are not the same as they were fifty years ago(...), yet even as the southern states bury the segregationist old guard, their spirit of resistance against federal authority continues to haunt the political landscape of the region." It was incredibly interesting to read about the development of southern conservatism, to understand that the argument of Federalism and states rights that is so often employed by conservatives is a byproduct of racism and segregation, and to recognize in this article the rhetoric I grew up hearing from my southern conservative classmates. Southern conservatives still claim states rights when attempting to block the Federal government from pushing the needle of progress forward. For example, when the Supreme Court ruled for marriage equality, conservative southern backlash was widespread. As with Brown v. Board, some, such as Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, refused to implement the new ruling.
ReplyDeleteI found Webb's article very interesting and thought-provoking, complicating my understanding of a landmark Civil Rights event as well as my understanding of community mobilization. He brings up the point that the societal implications of a major victory for activists in the court can feel a bit like a "one step forward, two steps back" situation. Where the Supreme Court delegitimized school segregation - a decision whose importance cannot be understated in the Movement - white southerners quickly mobilized as a reaction to the decision, violently pushing back against the integration of public schools and strengthening their holds on other aspects of African American life. Racial terrorism was no longer by the 60s something extremists could get away with very easily in the Jim Crow South, but tightening other aspects of African-American livelihood - recalling loans and revoking welfare rights to insure continued economic dependency - was a common reaction. Victory and progress are often nuanced, and Brown v. Board seems no different.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading Klarman's chapter on Brown v. Board, I was fascinated by the overall timing of the process to desegregate American schools. Klarman mentioned that it was wise for the NAACP not to have pushed for desegregation any sooner than they did, since the previous judges would have almost certainly overruled their case. Furthermore, the NAACP urged the judges to require schools to almost immediately implement actions to desegregate after the case's ruling. Instead, the judges asked schools to make a more gradual transition, granting them a lot of generosity as well as allowing more room for resistance from dissatisfied schools. I am consistently blown away by how much patience is required of civil rights activists. I find it very frustrating that in order to create meaningful change--to correct the injustices that were wrongfully imparted in the first place--black activists must always carefully calculate their agenda in accordance with the broader socioracial climate at the given time. Despite the fact that white society is responsible for creating and permitting harsh inequalities, black activists often find themselves having to defend themselves, but always under the terms of white people.
ReplyDeleteWebb's article as well as Chief Justice Warren's opinion itself bring to mind questions concerning the power of Brown v. Board of Education, as well as the effectiveness of the Court more broadly as an agent of social change. In the case of Brown, the rabid resistance to integration from white conservatives contributed to an atmosphere in which it took years for the decision to be effectively enforced. It seems that, while the Supreme Court obviously holds a lot of power, pressure needed to come from other sectors to promote actualized change. Specifically, the reaction to and lack of enforcement of Brown reveals the importance of pressure from grassroots movements and public activism have in the struggle for justice and equality.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more. In the same way previous weeks' readings have demonstrated the ways in which the white populace found means to resist/rebel against apparent racial progress and integration (consider redlining, blockbusting, maintenance of the white primary), so too the white grassroots organized to dismiss the Brown v. Board decision from the highest court. In many ways, as proposed by Webb, the decision had the lasting effect of organizing resistance to socially just acts of the Supreme Court by whites for decades to follow, "The Brown decision therefore had the unintended outcome of stimulating not only a backlash against school desegregation but also a broader assault on the social activism of the Supreme Court. Southern conservatives had fought furiously to prevent Brown from destabilizing one of the foundations of their way of life. In the future they would continue to resist the Court for the fear that the entire edifice would be demolished" (334). Ultimately, this leads me to wonder what the "ideal" behavior of the Supreme Court might have been had they been allowed foresight into white's reactions. In the same vein of thought as Nick, would the 'ideal' behavior have been providing structural support for grassroots movements and public activism in order to shift public opinion that way before handing down the Brown decision?
DeleteI really enjoyed Webb's article about school integration after the Brown decision because it gave a lot of insight into how social change tends to occur. For example, even though the decision is widely considered as monumental for civil rights, Webb points out how deeply rooted white supremacy is in society through the showing the impact of anti-desegregationists. Not only this, but we can see the affects of white southerner efforts from the Brown v Board era today. Schools are incredibly segregated today with little change as a result of continuing efforts such as bus zoning, white flight, lack of state funding, and charter schools. In conclusion, Brown v Board should not be seen as a final solution to our education system as "separate but equal" is a concept living in the minds of lawmakers today.
ReplyDeleteI thought that Webb’s article articulated the false narrative about the reaction towards the Brown decision. Because racism was so implemented into Southern culture, the Brown decision created a wave of dissent and anti-desegregationist sentiment. Webb also alludes that “Northern indifference” on racism was devastating towards civil rights because it allowed for the South to “legitimate” racist actions such as lynching for generations. This is important because it ties into the narrative of “state’s rights” because for the longest Northern didn’t care what Southern politicians did toward race relations. However, it does prove that the constant rhetoric of state’s rights is nothing but an excuse for racism and segregation.
ReplyDeleteI found Webb's article on the changing of the South's legislation tactics to fight integration interesting. While there is no direct racism in the Southern legislatures' messages today like there was at the time of George C. Wallace, their overall agenda has not changed, and they still fight the battle for a separate but equal society. Historians always try to analyze the change over time from a particular setting, and it is eye-opening to see how the arguments used for post-Brown v. Board are still used today, yet people do not understand that these "state's rights" arguments stem from blatant racism.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I believe Webb does produce a thought provoking idea, I cannot help but seem to think they are saying that if black people held in there for a bit longer, we would not be in the same socio-economic situation as today. They fail to realize that this backlash came from White Supremacy. even if the courts decided to rule on a case that was "less emotional", the southern conservative response would be exactly the same. As long as white supremacy is attacked, there will always be a white backlash.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading the Webb article, I found Webb's testament that the Civil Rights Movement did not need the Brown v. Board decision to prosper to be highly intriguing, for it brought into question the very nature of the Civil Rights Movement. Webb noted how some scholars such as Gerald N. Rosenberg made claims that the Brown v Board decision stifled civil rights movements rather than providing the proper backdrop that would allow them to succeed. What this argument ignores is the symbolic effect the Brown v Board decision had on the African American psyche. For many, this case represented the shift in the mindset of United States leaders, and thus provided them with the hope needed to continue their work.
ReplyDeleteIn Klarman’s chapter, I thought it was very interesting to learn more about the Supreme Court decision on Brown v. Board of Education to examine how and possibly why each justice voted. Before Klarman began her discussion on each justice, she provided a background for the reader. One of the most intriguing details was that, “Segregation of public grade schools lay near the top of the white supremacist hierarchy of racial preferences” (Klarman 201). I was puzzled by this claim because Klarman also noted that even the white primary was viewed as less important by white supremacists (201). I am not sure why segregation of public schools was higher on the agenda than the white primary because the white primary was directly tied to political influence. I think this idea is extremely important though, because it establishes the scene for the reader to imagine the climate of this country at the time of Brown v. Board of Education. The argument presented by Stanley F. Reed regarding segregation and its constitutionality was very important because I think it gives the reader insight into how many white Americans felt about segregation. Klarman noted that when Reed was “asked, when are ‘changes to be made?’ He answered: When the body of the people think segregation is unconstitutional” (205). To me, justice Reed’s answer highlights how the voices of the minorities in this country have been silenced. This quote highlights that the only voice that could bend of the ear of the government was the voice of the white population. The silencing of minorities is an extremely dangerous and problematic pattern that is still present in this country today.
ReplyDeleteIn this week’s reading, I found the Webb piece to be particularly interesting. I found that when Webb wrote that “it’s been argued that Brown impeded the gradual process of rail change that had been taking place since the late 1940s,” I was taken back a bit and really started to ponder this avenue of thought. Although I found the reasoning behind this argument to be particularly interesting, I can definitely see that it makes valid points. However, I’d tend to push back on it somewhat. I believe that there did need to be some action by the courts to legitimize what was already taking place throughout the country. Moreover, I believe this mandated more action in enforcing desegregation. Another point I also found interesting was when Webb pointed out choosing schools as the place to begin integration versus transportation which was the issue in Plessy or another aspect of society. I do agree that education is one of the most prevalent cases in which separate but unequal was easy to see, as well as it was one of the easiest to get behind the decision.
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting thing I found from the Karman chapter was the regression away from the decision in Brown v Board with Brown II, which promoted gradualism in desegregation, allowing time for states to adjust in the decision with other segregation tactics. The strangest thing I found in the readings was how in major decisions the court made, many of it was due to the death of justices filled in with more left leaning justices. This reading applies today because it shows the gap that exists between the ruling of a law and the implementation of that law.
ReplyDeleteI was struck immediately by Webb’s perspective on Brown v. Board as a catalyst for increased racial violence and political backlash in conversation with his musings on the drawbacks of judicial activism. While I have been presented with many arguments on the anachronism caused by judicial activism and the questionable legitimacy of the unelected Supreme Court as an appropriate body to make weighty political decisions, this was the first that seemed invested both in the interest of civil rights and advancing political equality that believed that Brown v. Board did not necessarily take steps in the right direction. While Webb’s argument did not fully convinced me, it offered an intriguing new perspective on the debate of judicial activism and its place in social movements and civil rights work.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised and interested to read about the timing of the Brown v Board case in the Webb article this week. Although I have known about this case as a landmark civil rights decision since I began studying political science, I had never heard the argument that it actually set the civil rights movement back because of the backlash it created. Webb writes that some people believe that before the case, Jim Crow laws and other oppressive aspects of the country and specifically the South were on their way to being reformed, and that the backlash and the anger among white conservatives created by the Brown decision made these reforms harder and take longer. Although I personally do not agree with this line of thinking and think that this decision was necessary and did much more good than harm, I was interested to read this side of the story in a way that I never had before.
ReplyDeleteI too enjoyed Webb's discussion of the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education, particularly his acknowledgement of the rise of political moderates on race and equality. There were some white folk who preferred that the extreme violence of white segregationists stop, but it is important to grasp that "most moderates were political realists rather than moral idealists. Their recognition that whites as well as blacks would suffer from the refusal to implement even limited racial reform marked the decline of racial violence as a political tactic" (Webb 332). It took understanding that this violence and continued obstructionism to desegregation was starting to impact their lives to make white folk speak out. Whether it was the prospect of white children's public schools getting shut down or the realization that the Southern economy would suffer opportunity for outside investment, at large white lives had to be affected in order to inspire white action. This reminds me of our class discussion on Cold War Civil Rights and Truman's statement that "Democracy is under observation". Even then there was an understanding that if the United States desired a certain image abroad, it sorely needed to improve its race relations at home.
ReplyDeleteClive Webb’s essay, “A Continuity of Conservatism: The Limitations of Brown v. Board of Education” highlights on the role of racial moderates in the efforts to end Jim Crow segregation following the decision to desegregate schools in the mid-twentieth century. More specifically, Webb writes about the “token compliance” necessitated by these moderates in an attempt to stabilize political and economic development (33!). In reality, many of these people took this stance as a way to maintain the status quo, hindering social change at its full force. And yet, the Supreme Court decision allowed the minimal complacency rather than push for radical racial progress, which speaks volumes about the institutionalized white supremacy that has been woven into the American system. The American climate seems to suggest and prefer the moderate practice versus major social progress in the name of tradition, and more importantly, comfort. However, “American ideals” should be largely scrutinized for its problematic nature if the structure of American policies are to be changed, going back to Anya’s question a few weeks ago.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Phoebe and say that it was insightful to learn about the judges' analysis from the case, but I found it even more interesting reading about about the aftermath of the decision. While it was a victory, as Webb stated in his document aftwerwads there was an a large amount of backlash and an increase in "assaults and murders of black and white individuals and also the burning or bombing of schools, churches, synagogues, and private homes." Schools that attempted to integrate saw their campuses turned into battlegrounds.
ReplyDelete