Final Blog Post: What Era Are We In Now?

If I had to name the era we are in now, I would name it the social media era. I feel as if everything that surrounds our everyday lives is influenced by social media. People as young as teenagers and older are starting to watch the news less and are getting their information and news from what they are seeing on social media, such as Instagram or Twitter.

Those that are getting their news from social media are not fact checking what they are seeing and it is easy for false information to spread and gain popularity. One post could end up being reposted by many and shared around to many other followers, but that post could easily contain false or biased opinions. Because of social media allowing anyone and everyone to have an opinion and a voice, it allows those who are uneducated to share their thoughts. Social media has a way of pressuring followers to have certain beliefs, like how liberals push their agenda more onto younger generations. Everyone also assumes that issues have the same weight on someone else, but an issue might be less important to someone else who finds it important.

Social media can be good to inform those that do not watch the news if awareness needs to be spread or it can keep those up to date on what is going on if it is accurate information. But political issues are becoming trends rather than important issues. Posts are made about current issues, inflation, abortion, climate change, immigration, and other things and these are being reposted if it is considered a trend at that point. Some are sharing things on social media, but aren't doing anything to try to change something or make an impact on the issue. Like "Black Out Tuesday," what was posting a black square on social media doing other than spreading awareness. Those that are posting also might not have the knowledge to back up what they are posting. Before something political is posted, there should be research put into it.

Trends on social media show support to both political parties. But there also seems to be judgment on political beliefs being shared on social media if someone doesn't agree. Social media has allowed friendships to change since political views are being shared that might not have been shared without social media. I personally have seen many different arguments that are happening, like with abortion or if Joe Biden is fully capable to run our country. These are just everyday people having arguments publicly, sharing their opinions as facts and judging others with opposite opinions. And the fact that some like Trump cannot even share his opinions on social media is wrong, just because they were found offensive, but what if I thought the people who wanted to ban him were offensive?

You hear negative things about police, like how George Floyd was killed by police, but you don't hear about police officers that are risking their lives or being killed on duty. In April 2021, in my small hometown there was a police officer, Keith Heacook, killed from severe injuries on duty while he was responding to a fight, which was known to be an unsafe situation and they were understaffed to have another officer go along with him. You didn't hear about this on the national news. There was still an impact on social media with local residents, but nothing compared to what was posted and shared about Floyd and BLM. How does this represent police? There are people dedicated to their job, while some aren't getting paid much and constantly put themselves in harmful situations. Looking at the situation with Floyd, it looks like all police are bad. That becomes a stereotype, rather than the truth. Just because one person is bad does not mean all people are bad. That is like saying one white person is racist so all white people are racist. It is wrong on many levels.

Political issues are real issues, not trends. Social media should start to spread the idea of doing research. Real news should be followed, especially by generations that will grow up surrounded by social media. 

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner Reflection

The movie Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner is about a daughter named Joanna that comes home from a trip to Hawaii early with a surprise for her parents. She brought home her fiancé, Dr. Prentice, who is an older, African American man that she had met during her trip. This was a complete shock to her parents, as they had just met and he was older and this movie was also during the times where interracial marriage had just became legal after the decision of Loving v Va. 

Dr. Prentice had made it clear that if there were any objections from either set of parents, they would not get married. Joanna on the other hand was determined to get married no matter what anyone else thought. They had jumped into this relationship very quickly and she was sure that she was going to go with him and get married a few weeks later.

Something that stood out to me was when Dr. Prentice said to his dad “But you think of yourself as a colored man. I think of myself as a man.” I found this to be something very bold to say to a parent. Dr. Prentice didn’t think marrying a white women as marrying a white women but as marrying the women he loved because he didn’t think about his race as what he can and cannot do, he just thinks of himself as a person. He was given opportunities by his parents to go above and beyond with his career and his life in general. 

Mrs. Prentice had made a comment saying that the dads didn’t know what it felt like to be young and in love like how Dr. Prentice and Joanna were. Which Mr. Drayton later defends this by saying the memories of his wife were still clearly there and this helped him realize that he should accept it and give his blessing. 

Mr. Drayton turned supportive but still made it clear that they would have a lot of issues ahead of them, but their main issue was not going to be him. He was also convinced  that he could change Mr. Drayton's opinion on the situation. The dad said the biggest problem in the end would be if the two of them did not get married, which this shows how serious his support is for the couple. 

EOTO Reflection

After the mock trial in class, the other groups presented their eoto presentations. The topics that were presented were the assassination of Robert F Kennedy, the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., Boston busing violence, the Watts riots, redlining, the fair housing act, freedom summer, the 24th amendment, war on poverty, and Shirley Chisholm.

One topic that I found super interesting was learning about Shirley Chisholm. She was the second African American women that served for the legislature in Albany, New York and she served in 1964. In 1969, she was elected first African American congresswomen and she served for seven terms. With all that she was able to accomplish, she was able to set an example for both the African American and women communities. She later ran for president and she did not get elected, but this helped her have a strong political voice for many years. I had not really thought about how in the past there were probably women that ran for president and had not been elected during this time period.

Another topic I found interesting was redlining. Redlining is financial services that are denied mortgages, insurance, and loans based on someone's race. Those in charge of prices of housing made them affordable since there was a wealth gap between races. With there being a wealth gap, healthcare was also less attainable since it was more expensive.

Something that was put into place to help with these issues was the fair housing act, which was enforced by people like the Department of Urban Housing and Development and also the Office of Fair Housing and Development and Equal Opportunity. This act was in title VIII of the civil rights act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination in housing sales, rentals, and financing.

Most of the other events that happened contained violence, like both of the assassinations and the Boston busing violence. All of these events had an impact on history. Imagine all of what else Martin Luther King Jr could have accomplished if he was not assassinated. All of these events were important parts of history.

    

Regents v. Bakke Mock Trial

In class, we held a mock trial on the case Regents v. Bakke. My speech was giving context based on Bakke's side and how race relations were during this time. This speech mostly does not reflect my opinion, but defended my part in the mock trial.

The case Regents v. Bakke  was argued on October 12, 1977. Allen Bakke had been rejected twice from the University of California Medical School at Davis. Bakke was a white male that was 35 years old. He was not rejected because of his grades and test scores, but because affirmative action made it that there were sixteen spots reserved for those that were “qualified minorities” for those spots, which he was not. His scores for admissions had been above average, making it that he should never have been denied acceptance. 

There were only 100 spots open for admission in the medical school, making it that there were 84 spots for whites and then 16 spots for minorities left. This added extra competition and another factor to admission and acceptance. 

The question being asked in this case was, “Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school?” 

Because of not being accepted, Bakke sued the school as he thought having a “clear-cut racial quota system” violated both the constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He believed that it was not right that he was denied because of his race. He should have gotten into the university with no issue. 

Bakke believed that him not getting in because he was white is “reverse discrimination.” Its not that all races should not have a chance, but that race should not be one of the more important determining factors of if a student is admitted to a university. What should be the important factors should be academics and character. 

Affirmative action allowed there to be spots set aside for minorities since it was trying to fix the issues of past discrimination. This did not work in favor of Bakke since he had the scores and academic record that should have earned him a spot. It could be unfair since the person that was admitted instead could have lower test scores and would be less qualified. Someone with a good record should be rewarded with admission for all of their hard work. 

Racial relations in the 1970s were still not in a good spot. Because of this, there was tension between races and affirmative action was trying to fix past issues, but it did have the ability to upset those that were effected negatively from it. This is what happened to Bakke. 

If there had not been 16 percent of the class being set aside, Bakke could’ve made it into the program. Bakke was affected by this even though the intentions weren’t to keep people from the program because of their race. Affirmative action was supposed to make it that everyone was included, not to hold people back from their goals and dreams.

Sources: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/76-811 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/regents_of_the_university_of_california_v_bakke_(1978)#:~:text=Primary%20tabs-,Regents%20of%20the%20University%20of%20California%20v.,Civil%20Rights%20Act%20of%201964. 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/affirmative_action 

https://www.britannica.com/event/Bakke-decision 

Klansville USA Reflection

 The state of North Carolina had been given the nickname “Klansville U.S.A..” The leader, Bob Jones, had been able to build the klan into something huge. He wanted this group to have the influence of something political. He was successful with growing the North Carolina klan group to be the biggest group with over ten thousand members. This had more members than all of the other southern groups combined. 

This organization was considered to be the spokesperson for the whites that felt as if integration was going to be a threat to things in their daily lives like their jobs. Those that were against integration had the Klan and those that were for integration had the NAACP. 

People like Bob Jones lacked respect for African Americans and refused to think integration was a good idea. He never even thought he was racist. He had formed opinions on groups of people without even trying. He showed his hate by leading the KKK in North Carolina.

Those that were apart of the KKK originally were coming back as former confederate leaders and after seeing the reactions of newly freed slaves, they became more violent. They did things that were so harsh like hanging people from trees or throwing them off bridges.

In 1915, the idea of the KKK came back as a presence from it being in a movie. This movie made it seem that the things that the KKK had done were necessary so they were justified, which I find insane. It made them seem almost heroic to those that saw it. After this, the KKK made a comeback in the 1920’s. These groups started to be all over, not just in the south.  There were over 4 million Klan members in the 1920’s, which I never knew it involved that many followers. 

When there seemed to be progress in integration, the KKK came back. They believed that the Klan was “saving” the south. But it was not saving the south but making change impossible. 

Something that I find crazy is there were members of the KKK that were ministers and other people that were religious. I don't understand how someone could share the love of God but not show love towards everyone, no matter race or religious beliefs. During initiation, a cross would be burned. I don’t understand how a true believer could be apart of something so tragic. They thought these cross burnings were fine. Things that are horrible were being normalized and causing bad things to happen over and over again. 

People were finding almost a feeling of belonging while doing things that were not sharing the feeling they were receiving. They felt as if they were doing what was right since they had seen these things happen for years, which didn’t make anything okay. 

I will never understand how things could get this violent and how people could be so stuck in their ways to not be accepting to those around them.

Hazel Scott

Hazel Scott was an African American jazz pianist and singer. She was known as the first African American women to host a television show that was her own. She performed in many different countries and was able to have an impact on how African American women were looked in a Hollywood context.

She stood up to the House Un-American Activities Committee along with the Hollywood studio machine. She refused to play roles that were normally played by African American women, like a maid and she refused to play the piano and sing while other African American women were dancing in the background. She was the reason they were able to wear normal outfits. Her voice was heard by the people around her and she fought for what she believed was right. She had it in her contract that she would only play a role that was herself, which she was in about five films.

When she performed music, she refused to play in segregated concert halls and set the standard for what other African American performer should do. She performed in many famous places like Carnegie Hall and other places all around. She made sure she was being treated fair and equal. 

Something that I found interesting was Scott was doing these things at such a young age. She was playing at Carnegie hall at the age of 20 and she had been playing piano since she was only three years old. She was able to accomplish so much with her talent.

She was able to have an impact in the music and entertainment industry for both herself and other African American performers. With her actions, she showed those around her to not settle if it is not equal. 

sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/04/24/hazel-scott-jim-crow/

https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/hazel-scott 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_WJ4PpxWaE 

https://www.wrti.org/arts-desk/2021-02-05/looking-back-at-the-extraordinary-life-of-hazel-scott

EOTO: Rosa Parks

Rosa Parks was on her way home from work on December 1, 1955. She chose to sit down for the bus ride in the "colored section." A white man needed a place to sit since the "white" section was full. The bus driver asked Parks to move so that man would have a place to sit. Parks refused to move. After Parks sat in that seat, there were two police officers that came to the stopped bus to check out the situation and took Parks into custody for sitting in the wrong section. 

Jim Crow laws, known as black codes, made it that the African American community was “co-existing” with the white people around them. African Americans had to go to different schools, had different water fountains, and had many other restrictions. African Americans were treated as “second class citizens.” The bus that Parks was on is an example of how Jim Crow laws were put in place and were heavily enforced. 

With Parks refusing to give up her seat, it started a movement. It was decided that night that on the day of Parks’ trial, there would be a boycott started from the buses by the African American population in Montgomery. On this day, Parks was found guilty and was fined along $14 along with suspended sentence. In her autobiography, Parks wrote “People always say that I didn’t give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn’t true. I was not tired physically… No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in.” It was more than just a seat. It was demonstrating how unfair segregated seating was. It was showing not that she was tired from work, but that she was tired of letting those unfair rules have control.

This event had an affect that allowed for there to be the desire for more change. There was a boycott started on December 5, 1955. They protested the buses by avoiding them because of what had happened with Parks and because of how unfair it was for everyone. It was known as the Montgomery Bus Boycott. This case along with other similar ones started to make their way up the courts to the U.S. Supreme Court. This boycott was something that helped lead to the decision at the U.S. Supreme Court that Montgomery's segregation laws that were on the buses were deemed unconstitutional later on. The bus boycott lasted for 381 days. Her arrest was something that made it that the local segregation laws were able to be tried. This boycott also helped bring attention to what was going on since it was when Martin Luther King Jr. started to voice his opinion, which caused positive changes later.

Before all of this, Parks was a part of the NAACP and was the chapter secretary of the Montgomery chapter.The NAACP was the “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.” This was a civil rights organization that responded to the violence that was going on across the country towards African Americans. She was also very respected in her community. She was married to Raymond Parks, who was also heavily involved the civil rights movement.  With everything she had accomplished, Parks earned the name “the mother of the civil rights movement.” 

Sources:
https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/rosa-parks 

https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/what.htm

https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/rosa-parks 

https://www.britannica.com/event/Montgomery-bus-boycott

In the Heat of the Night Movie Reflection

During class on Wednesday, we watched In the Heat of the Night. I found this movie super interesting. In the movie, Virgil Tibbs is arrested for a murder with limited questioning and he was in the wrong place and the wrong time. Tibbs was an African American and the police all seem to have something against him for his skin color. They had assumed that Tibbs had stole money from the man that was murdered just because he had money in his pocket. Looking at Tibbs, he was a put together and successful person but the police had saw the opposite. They were shocked to find out that Tibbs was a police officer in Philadelphia and was one of the best at solving murder cases. 

This was something that was a huge issue during reconstruction. Those that weren’t open minded were ready to accuse someone of something that they hadn’t done just because of their skin color. Like the police chief, others didn’t consider an African American of being successful, he just assumed right away he had done something bad to get the money. Tibbs was a better person by not showing how these actions all affected him and he continued to help the police.

Throughout the movie, Tibbs gets attacked by a group of young white guys. Something that I found wrong was when the police chief saw this happening, he did not do anything to punish those that were attacking. These boys were sent to go after Tibbs just because of Endicott being accused of the crime. When Endicott was questioned about it, he slapped Tibbs in the face causing Tibbs to slap Endicott back. This should not have caused more violence.

The only person who seemed truly offended about all of the racism that was surrounding this town and police station was the wife of the man that was murdered. She had noticed how careless they were about how they found the suspect. Like with Tibbs, they assumed and brought him to the station. She was offended about how there was a lack of questioning and how they were bringing innocent people to the chief.

There are so many things that are wrong in this movie. Tibbs should’ve been served in the restaurant. No one should have gone after Tibbs for anything, especially because Tibbs had good intentions and was there to help. Tibbs was treated wrongly by racist people and it shows how the south held onto past beliefs after the war. 

Justice Harlan's Dissent

In Plessy v. Ferguson, there was one judge that agreed that what Plessy did was not wrong. This judge was Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan. He believed that “our constitution is colorblind.” He wrote about this in the context that our constitution wasn’t written to have social classes and different races to be separated. Our constitution was created to outline our rights and not to outline the differences of social classes and different races. According to law, everyone that is a citizen is equal. Being “inconsistent with the civil freedom” is not “justified upon any legal grounds.” 

The case of Plessy v. Ferguson was a 7 to 1 decision that Plessy was in the wrong. They thought with the separate but equal doctrine there was nothing wrong with Plessy having to be on the blacks only train car. Our constitution does not outline how races should be different. According to the constitution, a citizen is a citizen. A social class or someone's race does not determine how they should be treated.

Harlan wrote, “What can more certainly arouse race hate, what more certainly create and perpetuate a feeling of distrust between these races, than state enactments, which, in fact, proceed on the ground that colored citizens are so inferior and degraded that they cannot be allowed to sit in public coaches occupied by white citizens? That, as all will admit, is the real meaning of such legislation.” This meant that if there was a sense of distrust towards another race, there would be separation established. There should not have been such punishment towards someone for sitting somewhere in a train. The Constitution did not support segregation, making it wrong for there to be different seating areas.

I honestly think Harlan should have had more people on his side since his opinion is what is right. His opinion was the start of a new beginning, having similar opinions follow after his dissent.

sources:

https://louisville.edu/law/library/special-collections/the-john-marshall-harlan-collection/harlans-great-dissent

Reconstruction Video Reflection

Learning about reconstruction after the Civil War was something I found super interesting. I had not realized that there were many different things to rebuild. There was a lot of damage to buildings that had to be rebuilt while the economy was also struggling. Resources and money were limited, making it more challenging to rebuild. Basically everything needed to be rebuild, like education, government, and more.

There was also big changes in government and in schooling. African Americans were now able to be a part of government. This would change the dynamic of running for government. With education, there needed to be more opportunities now. This is when black universities started to become popular. There still was so many areas for improvement to make everything fair. Some of the white people especially in the south were stuck in a pre-war mindset, making reconstruction still a time of struggle.

During reconstruction, African Americans were finally able to become economically independent. They were given new opportunities, like the ability to buy land and start their own businesses. They were able to have different jobs than before. They could be a police officer or they could be a judge. Even though there was independence, they still weren't given every opportunity that a white person had.

Families were reunited and friendships were formed. Groups were formed and new communities were created. There was also change in religion as they had complete freedom in worshiping. The churches became more than just church. It involved things like politics and teaching. 

There were negative sides during reconstruction along with the areas that had the ability to grow. The amount of crimes towards African Americans grew. There were still white supremacists that believed that African Americans’ shouldn’t be a part of government. The whites did not want to give up the power of being in control of everything. They didn’t want to give the African Americans’ a chance to try. 

When a former confederate general named Robert E. Lee died, white southerners grieved like they had lost the war again for the second time. They closed schools, lined newspapers in black, and they wore sashes. These southerners were holding onto life before reconstruction, making it hard for everyone as a whole to move on. The white southerners needed to let everything go for there to be fair chance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NNYPWhRhks

EOTO Reflection 2

In class on Wednesday, the other group presented their EOTO presentations. Some of the topics that were talked about were different civil rights acts, the thirteenth amendment, the fourteenth amendment, the fifteenth amendment, radical reconstruction, the Freedmen’s Bureau, forty acres and a mule, the rise and fall of the KKK, and anti miscegenation laws in the united states. 

The one I found the most interesting was about Forty Acres and a Mule. This was when land was taken from Confederate elites and it was given to freed slaves. This land was south of Charleston and after the newly freed slaves moved to this land, it was a black community. They were given forty acres per family, but they made sure that they were only given 800 feet of shoreline on their land. Later after receiving the land, they were given a mule to help. 

I feel as if this was something that was done so that former slaves were repaid for their work. Even though this helped some start a new life, it still would never make up for how poorly their former owners had treated them. 

Something else I found interesting was the information about Radical Reconstruction. Those that were Radical Republicans believed and argued that African Americans should have and deserve the same rights and the same opportunities. They also thought that any Confederate leader should be punished for their leadership and beliefs with the war. These beliefs should be  believed by the current president of that time and others shouldn’t have to go take control of congress. 

Learning about anti-miscegenation laws was shocking. These were laws that were passed so that there was no race mixing. This was going against everything that had been worked for. These laws were making it just like how it was before and it was not right. Something else that was surprising were black codes. These codes made it that African Americans were still restricted and they did not have total freedom. These laws and codes were holding back the chances of everything being equal.