CIVIL RIGHTS HISTORY IN AMERICA

1. Chapter 16.7. Frank H Mayer “We Kill the Golden Goose”

How does Mayer account for the wastefulness of the buffalo hunt?

Mayer starts the article by stating that we had killed the golden goose. In the second paragraph of the article, Mayer mentions that when he began as a buffalo runner, he was not interested in the overall figures of the buffalo number killed, and without realizing it, the game was on the way out. Mayer goes on describing how, at the start, the buffalo was a great business to be in, the meat and their bones were high in demand and made a lot of money[1]. As Mayer looked for an answer by consulting the railroads, which had an essential role in the destruction of the buffalo, he found no answers because they didn’t keep any records.

According to Mayer, who or what was responsible for the destruction of the buffalo?

Towards the end, Mayer describes that the Indians got their share of the buffalo too, and their kills had an impact on the destruction of buffalo. The removal of the buffalo affected the nation because of the relationship between the Indians, Native Americans, and the white settlers. According to Mayer, the railroads were a huge factor in the destruction of the buffalo because the railroads were the ones who transported and shipped the buffalo ranges. Without the railroads, the slaughter of the buffalo would not have been possible, and it would have significantly decreased the number of buffalos killed due to the role they had in transporting. An increase in efficiency happened in the buffalo ranges whenever the law of diminishing returns sets of works. Since the buffalo had destroyed, the hunters started going after cows, for their fur, bulls, and calves. Mayer goes on mentioning that they were wasteful of hides too. Every coat that reached the market represented three or four buffalo killed. Mayer describes that as there were fewer and fewer buffalo, the runners became efficient; even when economical, they did not have anything to be practical about, and their efficiency came too late, which is always a tragedy.

2. Chapter 22.5. (page 243): Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan, Excerpts from The Scopes Trial” (1925).

How would you describe the tone of the exchange between Darrow and Bryan? How does this exchange encapsulate the tensions between modernism and fundamentalism?

It’s been argued that Darrow’s examination of Bryan on day 7 of the trial (July 20) reduced Bryan to a near-incoherent wreck and expertly hammered the final nail into the fundamentalists’ “coffin.”  In practice, however, this scenario was dreamed up by F.L. Allen, in his book Only Yesterday (1931), to bolster his central claim that the 1920s were a time of momentous social change in America1. If we are going to get the Bryan-Darrow session back into perspective, there are specific basic facts that need to be taken into consideration.

This claim has been repeated by several commentators over the years – and it’s still nonsense.  This was an entirely one-sided examination, with Darrow asking his pre-planned, carefully rehearsed questions and Bryan, in the main, having no option but to do his best to answer them off the top of his head, and certainly with no right to raise counter questions.
Bryan was a seasoned debater and first-class orator.  In a genuine debate, he would almost certainly have wiped the floor with Darrow, on the witness stand; however, Bryan might just as well have been hog-tied and gagged; for in the ways of the courtroom interrogation, his experience was thirty years out of date.

The problem was that Darrow simply wasn’t up to the job. He imagined himself to be well-read and intelligent with a good grasp of scientific matters, yet according to his biographers “[accepted] too unqualifiedly the impartiality of science and the soundness of its conclusions,” (he was entirely convinced by the Piltdown Man hoax, for example.).  Likewise, though he had challenged Bryan to answer 55 questions on religion and science via the front page of the Chicago Tribune, in 1923, in reality, he had only a “childish conception of theology” such that he was still using the age-old arguments of the typical “village atheist” (i.e., his father – the original “poor, weak underdog”),

22.1 Ellison Durant Smith (pg. 162) excerpts from “Shut the Door”: Senator speaks for immigration restriction (April 9 1924). What is senator smith justification for immigrant restriction? Who is an “American” according to senator smith?

At the turn of the 20th century, unprecedented levels of immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe to the United States aroused public support for restrictive immigration laws. After World War I, which temporarily slowed immigration levels, anti-immigration sentiment rose again. Congress passed the Quota Act of 1921, limiting entrants from each nation to 3 percent of that nationality’s presence in the U.S. population as recorded by the 1910 census. As a result, immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe dropped to less than one-quarter of pre-World War I levels. Even more restrictive was the Immigration Act of 1924 (Johnson-Reed Act) that shaped American immigration policy until the 1960s1. During congressional debate over the 1924 Act, Senator Ellison DuRant Smith of South Carolina drew on the racist theories of Madison Grant to argue that immigration restriction was the only way to preserve existing American resources. Although blatant racists like Smith were in the minority in the Senate, almost all senators supported limit, and the Johnson-Reed bill passed with only six dissenting votes.

It seems to be the point as to this measure, and I have been as impressed for several years as that the time has arrived when we should shut the door. We have been called the melting pot of the world. We had an experience just a few years ago, during the great World War, when it looked as though we had allowed influences to enter the borders that were about to melt the pot in place of us being the melting pot.

Without offense, but about the salvation of our own, let us shut the door and assimilate what we have, and let us breed pure American citizens and develop our American resources. I am more in favor of that than I am of our quota proposition. Of course, it may not meet the approbation of the Senate that we shall shut the door which I unqualifiedly and unreservedly believe to be our duty and develop what we have, assimilate and digest what we have into pure Americans, with American aspirations, and thoroughly familiar with the love of American institutions, rather than the importation of any number of men from other countries. If we may not have that, then I am in favor of putting the quota down to the lowest possible point, with every selective element in it that maybe 1

Chapter 22.2 (pg 163) Ku Klux Klau excerpts from the Klan manual (1925) How did the Ku Klux Klan define “pure patriotism”? Who is an American, according to the Klan? What did the Klan fear most in the 1920s? How did the Klan address these fears?

What did the Klan fear most in the 1920s?  How did the Klan address these fears?

Within the Ku Klux Klan, they may have come off as a ruthless group, but in all reality, they had one major fear; to lose white supremacy. The K.K.K. Sole heartedly believed in what they call “Pure Patriotism.” This patriotism is defined by them as having complete white dominance over a native country that they owe no allegiance to any government. To combat these issues, the K.K.K. would burn black churches, rape their woman, and even destroy any white man that is affiliated with the black, Jew, and catholic groups. In their oath, they say, “Every influence that seeks to disrupt the home must be destroyed.” This shows their allegiance explicitly to defending their country from any racial threats1.

Chapter 24.1 (pg. 178): Eleanor Roosevelt, an excerpt from  “Race Religion, and prejudice” (May 11, 1942)

What racial problems did Mrs. Roosevelt identify in American society? Why did she believe it was vital to solving the problem?

Racial justice did not always concern Eleanor Roosevelt. Although she began her social activism working with the immigrant communities of the Rivington Street Settlement House in 1903, E.R. began to recognize racial discrimination only after she moved to the White House in 1933.

As she traveled the nation, E.R. witnessed the seemingly intractable hardships wrought by the Great Depression. Lorena Hickok’s field reports detailed the inadequacies of Federal Emergency Relief Administration programs and brought individual stories of personal hardship to E.R.’s attention. And although E.R. had visited African Americans when she toured poverty-stricken areas the summer after she became First Lady, she did not recognize the depth of institutional racism until she pressured the Subsistence Homestead Administration to admit African Americans to Arthur dale. Her intervention failed and she invited NAACP Executive Secretary Walter White and the presidents of African American universities to the White House to discuss the situation. This unprecedented meeting quickly became a tutorial on racial discrimination and lasted until midnight. E.R. then pressured National Recovery administrator Donald Richberg to investigate the raced-based wage differentials implemented by southern industries and asked Navy secretary Claude Swanson why blacks were confined to mess hall assignments.

When white America refused to see how segregation mocked American values, E.R. addressed this issue sternly and directly: “We have never been willing to face this problem, to line it up with the basic, underlying beliefs in Democracy.” Racial prejudice enslaved blacks; consequently, “no one can claim that . . . the Negroes of this country are free.” She continued this theme in a 1942 article in the New Republic, declaring that both the private and the public sector must acknowledge that “one of the main destroyers of freedom is our attitude toward the colored race.” “What Kipling called `The White Man’s Burden,'” she proclaimed in The American Magazine, is “one of the things we cannot have any longer.” Furthermore, she told those listening to the radio broadcast of the 1945 National Democratic Forum, “democracy may grow or fade as we face [this] problem1.”

Chapter 24.4 (pg 183): Franklin d. Roosevelt excerpt from “An economic bill of rights” (January 11, 1994)

How did Roosevelt propose expanding the concept of freedom contained on the Bill of rights? For what economic guarantee did he call?

This was proposed not to amend the Constitution, but rather as a political challenge, encouraging Congress to draft legislation to achieve these aspirations. It is sometimes referred to as the “Second Bill of Rights.”

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be if some fraction of our people — whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth — is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights — among them the power of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty

However, a number of the concerns include the feasibility of mass deportation, the accomplishment, which has been occurred in the history concerning the issue, and the measures of the previous presidents; for instance, President Roosevelt, Hoover, and Truman in handling mass deportation in the country. Furthermore, the subject is also viewed from the financial side, counting their effective and unenthusiastic aid to the nation. Further, the price of the proposed mass deportation and construction of the “wall” is a matter of concern. The ethics of the crusade regarding its justice to the populace that include both authorized and illegal settlers, and its results on the state security, and safety of the United States of America citizens, are also subjects of concern. About the American philosophy of inclusiveness, how the politics of group expatriation and building of the border wall is received by the Republicans and Democrats as well as the validity of the entire idea.

First, the deportation of more than 13 million unlawful immigrants will cost the country a considerable amount of money that would be either utilized to grant them citizenship through the “Pathway to Citizenship.” It is a difficult task to sort the people who are alien in the nation regarding their number and deporting them. Hence, it will take time as well as resources to achieve this goal. Moreover, building the U.S./Mexico wall to hinder the entrance of these sly immigrants will have several consequences, including the taxes the citizens will have to remit. Moreover, this will result in animosity between these two countries; not to mention the loss of the people that leave in the southern border where the wall is to be built. The border wall will also destruct the nature regarding that wild animal use it for various purposes such as migrating for reproduction, search for pasture, and other requirements.

Chapter 25.4 (pg 1920 W.E.B. dubois excerpts from “An Appeal to the World” (1947)

How does DuBois describe the effects of the color caste system on the North American African American? Why do you think Dubois took his Arguments about American civil rights to world reforms?

Du Bois and his supporters opposed the Atlanta compromise, an agreement crafted by Booker T. Washington which provided that Southern blacks would work and submit to white political rule, while Southern whites guaranteed that blacks would receive basic educational and economic opportunities. Instead, Du Bois insisted on full civil rights and increased political representation, which he believed would be brought about by the African-American intellectual elite. He referred to this group as the Talented Tenth and believed that African Americans needed the chances for advanced education to develop its leadership.

DuBois’ notion of double consciousness comes under scrutiny because he challenged the definition of identity. He portrayed both experiences as vital to the formation of identity and cautioned against sacrificing one for the other. The notion of double consciousness is central to modern discourses on the black American identity. This is a subject that remains in intense controversy among scholars. Some respondents rejected the duality paradigm denying its historical potency whole strongly counterpoising monolithic construct and some accepted and validated the notion of double consciousness and thus acknowledged and validated the legitimacy of the Afro and African American construction of identity.

8. What is Timothy Leary’s argument about the importance of drugs?

Leary argued that when people use psychedelic drugs at the correct dosage, in the right setting and company, and with proper psychological support, the drugs could offer appropriate therapy compared to other conventional methods. He argued that these drugs have the ability of influencing rapid and magical transformations. He argued that these drugs were important since they enabled an individual to recover from an ailment which conventional drugs were unable to treat. He examined the utilized of psychedelics in the treatment of alcoholics as well as other additions. 1He also collaborated with prisons as a way of transforming the lives of prisoners. Evidence indicates that most individuals who participated in his research, they reported spiritual and mystical experiences. Furthermore, they claimed that the experiences they had with the drugs tended to change permanently their lifestyles for the better.

Leary believed that these drugs will become part of modern life since psychedelics have huge potential for causing good. He added that although there have been claims that these drugs can also cause harms, regulated use of these drugs would ultimately contribute to enhancing the wellbeing of an individual. In October 1966, the government banned L.S.D. and tightened control over possession, supply and research on these drugs 1Nevertheless, when these drugs were legalized, Leary believes that controlled use would be instrumental in improving the daily lifestyles of people. H believed that each dosage of these drugs will be part of a normal lifestyle in the future when the government implements efficient policies to regulate how the drugs will be produced, supplied and consumed.

8. What is Timothy Leary’s argument about the importance of drugs?

Leary argued that when people use psychedelic drugs at the correct dosage, in the right setting and company, and with proper psychological support, the drugs could offer appropriate therapy compared to other conventional methods. He argued that these drugs have the ability of influencing rapid and magical transformations. He argued that these drugs were important since they enabled an individual to recover from an ailment which conventional drugs were unable to treat. He examined the utilized of psychedelics in the treatment of alcoholics as well as other additions1. He also collaborated with prisons as a way of transforming the lives of prisoners. Evidence indicates that most individuals who participated in his research, they reported spiritual and mystical experiences. Furthermore, they claimed that the experiences they had with the drugs tended to change permanently their lifestyles for the better.

Leary believed that these drugs will become part of modern life since psychedelics have huge potential for causing good. He added that although there have been claims that these drugs can also cause harms, regulated use of these drugs would ultimately contribute to enhancing the wellbeing of an individual. In October 1966, the government banned L.S.D. and tightened control over possession, supply and research on these drugs (Blackmore, 2011). Nevertheless, when these drugs were legalized, Leary believes that controlled use would be instrumental in improving the daily lifestyles of people. H believed that each dosage of these drugs will be part of a normal lifestyle in the future when the government implements efficient policies to regulate how the drugs will be produced, supplied and consumed.

9. How did Phyllis Schlafy define the “positive woman”?

Phyllis Schlafy defined a positive woman as an individual who has understood her identity. She argued that for a woman to identify her identity, in the contemporary society, it is important to seek a path for the “Positive Woman” rather that wallowing with the individuals who are yet to find that road. Therefore, a positive woman must have the spirit of loving her life and living it as a woman. Her credentials are from experience and when has to learn that fulfilment is not a destination but a journey. Phyllis Schlafy argued that a positive woman differed from “women’s liberationists” since the former strived to achieve her goals while the latter is imprisoned by her negative perception of herself1. She believed that women liberationists were imprisoned by the world around them, which perhaps may include the establishment, God, male chauvinistic pigs, other blocks. This made women to fell more inferior that males and this played a significant role in preventing women to achieve their goals.

Phyllis Schlafy argued that men and women differed only physically since their bodies were different. However, both men and women contained all other aspects of a human being, including their cognitive, psychological and emotional attributes. Therefore, although men and women were different in terms of their physique, there were no other factors that prevented a woman from achieving what men could achieve (Schlafly, 1983). The “New Morality” cheated women since it tried to convince them that trying to compete with men was morally wrong. This implies that women were forced to be submissive and spend most of their time under the dictates of men.

10. According to Reich, how did the distribution of wealth in the United States change between 1960 and 1990.

Robert Reich argued that growing inequality was the main reason for the current troubles that are being experienced in the economy. Reich said that as the American economy continued to expand from 1960s onwards, so did the gap between the rich became wider. The rich became richer, while the poor became poor, and this contributed to a society of a few millionaires and several paupers. Reich argued that five percent of people in America who have the highest income usually account for more than 27% of the entire purchases made by consumers. This implies that between 1960 and 1990, more and more income continued to go to the top class of the society while the working population continued to struggle to fulfill their daily expectations1. He added that it would be impossible for the economy to be rectified before the issue of inequality in America is  Scholars have also supported the claims raised by Reich by arguing that high inequality levels lead to disunity in society. Those workers who feel that they are poorly paid tend to less productive, which ultimately drags back the economy. Evidence has seen that economies, where there are lower levels of inequality, tend to be productive in comparison to countries where there are high inequality levels.

Bibliography

Schaller, Michael. Reading American Horizons: Primary Sources for U.S. History in a Global Context. Oxford University Press, 2018.

Bibliography

[1] Schaller, Michael. Reading American Horizons: Primary Sources for U.S. History in a Global Context. Oxford University Press, 2018.

Ibid