I was really glad we watched that movie on Thursday. I really enjoyed hearing more about that story. I new that the Dutch had banned together to help move there jews to Sweden. However I was unaware of some of the other resistance movement they held.
While they used violence I feel like it could still be seen as a nonviolent movement. They did not hurt anybody rather they used violence to destroy property. They went on strikes during work. They helped lower the productivety that the Dutch produced.
I just there tatics were different than what the civil rights leaders did. They did use some violence but it was necessarily. They were up against Hitler. Hitler had no problem killing people. The Dutch had to make a point and I think by blowing up railroads and factories. Was still using nonviolence in a way that was useful.
I think I just like how everyone in the country rallied together. The tatics they used were successful in that it united the people. The mobilization that happened was quite sucessful.
I just like seeing a success yea it took awhile but by the end they were better off than some other countries. They were able to have have high morality and unite as a country.
I just like that we were able to see that nonviolence can have some acts of violence in it.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Civil Rights
The question I want to raise is one we have looked at for women movements. In womens movements we look to see if men are need to make the movements sucessful and I feel like you can look at that with the Civil Rights movement to. Did this need to be primarily a movement jsut within the Black community. On the other side did this movement to include white supports to.
I think one of the reasons for its success was White support. The whites help got media attentions and news. When the got hurt or went missing it was able to get media news. I like that the majoraty of the leaders and followers were black. It really showed how much of a grassroot oppation that Kings movement was.
It was just one of the things that was on my mind. I know that Sara Beth and i looked at this some in India. It has been at the back of my mind sense the beginning of the class.
I don't think it makes as big of an impact as it does in Women movement. But I think the power issues still comes in to play. The people who want the change really need to step up and take control. I feel like the Civil Rights movement did a good job with that.
I think one of the reasons for its success was White support. The whites help got media attentions and news. When the got hurt or went missing it was able to get media news. I like that the majoraty of the leaders and followers were black. It really showed how much of a grassroot oppation that Kings movement was.
It was just one of the things that was on my mind. I know that Sara Beth and i looked at this some in India. It has been at the back of my mind sense the beginning of the class.
I don't think it makes as big of an impact as it does in Women movement. But I think the power issues still comes in to play. The people who want the change really need to step up and take control. I feel like the Civil Rights movement did a good job with that.
Civil Rights
Chicago: 1965 to 1966
I think it is important that King took the movment north. While it might have not been the sucess he was looking for it was important.
The north ridiculed the south for there segreation against the black. However things were not much better in the north. There were obvious economic difference between the blacks and the whites. You could see with jobs held, school, and neighborhoods.
I think it was interesting the MLK took his movement up north to point out these flaws. He was showing how the north still had problems. It was really difficult to take the movement north but was needed. King for the most part realized that.
Picking chicago was a strategic thing. He looked at other cities but finally settled on Chicago. It was wise to stay out Philadelphia because that were the NCAAP president. I think that King should have seperated his movement from there. D.C was an unlikely chice because allot of legal movement were there.
Attention need to be brought to the north and there policy towards blacks. I feel it was witnessed when riots broke out during the protesting the neighborhoods. White made it know that they did want blacks to leave in there comunities. They were fine to judge the southerns but not themselves.
I think it is important that King took the movment north. While it might have not been the sucess he was looking for it was important.
The north ridiculed the south for there segreation against the black. However things were not much better in the north. There were obvious economic difference between the blacks and the whites. You could see with jobs held, school, and neighborhoods.
I think it was interesting the MLK took his movement up north to point out these flaws. He was showing how the north still had problems. It was really difficult to take the movement north but was needed. King for the most part realized that.
Picking chicago was a strategic thing. He looked at other cities but finally settled on Chicago. It was wise to stay out Philadelphia because that were the NCAAP president. I think that King should have seperated his movement from there. D.C was an unlikely chice because allot of legal movement were there.
Attention need to be brought to the north and there policy towards blacks. I feel it was witnessed when riots broke out during the protesting the neighborhoods. White made it know that they did want blacks to leave in there comunities. They were fine to judge the southerns but not themselves.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Outside involvement
The 1960 was time for change and I that the government and media help played into. During the 1960's election each party was on a thin line when it came to the civil rights movements. A prime example is when King was thrown into jail. Robert did the right thing my working behind the seen to get King out of jail.
The other successful thing was when Robert sent down Seigenthaler with the Freedom Riders. He was able to bring attention to the movements. Espically because he was hit unconscious.
I think the media attention was good for the movement.
At the same time the media can twist things. I think that the coverage that was shown was well balanced. I think that the both groups played into the media. With Civil Rights movements had one man in the spotlight MLK. Do I support their descision I don't know. I do know that that their were so many more people behind the movement than just MLK.
I think it is easy for school to just focus on MLK. While he was seen as evil man then, we have made him a hero in modern days. We idealism him and forget about the other leaders in the movement. I personally had never heard of Diane Nash before reading her article or seeing the movie. It just frustrated me that the other leaders are overlooked. You can't change it in the Elementry to high school education because then you would have to omit something. We already have to rewite the history every few years. The answer comes down what will you cut to teach more about the civil rights movements.
The other successful thing was when Robert sent down Seigenthaler with the Freedom Riders. He was able to bring attention to the movements. Espically because he was hit unconscious.
I think the media attention was good for the movement.
At the same time the media can twist things. I think that the coverage that was shown was well balanced. I think that the both groups played into the media. With Civil Rights movements had one man in the spotlight MLK. Do I support their descision I don't know. I do know that that their were so many more people behind the movement than just MLK.
I think it is easy for school to just focus on MLK. While he was seen as evil man then, we have made him a hero in modern days. We idealism him and forget about the other leaders in the movement. I personally had never heard of Diane Nash before reading her article or seeing the movie. It just frustrated me that the other leaders are overlooked. You can't change it in the Elementry to high school education because then you would have to omit something. We already have to rewite the history every few years. The answer comes down what will you cut to teach more about the civil rights movements.
Civil Rights Movements and SNCC
The SNCC group came from a student movements. They group started at Fisk University in TN. I found it interest that Jim Lawson a professor there taught Nonviolence Workshops. His aim to prepare students for the ridicule that they would be recieving from onlookers.
I think that they were important to have because people who do nonviolence have to be able to conceal their emotions. They are having peple hitting them, throwing things at them, or yelling at them. They just have to sit there and be nonresponsive. It takes a lot mentally to deal with that.
Personally I know I have trouble keeping a straight face, but to have someone just yell at me i know i would break down. At the same time they were realy passionate about this. It was was something that meant to alot to all the people involved. I know that if I cared about something that much I would want to fight for it.
The people involved had to have a discple. Do to what they did they had to have a lot of self-determination. It not easy to sit back and be hurt. They knew that by not fighting back it was going to help then win in the long run.
It was also easy to why student movements were successful. They had an captive audience at their disposal. It was easy to rally people behind them. Also it was easier to spread the word because the people where at the same place. It was like when church rallied together. The congrecation was mass of people that could support a cause.
I think that they were important to have because people who do nonviolence have to be able to conceal their emotions. They are having peple hitting them, throwing things at them, or yelling at them. They just have to sit there and be nonresponsive. It takes a lot mentally to deal with that.
Personally I know I have trouble keeping a straight face, but to have someone just yell at me i know i would break down. At the same time they were realy passionate about this. It was was something that meant to alot to all the people involved. I know that if I cared about something that much I would want to fight for it.
The people involved had to have a discple. Do to what they did they had to have a lot of self-determination. It not easy to sit back and be hurt. They knew that by not fighting back it was going to help then win in the long run.
It was also easy to why student movements were successful. They had an captive audience at their disposal. It was easy to rally people behind them. Also it was easier to spread the word because the people where at the same place. It was like when church rallied together. The congrecation was mass of people that could support a cause.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)