Women and Social Movements

When going through McGirr's work part of her second chapter struck me as very similar to a book that was assigned for HIS502. (I really hope I'm getting the book right because I remember the concept) I believe it was Southern Cross by Christine Leigh Heyrman. In Southern Cross the first members of the nuclear family to accept the rising fundamentalist beliefs of the bible belt were the wives and mothers. These individuals then had the task of convincing their husbands, who held the real power, to join these congregations. In McGirr's second chapter she describes something similar in which women became involved in the conservative movement and would then bring in their husbands. (p. 87) It raises an interesting question as to the nature of social movements, particularly those with a religious aspect which both Heyrman's and McGirr's certainly had. Perhaps the influence of women play a larger role than is shown even in modern scholarship?

Reagan: JFK = Karl Marx

1. I'm glad that McGirr didn't compromise her integrity by playing the stupid "fair and balanced" game of braindead "impartiality." It seems that she has attached words like "tirade" to at least half of the quotes from conservatives in the book, and she's not afraid to make these people look like the idiots they were. Good for her.

2. Not much pigment in that cover photo, huh?

3. On a related note: McGirr's treatment of race is a bit funky. Throughout the book, she says several times that OC conservatives weren't as obsessed with race as conservatives in other parts of the country, largely because the OC was essentially all white. She even creates this odd geography where race is important on a north-south axis, but not an east-west axis. (14-15) Umm . . . doesn't that geography privilege a very particular way of looking at race (ie as a southern or southern and northern urban problem)? And moreover, who says that race isn't an issue just because black people aren't around? White people are raced, and so the lovely little middle class bubble that these people exist in is a racial space. Further, the move away from anticommunist hysteria to "law and order" hysteria among these conservatives is deeply impacted by race. It's striking that McGirr is comfortable suggesting that race was at the heart of the conservatism of the (working class, ethnic) Reagan Democrats, but is much less comfortable with attributing those kind of motivations to her better educated, more WASP-ish subjects in OC.

4. Although Reagan may have called JFK a commie in 1959 (189), the Professor Brothers disagree:

McGirr

Have a mixed opinion about this book. One of my biggest concerns about "Suburban Warriors" was about the grassroots nature of the movement. McGirr claims that this was largely a social movement, but I keep finding examples of her pointing out how either the party or other establishment members who came down from on high and helped teach the individuals about the truths of conservatism....I didn't get a really good feel about the agency of the individuals in beginning the "new american right". There is ample evidence about how grassroots efforts helped to bring change in various levels of government, but in terms of its origins....McGirr seems to reserve this for the "big businessmen, politicians, and intellectuals". (70-71,98)

Despite this, I found McGirr's analysis of the make up of the Orange County population and the gradual creation of its demography pretty effective. Although, she brings in a regional analysis of Orange County in comparison with the rest of the country, but does little else in framing how this population is representative of the rest of the country.

Suburban Warriors

In the back of my mind while reading this book, I was trying to assess the question of whether or not this was a social movement like the ones that we have been reading about. It might be easy to write these Orange County conservatives off as a bunch of crazies from the sidelines of politics as was suggested that the Liberals did at that time, but McGirr certainly proves that they were much more than that. I’d like to say they were a social movement based upon the information provided for Orange County, but the hesitation comes from not knowing how representative this trend is for the country as a whole. There had to be differences in the kinds of conservatives that existed throughout the country, unless I am misinterpreting the whole thing. Is it that there were the hard core types of conservatives in Orange County, but Republicans generally elsewhere?

Also, I’d like to know what those Orange County residents who stayed with the Democratic Party felt about all of this activism in their area and how strong was the Democratic Party in California. McGirr did say that overall there were more Democrats and Republicans, but she makes it sound as though the Democrats were powerless to prevent conservative growth. My Italian (like really Italian-born in Italy and came over on a boat), Catholic, staunch Democratic Great-grandparents moved to Costa Mesa, CA during the immediate postwar years to retire and I cannot help to think that they would have been appalled by these activists and the way that they were influencing local governments. It would be interesting to know how people like them, in a sense outsiders, felt amid this conservative society. McGirr makes the early work by the conservatives sound fanatical and intense that it could have been unsettling for those who did not agree with their views.

It ain't easy bein right.

I'm not surprised that this book isn't a class favorite but I've found myself looking at McGirr's work with a kind of sympathetic contempt. It is a tale of a political movement against an embedded and growing ideology, with strong federal power and social upheaval. Now maybe part of my pity comes from the fact that I have read Conscience of a Conservative and as I recall, it struck me as fairly reasonable compared to the criticism normally heard of conservativism. What I found particularly important to McGirr's work is the attachment of the social factors linked to what conservatives were arguing for. What I had hoped for though was a larger analysis of the contradictions of the conservative movement and those of the liberal movement solely for some inserted logic. I will applaud McGirr however for situating the conservative movement in the context of motivations and grassroots action in a period of social movements. I don't agree with the bulk of the conservative movement or the implications of their issues, but I can certainly support fighting the government if for no other reason than entertainment.

say this, mean that

Suburban Warriors provides a good deal of insight into the early days of the conservative movement as well as tracing its ideological and political evolution over a number of years. However, as I was not all that familiar with the conservative movement prior to reading this book, McGirr has left me questioning its essence. She paints the early conservatism as a primarily reactionary and often times paranoid movement which was afraid of change and social progress. She repeatedly concedes that this was not necessarily always case, but her evidence seems to overwhelming point to this conclusion. At numerous points in the book McGirr seems to attempt to balance out her narrative by saying things that downplay the often extremist tone of the movement but then dedicates substantial block quotes to these extremist voices. At best her tone comes across a bit naïve, at worst it betrays a degree of dishonesty. If her view is that conservatism was primarily extremist, in nature then she should make that case. However, if she believes that the extremist element was marginal, than she should provide evidence in support of that premise. It seems as though she is attempting to draw certain conclusions beneath the surface of her main narrative.

Value of a book on Conservatives?

I too have no interest in Conservatives, but I think there a lot that can be gained from reading a text like this.


To quote the Art of War:

"So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself."

-Sun Tzu

McGirr Discussion Questions

Historiography:

In light of our readings on postwar liberalism does McGirr sufficiently show how the people of Orange County, CA were members of a social movement? And comparing this reading to the others we have read on liberalism how do conservatives compare to liberals as activists? How were their goals different or the same? Also their tactics? Their motivations? And does McGirr's book change the way we approach, or think about, social movements?

History:

If we could place the citizens of Orange County in other readings on the postwar period what role would they play? In Self, Cohen and Sugrue for example. How do we evaluate McGirr's use of terminology? She stated in the introduction how she labeled the conservatives in the narrative, does she adequately draw lines of distinction between the ideology of the Right? Are there problems with who she labeled as Right, Far Right, etc? How does this terminology influence McGirr's analysis? Can we characterize the people that eventually made up the Right as merely reactionaries to the changes in America, or was their "activism" based more on ideology?

McGirr

This book was difficult to get through for me due to a lack of interest in post 1950s US and conservatives, but upon finishing it I was left with a few questions.  McGirr presents anti-communism sentiments as one of the rallying factors behind the movement in Orange County.  I'm wondering how unique this was in the most heated decade of the Cold War.  Wasn't almost everyone in America anti-communist at this time? Why was Orange County different? How many other counties were there groups of extreme capitalists where a conservative movement did not occur?  Additionally, McGirr fails to really delve into the beliefs and goals of this conservative movement until well over halfway through the work.  When I sit down to read a book on a conservative movement, it would have been helpful to know what the movement was really about before this point. 

Limits of Empire

Several times in McMahon's work, he refers to an instance of "almost racism." I would only suggest that McMahon could have elaborated on these instances as I believe they have an important role to play in discussions of South East Asia. Specifically, McMahon makes references to condescension by Americans to those living in South East Asia. It is my belief that assumptions of racial inferiority are linked deeply to this kind of interventionist policy that borders on colonialism. Consideration of these racial perception seems entirely left out from McMahon's book with the exception of a few pompous military officers. I am only curious as to how crucial this aspect actually was to understanding U.S. foreign policy in SEA.

role of the presidents

While reading this book one of the main points by McMahon was the differences in strategies and ideas used by each President from FDR to Ford. This got me wondering about the affects of having so many different plans while trying to stabilize an entire region. As we inaugurated each new President, he introduced a new course of action for dealing with the communist threat. From Truman and military aid to JFK sending in more advisors, it seems that every 4-8 years the US would adopt an entirely new plan. Can we describe the effects of such a system as helping us ensure that we can adapt quickly to new problems or was it a detriment as no plan was fully completed and each revision costed more time and money?

Finally I was thinking about our discussion from a few weeks back about combining the history of the Civil Rights Movement with that of the Cold War. According to McMahon do we see any evidence that the actions in Southeast Asia and the ones at home influenced each other? The seems to be little evidence in this book that government officials at home connected any of these events together. When Sukarno does visit the United States he seems much more interested in viewing examples of American wealth and celebrity in Hollywood and Disneyland then in looking at actual American cities and the divisions between them.

Limits of Empire

While reading this book, I couldn't help, but think of one of Foucault's ideas about power. (Essentially, his idea if you make something illegal or attempt to regulate it that you will create some sort of resistance.) There are several examples from his preface onwards that indirectly point to this concept, but one of the more convincing instances for me was his discussion of the Philippines. He writes "Manila looked to Washington as the chief guarantor of its security against external and internal threats, as an indispensable trading partner, and as a source of jobs, economic aid, and technical assistance. Yet the more the Philippines needed the United States . . . the more Philippine resentment . . . grew." (92)

Another comment that I have is that McMahon appropriately comments on the differences and conflicts between Beijing and Moscow on foreign policy such as on page sixty-six. However, I wonder if he stresses this point enough throughout the narrative? Does it matter for this narrative that he does or does not stress the fact that there were serious ideological differences between the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China? I think someone posted this already, but has recent scholarship expanded on this kind of multi-nation approach to U.S. policy during the Cold War?

The Limits of Empire

I would like to congratulate Robert McMahon for being the only author thus far that we have read that I have not accepted what he was trying to establish in his introduction. Most works I am willing to buy into what is needed to consider a book successful or not; this book turned me off at page xi. The offending passage stated “the strategic fears that proved instrumental to the creation of America’s Cold War empire in Southeast Asia seem, in retrospect, to have been grossly exaggerated” (xi). McMahon goes on to say that these fears were resting on “illusory, worst-case scenarios about impending strategic and economic disasters than on careful calculations of the “real” interests and threats at stake.”

How does McMahon or even the leaders during the Cold War know what was going to happen in Southeast Asia? There was no guarantee that the outcome that occurred would have been the same had the action not been taken by each successive president to intervene in Southeast Asia. While he does come up with valid sources, like on page 184 with the quote from the assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, which do say that U.S. interest in SEA was “overstated,” but that does not mean that all government officials believed that. If one looks more closely at the source, it is from a hearing before the "special subcommittee on investigations of the house committee on international relations" in 1976 (253). What else is a government official from the Ford administration, who has allowed Vietnam to go Communist, going to say at a subcommittee hearing for the Democratically controlled congress?

Overall, things like these points make me skeptical, but I could be interpreting this point very wrong so please feel free to disagree.

limits of empire questions

1) Does McMahon place too much emphasis on the US aid programs? Does he ignore how the money was used or other aid programs used? It seems as if he simply describes the US throwing money into various countries blindly without giving the reader an understanding of how these programs were used. In the appendix section charts are given showing the amount of money given as part of US aid as well as each individual country's imports and exports. Can we attribute the rise in nations exports to a growing economy or was the US aid simply propping these economies up?

2) Can we draw any parallels between the failure of US interventions in Asia with more current affairs in the Middle East? Why was the US so concerned with not having a country be called communist that they missed opportunities to gain real relationships with some of the communist leaders who were often the best option for a ruler? How much of our failures can be blamed on the fact that we often supported candidates who were not the best choices and did not have the majority support, just because they were democratic and loyal to US interests?

Questions

History: The author says that this book covers the rise and fall of the American empire in SEA. So how and why does American power fall in SEA?

Historiography:
Does this book say anything drastically different than has been said before? Is this just a common argument, or at least seem that way 11 years after it was published?

One Presidency to the next

As several other people have already said, I would have to agree that I was skeptical when I began this book due to the time span that it covers. One thing that I came to be impressed with was the way that McMahon managed to transition between the presidents and the policymakers. I also really enjoyed how each administration viewed what was going on and how they felt about the world at the time. One example of this is on page 45 when McMahon explains the Truman administrations apprehension about Southeast Asia.
The differences between administrations was sometimes quite blatant. The Eisenhower administration dealt more with Soviet threats then those before them, we got to see differences and similarities.

Questions

1. What is the meaning of the term "empire" he uses in this book.

How do we understand the term in relation with the US policy changes in SEA and in the context of pre-war imperialism and post-war situations?

Now, we can say the US is not an empire in Southeast and Northeast Asia?

If we cannot call the US an empire in the region, what factors and changes made that difference?

Were there any fundamental differences in the role of the US between the two times when it is was an empire and when it was not an empire in the context of SEA history?

Where was the US empire in SEA? Which South East Asian country can we call the part of the US empire?

2. If we put gender issues on this history? This history would be interpreted differently?

Sociopsychological factor that heavily infuenced the US policy makers can be seen as a jingoes' passion for manhood?

Should we just interpret the US policies which governed SEA as a way to build a defensive empire which was the product of America's fears?(221)

For whom the bell tolls?

Whenever I read this kind of diplomatic history of world powers, I feel angry about what Western powers did for themselves without serious consideration on other nations’ future, in this book, especially SEA nations. For whom did they, especially the U.S., try to stabilize SEA? For whom did they divide Vietnam and Korea by two states? For world peace? Pax Americana? Someone (I do not remember who) said that Pax Romana was a peace only for the Roman Empire, specifically the city of Rome, and so did Pax Americana. That was not even stability that they had created. Koreans had war in our own lands, and even though almost 60 years have passed from the war, we are still living with a bit of tension.

In For whom the bell tolls, Robert sacrificed himself for the democracy of the Spanish. I think, however, the love between him and Maria was more important than the noble cause and he should have survived and been happy with Maria for a long time. Without happiness of the common people, no nation can be happy. Democracy without happiness of the people is extremely pointless. For whom did the U.S. protect democracy? For whom did it try to create a more stable and prosperous world order? (218) At the least it was not for the South-East Asian people. Before World War II, western powers colonized and exploited the region, and after the war they tried to control it to protect their lands, their own democracy, and their people. They thought, by doing so, that world peace would be achieved and everybody would be happy. In actuality, they could not even make their own people happy (remember the civil rights movement!) The western powers also killed a great number of people in the Vietnam wars. Vietnamese are still suffering from the aftermath of the wars like Koreans.

For whom did they ring the bell? For what did Robert die at the bridge? Where is a more stable and prosperous world order they tried to make? Probably that is not in South Asia, one of the poorest regions in the world.

I think we can find something in this phrase; “any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. Therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.” (John Donne)

Pleasantly surprised

I'd have to agree with Megan about being skeptical at first with McMahon's book. Given the geographic and temporal scope of the book, I went with some low standards. I really appreciated the context in which McMahon placed US intervention. A few issues came to mind. First off, I'm not sure about anyone else, but I found McMahon's characterization of FDR somewhat idealistic, while his interpretation of Truman was a little jaded. He calls FDR's postwar anti-colonial policy w/W Europe quite optimistic, but when Truman unexpectedly becomes president, the "nuance, complexity and conditionality" of FDR's approach was lost. Truman was "unaware" (p.19) and "insecure" (27). While Truman was by no means, a bastion of omniscience, I think McMahon's unduly optimistic of how FDR would have handled things.

Another interesting comment McMahon made was about the US foreign advisors' sophistication (45). He gives US officials enough credit in understanding that the US couldn't blame Moscow or Beijing for the situations arisings in SE Asia. I remember seeing the documentary "Fog of War" with Robert McNamara and he said something that I think contradicts the "savvy" of US intelligence officials. Years after the Vietnam War, he visited the country and met with many of his former enemies. One thing they repeatedly exhorted him on was that, "You [McNamara] don't remember our history." Vietnam was violently opposed to direct Chinese Communist supremacy in their country. Therefore, despite Ho Chi Minh's Communist leanings, they would never have been "puppets" to China. By no means would this info have necessarily had any decisive change of action, but it does help to question the sophistication of US intelligence in SE Asia.

Psych!

McMahon's treatment of the psychology of US decision makers is a bit weird. Decisions on SE Asia were driven by fears that lie "within the realm of social psychology." (221) Yet throughout the book, there are examples of people who seem unaffected by these fears, like LBJ's undersecretary of state George Ball, who argued for cutting losses and getting out of Vietnam when his colleagues were arguing for an increased commitment. (118) Yet apart from calling Ball "savvy," McMahon gives no hint as to why Ball would be immune to the kind of group psychology that had gripped everyone else. Were McNamara, Bundy and the rest just not "savvy?" Was Ball's stance just some sort of fluke? Or was there some substantive difference between these people that might explain why they came to such different conclusions?

McMahon.

I was a little skeptical upon beginning this book due to its broad topic and the broad time period it covers. It seemed it would just be a cursory review of things we've all heard before. I was pleasantly surprised at the time that McMahon spends on countries normally left out of the narrative of the US in Southeast Asia - Laos, Cambodia, Burma, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Thailand. He makes sure to cover their changing reactions and domestic political situations through the Cold War and the escalating involvement of the United States in Southeast Asia, whether its Cambodia's refusal to be a pawn in the Cold War or Indonesia's fortunate favorable shift towards the United States during the Vietnam War (83, 199). It was also easy to pick out McMahon's acknowledgment of what Schlesinger has labeled the 'imperial presidency.' The roles, beliefs, attitudes, and struggles of the administrations of FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, and Nixon. These men are given a central role in the story and the increased role of the President in the post-FDR world is evident. From Truman trying to continue the unclear policies of FDR to Eisenhower's and Kennedy's escalation of involvement in the region, Johnson's dilemmas, and Nixon's 'Vietnamization' and 'peace with honor.'

Feminisms

Hi all,

I have been thinking about our discussion of feminism, particularly that vein of it captured by Colin's question of whether it is appropriate to use the label "feminism" to refer to women's activism in the 1960s/1970s. This taps into an issue that has become more and more fascinating to me the longer I teach 20th century history: why is the civil rights movement so lionized even as it is misunderstood, while feminism is so condemned even as it is misunderstood?

Undergrads regularly describe the civil rights movement as "not radical" or "only asking for common sense things like equality" or "led by moderate and peaceful men like MLK Jr." We know there is virtually no basis in reality for these descriptions. But student voices, I think, are good bellweathers of what's on TV, the History Channel, what's said at their dinner table, etc., etc. So their words speak to the astonishing success of men like King to win the PR battle over civil rights--not just against white supremacists but against other elements of the civil rights movement and even against awareness of their own very tactical side--and also the success of conservative "color blind" language in improbably transforming King's legacy into an argument against civil rights legislation.

Then, too, undergrads also describe feminism as "radical," "man-hating," "angry," and absurd, and they seem entirely unaware of either the gender-based inequalities and traumas that gave rise to feminism, or feminists' concrete (yet limited) successes in addressing them. There were, of course, feminists who fit students' stereotypes, and not all feminist efforts were even remotely successful (or even desirable). But these hardly represent the "average" feminist, if such a creature even existed in such a diverse and wide-ranging movement. As with civil rights movement memory, students' conventional-wisdom view speaks to the vagaries of historical memory, not the historical record: first, the success of affluent white feminists in defining feminism as concerned with their issues, and second, the success of anti-feminists in associating feminism with its elites and with its most radical non-elite elements. Together this has produced a dynamic neatly opposite of what has occurred for the civil rights movement.

How does this relate to the question about who to call a "feminist"? I think--though I could be wrong--that this distorted historical memory explains the very widely held desire to "protect" women activists from being tarred by the feminist label. Why? Well, for example, "First Wave" feminists did not (mostly) call themselves feminists at all- they were suffragists, or Temperance crusaders, birth control advocates, etc., etc. But taken together they were clearly a notable social movement, and rarely is there debate over whether we can call them "first wave feminists."* Almost all social movements are warehouses of enormous internal diversity--the civil rights movement included, as we now know!--and usually we are able to settle on a general term for them, albeit with caveats and the occasional illuminating debate (see: black power). The intensity and specific shape of these debates concerning Second Wave feminism seem unique to me, however. (Maybe old fashioned debates over whether the Progressives exist are a parallel case- maybe.)

What to do, then? Given the diversity of postwar feminism, if we shouldn't call the Operation Life people "feminists," then perhaps historians shouldn't bother talking about "feminism" as much as they do--if that word can only refer to, say, affluent, white, self-identified "feminists" speaking to issues that only pertained to their own group, then it is a poor frame for understanding both women's activism, and the radical cultural, social, and legal changes that it produced in the postwar era.

My first instinct was to think of this as a loss--allowing present-day ideologies to erase historical understanding (not necessarily approval: we should understand history but make our own value judgments about it; the problem isn't criticisms of feminist values/actions, but lack of awareness that they even happened at all, or at minimum a very distorted sense of what they involved). But perhaps this is investing too much in a word. Maybe it would be better to drop "feminism" as a general label and just use it to refer to affluent white women's activism. One trouble with this, however, is translating the decision outside the academy. Understanding women's activism and its consequences seems equally important, to me, as understanding race-based civil rights activism. The easiest way to bring that story out, I have usually thought, would be to "rescue" feminism by correctly applying it to the very broad range of women (and men) activists who reshaped postwar gender relations. I think this is what people *think* they mean when they say the term, but they just mistakenly think that that very broad range is actually homogenous and narrow. But after trying unsuccessfully to do this in ten years of undergraduate teaching--after getting essay after essay repeating cultural stereotypes, blissfully free of any historical evidence or fact even after two-week-long units on feminism--perhaps it is time to give up the ghost. But the word "feminism" already has a niche in historical memory that means at least a good portion of what it is supposed to mean. Would it be better to fix what's wrong with it, or to concede the point and try to carve out a whole new niche based on some new term like "postwar women's activism"?

What do you think?

David


*There is debate, of course, over whether particular parts of these various movements deserve the label, e.g., Temperance--but this has mostly been over exactly that: whether they have "earned" the label through progressive gender beliefs and actions, not over whether they should be "tarred" by association with feminism.

Discussion Questions

Historically: In this work, Orleck presents the 1970's as a dynamic period of civil/social rights activities. Can we view the time period encompassed by this book (1970's) as the most active and fruitful for political activism and organization for poverty-stricken African American populations or the 1960's? As Dan mentions in his question, was it the unscrupulous behavior of social and political reactionaries like George Miller that drove the shift in tactics of Af/Ams toward working within the system, or were the direct actions of the 60's and early 70's a necessary progression to more mainstream political avenues?

Historiographically: Is Orleck's work limitied or strengthened by its focus on activism in a state renowned for its resistance to and distrust of the Federal government? The NV state government in most cases went to extraordinary (and oftentimes illegal) lengths to protect its sovereignty, and boldly flouted the law on many occassions - how much did this atmosphere lend more power to the story of Ruby Duncan and Operation Life?

Storming Historiography

If we are to compare this book to last week's readings there exists a stark contrast between who is responsible for change. In Storming Caesar's Palace we have a Civil Rights movement that we are accustomed to and understand. One that fits nicely with our notion of how civil rights were fought for in this country. Unlike some of the articles from last week which sat uncomfortably with a few of us in class, this weeks book seems to relax the fear of downplaying the significance of the Civil Rights movement. I suppose my comment/question is to those who were somewhat uncomfortable with last weeks readings. Do histories that situate events as "we feel they should have been" become more successful than those which go against the grain of "righteousness" perhaps?

Storming Caesars Palace

After reading this book, I asked my parents if they had ever heard about the strike in Vegas or the march. Unfortunately they never heard of it. That was kind of disappointing. So I couldn't help but wonder if this was really a well-known event or if my parents were just clueless teenagers. Regardless, I found this book to be really interesting. I had never heard of the march prior to this book and was actually surprised when she talked about the black entertainers being subjected to racism and prejudice as well. Maybe I was naive to think that they'd be treated better than the common black person, but the section in Chapter 2 about Sammy Davis Jr. and other black entertainers having to cross the "concrete curtain" to eat, drink, and sleep, really surprised me. There were also a lot of parallels with Sugrue's Origins of the Urban Crisis when Orleck discussed the division of the city and the poor housing in the West Side. Overall I thought this was a very interesting read.

Storming Caesars Salad

1. Last week (I think) we touched on the question of whether scholarship can help change things, and I was reminded of it when Orleck discussed the influence of Pat Moynihan (and others) in creating the image of the pathological black welfare mother. Maybe I'm missing it, but it seems like scholars are much less connected to public life than they were in the past. Maybe the rise of thinktanks has taken thought leadership away from academics? Or maybe folks were scared away from playing that role by the poisonous impact that Moynihan's bullshit had? I dunno.

2. Did it seem that Orleck was trying to shield white women from responsibility for racial violence in the south in the first chapter? Seemed kind of icky to me.

3. Small point: why didn't Orleck mention Tom Hayden when she lists the celebrity marchers? (155) If Dave Dellinger rates a mention, surely his Chicago 8 compadre should, too. Heck, Hayden is right there on the cover, looking dapper in a corduroy jacket.

4. No point: The only monster here is the gambling monster that has enslaved your mother! I call him Gamblor, and it's time to snatch your mother from his neon claws!

Storming Ceasars Palace

Without a doubt, this is a story that has earned its place within the study of welfare and of civil rights. Orleck has a powerful story here which not only captures the struggles of this movement, but goes into other issues such as the challenges faced by African American women with regards to sex, the family, and the political voice of the underclass. She also helps to highlight the almost hopeless and endless cycle faced by many sharecroppers - a topic that I feel wasn't really covered in my high school classes.

There were several points during this book that really stood out to me, but one of the biggest was her idea that these uneducated women often knew how to allot funds to help their community better than state or federal agencies. Was there a real danger to them abusing their power/wasting the funds or was this group eventually get pushed out due to their political enemies? Recently, there was an article in the Buffalo News about a preacher in Buffalo who was given either state or federal funds to help build houses in the city that asked these same questions. Is there a real danger or do these people know how to improve their communities?

There are a couple of other questions that I have with regards to her methodology. Is there a problem with her relying heavily on the interviews she had with these women? It is painfully obvious that many of these women often were denied an access to a proper education so this should be taken into account for her use of these interviews... Also, she seems to make a lot of references to the present. Does she balance this or does she stray too close to the modern age with her book? Again, many of the issues she brings up have relevance to the present.

Caesars Palace

When reading this book, the first idea that came to me was about how Las Vegas looks today. Having family and a few friends that live in Vegas has allowed me to travel their numerous times and see the city not as a visitor but through the lens of people who see the day to day problems. Once one leaves the tourist destinations and the glitzy areas, an entirely different city emerges. In no other city that I have visited has the lines between the wealthy and poor residences been so drastic. Once you enter the suburbs it is impossible not to notice the amounts of large steel gates separating communities from one another. Even in areas full of mini mansions, gates make it seem as if these are warring communities not neighbors attending the same schools. Another interesting part of Vegas life is the differences in treatment one receives when they look wealthy rather then even middle class. While in Vegas with some friends I called my Uncle for advice on a good attraction or restaurant. To my surprise he insisted that he make the reservations for us, we were to show up at his house and then we would receive are instructions. When we pulled into his driveway (after first having a security guard call my uncle to make sure we were guests and not just individuals driving through a neighborhood) I was greeted with the keys to his convertible. His instructions were simple, our reservations were under his name (Dr. Lipman) and I was handed one of his business cards incase anyone were to question us. As we arrived at a hotel on the strip a man who took our name and immediately escorted us to our table in the restaurant greeted us at the valet parking. Later when I asked my uncle for an explanation, he simply replied, “one could do anything in this town with the right title and car.”

Another idea I had deals with the acceptance of Sammy Davis Jr. and Harry Belafonte. While Orleck describes how these men were influential in the desegregation of the strip, I was left wondering how they were able to create change and become accepted while other including celebrities such as the Temptations were denied access. Even today when one thinks of early Vegas, Sammy Davis Jr. is among the most well known. This made me question whether it was their skin that defined these individuals or simply how they acted. Can we consider their acceptance as something akin to what we are hearing about Obama? Was Sammy Davis considered white due to his dress, style, music, and friends? While the Temptations belonged to the African American style of Motown music, Davis Jr. walked out onstage every night in a tuxedo and sang in the style of a white man.

Finally in response to Tim’s question about the ability of the poor to affect change, I believe that we can attribute many of the problems in the book and in today’s poor areas not to the failed programs of the poor but instead the lack of support or consideration from the government. From the government making welfare programs more exclusive and underfunded to practices, which punished welfare recipients for making any extra money despite being paid well below the poverty line, it seems as if no positive response by Washington came without negative side effects. Consider all the money and time wasted looking for welfare frauds costing the government mere hundreds of dollars in each case while we continued to turn a blind eye towards the white collar crime defrauding the public of millions each year. Even in Buffalo did we make the casino and its money sucking games more accessible to the upper class or the tourists of Buffalo or to the poor of the city looking for one big payout. Even when the government did try and support positive change in poor areas their plans lacked information about how the area worked. Consider the case of the library and Operation Liberty. While the government finally decided to build a new state of the art library for this poor area, their plans did not take into account the dynamics of the neighborhood. Instead of rehabilitating the old facility and making it the cornerstone of the area they pushed for a new building to be build away from the core of the Operations work. Too often we see grass roots projects begin to enact real change before some politicians jump on the cause as a way to gain votes and the project becoming a bastardized shell of its former self.

Thoughts on Orleck

I liked Tim's question as well and I was left wondering what is the significance of the demise of Operation Life? One the one hand you can argue that these women were very successful because of the programs they implemented and the change they were able to achieve. The fact that they were able to help a lot of people was significant to them and even though the programs ended they were a positive force for along time. On the other hand the success of the community groups led to government takeover. I like the comment about the library and it seems very familiar to the types of progress that government groups consider. Would it not have helped if they spent that money on more books, classes, etc. Instead they sink a lot of money into a new facility, because without state of the art facilities we all know learning is impossible.

The other aspect of Orleck's monograph that I thought was interesting was her use of sources. A good number of her sources are from interviews. Orleck paints a sympathetic picture, does it seem that she was influenced by her connection and admiration for these women? I do not think so she seems to be impartial for most of the book. The last chapter has some sections that are a little too sympathetic but overall i think she handled the issues of this kind of work well. It will be interesting to see what others think about the use of sources.

Did they succeed?

After reading Orleck's work, it appears to me that the goals of these women were long term failure and a short term success. Today, the government's treatment and rhetoric toward the poor has not significantly changed, and all that operation life worked to create has been taken away and given to "professionals" or simply destroyed. In my opinion, Orleck even alludes to under the table arson by the local government against Operation Life. Drug abuse is said to run rampant through the community as well. This should not somehow diminish what they accomplished for themselves and the notoriety they attained, but Orleck's work seems to cast doubt on the ability for the poor to affect their own political change in the long term.

Dan's Questions

How accurate is Duncan’s statement that “the poor mothers of the Westside owe their successes to George Miller’s ‘excesses’” (228)? In other words, what was the balance between the welfare mothers’ drive for welfare rights and outside policy decisions and the socio-political climate of the time?

Given Operation Life’s focus on self-determination and the restoration of pride in the black community (276, 308, 310), along with the organization’s building of significant political power on a local and national level, can Orleck’s story be seen as a manifestation of a distinctly feminist from of Black Power?

Meredith's Discussion Questions

Historiography: Do you think that writing this book as a narrative was the most effective way to garner sympathy for welfare mothers in Las Vegas during these six decades. Do you think Orleck set out to achieve sympathy and respect for those women and this is why she approached the book in this way? Finally, do you think that the use of this many characters was helpful to the story?

History: In Orlecks' book, we see familiar names such as Sinatra, Martin, and Davis. How much of an impact do you think they had on the actual history of desegregation of casinos and hotels and do you think it would have taken much longer without them?

Storming Ceasars Palace

Annelise Orleck brings up an interesting image in my mind during her introduction, “the profligate, promiscuous, Cadillac-driving welfare queen.” As a teacher, I have the privilege to design lessons next year regarding Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” and this book brings some issues to light that I will have to deal with. I have students whose mother’s are on welfare struggling to get by and doing the best they can. I also have students whose mother’s are on welfare and, while not driving Cadillac’s, are not doing much of anything at all. But I do like that this casts a critical eye on government treatment of the poor and I hope to use this in class.
What I like about this book is that Orleck treats her subjects as if they were any other honorable historical figure. She treats the story of these mothers with respect and admiration. This makes the work seem original. I think this helps to make the book a more intriguing read and it presents another perspective that is foreign to those of us not on welfare. I feel as though she is taking the approach that these woman are dealt impossible odds by society and government so Orleck presents this story to show that these woman just don’t sit back and take it, they actually do the only intelligent thing they can do; organize. And while Operation Life has success, it ultimately is held back by these impossible odds.
I started out thinking I was going to write that I wasn’t sure I got much worthwhile out of this book, but the more I write, the more I respect the story Orleck lays out.

Storming Caesars Palace

Annelise Orleck tells the story of a group of women fighting for welfare rights under the bright lights of Las Vegas. She counters the popular image of the welfare queen by explaining their struggle in great detail - from their inability to procure birth control, have a relationship with a man without getting their rights taken away, and their hardships in obtaining those rights in the first place. This story culminates with the establishment of their own welfare-esque organization: Operation Life, in the heart of the west side. Orleck conducted countless interviews in her research which allows for the actors to really come alive in her story. The reader becomes well acquainted with the struggles of the black family in Las Vegas, learning of the tole that long hours at the test-site took on black marriages (46). Additionally, it is not necessary for Orleck to include the comical picture of Wesley's pants ripping on the Vegas strip, but it fulfills her goal of letting the players drive her narrative and put them on center stage (160). Orleck also notes that events happening in northern cities, like Sugrue's portrayal of Detroit, were not limited to the northern United States. Railroad tracks separated the white side of town from the black side in the Mississippi delta town of Tallulah and a clinic competing with Operation Life was "nearly impossible to get to from the West Side" (7, 216). Certainly a clinic that was inaccessible to the citizens who needed it was not an adequate substitute for Operation Life. And if one pays attention to Sugrue's narrative, its geographic placement was probably not a coincidence.

Transnationalism and domestic civil rights movement?

For me, the most interesting article in this week is Duziak's Brown as a Cold War Case. As my classmates mentioned before in their comments, this article examines a connection between diplomatic concerns and domestic civil rights activities showing transnational perspective.
The notion that Duziak argues in this article is definitely provocative, but as prof. Herzberg pointed out, now I think no one can disregard transnational view point when they study civil rights movement. In this article, Duziak says that "the Cold War simutaneously harmed the movement and created an opportunity for limited reform"(41; emphasis in the original). It does not mean that the Cold War did only good things or only bad things for civil rights movement, but that there was an interaction between international thing and domestic thing. Actually, after we read this, we cannot consider domestic thing as just merely domestic. This is a significance of this article.

Eye opener

Like Denise, I found it a bit of a revelation to hear the story Robert Williams; it seems like he has been overlooked by mainstream scholars as well as the secondary educational system. Perhaps this is because of his decisions to move to countries and regimes that were (and still are) at odds with the American government - swept under the carpet, much of his work for equity and civil rights have been ignored. Williams' motivation for leaving the U.S. and seeking shelter from its enemies makes sense from a personal viewpoint - he was disgusted, alienated, and disenfranchised by a country he had fought to protect and was justified in many of his actions - why not slap the government in the face and conspire with the enemy. What I found fascinating was the irresistable draw that our country still held for Williams, especially at the end of his life. To respond to your question, Denise, I would imagine that the U.S. government felt that at this stage in his activist career Williams was less of a threat at home than abroad, and that he would be far more willing to assist the government under favorable conditions.
In Robert Self's article "To Plan Our Liberation", he makes an interesting observation on the generational differences in approach of African Americans after the war. He draws a distinction between the early civil rights leaders and the younger black power movement that followed. The first and less confrontational movement was focused on integration as the catalyst for social justice and change that manifested itself as the civil rights movement; he argues that the Panthers and their less-integrative figures like Newton and Carmichael were actually articulating a new tradition born of a younger generation that had lost patience with the limitations of non-violence, and were willing to take a more active stance on securing their equity, rights, and jobs.

Tyson's article on Robert F. Williams

I am not sure how many were like me and was unaware of other civil rights leaders like Robert F. Williams. Tyson uses Williams’ life to show the necessity of seeing the non-violent civil rights movement and the Black Power movement as coming from similar circumstances and neither one being more acceptable than the other. Going beyond that, I was curious to know how other felt about the time that Williams spent in Cuba, North Vietnam, and China. It is understandable that the government would make concessions to Williams if he had vital information about the people he had been interacting with, but to let him back into the country and give him a position at a University? What makes the government so sure that he was not influenced by what he experienced since he technically was with the enemy? I am not personally trying to pass judgment that it was wrong, just merely trying to think outside of the box.

Civil Rights Activism

This weeks articles have brought to the forefront certain questions about how historians should view the civil rights movement. The first is clearly mentioned in the articles, and that is the problem of competing theories on the best course of action. The various approaches that encompassed the civil rights movement are usually glossed over for a more homogeneous and less controversial view. To do that, the emphasis is placed on Martin Luther King Jr. and the approach of non-violence and to a lesser degree, the legal works of the NAACP. The influences of Cold War rhetoric, or instances of violence explained in the articles however plainly contradict this image. In addition, the fault for a lack of federal backing is placed on southern democrats although we know a northern suburb was just as racially exclusive and still had a political voice. Do these omissions indicate an attempt to gloss over the culpability of the entire United States in racial discrimination? Or is this the more unintentional creation of a valorous peaceful protagonist group against a racist federal antagonist group? What does this potential alteration of the civil rights movement mean for people today?

"To Plan Our Liberation"

I thought I would comment on the Best article as my quick look over the other posts did not mention it often. I found Best's discussion of the Black Panther Party and the Model Cities program quite interesting. Cobb and other leaders emphasis on concrete political objectives in addition to so-called "power-grabs" was necessary for the inclusion of the overlooked part of the Oakland area population and even though they were essentially unsuccessful, Best shows that they helped to change the Oakland political culture of the black population. The other thing I found interesting was a comment by Best at the end of the article. He commented that the concrete poltical stances that the Black Panther Party established in Oakland were important but that the Panthers were also "rightly taken to task for the occasional emptiness of black power rhetoric." I know little about the historiography of the Black Panther movement but I was wondering if this is a fair assessment? To me political rhetoric is usually empty and often considering topics of much less practical importance. I was just wondering what others thought about this comment.

Brown and the Cold War

When I read Brown as a Cold War case I cannot help but think about a group activity we did in class a few weeks ago. All of us had some interest group to promote and we tried to paint our arguments for certain concessions as a benefit to all. For example, factories need to be clean because sick workers cost companies more money than healthy workers. The real reason factories should be clean is because workers shouldn’t have to worry about getting life-threatening illnesses when they go to work, but that’s not how we argued it in class. Brown as a Cold War case seems very similar to that class. We know that segregation and racism really isn’t right, but it doesn’t really hurt your average white male voter. On the other hand, if segregation makes America look bad in the eyes of newly independent Third World Nations, then it really is hurting everybody and we better do something about it. If getting rid of segregation is fighting communism, then it’s much harder to argue against. Sending Louis Armstrong overseas only does so much to fight communism. I just found that connection to the previous classes interesting, however I’m not really sure if it is meaningful.

Civil Rights and the Cold War

I had never before thought of the Civil Rights movement as related to the Cold War. In the Brown as a Cold War Case article, it states "Cold War concerns provided a motive beyond equality itself for the federal government including the president and the courts, to act on civil rights when it did" (34). In this article there is also the idea that because of the Cold War the worlds eyes were focused on the US which made all racial decisions have more of an impact. This is a very interesting idea. It's one that could probably be explored further. It made me wonder what the true driving factors behind the court decision were.
In Who Is The Real Ambassador, Von Eschen brings up the idea that the Korean war made American policy makers afraid fear that racism would lead people to the Soviet Union. Because of this people such as Paul Robeson were greatly feared. The article goes on to say how the State Department desperately wanted to fix the perception of American when it came to racism. I really enjoyed this new idea, perhaps because it brought something new to the table.

Discussion Questions – Civil Rights Movement

History Questions:
1. How did the Cold War both help and hinder the civil rights movement? (Especially pertinent is the discussion in “Robert F. Williams”, “Brown as a Cold War Case” and “Who’s the Real Ambassador?” articles) Did the NAACP benefit from disassociating itself from communism? How did black power groups fare? Also, how did the U.S. government use Cold War ideology to its advantage?

2.In the “Who’s the Real Ambassador?” article, it becomes apparent that the U.S. government wanted to control and reshape its public image abroad, using famous athletes and musicians such as the Harlem Globetrotters and Louis Armstrong. Armstrong plays a central role in the article with his critique of Eisenhower, but I wonder how much agency Armstrong has? Is he “selling out”, actually making a statement, or is his role a bit more ambiguous?

Historiography Questions:
1. What is the benefit of incorporating an international focus within the discussion of civil rights? Again, there are several discussion points that can be brought up in the “Brown as a Cold War Case” and “Who’s the Real Ambassador?” articles.

2.Sources related question: Regarding the “Who’s the Real Ambassador?” article, is there enough of an international voice given to other countries as most of the sources come from the U.S. State Department?

More Random Thoughts:
One of the common themes was it is important to not read the civil rights movement as a homogenized experience. Too often, I think that people are taught the MLK version of the civil rights movement with Malcolm X and the Black Panthers sprinkled in without realizing the intricacies of the movement. (The Tyson article appropriately points out that there are definite similarities, but makes clear that each is unique.)For example, Dan importantly brings attention to the fact that Dr. King’s own guards were armed, despite his penchant for nonviolence. He also makes note of the fact that these civil rights organization played a different role in their communities. This brings up an important issue: Is the fight for civil rights a racial or economic issue? We started talking about it last week, but these four articles might make for another discussion. Within the blog, it was also suggested that the voices of other groups could be added to enhance the history and I agree. (i.e. Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, illegal aliens, etc.)

On a different note, I liked how the authors used the Cold War as a lens to analyze the overall movement – I found this to be a very provocative tool. It also helps to explain in my research why being labeled a communist dramatically affected the status of civil rights organizations. And in case you are wondering the man in the picture is Meadowlark Lemon…

civil rights/black power questions

According to Jeffrey Ogbar, author of Black Power: Radical Politics and African American Identity, two crucial components of Black Power are black self-determination and black pride. Where do these components manifest themselves in the assigned readings?

In his examination of Black Power’s tangible contribution to the political landscape in Oakland, California during the late 1960s and into the late 1970s, Robert Self makes no mention of the Black Panthers’ “Survival Programs”—free breakfast programs for children, free health clinics, correctional facility busing programs—as a significant factor in building the party’s political influence. These programs were essential components to Panther efforts to reach the community in a meaningful way. To what degree did Black Power depend on the mobilization of average African Americans to gain a foothold in the consciousness of the nation?

Considering that civil rights activists such as King often employed armed guards along with the fact that the Civil Rights Movement was constantly embroiled in, and largely dependent on, violent confrontation, can, as Tyson believes, “nonviolent interracialism, rather than Black Power, [be considered] the anomaly” (544)?
Also take into account the point at which Robert Williams’s and King’s respective beliefs in self-defense overlap, as pointed out by Tyson (561).

Absent Cold War geopolitical concerns would Brown have been decided in favor of desegregation in the first place? If so, how much later than 1954?

Cold War

Perhaps this makes me incompetent, but I have never thought of the Civil Rights Movement in terms of the Cold War. The connections all four articles make concerning the Civil Rights Movement and the Cold War are very clear, however - even when that is not what the article intended, like Robert Self's article. Mary Dudziak presents a convincing case that Brown v. Board was a civil rights decision handed down because it was sanctioned by a federal government that was trying to improve its image abroad. For states choosing between the systems of the US and the USSR, race inequality in the US was a serious blemish on the record of the US. To provide the world with more evidence than a written court case, Penny Von Eschen argues that the US promoted the international travel of certain famous black people in order to further enhance the international image of the United States. The Cold War plays a different role in the other two articles. In his argument that aims to bring Robert Williams back from the fringes of the Civil Rights Movement and reconcile the two, Timothy Tyson paints the other power of the Cold War as a dangerous supporter of civil rights movements in the United States that were not receiving the necessary support in the United States. Williams was forced to flee to Cuba from the FBI, a serious Cold War enemy at the time. The role of the Cold War is not as apparent in Self's article, though it is surely present. In Cohen, the role of citizen consumer's had transformed by the 1950's and she argues that one could excercise their citizenship by engaging with the American values of capitalism and consumerism. During the 1950s in Oakland, the reader sees a similar story in Oakland that Sugrue presents for Detroit - white flight and a poor urban area. With citizen consumers suburbanizing and jobs headed elsewhere, the black power movement arises from uneven economic development, not as a response to the "failing" strategies of the Civil Rights Movement.

questions for 3/30

First my questions for this week.

1) A theme from some of this week's readings seem to link the Civil Rights Movement with Cold War. Do you feel that the author's are on to something or are they linking seperate movements which might have had a few similar ideals? Were foriegn countries so concerned about our treatment of African Americans and if yes, were there not just as many if not more examples of whites resisting integration?

2) Another idea from the readings dealt with the militarization of the Black Panthers and other African American groups. Yet the authors rarely mention how these actions changed the opinions of non-violent blacks or middle class whites. Also white opinions are absent from almost every article or book we have read on this issue, Cohen talks about how some business owners were coerced into supporting full rights due to economic worries. Other then for this reason, how were these movements able to gain acceptance into public opinions?

Here are some other thoughts I had while reading these articles.

Dudziak

Do you agree with the idea on page 34 that our segregation affected how other countries’ viewed our commitment to democracy? Is it possible to view this idea as one of the contributing factors that allowed for the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board? Were the major European and Asian societies all living in a post-racial world, and if not would the opinions of the minor nations be enough to influence the Court’s decision? In my high school the unit on the Cold War was taught prior to another separate unit on the Civil Rights Movement. Is combining these units possible, did the rest of the world really care about the struggles of inner city and rural African Americans? Does Self fully understand how States currently makes curriculum changes? How has the Cold War changed how we describe our political and economic systems? Has the combination of capitalism and democracy blinded us from fully understanding the events of the Cold War and beyond?

Self

After this reading and the Segure book last week, what do you think about the government’s urban redevelopment plans? We they putting new money into the community to encourage growth or were the construction plans created without thinking of the neighborhood residents? Were these projects built in order to raise the standards and neighborhood quality for the African American residents or to create newer more expensive pockets for whites to move into? Do the highways make the area more accessible or easier for suburban residents to avoid?

While reading the section on the black Panthers, I was left feeling like once again a prime opportunity was wasted. As I read more about the inequalities faced by African Americans in cities across the US, it is understandable why such a movement would begin. Yet as I reflect upon what the outcome of the Panthers was and how they continue to affect our beliefs, they seem to have failed. I agree with their stance that they should take pride in being African and took an initiative to make being black a proud idea. The promotion of public engagement as a means to change through voting, running candidates, and using their buying power to force change all encouraged African Americans to work together as well as forced their white counterparts to recognize black power as a force but politically and economically. However, I cannot explain where the fascination with guns and violence came from. It seems counterproductive to me to be calling for violence or to carry weapons when your group is being segregated against. While there were plenty of acts of violence for African Americans to want to protect themselves against, it seems to me a better example was set forth by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. promoting non-violence. According to him eventually the world would see the images and it would not be the blacks that looked non-human. By not only being seen but also actually promoting guns and violence, it would seem that only public reaction would be negative. When so many people already view you as threatening, carrying guns does not help your image. Today in urban environments there continues to be a fascination with guns and the “hood” lifestyle whether they are white or black. Do you see these ideas as comparable to the struggles of the poor urban African Americans or is it hindering their chances of support? How does public opinions about appropriate clothing, music, speech, and safety change how we view these people?

Tyson

Tyson explains how the populist movement and formation of the Black Panthers lead to a radicalization of the Civil Rights Movement. Throughout his article he often uses examples that include Africans showing force with guns and weapons. Were these events as successful as he gives them credit for? Tyson seems to exclude the work of MLK and others from his article. Was this on purpose or does he simply not believe that these individual’s had as much of an impact on actually gaining rights? Would either of the two movements have been able to survive on their own, or did MLK need the Panthers urban activism as much as they needed his speaking and non-violent protests?

Eschen

In this piece the author talks at length about how the use of prominent African American athletes, musicians, and artists helped the US propaganda achieve great support for the country abroad. While these new art forms helped promote the idea of America as a new, cool, and young place to be across the world did it have any positive effects for Africans living in the US? Were African Americans being given credit for their achievements or was their color ignored while their efforts were described as American. Remember the black rhythm and blues music did not become socially acceptable and mainstream until after white artists covered the songs, the Harlem Globetrotters initially were composed of an all white team, and despite the efforts of African American athletes they were oftentimes barred from competing at the highest levels. Would we still hear of the heroics of Joe Louis and Jesse Owens had their efforts not been used as propaganda against the Germans and Soviets?

Political agency

Although our reading guide has ample questions for discussion, I will persist in the face of potential redundancy to throw some more into the ring.

Historically: (With apologies to Colin for flogging the dead horse of the FHA)
Sugrue makes it clear that "local elected officials controlled the implementation of federal policies" (60) like homeowners benefits under the GI Bill of Rights and loans throught the FHA, which translated into discrimination and disenfranchisement of African-Americans in Detroit over many decades after WWII. What was the status of the political agency of Af./Ams in Detroit? The key to this question is that elected officials need to be elected to hold office. Certainly there were enough votes out there to make an impact on the elected officials responsible for the discriminatory actions of these locally controlled Federal agencies. Was this a product of voter apathy, lack of organization, unfamiliarity with government programs, or some unknown quantity?

Historiographically: Sugrue's choice of a case study for this topic is a wise one - as Melissa and others have said, it provides far greater specificity and detail than a more "macro" approach. Within his more focused approach, I am left wondering why Sugrue limits his discussion of political activism on the part of African Americans in Detroit to the broad efforts of the NAACP rather than exploring at the grassroots level the political agendas and voting habits of his targetted study?

Sugrue and Buffalo

One thing I noticed while reading the blog posts is that not many references to Buffalo were made. To be honest, I was surprised by this. Although my post may stray away from the text in some respects by focusing more on Buffalo, while reading Sugrue, I could not help but think about the multitude of ways that this text was essentially telling the history of Buffalo, just as it was Detroit. Not only is this sort of urban comparison part of Sugrue's larger historical project (as other posts have pointed out by speaking to the value of his methodology of a case study) , but there seems to be many similarities that are both historical and contemporary between Buffalo and Detroit.

Not only do both Buffalo and Detroit have a decaying (if not totally dead) industrial history, both cities rank among the poorest and most segregated cities in the United States.

Poorest - http://buffalo.bizjournals.com/buffalo/stories/2009/09/28/daily18.html

Most Segregated - http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/stories/2002/12/16/story3.html

This makes the postwar urban, political, social, and racial histories being told by Sugrue even more applicable to us as scholars because it relates to the environment with which we inhabit.

Hopefully these comparisons can come up in class discussion, because it is an aspect of the text that warrants more exploration.


In addition, I thought that Chapters 7 and 8 was perhaps the most engaging of the work, and what was especially rewarding for me was Sugrue's exploration of the cultural and economic geography and spatial metaphors of urban segregation. Again these ideas related back to Buffalo as in our own Rust Belt City we see space, segregation, urban planning and race weaving together to create a spatial pattern of class and race based segregation.

Despite the many valuable contributions that this text was making, I did however think physical design and urban planning could have had a stronger place in his case study. The physical makeup of space, often influenced by a process of state sponsored design also factors directly into urban segregation.

Relating back to the comparison's with Buffalo, one example of the physical aspects (which is not as much of a focus in Sugrue's text as cultural, political and social factors) of segregation in Buffalo is the creation of Route 33 also known as the Kensington Expressway. Built in stages form the 1920s until the most recent renovations in the 1970s this route was originally built to connect the urban center of Buffalo with the suburbs, Buffalo’s airport and ultimately Rochester, NY. Yet due to the implementation of a subsurface design, in which the expressway is dug into the earth surface and traffic flows at a lowered level, the route became a geographic obstacle of human urban interactions. The subsurface design can be seen in the following images. This design drove segregation and urban decay to the east of Buffalo and allowed the areas to the west and north of the Expressway to be blocked from the city’s growing low income neighborhoods. Whether or not this was an intended effect could be debated, but the results were fairly clear after the expressways completion. This expressway essentially became a physical barrier in Buffalo with which to divide based on race and physically enforce white fear of neighborhood encroachment.

Sugrue thoughts

The coupling of Sugrue with Cohen's book from last week really help to build on one another. They both find the progress of industrial urban decline even before WWII. The strongest connection I noticed was the connection between the ideal of homeownership as being an integral ideal of American citizenship. In fact, Sugrue uses this point to argue that much of the violence and discrimination by homogeneous white suburban communities can't be explain away as simply racism but needs to be viewed as political action. While Cohen and Sugrue agree that the government played a large role in the desirability of homeownership, Sugrue expounds on its effects on the urban black population which were creating for themselves the same ideals with unfortunate results (72).
Another parallel between the two is a special consideration of the efforts of mostly suburban areas attempting to maintain a handle on local control of their neighborhoods. For Cohen and Sugrue this helped to perpetuate racial tension and segregation. One interesting point that Sugrue makes though is again in his complex analysis of the urban crisis. The plight of the poor urban black population for Sugrue can't be boiled down to simply racism/discrimination. Whites--especially working class whites--were vying for a certain "identification survival" (as they were also being displaced by de-industrialization of the cities) which helped to intensify their political diplomatic and violent protests of racial integration.

Politics

I wanted to see more politics as Colin said in his post. Were the FHA underwriting rules written in a discriminatory manner? Who supported it and why? They obviously operated that way but what was the intent? It seems that it could be argued that the discriminatory nature of the FHA was based in its implementation and not in its creation. Although this was already quite long it would have been interesting to see what the impact was of George Romney when he was Gov. as he had strong support for ending segregated housing.

Segmentation

I think the idea's that Dan brings up are of particular importance to the text as well as to the development of class and race within post WWII consumer capitalism. Lets take a look first at the examples of housing segregation and black middle and upper class mobility. As we've already pointed out on the blog, "black newcomers to formerly all-white neighborhoods had views shaped by the "politics of respectability (205)."" Which resulted in some "black pioneers" in white neighborhoods distancing themselves from the inner city African-American communities. Sugrue, makes it a point to tell us that much of this distancing was ideological, that the restaurant owners, a young affluent couple, a lawyer and his law student wife, all moved to distance themselves from "vulgar" people that were invading their once "respectable" neighborhoods (205-206). These individuals identified with belonging to the middle class, or as Sugrue states, "shared a common set of aspirations with white middle-class Detroiters," rather than identify with other African-Americans (206). The result was that middle class bourgeois ideology was able to segment the African American populace. These class divisions within Detroit's black population made the work of black reform, as well as revolutionary groups, near impossible (12). Within Sugrue's work it is easy to see the result of segmentation; whether it is the segmentation of different black workers or the segmentation of white industrial workers from black industrial workers (through the use of cultural conservatism and racism), the result is the creation of conflict between groups of individuals who, if they were able to cooperate, could subvert the standard capitalist paradigm.

Where's the National Politics?

1. I've read several different iterations of this story, and all place plenty of blame on HOLC and FHA. But none of them ever get into the political process by which they were created. It seems insufficient to me to just say that they made the decisions they made because of "racism." Sure, it was racist, but what did that racism consist of? What was the debate about their creation like? Were the racist aspects of their programs part of the cost of getting them established, or did they just go unquestioned?

2. How is it that Congress was able to direct so much defense spending to the south and west? I've seen this discussed elsewhere, too, but have never seen a discussion of how the politics worked. What was the non-south/west congressional majority doing at the time? Asleep at the wheel?

3. And now, more Donna Reed.

class conflict

I found Sugrue’s chapter “Class Status, and Residence: The Changing Geography of Black Detroit” an important addition to his overall study. The subchapter “Status and Conflict” at the end of the chapter particularly stands out. He points out that many black newcomers to formerly all-white neighborhoods “sought to disprove negative racial stereotypes, and did so by distancing themselves physically and symbolically from the African American poor” (205). This is a significant point and worth further investigation. While a detailed study of the tendency for many middle- and upper-class African Americans to distance themselves from the “lower classes” falls largely outside of Sugrue’s study, I feel he could have expanded his discussion a bit. The class conflict that Sugrue mentions is still a contentious topic today. Michael Eric Dyson’s Is Bill Cosby Right? :Or has the Black Middle Class Lost its Mind candidly deals with this issue as it manifests itself today. Dyson views concentrated poverty and institutional racism as major factors stifling poor African Americans’ chances for upward mobility, rather than some ostensible moral or character based flaws within the poor black community. Just as many whites within Sugrue’s text conveniently overlook the obstacles facing poor African Americans—whether government sponsored discrimination or community outrage over a “black invasion”—many upwardly mobile African Americans unfortunately buy into popular stereotypes of poor blacks. Sugrue does well to point out, however, that many middle- and upper-class African Americans stuck with their communities.

Sugrue

I agree with everyone else that making this a case study strengthened his book. I thought he made strong arguments and was able to back them up with many examples. His discussion on the housing situation in the first part of the book I found to be very interesting and I really enjoyed how he included the stories of different people's experiences with the housing situation. He also worked in different angles and perspectives from William Burton, the greedy landlord who overcharged his tenants for rent (54), to Charles Johnson, the WWII veteran who returned looking for housing but kept getting denied (58). Because it was a history focused on one city, it was more interesting for me to read. There was more specificity with his arguments and examples as opposed to a national history where it'd be a little more general. I found it interesting his idea of a "spatial definition" of blacks and whites determined by the differences of living situations as well as how race was both political as it was social (9). Furthermore, the idea of homeownership representing identity that he discusses on 213 was something I never thought about. However it does make sense that owning a house would represent success since, as he explains, "homeownership required a significant financial sacrifice". In addition, this helped explain why African Americans were having trouble living in certain neighborhoods. Overall, I found it to be a very good read.

Some Thoughts on Sugrue

Sugrue's work had so many things in it that I have to agree with Megan and agree that making it a case study as opposed to a national study was a very smart move. While reading about the lay offs and factories closing I came across a quote that stuck with me "Unemployment is not a crime, it is a social ill full of hardships, set-backs, anxieties, needs and sacrifices which would be lauded under any other circumstances" (152). I almost feel that this quote can sum up a large portion of the book. It contains within it, though not naming specifically, the problems people faced. The housing crisis, deindustialization, etc. While i do not think race is included in the quote I still found it expressive. (As did Sugrue obviously since he stated "No words could better describe the failed promise of postwar Detroit" (152).)
Another thing I fenjoyed was the way Sugrue would interweave races in the chapters. He would have a large amount about the unions and factory workers and then move right on to the Urban League. He managed to bring in many different people and keep them all relevant to each chapter.

Case Study

From the very first pages of Sugrue, it is evident his choice of making the work a case study was not only wise but proved to provide a clearer argument and landscape than a generalized national study would have. He notes that he is one of very few scholars tackling the changing urban landscape in the post-war world, but invites others to build on his arguments for other cities like Detroit - Toledo, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Buffalo. Detroit not only serves as the model city for the development of the rust belt, it provides a rare racial map that is mostly black/white and therefore is also useful for the study of black/white race relations and inequalities. However, one of the greatest strengths of Sugrue's work is there is no question of what any category of actor's influence and position was in Sugrue's narrative. The reader obviously becomes most familiar with the plight of black men in Detroit, but other people do not go unmentioned and all play an central role in the narrative. White women entered the workforce during the war but black women with families to support were less successful. Rich white men ran the auto companies, whose flight from suburbia caused the unemployment of white middle class men. Working class white men suffered as well from automation and the federal funds that had previously aided Detroit that then moved to the Sunbelt. Black men faced hiring and housing discrimination while the Detroit Urban League won victories for black women in the workplace. Not a single actor is left out of the narrative. The federal and local governments interact as well as a representative from almost all of the populations inhabiting Detroit at the time.

Missed Opportunity

As I was reading Sugrue’s work, I kept thinking about something that was brought up in our discussion of Cohen last week. If I am not mistaken, it was Dan who suggested that the reinforcement of the racial systems in the post-war years was a missed opportunity to change the situation that African Americans were in. In reading specifically about Detroit, it would seem that the same idea of a missed opportunity could be applied. One might think that it would be easier to implement substantial policy change on the city rather than the national level, but as Sugrue shows it is as impossible. It was not feasible because of the discriminatory laws and the actions of certain people in government and the community, much like we learned last week from Cohen. Everything from the discriminatory bank policies that were implemented (34) to government red-lining (38) and job discrimination kept the circumstances of African Americans as they were. Overall, it really does seem like a missed opportunity, but that is being too ideal. These factors like housing and labor discrimination were too full of vitality in the War and immediate post-war years when something could have been done.

Discussion Questions – Origins of the Urban Crisis

History Questions:
1.What is Sugre’s definition of race? Keep in mind that Sugre argues that concepts of whiteness and blackness (race) assumed a material dimension that was not affected solely by culture. (234) In turn, how does this definition shape the narrative? (i.e. housing, employment, education)

2.According to Sugre, in what ways was the ghetto not just a physical construct, but an ideological one? (229)

Historiography Questions:
1.What is the value of looking at workers and not consumers as an analytical lens for urban centers? (Cohen v. Sugre) Remember that both also show that one of the biggest points of contention between whites and blacks is the location of the physical home.

2.Is it possible to write a history of a Rust Belt city without making it solely a narrative of decline? Should historians go out of their way to find token positives or is it a necessary part of the profession to show “partial successes”? (i.e. Detroit’s Urban League fighting for black “firsts” in jobs as described on page 167)

3.Why are historians discouraged from making action plans to remedy issues (i.e. poverty and discrimination)? Sugre does offer a few subtle ideas such as the system of seniority which may have helped blacks retain their jobs on page 103, but does not make a concerted push for a plan to remedy this. Is it enough to analyze the situation and draw connections to the present or should historians go further – again, how does one address urban decline and enact meaningful change?

Random Thoughts:
Like Cohen’s book from the previous week, I found the countless examples of racism which demonstrated that the northern U.S. was not immune to acts of discrimination to be especially poignant. What I really liked from Sugre’s analysis was how he showed the stratification of Detroit not only by race, but through class. For example, the placement of blacks within the different sections of the city (due to wealth, status, employment, etc.) and the varying levels “support” for civil rights among the different classes of white society highlighted the various factors shaping people’s perceptions. Lastly, how does this history differ from that of Buffalo? Or is it similar?

consumers republic

As I read the Cohen book my first thoughts revolved around how Cohen defines how corporations and individuals interact. Does Cohen focus to much on the business side of the transaction? Can the phenomena of mass consumption and consumerism be fully explained simply through looking at how corporations used advertising and products? What is the role of the consumer, are their tastes the results of the products offered or do they influence what is sold? For this I am thinking about how so many products are released that never gain popularity despite large advertising campaigns, were they simply failed ideas or does the consumer ultimately decide what is bought or sold?

As I continued to read the book, I could not help but think about what we can learn from this story to help solve our current problem. If Cohen were to update the epilogue, how would she view the current policies and bailouts. How has the recent shift from government subsidies to the people to subsidies to corporations affected their relationship? Are businesses actually to big to fail? Throughout this book it seemed as if higher wages for workers fueled their desires to purchase more products. Businesses had to continually evolve in order to stay in business and the hope of higher profits caused corporations to need to continually readjust and change business models. Do bailouts take away the incentive to change and evolve leading to a stale economy?

Finally I was most struck by the section about specialized products and advertising. I understand that children would want to view different products then their parents yet I felt as if Cohen was making this practice seem more successful then it is in reality. The cartoon on pg 300 seems to sum up my feelings. While selective advertising may show me more products that are interesting to me, the idea that these ads shape my identity seem farfetched. Look around the classroom, we are all of similar ages living in the same city, yet many different styles and tastes are displayed by all. Are we more tied to tastes from our race, age, and sex? Or can we look for other examples such as parents, values, and personal views? I began thinking about this as I watched a video on hulu where I was asked to pick which advertisement I wanted to watch. Would the statistics of this survey follow what Cohen claims or are there other factors that need to be considered?

Discussion Questions

History: In Cohen’s chapter on reconversion, she explains the GI Bill and the potential that it had to make the lives of the returning veterans better. She also explains the negative aspects, like the discrimination that was inherent in its implementation for many veterans and non-veterans. For me, this is a key difference, if not the key difference, between the postwar of WWII and WWI, despite the negatives that Cohen described. Was the passing of the GI Bill vital for the creation of the Consumer Republic? Would the post-war prosperity of second half of the 20th century have occurred without these government measures?

Historiography: My original historiography question intended to explore what Richard set out in his history question with the use of New Jersey as a place for specific examples. So, I have instead decided to go back to a topic that I posed with the Tomes book regarding gender. Gender roles are one solidly discussed aspect of this book, as is race. I do not say the role of women exclusively because it was noted by Cohen that male roles did change as well. How important are gender roles to the making and sustaining of the Consumer Republic? Is there enough, not enough, too much emphasis on this aspect of the story by Cohen? To put it a different way, could another historian write the history of the consumer republic without incorporating gendered ideas?