Month: October 2020

I find it interesting how King has almost become an American myth.  Carson mentions how MLK is a, “Black counterpart to the static, heroic myths that have embalmed George Washington as the Father of His Country and Abraham Lincoln as the Great Emancipator.”  I feel like it has gotten to the point where like Lincoln and Washington, we really aren’t taught what they actually did.  King is typically viewed as the “leader” of the Civil Rights Movement, however, “The myth emphasizes the individual at the expense of the black movement, it not only exaggerates King’s historical importance but also distorts his actual, considerable contribution to the movement.”  Carson mentions how many actions taken by Civil Rights activists are seemingly viewed as at the directive of Dr. King.  

Many of the activists looked up to King, but many other important leaders are overlooked because of his portrayal.  For example, “Local black leaders such as E.D. Nixon, Rosa Parks, and Jo Ann Robinson started the bus boycott before King became the leader of the Montgomery Improvement Association.”  This is detrimental to the Civil Rights Movement as a whole, because it’s important to recognize all the sacrifices these people made, not just Dr. King.  Carson uses the examples of the sit-ins and bus boycotts, MLK was not a leader of either of these actions, yet he gets credit as leading them.  

King’s importance however should not be discredited.  While he should certainly not be considered the sole leader of the Civil Rights Movement he was certainly an important figure.  The Civil Rights Movement’s success was in large part due to, “King’s wide range of skills and attributes prepared him to meet the internal as well as the external demands of the movement.”  King can definitely get credit for being an excellent leader, and he was able to mobilize both white and black people to support the movement.

Once again, Zinn shows us the bad intentions behind some of the progressive actions from the government.  Zinn claims Lyndon Johnson and the American government only signed the Voting Rights Act, because of the increasingly distraught group of people in America.  Zinn does not see this as a decision of good faith, but rather a way to save himself and his country from a larger group of protestors.  The Voting Rights Act was small enough that it did not significantly impact white American Society, but it was enough to pacify many of the riled up black members in America.  Zinn criticizes the rich and powerful members of America for not stepping up to take on the major issues.  Poverty and racism was being avoided by focusing on the less important things at the time like the Voting Rights Act.  Many aspects of Zinn’s historical book centered around this idea that throughout history the people in charge will always inevitably look out for themselves first.  

The new election is coming up in the United States of America, and I think it is important to connect this chapter to the new candidates.  This chapter showed the selfishness and unwillingness to change when needed in leaders, and we can use this information to vote for a better future.  When looking at the candidates for each of the public office positions, it is important to think about which candidates will be looking out for the people and not just a small percentage of the population.  Zinn showed how this is important when describing how the American government was just looking to pacify the protestors, rather than create change.  I believe the most important thing is to look for a candidate that is brave enough to make a big change when necessary.  President Lyndon Johnson had a chance to change the course of America for the better, but the people’s interests were not the first thing on his mind.  We need to find a candidate that has all the people of America on his mind.  Someone that is willing to make the tough decision and revolutionize the country.  I really enjoyed reading this chapter and evaluating the leaders described in the chapter.

Through reading Zinn and the article by Clayborne Carson, I was enlightened and challenged to approach history through a more holistic, humanistic, and complex lens which added a lot more meaning to this time period’s impact on more modern history. History typically presents Martin Luther King Jr. as a peaceful, and almost passive, and crucial leader in the “peaceful” Civil Rights movement, and especially influential with the March on Washington. Although he had a carefully cultivated image, this was purposeful to gain as many followers as possible (which mainly meant appealing to white Americans). Though this image made it hard to see Martin Luther King Jr. as controversial, especially as we are examining history retrospectively, it is important to remember how controversial and difficult the fight was towards any positive measures, especially as the government was actively or passively fighting against most aspects of their protest. Although it is typical of history to oversimplify and define history through its leaders, I thought it was interesting to hear about the team of mostly black women organizing the grassroots movement. 

Similarly to Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X has been severely oversimplified and overshadowed in history. Before this reading and podcast, I knew Malcolm X solely because of his more violent reputation but knew nothing of his personal or familial past. Now that I know this information about the probable hate crime that killed his father, his parents’ civil rights work, and his conversion to Islam, I have been able to decipher a lot of his quotes that have been taken out of context. One of the most interesting aspects of Malcolm X, besides how much he contributed to the Civil Rights movement without accreditation, is his influence after his death on the movement. Many of his more violent and passionate speeches were considered too much and too radical to contain in the NAACP movement and in historical records while he was alive, and I think this was because of the threat of a large-scale, full-blown uprising, as he was calling for, was too much for people to support or to “market” to supporters. Therefore, people had more control over his rhetoric and legacy once he was dead, and manipulated his popularity and influence for their own agenda, which overall did still help progress the Civil Rights movement. As a white person, it is upsetting and uncomfortable to see a lot of this movement’s history changed in order to make it suitable or more palatable for future white audiences, which really takes away from the Civil Rights movement.

Nowadays, it’s impossible to escape the upcoming Presidential election. Whether it be in class on Wednesday or while watching an NFL game on Sunday, Joe Biden and Donald Trump have crept into every corner of our lives. While the pandemic is a big focus of the election, so too is racial justice and police reform. After the killing of George Floyd in May, both Joe Biden and Donald Trump affirmed their support for peaceful protests while denouncing violent riots. The candidates both seem to be trying to maximize their likability by denouncing all forms of violence resulting from the Black Lives Matter movement. While many in the electorate might engage with this message, the argument that riots are dangerous and ineffective is wrong as evidenced by today’s Zinn reading.

In the chapter “Or Does it Explode?”, Zinn explains the long history of the civil rights movement from its origins in the 1950s through the end of the 1960s. In doing so, Zinn dispels the myth that peaceful protest was the only agent of change in the civil rights movement. The strategy of peaceful protest was “effective because it could be used to appeal to national opinion against the segregationist South.” However, Zinn recognizes that, while leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. had a great impact on turning American sentiment against the Jim Crow South, acts of defiance such as rioting sealed the passage of the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act. As Zinn notes, “Congress responded to the riots of 1967 by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1968.” Indeed, the violence incited by leaders such as Malcolm X and Huey Newton served a purpose by pressuring the US government to act and make legislation to protect black communities. The proximity of the CRA’s passing with the riots of 1967 show that disobedient behavior, contrary to current political opinion, is a valuable method of affecting change. 

The Carson article adds nuisance to Zinn’s argument by showing that Martin Luther King Jr. should not necessarily be celebrated in the fashion he currently is on MLK day. In the article, Carson dispels some of what our current education system tells us about the civil rights activist. In no manner does the author attempt to criticize or delegitimize the importance of King in the civil rights movement. Rather, the article displays how the movement originated from the ground up. Only after issues were brought to the forefront by individuals were leaders like MLK able to lead through sophisticated, academic, and charismatic leadership. Indeed, in order for MLK to make this change, acts of disobedience such as riots or sit-ins were needed as an impetus.

From the first paragraph of the article “Martin Luther King, Jr: Charismatic Leadership in a Mass Struggle” by Carson, makes it know that MLK day is about to remember who he was and what he believed in. In some cases, MLK day was just a day off from school and a day for the teachers to catch up on work. I believe that yes, MLK day should be a federal holiday, but I also think schools should still hold school. The importance of what he stood for could be implemented in the school system. It could be important for schools to hold class on this day because many will just go on vacation and not even reflect on who MLK was and what he stood for.

The article states “A major example of this distortion has been the tendency to see King as a charismatic figure who single-handedly directed the course of the civil rights movement through the force of his oratory” (28). The depiction has been made over the years and words have been mixed up. Of course, what MLK fought for and stood for what is important and where he moved to the United States and the world is powerful. MLK is an important leader in this world, but when the world’s charismatic figure is thrown around things can get a little mixed up. The article states “The term charisma has traditionally been used to describe the godlike, magical qualities possessed by certain leaders” (28). The way the meaning of words have changed over time and can cause difficult

It is interesting to contemplate how as the amount of credit King is given for the success of the Civil Rights Movement, the amount given to the constant rebellion of black Americans naturally decreases. By idealizing King the way modern society does, we often under credit the smaller grass roots movements that truly moved black Americans closer to equal rights. I had never heard of the perspective that whether or not Martin Luther King Jr. was present, black people would’ve still fought for and successfully eliminated Jim Crow Laws in the south. We as a society cannot neglect the impact of smaller leaders as well as the tremendous amount of people who dedicated their lives to the Civil Rights movement. Making King into such a heroic figure, romanticizes the story of the civil rights movement and has taken the focus off of the vast amount of nameless African Americans who fought and suffered for equality. It is easier for white society to learn about racial inequality through the lens that one man came along and through his unwavering belief in non-violence ended racism in America. The harsher reality of the fight for racial equality is that it has been happening since the founding of the United States and has not always been peaceful. The reality is that racism still exists in many forms today and that millions of Americans are going to have to put in work to lessen the racism experienced by minorities.

The reading does a good job emphasizing that the accomplishments of MLK go far beyond just being a strong speaker. While his impact has been exaggerated throughout history, his actions in search of equality have also been oversimplified to his charismatic speeches. Not only did MLK become a figure head who could inspire black Americans and have white Americans understand his perspective, but he also actively involved and “immersed” within the everyday actions of Black Americans in search of equality. King himself recognized that perhaps the movement was becoming to closely related to his own identity and within speeches mentioned that the movement existed far beyond himself. The reading also points out how dangerous it is to deeply undermine King’s legacy, as in doing so people will begin to doubt the rest of what he stood for. That is not what I intended in this blog post and it is important that while we as society begin to recognize the true scale of king’s effect on the Civil Rights Movement, we don’t unintentionally under appreciate him or what he stood for. Martin Luther King Jr. was a great leader who deserves to be remembered in history for speeding up and making the civil rights movement less violent, but he was a smaller part of the movement than history credits him for according to historians like Carson.

I think it was really interesting to see how Carson humanized King in a way that made him heroic without placing him above anyone else. The idea at the end that King just wanted to “love and serve humanity” was extremely grounding and gave perspective to King’s work. While he was a charismatic leader who preached his beliefs through his oratory, he risked support and popularity in order to advocate for non-violence. His ideas of non-violence could get in the way of having a large following especially from the black community. This makes it evident that he was one of the few leaders that actually cares about the issues and their agenda for the common good than remaining in a position of authority with a large following. On the topic of non-violence Carson raises an interesting point that the actions King advocated for are “respectable in the eyes of the white majority.” Although King’s main goal was equality and civil rights for black people, he realized that in order to do this he had to appeal to the majority. Thinking about civil rights, it’s clear that there needs to be cooperation and team work from both sides or both blacks and whites in order to make progress. Thus, King focused on civil communication between different groups and leaders to advocate his non-violent agenda.

However, on-violence doesn’t necessarily mean that everything is peaceful and abiding by the law. King was applauded for breaking the rules and “[challenging] authority” and this idea of “creative maladjusted nonconformity” which refers to sort of breaking the status quo and embracing differences. This reminds me of King’s civil disobedience in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” in which he was arrested for protesting peacefully. In this letter King justifies his actions and makes a distinction between written law and natural law. He argues that natural law is above written law and therefore one can break written law if it is for a morally just reason. I think that this relates to his idea of nonconformity because he thinks it’s okay to stray from the norm or laws if it’s advocating for a moral purpose or mission. In this way, I think that he appealed to several other proponents of the civil rights movement because although he was non-violent, he was willing to break the law and go the extra mile to achieve his goals. This is another reason in which he was more than just a charismatic leader. He used his religion and belief in a higher power to justify his actions.

I found this chapter in Zinn’s reading to be one of the most interesting so far. I was surprised by the things Zinn focused on in the Civil Rights Movement, as well as the amount of similarities between the things happening in the 60s and right now during the BLM movement. The first sentence of the chapter describing how the black revolt came as a surprise to many is something interesting to think about. The idea that people, specifically whites, at this time were not focused on the racism that was so apparent, and many just lived in a bubble believing things were okay is something that I think is important to think about today as well. While many people after WWII were not focused on anti-racism movements, now, many people are simply ignorant of the fact that there are still many problems with racism in the world. While it’s obvious the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s was very different from the BLM movement, I realized there are a lot more parallels between the two than I was expecting. Zinn mentions how “there was rioting in the streets, looting and firebombing of stores” (459), which we saw a lot earlier this year. Like this Civil Rights movement in the 60s, this movement seemed to be a wake up call for many, especially whites who were perhaps unaware of the reality of things in the country. 

The other thing I found interesting about this chapter was the way it highlighted Martin Luther King Jr. It’s nearly impossible to talk about the Civil Rights movement without talking about MLK, but Zinn’s focus on him was brief compared to other historical readings I’ve encountered, or been taught. It made me realize that I’ve always associated the Civil Rights movement with MLK, as though one didn’t exist without the other, but in reality the movement was in no way about MLK. In reality, MLK was definitely a major part of the movement, and many could argue made it what it was in the end, but the movement didn’t happen because of him, and there were other people that stepped up as much as he did during the time. 

This chapter definitely highlights things I had never thought about in the Civil War movement. The reality about what the government did and the effects it actually had, compared to what I have always learned, doesn’t come as much of a surprise now. I’ve noticed that after reading Zinns chapters I have become a lot more hesitant about believing everything I’ve learned in school about US history, and this chapter just makes it more clear.

In Carson’s Article, “MLK Charismatic Leadership in Mass Struggle” I find it interesting that even a figure we hold in such high regard and a movement we deem just and important has been twisted in myth throughout history. I find this interesting because previously we have discussed controversial figures and events/America wrongdoings as twisted in myth. Dr. Martin Luther King Junior is a figure we learn about who is at the center of the civil rights movement in America during the 1950’s and 60’s for African American Equality. We view him in general as a just peaceful leader who fought for a righteous cause. However in the article I found it fascinating how Carson believes that we attribute and idolize MLK too much.”Because the myth emphasizes the individual at the expense of the black movement, it not only exaggerates King’s historical importance but also distorts his actual, considerable contribution to the movement”. Due to this we don’t focus on the movement as a whole we more focus on MLK as an important figure. The Article talks about how many people also have a false idea about who MLK was as a leader. Most people think he was just a charismatic leader. He had a few of the aspects of charismatic leaders but he also strategists, used ideology, and institutional leadership. As we have learned that a leader has to have substance behind their charism and charismatic leaders aren’t automatically good leaders. Yet another area where we fail is thinking of the Civil rights movement and MLKs contribution as just emotionally charged speeches and “blind faith” as opposed to creating a community and the strategies behind that. This article left me with a few questions. Is literally everything in American history spun in to a myth even if it isn’t for the creation of patriotism or the eradication of American wrong doing? What influence does MLK’s leadership have today during the current BLM movement?

In this chapter of Zinn, he discusses the Civil Rights movement, and how the narrative of this historical time has also been altered to portray the U.S. government as playing a much larger role in making progress towards equality among all citizens. Zinn highlights that our government did pass laws targeted at solving social injustices, such as voting equality and employment equality, but they were poorly implemented. It seems that the American government thinks simply making a law is enough when the people enforcing it (white Americans) are the ones that will make the real social change.

In this chapter, I also noticed the difference between non-violent and violent protests. It seemed that the non-violent protests were clearly favored by the government leaders because it caused less unrest within society, but it did not seem to be “enough to deal with the entrenched problems of poverty in the black ghetto”. When analyzing protests and rebellions, American leaders tend to criticize the violent protests, when in reality, the nature of the protest should not be the focus. Instead, all focus should be on the fact that a protest is needed in the first place. Critiquing whether violence with protests is effective or warranted, distracts society from the main institutional problems causing the riots, which is exactly was the corrupt institutions want.

I really was interested in Zinn’s chapter, “Or Does it Explode?” The civil rights movement was a topic in which I was very excited to hear the details that were “left out” through Zinn’s eyes. Black culture throughout the 20th century had further pushed the idea that a rebellion would be coming soon. If this was through poetry or music, these artists hinted that enough was enough, and change needed to happen. What I never knew was that the government was influenced by their image perceived by the rest of the world to start trying to obtain racial equality. This was also very noticeable when the government did not protect the protestors as the violence got worse. It took the death of five protestors to finally get the government to intervene. Laws were passed promising certain rights that were never enforced. This further shows me that the government was still hesitant in helping to obtain racial equality.

Another part of the chapter that I found extremely important was the divide that Zinn puts between MLK and Malcolm X. Everyone in school was taught about how MLK believed in non-violent protesting which became the norm for civil rights movement. What I did not know, or forgot, was that there were many cases in which black people did not agree with MLK and thought that the more violent approach was better before Malcolm X. What I never realized was that these ideas came before Malcolm X started the Black Power Movement. I wonder if there was a period of time in which blacks were fighting about the proper way to go about the civil rights movement before Malcolm X started the Black Power Movement. Did the black people that did not agree with MLK’s approach stand in his way? I just found it interesting that some people pushed away from the idea of obtaining equality for the idea that there could be even more separation between races, even though this is the problem that they are fighting in the first place.

In Zinn’s chapter, “Or Does it Explode?” he discusses the development of the Civil Rights movement in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s. The rise of the Communist Party played a role in the push of the movement into a larger, more emphasized demand for change. There were already hostile feelings towards the Communist Party which created the image of black communists as more dangerous and militant. I thought an interesting idea in the chapter was the reasons behind the government’s decisions to appoint a Committee on Civil Rights. There was the moral reason, the economic reason which was that discrimination was wasteful of talent, and the international reaon where the world was beginning to question and judge the United States’ democracy as fraud. The United States had become a large power in the international community and threats to this were seen as very concerning. A pattern that was seen throughout the movement was that the government passed laws in reaction to violence and revolts and in concern of their international image. There was little to be done about changing the deep-rooted issues of racism and poverty that was the true foundation of the Civil Rights Movement. There also seemed to be little to no push to change people’s deep-rooted opinions, views, and feelings towards inequality and civil rights. The government would make small changes, hoping they would draw more attention and create a bigger impact, without making fundamental changes to prevent an “explosive situation”. 

Something that Zinn continuously pointed out was how the federal government stood by and did not intervene in defense of the black movement. I have noticed this described in many different accounts and experiences of people involved in the Civil Rights movement showing how the police and government often stood by or fought against the movement even when it was a peaceful resistance. The Freedom Rides are an example of this where people were beaten and buses were destroyed without any sort of intervention or prevention from the police or government officials. This is extremely disappointing and must have been very frustrating to the supporters of the movement where they felt unprotected and in danger of their own government. These feelings of dissatisfaction towards the government with the issue of civil rights and equality in the United States are still very present today and creates very antagonistic perceptions that make it difficult for real change to occur. 

In Zinn’s chapter titled “A People’s War” I read and learned a lot about the history of American government. On top of this, I learned that the United States not only promotes the support of right winged governments outside of America, but we go as far as to say that we identify with a lot of conservative customs. For example, we continue to use the United States Constitution as a major resource for shaping policy. The Constitution and countless other major documents that still hold relevance in America today reference spiritual and religious views. While I had never done so before, I quickly realized that I think Zinn is right about our direct affiliation with the right in a multitude of avenues. Then when I thought about the the religious aspect of our nations history, I realized that it seems as though the conservative christian man is the epitome of what America stands for. Not immigration, or diversity. Not half of the things we claim to stand for. This was eye opening to me and really helped me grasp the reality that is often hidden from Americans.

We also read an excerpt from Martin Luther King Jr. This too sparked reflection in me. The Civil Rights Movement is remembered by Americans as a triumph for black people. As a time of great change. I think it is evident not a ton of change has been made. I was able to connect this piece to the chapter in Zinn because they are both examples of areas in which our country  has been able to manipulate the memory we have of certain events. Not many people look at the movement as a failure. Not many people look at America as a conservative affiliated nation. Yet they so clearly are both of those things. I really wonder what else we have a misconception of and what we can do to help change the false narratives we have in our minds.

In history, we are taught to see Martin Luther King Jr. as a very important figure in the Civil Rights movement. In fact, he played one of the biggest roles, so we are taught. We know that he is a great leader, as he is very charismatic. One of the most important things he was able to do for the Civil Rights movement was communicate negro aspirations to white people. He was a controversial leader who challenged authority, but so were other people. In podcast 16, we learn that because Malcom X had prior connections to crime, MLK was seen as a better face for the movement. We also learn that Claudette Colvin was the first woman to refuse to move from the white section on a bus, not Rosa Parks. Colvin’s mother told her that Parks would be a better face for this movement because Parks was liked by white people; she had more straight hair, lighter skin, and wasn’t a teenager who got pregnant such as Colvin. While I have learned about Malcom X before, I had never heard Colvin’s name before this podcast. I am sure if I did more research on my own, I would have read about her, but I was never taught about her in my years of history. What I left wondering, is why do certain people get more attention than other’s? Maybe Rosa Parks was a better “face” for the movement, but it frustrates me that because Colvin didn’t look a certain way or have a perfect track record, she didn’t get any attention.

In Carson’s reading, it is discussed that if King never lived, eventually movement toward racial equality would have happened. This makes sense because all these other people had a role in the Civil Rights movement, but why then do they not get recognized.  We know King is a charismatic leader, but Carson even tells us that King was very aware of his flaws. No one is perfect, so why does history teach us that King is this hero who had no flaws? Don’t get me wrong, he definitely did a lot for the movement, but we know other people did too.

One final thing that stood out to me in Carsons reading was a quote at the end. He writes, ” The notion that appearances by Great Men (or Great Women) are necessary preconditions for the emergence of major movements for social change reflects not only poor understanding of history, but also a pessimistic view of the possibilities for future social change.” Carson is basically saying that for social change to be possible, we don’t need someone who is “Great.” It can be someone who is ordinary, or has flaws. He also says that this belief that anyone who can lead social change has to be great, is a poor understanding of history. By this, Carson means that if that’s our belief, then we don’t have a full understanding of who leaders actually were. For example, we celebrate Columbus for coming to America, even though he forced Indigenous people off land that was theirs first. He’s not perfect, the same way most leaders in history aren’t perfect. This quote emulates the view that I took from today’s readings; not every leader is perfect, in fact some are far from it, but I am still left wondering why some people gain a heroic view in history, while others don’t.

I found this chapter of Zinn’s book and the little excerpt about Dr. King one of the most important things we’ve done so far. I have recently been learning about the truth of the Civil Rights Movement in my other leadership class, so I was really excited to learn more and to reinforce what I have been learning. All of this information has shifted my perspective of the movement and also has given me a new perspective on the current civil unrest in the US. In the history books and history classes, we are taught that the Civil Rights Era was an unprecedented time for change and that the whole nation came together to listen to Martin Luther King Jr. and immediately put an end to racism once and for all. However, only now I am realizing that the movement was actually a time of disappointment for many African Americans. It wasn’t an instant and revolutionary change that occurred overnight. We are still facing these problems today because of the lack of success of the Civil Rights Movement. History books want us to believe that one day, all of a sudden, Martin Luther King Jr. said “I have a dream” and that all the racists in America disappeared and changed their ways. Further, history wants to reinforce how peaceful all the protesting was and idolize King’s love instead of Malcolm X’s rage. This view of history is honestly incorrect and it only tells one side of the story. This history doesn’t depict how the Supreme Court rulings were passed but were never enforced or taken seriously.

I honestly think that the idolization of Dr. King and him becoming a martyr and a myth was a deliberate action by white people in power to suppress racial unrest. I think that it was on purpose that his birthday is given a national holiday and not the more radical Malcolm X. Using what I know now, I think historians and people in power chose King to immortalize and turn into a larger than life entity because he enforced nonviolence and love. Nonviolence obviously has its advantages, however when problems escalate to the point where there is no other option than complete upheaval, this course of action loses any efficiency or power. However, I think this may be the point. It is very possible that King was chosen to represent this movement to show future oppressed generations that nonviolence is the way to go because it is easier to suppress and subdue. This is honestly a manipulation tactic, instilling in our national history a lesson of how to approach oppression. If our nation had a national holiday for Malcolm X, then his wishes and views would be spoken more and would be more likely to be used by future generations. However, his ideas of radicalism and revolutionism are the last thing people in power want to instill in the public because it would jeopardize their power standing. It would lead to more oppressed groups taking control of their oppression in a way that would make people in power feel uncomfortable. This blatant misconception of the past is why we are still experiencing civil unrest and racism today and is also why the riots were being condemned, even though the riots were the only thing that actually persuaded the government to enforce the rulings they passed in the Civil Rights Era.

As goes for most of the things I read, watch, or listen to for this class, I find it alarming how easy it is for the US to twist narratives to make us seem like the heros of every situation, when in reality we are very often extremely hypocritical and in the wrong. For another class I’m currently taking about cultural pluralism and nationalism, we learned that one of the most effective ways to indoctrinate nationalism into the minds of the people of a given nation is through public education, setting the standards of what our kids grow up learning about the country we live in. It makes sense that we, as a general population, tend to have such strong sense of patriotism in 0ur domestic and foreign affairs, seemingly, from what I’ve heard from people who live in or have traveled to another country, more so than what is typical. The way we learn history in the United States paints us as the best country in the world, effectively making the geneal population believe this to be true, whether or not it is.

Another thing I found particularly interesting from Zinn’s chapter “A People’s War?” was the idea that the United States would go out to protect right-leaning governments. I guess when thinking in the context of the general red scare and fear of liberal radicals it makes sense that we would support those who lean farther right, but it was a little eye-opening to see it phrased so boldly. I never considered the United States as a country or our government to sway towards any ideology or political affiliation outside of whichever party had control of the branches at the time, but when you take a step back, it makes sense that we would be considered right-leaning. Perhaps it’s just the extra division these days that causes the connotation, but I feel a little uneasy living in a country that openly is defined and will openly financially support right-wing dictators and military states all for the sake of avoiding the widely-feared left.

The second reading for Wednesday’s class gave me an interesting, new perspective that I had not really thought about before. It discusses the way that throughout history we tend to naturally adopt the “Great Man” theory. It refers to Martin Luther King Jr. in talking about how the black rights movement most likely would have followed a fairly similar course (big picture) whether he was involved in it or not. Hearing this left me somewhat confused. I know that I have always been told that Dr. King spearheaded the civil rights movement in the mid 1900s, which is still true. However, this reading showed the importance of the surrounding context of the United States at the time, rather that pinpointing the effect of the civil rights movement directly to the cause that was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

This reading wanted the reader to realize that Dr. King was far more than a charismatic leader who was able to evoke the emotions of the black community to mobilize them in their pursuit for equality and opportunity. While Dr. King was, without a doubt, a model charismatic leader, he also had doubts and fears below the surface that displayed a different side of him. King pushed confidently against unjust government regulations and social inequality with pride and passion, but internally he may have masked some of the doubt he was feeling. He was very aware of his own limits and his own weaknesses, and often feared his own life and those around him. Why is it though that in a revolution such as the civil rights movement, we want to pinpoint the cause to a singular person? Furthermore, why do we automatically see this leader as something far more than human, expecting them to not have their own doubts or struggles? We see this often in Great Man theory, especially with charismatic leaders, but does our inclination to want a perfect, powerful leader come from our own doubts and fears about ourselves, hoping that a “Great Man” or woman could save us?

I think that it is very important to discuss the social trends around the civil rights movement in the mid 1900’s and not give all credit or blame to one or a few powerful individuals. Yes, they had significant influence in various ways. However, as this reading describes, the people, social forces, social inequality, hunger for change, and internal mobilization of communities are the catalysts for the revolution. In my mind, leaders such as Dr. King instill confidence in these followers to act on their own feelings and emotions.

In “A People’s War?” Howard Zinn maintains PHUS’s theme of denouncing American imperialism, bringing its focus now onto American involvement in WWII. This was an extremely thought-provoking chapter for me, especially in consideration of Zinn’s discussion of Pearl Harbor. In my US History education, I had never learned about the causes of Pearl Harbor; I was always under the impression that it was a sudden, immoral attack from the Japanese that randomly killed American civilians. However, as Zinn notes, the federal government had been warned of provoking war with Japan after imposing sanctions on Japanese trade in response to Japan’s imposition on Chinese land that might have threatened America’s open-door economic policy in China. This is very indicative of America’s imperialist interests at the time preceding the war’s onset in the United States, and America’s economic drive escalated at the time that Hawaii, its door into the arena of Pacific trade, had been attacked.

I think it’s also very important to note the hypocrisy underlying the notion by which the United States claimed that their involvement in the War was motivated by a moral opposition to the ongoing genocide of Jewish people in Germany. First of all, Eugenics had gained popularity in the US decades before the onset of WWII, revealing that American History didn’t strictly reject the eugenic ideology behind Hitler’s “Final Solution.” Secondly, though the US likely recognized the Holocaust as immoral, it didn’t take much interest in participating in War because of the Holocaust alone. As Zinn notes, FDR deferred action pertaining to the Holocaust to the State Department, where “anti-Semitism and a cold bureaucracy became obstacles to action” (Zinn 415). Not only did the Imperialist threat of Pearl Harbor more effectively provoke the United States to participate in war than did the genocide of Jewish people, but during WWII, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, allowing the army to begin its establishment of Japanese internment camps, revealing a lack of inherent US opposition to concentration camps. At a time when the federal government directly condoned the internment of Japanese people, it was a rather bold move of the United States to claim wartime involvement on the basis of opposition to the concentration of Jewish people. Considering this, I think it’s extremely important to analyze all underlying factors (imperialism included) in studying the United States’ involvement in WWII in order to properly recognize the unethical aspects of US history so that future American policies can be driven by an understanding of the historical wrongs of which this country must avoid repetition.

The chapter “A People’s War” within Howard Zinn’s PHUS and the article “World War Two Was Not a Just War” by David Swanson both provided immense insight on the United States’ true motives and contributions during World War II. Both readings directly contradicted the information surrounding World War II that I previously learned in my history classes. First off, Zinn and Swanson both argue that Franklin D. Roosevelt provoked Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor and knew of Japan’s impending attack on Pearl Harbor before it occurred. For example, Zinn mentions that “Japan’s strike against the American naval base climaxed a long series of mutually antagonistic acts [between the United States and Japan]” and that FDR, “repeatedly deceived the American people during the period before Pearl Harbor” (Zinn, 411). I was very surprised to learn that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was not actually the shocking, sudden attack that it is depicted as in many American history textbooks. I don’t necessarily  understand and agree with FDR’s supposed actions of instigating such an atrocious attack from the Japanese and not alerting the American people and troops prior to the Pearl Harbor attack. Secondly, both Zinn and Swanson oppose the United States decision to drop the second atomic bomb on Nagasaki after witnessing the horrific effects of the first atomic bomb, which they unleashed on Hiroshima. Zinn explains that the second atomic bomb largely targeted innocent civilians in Hiroshima, and “no one has ever been able to explain why it was dropped” (Zinn, 424). Zinn and Swanson’s viewpoints regarding atomic bombs which the United States dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki largely differ from previous narratives surrounding the atomic bombs that I learned in high school as I was taught that the atomic bombs were essential in order to conclude World War II. Lastly, both Zinn and Swanson argue that the United States engagement in World War II was harmful due to the damage that they inflicted throughout the world. I always perceived the United States efforts in World War II as heroic and never really considered the fact that “U.S escalated the targeting of civilians, extended the war, and inflicted more damage than might have occured, had the U.S done nothing, attempted diplomacy, or invested in nonviolence” (Swanson).