The Rise and Fall of the 2nd Phase of the Civil Rights Movement - Assignment Example

The rise and fall of the 2nd phase of the civil rights movement. The Black Struggle for Equality within the Civil Rights Movement The Civil Rights Movement’s tactics that had its beginnings during the 1955 Montgomery bus boycott proved to be highly successful.  Jim Crow segregation laws were banned by the 1964 Civil Rights Act causing segregation to become a thing of the dark past. Blacks now had social equality, at least in legal terms. The Civil Rights Act also prohibited discrimination in employment practices and the 1965 Voting Rights Act made the process to register to vote more accessible for blacks. In the South, ‘literacy tests’, poll taxes and other methods were used to restrict black voting. These were made illegal allowing all adult blacks the right and means to vote thereby giving them political equality. All other discriminatory laws were also banned in the 1960’s such as laws prohibiting inter-racial marriages and racist housing practices. Among the most high-profile groups opposing racist practices was the militant Black Panther Party (BPP). ADMITTEDLY, THE BPP WAS SEVERELY FLAWED ORGANIZATIONALLY AND MADE SEVERE POLITICAL AND SOCIAL MISTAKES. HOWEVER, IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS OF THE BPP, HISTORY MAY RECORD THAT THE EFFORTS OF THE BPP AND ITS HIGHLY PUBLICIZED TACTICS SHOWED THAT THE BLACK POPULATION WOULD NO LONGER TOLERATE INEQUALITY. The Black Panther Party (BPP), an association made up of primarily African Americans, was devoted to the advancement of the Civil Rights movement. Begun in the1960’s and active through the early 1970’s, remnants of the group still exist today. The Party’s genuine and creditable political ambitions are eclipsed in the historical perspective because of its anti-social means of furthering its agenda. Their well-founded suspicion of and lack of regard for those charged with enforcing the law along with their belief that these various law enforcement agencies were the incarnation of white oppression caused the BPP to believe that civil justice for the black community could be accomplished only through militant actions. The ideology of the BPP morphed into a more civil expression of ‘black pride’ during the late 1960’s known as Black Cultural nationalism which expanded and lives on today. “Cultural nationalism on a visual level was expressed in the same way, by the wearing of brightly colored African clothing, such as dashikis, and the adaptation of the Afro hair style, both symbolic representations of the important relationship between Blacks in America and their African roots” (“Black Creativity,” 1994). Black Cultural nationalism is expressed in many varied forms such as embracing African religious customs or creating poetry that contains an African rhythmic style. “The goal of the cultural nationalist was the realization of a Black community based on a common descent and language and moreover, the battle for the minds of Black people to get them to respond positively to the reality of a revolution” (“Black Creativity” 1994). Malcolm X (Little) became a powerful speaker in the movement and became more important to the cause by his death than he was in life. As Martin Luther King had secured the character of the Southern black, Malcolm had become the messiah of city slums in the North, Midwest and West. The semi-militant organization he headed, the Nation, grew quickly under his leadership. Malcolm was most remembered for his passionate anti-white speeches. This was an idea that was emulated by other pro-autonomy organizations. He was the target of many death threats, one of which, in 1965, was successful. Soon after Malcolm’s death, Huey Newton and Bobby Seale began forming the Black Panthers (Hollaway, 2007). The South was the epicenter for the civil rights movement but racial problems had no regional boundaries. As blacks in the south were working to eradicate segregation, blacks in places such as Chicago, Detroit and Oakland were engaged in their own fight for equal treatment. By the mid-1960’s hostility between Oakland’s black community and the police, a long and ever escalating problem, had reached its apex. Because blacks, being seemingly constantly under an increasing intimidation by the police, Newton and Seale founded the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense in October 1966. The pair had been intensely influenced by the teachings of Malcolm X and structured the organization similar to the Black Muslim program except with no pretenses of religious practice. In contrast to Martin Luther King’s methods and teachings of nonviolent protest, the BPP claimed that they needed to equip themselves with weapons for use as self-defense against police brutality. Arming the group did provide the intended protection but, predictably, led to confrontations with the police that often times concluded with a bloody altercation. The Panthers also volunteered their time and efforts performing various activities that helped people in the community. The group made the rounds throughout neighborhoods in Oakland carrying arms, recorders, and various books so as to teach black history, counsel welfare recipients, and effectively protest rent evictions through the court system. The Panthers could be easily distinguished by their uniform dress of black jackets, pants and berets with blue shirts (Garrow, 1987). In 1967, Eldridge Cleaver joined the Black Panther Party. At the time, Cleaver was working as a writer for Ramparts magazine and was the creator of Black House, a political organization in San Francisco. “Cleaver served as the Panthers’ minister of information. In this position he was in charge of the publication of the Black Panther newspaper. On April 25, 1967, the first issue of the paper was published and quickly gained readership. As many as fifty thousand papers were sold within the first three issues. The party began to grow and other chapter locations were opened throughout the United States.” (McElrath, 2007). The BPP utilized propaganda and artwork to attract new disciples from California and later the nation. Members of the Black Panthers would appear on recruitment posters wearing their leather jackets and painted warrior-like faces. On the posters were messages of a strong tone meant to incite the feelings of oppression in young black men. Slogans such as ‘Die for Your People’ and ‘Power to the People’ were used as a ‘call to arms’ for the organization. The easily identifiable closed fist (The Fist of Glory) was the BPP’s most powerful symbol because it represented the pride, oppressed history and the coming equalization of the black community as a whole. This symbol was announced to the entire world during the 1968 Olympic Games by two black sprinters who raised their closed fist high as they stood on the winner’s podium while the National Anthem was being played in their honor (Hamilton, 1997). The leadership of the BPP had been shattered by the 1970’s. Huey Newton was sentenced to prison in Oakland, Fred Hampton was killed by the police and Eldridge Cleaver sought exile in Algeria. By this time, the BPP had dropped in numbers and had lost the support of mainstream black leaders who opposed the Party’s anti-social methods. The Panthers transformed from a violent organization to one that concentrated more on conventional political methods which included volunteering for community service in black neighborhoods. By the early part of the 1980’s, the BPP had, in effect, disbanded (Hamilton, 1997). By the end of the 1960s, the “Civil Rights Movement had achieved both social and political equality for blacks. This was a significant success” (“Civil Rights”, 1998). The efforts of the BPP could have been the final component to the civil rights struggle that began in earnest in the decade prior by people such as Rosa Parks and continued by Martin Luther King and his contemporaries. The sentiments remain today though in the more civil form of Black Cultural nationalism. Works Cited “Black Creativity: On the Cutting Edge.” Time Magazine. (October 10, 1994): 74-75. December 8, 2007 Garrow, David J. The Montgomery Bus Boycott and the Women Who Started it. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1987. December 8, 2007 Hamilton, Charles V. “Black Panther Party.” The World Book Encyclopedia. Vol. 2, 1997. Hollaway, Kevin. “The Legacy of Malcolm.” Documents for the Study of American History. December 8, 2007 McElrath, Jessica. “The Black Panthers.” About African American History. December 8, 2007 Compare the war in Vietnam to the current war in Iraq. How are the two wars different? How are they similar? Student name Instructor name Course name Date Vietnam II, aka, the Iraq War As the Iraq War continues on, the parallels between this protracted conflict and the Vietnam War become increasingly clearer and more defined. Though there are some basic differences such as Iraq is mostly flat, desert terrain while Vietnam is swamp-like, forested and hilly, the similarities are striking. The tactics, strategy, premise, political rhetoric and the gradual loss of support by the American public are comparable, if not substantially the same. Iraq is a newer version of a war that many who lived through the Vietnam era likely thought wouldn’t be fought, at least in their lifetime. This optimistic viewpoint is based on the hard lessons learned regarding fighting guerrilla-style battles, bombing the people you are trying to liberate, the flawed reasoning for entering and remaining in an un-winnable quagmire, etc. DISTINCTIONS CAN BE MADE BETWEEN THE TWO WARS BUT THEY ARE SUPERFICIAL AND INCONSEQUENTIAL IN COMPARISON TO THE SIMILARITIES WHICH ARE CAUSING DISTURBINGLY SIMILAR OUTCOMES. Both the Iraq and Vietnam Wars began because of faulty information. The U.S., under the command of General William Westmoreland, claimed that one of its ships were attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin therefore was within its right to defend itself by attacking North Vietnam. History has shown that possibly a bullet bounced off a destroyer but the term ‘attacked’ was well overstated. The Iraq War was based on the threat that it was amassing weapons of mass destruction which has since been proven untrue. Military and government officials purposely mischaracterized the enemy as well. “Vietnamese nationalists were ignored with all opposition labeled Communist or with the delightfully pejorative phrase ‘Viet Cong.’ In Iraq, the Bush administration has once again written nationalists out of the script. Insurgents are variously labeled ‘fanatics,’ ‘thugs,’ ‘militants,’ ‘terrorists,’ or ‘outsiders.’” (St John, 2007). As in Vietnam, identifying the ‘enemy’ is difficult for the American public and, more importantly, the soldiers on the ground in Iraq. In addition, the vast majority of Iraqis, whether Sunni, Shiite or Kurd, oppose American occupation and on occasion join together to attack U.S. soldiers. The political dynamics that result from war, particularly the Vietnam and Iraq War, produce a myriad of varying effects. The U.S. lost political capital from within South Vietnam when it continuously bombed North Vietnam, a surprising development that was harmful to the war effort. Support for Nixon’s Vietnam policy dropped sharply in 1970 when he authorized the bombing of enemy strongholds in neighboring Laos and Cambodia. This did disrupt communist supply lines but was seen as a broadening of a war that was growing increasingly unpopular (Robinson, 2007). The extensive bombing campaigns and numerous offensives caused massive amounts of destruction on the Vietnamese and their property which only served to alienate the indigenous community. It galvanized the enemy and opponents of the war in both in South Vietnam and America and led many to question the ethics of the campaigns (Olney, 1990 p.80-85). The bombing campaigns over Iraq in the early part of the war killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Unlike the Vietnam War, the demarcation lines are not as clear but the negative effects of intensive bombings of a people’s homeland produced similar results, a public relations nightmare. Winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis was made impossible from the beginning. The U.S. entered the Vietnam War and the recent invasion of Iraq to spread democracy to oppressed peoples (the official representation) and with great optimism for victory. Both conflicts supplied a similar paradigm: the ability of America to use its military power as an ideological, social and political tool is limited. The current conflict in Iraq proves that this important lesson learned from the involvement in Vietnam was not understood and the U.S. is finding itself in other foreign relations predicament which is weakening its military, economic stability and political standing within the world community. The funding of a war is limited as well. All military conflicts are costly. Most importantly, lives are lost and of those who survive, many are forever altered physically, mentally and emotionally. Great amounts of money are spent on military actions which accrue a debt that must be paid over time, sometimes over many generations. The National Debt rises which acts a as drain on the economy and takes away monies that could have been spent on domestic endeavors. It takes money to fund wars but neither financial nor military dominance guarantees victory. The Vietnam War caused a debt which led to an economic recession and a resulting inflation during the 1970’s. The Iraq War is costing billions of dollars per week again raising the national debt but this time to unprecedented levels, about nine trillion dollars at last count. Only the future will tell the degree of economic damage the Iraq War will cause (Olney, 1990 p.76-79) The strategy of the enemy in each war is essentially the same as is the difficulty the soldiers face in determining who is the enemy and who is not. As in Iraq, the U.S. troops were engaged in a guerrilla-type conflict in Vietnam. “The terrain is difficult, and the insurgents know it better than we do. The enemy attacks at a time and place of its own choosing, avoiding troop concentrations where U.S. firepower can be brought to bear. We face in Iraq, like we did in Vietnam, an enemy who refuses to play by our rules and is clearly willing to die for his beliefs” (St John, 2007). In neither war was a credible plan for victory ever established. The justifications to remain in the conflict are essentially the same as well. In Vietnam, the ‘domino theory’ was constantly invoked by neo-con war-hawks who argued that if Vietnam fell to a Communist regime then the other countries in the region would quickly become communist. This was a convincing argument during the height of the Cold War which had for the previous generation served to generate widespread fear and suspicion of communism. “President Bush promised a similar domino effect in the Middle East in which the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would lead to a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute and the flowering of democracy throughout the region” (St John, 2007). The political rhetoric from the Presidents of the respective eras is hauntingly similar. In 1965, President Johnson referenced the War in Vietnam when he pledged “We will not withdraw, either openly or under the cloak of a meaningless agreement.” President Bush has stated repeatedly, “We’ve got to stay the course and we will stay the course in Iraq” (St John, 2007). The ‘hawkish’ neo-conservative ideology was born during the Vietnam era. Those of this political philosophy did not believe the U.S. should withdraw from Vietnam and are the ones who took control of the White House in 2000. The ‘neo-cons’ are the group that, a quarter century after the fall of Saigon in 1975, involved the U.S. in the Iraq war debacle and refuse to withdraw. Many parallels can be drawn between these two conflicts that are separated by a generation. The generation of people who lived through the Vietnam period evidently did not learn the lessons from that war. The U.S., because of its involvement in ‘nation building’ that began in Korea and continued during the Vietnam era and is in full effect today, has lost political credibility throughout the international national community. Works Cited Olney, Richard. “Growth of Our Foreign Policy.” The Atlantic Monthly. Vol. 85, N. 509, (March 1990) cited in Niall Ferguson Colossus: The Price of America’s Empire. New York: The Penguin Press, 2004. Robinson, James A. “Nixon, Richard Milhous.” Encyclopedia Americana. 2007. Grolier Online. December 7, 2007 St John, Ronald Bruce “Parallels Between Iraq War and Vietnam War Are Piling Up” The Progress Report (January 09, 2007) December 7, 2007 Read More