Lyndon Johnson Confronts George Wallace
Summary
This chapter centers around two "colorful characters," the intimidating president of the the United States and the stubborn, racist governor of Alabama, meeting to discuss recent violence from the government against peaceful demonstrators attempting to march from Selma to Montgomery for voting rights. Not only did police arrest and brutally beat "blacks seeking to register to vote for 'unlawful assembly'" and other flimsy charges, but days later on Bloody Sunday, state troopers used extreme violence to stop the marchers from going over the bridge to Montgomery.
Johnson realized that he had to meet with Wallace to stop the police brutality and take a stand. He sat the governor down and intimidated him into allowing the people to march on Montgomery. He implored him to be remembered as a man who "built" instead of "hated" after he died. After the meeting, Wallace pledged that there would be "no more violent incidents" and that he would make it happen, but he broke that promise by "[shifting] responsibility for policing the march to the federal government" (330, 331). Johnson was furious, but the march happened peacefully anyway, Wallace expressed repentance (sincere or not), and it all led to President Johnson signing the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in August.
Reflection
This was probably my favorite chapter; I loved reading about the tense meeting between Johnson and Wallace, and how the stony president towered over the nervous, squirming governor and how he got him to allow the demonstrators to march, and to let them register to vote (166,000 more voters!). It was interesting that Wallace tried to say that he didn't have the power to tell the country registrars to register African-Americans, and how Johnson countered that by "alluding to the extraordinary circumstance that in the 1964 election no Alabama voter was given the opportunity to vote for [him]" (325).
It confused me a little bit about how Wallace was "treacherous" and how it was bad that he relinquished control of the march to the federal government. I guess Johnson just wanted him to take responsibility and deal with it himself.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Chapter 19
Memory, History, and the March on Washington
Summary
The author of this chapter actually witnessed the March on Washington; it helped define him, and he wished he could go back. He lived in Los Alamos and watched most of the main civil rights events from a distance, but he found himself wishing that he could join the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). Although he went out of his shell and attended the University of New Mexico, he was still far away from the action. He was willing to join the march, but nervous about the "militancy" of others, such as Stokely Carmichael, an intense leader of the SNCC.
The SNCC "had defiantly established voter registration projects in those areas of the South where white supremacy was firmly entrenched," an important achievement for their civil rights campaign (305). They also held many public demonstrations, but attracted criticism for "[exerting] firm control over the event[s]" (306). This criticism of the march reshaped the author's views, as did the realization that the SNCC chair John Lewis' speech had been censored, although it was still powerful, urging "listeners to join the 'great social revolution sweeping our nation'" (308). Another memorable speaker was the legendary Martin Luther King Jr., although it was hard for the author to remember his initial impressions of the famous speech. He thought that King was a "cautious old leader," and he was more drawn to the more exciting actions of the SNCC. The author resented that, although King was obviously an important presence in the civil rights campaign, reporters focused more on him than on the hard work of the SNCC in the Deep South. He touched on his tendency to downplay King's historical significance, saying that without him, things probably would have followed a similar path. But gradually he began to realize that his perspective was limited; his appreciation for King has grown over time. Through editing his autobiography, he came to see the icon as a "vulnerable, fallible human being," and a "contemplative leader" (311). His speech was such a famous moment in history not only because of the importance of the words, but also because of King's "ability to excite the emotions of audiences through compelling words that expressed their best ideals" (313). The author concludes by reflecting on how the speech and the march were so significant, and how he felt part of a movement "that would make the world better" (316).
Reflection
I agree with the author that King would be pleased with what has happened in the past few decades, although he would have appreciated people keeping on his legacy more than a simple, tangible memorial. I also wish that I could have been there to witness King's speech and to be a part of such an "inexorable movement" that bettered the world and changed people's lives (316).
Another quote that stood out to me was Lewis' question, "Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to have Marches on Washington?" (308). It's sad and unfair that his speech about rights had to be censored. Don't people have the right to free speech?
Monday, September 2, 2013
Chapter 18
JFK and RFK Meet about Vietnam
Summary
In this chapter, the author invents some conversations that he imagined would have taken place between the two Kennedy's at a very important time in American history. John and Robert Kennedy had been brothers and "political collaborators" since 1952, and they definitely "conferred privately" about the dangerous issue of Vietnam as "questions about instability in South Vietnam mounted and advisers urged JFK to use American power to ensure the survival of an anti-Communist government," but the situation was not that simple at all (292). Some background information for these imagined conversations is necessary, including JFK's "reluctance to involve American troops in overseas conflicts," especially after the Bay of Pigs incident, and the fact that his military advisers were all for "the use of land and air forces to prevent a Communist takeover in Laos" (293). He and his brother definitely discussed their "dual concern" - wanting to save Vietnam from Communism without using U.S. forces (295).
They came up with a solution where they trained the South Vietnamese instead of directly fighting, but Kennedy was nervous because it might lead to pressure to become more involved. His fears were understandable; it quickly did lead to that. Another fear he probably talked to Bobby about was his determination to keep the government's actions out of the press (they were a "dangerous adversary") (295). Their strategy seemed to be working until they found out that it really wasn't. JFK knew that he needed a "stronger commitment to Saigon," and that came in the form of an order to get rid of the government in Vietnam and "stabilize the damn place," went the imagined conversation (297). But then, Diem was assassinated instead; JFK felt responsible for the bad results of the coup. He most likely shared with his brother some wise words about how bad it was to get involved with such an unstable place, and how they should have known that they wouldn't have been able to "compel an outcome [they] would prefer" (299). How would it have been different if Kennedy had had a second term to handle things in Vietnam?
Reflection
The brothers' personalities seemed to work very well together. They balanced each other out - JFK with his wit, charm, and passive tendencies, and Bobby, with his seriousness and aggressive outlook. Jack had the "wisdom to act wisely in the most difficult moments" (the sign of a great leader, as we saw with Lincoln), and Robert was full of "loyalty to his brother and capacity to grow in understanding," making them a great duo (300). Together they were able to handle the Vietnam situation well, and if they had been allowed to keep it up, things probably would have ended very differently.
Finally, a good quote from this chapter was JFK's statement during the missile crisis about how if they listened to the "brass hats," "none of [them would] be alive later to tell them that they were wrong" (292). He was right that the Defense Department had only "cojones," but not brains!
Summary
In this chapter, the author invents some conversations that he imagined would have taken place between the two Kennedy's at a very important time in American history. John and Robert Kennedy had been brothers and "political collaborators" since 1952, and they definitely "conferred privately" about the dangerous issue of Vietnam as "questions about instability in South Vietnam mounted and advisers urged JFK to use American power to ensure the survival of an anti-Communist government," but the situation was not that simple at all (292). Some background information for these imagined conversations is necessary, including JFK's "reluctance to involve American troops in overseas conflicts," especially after the Bay of Pigs incident, and the fact that his military advisers were all for "the use of land and air forces to prevent a Communist takeover in Laos" (293). He and his brother definitely discussed their "dual concern" - wanting to save Vietnam from Communism without using U.S. forces (295).
They came up with a solution where they trained the South Vietnamese instead of directly fighting, but Kennedy was nervous because it might lead to pressure to become more involved. His fears were understandable; it quickly did lead to that. Another fear he probably talked to Bobby about was his determination to keep the government's actions out of the press (they were a "dangerous adversary") (295). Their strategy seemed to be working until they found out that it really wasn't. JFK knew that he needed a "stronger commitment to Saigon," and that came in the form of an order to get rid of the government in Vietnam and "stabilize the damn place," went the imagined conversation (297). But then, Diem was assassinated instead; JFK felt responsible for the bad results of the coup. He most likely shared with his brother some wise words about how bad it was to get involved with such an unstable place, and how they should have known that they wouldn't have been able to "compel an outcome [they] would prefer" (299). How would it have been different if Kennedy had had a second term to handle things in Vietnam?
Reflection
The brothers' personalities seemed to work very well together. They balanced each other out - JFK with his wit, charm, and passive tendencies, and Bobby, with his seriousness and aggressive outlook. Jack had the "wisdom to act wisely in the most difficult moments" (the sign of a great leader, as we saw with Lincoln), and Robert was full of "loyalty to his brother and capacity to grow in understanding," making them a great duo (300). Together they were able to handle the Vietnam situation well, and if they had been allowed to keep it up, things probably would have ended very differently.
Finally, a good quote from this chapter was JFK's statement during the missile crisis about how if they listened to the "brass hats," "none of [them would] be alive later to tell them that they were wrong" (292). He was right that the Defense Department had only "cojones," but not brains!
Chapter 17
The Sick Man in the White House
Summary
This chapter deals with the condition of President Franklin Roosevelt in April of 1944, as WWII was still underway and the Allies were making little headway. Admiral McIntire, the president's personal physician, and many other physicians had been checking up on him, and were very worried about his "congestive heart failure and hypertension," and prescribed a strict regimen for him to follow (279). The problem was that no one wanted to tell the president about his "god-awful" condition, including McIntire, and for good reason (279). As the Admiral, who stayed firm to his belief that the president "never had a heart problem," said, "You can't simply say to him, 'Do this or that'" (280, 279). FDR was a stubborn man who never "[exhibited] undue concern" for himself, and he especially did not want to give up and not run for a fourth term, no matter how bad his heart was (282). He could not quit at the climax of the war, and everyone knew it, and perhaps that is why no one disclosed any real details to him about his failing health.
Reflection
Admiral McIntire's approach to FDR's health was not a very good one in my opinion. Keeping the truth from your patient (and yourself) can not possibly lead to a positive outcome, even though it didn't matter to Roosevelt, and he ran for a fourth term anyway. The Admiral's "look-see's" seemed careless to me - didn't he care about FDR's condition at all? If I had been given the honor of being the president's physician, I would have definitely been more thorough and honest with my very important patient.
I wonder if the advice from that column "How to Keep Well" holds true. If you forget about your condition, will that make it better? That doesn't seem very sound, and it didn't work for the president. He had a very stressful job with many responsibilities, so no matter if he thought about it or not, I think he was doomed from the very beginning.
Summary
This chapter deals with the condition of President Franklin Roosevelt in April of 1944, as WWII was still underway and the Allies were making little headway. Admiral McIntire, the president's personal physician, and many other physicians had been checking up on him, and were very worried about his "congestive heart failure and hypertension," and prescribed a strict regimen for him to follow (279). The problem was that no one wanted to tell the president about his "god-awful" condition, including McIntire, and for good reason (279). As the Admiral, who stayed firm to his belief that the president "never had a heart problem," said, "You can't simply say to him, 'Do this or that'" (280, 279). FDR was a stubborn man who never "[exhibited] undue concern" for himself, and he especially did not want to give up and not run for a fourth term, no matter how bad his heart was (282). He could not quit at the climax of the war, and everyone knew it, and perhaps that is why no one disclosed any real details to him about his failing health.
Reflection
Admiral McIntire's approach to FDR's health was not a very good one in my opinion. Keeping the truth from your patient (and yourself) can not possibly lead to a positive outcome, even though it didn't matter to Roosevelt, and he ran for a fourth term anyway. The Admiral's "look-see's" seemed careless to me - didn't he care about FDR's condition at all? If I had been given the honor of being the president's physician, I would have definitely been more thorough and honest with my very important patient.
I wonder if the advice from that column "How to Keep Well" holds true. If you forget about your condition, will that make it better? That doesn't seem very sound, and it didn't work for the president. He had a very stressful job with many responsibilities, so no matter if he thought about it or not, I think he was doomed from the very beginning.
Chapter 16
Lost-Found Nation
Summary
This chapter discusses the events surrounding the last known meeting between W.D. Fard and Elijah Muhammad in 1934, and the history of "the Nation of Islam - a faith that has usually done its level best to reject everything about America" (261). It all began with a man named Wallace Fard, who went around the slums, selling clothing, preaching, and doing magic tricks. Now how did this man ever gain a following? Well, he came to the black community at the right time, a time full of "radical religious departure" because they had never really been allowed to choose their own religion before (262). Something a lot of these new religions had in common was "a rejection of received white history and culture" (264).
Fard's invented theology, called "The Knowledge of Self and Others," took an interesting spin on that rejection. According to him, Allah was not a "spook god," but "the Original Man, and all his descendants - all of the black people of the earth - were the Original People" who had ruled the world before white people, an inferior race, had been invented through many "diabolical experiments" and somehow managed to take over (265, 266). Fard believed that he had come to bring the Original People back to power. He "stood the traditional white, American worldview on its head" by showing that the white people were the ones at fault, especially for creating slavery, leading to much of the American black nationalism then and today (267). A man named Elijah Poole from the slums found his salvation in the religion, and thought that Fard was the Messiah. He preached with him, learned from him, and became his #2 man, something that made other close followers jealous and caused them to turn away. To get them back, Fard came up with "The History of the End of the World," detailing the "imminent destruction of the white race" (272). Everything began to deteriorate, though, when a "sacrifice" by a believer got Fard arrested and attention drawn to his cult, but Elijah never backed down and kept running the Nation of Islam, even when Fard was sent away. When Elijah was arrested, however, the faith stalled until Malcolm X came along and helped it grow. The author would have loved to be there to see inside the minds of the two famous (or infamous) men, see their intentions, and more.
Reflection
Although Fard's ideas seemed completely crazy to me, the author did have a point when he mentioned that "they were no more crude, or bigoted, than the self-serving doctrines of social Darwinism," so it makes sense that African-Americans would feel drawn to the Nation of Islam (268). It probably made them feel like they had more power. At the same time, though, Fard's religion felt like fiction, like he had completely made it up, like he was in English class and his teacher told him to write a story including a protagonist, a villain, and a conflict.
I was shocked when I read that children were being taught this religion and how to hate white people, and they would be rewarded if they cut off the heads of four 'devils'" (273). That is the issue with many religions - they focus around hate. This kind of hate has been the root of so many problems in the world.
Summary
This chapter discusses the events surrounding the last known meeting between W.D. Fard and Elijah Muhammad in 1934, and the history of "the Nation of Islam - a faith that has usually done its level best to reject everything about America" (261). It all began with a man named Wallace Fard, who went around the slums, selling clothing, preaching, and doing magic tricks. Now how did this man ever gain a following? Well, he came to the black community at the right time, a time full of "radical religious departure" because they had never really been allowed to choose their own religion before (262). Something a lot of these new religions had in common was "a rejection of received white history and culture" (264).
Fard's invented theology, called "The Knowledge of Self and Others," took an interesting spin on that rejection. According to him, Allah was not a "spook god," but "the Original Man, and all his descendants - all of the black people of the earth - were the Original People" who had ruled the world before white people, an inferior race, had been invented through many "diabolical experiments" and somehow managed to take over (265, 266). Fard believed that he had come to bring the Original People back to power. He "stood the traditional white, American worldview on its head" by showing that the white people were the ones at fault, especially for creating slavery, leading to much of the American black nationalism then and today (267). A man named Elijah Poole from the slums found his salvation in the religion, and thought that Fard was the Messiah. He preached with him, learned from him, and became his #2 man, something that made other close followers jealous and caused them to turn away. To get them back, Fard came up with "The History of the End of the World," detailing the "imminent destruction of the white race" (272). Everything began to deteriorate, though, when a "sacrifice" by a believer got Fard arrested and attention drawn to his cult, but Elijah never backed down and kept running the Nation of Islam, even when Fard was sent away. When Elijah was arrested, however, the faith stalled until Malcolm X came along and helped it grow. The author would have loved to be there to see inside the minds of the two famous (or infamous) men, see their intentions, and more.
Reflection
Although Fard's ideas seemed completely crazy to me, the author did have a point when he mentioned that "they were no more crude, or bigoted, than the self-serving doctrines of social Darwinism," so it makes sense that African-Americans would feel drawn to the Nation of Islam (268). It probably made them feel like they had more power. At the same time, though, Fard's religion felt like fiction, like he had completely made it up, like he was in English class and his teacher told him to write a story including a protagonist, a villain, and a conflict.
I was shocked when I read that children were being taught this religion and how to hate white people, and they would be rewarded if they cut off the heads of four 'devils'" (273). That is the issue with many religions - they focus around hate. This kind of hate has been the root of so many problems in the world.
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Chapter 15
Trying John Scopes
Summary
In July of 1925, William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow, two prominent men of that time period, faced off during the court case State of Tennessee vs. John Scopes to debate the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution in schools. Although it was supposed to be "the showdown between science and religion, truth and faith, North and South," it didn't turn out to be anything like that (243). First of all, Bryan and Darrow weren't even in it from the start; the ACLU were the ones to actually tackle the Butler Act, an antievolution law. They, however, needed a teacher to test the law in court, and men from Dayton who wanted to put their town on the map chose John Scopes, a young substitute biology teacher, to be the defendant, and Bryan and Darrow eventually joined on as prosecution and defense, respectively, if not simply as a chance to go up against each other (244).
The trial was really a let-down becase prosecution didn't want the main idea of evolution to be debated; they wanted it simply to be "a case 'involving the fact as to whether or not a schoolteacher has taught a doctrine prohibited by statute'" (251). Therefore, when a testimony that Scopes straight-out admitted to teaching evolution came before the court, they believed that his guilt was sealed. But, the defense still had the "expert testimony" card and could attempt to prove "that there was no conflict between evolution and the Old Testament" and "show that its teaching was not a violation of the law" (252, 254). After Bryan bad-mouthed that approach, Malone, a member of the defense team, questioned in an impressive speech why the prosecution was so afraid of the broad issue, but the judge still ruled against the expert testimony, and Scopes was found guilty. The trial, however, still somehow became a legend, an important landmark in the battle between truth and faith.
Reflection
I didn't really understand how this trial came to be such an important moment in history if nothing of substance was really discussed, and since Scopes and evolution lost anyway. Also, if Bryan's case for faith was so "rudimentary and unschooled," why would the prosecution win (257)? Maybe there was a little bit of bias from the judge and the jury, but most likely because it was such a simple case, like a "traffic violation" (254).
The only thing that really seemed interesting to me was Malone's speech about open-mindedness that asked why Bryan and the prosecution were so afraid to meet the big issue. I really would have liked to be there to hear him "[look] to the heavens and [implore], 'For God's sake let the children have their minds kept open-close no doors to their knowledge'" (255). No one should poison the minds of impressionable children too early on; they need to let them figure out what they believe.
Summary
In July of 1925, William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow, two prominent men of that time period, faced off during the court case State of Tennessee vs. John Scopes to debate the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution in schools. Although it was supposed to be "the showdown between science and religion, truth and faith, North and South," it didn't turn out to be anything like that (243). First of all, Bryan and Darrow weren't even in it from the start; the ACLU were the ones to actually tackle the Butler Act, an antievolution law. They, however, needed a teacher to test the law in court, and men from Dayton who wanted to put their town on the map chose John Scopes, a young substitute biology teacher, to be the defendant, and Bryan and Darrow eventually joined on as prosecution and defense, respectively, if not simply as a chance to go up against each other (244).
The trial was really a let-down becase prosecution didn't want the main idea of evolution to be debated; they wanted it simply to be "a case 'involving the fact as to whether or not a schoolteacher has taught a doctrine prohibited by statute'" (251). Therefore, when a testimony that Scopes straight-out admitted to teaching evolution came before the court, they believed that his guilt was sealed. But, the defense still had the "expert testimony" card and could attempt to prove "that there was no conflict between evolution and the Old Testament" and "show that its teaching was not a violation of the law" (252, 254). After Bryan bad-mouthed that approach, Malone, a member of the defense team, questioned in an impressive speech why the prosecution was so afraid of the broad issue, but the judge still ruled against the expert testimony, and Scopes was found guilty. The trial, however, still somehow became a legend, an important landmark in the battle between truth and faith.
Reflection
I didn't really understand how this trial came to be such an important moment in history if nothing of substance was really discussed, and since Scopes and evolution lost anyway. Also, if Bryan's case for faith was so "rudimentary and unschooled," why would the prosecution win (257)? Maybe there was a little bit of bias from the judge and the jury, but most likely because it was such a simple case, like a "traffic violation" (254).
The only thing that really seemed interesting to me was Malone's speech about open-mindedness that asked why Bryan and the prosecution were so afraid to meet the big issue. I really would have liked to be there to hear him "[look] to the heavens and [implore], 'For God's sake let the children have their minds kept open-close no doors to their knowledge'" (255). No one should poison the minds of impressionable children too early on; they need to let them figure out what they believe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)