To Sir, With Love Reaction

To Sir With Love is a film that deals with social and racial issues within a school system. A Black Man named Mark Thackeray who accepts a job as a teacher despite having no teaching experience. It is clear from the beginning that the class he is assigned to is a "trouble class" as the students constantly misbehave. 

To Sir, With Love Cover

The students will often be loud, vandalize school property, and being disrespectful to Thackeray. Although Thackeray is the main target for their abuse, he takes no offense in it and remains composed throughout their antics. Something I picked up was even when the students misbehaved, rather than getting mad, Mr. Thackeray remained composed and spoke to the students in a calm but stern voice which they listened to. 

Although that is until he comes to class one day he does lose his temper. immediately he goes to the teachers room and vents to his colleague about how he shouldn't lose his temper.  After this he changes and becomes more stern with the students. He makes rules for the students and shutting down everyone counter argument. 

Due to Mr. Thackeray's actions of teaching the class discipline he is able to take them on a field trip. He and another teacher take the class on a trip to the museum. At first it was hard to say weather the school would approve this trip but due to the change of character in the students they were able to go. The students remained disciplined throughout the trip.

Field Trip

Through the rest of the movie the class has to deal with various situations. These situations mainly include standing up for one another and helping each other through tough times.

After the movie I talked a little bit with my peers to get their thoughts on the movie. although we shared unique thoughts there was one stance that we all agreed upon. Typically when we are going to watch a film there is normally a racial issue int he movie which the main character has to either overcome or the side characters learn to accept them. 

In this movie however I didn't see much evidence of racial prejudice. It was more like bullying the new kid.  The entire class was taunting Mr. Thackeray due to him being the new teacher. but over time Mr. Thackeray taught the kids disciplin and changed them to be respecting young adults. 

Mr. Thackeray

Bakke v. Regents of the University of California Mock-Trial Reaction

Todays Mock Trial brought us a very interesting case. The case of Bakke v. Regents of the University of California is a case similar to what we have seen before but also completely different. To give a quick summary of the case, Bakke is a white man who did not get into his choice of college due to him being white. 

Bakke Rally Poster

There are were many arguments on both sides as to why this should be allowed or not allowed but here are the few that stood out to me. 

Lynx said that we have to look at the students current circumstance. He said that not all of us are born with fair chances and college expectance rates should show that. He also said that some students are just more successful than others.  

Kasen how diversity on campus should be encouraged and how students learn better in a diverse environment. Lindsay also followed up by saying how it exposes students to a variety of experiences and views. 

Samantha made it a point in saying how people should not be judged on their race rather on their quality. she also discussed how race should not be the determining factor in ones education. 

Clara had probably one of the better arguments on her side as she brings up the problem thats starring us in the face. She said how this was "reverse discrimination" which can have negative consequences. She also said how some employers will turn down very qualified candidates in order to fill their racial quota. 

Protestors standing with Bakke

Overall this case was quite unique as its something that we have seen in the past but at the same time none of us would have thought of it. Personally I believe that Claras argument was the strongest as it mentioned the obvious factors at play here. One of them being how its discrimination based on race but also how it can harm us in the future as employers will higher under-qualified people just to fill a quota. 

Robert Smalls

While sitting in the airport terminal waiting to board my flight back home I was scrolling on Instagram to pass the time. Eventually I came across this short post about a former slave named Robert Smalls. This post intrigued me so I decided to do a bit more research into this person. What I found was probably one of the coolest life stories you can think. So here it is. 

Robert Smalls

Robert Smalls was born on April 5 1839 in Beaufort South Carolina. He was born into slavery where he was taken to Charleston, South Carolina, to be hired out to work. he worked various jobs such as Hotel Waiter,  Hack Driver, and Rigger. 

When the Civil war started in 1861 Robert was forced to work on the Confederate steam ship, named the CSS Planter. This ship was used for transporting and aiding the confederate soldiers with ammo and guns. Now here is where it gets interesting. In 1862 Robert and a few other enslaved people took control of the ship, picked up his wife and children while also picking up other enslaved people. They made it though Military checkpoints by using a secret code book and sailed their way to freedom. This made him a war hero in the North. 

About a year later in 1863 he was piloting another ship, this time for the union, named the USS Keokuk which was set out to bombard Fort Sumter. The ship took many hits and eventually sunk but Smalls's bravery didn't go un-noticed. He was given command over his own ship, named the USS Planter. It was the same ship Smalls took over earlier once the Union took ownership of it.  This made him the first African American captain in the U.S. Navy. 

After this he was in Philadelphia and was kicked off a streetcar for being black. he then lead a boycott of the transit system which lead to its desegregation.  

After the Civil war Smalls was a businessman back in Beaufort but quickly got into Politics. He was in the South Carolina House of Representatives from 1868 to 1870. and then served int he state senate from 1870 to 1874. He was then Elected into the U.S. House of Representatives. He did a lot of notable things but the most significant thing was integrating the U.S. armed forces. This basically made it so that Black people had an equal opportunity to join the army and have equal requirements for doing so. 

After his time in the House was up he retuned home and died peacefully in 1915 at the age of 75.

In 2007 the Army named a ship after him. It was named the USAV Major General Robert Smalls. According to the Army, it was the first ship to be named after an African American 

EOTO #4 ThurGood Marshall

Thurgood Marshall was elected to become the first African American to serve on the supreme court on the 30th of August 1967. Marshall won by a 69-11 vote by the United States Senate. Before the vote actually took place the senate had a long debate, which lasted about 6 hours, regarding Thurgood Marshall. The debate was mainly about his character and his prior experiences in law. Of course, being nominated by the president for the position and also being confirmed for two other government positions helped him out.

Thurgood Marshall

Looking into his Legal career he participated in many cases regarding Civil rights. 

Brown v. Board case

Murry v. Maryland (1936)

Missouri ex rel Gaines v. Canada (1938)

After this he took over the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund and argued the following cases 

McLaurin v. Oklahoma Board of Regents and Higher Education (1950)

Brown v. Board of Education. 

His arguments in favor of Civil Rights did not go unnoticed. President John F. Kennedy appointed him to the U.S. Court of Appeals. After Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson appointed him Solicitor General. The Solicitor General is someone who argues to the Supreme Court on the behalf of the United States Government. When Lyndon Johnson nominated him for the Supreme court position, he said that:

“Best qualified by training and by very valuable service to the country. … I believe it is the right thing to do, the right time to do it, the right man, the right place.”

Portait

Of course, during the actual debate regarding his position there was talk about him being a good fit for the supreme court. There were 5 senators who did not approve of him being a Justice with one of them saying it was a “Disservice to the Constitution and this Country to appoint a judicial activist to the supreme court at any time.” But Thurgood Marshall prevailed and with his 69-11 vote he became the first African American to serve on the Supreme Court.

Thurgood Marshall served for a total of 24 years on the U.S. Supreme Court before retiring in 1991. 

Marshall and his new friends

Driving Miss Daisy Reaction

Image Source

Today in class we watched a movie called "Driving Miss Daisy" which was made in 1989 and follows the story of a southerner named Daisy Werthan (Jessica Tandy), her son Boolie (Dan Aykroyd), and her driver Hoke Colburn (Morgan Freeman).

The movie has a very interesting start. We see Miss Daisy get into her car and immediately have as mall accident by backing into her neighbors yard. After this accident the insurance companies said that she is no longer allowed to drive herself. This also implies this isn't the first time an accident like this has happened. This makes her son Boolie hire a personal driver for her. He ends up hiering an African American man named Hoke Colburn. Holk caught Boolie's attention when he was seen helping fix an elevator. 

Image Source

At first Miss Daisy is not happy about this new arrangement. She can be described as a back seat driver and gets upset at Holk over little and minor things. The movie was set in the late 1940's to early 1950's
and it also took place before and after the Civil rights movement. We can see racial tendencies with Miss Daisy as not only does she disprove of his driving but also gets mad at other things. One of these things is getting mad at Holk for eating a $0.33 can of tuna. 

Over time however, Miss Daisy warms up to Holk and eventually they become friends. We can see their friendship at its height towards the end of the movie. At the end of the movie, its been years since Holk first became her driver. It was clear to me that Miss Daisy is suffering from some form of dementia however it only strengthens her and Holk's friendship. 

Image Source

Although its clear that Miss Daisy has some form of dementia however she still remembers Holk and remembers the good times they shared over the years.

Overall I thought this movie was great. The movie really shows how racial prejudice was around this time. I also thought it was nice how Miss Daisy and Holk were best friends at the end event hough Miss Daisy had dementia. 

EOTO#3 Reaction

 It was very interesting hearing todays EOTO presentations. Each presentation gave me new information about events that helped advance or eliminate segregation. 

Emmett Till

The presentation about Emmett Till that Lynx gave was very interesting. In the past I have done research and learned about the Emmett Till case, so going into the presentation I was already aware of the events that
happened. Its very sad to see how false accusations can have such a negative effect on the accused. Its also worth mentioning that Emit Till's mother wanted an open casket funeral which was a shock to most people. The idea was to show how black people are treated with even the smallest accusation with no evidence. 

Another notable presentation from this side was the presentation about Sundown towns given by Ariel. It was interesting to hear how some towns int he U.S. actually banned Black people. It was also surprising that some of these towns still exist today. 

Moving over to the other side of events that helped eliminate segregation I heard some really interesting stories and topics. I think the topics I liked the most were the two presentations given by Julia about the NAACP and the history of the negro college fund. 

NAACP Logo

The NAACP stands for "The National Association for Advancement of Colored People" and its goal was
to promote equality and get rid of racial prejudice. It was great to hear how this organization helped people of color by helping them win court cases. In total they won 29 out of the 32 court cases brought to the Supreme Court. 

As for the United Negro College Fund they aided more than 40 black colleges which helped black people find better employment after college. This organization helped money black people as they now had better education and therefore could find better jobs. they also gave out scholarships to colleges and funds to help with maintenance and materials. 

Overall each presentation was very well informing and I gained a lot mroe information about topics that are important to American History.

Brown v the Board of Education: Pro Segregation Law Argument

In the case of Brown v. The Board of Education 1954, the Browns case is that segregation within the school system is wrong and unconstitutional. I will provide information on why this is false and how segregating school systems is not unconstitutional.

Image Source

In 1896 there was a very similar case of racial segregation with a train system. An African American man boarded a white only train car. This was the Plessy v Ferguson case. The supreme court ruled that racial segregation shall be upheld. The case of Plessy v Ferguson proves that segregation is not unconstitutional as it upheld Louisiana state law. 

Let’s look at the 14th amendment shall we.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The part that I want everyone to pay attention to is this part. 

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;…

Now, what does this mean? 

Well, it means that no state should make or enforce laws that go against the rights of a citizen within that state. Based on this we can conclude that the state of Kansas, which this board of education resides, isn’t violating any law simply because they cannot legally do that. And remember this is a public school so the government is administrating and financing the public schools, not only in Kansas but around the country. 

Let me ask you. How is segregation of school going against these rules? How does segregating schools abridge the rights and privileges of black citizens? These black kids are still getting an education, they have the same necessities as a white kid would. They have textbooks, paper, pencils, teachers, and a place to learn. So how exactly are we violating their 14th amendment right when this is all true.

Image Source

We can also look at it another way. Take the 2nd amendment for example. The 2nd amendment states that the government shall not enforce any law that prohibits the citizens from owning and carrying a firearm. Pretty simple right? 

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state. The rights of the people, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Now, does this mean everyone can carry a gun on them? 

No.

 

In order to have a gun, you need to buy a gun. With money. Not everyone has money, so therefore not everyone can buy a gun. Is this violating someone’s constitutional right? 

No. 

What about this. Can convicted felons purchase and carry a gun on them? 

No. 

The reason for this is that the government has a right to protect its citizens and giving a gun to a convicted felon is like leaving candy Infront of a 5-year-old and telling them not to eat it. Anyway, back to the felon. Is this a violation of his/her 2nd amendment right, or in other words their constitutional right?

No.

You see just because someone is segregated doesn’t mean it’s a violation of their constitutional right. There are many examples other than segregated schools that, in your words, would violate the laws. 

Segregation is a necessary part of student education and the protection of white students and black students. 

Given the facts presented in both my argument and the opposing argument, there is not evidence to conclude that segregation of schools would be a violation of black student rights.

Reconstruction: America After the Civil War Reaction

After watching the video "Reconstruction: America After the Civil War" I became more aware of the injustice African Americans faced after the Civil War era. 

The video began by telling a story of a case from 2015. A 21 year old white man went to a bible study session at a local church in South Carolina. This man, identified as Dylann Roof, participated in the bible study for about an hour before opening fire and taking the lives of 9 Black people. 

The video went on to say how the emancipation proclamation changed the outcome of the Civil War as former slaves joined the union army and helped defeat the confederate soldiers. this act lead to African Americans being allowed to vote along with many other rights that they did not have before. 

Andrew Johnson

one of the more notable parts of the video was when they were talking about Andrew Johnson. During
Andrew Johnsons inauguration, he was greeted by Frederick Douglas. Johnson had an offensive tone towards Douglas  and showed some very racist and unpleasant behavior. Johnson also went as far as to say that he was unwilling to shake his hand. 

Another part of the video that I thought was interesting was the mention of the Freedman Bureau. the Freedman Bureau was mentioned both in class and in the video and was brought up during the EOTO presentation. It was also brought up in one of my previous posts about the KKK. 

The Freedman Bureau was a group, mainly comprising of African Americans, who helped other Africans Americans with education, healthcare, food, and clothing to those who have just been freed in the south. although consisting of majority African

Frederick Douglas

Americans, they did have some white supporters who helped transport goods to the southern states. 

Overall the video taught me a lot about the reconstruction period after the Civil War and its nice to see some of the topics mentioned int he video in class discussion.

Plessy v Ferguson Reaction

Plessy v Ferguson is a case where a man named Homer Plessy bought a train ticket and boarded a white only train car. When Plessy was caught he was arrested for violating state law. 

Image Source

The pro Plessy side made arguments pertaining to the economic factors, current factors and how white supremacy ties into all of it. They argued that this case gives white supremacists legal coverage. they also stated that Americans have a hard time already have a hard time promoting community and equality, this case harms these efforts as it subjects people to racism. 

One of the economic factors for the Pro Plessy side was the fact that the train companies had to have two different train cars costed more. Personally this statement didn't make sense to me. If it costed more to make an extra train car then they just simply wouldn't do it. Instead, they would simply prioritize who they sold a train ticket to. Also, because the train company did make another train car for African Americans then they wouldn't use the same materials to build the train car, they would use cheaper materials to lower costs. 

Image Source

Moving over to the Anti-Plessy side of the argument, the group discussed how the 14th amendment tied into everything. One of the speakers stated that the 14th amendment would only apply to someones political right but not their social right. another speaker stated that the federal government should not get in the way of state laws. they proceded to say that the state should have the right to make their own rules and regulations. 

This, in my opinion, is a very good argument for the Anti-Plessy side. Lets look at it another way. The 2nd Amendment says:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" 

Basically the 2nd Amendment says that the American people have the right to own a firearm. Now, most states have basic rules and regulations pertaining to firearm safety and carrying. some states require you to make a permit to carry a firearm. North Carolina, as of recently, doesn't require you to have a purchase permit to buy a handgun. States have a right to regulate laws as they see fit. 

One of the more notable arguments that both sides had was their law argument, which I took a particular interest in. starting with the pro Plessy side the two statement that I heard was, one, people have equal protection under the law, and two, if the court rules not in favor of Plessy then it would harm the 14th amendment and its practice. As for the anti-Plessy argument they stated that Plessy knowlingly violated the law. 

Image Source

This is another point where the Anti-Plessy side had an advantage over the Pro-Plessy side. if we are inly taking a look at the law the it is clear that Plessy is in the wrong. Homer Plessy knowingly bought a white only train ticket and boarded a white only train car. He knowingly violated the law and chances are this isnt the first time he has done something like this. regardless of what the law says everyone must respect it. now everyone has the right to protest the law as long as their not breaking the law in the process. This was not an act of protest but an act social disobedience. 

The argument for the Pro-Plessy side of the law had me question a few things that still put the Anti-Plessy side at an advantage. referring to the two statements from their case above, these point also have some holes. the first point was that people had equal protection under the laws, but when you think about it, what does that really mean? 

A part of the 14th amendment states the following: 

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction their of, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

This sentence says that all people are citizens of the state they live in. This means that as a citizen of their state must follow and obey the laws of their state. 

Another part of the 14th amendment says:

"No state shall make or enforce any law that shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;..."

If we look at this case in relation to this part of the 14th amendment there are are a few questions I have. 

1. Is the state law enforcing laws that go against what the 14th amendment says?

2. If so how?

The simple answer is no. Homer Plessy has all the same privileges and immunities as a white man would. Plessy is allowed to ride the train, same as a white man. Plessy is allowed to purchase a ticket and in turn allowed to handle U.S. currency, same as a white man. Because Plessy has money it can be implied that he has a job, same as a white man. 

This only shows how Plessy was arrested not because of racial intent but because he was violating the laws of the state and the laws of the train system. 

Overall each side had great arguments relating to the case and I look forward to the next trial. 

Reconstruction Era - EOTO - Ku Klux Klan

In 1866 a group of Confederate veterans located in Tennessee banded together with a common goal of restoring white supremacy in the United States. Together they formed the Ku Klux Klan, KKK for short. This isn’t to be confused with the Knights of the White Camelia, which was founded around the same time in Louisiana. The Klan named themselves after the Greek word Kyklos, which means Circle.

Image Source

In order to restore white supremacy, the Klan resorted to violence and intimidation tactics. This was also the reason why they wore White robes, it was to evoke fear and intimidate African Americans. One of their main targets at the time was a group called the Freedman Bureau. 

To give a little history of the Freedman Bureau, they were a group of African Americans who helped provide necessities such as food, clothing’s, healthcare, and education to Africans Americans in the south. This group didn’t only consist of African Americans but also had white supporters.

This group of people was the Klan’s main target and the Klan whipped and killed many of the Freedman supporters during nighttime raids.

The Klan quickly grew because of their presence at a convention on Nashville Tennessee. This conference was attended by a lot of representatives from other confederate states. The Klan also elected a Grand

Image Source

Wizard, a confederate general named Nathan Bedford Forrest. General Forrest was not one of the founders of the Klan, but it is believed that he was one of the first Grand Wizards of the Klan. 

The Klan reached its peak between 1868 and 1870. At this time, they successfully restored white rule in southern states such as Tennessee, Georgia, and North Carolina. This led to congress passing the Force act of 1870 and eventually the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. 

State v Mann Case Reaction

During the Mock Trial of the case of State v Mann I heard from the voices of members who believed that Mann should not receive a fine for his damages to the slave Lydia Some of the more notable arguments that I heard was from a slave point of view and the biblical side of this case. 

John Mann

One of the arguments was about how slavery was good for the African population. The speaker believed that Africans could not survive on this land on their own without help. They said that slave owners provided food, shelter, and warm clothes for them. The simple exchange for these goods is the slaves doing work for their masters. It was a unique take on a pro slavery argument however I believe that it doesn’t hold any place. This is because the case is about why Mann shouldn’t receive a fine. This argument more focuses on the reason why slavery should continue in the U.S. rather than the trial itself. 

The second argument, and the stronger argument in my opinion, was about the bible and how it condoned slavery. During his argument the speaker looked at specific verses in the bible that said slavery is not only ok, but mistreating slaves is also ok. He specifically states Exodus 21:20-21. Which

Bible

says that any form of punishment for a slave is ok if they don’t die. It was a very interesting take and the argument itself has a much better chance of holding in this case as it doesn’t take personal feelings into account and how it specifically mentions the treatment of slaves rather than the wellbeing of them. 

Overall, there were some great arguments on both sides during the trial. Personally, if I were the Judge I would rule in favor of Mann due to the superior arguments and facts of that side.

EOTO Reaction

During the EOTO Presentations I learned a lot about events that Advanced Slavery and the Founding Era. 

The speakers for the events that advanced slavery had some interesting information to share. Some of the things they talked about was the Missouri Compromise, the Kansas Nebraska Act, Bleeding Kansas, Dredd Scott v Stanford Case, and the Election of 1860. However, the two others that stuck out to me was the Fugitive slave act of 1850. 

I knew a little bit about the Fugitive slave act of 1850, but I never got a full clarified history of it. 

Image Source

The Fugitive Slave act of 1850 made it so that the government was responsible for the capture and returning of fugitive slaves, even when they are in a free state. This was surprising to me as I thought that it was the duty of the people to capture escaped slaves. I was also surprised to learn that people who captured the escaped slaves received a reward. 

The speakers for the Founding Era had stories and information to share on events that supported the abolishment of slavery. Some of the things they talked about was, the underground railroad, the abolition movement, the fugitive slave act, and the election of 1860. The most surprising presentation I learned was the American Anti-Slavery Society. 

The American Anti-Slavery Society were a group of people who were abolitionists who wanted slaves to be free. The group lasted from 1833 until 1870. The group believed that Slavery was a sin and they had agents all around the country spreading their beliefs which were very effective. This is one of the stories that I haven’t heard before and I found it very interesting how there was a group like this on this scale. 

Gone With The Wind Reaction

 

Gone with the wind was a, in my opinion, a rollercoaster of a movie about the American Civil War. Although it is about the American Civil War, the film doesn’t follow the solders, rather, it follows the story of a woman by the name of Scarlett O’Hara. 

Scarlett O'Hara

Scarlett O’Hara is the character that the film follows. She is a white woman who lives at her families cotton plantation in Georgia. When we are first introduced to Scarlett, we see her as, in short, an arrogant
brat who just wants the best of life. Immediately this puts a bad taste in my mouth because of the way she acts and behaves towards people. The only point’s where she plays as the sweet and honest girl is when she is in front of the man she wants to marry. Of course, it is later revealed that he will instead be marrying Scarlett’s best friend. We do see her attitude change over the course of the movie although it isn’t by much. 

Moving on to one of the more controversial aspects of the movie is how we see the ownership and treatment of slaves as well as the showing of the Confederate flag. 

Because the movie is primarily focused around Scarlett we don’t see much of how Slaves are treated in the movie. For a majority of the movie Scarlett treats her slaves with care, for the most part. In the movie there are two notable slaves, Mammie and Prissy. The actor who played Mammie, Hattie McDaniel, did win a award for her role in the movie. However, the actor who played Prissy was more notable. Not much is known about Prissy in the movie. She is perceived as "dumb" and "clumsy", but her treatment is a different story.

Prissy would often be criticized due to her actions as a result of how she is portrayed. at one point in the film, Prissy is slapped across the face by Scarlett. During the time that this movie takes place this would be normal behavior and treatment of slaves. 

The Confederate flag is shown in the movie during one particular scene where we see confederate soldiers
who have lost their lives during the battle. This scene has been discussed many times in news articles and TV interviews in the past. One of theme you can watch here by Inside Edition. some say that the movie should be banned and some say it should be put in a museum. Personally I don't think it should be banned. its a great movie that talks about the history of slavery and the American Civil War. Movies like this should be shared so we as a nation can study our own history. This can help us improve ourselves and help us avoid any situations in the future that can be caused by not viewing a movie like this. 

Overall the movie is great and perfectly fits into what we are studying as a class. I am excited to see the rest of the movie and see how it all unfolds.