Boston Busing Crisis

I agree that, in the long run, busing helped Boston because it desegregated the school system, providing equal educational opportunity for minority students, and set the stage for racial healing and an improved racial climate in the twenty-first century.

Regarding school desegregation, a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in 1987 found that school desegregation had been successful. they based this decision on three factors: that the number of single-race schools had decreased; that good faith had been exercised in the attempts by the School Board to desegregate; and that desegregation had been implemented to the greatest extent possible. On the third point, the court remarked, "Little in the record […] suggests that implementation beyond what presently exists is likely to be obtained." On the basis of the court's observation, we can conclude that desegregation was successful.

The second point is dependent on the first; i.e., successful school desegregation by its very nature guarantees that there will be equal educational opportunity for minority students. While metrics for equal opportunity are difficult to quantify, two statistics offered in the textbook provide some substantiation. First, the dropout rate among Boston high school students decreased to below the national average; second, the college graduation rate among alumni of Boston high schools tripled over the same period. These data provide sound proof of an improved educational situation. If the lack of segregation can be considered proof of equal opportunity, then opportunity not only was extended but actually improved.[1]

Finally, racial healing and an improved racial climate did in fact emerge after school desegregation in Boston. Here, the political career of Mayor Ray Flynn is instructive. As noted in the text, Flynn was able to secure a successful citizen referendum on replacement of the elected school board, which had been the locus of resistance to desegregation during the busing crisis. That voters would approve such a measure is indicative that the worst of bad feelings had passed. Although there are occasional outbursts of racism as there sadly are in most areas of the United States, these incidents are less common, and racial violence has virtually disappeared.

=====

     [1] Morgan v. Nucci, 831 F.2d 313 (1st Cir. 1987), accessed February 6, 2017, http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/831/313/398470/

The King Assassination and Black Nationalism Ascendant

The effect of the assassination of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on the civil rights movement was profound because Dr. King was the most visible and most politically "acceptable" of the leaders of the movement to white Americans. There were a variety of consequences to his assassination, which were both immediate and more remote. For instance, in the immediate aftermath of Dr. King's assassination, there were riots in the inner cities across the country, as simmering anger at continuing conditions of racial oppression exploded in rage at the assassination. President Lyndon Johnson mobilized the National Guard the day after the assassination and largely suppressed further rioting, although sporadic violence continued into the following month.

A more remote effect was a shift in the tactics of the remaining leaders in the civil rights movement. Although Dr. King's widow Coretta Scott King and his closest associates urged a non-violent response to the assassination, younger leaders in the movement saw in King's murder the end of civil disobedience and the beginning of armed struggle. The ascendance of the Black Panther Party, which had existed before King's assassination, into a leading role in the struggle for black liberation is a clear effect of the assassination, and the willingness of the Black Panthers to use violence in self-defense arguably caused a dramatic shift in the civil rights movement from that point forward.

Although it is unclear whether there would have been this evolution in the civil rights movement without Dr. King's murder, it is fairly clear that it would have happened more slowly, if at all. As noted, the Black Panthers were already in operation in 1968, and they had been preceded by more militant and separatist organizations willing to use violence, including the Nation of Islam. King himself had warned in his "Letter From Birmingham Jail" in 1964 that the failure of white Americans to embrace a moderate such as himself might result in the ascent of black radicals and nationalists, and he mentioned the Nation of Islam specifically in this context.

Moreover, it is often forgotten that Dr. King was assassinated the night before he intended to support striking sanitation workers in Memphis, Tennessee. It is therefore often forgotten that the civil rights movement under King's leadership might have moved in a direction of social justice more aligned with a struggle for economic justice. Although this theme was always present in Dr. King's work and in his rhetoric, it is possible that the movement-wing tack after April 1968. Although many in the more militant black nationalist movements of the late 1960s and early 1970s embraced Marxism, they failed to achieve recognition among the older generation of activists who rejected violence even in self-defense.

Finally, I would argue that the rejection of non-violence by the civil rights movement following Dr. King's assassination was a necessary factor in its ultimate successes. Although most of the work had been done in securing voting rights for Southern African-American voters by the time of King's murder, and the Fair Housing Act was signed by President Johnson merely a week after the former's death, the issues of police brutality in the inner cities across the country and particularly in Los Angeles might have remained issues unknown to many Americans without the visible responses of the Black Panthers. Although these are issues that obviously still pertain to the African-American experience in the United States to some extent, the days of military-style assault on black neighborhoods by police are largely a thing of the past, thanks in no small part to the armed resistance of the Black Panthers.

Class as a Factor in Feminist Leadership

The selection from the text that I've chosen to discuss is the following:

The situation was exacerbated, according to Lisa Tetrault, because women could earn a living through the lyceum lecture circuit in the 1870s - 1880s, a popular form of entertainment and adult education featuring traveling lecturers and performers. They came to expect similar payment, typically between $10 and $100 per lecture, for an appearance at a suffrage meeting. Suffrage organizations thus had to compete with the lecture circuit when they paid speakers appearing at meetings or at their annual conventions at the state or national level.[1]

I chose this excerpt to establish the cause and effect, respectively, between the professional lecture circuit of the early 20th century and the increased influence of money on the politics of the women's movement. Although the first impression of the thesis of this article might be that money affected the culture of the women's movement, this passage demonstrates that the relationship ran in both directions. Because women could earn money as lecturers, they expected that, regardless of the cause for which they might be speaking, they would be paid to speak at suffragist meetings. As a result, the infusion of larger amounts of money became necessary to stage these lectures, which were themselves integral to convincing people of the righteousness of the cause.

Beyond this point, the article does not really clarify the economic hardships of women campaigning for suffrage. Rather, the article focuses almost entirely on wealthy women and the impact they had on the movement. The one place in the article I could find that discusses women who were not wealthy was the following: "Similarly, women began to give large amounts to make change for women in society, not simply to assist poor women but rather to broaden women’s educational opportunities, as well as political and reproductive rights."[2]

Money, it seems, was a major factor in identifying targets, devising strategies, and even locating political offices. Class, it turns out, was a major factor. On second thought, however, perhaps this fact is not very surprising. Lenin said that revolutionary parties could only be successful under the leadership of party vanguards of professional revolutionaries of bourgeois background – himself a chief example. Revolutionary as the women's movement was for its time, perhaps we ought not be surprised that this observation of Lenin's held in this case.

=====

     [1] Joan Marie Johnson, "Following the Money: Wealthy Women, Feminism, and the American Suffrage Movement," Journal of Women's History, 27, no. 4 (Winter 2015): 65-66.
     [2] Ibid, 64.

Quebecois Immigration to New England

The selection from the reading that I've chosen to discuss is the following:

Industrialization, well under way by the 1860s, created a stiff demand for workers in the textile and boot and shoe industries. Laborers were also needed in building construction and in canal and railroad work. The native and Irish-immigrant labor force present in New England in 1865 could not meet the labor demands of industry.[1]

The context in this case is that of economic expansion due to industrialization in post-Civil War New England. Although these jobs, primarily in textile factories, were taken by native-born working-class laborers or relatively recent Irish immigrants, the sheer growth of the industrial economy in Lowell elsewhere following the war provided more jobs than the existing demographic groups could fill. Therefore, they were hired for these jobs. The result was that, despite some resistance to their arrival, the Quebecois established themselves in the Lowell area and were even able to support increased immigration from their home because there was a steady supply of jobs available to those who decided to come to the United States.

To me, this excerpt is important because it demonstrates the extent to which an immigrant group can become successful by virtue of coming to occupy a niche in the existing economy or a role in the growing economy. As we see in the United States today, immigrant groups are sometimes resented due to the impressions, whether real or imagined, that they will take the jobs of existing jobs away from longer-established immigrant groups or native-born citizens. In the same way as Latin American immigrants work in niche jobs such as those in California's agricultural regions, Quebecois coming to Massachusetts in the 1860s onward obtained employment in a specific industry in a specific place.

In terms of the reasons for the Quebecois influx, the article is abundantly clear that a lack of industrialization in rural Canada led to the immigration of Quebecois to New England, where industrialization was already going ahead at a rapid rate. Some of the points mentioned by the author later in the article, such as marriage trends between Quebecois immigrants and the Irish population, would be interesting to learn more about. She notes that there was actually a surplus of Quebecois women in Lowell, so Quebecois men did not have to return home to marry or risk cultural and linguistic eradication by marrying American Catholics [2]; however, it is not clear what the case was outside of Lowell.

=====
     [1] Frances H. Early, "Mobility Potential and the Quality of Life in Working-Class Lowell, Massachusetts: The French Canadians ca. 1870," Labour / La Travaille, 2 (1977): 218.
     [2] Ibid, 227. The selection from the reading that I've chosen to discuss is the following:

Industrialization, well under way by the 1860s, created a stiff demand for workers in the textile and boot and shoe industries. Laborers were also needed in building construction and in canal and railroad work. The native and Irish-immigrant labor force present in New England in 1865 could not meet the labor demands of industry.[1]

The context in this case is that of economic expansion due to industrialization in post-Civil War New England. Although these jobs, primarily in textile factories, were taken by native-born working-class laborers or relatively recent Irish immigrants, the sheer growth of the industrial economy in Lowell elsewhere following the war provided more jobs than the existing demographic groups could fill. Therefore, they were hired for these jobs. The result was that, despite some resistance to their arrival, the Quebecois established themselves in the Lowell area and were even able to support increased immigration from their home because there was a steady supply of jobs available to those who decided to come to the United States.

To me, this excerpt is important because it demonstrates the extent to which an immigrant group can become successful by virtue of coming to occupy a niche in the existing economy or a role in the growing economy. As we see in the United States today, immigrant groups are sometimes resented due to the impressions, whether real or imagined, that they will take the jobs of existing jobs away from longer-established immigrant groups or native-born citizens. In the same way as Latin American immigrants work in niche jobs such as those in California's agricultural regions, Quebecois coming to Massachusetts in the 1860s onward obtained employment in a specific industry in a specific place.

In terms of the reasons for the Quebecois influx, the article is abundantly clear that a lack of industrialization in rural Canada led to the immigration of Quebecois to New England, where industrialization was already going ahead at a rapid rate. Some of the points mentioned by the author later in the article, such as marriage trends between Quebecois immigrants and the Irish population, would be interesting to learn more about. She notes that there was actually a surplus of Quebecois women in Lowell, so Quebecois men did not have to return home to marry or risk cultural and linguistic eradication by marrying American Catholics [2]; however, it is not clear what the case was outside of Lowell.

=====
     [1] Frances H. Early, "Mobility Potential and the Quality of Life in Working-Class Lowell, Massachusetts: The French Canadians ca. 1870," Labour / La Travaille, 2 (1977): 218.
     [2] Ibid, 227.

Irish-Americans, Baseball, Whiteness

Here's my first discussion post for HIS-200: Applied History.

=====

The selection from the text that I've chosen to discuss is the following:

In contrast, the other main non-English immigrant group of the period, the Germans (Cohn 1995), assimilated much more easily. While language was a problem, they were more highly educated and skilled than the Irish. In 1860 German men were most highly concentrated in skilled crafts, in contrast to the Irish, who were disproportionately made up of unskilled laborers (Conley and Galenson 1998: 471). Also, German immigrants had been preceded by numerous fellow "countrymen" during the previous century who had paved the way by establishing themselves economically and socially in America. The stereotypical German was hardworking, disciplined, earnest, and frugal (Gerlach 2002: 39).[1]

I chose this passage because it demonstrates to me not only aspects of the change over time in perceptions of the Irish, but also of the Germans. On the one hand, as the readings and common sense indicate, the Irish were grossly and negatively stereotyped, and this perception of the Irish -- and, in fact, their "acceptance" into the larger American "white race" -- changed radically as immigration from other parts of Europe increased and as emancipation of African Americans resulted in increased competition for unskilled labor. The case of Germans reflects even more changes. For some Americans, their initial interaction with Germans was in the form of Hessian mercenaries who fought for the British in the War for Independence. While this experience might have cast Germans in a negative light initially, the passage makes it clear that the economic circumstances of German immigrants, as well as the Lutheran faith of many (but not all) of them, eased their transition despite the language barrier that they faced. Germans ultimately came to make up the majority of Midwesterners and Plains residents owing to the Homestead Act, and even with periods of negative perceptions of Germans during both world wars, Germans now make up a plurality of all white Americans, indicating a highly successful immigration experience overall.

As indicated above, part of the integration of Irish Americans is the process of their being made "white" by the surrounding society and culture. As I already noted, much of this transition involved not only the economic upward mobility of Irish Americans, but also the immigration of other, presumably even less "white" people from southern and eastern Europe and competition between Irish and African Americans post-Civil War. The article on Irish players in baseball offers addition, econometric and statistical information to substantiate how Irish Americans were mainstreamed. By proving statistically, including in tables,[2] that Irish American players were essentially forced to be better players in order to overcome discrimination, the visibility of Irish American players increased in the public eye and normalized Irish Americans among non-Irish fans. Interestingly, the author also shows that German players were comparatively less talented than Irish players,[3] demonstrating less of a need to overcome prejudice in hiring. In any case, the Irish overcame prejudice in the United States through a variety of means, and mainstreaming via major league baseball played a not insignificant role.

=====

     [1] E. Woodrow Eckard, "Anti-Irish Job Discrimination circa 1880: Evidence from Major League Baseball," Social Science History, 34, no. 4 (Winter 2010): 410.
     [2] Ibid, 425, 427.
     [3] Ibid, 432.

A New Year and a New Term

I finished my World War II class back in December and had a couple of weeks off before starting my second-to-last history class, one called Applied History. It's a lower-level class, which I'll follow with a thesis writing class. Since I started a new job in late November, and I'm currently teaching two literature classes to boot, I wanted to give myself a bit of a break for now.

Discussion posts from Applied History to follow over the next six or seven weeks.

Balancing Act: Bombing the Auschwitz Rail Lines

The inherent conflict between the strategic and humanitarian concerns of the Allies as the war drew to a close is perhaps best symbolized by certain aspects of the Holocaust. One of the major ethical debates that has arise out of the Holocaust is the decision by the Allied forces not to bomb the rail lines leading to Auschwitz, the single deadliest of the Nazi extermination camps. While a consensus has arisen since the end of the war that bombing the rail lines was impractical and could actually have done more harm than good, a persistent minority of voices has insisted that the Allies should have done anything possible to prevent or delay the extermination process.

The majority position on this question was well stated by Peter Novick, in his book The Holocaust in American Life. He points out that the precision of Allied bombers was such that perhaps as many as a third of the bombs dropped on the camp would have hit prisoners' barracks. Moreover, experience with the strategic bombing had indicated that bombing of rail lines was actually quite ineffective. Novick concludes, "the current received version -- a fruitful opportunity, fervently pressed and frivolously dismissed -- must contend with the strong possibility that this ambivalently presented suggestion was a well-intentioned but misbegotten idea that we can perhaps be grateful was turned down."[1]

The minority position is represented by David Wyman, in his book The Abandonment of the Jews. Wyman focuses much of his argument on the bombing of rail lines specifically to prevent the deportations of Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz and elsewhere in the summer and fall of 1944. He lays the blame at the feet of the Roosevelt administration and specifically the War Refugee Board. Conversely, he rejects arguments about the feasibility and efficacy of bombing the rail lines and the preference of the Operational Plans Division to bomb industrial targets. "In reality, Auschwitz was part of those target systems," Wyman writes. "OPD was either uninformed or untruthful."[2]

For my own part, I come down on the side of the majority position as expressed by Novick. In either case, the debate brings to the fore the matter of whether a balance can struck between strategic and humanitarian goals. I don't think that they can: strategic goals or concerns will always override humanitarian goals. In considering this question, I often think of the current situation in North Korea. On the one hand, North Korea is easily the most repressive state in the world today. Its leadership cares so little about its own people that the country has regularly experienced famine while the ruling elite lives in luxury. It is a situation that virtually calls out for humanitarian intervention. On the other hand, North Korea has nuclear weapons, and any attempt to intervene militarily in its affairs would almost certainly be answered with the deployment of these weapons. The strategic concerns must outweigh the humanitarian concerns.

=====

     [1] Peter Novick, The Holocaust in American Life (New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 1999), 58.
     [2] David S. Wyman, The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941-1945 (New York: Pantheon, 1984), 297.