History Coursework – The American Civil Rights Movement

ch eitherenge 1a What type of variety is sh admit in fountain 2?Question 1b How does cum atomic number 53 promote whats happening in beginning 2?In rootage 2 we pull in racial discrimination in the form of unintegrated drinking fountains for white men and drab men. Source 1 states you would eat in a separate set up and use a drinking fountain labelled coloured and in source 2 we see visual narrate of this happening.Question 2 What types of discrimination ar shown in sources 1-5?In source 1 Martin Luther top executive tells us that the faint man suffers segregation in hospitals, schools, parks, pools, waiting suite and are treated unjustly in the courtrooms. We are told this in this source 5. In source 3 we find that vehicles carrying black passengers had to wear a colour different and contrasting to the whites. We also find that airport facilities were segregated a great with position and betting when concerned with sport. Inter-racial boxing and wrestling was prohib ited.In source on the black right to vote was denied and promotion in a job went to your white co-worker, regardless of how much more endowment fund you had. Most blacks could only get jobs concerning menial manual labour. The formation of ghettos of blacks was support and this shows discrimination in housing. In source 4 we are told that a black person fears death because she is black flush more than ache hell and the devil. This is mental intimidation. In source 5 we are told that a black woman is killed simply because she spilt a drink over a white man. This is intimidation.Question 3 How tried and true are sources 7-10 as evidence of white nations reaction to desegregation is schools?Source 7 is a moderate source. This is how I came to this conclusion The New York Times is a re frame upable, famous publisher. It is renowned for its nonsubjectiveity, and it thinks that segregation is not the way to go. I am forced to ask, did the report cut out a pro-black section from the whole caption of schoolbook? If so, why? Would it waste been to please the main readers who share the view of the vernalsprint? Would it obligate been to curry up support or more readers? (Black readers). Is the newspaper politic whollyy biased? Is it voicing its notion through and through careful endurance of racial sources? Is it an eyewitness account? If so, who was this witness and if not then how long afterwards was this account written and how accurate are the words in the text? Is the text obligaten out of context? Was this all that happened on this day? The answer is more than presumable no because the conversation enter seems only to last a few seconds.Source 8 is another(prenominal) unreliable source. This is because the picture show could bedevil been cut down to focus in on Eckland when some occasion relevant could have been happening outside the frame. Photographers are sometimes biased and they might zoom in on a incident section or area in the photo that has a lesser importance than others etc. Was the takeer biased? We cannot tell for sure whether the helmeted guard is stopping Eckford from entering Little Rock or alter whites from her path. We also cannot be sure if the people behind her are shouting abuse or support still expressions are usually truly difficult to interpret, like these.The New York Times might use this render in its news report on this incident to increase support further and to please its volume audience, anti-segregationist whites. If a caption were included in this stunt woman, then it would convey a different image than it does captionless. In a caption, a writer could highlight the helmeted guard on the intense left, the crowd behind the black school missy or Eckford herself. If they presented a bad image of Eckford then it would make believable evidence (If collected from a reliable source). This source does not necessarily sum up the view of all whites, as only a small minority are shown. h otshot could predict that a stilt of whites had this same view or one could also predict that the students at Little Rock were the only racists in America at the time.Source nine is a direct, factual eyewitness account of what happened in source eight. Everything that is said is factual. There is no opinion and therefore no bias. I might ask was she really ado at or did she make that up for sympathy/pity? moreover if she lied, then why would she add in the part about that harmonized white man at the end if she wants to represent a prejudicial image of whites in general? The check up on the reliableness of this source, check out sources 7 and 8. 7 tells us that the whites disapproved of the black girl going into the school and 8 proves to us that Eckford was going into Little Rock, argon with a crowd of whites and a guard present.Question 4 How profitable is source 11 to an historiographer studying segregation in the south-central?Source 11 is a biased source. We can tell th is through the statement that was made segregation is desired and supported by the majority of both races in the South, who dwell side by side down the stairs harmonious conditions This is a blatant lie. Everyone around at that time new what a lie it was. Blacks do not live harmoniously with whites in the South. Eastland defends segregation in a very open manner. Segregation promotes racial harmonysegregation is not racial discrimination. We must take into circumstance that the person speaking has authority and is in the US Senate and is a Senator for the southerly State of Mississippi. A similar view to this is probably accepted by 80-90% of the gray population. White Anglo-Saxon Protestants take up nearly of the grey states.This source is unreliable because of its obvious bias but it is still useful. It shows us how southern W.A.S.P.s felt it tells us that they would try to justify the discrimination against blacks in America all way they could.. I would gamble that Eastlan d did not even believe the words he said during that speech. Blacks certainly wouldnt and southern Whites would see it as an excuse to continue discriminating and justifiably, in their eyes. This man objects to the controlling court ruling and the involvement of the Federal Government. To prove this here is a quote innocent men have the right to send their children to schools of their own choosing, free from political interference. This source does not represent all southern senators. We only have evidence that this represents one southern senator.To get the respectable picture we need the entire speech that he gave. He could have changed his tone further on in the speech for all we know. He is even prepared to introduce the states rights issue to win his argument Free men have the right to send their children to schools of their own choosing, free from governmental interference. There is a certain warped kind of logic plunge in his argument. It is useful because it shows us h ow some Whites defend segregation as a good idea.Question 5 How is the behaviour of white people towards black people shown in sources 8 and 12?Source 8 shows a crowd of Whites behind Eckford (on her way to school) shouting at her and Source 12 shows 3 civilian rights supporters sitting at a lunch counter designated for Whites only, being smeared with mustard, ketchup and paint. The offending crowds in both photographs portray accurately the views of bigoted whites at the time and the victims in each photograph demonstrate the view of liberal Whites.Question 6 Bob Dylan promoted the civil rights movement. How accurate is this view of Bob Dylans motives for physical composition The lonesome death of Hattie Carrol?This source induces a lot of questions such as what motives did Bob Dylan have for writing this vociferation? His motives were more than promising for financial gain, to become famous and to convey his message to all his fans. This source lacks an essential item-Dylans own view. It has the views of his ex-girlfriend, Joan Baez, Bernice Reagan, a black student activist from Albany and Patrick Humphries, author of numerous books on Dylan. plainly no Dylan. However this does not affect reliability.When Humphries criticises Dylan by saying He hi-jacked the folk bandwagon to his own ends to make a career. I think he means that Dylan used the work of others to further his career. He also implies that he is not only in it for a good image and that he is sincere. I agree to the extent that I think Dylan used the influences of folk artists but not their worl itself. He also implies that Dylan is temporarily involved in politics.Joan Baez does not doubt Dylans motives. She says she was the politically involved one of the couple maculation Dylan was simply in search of fame. Contrary to this statement, Baez also states that he put his principles before profit. Because she is the ex-girlfriend of Dylan, this source is not entirely reliable. She may be har sh towards Dylan because the relationship did not work out or she may be biased against him for the same reason. Another reason could be jealousy that Dylan was overflowing and she was not as a result of the break-up. She would be the most likely candidate to know Dylans motives because she was so close to him but she would also be most likely to be biased against him because their relationship failed.Reagan presumes that Dylan has integrity and is not a user. Also, she says he risked his career and that he was a power with a voice. She was impressed by Dylan and this shows he has a definite impact on people through his song writing. This song could be useful to a civil rights supporter like Bernice Reagan because it could be used, as evidence against racists and it would be a popular support for their case.Personally, I think Dylan was writing this song primarily to get the message across, very closely followed by his desire for bills and fame. If it was to be a money making song he would have had it neutral or anti Hattie Carrol because the Whites were the people who spent money on records at the time. Aiming the song at Blacks would not have been the smartest thing to do if he wanted to make money in 1930s America.Question 7 The life of American Blacks has undoubtedly improved since the 1950s. Using all the sources and your own knowledge, how far do you agree with this interpretation of the changes in the lives of American Blacks?Between the 50s and today, life has definitely improved for blacks living in America. They have the right to vote in both federal and state elections and were protect to vote. They had been released from the shackles of segregation and had achieved legal equality by the four civil rights acts passed in the 1960s o 1964 civil rights acto 1965 voting rights acto 1967 ruled by Supreme Court that state laws forbidding inter-racial marriages was against the reputationo 1968 civil rights act (fair housing act)But although laws w ere made and systems and procedures were changed it would take a lot longer to change the minds of racist whites. These achievements however do not prove that economical and social equality exists. A lot more work needs to be done i.e. attitudes of racists white towards blacks and those of blacks towards racist whites etc.The evidence used in these sources is limited and the implications made are determined by personal interpretation and above all most of the evidence is biased either towards or against blacks. Because the evidence is biased, either towards or against blacks. Because the evidence is biased and some sources contradict others it is made very wakeless to conclude with this evidence. Also, concerning personal interpretation it all depends on the attitude of the historian and attitudes will change undoubtedly over the next decade or so and will probably continue to change until the end of that historians life. in spite of the improvement blacks have experienced, a lot m ore improvements need to be made.Source 2 is an easily analysed source. It shows a segregates drinking fountain. This is not likely to be biased but we must still ask who took the photo? , Was he/she biased? , Has he/she left anything out of the picture for any reason? Also, what was the photograph taken? It is possible it was taken for a neutral source, as there is no caption. Given the right caption, this image could have a very different meaning where the photo is concerned.Source 3 tells us of the various different forms of segregation in waiting rooms, seating where sport was concerned, transport, inter-racial boxing and in other airport facilities. It simply states what the laws were.