OCR African American Civil Rights 1865 - 1992 (02 June)

Another Civil Rights student here!
Hoping that they miss out Trade Unions this year- still revising it but I just can't get my head around it...

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 41

Phteven

15

Original post by Spartz

Finally a Civil Tight thread! Hey a fellow student here also doing the exam on the 2nd can't believe how quick it's come round!
I've also adopted the tactic of missing out a topic and I've boycotted NA, couldn't stand that topic. Although I did read through it briefly yesterday in case worse comes to the worse, but either way I doubt I'll do it in the exam.

question:

What would you guys say is the most important turning point / motivating factor for AA economic rights??

P. S best way to structure is thematic SOCIAL /POLITICAL /ECONOMIC

Difficult. I'd be tempted to say WWII because black unemployment fell from 900,000 to 150,000. But the emergence of the ghettoes soon after suggests that it lacked significance. I'd problem question to what extent they made much progress economically, with ghettoes still being fairly prominent at the end of the period. What would you say?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 42

Spartz

4

Original post by StephenNaulls

Difficult. I'd be tempted to say WWII because black unemployment fell from 900,000 to 150,000. But the emergence of the ghettoes soon after suggests that it lacked significance. I'd problem question to what extent they made much progress economically, with ghettoes still being fairly prominent at the end of the period. What would you say?

Posted from TSR Mobile

I'm not sure if AA really achieved full economic rights, but certainly if I had to pick it would probably be the 1960s because of Kennedy's 'New Frontier' and LBJ Great Society which helped mend their economic situation by tackling poverty etc.. Also LBJ's 'affirmative action' policy (continued by Nixon) which helped AA get jobs (University of California v. Bakke base 1977)

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 43

Phteven

15

Original post by Spartz

I'm not sure if AA really achieved full economic rights, but certainly if I had to pick it would probably be the 1960s because of Kennedy's 'New Frontier' and LBJ Great Society which helped mend their economic situation by tackling poverty etc.. Also LBJ's 'affirmative action' policy (continued by Nixon) which helped AA get jobs (University of California v. Bakke base 1977)

Posted from TSR Mobile

University of California vs Bakke case found against affirmative action, didn't it?

Reply 44

Phteven

15

For the people that have all of their notes as social/political/economic, what do you have written socially for African Americans?

Reply 45

Spartz

4

Original post by StephenNaulls

University of California vs Bakke case found against affirmative action, didn't it?

Oh yeah you're right, was there a case that upheld it? You could perhaps use the Bakke case to evaluate the weakness of affirmative action then

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 46

Spartz

4

Original post by StephenNaulls

For the people that have all of their notes as social/political/economic, what do you have written socially for African Americans?

Social for AA which I define as (anti segregation/discrimination) I would include :

The reconstruction period: 13th ammendment, 1865 freed slaves
Enforcement Act, 1870 which outlawed the KKK

1920s Harlem Renaissance as black culture was embraced with jazz music etc (talk about Marcus Garvey back to africa movement) aswell

WW1+2 Great Migration as 500,000 AA moved north where segregation was less enforced also EO8802 in 1941 desegregation of armed industry.

1950s
Montgomery Bus Boycott, 1955-56 led to the Browder vs Gayle ruling in 1956 desegregated buses
Brown Vs Board of Ed 1954
Little Rock 9,1957

1960s
Civil Rights Act, 1964
MLK protest movement

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 47

Phteven

15

Original post by Spartz

Oh yeah you're right, was there a case that upheld it? You could perhaps use the Bakke case to evaluate the weakness of affirmative action then

Posted from TSR Mobile

I don't think so... the 1970s was a period of really contention towards civil rights. Bussing, along with affirmative action, received a lot of media attention. With conservative appointments to the S.C. there was a lot of regression compared to the 1960s. I do think that Regents vs Bakke said Affirmative Action was acceptable, but not based on race... which I guess reinforces that?

Reply 48

frisths

I think 1978 Regents v Baake started the move away from affirmative action as it judged that a white student had been unfairly discriminated against because of the university's affirmative action policies.
In favour of affirmative action was the 1971 Griggs v Duke Power Company decision.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 49

jezzalad8

Hi guys , what would you mention for obstacles to the civil rights movement ?????

Reply 50

Phteven

15

Original post by frisths

I think 1978 Regents v Baake started the move away from affirmative action as it judged that a white student had been unfairly discriminated against because of the university's affirmative action policies.
In favour of affirmative action was the 1971 Griggs v Duke Power Company decision.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I thought Griggs was ruling the use of intelligence tests unconstitutional? Definitely re-visiting Supreme Court tomorrow haha

EDIT: After the passage of the Civil Rights Act the company removed its racial restriction, but retained the high school diploma requirement, and added the requirement of an IQ test as well as the diploma.[4] Black applicants, less likely to hold a high school diploma and averaging lower scores on the IQ tests, were selected at a much lower rate for these positions compared to white candidates. It was found that white people who had been working at the firm for some time, but met neither of the requirements, performed their jobs as well as those that did meet the requirements.[3]

Wikipedia, but that's what i thought it was.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 51

frisths

Original post by StephenNaulls

I thought Griggs was ruling the use of intelligence tests unconstitutional? Definitely re-visiting Supreme Court tomorrow haha

EDIT: After the passage of the Civil Rights Act the company removed its racial restriction, but retained the high school diploma requirement, and added the requirement of an IQ test as well as the diploma.[4] Black applicants, less likely to hold a high school diploma and averaging lower scores on the IQ tests, were selected at a much lower rate for these positions compared to white candidates. It was found that white people who had been working at the firm for some time, but met neither of the requirements, performed their jobs as well as those that did meet the requirements.[3]

Wikipedia, but that's what i thought it was.

Yeah it is- but isn't that still affirmative action as it was judged unfair for African Americans to be expected to have a high school diploma considering their educational discrimination?

I could be wrong. I write out notes and then condense them, so somewhere I could have got confused.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 52

Em1599

Original post by StephenNaulls

I don't think so... the 1970s was a period of really contention towards civil rights. Bussing, along with affirmative action, received a lot of media attention. With conservative appointments to the S.C. there was a lot of regression compared to the 1960s. I do think that Regents vs Bakke said Affirmative Action was acceptable, but not based on race... which I guess reinforces that?

Upholding affirmative action was Griggs v Duke power company in 1971 (undermined by Bakke 7 years later) Increased AA workers from 1% to 12%. Hope that helps. Good luck everyone xx

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 53

ommie24

6

Woop, Civil Rights thread :biggrin:

I hope that Trade Unions, Native Americans and Women come up, they're awesome topics... African-Americans is one too much to learn...

Reply 54

Beccakate96

What sort of individuals/groups have people got for trade unions? I'm making a big mindmap for individuals/campaign groups in women, AA and TUs however the only thing in TUs I have are the unions themselves? (AFL-CIO, KOL, AA, NRU, etc). The only individual I have is A Philip Randolph (BSCP) however he comes more under African Americans? Am I missing anyone obvious?

Reply 55

Phteven

15

Original post by Beccakate96

What sort of individuals/groups have people got for trade unions? I'm making a big mindmap for individuals/campaign groups in women, AA and TUs however the only thing in TUs I have are the unions themselves? (AFL-CIO, KOL, AA, NRU, etc). The only individual I have is A Philip Randolph (BSCP) however he comes more under African Americans? Am I missing anyone obvious?

Samuel Gompers and Eugene Debs are probably noteworthy.

Reply 56

Mwansy

OP

1

If anyone is looking for any of the earlier mark schemes like from 2008, 2007, 2005 etc.. The paper you're looking for is 2591 so I would Google search something like 'History 2591 mark scheme' (although you'll have to know what year the question is from). For our exam (civil rights) if I remember correctly the questions 28, 29 and 30!

Reply 57

Dazed.

2

‘The actions of Native Americans themselves contributed nothing to the
advancement of their civil rights in the period from 1865 to 1992.’ To what extent do
you agree with this view?

How would people structure this? Would you offer an alernative e.g. fed govt?

Reply 58

Dazed.

2

Original post by jezzalad8

Would you argue that the Dawes Act, the Indian citizenship Act and the Indian new Deal were turning points ? And if so why?cant seem to get my head around them

Sorry for not replying sooner!
I tend to focus my turning point options as being positive just because I find it too confusing otherwise but I know negative turning points are optional too.

Dawes Act: Cause greater focus on assimilation and the allotment policy was created which in the long term caused much hardship and poverty and in many cases white americans bought the land because NA were in debt as were not used to managing land and currency.

Indian Citizenship Act: Significant because it brought NA into the franchise and could be considered as a reward for their war effort.

Indian Reorganization Act in New Deal: increased involvement of BIA but fed govt still had direct control; increased women's opportunities for training -> Tantaquidgeon read anthropology at university, women's opps was important because many of the tribal cultures were matriarchal societies.

In my essay about the turning points I said that the speech by Nixon to Congress on the 8th of July 1970 was the beginning of a turning point which culminated in the Indian self-determination act and education assistance act in 1975.

Hope some of this helps :smile:

Reply 59

Mwansy

OP

1

The way you structure it depends on whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with the statement. If I was doing it I'd disagree and structure it as follows:

In my opinion up until the 1940's Native Americans arguably contributed little to the advancement on their civil rights. In the early period, whilst the Sioux Wars showed Native Americans were asserting their rights, they did little in actually advancing their CR. Incidents such as the Battle of Little Bighorn, Sandcreek 1864, Wounded Knee 1890 illustrated the willingness of the Federal authorities to use violence against them. Bighorn in particular (a pyrrhic victory for NA) only led to more land loss.. the breaking of the Fort Laramie Treaty in 1868 is evidence of this so even though you could say it did show they were attempting to assert their CR through their own efforts this actually led to the loss of more land.

I would then contrast this with the period after 1940; the formation of the NCAI in 1944 was significant in being the first inter-tribal organisation to campaign for NA civil rights (can be compared to the NAACP). Also, it represented the first signs of NA unity which had bedevilled them up until this point - a contrast could be the SAI which had failed as a result of differences in the nature of Christian leadership and the traditional Pyote religion of the reservations (also, the SAI was run by assimilated Indians!). In some ways the NCAI also anticipated the 1970's movement with the creation of NARF who again, like the NAACP, systematically campaigned for NA civil rights.. I would then perhaps include some of their successes like U.S v Sioux Nation 1980 and the 1990 Native American Grave Protection Act as being the culmination of their efforts (for the synoptic element).

In a similar way the formation of AIDA in 1923 did aid NA's advancement of their CR, however this was not necessarily their actions! You could include AIDA's success in blocking the Leavitt Bill and Bursum Bill which protected Pueblo rights. Therefore changing attitudes in the 1920's was not as a result of their own efforts. For example ^^^ The tendency is to view the timing of the Indian Citizenship Act as a result of NA's own efforts during the war however I'd point out the context of the time, which was during the GVT's relentless drive for assimilation. This would mean that this was not the case especially as 2/3 of NA already had the vote! Also, the Meriam Report 1928, whilst being key in raising awareness of the plight of NA, had not been as a result of any campaign on the part of NA but rather as a recognition by philanthropists that the ALLOTMENT POLICY of the Dawes Act had to change.

I would then talk about the Federal GVT.. the New Deal and in particular Collier? Also Nixon's presidency but link it back to the question so you could say the Red Power movement's actions were influential in the passage of key legislation and then provide a counter argument (it was blamed for the slow implementation of legislative measures towards NA).

Just an idea! How would everyone else do it!? :biggrin:

OCR African American Civil Rights 1865 - 1992 (02 June)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you