What themes stood out most to you in the assigned readings and lecture this week? What questions did the lectures and readings raise for you? Please post your responses in the comment section below.
The theme that stood out to me most from the week was how conditions in Harlem were extremely worse than that of the rest of the city. There were many reasons for this, but two that I found most compelling were attitudes toward family relations and price of rent. Slavery destroyed family ties, and it was interesting to find out how that, as well as economic conditions, impacted stabilities at home even years after abolition. A principal at a school in Harlem stated that 669 out of 1,600 students came from a broken home. From 1914 to 1927, there was an increase in crime committed by children, which could have been the result of these broken homes and poor living conditions. The price of rent and the percentage of income it cost for blacks in Harlem appalled me. Rent in Harlem was roughly 7-10 dollars more than the average in the rest of Manhattan, but blacks were pretty much forced to live in Harlem. Also, blacks were working jobs that earned them less wages than whites, making the struggle even harder. We learned that black leaders such as Marcus Garvey and W.E.B. Du Bois had conflict, and there was tension between black immigrants from the West Indies and African Americans. A question I had from the week was, how and when did this tension eventually stop?
This week, in the readings and the lecture, we talked about the intra-racial relationship between Blacks from the South and Blacks from the Caribbean. Even though they had similar appearance, they had very different family values, cultures and religious beliefs. However, the outsiders viewed them all as a homogeneous group. I think this even happens today, when people see all African Americans as one group, all Asians as one group, all Native Americans as one group, but ignore the individual differences. Another thing that stood out to me was the disagreement between Garvey and Du Bois, even though they were both opposed to colonialism in Africa--Garvey believed in the nationalism and reclaiming the homeland of Africa, "Africa for Africans"; Du Bois believed that racial situation in U.S. was different and supported the enfranchisement of Blacks and welcomed White allies.
I thought the biggest theme this week were the social issues that occurred in the United States around the time of World War 1. The Palmer raids and Red Scare seemed particularly interesting. They were a sort of predecessor to Mccarthyism in the 1950s, and investigations conducted by the Justice Department laid the groundwork for the modern FBI. The Red Scare was driven by the Bolsheviks' belief that communism would spread from the Soviet Union to the rest of the world. The one question that I have is can the actions of of Palmer and his supporters - the seizure of newspapers and incarceration of socialists like - be justified?
The readings and lectures this week focused a lot on Harlem and the movement of Blacks there. The discussion from Osofsky's, "The Making of a Ghetto," about the differences between the Blacks that were settling in Harlem stood out in particular. The Blacks in Harlem were coming from the South and the Caribbean, and even though they were the same race, they differed in how they viewed labor, family life, and prejudices. In American society, Blacks were typically doing menial labor, which for those who came from the south was expected, but for the immigrants, it was seen as a sign of social degradation. In terms of family life, slavery killed the idea of family for American Blacks, while Black immigrants centered their lives around their family. Lastly, many Black immigrants had come from countries in which race was not something they were victimized for, and rather they were differentiated by their class distinction. When they moved to America, the prejudices were mainly dependent on race, so this was something many had to figure out how to deal with. How did the intra-racial relationship evolve?
I found the word “transportation” as the catch all phrase to denote African American's travel to the north by trains and as a mechanism of migration in general interesting. Along with chain migration, which included those African Americans who sometimes migrated from rural areas to southern cities and then would be picked up my labor agencies and taken to northern cities for work. I was a little confused on the other aspect of chain migration, I believe it also included those African Americans who had connections in the northern cities? Another topic this week was obviously ghettoization, I found it interesting how Dr. Dickerson described the ghetto as a designated residential area into which a particular group of people is corralled. Corralled seemed harsh at first but with the high rents in outside areas and violence that kept them in the ghetto I can see the truth in that choice in wording.
I'm curious of the effect the opportunity to invest in the UNIA had on the migration of blacks to urban areas and adoption of black nationalist/zionist ideals. This mobilization was so large that it must have intrigued some corporations as a means to attract more labor... did corporations appeal to the black nationalist/zionist ideals, and if so, in which ways? I could imagine the possibility that some corporations invested in the UNIA to keep it afloat, or labor agents convinced Southern families to migrate on the promise of the opportunity to invest in these stocks. Prof. Dickerson said that Garvey never paid dividends, so with that information, how did these groups respond after Garvey's incarceration and deportation?
The thing that stood out the most to me was the radical nationalist ideas of Marcus Garvey. It's one thing that he wanted to get "Africa for the Africans," but the power he obtained through his campaigns and movements is astounding. He dramatically encouraged change, and drew huge crowds to his speeches. At the same time, he fought people whom he should have allied with, like W.E.B. Du Bois and A. Phillip Randolph, and had very little knowledge of the business field. Contrary to the ideas of Social Darwinism, this Jamaican immigrant became the leader of a phenomena for African American independence and rights.
I think what interested me the most is the dichotomy between how influential Marcus Garvey actually was during this early 20th century era and how little we hear about him today compared to other prominent black leaders like Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. I think this has to do with Marcus Garvey ultimately not accomplishing the overall goals of the UNIA in the way MLK was able to with his anti-segregation movements. While he was a catalyst in change for African-Americans, Garvey ultimately did not create the "black nation" he envisioned. My main question is what policies occurred in places like Harlem that continued to plunge the area into ghetto status rather than raising it out of that state?
What surprised me the most in this week's readings and lectures was the rapid success Marcus Garvey had in growing the power and influence of the Universal Negro Improvement Association. In spite of his lack of understanding of the true American racial landscape, he was able to move headquarters of his UNIA movement from Jamaica to Harlem and within a matter of years, by 1919, have membership purportedly reach 2 million while taking ownership of a shipping company, Hotel, university, and standing militia. He also did this with a major lack of support from other Black advancement organizations like the NAACP. I am curious as to which organization held more influence on the streets by which they operated from, in the New York borough of Harlem
What stood out to me this week was the large migration of African Americans, from both the southern states of the US and from several other countries, to Harlem, making it the black capital of the world. The color of their skin the only similar characteristic, an entire culture emerged with churches, athletics, and welfare capitalism coming to fruition. The proletarianization process for these workers didn’t come easy, as many moved from factory to factory in an attempt to find the best working conditions. My question is why exactly was Harlem the place so many migrated to? Was it because it had the necessary industrial attraction or were there other factors that caused this?
I found our discussion on Garveyism very interesting in this weeks lectures and reading. Despite his lofty goals and naive ideas on American society, Garvey managed to mobilize so many African Americans to fight for his cause. I found it especially shocking that he believed an alliance with the KKK would be beneficial to his cause, showing how little he understood about race relations in the US. My question is if there were any other prominent black nationalists during that time that held his same beliefs, or if most agreed with Du Bois that the future of African Americans remained in America?
The discussion of Garveyism and the movement he led was most interesting to me this week. I found it very interesting how different Garvey's strategies were from men like W.E.B. Du Bois. Garvey believed that in order to prevent blacks from being treated as lesser peoples they must create their own nation in Africa. Rather than fight to remedy the situation at home, Garvey wanted to leave America behind all together. I was impressed by how many different aspects were involved in the UNIA. There was a hotel, newspaper, army, steam ship, and even a church all a part of this movement. I was surprised at how naive Garvey was in believing that his lofty ambitions were possible. My main question is: What happened to all the members and supporters of Garvey in America after he was deported?
The most interesting thing in lecture and the readings this week for me was the intra-racial relations between blacks from different regions. I had never learned about this before, and it was fascinating to learn about how these interactions affected the lives of blacks in Harlem and across urban centers in the United States. The enmity between foreign born and american blacks was rather surprising, I did not expect such a ":vicious" response from American blacks. It became apparent to me that slavery had effectively reinvented the American black, creating an entirely new culture and society. The arriving foreign blacks harbored cultural and societal ideas akin to the whites, such as paternal supremacy in the household. This difference, coupled with competition led to a type of intra-racism. Similar to how different ethnicity whites were treated a few decades earlier. My question from this week is, to what extent did the animosity between foreign born blacks and american blacks hinder/hurt the battle for civil rights?
I thought that the ghettoization of blacks in northern cities was an interesting aspect of the lecture this week. During the Great Migration, many blacks moved to the northern cities, most notably Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, etc. in order to escape the oppression that was present in the south and find more opportunity in the north. Even though the north did present greater opportunity for African Americans, I find it ironic that they were still greatly oppressed in the north, one of the things they tried to escape in the south. They lived in the ghettos, which presented abysmal living conditions. Furthermore, they actually presented more problems with racial tensions when whites began to riot when the ghettos were being expanded closer to white neighborhoods.
I am particularly interested in the ideological differences between Garvey and the more traditional african american leaders (such as W.E.B Dubois). Garvey and his idea of a black-zionist is particular interesting to me, and I am surprised that it gained so much traction at the time. Although I can certainly understand why african americans were so dissatisfied with their conditions at the time, I am surprised so many decided it would be better to give up on American reform (I realize that most still did not take this view, but it definitely gained traction under Garvey). My biggest question would be why so many africans americans decided to emigrate to Africa rather than build on their successes domestically with organizations such as the NAACP?
The theme that stood out to me most from the week was how conditions in Harlem were extremely worse than that of the rest of the city. There were many reasons for this, but two that I found most compelling were attitudes toward family relations and price of rent. Slavery destroyed family ties, and it was interesting to find out how that, as well as economic conditions, impacted stabilities at home even years after abolition. A principal at a school in Harlem stated that 669 out of 1,600 students came from a broken home. From 1914 to 1927, there was an increase in crime committed by children, which could have been the result of these broken homes and poor living conditions. The price of rent and the percentage of income it cost for blacks in Harlem appalled me. Rent in Harlem was roughly 7-10 dollars more than the average in the rest of Manhattan, but blacks were pretty much forced to live in Harlem. Also, blacks were working jobs that earned them less wages than whites, making the struggle even harder. We learned that black leaders such as Marcus Garvey and W.E.B. Du Bois had conflict, and there was tension between black immigrants from the West Indies and African Americans. A question I had from the week was, how and when did this tension eventually stop?
ReplyDeleteThis week, in the readings and the lecture, we talked about the intra-racial relationship between Blacks from the South and Blacks from the Caribbean. Even though they had similar appearance, they had very different family values, cultures and religious beliefs. However, the outsiders viewed them all as a homogeneous group. I think this even happens today, when people see all African Americans as one group, all Asians as one group, all Native Americans as one group, but ignore the individual differences. Another thing that stood out to me was the disagreement between Garvey and Du Bois, even though they were both opposed to colonialism in Africa--Garvey believed in the nationalism and reclaiming the homeland of Africa, "Africa for Africans"; Du Bois believed that racial situation in U.S. was different and supported the enfranchisement of Blacks and welcomed White allies.
ReplyDeleteI thought the biggest theme this week were the social issues that occurred in the United States around the time of World War 1. The Palmer raids and Red Scare seemed particularly interesting. They were a sort of predecessor to Mccarthyism in the 1950s, and investigations conducted by the Justice Department laid the groundwork for the modern FBI. The Red Scare was driven by the Bolsheviks' belief that communism would spread from the Soviet Union to the rest of the world. The one question that I have is can the actions of of Palmer and his supporters - the seizure of newspapers and incarceration of socialists like - be justified?
ReplyDeleteThe readings and lectures this week focused a lot on Harlem and the movement of Blacks there. The discussion from Osofsky's, "The Making of a Ghetto," about the differences between the Blacks that were settling in Harlem stood out in particular. The Blacks in Harlem were coming from the South and the Caribbean, and even though they were the same race, they differed in how they viewed labor, family life, and prejudices. In American society, Blacks were typically doing menial labor, which for those who came from the south was expected, but for the immigrants, it was seen as a sign of social degradation. In terms of family life, slavery killed the idea of family for American Blacks, while Black immigrants centered their lives around their family. Lastly, many Black immigrants had come from countries in which race was not something they were victimized for, and rather they were differentiated by their class distinction. When they moved to America, the prejudices were mainly dependent on race, so this was something many had to figure out how to deal with. How did the intra-racial relationship evolve?
ReplyDeleteI found the word “transportation” as the catch all phrase to denote African American's travel to the north by trains and as a mechanism of migration in general interesting. Along with chain migration, which included those African Americans who sometimes migrated from rural areas to southern cities and then would be picked up my labor agencies and taken to northern cities for work. I was a little confused on the other aspect of chain migration, I believe it also included those African Americans who had connections in the northern cities? Another topic this week was obviously ghettoization, I found it interesting how Dr. Dickerson described the ghetto as a designated residential area into which a particular group of people is corralled. Corralled seemed harsh at first but with the high rents in outside areas and violence that kept them in the ghetto I can see the truth in that choice in wording.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious of the effect the opportunity to invest in the UNIA had on the migration of blacks to urban areas and adoption of black nationalist/zionist ideals. This mobilization was so large that it must have intrigued some corporations as a means to attract more labor... did corporations appeal to the black nationalist/zionist ideals, and if so, in which ways? I could imagine the possibility that some corporations invested in the UNIA to keep it afloat, or labor agents convinced Southern families to migrate on the promise of the opportunity to invest in these stocks. Prof. Dickerson said that Garvey never paid dividends, so with that information, how did these groups respond after Garvey's incarceration and deportation?
ReplyDeleteThe thing that stood out the most to me was the radical nationalist ideas of Marcus Garvey. It's one thing that he wanted to get "Africa for the Africans," but the power he obtained through his campaigns and movements is astounding. He dramatically encouraged change, and drew huge crowds to his speeches. At the same time, he fought people whom he should have allied with, like W.E.B. Du Bois and A. Phillip Randolph, and had very little knowledge of the business field. Contrary to the ideas of Social Darwinism, this Jamaican immigrant became the leader of a phenomena for African American independence and rights.
ReplyDeleteI think what interested me the most is the dichotomy between how influential Marcus Garvey actually was during this early 20th century era and how little we hear about him today compared to other prominent black leaders like Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. I think this has to do with Marcus Garvey ultimately not accomplishing the overall goals of the UNIA in the way MLK was able to with his anti-segregation movements. While he was a catalyst in change for African-Americans, Garvey ultimately did not create the "black nation" he envisioned. My main question is what policies occurred in places like Harlem that continued to plunge the area into ghetto status rather than raising it out of that state?
ReplyDeleteWhat surprised me the most in this week's readings and lectures was the rapid success Marcus Garvey had in growing the power and influence of the Universal Negro Improvement Association. In spite of his lack of understanding of the true American racial landscape, he was able to move headquarters of his UNIA movement from Jamaica to Harlem and within a matter of years, by 1919, have membership purportedly reach 2 million while taking ownership of a shipping company, Hotel, university, and standing militia. He also did this with a major lack of support from other Black advancement organizations like the NAACP. I am curious as to which organization held more influence on the streets by which they operated from, in the New York borough of Harlem
ReplyDeleteWhat stood out to me this week was the large migration of African Americans, from both the southern states of the US and from several other countries, to Harlem, making it the black capital of the world. The color of their skin the only similar characteristic, an entire culture emerged with churches, athletics, and welfare capitalism coming to fruition. The proletarianization process for these workers didn’t come easy, as many moved from factory to factory in an attempt to find the best working conditions. My question is why exactly was Harlem the place so many migrated to? Was it because it had the necessary industrial attraction or were there other factors that caused this?
ReplyDeleteI found our discussion on Garveyism very interesting in this weeks lectures and reading. Despite his lofty goals and naive ideas on American society, Garvey managed to mobilize so many African Americans to fight for his cause. I found it especially shocking that he believed an alliance with the KKK would be beneficial to his cause, showing how little he understood about race relations in the US. My question is if there were any other prominent black nationalists during that time that held his same beliefs, or if most agreed with Du Bois that the future of African Americans remained in America?
ReplyDeleteThe discussion of Garveyism and the movement he led was most interesting to me this week. I found it very interesting how different Garvey's strategies were from men like W.E.B. Du Bois. Garvey believed that in order to prevent blacks from being treated as lesser peoples they must create their own nation in Africa. Rather than fight to remedy the situation at home, Garvey wanted to leave America behind all together. I was impressed by how many different aspects were involved in the UNIA. There was a hotel, newspaper, army, steam ship, and even a church all a part of this movement. I was surprised at how naive Garvey was in believing that his lofty ambitions were possible. My main question is: What happened to all the members and supporters of Garvey in America after he was deported?
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting thing in lecture and the readings this week for me was the intra-racial relations between blacks from different regions. I had never learned about this before, and it was fascinating to learn about how these interactions affected the lives of blacks in Harlem and across urban centers in the United States. The enmity between foreign born and american blacks was rather surprising, I did not expect such a ":vicious" response from American blacks. It became apparent to me that slavery had effectively reinvented the American black, creating an entirely new culture and society. The arriving foreign blacks harbored cultural and societal ideas akin to the whites, such as paternal supremacy in the household. This difference, coupled with competition led to a type of intra-racism. Similar to how different ethnicity whites were treated a few decades earlier. My question from this week is, to what extent did the animosity between foreign born blacks and american blacks hinder/hurt the battle for civil rights?
ReplyDeleteI thought that the ghettoization of blacks in northern cities was an interesting aspect of the lecture this week. During the Great Migration, many blacks moved to the northern cities, most notably Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, etc. in order to escape the oppression that was present in the south and find more opportunity in the north. Even though the north did present greater opportunity for African Americans, I find it ironic that they were still greatly oppressed in the north, one of the things they tried to escape in the south. They lived in the ghettos, which presented abysmal living conditions. Furthermore, they actually presented more problems with racial tensions when whites began to riot when the ghettos were being expanded closer to white neighborhoods.
ReplyDeleteI am particularly interested in the ideological differences between Garvey and the more traditional african american leaders (such as W.E.B Dubois). Garvey and his idea of a black-zionist is particular interesting to me, and I am surprised that it gained so much traction at the time. Although I can certainly understand why african americans were so dissatisfied with their conditions at the time, I am surprised so many decided it would be better to give up on American reform (I realize that most still did not take this view, but it definitely gained traction under Garvey). My biggest question would be why so many africans americans decided to emigrate to Africa rather than build on their successes domestically with organizations such as the NAACP?
ReplyDelete