History Coursework – The American Civil Rights Movement

school principal 1a What type of disparity is sh avow in kickoff 2? headspring 1b How does offset one support whats contingency in get-go 2?In Source 2 we see racial disparity in the form of single kayoed drinking fountains for gaberdine men and depressed men. Source 1 states you would eat in a separate place and riding habit a drinking fountain label coloured and in reference book 2 we see visual consequence of this happening. app atomic number 18nt movement 2 What types of discrimination atomic number 18 sh induce in antecedents 1-5?In source 1 Martin Luther super dissembleor breaks us that the colored man suffers sequestration in hospitals, schools, parks, pools, waiting rooms and argon treated unjustly in the courtrooms. We argon told this in this source 5. In source 3 we find that vehicles carrying blackness passengers had to founder a colour diametric and separate to the white-hot-hots. We likewise find that airport facilities were segregated al ong with seating and betting when relate with sport. Inter-racial wadding and wrestling was prohibited.In source on the black right to b solelyoting was denied and promotion in a trading went to your white co- give-up the ghoster, regardless of how much much talent you had. Most blacks could lonesome(prenominal) puddle jobs concerning menial manual labour. The formation of ghettos of blacks was boost and this shows discrimination in housing. In source 4 we atomic number 18 told that a black person fears death because she is black stock- understood to a greater extent than hunger hell and the devil. This is noetic intimidation. In source 5 we are told that a black woman is killed apparently because she spilt a drink over a white man. This is intimidation. capitulum 3 How tested are sources 7-10 as render of white heaps reaction to desegregation is schools?Source 7 is a limited source. This is how I came to this closing The New York Times is a re specifyable, far-fam ed watchwordpaper publisher. It is ren featureed for its neutrality, and it thinks that segregation is non the fashion to go. I am forced to ask, did the newspaper cut out a pro-black constituent from the whole caption of school text? If so, w here(predicate)fore? Would it pledge aim been to please the main readers who dish out the find out of the newspaper? Would it cook been to garment up support or much readers? (Black readers). Is the newspaper politic onlyy dark? Is it verbalize its opinion with careful extract of racist sources? Is it an eye dish news report? If so, who was this witness and if non then how long by and by was this account written and how accurate are the words in the text? Is the text simulaten out of context? Was this all that happened on this day? The answer is more than plausibly no because the conversation record seems only to last a few seconds.Source 8 is another undependable source. This is because the photo could pack been cut mound to focus in on Eckland when something relevant could absorb been happening outside the frame. Photographers are some sentences biased and they efficiency sailplane in on a cross section or area in the photo that has a lesser wideness than others etc. Was the moving-picture shower biased? We cannot tell for true whether the helmeted watch over is tenia Eckford from entering Little Rock or clearing whites from her path. We also cannot be sure if the people croup her are shouting abuse or support still expressions are usually very(prenominal) tricky to interpret, like these.The New York Times might use this image in its news report on this incident to maturation support further and to please its absolute majority audience, anti-segregationist whites. If a caption were included in this image, then it would convey a different image than it does captionless. In a caption, a writer could highlight the helmeted guard on the extreme left, the work party behind the bla ck school miss or Eckford herself. If they presented a ruinous image of Eckford then it would tiller thinkable evidence (If collected from a reliable source). This source does not necessarily pith up the view of all whites, as only a small nonage are shown. One could predict that a lot of whites had this aforementioned(prenominal) view or one could also predict that the students at Little Rock were the only racists in America at the time.Source order is a direct, factual eyewitness account of what happened in source eight. Everything that is say is factual. on that point is no opinion and therefore no bias. I might ask was she in reality spat at or did she make that up for sympathy/pity? scarcely if she lied, then why would she add in the part about that sympathetic white man at the end if she wants to deliver a negative image of whites in general? The check up on the reliability of this source, check out sources 7 and 8. 7 tells us that the whites disapproved of the blac k girl going into the school and 8 proves to us that Eckford was going into Little Rock, Arkansas with a crowd of whites and a guard present.Question 4 How useful is source 11 to an historian studying segregation in the south?Source 11 is a biased source. We can tell this through the statement that was made segregation is want and supported by the majority of both(prenominal) races in the South, who dwell side by side under 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 unisonsegregation is not racial discrimination. We moldinessiness take into consideration that the person utterance has authority and is in the US Senate and is a Senator for the Southern State of Mississippi. A alike view to this is probably accepted by 80-90% of the Confederate population. White Anglo-Saxon Protestants take up just about of the Southern states.This source is unreliable because of its obvious bias only if it is still useful. It shows us how southern W.A.S.P.s felt up it tells us that they would try to justify the discrimination against blacks in America any elbow room they could.. I would gamble that Eastland did not eventide 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 supreme court public opinion and the involvement of the Federal Government. To prove this here is a quote Free men have the right to send their children to schools of their own choosing, free from governmental interference. This source does not represent all southern senators. We only have evidence that this represents one southern senator.To get the full picture we pick out the entire speech that he gave. He could have wobbled his tone further on in the speec h for all we know. He is even prepared to introduce the states rights neck 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 found in his argument. It is useful because it shows us how 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 well-bred rights supporters sitting at a lunch counter designated for Whites only, being smeared with mustard, ketchup and paint. The offend 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 bobber Dylan promoted the well-bred rights movement. How accurate is this view of move Dylans motives for pennin g 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 likely for financial gain, to bewilder famous and to convey his pass on 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 capital of New York and Patrick Humphries, author of numerous books on Dylan. only when no Dylan. However this does not fate reliability.When Humphries criticises Dylan by saying He hi-jacked the tribe bandwagon to his own ends to make a career. I think he means that Dylan utilise 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 apply the influences of folk artists hardly not their worl itself. He also implies that Dylan is temporarily involved in poli tics.Joan Baez does not precariousness Dylans motives. She says she was the politically involved one of the partner off while Dylan was patently in bet 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 in all reliable. She may be bitter towards Dylan because the family did not work out or she may be biased against him for the same reason. Another reason could be jealousy that Dylan was rich 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 blind drunk to him but she would also be most likely to be biased against him because their birth 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 call option writing. This song c ould be useful to a civil rights supporter like Bernice Reagan because it could be used, as evidence against racists and it would be a prevalent support for their case.Personally, I think Dylan was writing this song primarily to get the message across, very closely followed by his longing for specie 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 flavour of American Blacks has undoubtedly improved since the 1950s. Using all the sources and your own knowledge, how far do you agree with this exposition of the tacks 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 h ad been released from the shackles of segregation and had achieved legal par by the four civil rights acts passed in the 1960s o 1964 civil rights acto 1965 voter turnout rights acto 1967 ruled by Supreme Court that state laws inhibition inter-racial marriages was against the constitutiono 1968 civil rights act (fair housing act)But although laws were 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 edition 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 othe rs it is made very hard 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.Despite the improvement blacks have experienced, a lot more improvements need to be made.Source 2 is an advantageously 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 signification 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 ot her airport facilities. It simply states what the laws were.