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.
One theme that stood out to me most this week was the various impacts of World War II on the US, both governmentally and socially. Another theme that stood out to me was black migration and the ghettoization of Harlem in the early 20th century. These raised questions what happened to African Americans who moved North after the wartime production ceased. Additionally, it raised questions of what avenues were used to solve the problem of exploding ghettos.
I find it interesting that there are always so many strategies within history to achieve that same goal. It is crazy that Garvey and DuBois couldn't find common ground and join forces in order to fight for the rights of African-Americans. I wonder how much more successful they would have been if they had worked together.
One theme that stood out in particular this week was the ghettoization and subsequent living conditions of the areas with a large black population, such as in Chicago’s Southside. There were mass incidences of overcrowding, disease, crime, poverty and pollution. They were also common locations of “vices”, facing gambling, prostitution and alcohol problems which were “zoned” at the ghettos. Furthermore it was significantly difficult for people to move out, with poor quality education and legal and customary methodology keeping people in by making other areas unavailable through high rent, violence and the withholding of information. What was particularly striking to me was that even considering this, due to higher wages and sharecroppers’ cash being taken by landowners and storekeepers in the South, migrating to the North in areas like this was still a better alternative for most black migrants.
One of the most interesting themes raised in the week's lectures and readings was the massive impact caused by the black migration from the rural south to urban cities in the north. The migration sprung several cycles and systems into motion: ghettoization, proletarianation, and the separation of several different racial advancement strategies. Marcus Garvey and his idea of Black nationalism inspired a big nation-wide (arguably world wide) movement of local communities rallying behind some of his ideas. Ghettos began appearing, and with them, the localization of vice in the ghettos. The entire environment of the city was changed, and the mass number of migrants, mixed with a large number of immigrants from the Caribbean, changed the cultural climate of cities as well. Harlem was the booming center of this action, serving as the center for Garvey, the cultural center with the Harlem Renaissance, and a booming industrial center offering jobs for the newly arrived. These factors irreversibly changed the landscape of the US city.
This week we learned about the mass migration of African Americans from the South to the Northeast and Midwest during the 20th century. To a great extent this occurred as a result of World War I and the subsequent halt of European immigration. Immigrants from Europe had historically been employed in large numbers at factories. Without the steady flow of these workers to the U.S. companies turned to African Americans in the South who were trapped by the crop lean systems and actively recruited them. African Americans used the opportunity to leave the South in search of better wages and more consistent work. The large diaspora of African Americans to the North led the ghettoization of cities as African Americans were sectioned off into particular impoverished parts of the city by social forces. This congregation of African Americans however gave rise to many important social movements like the black nationalist movement led by Marcus Garvey in Harlem. Given it's diverse community of African Americans from the South as well as the Caribbean, Harlem was the perfect incubator for such a movement. The movement advocated "Africa for the Africans" and believed that the destiny of Africans throughout America could be realized by returning to the continent itself. The black nationalist movement led by Garvey was unprecedented in scope and was a result of the diaspora of African Americans to cities. One question I have is how the South responded to this diaspora?How did losing so many workers affect them and what did they do about it?
This week, a theme that stood out to me was intra-racial diversity. I found it very interesting that there were so many opposing perspectives within the movement for black advancement. For example, Marcus Garvey was a black Zionist, while W.E.B. DuBois did not support the idea of an all black nation. Because the large migration of African Americans from the South to the North brought about a mixing of cultures, there were many different understandings of the movement for black advancement. Although African Americans hoped to find freedom and equality in the North, their opportunities were limited and they faced continuing racial tensions with white workers who competed for industrial jobs. There were many different solutions proposed to remedy this problem, and intra-racial diversity added to the many different perspectives. My question would be what caused the migration of international black people from areas like the Caribbean.
A theme that stood out for me in this week's readings and lectures is the difference in beliefs of Garvey and Du Bois on colonialism. Both Garvey and Du Bois believed in "Africa for the Africans", meaning that colonialists in Africa that were not Africans (European, Dutch, etc.) should let native Africans colonize their own land. The difference between the two is that Garvey believed African Americans should go back to their homeland in Africa. Du Bois, on the other hand, believed that colonization in Africa did not include African Americans moving back to Africa. My question is how did people react to Garvey's ideas? African Americans are still in America, obviously, but did a mass population listen to Garvey's ideas and move back to Africa?
What stood out to me this week was the huge shift in the racial dynamics in America after World War I. I did not know about the huge prevalence of non-American black migrants in the Great Migration. I was left wondering how the huge influx of Caribbean immigrants helped start the Harlem Renaissance. Was the Harlem Renaissance caused more by the newfound creative opportunities or was it driven by the increasing cultural diversity in black America. I also figured that there were major changes to the political culture in America as a result of the great migration because many of the blacks who had been disenfranchised in the south could now vote.
The theme that stood out to me this week was Garvey's radical plan to improve the lives of African-Americans and how he gained support. First, his plan to reclaim Africa as a homeland for blacks intrigued me because of how different it was from the plans of other black leaders, such as Du Bois. However, moving millions of African-Americans to another continent was both impractical and impossible. Yet, Garvey garnered an unprecedented amount of support. This was partly due to his placement of the UNIA HQ in Harlem, the black capital of America. My biggest question is, why didn't Garvey do more with the mass of support he had, other than his impractical plan of moving back to Africa?
Something that stood out to me this week was the competition/opposition to Garvey's ideas. Most notably, Du Bois, who is also fighting for African-American equal rights, criticized Garvey and said his ideals were greatly flawed. This came as a shock to me because I would have assumed that since they are fighting for the same cause they would try and be united rather than split. Also, the extreme reach of Garvey's ideas stood out to me. Professor Dickerson explain how his movements reached even the smallest American town, including his hometown. It makes me curious, if so many people supported Garvey why did none of his grand plans play out?
One thing that stood out to me this week was how drastically different approaches people can take to try to change the same situation. For example, both Garvey and Du Bois were trying to change the situation for blacks, but they had very different views on how to do it and what results would be considered successful. Garvey thought African Americans could go back to Africa, while Du Bois focused his efforts on making blacks successful in America. Were these two ideas so different that they worked against each other, or could they have been more successful if both had taken a more moderate stance?
A theme that stood out to me this week was the ghettoization of Northeastern and Midwestern cities. Ghettoization was the process in which groups of people were corralled into areas with poor living conditions with little opportunity to move beyond the designated areas. The African Americans who migrated to the North in search of more prosperous lives were the people who were forced into these substandard, overcrowded, and often diseased ghettos. When the African Americans tried to improve their social standing and get out of the ghetto, there were often consequences. For example, Dr. Ossian Sweet tried to buy a house in a white neighborhood in Detroit in 1925. He faced extreme hatred and racism as a mob of angry white people crowded his residence. Considering we talked extensively this week about the Northeast and Midwest one question I had was: what was the role of African Americans out west during this time?
One theme that stood out to me most this week was the various impacts of World War II on the US, both governmentally and socially. Another theme that stood out to me was black migration and the ghettoization of Harlem in the early 20th century. These raised questions what happened to African Americans who moved North after the wartime production ceased. Additionally, it raised questions of what avenues were used to solve the problem of exploding ghettos.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that there are always so many strategies within history to achieve that same goal. It is crazy that Garvey and DuBois couldn't find common ground and join forces in order to fight for the rights of African-Americans. I wonder how much more successful they would have been if they had worked together.
ReplyDeleteOne theme that stood out in particular this week was the ghettoization and subsequent living conditions of the areas with a large black population, such as in Chicago’s Southside. There were mass incidences of overcrowding, disease, crime, poverty and pollution. They were also common locations of “vices”, facing gambling, prostitution and alcohol problems which were “zoned” at the ghettos. Furthermore it was significantly difficult for people to move out, with poor quality education and legal and customary methodology keeping people in by making other areas unavailable through high rent, violence and the withholding of information. What was particularly striking to me was that even considering this, due to higher wages and sharecroppers’ cash being taken by landowners and storekeepers in the South, migrating to the North in areas like this was still a better alternative for most black migrants.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most interesting themes raised in the week's lectures and readings was the massive impact caused by the black migration from the rural south to urban cities in the north. The migration sprung several cycles and systems into motion: ghettoization, proletarianation, and the separation of several different racial advancement strategies. Marcus Garvey and his idea of Black nationalism inspired a big nation-wide (arguably world wide) movement of local communities rallying behind some of his ideas. Ghettos began appearing, and with them, the localization of vice in the ghettos. The entire environment of the city was changed, and the mass number of migrants, mixed with a large number of immigrants from the Caribbean, changed the cultural climate of cities as well. Harlem was the booming center of this action, serving as the center for Garvey, the cultural center with the Harlem Renaissance, and a booming industrial center offering jobs for the newly arrived. These factors irreversibly changed the landscape of the US city.
ReplyDeleteThis week we learned about the mass migration of African Americans from the South to the Northeast and Midwest during the 20th century. To a great extent this occurred as a result of World War I and the subsequent halt of European immigration. Immigrants from Europe had historically been employed in large numbers at factories. Without the steady flow of these workers to the U.S. companies turned to African Americans in the South who were trapped by the crop lean systems and actively recruited them. African Americans used the opportunity to leave the South in search of better wages and more consistent work. The large diaspora of African Americans to the North led the ghettoization of cities as African Americans were sectioned off into particular impoverished parts of the city by social forces. This congregation of African Americans however gave rise to many important social movements like the black nationalist movement led by Marcus Garvey in Harlem. Given it's diverse community of African Americans from the South as well as the Caribbean, Harlem was the perfect incubator for such a movement. The movement advocated "Africa for the Africans" and believed that the destiny of Africans throughout America could be realized by returning to the continent itself. The black nationalist movement led by Garvey was unprecedented in scope and was a result of the diaspora of African Americans to cities. One question I have is how the South responded to this diaspora?How did losing so many workers affect them and what did they do about it?
ReplyDeleteThis week, a theme that stood out to me was intra-racial diversity. I found it very interesting that there were so many opposing perspectives within the movement for black advancement. For example, Marcus Garvey was a black Zionist, while W.E.B. DuBois did not support the idea of an all black nation. Because the large migration of African Americans from the South to the North brought about a mixing of cultures, there were many different understandings of the movement for black advancement. Although African Americans hoped to find freedom and equality in the North, their opportunities were limited and they faced continuing racial tensions with white workers who competed for industrial jobs. There were many different solutions proposed to remedy this problem, and intra-racial diversity added to the many different perspectives. My question would be what caused the migration of international black people from areas like the Caribbean.
ReplyDeleteA theme that stood out for me in this week's readings and lectures is the difference in beliefs of Garvey and Du Bois on colonialism. Both Garvey and Du Bois believed in "Africa for the Africans", meaning that colonialists in Africa that were not Africans (European, Dutch, etc.) should let native Africans colonize their own land. The difference between the two is that Garvey believed African Americans should go back to their homeland in Africa. Du Bois, on the other hand, believed that colonization in Africa did not include African Americans moving back to Africa. My question is how did people react to Garvey's ideas? African Americans are still in America, obviously, but did a mass population listen to Garvey's ideas and move back to Africa?
ReplyDeleteWhat stood out to me this week was the huge shift in the racial dynamics in America after World War I. I did not know about the huge prevalence of non-American black migrants in the Great Migration. I was left wondering how the huge influx of Caribbean immigrants helped start the Harlem Renaissance. Was the Harlem Renaissance caused more by the newfound creative opportunities or was it driven by the increasing cultural diversity in black America. I also figured that there were major changes to the political culture in America as a result of the great migration because many of the blacks who had been disenfranchised in the south could now vote.
ReplyDeleteThe theme that stood out to me this week was Garvey's radical plan to improve the lives of African-Americans and how he gained support. First, his plan to reclaim Africa as a homeland for blacks intrigued me because of how different it was from the plans of other black leaders, such as Du Bois. However, moving millions of African-Americans to another continent was both impractical and impossible. Yet, Garvey garnered an unprecedented amount of support. This was partly due to his placement of the UNIA HQ in Harlem, the black capital of America. My biggest question is, why didn't Garvey do more with the mass of support he had, other than his impractical plan of moving back to Africa?
ReplyDeleteSomething that stood out to me this week was the competition/opposition to Garvey's ideas. Most notably, Du Bois, who is also fighting for African-American equal rights, criticized Garvey and said his ideals were greatly flawed. This came as a shock to me because I would have assumed that since they are fighting for the same cause they would try and be united rather than split. Also, the extreme reach of Garvey's ideas stood out to me. Professor Dickerson explain how his movements reached even the smallest American town, including his hometown. It makes me curious, if so many people supported Garvey why did none of his grand plans play out?
ReplyDeleteOne thing that stood out to me this week was how drastically different approaches people can take to try to change the same situation. For example, both Garvey and Du Bois were trying to change the situation for blacks, but they had very different views on how to do it and what results would be considered successful. Garvey thought African Americans could go back to Africa, while Du Bois focused his efforts on making blacks successful in America. Were these two ideas so different that they worked against each other, or could they have been more successful if both had taken a more moderate stance?
ReplyDeleteA theme that stood out to me this week was the ghettoization of Northeastern and Midwestern cities. Ghettoization was the process in which groups of people were corralled into areas with poor living conditions with little opportunity to move beyond the designated areas. The African Americans who migrated to the North in search of more prosperous lives were the people who were forced into these substandard, overcrowded, and often diseased ghettos. When the African Americans tried to improve their social standing and get out of the ghetto, there were often consequences. For example, Dr. Ossian Sweet tried to buy a house in a white neighborhood in Detroit in 1925. He faced extreme hatred and racism as a mob of angry white people crowded his residence. Considering we talked extensively this week about the Northeast and Midwest one question I had was: what was the role of African Americans out west during this time?
ReplyDelete