Rev. Jackson, speaking to the City Times said the move was a bold step in the right direction for an equal protection of all citizens under the law.

The Reverend further went calling on all black preachers especially to address the issue of same-sex marriage with their congregations on Sunday mentioning that lesbians and gays are indeed fighting for the country and doing their best to teach America’s children. He added in justification of his support for same-sex marriage that it opens the door for every individual to have the same opportunity as another.

“You may choose your mate, but you cannot deny someone else the right to choose their mate,” Jackson said.

Rev. Al Sharpton’s similarly supported Obama’s stand on the issue of same-sex marriage wit hthe following words “I salute President Obama’s statement today supporting same-sex marriage,” Rev. Sharpton said the issue was not of his or anyone’s personal or religious views but was for the equity of everyone before the law.

Martin Luther King Jr.: Transforming

The Civil Rights Movement

            Many aspects of our society provide
us with a constant reminder of Martin Luther King Jr.’s significance in fighting
for African American equality.  Most
urban areas in the United States have named a major street after Dr. King, and
our country has even taken the liberty to name a holiday after him.  But why exactly is Martin Luther King Jr.
given so much credit for the civil rights movement, and the deterioration of
segregation?  The answer is that he
implemented strategies that no one else was willing to try; and as a result,
the national outlook on race, class, and ethnicity was changed forever.

            During the 1950’s a racial war was
raging within the boundaries of America. 
African American citizens, especially in the South, faced unbelievable
oppression of segregation, lynching, and bombing of their structures
(Bermanzohn, 2000).  Much of these
hideous acts were either created or influenced by the white supremacy group
known as the “Ku Klux Klan.”  Perhaps the
most devastating fact of this brutal time period was the U.S. government
failures to implement any kind of force against these hate crimes.      

            Due to the lack of help from the law
enforcement, many blacks in the South were forced to prepare themselves for
self-defense.  In the article Violence,
Nonviolence, and the Civil Rights Movement Robbie Johnson discusses the measures that black families took for
defense:

            “For my family, the greatest fear was a
surprise attack by a group, by the Klan, that

would have
overwhelming force and drag people from the house. To protect

themselves,
families like mine tried to have a lot of sons, and teach them how to

use weapons. My
kinfolk lived in houses that were within shouting distance of

each other, so
they could gather in time of need. Our house was at the end of a

long road that
led off the main highway, and everyone kept dogs in the yard. By

the time anyone
got down that road, everybody knew who they were, what they

were, and why
they were coming. This close network provided a common defense

for ordinary
occasions. But if a concerted effort came against one family, then it

could be a shoot out.”

  Johnson’s
testimony paints a remarkably detailed picture of the urgency felt by the
African American community at the time.

            In 1955 things began to change with
the discovery of a new young leader of the black community.  At this time, Martin Luther King Jr. made his
first effort towards racial equality by leading a bus boycott in Montgomery
Alabama (Bermanzohn, 2000).  The idea was
sparked after local woman, Rosa Parks, refused to give up her seat on a city
bus.  Through the leadership of Dr. King,
African Americans in Montgomery went a full year without riding the city bus,
using any other form of transportation. 

            The significance of this boycott is
that it represented one of the first of many non-violent protests lead by Dr.
King.  Using the demonstrations of
India’s Gandhi, Dr. King decided that non-violent protests were the only way to
effectively show their determination for freedom (Bermanzohn, 2000).  Few considered protesting their oppression in
a peaceful manner, but Dr. King understood that physical acts of retaliation
could further degrade the situation.  From
this point on, the majority of protests during the civil-rights movement were
conducted with non-violent strategies implemented by Martin Luther King Jr.

            According to Barbara Allen, Dr. King
understood constitutionalism and how it affected the freedoms of his
people.  The existing federal
constitution represented a system based on legalities, available for
manipulation, instead of morals (Allen, 2000). 
Dr. King used his movements to convince the American people that a more
covenantal constitution should be implicated. 
Allen states that “The covenant
tradition shows, a commitment to constitutionalism (”the idea of limited
government and limitations on governors”) emerges as a defining political
element of modern covenant-based polities.” 
What this means is that constitutionalism during the 1950’s transformed
into a government with little limitations; which was not its intended purpose.  Dr. King’s goal was to bring America back to
its original intention of allowing freedom from institutionalized constraints.

            Martin
Luther King Jr. held many other protests throughout the late 50’s and early
60’s, but the most significant one was the “March on Washington” in 1963.  During this historical event, Dr. King gave
perhaps the most monumental speech by an African American, known as “I Have a
Dream.”  In this speech he talked heavily
about the importance of the black community to not live in anger, but to
continue to congregate peacefully.  More
importantly, Dr. King reminded America that:

“When the architects of our republic wrote the
magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they
were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.
This note was the promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men,
would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.”

This statement relates to Barbara J. Field’s notion
that race is not a physical characteristic, but a social perception.  How? 
By Dr. King reminding us that we are all created equally as humans, but
some groups have manipulated others over time. 

            Since
the time of the Civil Rights Movement and Martin Luther King Jr,, America has
experienced a vast amount of change.  We
now see that schools are no longer segregated and a person of any color is
welcome in any public area.  There has
also been a change in the role of gender. 
Women have become equal to men, and spend just as much time out in the
workforce.  Thus, we can determine that
the efforts of Dr. King and his companions have helped pave the way to the
world that we live in today.

            With
the changes that have been seen in the society of our nation, it is tempting to
conclude that the idea of perceiving someone as different no longer
exists.  Unfortunately, the conflicts of
racial differences are still in effect to this day.  As mentioned in Paul Spickard’s Racial Thinking in the United States,
Americans still put labels on people due to their physical features.  An example of this would be referring to
someone as “black” when they have an African American mother and a White
father.  Sadly these labels, or
perceptions, still create stereotypes which can inhibit one’s ability to get a
job or have a fair trial.  Despite the
existing imperfections in the American society, it is important to remember the
efforts of Dr. King and the improvements that followed them. 

            In
conclusion, Marin Luther King Jr. was an African American leader who fought for
the equality of all humans in America. 
He was one of the first African Americans to use a unique style of large
non-violence protests to persuade the country back to its original
intentions.  Dr. King believed that
American constitutionalism had become to corrupt and that a covenantal style of
government should be enforced to create more individual freedom for
everyone.  He used his leadership in
boycotts to help voice the opinion of the African American community, but his
speech “I have a dream” stopped the country in its tracks.  Now this country has seen the progression of
Dr. King’s dream and minorities can enjoy a positive life.  However, there is still work to do to remove
stereotypical labels that have damaging effects on individual lives.  Most importantly, Martin Luther King Jr.
taught the future generations to pursue their dreams no matter the cost.  We all have a dream, but are we willing to
take the risk?

References

Allen, Barbara. “Martin
Luther King’s Civil Disobedience and the American Covenant      Tradition.” Publius 30.4
(2000): 71-113

Bermanzohn, Sally A.
“Violence, NonViolence, and the Civil Rights Movement.” New
Political Science 22.1 (2000): 31-48.

Fields, Barbara J.
“Ideology and Race in American History.” Region, Race, and
Reconstruction (1983): 143-77.

King Jr., Martin L. “I
Have a Dream Speech.” Essential Documents: I Have a Dream (2009):
1-3

Spickard, Paul, and Reginald Daniel. Racial Thinking
in the United States. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 2004

On Wednesday April 4th 1968, only four years after Dr. Martin Luther King had delivered his iconic I Have a Dream speech – in front of Washington Lincoln Memorial – to  almost 300,000 civil rights protestors gathered there – this legendary figure was gunned down and killed.

The immortal words of that iconic speech were among the most moving and powerful imaginable, forever to be foremost in the minds of black Americans the idea that they had the right to be treated as equals, all due to the powers of oratory of Baptist minister King.

Civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. was shot to death on a motel balcony in Memphis, Tennessee, at only 39 years of age, the victim of a cruel and wanton act that was deplored from one end of USA to the other. There was about this assault on King the same wanton senselessness that had destroyed the man he tried to follow, Mathatma Ghandi.

It is an awful truth that men of good will, noble purpose and pacific impulses are not immune immunity from violence, no matter how they personally conduct themselves. King’s death caused uproar, riots spreading through Memphis to the extent that 4,000 National Guard troops were sent in and a curfew imposed.

Dr King’s ultimate sacrifice, in pursuit of his dream, will never be forgotten, but despite a black president in the White House today, everyday reality for black Americans is still nothing like the dream about which Dr King dreamed so forcefully.

His dream was deeply rooted in the most basic American ideal – all men are created equal, a truth that is self evident – King dreamt that one day descendants of both slaves and owners could share a table one day, in a country where people would be judged on ability instead of color.

His dream had it that equality was normal behaviour in society – that the highly valued freedom would apply to all, irrespective of color or creed – a vision so powerful it inspired a generation of Americans to force change on an unwilling white population, which has, to a large extent, become a fact of life in the USA, at least in theory

That immortal dream so eloquently described by Dr King undoubtedly lives on, but only time, and changing attitudes within US society can prove how real it will become in time. That he died at the height of his influence was a tragedy that truly changed the face of American society, but whether it ever really changed enough remains an open question.

According to a number of crime experts, lawyers and other notable personalities, George Zimmerman should have been arrested the very night the shooting took place. However, the police ignored a lot of vital procedures and information that could have shined more light on the occurrence of that evening.

Trayvon Martin was targeted by Zimmerman as a suspicious looking black person acting strange and wearing a hoody in the rain. But the facts are that Trayvon Martin was just an unarmed black teen walking from a convenience store with a bag of skittles and a bottle of tea.

Like thousands of minorities across the United States, Trayvon Martin was a victim of racial profiling. It occurs when a person is judged negatively based on skin color, clothing type, language and education as well as other outward eternities.

Racial profiling is a result of misinformation or negative experiences accumulated over time regarding a certain race or group of people. Whoever represents this race or group of people are targeted on a night and day basis. Countless incidents of racial profiling, some deadly, are reported daily across the country. Place does not matter. Racial profiling occurs in the South as well as in the North, directly and indirectly.

Racial profiling can result in a number of misfortunes, including mental and psychological stress, exclusion from the mainstream of society, physical assaults as well as death. In the sixties, massive marches, beatings and death were common outcome of racial profiling. Who would have thought massive marches are still relevant regarding the same issue in the 21st century?

So what’s the solution? The only way to deal with racial profiling in American is to recognize that it is still a major factor in American society today.  Trayvon Martin’s shooting and possible cover-up is a living testimony that has burst through the anonymity of social media to challenge the hearts of all Americans. This problem will not go away. If it is ignored it will escalate. Trayvon Martin’s voice will continually call out for help until significant change occurs in this nation. Therefore, Americans must come together in honest dialogue to find a solution which will allow all to live in peace and harmony or as close to it as possible.

In order to deal with the problem of racial profiling, educational programs dealing with Race and Understanding must be developed in communities across America. These programs must emphasize how working together as citizens of a neighborhood or community is the key to building a strong and thriving nation. A common purpose must be established in the minds and hearts of all Americans who desire to represent good citizen hood of this nation. Individuals who resist racial acceptance will be part of the problem, regardless of race or color. Seeking unity is the only way. Trayvon Martin’s death could be a prelude to a massive transformation of the American consciousness regarding race or the gradual downfall and decadence of a nation operating against the very idea it stands for: equality and freedom for all.  

The University of Colorado imposed a ban on the carrying of concealed weapons by students at its four campuses. But on Monday, the state’s Supreme Court ruled that the school overstepped its authority, and has therefore overturned that policy – giving students the green light to carry weapons.

The court said that a concealed-carry law passed by the legislature overrides the university’s ban.

The court’s ruling has been seen as a victory for gun rights activists.

James Manley, a gun and civil rights activists who sued on behalf of three students who challenged the barn said that he was extremely delighted at the court ruling.

Manley is also an attorney with the Mountain States Legal Foundation.

Ken McConnellogue, spokesman for the University of Colorado said that the university was disappointed that the state supreme court has taken away the university’s authority to provide a safe environment for its students, staff and visitors.

At the moment, only 22 states in the United States ban the carrying of concealed weapons on university campuses.

We should fight discrimination and put it in its place. Discrimination should not happen in the workplace, where you live, and in your community. Discrimination has kept people from getting the job! There’s people more qualified to be in that CEO position than the one they put in the position. Something must be done and I believe I will be apart of this change. There’s no need to sit back and allow people to walk all over you because they think you have no knowledge of your rights. Well; I’m afraid they are targeting the wrong person when they discriminate against me. I will not stand for mistreatment and I will go to the people who will make sure that discrimination is eliminated. We can do something about discrimination. Never let people push you out of your residence when you have done nothing wrong. Prove that you know your rights and get those people off of your back. Many times people do what you allow them to do. I say no to discrimination and so should you. It is never alright to be discriminated against. We have come along way but have a long way to go. Fight for your rights I know I will.

This was in 1956, where the South was segregated. Black people were supposed to give up their sits to white people if they were seated on the front section of the bus. This was a rule that everyone followed, men, women and children would give up their sit, however, that fateful afternoon of December 1st, Rosa Parks was so tired from a long day at work and did not feel like giving up her seat.

Perhaps Rosa Parks did not mean to get arrested and did not mean to start a movement. Today many of us fail to make a difference, because we are afraid of what might happen to us. We fail to speak out when everything is nuts, because we do not want to lose our standing in society. This was not the case of Rosa Parks. Her refusal to give up her seat gave way to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s rise to the national political scene. This marked the birth of the Civil Rights Movement.

Rosa Parks is truly a pioneer and an example to all of us. We live in a time where crony capitalism is running wild, where capitalism dictates the daily affairs of nations. We live in a time where money has more worth than a single life. Where instead of exporting democracy and prosperity, the United States exports weapons of mass destruction, death and tool kits for dictators all over the world.

There are movements around the world such as the Occupy Wall Street movement, that many people are afraid to join. Many people criticize it, but they forget the meaning of citizen participation. The journey truly starts with a single mile, or like another version of the quote states, “Even the longest journey must begin where you stand.” Real miracles and great deeds are put in motion by regular people like Rosa Parks that were too tired to comply, that were too tired to allow the oppressor to kick her when she was down.

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

Horace Kallen stated that from 1914 to 1924 the United States underwent “one of the most critical ten-year periods” for its history (Foner, 181). World War I spanned from 1914-1918, and the weight of the war before American intervention, during American intervention, and post-war greatly transformed American society. It was during this time period that Women’s suffrage groups, African-American Rights groups, Pro-Labor groups,Free Speech groups, and the overlap between them sought to influence American society through the prospect of American intervention in the war. This paper will give evidence that the aforementioned groups used the promise of spreading democracy to the world through war to attempt achieve their own goals domestically by explaining pre-war conditions, how they used the war to attempt to better these conditions, and how post-war these conditions were transformed. It will discuss the results of their efforts, both negative and positive, on society post-war. 

Women’s suffrage, the movement focused on the equality of women and their right to vote, was well established pre-war. Greenwhich Village, San Francisco, Chicago and other cities held sub-cultures of “much-publicized young, unmarried, self-supporting women” who, along with sexual revolutionary ideas, believed in the “freedom of any kind for women” (Foner, 167). Pre-war, these ideas were censored by the mainstream. “Anthony Comstock ordered one issue [pertaining to the freedom of women's sexuality and speaking of venereal disease] barred from the mails (Foner, 167). Women, at the time before American intervention, were not allowed to vote, not allowed to “control her own body” through the use of birth control and were unequal to men in social standings. Facing many of the same discriminations as women, African-Americans were fighting for their own civil rights. African-Americans felt “disenfranchised” by American society and American politics (Du Bois, 506). In 1911, Du Bois and white reformers created the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in an attempt to have the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution enforced (Foner, 173). The African-American community was “painfully aware of the dichotomy between American freedom for whites and the continuing subjection of the Negroes” (Foner, 173). The proof to Du Bois and the rest of the communities’ claim was in the violence. One 1906 case out of “the hundreds of lynchings in these years” saw a white mob hang three black men falsely accused of rape from an electric light pole (Foner, 172). These pre-war conditions did not ring of the freedom promised to them when their ancestors, and themselves, were freed. 

Simultaneously, labor unions and laborers were feeling much of the disenfranchisement of the African-Americans and women. Union members were jailed and stripped of freedom of speech. “The longest, bloodiest, and most publicized battle took place in San Diego in 1911, where [Industrial Workers of the World] members, after being arrested for violating a ban on downtown public speaking, were handed over to vigilante groups for punishment” (Foner, 165). The laborers of the time were not given the rightful entitlements of American citizens. As such, the power behind unifying under a labor union was lost and became dangerous. The labor unions, African-Americans, and women all were striped of the freedom of speech when they spoke out radically to improve their lot in life. The state of this right was summed up by a scholar and expounded upon by Foner, in these terms, “no genuinely effective, legally enforceable right to freedom of speech existed in the United States before the 1920s” (Foner, 163). But resistance and determination to continue to push for the enforcement of the First Amendment before American intervention in the war (1900-1915) brought about “more free speech cases…to court than in a previous century” (Foner, 164). The climate of the time, regarding free speech and its limitations when it was applied to African-Americans, women and labor unions, caused Clarence Darrow to state, “I don’t think we live in a free country or enjoy civil liberties” (Foner, 164). 

However disenfranchised these groups viewed as radical, leftist and progressive felt, they were among the biggest supporters of the American intervention into World War I. “To them, the war offered the possibility of rationalizing American society, instilling a sense of national unity and self-sacrifice, and imposing justice in labor relations” (Foner, 168). Woodrow Wilson, in 1917, issued a statement to Congress to join the war on the side of the English. His wish was “to set up among the really free and self-governed peoples of the world such a concept of purpose and of action as will henceforth ensure the observance of those principles” (Sixty-Fifth Congress, 4). John Dewey saw in this purpose “the social possibilities of war” (Foner, 169). Others joined with him, “Walter Lippmann, Herbet Croly, AFL head Samuel Gompers, and prominent feminist social reformers like Jane Addams, Florence Kelley, and Charlotte Perkins Gilman” all strove to benefit from aligning themselves with Wilson’s war initiative. President Wilson traded his cautious support of women’s suffrage in 1916 for  their support later when war was declared. “But it was with the black Americans that the wartime language of freedom inspired the most exalted hopes” (Foner, 172). Du Bois encouraged black to enlist in the segregated armies, hoping that their patriotism in the war would lead to equality at home after the war; “Let us, while this war lasts, forget our special grievances and close our ranks shoulder to shoulder with our white fellow citizens” (Du Bois, 505). They believed that “if [they] obstruct, [they] will surrender all power to influence. If [they] responsibly approve, [they] then retain [their] power for guiding” (Bourne, 3). 

The supporters of the war from the groups did receive opposition from counterparts. IWW and the Socialist party, feminist Alice Paul, and Randolph Bourne. The Socialist party called the war “a crime against the people of the United States” in their 1917 convention (Foner, 169). Alice Paul, whose counterparts Carrie Catt and other traditional women’s suffragists supported the war, likened President Wilson to kaiser (Foner, 171). She demonstrated at the White House, chaining herself to the fence. Bourne inquired about the actions of his fellow intellectuals, posing “They might have turned their intellectual energy not to the problem of jockeying the nation into war but to the problem of using our vast neutral power to attain democratic ends for the rest of the world and ourselves without the use of the malevolent technique of war” (Bourne, 2). Bourne, in his disapproval, questions the thinking that only attaching their hitches to the war wagon will result in the achievement of the groups’ goals. In spite of the disapproval, the majority of progressives, women’s suffrage groups, African-American groups, and pro-union groups supported the war.

In 1917, the Committee on Public Information was created. Wilson’s committee used pro-war propaganda to arouse support from all demographics by help of journalist,s artists, academic and progressives (Foner, 169). The propaganda was “couched in the more positive Progressive language of social cooperation and expanded democracy” (Foner, 170). They used promises of eight-hour work days and living wages to appeal to the disenfranchised labor unions and African-Americans (Foner, 170). “In 1917, Wilson told the AFL, ‘ while we are fighting for freedom, we must see to it among other things that labor is free” (Foner, 175). The backing of the disenfranchised leaders of labor unions, women’s suffrage, free speech, and African-Americans, along with their rhetoric and promises offered in the propaganda cemented the support of these groups’ followers and their hope for a better life for themselves in their support. 

The African-American, pro-union, women’s suffrage, and free speech causes at the start of the war were all prime for societal changes. They started to exercise their civil rights to protest and write of changes they wished to see. However society, determined they were too progressive, radical and leftist, revoked these rights through federal and local governments, and vigilante groups. Violence and an even greater feeling of disenfranchisement perpetuated through the groups. With the involvement of the United States in a global war for democracy, freedom and the liberties that went with, the groups majority supported the war. They hoped that their support would entitle their groups to a shared equality and a chance to form the post-war society. The leaders of the groups helped appeal to the country to aid in the support and promised their followers change stemming from the war for freed manned democracy. The Committee on Public Information channeled this rhetoric, which led to a greater belief in the transformation of society in America. However, after the war, the transformation was slow and not as far reaching as the groups foresaw, leading to more hardships for the groups to endure, despite some victories.

Women’s suffrage groups finally achieved the right to vote with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. However, they were still subject to the inequality between the sexes. Their right to vote cost them protections they were accustomed to. In 1929, the repealing of the Sheppard-Towner Act of 1921 took away federal assistance to programs involving infant and child health care (fonder, 180). It wasn’t until 1930 that “the Court reversed the conviction under the Comstock Law of Mary Ware Dennett for sending a sex education pamphlet…through the mails” (Foner, 185). Sexual identity and expression were a staple of the feminist, women’s suffrage movement.They were subject to anti-women’s rights groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Although they were given the right to vote, their other goals, like sexual expression, equal pay and treatment, were not met by the social transformation immediately after World War I.  

“The war unleashed social changes that altered the contours of American race relations,” Foner states (Foner, 173). With the increased production needed to keep up with wartime demands, many African-Americans migrated North to work in factories, hopeful for more jobs and better pay. The North also offered a less violent atmosphere, education for their children and the chance to vote (Foner, 173). However, a riot in Chicago in 1919 “exposed the vast disappointments that migrants encountered: severely restricted employment opportunities, exclusion from unions, [and] rigid housing segregation” (Foner, 174). The promise of a better life for African-Americans stemming from their war support so far was unfulfilled.  “The result was a feeling of deep betrayal that affected everyone from Du Bois…to ordinary black Americans” (Foner, 174). The migration of African-Americans to the North created a new transformation in society, albeit not a positive one. With the large migration, black ghettoes in the North increased. Both the northern and southern states saw leaseback from society. “Mississippi [was] the first state to revise its constitution to eliminate black suffrage” (Foner, 186). The black community was victim to the other progressive reforms, and with women gaining suffrage, blacks were pushed further down the societal ladder. Black men being barred from unions could not take advantage of “industrial freedom” and black women worked “for wages that offered no hope of…independence” (Foner, 186). The re-birth of the Ku Klux Klan in the early 1920s was “perhaps the most menacing reflection” of the post-war transformation for African Americans (Foner, 188). 

Peace from war did little to bring peace to labor-relations at home. “The armistice was followed, in 1919 an 1920, by the greatest wave of labor unrest in American history” (Foner, 175). Kansas prohibited strikes in 1920, and the rhetoric used by Wilson’s Committee on Public Information was turned back at the nation, inspiring “the era’s greatest labor uprisings, the steel strike of 1919-20″ (Foner, 176). Though in 1918, they won an eight hour work day, peace brought a drop in production and with it, employment. “If the steel strike illustrated the aspirations galvanized by the war in the name of freedom, its crushing defeat marked the beginning of an era of retreat for organized labor” (Foner, 176). The statement by Foner shows that while the war positively affected labor during the war, the post war transformations did as much, if not more to make it all for nothing. 

During the American intervention in World War I, free speech rights were revoked even more. The Espionage Act of 1917 “granted extremely broad powers to the Postmastr General to bar antiwar publications from the mails” (Foner, 177). In a gross misuse of powers, the government charged over two thousand for violating this law and more than one thousand were found guilty. The most famous being Eugene V. Debs. Debs was “sentenced to ten years in prison for an anti-war speech” (Foner, 177). Out of these violations of civil rights and freedom of speech came a more sensitive society in American. The formation of the American Civil Liberties Union, which still exists today, came in 1917. John Dewey was one of the ACLU members. The ACLU fought for civil liberties, and from its inception focused on the freedom of speech. “Slowly, the tide of civil liberties jurisprudence began to turn” (Foner, 184). In 1933, the Customs Service ban on James Joyce’s Ulysses was lifted (Foner, 185). 

World War I was the catalyst for the transformation of social views between 1914 and 1924. Women’s suffrage groups, African-American rights groups, pro-union labor groups, and free speech activists all felt disenfranchised with society at the time of American intervention of the war. Their civil liberties and rights were revoked through government, both federal and local, and social force. Their status of unequal pushed them to attempt to start changes and transformations in the way society viewed them and treated them. They were met with violence, restrictions of rights, incarceration, and denial of the ability to fairly take part in the economic market through unfair pay and work conditions. Woodrow Wilson’s appeal for support for the war brought about an opportunity for these groups to align their achievements with a war for freedom and democracy for all. Wilson and the groups leaders, through the Committee on Public Information, used rhetoric similar to the groups’ own, giving them more hope in a better chance to influence societal views. However, the war effort gave only slimmer of hope for some groups. Labor improved as more production meant more jobs; African-Americans went North to benefit fro these jobs and give their families a better life. At the same time, free speech was restricted even more and an increase in charges for improper uses of free speech skyrocketed. Unions were not allowed to strike, and war dissenters could not peacefully protest the war in any way. “The wartime belief in conscious creation of a new world order died in Paris, and the government’s success in whipping up mass hysteria and xenophobic hatreds seemed to undermine the very foundation of democratic thought” (Foner, 181).

Even after the war, speech was still restricted through the continuation of the Espionage Act and the re-emergence of the KKK saw a backlash of anti-black rights and anti-women’s rights. Despite the negatives, there were positive transformations in American society from the war. In 1920, women were given the right to vote and by the late 1920s and early 1930s the laws that restricted freedom of speech and union strikes were starting to be repealed. The one great transformation of society from the war came in “the birth of a coherent concept of civil liberties”during the 1920s and onward (Foner, 183). The attempt to ride the coattails of the American intervention to bring a change in civil liberties for union workers, African-Americans, women and freedom of speech resulted in a transformation of American society that started in opposition but slowly turned to more supportive by the end of the 1920s and early 1930s. While not all war is transformative on the way society perceives certain groups or ideas, World War I provided the catalyst to transformation in America. Without American intervention, the groups would not have allied themselves with the war cause which in the end caused strife between the different cultures and ideals of the diverse American public. After the war was won, the American society turned its back on women’s rights, African- American rights, union’s rights and the rights to freedom of speech which caused even more disenfranchisement. This increased disenfranchisement and the abuse of powers by American government to quell the progress of these groups brought about the societal transformation. Because of this, it is evident that the American involvement in World War I caused the transformation of society’s views of freedom of speech, African-Americans, labor unions, and women’s rights, even if it was not always positive for these groups. 

Works Cited

Bourne, Randolph. “The War and the Intellectuals.” Seven Arts 2. 1917. 133-136.

Du Bois. “Close Ranks.” The Crisis. 1918. “Returning Soldiers.” The Crisis. 1919.

Foner, Eric. The Story of American Freedom. WW Norton. New York: 1998.

Sixty-Fifth Congress, 1 Session, Senate Document No. 5

Over the past two days, January 16/17th, we have witnessed not only the commemoration of the unforgettable Martin Luther King Jr., but also the 70th birthday of arguably the most iconic sportsman of the 20th cebntury, Mohammad Ali.

Martin Luther, born on January 15, 1929, in Atlanta, Georgia worked tirelessly all his adult life for racial equality and civil rights in the USA. His father and grandfather had both been ministers, and he learned to read pre-school courtesy of his school-teacher mother.

Martin was an exemplary student, skipping grades both at  elementary and high schools enjoying reading, singing, playing ball games, entering Morehouse College, Atlanta, when only 15, and having already been the victim of racist abuse, he decided to campaign for racial equality.  

College graduation saw him become Dr. King, before he married and moved to Alabama, having followed in his father’s footsteps and become a minister. He became a very active campaigner for racial equality, participating in many peaceful demonstrations protesting the unfair treatment of African-Americans, making his iconic I Have A Dream speech in 1963, before winning, in 1964, the Nobel Peace Prize, only to be assassinated in 1968, at the height of his popularity.

Americans rightly celebrate Martin Luther King Day every January – on his birthday – and  August 28 is called Dream Day, in memory of that famous speech. Martin Luther was undoubtedly one of the most iconic black men of his time, but he was not alone in that.

Another, arguably equally influential character was the immortal ‘Float Like A butterfly, Sting Like a Bee’ charismatic boxing legend Cassius Clay, who became better known as Mohammad Ali, who celebrates his 70th birthday today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmaHGY7BEog

Muhammad Ali was born Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr. on January 17, 1942 in Louisville, Kentucky. At 12, he and a friend went, on their bikes to the Columbia Auditorium, only to find that Muhammad’s had been stolen. He angrily reported this to police officer Joe Martin, a boxing coach at the Columbia Gym, who told the young man he should learn to fight, and within a few days, Muhammad began boxing training.

Training six days a week, he woke early enough to go running before school, working out at the gym afterwards. Ali created his own eating regimen, such as milk and raw eggs for breakfast, totally avoiding from junk food, alcohol, and cigarettes to become the best boxer he could be.

He won the Olympic heavyweight boxing gold medal in 1960 and turned professional. Over the next four years, Ali outrageously boasted that he was the greatest of all time, and even began predicting the outcomes of his fights, always correctly. By the time he fought Sonny Listoin in 1964, he was already hugely popular.

Up to 1967, he beat every opponent with ease, and was iconic to the public, but being convicted of draft dodging in that year meant his exile from the professional ring for almost four years. In fact it would be 1974 before that incredible ‘Rumble in the Jungle’ fight in Zaire against George Foreman which Ali won to regain his crown.

Then, in 1978, having lost the title again to Leon Spinks, Ali became the first man in history to win that title three times by defeating Spinks in a re-match. He retired on June 26, 1979, beset by Parkinson’s disease,  but he had undoubtedly been the greatest heavyweight boxer of all time, in his professional career, winning 56 bouts and losing a mere 5, 37 of his wins by knockout.

Increasingly slurred speech, shaking hands, and more meant that  doctors diagnosed Ali with the awful degenerative condition in 1984, and he gradually faded from public view, though many a fan was moved to tears when seeing his discomfort as he lit the Olympic flame of the 1996 opening Ceremonies of in Atlanta.

For almost 30 years now, this iconic and courageous man, who gave so much pleasure in his heyday to so many, has worked tirelessly in helping world charities, and is loved greatly to this day and for many remains an iconic 20th century hero. We wish him well.