Podcast #4

     In this podcast, the speaker makes some interesting points on the civil rights movement, and covers a lot of material that we have already covered in class and in the homework readings. In class, we discussed the “talented tenth” that Du Bois had thought would lead the Black people up from poverty. He also mentions the contrast between Washington and Du Bois, something covered quite heavily, but I was surprised to learn that Du Bois also approved and supported Washington and vice-versa. 

     I agree with the speaker that the civil rights acts of ’64 and ’65 are crucial in enforcing equal protection under the law, and for protecting the original message of the constitution. I believe that the government should exist to protect our liberties and rights, and that is what was done in this case. Anything above that, such as affirmative action, I  disagree with on the grounds that it goes well beyond ensuring our rights. He also makes a highly debatable point that we have discussed extensively in the beginning of the year, that America is not in a “post civil rights age”, or post racial. He asserts that race issues today still matter and that there are some new civil rights that have not been protected. He calls this the 4th phase of the civil rights movement. 

    I disagree with the claim that there are still rights which are ignored and not protected. He mentions that gays are one of these examples, however, gays are not beaten up in the streets, denied access to any public place, or disenfranchised. Gays are just upset that they cant be a part of an institution which was created to raise children, something which a gay couple cannot produce. The tactic of many on the radical left today is to divide people up by class and to then pander to each, calling them the victims of some sort of oppression, and then handing out goodies in exchange for votes. This is in direct opposition to the spirit of the constitution which is supposed to unite us. 

     I would have to agree with what he calls the “conventional” view of the civil rights movement and say that there was both a good and bad side, and that the good side is what should be remembered and studied because of what it produced with non-violence. Dr King is rightly celebrated as the leader of this “good” side because of the non-violent movements he led so that many could get equal protection under the law. What did “black power” achieve? The bad side just incited violence while bringing up the divisions that most Americans wanted to put behind them. So the conventional view of history, in my view, is that way for a good reason.