Is There an Actual change?

Both readings were paired up to explain to us about how people of color were treated generations ago and how these people making movements wanted change. "I don't know What to Do With Good While People" and "Small Change" are talking about civil right movement time period and the time we live in now. " I Don't Know What to With Good White People" gives and image about how a black woman would see white people. The author is talking about how she grew up around good white people and friends. The thesis of the article is questioning whether she should like white people? Yes there are now laws that prohibit bad doing to people of different races but is that true? In "Small Change" the author talks about how we can not make change like we could during the civil rights movement because we are stuck behind our computers and social media. " Be the change that you want to see in the world", Gandhi's  famous quote. We can not just sit back and watch things solve themselves. The argument talks about how racism was since the civil rights movement until now. There is unfortunately some room still for racism in now days.

Diner Sit-ins and Twitter Revolunists

I think that the reason both of these readings were paired together is because at the core they discuss “good intentions.” There were two main points that stood out the most from the readings. The first point that should be talked about is how people apply the “But he meant well” factor to others and how this affects social activism. The second being how strengths and weaknesses in social activism differ when comparing two different types of social activists—the Twitter Revolutionists and Diner Sit-ins. While the two points may seem different, they are very closely tied together.

I agree with Bennett in regards to the fact that people will almost always say “But he meant well” when a mistake is made, just as easily as they would say “At least I/they tried” when a task is not fully completed. You can then infer that those who “meant well” when conducting themselves in a rude or ignorant manner, in regards to social activism, “at least tried” to understand what those who were oppressed. What is lacking in this is that those who “tried” or “meant well” can never fully be in support of what they are acting upon. It makes the person seem ignorant.

In the TSIS reading, Gladwell spoke about the Diner Sit-ins and Twitter Revolutionists. Of course, the names are of my unoriginal creation but it helps repaint the picture that Gladwell drew about differences between to two groups. The Diner Sit-ins were those who rallied under the flag of social justice. They were organized, helped each other through their daily difficulties, placed themselves at risk for their cause and policed their own when necessary. Though a lot of time was spent organizing sit-ins, rallies, and boycotts. The Twitter Revolutionists, on the other hand, participate in similarly dangerous and controversial events from the safety of their homes and jobs. They do not have to lose school time or pay from work because social media provides an instantaneous and safe way to support social activism. The only good point they seem to provide, aside from instant participation and safety, is how fast people can spread news about events.

Though how does closely tie together with the second point?  The main reason I say that this two point are closely related is because of how they affect each other in regards to participation and motivation for causes. Those who are truly making a difference are those who are physically participating in creating positive changes. Well those who “mean well” make half-assed attempts from home to help those in need.

Have Things Really Changed?

In "I Don't Know What to Do With Good White People" by Brit Bennett, Bennett writes about her struggle with trying to determine whether or not good white people are just naturally good people, or if they're trying to make themselves feel good. She flashes back to stories told by her mom and grandmother of the way things were before Jim Crow Laws were abolished and relates them back to modern day crimes, such as the murders of Eric Garner and Mike Brown. Bennett says about the police officers to killed these men and many other victims, "the phrase [he means well] is so condescending, so cloyingly sweet, so hollow, that I'd almost rather anyone say anything else about me than how awful I am despite how good I intend to be." I agree with this because it truly is condescending. Innocent, young African-American citizens are dying by the hands of those we go to save us. And what's sad, is that their murders are justified by the simple phrase "he meant well". These victims were siblings, sons/daughters, fathers/mothers, and when they were brutally and senselessly murdered, their family's lives were changed forever. Not only that, but how could they trust the police now if they're in trouble? The police killed their beloved relative. And as far as the good white people who share anti-racism posts on social media, do they really agree with the post's message? I see it as yes, but not all of them. Some of these so-called 'good white people' only do it to seem like a good person to their friends on social media. They think that if their friends see it, they'll think "wow he/she is such a great person, so aware of today's issues". But if a black person does it, they're over-exaggerating, and they are playing the victim card.
"Small Change by Malcolm Gladwell, Gladwell starts off by addressing our nation's ugly past. He tells the readers about sit-ins and how popular they grew to be. Also, how dangerous they came to be. He compares the differences between activism now and activism back in the 1960's during the Civil Rights Movement. He uses the story of Sameer Bhatia, a young college student who was diagnosed with leukemia who needed a bone-marrow transplant. One of Bhatia's close friends used social media to raise awareness of Bhatia's need for a bone-marrow donor. Through this approach, Bhatia was able to find himself a match. Gladwell explains why this approach is so successful, "by not asking too much of them. That’s the only way you can get someone you don’t really know to do something on your behalf." Gladwell adds his opinion on the modern day form of activism saying, "It shifts our energies from organizations that promote strategic and disciplined activity and toward those which promote resilience and adaptability. It makes it easier for activists to express themselves, and harder for that expression to have any impact." I agree with this because people can tweet all day #BlackLivesMatter but it never really does anything. Think about it, most people scroll down their feeds and see the infamous hashtag and continue on scrolling. It doesn't have the same impact as the infamous sit-ins, it's not a strong impact at all. It just sits there, remaining 17 out of the 140 characters on Twitter, being just as irrelevant as a tweet about hot dogs. I think that if we really want to progress as a nation, we have to engage in more active activism.

change?

In both readings “I Don't Know What to Do with Good White People" and "Small Change” the authors are baselining talking about civil right movement time period and the time we live in now. I think both of these readings were paired together to show how examples of how people of color were treated generations ago and how these people making movements wanted change. In both readings it then shows oh much has changed but in reality much hasn’t changed at all. I agree with the readings that yes there are now laws that prohibit wrong doing to people of different races but as a matter of fact who really pushes that line. There are countless times that we read in the chapter “Small Change” by Malcolm Gladwell that he reiterated sit in’s and civil rights movements but how now it is just simply posted on social media. What I took from Gladwell is that he doesn’t think we can make these changes because we are stuck behind social media and the only way to get these issues heard in the past we the physically stand up for what we want and believe in. The other reading “I don’t know what to do with good white people” really stood out to me because it did show a different perceptive of what a person with color thinks of our community. The author does the same thing as the other reading and shows examples of the past when people of color have a wrong doing upon them. I agree with the author Britt Bennet that just because of someone background doesn’t automatically put a target on their back (or so it shouldn’t) Bennet implies that we all should have an equal opportunity and chance and that there really is good in everyone.

King & Coates

Both Coates and King want the same thing; justice. They both want the same thing, but they both have different ways of getting it. We all know that Martin Luther King Jr. was all for non-violent protest and didn’t like violent protests. He believed that these peaceful protests were more effective. If Coates and King were in a room together, there would be a lot of disagreement. In his letter, King wrote that society needs to accept and welcome non-violent protests because if they didn’t, eventually the black community will turn to violence. Coates would disagree with King about being non-violent. He believes that the people have the right to riot. In both pieces of writing, they mentioned how the police aren’t looked at as the problem. Coates says that the city covers the violent and brutal actions of the police. King mentions how the church commends the police force of doing a good job. I think they both have a lot of the same views, but their ways of getting justice really sets them apart. Coates would argue that violence is necessary to obtain justice and King would be totally against that. Coates would be against peaceful protests because it won’t get the job done. The black community’s anger is more than justifiable. They have a right to be angry. I think because these pieces of writing are written in very different times, their views are very different. They would both agree that people are concerned about protests, whether violent or non-violent, but they’re not concern about what leads to those protests. If I was in this debate, I would ask Doctor King to try to understand Coates point of view. It’s not right that people are still fighting for justice that black people are still getting beat and killed by a police force that’s supposed to protect them. I forgot where I heard it from or who said it, but I remember someone talking about how people are complaining that these protests are blocking the highway. That person said that those highways will be there tomorrow, that they’re lives will go on as nothing happened the next day, but that the people who are protesting will still have to be fighting for justice. I would tell Coates to also look at Doctor King’s view and see where he’s coming from. He believed that time should be used wisely. I’m not for fighting violence with violence, but when a community has been facing unjust for a long time and when their kids are getting gunned down, should they just sit on a sidewalk and hold up signs? 

Which extremist are you?

     If the two authors were in a room together, i feel the conversation would be quite intense. While they are both fighting for justice, Martin has more of a non-violence approach while Coates feels that violence is necessary. King might say something like: Although violence is inevitable, it isn’t necessary. We should obey the just laws and disobey the laws which oppress blacks, before we fight in the streets we should hold non-violent protest in order to express "the highest respect for law". And after these protest, if the segregationist still don’t grant civil rights to Negros then violence will inevitably occur, due to the pent up resentment and hatred of whites. “Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever”, the strive for freedom will become greater and greater with time, the government might as well grant blacks their civil liberties now BEFORE it is necessary.

     Although King might not agree too much with Coates, I feel Coates would find King’s approach just as good. Coates might reply something like: But how can we stand with our hands behind our backs while our oppressors’ disrespect and abuse Negro neighborhoods. By going by this “non-violent” approach, it is doing nothing but keeping the oppressors happy, they could care less about your protest. Once people start too radically stand up for what they believe is right – black or white- there will be no change.

     What I might say in this conversation is that they are both right! But I would probably agree with King in the attempt to try to follow the law and promote non-violence at first. But if no change or gain was ever implemented from these protest, I do feel radical violence would be necessary to get the point across. Like king said, “freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor . . . It must be demanded by the oppressed”. But I also feel that the violence could just lead to a lot of black being killed. Because police have such authority, they will be protected by the law for killing black men, which is just wrong. Overall I would agree more with King’s approach.

A Heated Argument

                The anger and passion in today’s society about social injustice is a hot topic. Although many misunderstand and interpret the message wrong, the opinion of all matters. We have had many speakers on the subject of black prejudice and injustice, but I’d like to take a look at how the black society is creating new talk in 2016 and compare it to older messages.

                Ta-Nehisi Coates does write a passionate article on the wrong doings against Freddie Gray and how the system covers up the law protectors instead of protecting the people.  If Dr. Martin Luther King sat down with Coates, I believe he would agree with him. That the people are supposed to be treated with ‘NO’ judgment but instead they are being wrongfully killed (morals out the window). Then the people in power calls for calm and peaceful environments. I believe Dr. King would, if having understanding the situation of minorities in 2016 and their ongoing fight to be seen racially equal, better yet racially just, he would agree with the retaliation of the people. As Dr. King says in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, “but I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” Dr. King was a peaceful man, history says, but he understood that measures had to be taken to prove a point. One common misconception is that Black people are always up in arms, but throughout history every big and successful civil rights movement was violent. Haiti, Cuba, South Africa, Mexican Moreno movement, including white America’s which was not even halfway about slavery was violent. With that said Dr. Martin Luther King Jr would agree with Mr. Coates and his claim that for the people to do “right” the government has to do “right” also.

                If I was in the conversation, I’d ask Dr. Martin Luther king for his autograph and a selfie. Yay. Secondly, I’d approach the conversation of letting Dr. King know how much of an inspiration he is, but then also say how much of a clutch he has been for the oppressors. I’d want to ask him how he felt about his words being used to oppress his people even more in a completely different racial environment and movement. Then I’d ask Coates about how he felt about what I just said, hopefully he’d agree that people say that black people are reversing all the good work Dr. King did without totally understanding the situation. That Dr. King wasn’t afraid of rising tension and creating social strain. His peaceful movement was not peaceful, smart, logically, precise yes, peaceful? No.

Coates & King

If King and Coates sat down for a debate regarding the role of anger, extremism, and violence in social justice movements, I believe they would have very different opinions. Coates’s article discusses the death of Freddie Gray. A black man who’s spine was severely severed due to police brutality. He mysteriously died a week later. Coates expresses how unfair it is for those who abuse authority to demand nonviolence when they themselves have disobeyed the laws that they so much enforce. Coates and King obviously disagree about the appropriate way to protest. Coates argues, “When nonviolence is preached as an attempt to evade the repercussions of political brutality, it betrays itself” (Coates). In the debate I believe Coates would argue that violence is necessary when there is an abuse of power. I think he believes that justice can’t be served with nonviolent protests. Coates would most likely argue that anger is the best way to achieve social justice. On the other hand, King is a strong advocate for nonviolent protests. King explains, “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored” (King). I think the two would agree that freedom, or justice, is never easily given. King states, “We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed” (King). Coates knows that no progress will be made without standing up for ones rights. I think although they would disagree on the means of protest or achieving justice, they would agree on the attitude involved which is that it must be demanded. I also believe they would agree on King’s definition of just and unjust laws. Coates and King both feel betrayed by the police violating basic human rights. If I joined the conversation I would share my opinion on the subject. I believe King’s “Letter from Birmingham jail” to be beautifully written with the exact approach that should be taken in regard to social injustice. I do not believe that violence should be stopped with more violence.

Calling for Change

In the letter, " Letter from Birmingham Jail," written Black rights activist, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., he speaks about the importance of staying calm in the call for attention upon the injustice present in the city. In the second text, "Nonviolence as Compliance," by fellow Birmingham resident, Ta-Nehisi Coates, the author explains the difficulty of remaining "calm," as advised by city officials, when their has been violent repeated, unpunished injustice in the city.
If the two author were to be in a debate on the matter, there would be a clear disagreement on the approach of the crisis, but the same goal would be set in mind. It is clear to the readers that the two authors have grown impatient, and demand an urgent change. However, Coates seems to be the most angry. Even as King sits in jails for acting with a nonviolent response, he still advises and intends to act in such a way. Reasonably, Coates has grown disgusted with such violence coming from the part of police officers in the city. From under age children to Senior citizens, there has been a violent act that injured or killed an innocent individual. As Coates would argue with King that the time has come to give back what has been dissed out, King would argue that remaining calm would enforce his idea of "direct action." This would give the protesters the upper hand in the ongoing debate of better rights for the minority groups.
Personally, King would have the right idea, since acting out violently would prove officials right. If protest was done in the right way, that would show the upper hand, and ability to come to some sort of agreement. In addition, acting out violently would just result in more injures and deaths, which should be avoided as much as possible.

King V. Coates

            I feel like Coates and King would agree that about the whole just and unjust laws theory. They both kind of explain how just because it’s a law doesn’t means its morally right. Honestly, other than that, it is hard for me to come about another point that they would agree on. I feel that the two have to very separate opinions, Coates would say something along the lines of, “That you should not be allowed to prevent violence behavior on a crime that involved violence for absolutely no reason.” That might actually be exactly what he said, if not, close. He would argue that if the community is to receive “hollow law and failed order” that the community should be able to do the same. Kind of like… if they wanna fight dirty, so will we. King would respond with something like, “You don’t fight fire with fire Coates, that’ll only worsen things.” I almost feel like Martin Luther kind of had a more mature feel to how he wanted things to be solved. That might sound a little weird, but he believed that morality was most important in this situation and that violence would only show our government that we are, in a way, disobedient. He explains, “Oppressed people can not remain oppressed forever”.

            If I were to sit down with the two and be able to discuss the situation, I think I would try and discuss their view on a “fix” to this disrespect and discrimination. Because (unlike Carson) I believe that there are possible ways to, in a way, resolve racism. I believe that in order to enlighten our futures/future relationships with others, we must not continue to bring up the past; you can’t expect thing to physically and mentally change if all you are constantly stuck on how things use to be instead of on how things should morally be now. No there isn’t something that the government can forcedly do about the attitudes of their people, but because it has been such a problem in America for so long, you’d think people are ready for a damn change.

King vs. Coates

I believe if Coates and King began to discuss their very different opinions on whether or not violence is the right choice to solve political and social issues they would both be very frustrated with each other. I think Dr. King would tell Coates that by being violent people just reinforce the stereotypes and stigmas politicians and police have for certain racial and economic demographics. He would tell Coates that if he wants anything to change they need to first show that they can be peaceful about their protest. I believe Coates would come right back and tell him that if people stopped showing violence in protests just because the people in power tell them they should then they’re telling those people that they’re right in their actions and that they can do whatever they want because everyone will just stop when they’re told to. I think both authors are educated but they’re both from such different times. While discrimination is still an issue I think the types of discrimination have vastly shifted (not saying their worse or better, just different). If I could sit down and talk to them both I would tell them that neither of them are right, and neither of them are wrong this world isn’t black and white, or yes and no The way to deal with injustice isn’t one way or the other. There is nothing that will just “solve” the issue of discrimination or police brutality. Peaceful protests can project a lack of passion and an admission or correctness of political leaders. While violent protest can create a world of correctness in the leader’s minds because “how can we expect them to comply when pulled over if they can’t even protest peacefully. Sadly, I’d tell them that either way they’re playing into the hands of those who have power, but that doesn’t mean they should stop what they’re doing. I would tell them that at some point if they keep compromising with each others methods of protest they might find “the golden ticket” of protesting that can’t be undermined by politicians or police men.

Obama/Ally

Barack Obama’s speech is full of emotions and greatly displays how different emotions, of varying scales, can complement each other in a speech. Obama does start with a patriot tone to capture the audience’s attention. Who doesn’t like to get behind the “Merica” bandwagon? As he talks about the signing of the Constitution, he mentions slavery and that sets the tone for next couple of pages that a serious and uncomfortable issue is about to be discussed. With this uneasy topic on the audience’s mind. Obama can freely talk about the racial disparities in his life, such as Reverend Wright. Obama begins talking about Reverend Wright as the man who used “incendiary language” to make comments that could potentially widen the racial inequality gap. The emotions he uses transition from slight disappointment in the Reverend to that of respect of the man who helped Obama find his way in this world. He uses similar emotional transitions as he talks about what is wrong with the country in regards to racial divides in society to make the audience sympathize with those affected. He, then, moves to get the audience “pumped” by intelligently transitioning to how we can better change society if we acknowledge what is wrong and try to change the wrongs by working together as one cohesive unit.

            In “Ally’s Choice,” The emotions that are triggered are mainly that of anger, shame, and compassion with hints of frustration. The anger is introduced after the tone is set up with the background of the town’s demographics and the story of Ally’s and Charlotta’s school experiences. The shame and frustration started during the telling of the high school experiences where Ally felt ashamed of being referred to as black, due to the harassment she faced, when she was “really cream…lots of cream” colored. The frustration was displayed in a clear fashion when Ally spoke about having to explain that she was not black or Negro and when Ally disowned Charlotta in front of Ally’s friends. The compassion comes about when Clarice, Charlotta and Ally say that they still love each other even if they have differing views regarding their racial identities. 

Ally's Choice/ Barack Obama speech

Commenter: There were no blogs to comment under 

Barack Obama’s race speech at the Constitution Center starts off with “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union”. This famous start of the Preamble to the Constitution sets the tone to be very patriotic, prideful, and serious. He later changes emotions and uses phrases like “racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe”. As he gets deeper into his ethnicity background he starts to get angry and passionate. He goes on to be outraged because “those are his people”. He feels emotional because he is apart of the stereotypes he’s describing. 

Ally’s choice podcast is about Ally following the Barack Obama campaign and her experience while doing so. Ally finds a woman named Clarice that looks white but will go out of her way to prove she is negro. He daughter on the other hand says she's white. This creates aggravation in her Mother Clarice. She wants her to be proud of being negro. Ally sets the tone of curiosity as she gives history on Clarice’s home town. Even though Clarice is only 1/16th black, she still considers herself as a negro because that’s what she was told when she was growing up. The emotions change to hatred because Clarice’s daughter talks about being bullied for being black in front of everyone while the teacher didn't do anything. She was so ashamed of being negro that she changed her life before the beginning of high school started. She disowned her own sister because she was so ashamed of being “dirty”.