PDA

View Full Version : African-American Socio-Political Proffer of Post Civil War



Skaman
02-24-2004, 10:51 PM
In a period of growing industry, the labor class finds itself stuck in a

vacuum of poverty, dominated by their capitalist masters. While social

programs begin to emerge and examine these stagnant groups,

individuals like William Graham Sumner take a Social Darwinist stance.

Rather than hand out ‘capital’ and better the societal whole as a

collective, Sumner takes an individualistic stance, promoting the ideal that

all members of society are responsible to their own, and no other.

Sumner goes to such lengths as to suggest that the rich are prosperous

as they build their livelihood and wealth off of the inferiority of others.

This stark assertion can be made on page forty four in Sumner’s article-

“What Social Classes Owe to Each Other, 1883”: “The men who have not

done their duty in this world never can be equal to those who have done

their duty more or less well”. All have the born right to seek equality, but

in actuality, Sumner suggests it is not a reality at all, and this is left to

chance. Page forty three stipulates in one quote: :Rights should be equal

because they pertain to chances, and all ought to have equal chances so

far as chances are provided or limited by the action of society”,

Ultimately, Sumner sees helping the less privileged as simply moving

ones capital to another, and futile as a means of equality

In the post civil war period, African Americans are faced with a

dilemma of belonging in ‘free society’. While the shackles of slavery have

been broken, they are now subject to racial, economic, and political

subsistence. The fallacy of freedom is a hard lesson learned, and

theories like Sumner’s only hold back a segregated people further,

complicated by hate and unemployment. How can a people make a life

for themselves and rise in social status when they are the very victim of

Sumner’s ‘superior economic elite’? A voice for the African American

contingent is even unlikely as political action is met with lynching and

stern Anglo-American resistance. How then does a ‘free’ people exist,

how do they go about living their lives? Individuals such as W.E.B Dubois

and Henry McNeal Turner propose their own solutions to the cyclical

problem.
Dubois advocates a social, educational aristocracy ideal of sorts,

putting emphasis on taking the talented members of the African American

society and improving upon these individuals so they can in-turn transfer

their skills to the rest of the African- American populous. He stresses that

notice is not given to those African- Americans who have indeed

surpassed expectation and risen to great heights in standards of

education, literacy and morality. This general theme of Dubois is made

on page forty four with: “…it is the problem of developing the best of the

race that they may guide the Mass away from the contamination and

death of the worst, in their own and other races” Dubois is selective,

lumping the ‘untalented 90’ as a ‘social contagion’, only destined to drag

down the rest of the African- American contingency. What must be

understood is that apart from the ‘talented tenth’ an immense and great

proportion of ex-slaves would live a life of disparity, fragmented within

their own social setting, already held in general disregard from the rest

of the Anglo-American population. Rather than live a disenfranchised life,

individuals such as Henry McNeal Turner promoted the African American

look within for a solution, and act together as a strengthened

homogenous unit.
Turner examines the grim realism of a segregated society and

comments on the hopelessness of an equal people, ultimately dominated

and controlled by a white society. The very status of an African-

American is not his own. Turner makes this claim on page 42: “The civil

status of the Negro is simply what the white man grants of his own free

will and accord. The black man can demand nothing.” A solution does

not exist within the United States, but at the root and origin of the African

continent, the cradle of their culture, society, and language. It was in

Africa that Turner proposed the ex-slaves make a life for themselves. In

a post civil war period, there was no place for African- Americans, their

freedom was a fallacy, and their liberties were non-existent, salvation lay

in their own hands.


While all three sources provide different aspects of thought in

dealing with the African Americas in the post civil war, it was

consequently and amalgamation of all these ideals that formed the

backbone of African- Americans in the United States. Many ex-slaves

returned to their roots in the African continent, many rose to great

achievements at the side of Fredrick Douglas, while additionally, many

suffered the burden of an oppressive socio-political life.


'rough copy'

EvanL
02-24-2004, 10:57 PM
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Way too complicated... *head explodes*

hank
02-25-2004, 08:16 AM
Duci - I had a hard time reading this, not necessarily b/c I disagree but b/c you write in a very complicated manner. If that is your goal, cool. If not, try to take out or move a lot of the prepositional phrases you have at the beginning of sentences and between subjects and verbs. Readability gets killed when the subject and verb are far apart and when the subject comes late in a sentence. Just a thought to maybe allow you to reach your audience a little better.

The first sentence is a perfect example, the intro phrase kills the sentence, takes 6-7 words to get to the action. Makes it harder to read and makes people tune out.

hank

NcDeuce
02-25-2004, 08:21 AM
Works Cited?

Haiw
02-25-2004, 08:32 AM
Like hank said, don't waste readability on your urge to use the entire 'dictionary of educated words'. It's totally useless.

WARPIG
02-25-2004, 11:53 AM
I agree. Not really with the content but with the comments on how it was written. Put the vocab calender away and speak a little plainer. I don't mean dumb it down. Keep all the context but instead of plagerizing all the blurbs and statements of your three theorists.. explain their differences in more common terms.
Well, I guess depends on what your reason for posting this is.
As it were, the three views expressed in your post seem out of context in the present day reality of African-American social climate.
What was this for, or from, or the purpose?

The Walrus
02-26-2004, 07:53 AM
You sure can talk the lingo...
I myself am fully trained in the art of writing eloquent bollocks (not saying yours is bollocks, couldnt be arsed to decipher it myself).
It's done wonders for my Philosophy essays, got full marks for my last two on Epistomology and Utilitarianism, I just re-iterated the same point in a subtly different manner with different buzzwords and grammar structures.
All I can say is keep up the good work and get the grades ;)
(assuming this is an article you wrote for school/college/uni/whatever)

Skaman
02-26-2004, 06:24 PM
You sure can talk the lingo...
I myself am fully trained in the art of writing eloquent bollocks (not saying yours is bollocks, couldnt be arsed to decipher it myself).
It's done wonders for my Philosophy essays, got full marks for my last two on Epistomology and Utilitarianism, I just re-iterated the same point in a subtly different manner with different buzzwords and grammar structures.
All I can say is keep up the good work and get the grades ;)
(assuming this is an article you wrote for school/college/uni/whatever)


Yes, it is. It was a portion of my American History midterm. This part was the take-home; the exam was done in class. This kind of writing does not appeal to casual readers due to its complexity, although some do indeed enjoy it, and can relate to the historical theme based on prior or current post secondary studies. Nonetheless, despite its verbosity, professors eat it up!

Trigger
02-26-2004, 06:35 PM
Yawn.

FallenAngel
02-26-2004, 09:00 PM
You sure can talk the lingo...
I myself am fully trained in the art of writing eloquent bollocks (not saying yours is bollocks, couldnt be arsed to decipher it myself).
It's done wonders for my Philosophy essays, got full marks for my last two on Epistomology and Utilitarianism, I just re-iterated the same point in a subtly different manner with different buzzwords and grammar structures.
All I can say is keep up the good work and get the grades ;)
(assuming this is an article you wrote for school/college/uni/whatever)


Yes, it is. It was a portion of my American History midterm. This part was the take-home; the exam was done in class. This kind of writing does not appeal to casual readers due to its complexity, although some do indeed enjoy it, and can relate to the historical theme based on prior or current post secondary studies. Nonetheless, despite its verbosity, professors eat it up!

Bleh...I do it too. One of writing professors actually told me I had demonstrated a mastery of english despite my age.

PS- I hate Utilitarianism. ;)

JiJoMacLE45
02-26-2004, 09:03 PM
You now, Farakhan is coming to my city in about two weeks to talk about slave reparations. I called in advance for tickets, (cause we all know I love the guy), but could not procure any. Damn.

hank
02-27-2004, 09:04 AM
You sure can talk the lingo...
I myself am fully trained in the art of writing eloquent bollocks (not saying yours is bollocks, couldnt be arsed to decipher it myself).
It's done wonders for my Philosophy essays, got full marks for my last two on Epistomology and Utilitarianism, I just re-iterated the same point in a subtly different manner with different buzzwords and grammar structures.
All I can say is keep up the good work and get the grades ;)
(assuming this is an article you wrote for school/college/uni/whatever)


Yes, it is. It was a portion of my American History midterm. This part was the take-home; the exam was done in class. This kind of writing does not appeal to casual readers due to its complexity, although some do indeed enjoy it, and can relate to the historical theme based on prior or current post secondary studies. Nonetheless, despite its verbosity, professors eat it up!

Well that really depends on the professors doesn't it? You write anything like this in law school, or for a judge for that matter, and it is wasted paper cuz they won't read it. Funny thing about this type of writing is that nobody reads it. Not even the professors who claim to. My mother in law has a PhD in English and her dissertation was on Jungian and Hiddeger(sp?) in Percy Walker's novels. Are you kidding me? Anybody who says they WANT to red that is a bad liar. They may HAVE to read it, but WANT to, gimme a break. If you want the real world, even that part of the world that is well read, put the subject and verb close and at the beginning of sentences. You can still write with a great level of complexity by following those rules.

I have written several briefs for competitions and 2 that actually got filed in the TN Court of Appeals and if you don't follow the simple rules, the complexity gets lost in the background noise. Still you are correct to write for your audience and if you know this professor likes this then give it to him/her.

hank

The Walrus
02-27-2004, 10:49 AM
You sure can talk the lingo...
I myself am fully trained in the art of writing eloquent bollocks (not saying yours is bollocks, couldnt be arsed to decipher it myself).
It's done wonders for my Philosophy essays, got full marks for my last two on Epistomology and Utilitarianism, I just re-iterated the same point in a subtly different manner with different buzzwords and grammar structures.
All I can say is keep up the good work and get the grades ;)
(assuming this is an article you wrote for school/college/uni/whatever)


Yes, it is. It was a portion of my American History midterm. This part was the take-home; the exam was done in class. This kind of writing does not appeal to casual readers due to its complexity, although some do indeed enjoy it, and can relate to the historical theme based on prior or current post secondary studies. Nonetheless, despite its verbosity, professors eat it up!

Bleh...I do it too. One of writing professors actually told me I had demonstrated a mastery of english despite my age.

PS- I hate Utilitarianism. ;)

I find Utilitarianism easy, it's basically the whipping boy of philosophical theories and more or less the only essays you're given on them are to do with how ****e it is, and there are many things that are ****e about it...
We've just started theory of knowledge and it is quite taxing and boring to an extent, I even preffered doing Platos 'the republic' to Epistomology, now thats saying something...