Tag: north

Posted on

Douglass's Warped Views


Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

Fredrick Douglas has always been a character that I have admired for his intellectual ability but after the reading for today I am not so sure if I feel the exact same way about him.  Max points out in his work the general hypocrisy of Douglass through “his strong support of the Republican party which often abandoned black and while attacking individualistic northerners who wished to forget was issues while preaching self reliance to African Americans.” (MARIEHEMANN).  Now Douglass is a man who certainly built his own success out of the terrible lot life had given him.  Douglass taught himself to read and write while working as a slave and would use these tool to aid the black community.  I can understand why he would feel Reconstruction of the South would be unnecessary as he is an example of what someone can make out of themselves with little to no help.  This of course leads me to one of my favorite debates I have had in a Davidson class, “what was the war fought over?”  Douglass like most Americans believe that the war primarily was about slavery, I believe that the Civil War is falls somewhere in between the greatest game of chicken (regarding a group of people threatening something, in this case the South seceding) and a general over appreciation for someone’s role in a society (I believe the South thought that the North would be crippled without the raw goods and crops they provided).  Now Douglass is not wrong  thinking the war is about slavery, remember most people would see that as the biggest issue, but is certainly wrong to state as Henry put it “those who shape historical interpretations of the Civil War should be the ones to shape the fate of African-Americans in the post-war period.”

I get that Douglass was upset that this idea of Reconstruction was put into play right away, but what did he expect would happen? Was the South to suffer forever because they had an ideological difference that many considered “bad?”  It is this that makes me question Douglass for his hypocrisy.  Douglass is proof that there is more to meet the eye as his life challenges every claim that blacks were second class citizens due to their inferior intellectual nature.  It is now his turn to let members of the South prove that they can function in a society that does not treat blacks poorly.

A point that many of my classmates have made a comment on his an idea AJ brings up in his blog regarding Douglass being less credible because he did not participate in the war as a soldier.  To that comment I look towards a character like Ben Franklin.  To my knowledge he was not a soldier in the American Revolution, yet some of his views and rhetoric on the revolution are the most popular writings from that time period.   Douglass could have been held in the same light as Franklin but due to his simply “wrong” views regarding reconstruction and who should dictate the way we view the war to an extent wallows a state of irrelevancy because his work simply doesn’t appeal to the right audience.

Posted on

Now Wait Just a Minute


Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

Richard Jensen’s work “No Irish Need Apply: A Myth of Victimization” has me questioning my entire understanding of the struggle “my people” (three of four of my grandparents are immigrants from Ireland) went through in the U.S.  Growing up all I heard about was the lack of the opportunities my grandparents had growing up and how WASP America had kept their relatives down for years (relatives in this case being aunts and uncles of my grandparents).  Jensen’s work though brings to light thought about an issue I never once questioned.  As Eli said in his work everything that I had been told growing up was “plausible” due to where the stories I was hearing came from as well as the number of people saying the same exact story.  But now I simply have to change my understanding of the “struggle” my ancestors went through.  To that I am going to have to steal the words of College Gameday Analyst Lee Corso “NOT SO FAST SWEETHEART!”

I get that some of the prejudices that the Irish claim they went through were fabricated but life was by no means a walk in the park for these individuals.  Irish citizens in the United States I would argue were the slaves of the North due to the type of work that they performed.  Their desire for work in whatever capacity possible made them open to anything (and I mean anything) and because of that the argument can be made that the Irish are to blame for their role in society (something that can be seen by many Irish society members to remain with their “kind”).  However, just because one is willing to work at the lowest possible level does not mean that they have no dignity or sense of pride.  The Irish were exploited for the willingness to work, plain and simple.  I don’t think that Jensen gives the Irish enough credit in the fact that they may have recognized their role in society.  I believe that the Irish community’s close bond stems from the recognition that many community members simply had no option but to do as told.  There is an old expression that goes “one man is no man,” and the Irish embody this philosophy.  While one or maybe even many community member may have had wealth because the majority of the community didn’t have that value there was an issue with society.  I think the Irish think that if one many can’t attain the life they desired, outside forces must be working against that person because others got what they desired.

I can’t dispute the evidence that Jensen provides, it is all backed in the research that he performed (research that is very commendable as I feel that he went against popular opinion throughout his entire writing process).  However, I believe that history is largely based upon the ways in which an individual wants to view history.  History often plays out in a “to the victor go the spoils fashion,” and because of that everything can always be argued.  Did the Irish win their and that’s why they can claim they were held down by oppressive white business owners? An Irish Catholic from Massachusetts did become President of the United States so I would say that they Irish did win their struggle and because of that they can present their history as they like.  Irish community bonds where one wants to see everyone succeed before declaring a movement/cause a success and because that was never possible I truly believe that is where Irish ideology of the world against an individual emerges from.