Week 5: Leaders of Equality

This week the class watched two movies, Selma and Nelson Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom. Selma focused on a particular event in Martin Luther King's life and the civil rights movement in the United Sates, while Nelson Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom focused on the rise of Nelson Mandela as a activist and likewise, the civil rights movement. Both movies focused on civil rights movements but they take on distinct approaches in illustrating the plot.

One thing I enjoyed very much from the Nelson Mandela movie was the depiction of his life, and how it interfered with his goals and ultimately the movement. Mandela was lured into the movement because he felt a need to protect people, and due to the irony of working for a government that sought to govern a group of people it chose not to protect. The movie did a great job in depicting how the movement changed his life, and his take on achieving certain goals. It demonstrated the shift in ideology from a non-violent to an "unrestrained" movement, and how Mandela's experiences led him to choose equality over dominance, or revenge, after his release.

In the other hand, Selma focused on a specific event - the marching of Selma, Alabama, to Montgomery, Alabama in 1965. The movie did a great job illustrating the hardships during the movement, and presenting different points of views on every matter. I really enjoyed how the movie emphasized that the movement, and the actions of King, where not only a matter of social, but also political tensions. Some of the events that occurred where not successful, and mostly due to the lack of political accordance from the state and national government. It did a great job at portraying the reasoning behind King's actions, his fears, and his goals.

Both movies where entirely great, and I truly enjoyed both equally. The movies do have a similar plot, however, they take on a different approach on depicting the story. Selma is a great example of a movie who describes the issues that are faced when trying to achieve a goal for the well being of everybody. It shows how the fear of standing up for what you believe in can sometimes be difficult to withstand. Nelson Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom also depicted the issues of achieving a goal, but most importantly it showed how the movement affected a leader's life. It showed that being leader took a lot more than time and support. Mandela's commitment, for example, was a life-long term commitment, and it took him both devotion and patience to finally achieve his goals.

Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela

As an american, I am very familiar with Martin Luther King Jr., who he was, what he believed, and what he achieved. However, many Americans (including myself) are not as familiar with other civil rights activists, such as Nelson Mandela.

After reading a brief biography of Nelson Mandela, I uncovered a few of the similarities that both activist shared. First thing to mention should be that Mandela began his activist movement earlier than King. In 1944, Mandela began a movement to end the "apartheid," or separation between the African black and African white population in South Africa. A few years later, in 1955, martin Luther King began a similar movement in the United States. Both leader sought to end racial discrimination through the means of non-violence protest. Many of the tactics that both, Mandela and King, shared were tactics such as boycotting, strikes, and civil disobedience. 

As years passed, however, Mandela and King began taking different approaches towards their goals.

King remained predominately against violent rebellion, stating that "love has within it a redemptive power.. (and that) There is something about hate that tears down and is destructive. So love your enemies." In contrast, after being imprisoned under charges of treason, Mandela believed that the time had come to enact force against oppression. As he stated, "(equality) is an ideal which I hope to live for. But, my Lord, if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die." 

Ultimately, both civil rights activists were able to achieve their goals. The Civil Rights Act was ratified in the United States in 1964, ending segregation and discrimination based in race, ethnicity, or religion, and Mandela was appointed President of South Africa in 1994, in which South Africans (both black and white) sought a new era for their country.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/nelson-mandelas-inspirational-quotes/story?id=8879848

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/23924.Martin_Luther_King_Jr_

A Glimpse of South Africa

Not too long ago, I new very little to nothing about South Africa. The only few things that I new about it was it was located in the southern part of the continent (obviously), that it had beautiful beaches, and that the World Cup had taken place there.

After reading a little bit of South Africa's history, I couldn't help but wonder why American and South African shared so many similarities. Slavery, for example, was a common practice in both the Americas and the southern colonies of Africa, and although emancipation was ratified about 30 years earlier in South Africa, people of color faced discrimination and segregation (just as in the Americas). To justify such actions against (predominately) blacks, southern states in the U.S. passed laws known as "Jim Crow Laws" establishing African American's status as "separate but equal." Likewise, South Africa passed similar laws such as the "Bantu Education Act," disallowing black children from proper education claiming that they would not need it for the jobs they have as adults.

Today, neither country holds laws legally (or directly) segregating or discriminating on accounts of race. South Africa, however, is still recovering from their civil right movement that occurred in the 1980's and well into late 90's. We, in the U.S., could say that we are moderately progressive when it comes to civil rights and racial differences. Compared to the 1960's, discrimination - and racism - have gradually decreased to this day. South Africa, in the other hand, still faces such issues. Discrimination and social differences between blacks and whites is an evident part of South African life,  reflected by the homes, jobs, and lifestyles of each group. 

Interesting enough, not everything I learned about South Africa was its history. I gain a bit more insight on its economy, its lifestyle, and culture. In South Africa, for example, the most popular business industry is the mining industry, allocating about $4.7 trillion. Also, the country is familiar with popular "Western" (loosely used term) culture such as bands like One Direction, and sports such as Soccer and Cricket.

I will have a chance to listen to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of African Affairs, David Gilmour, talk to the group and I about his experience in South Africa. I'd like to know what his views on South Africa are, and how he would compare them to those he has on the United States. I'd like to hear about the similarities and differences in politics between the two countries, and their impact on current civil issues.

Ending Racism?

I've met a few people who dislike the term "race." They believe that acknowledging a person's race is racist - that placing a title on a person based on differences such as the color of their skin is inhumane. Although I agree that categorizing people based on physical differences is incorrect, I would not necessarily say that acknowligding someone's race is racist. Some people, for example, don't think of race as a negative term. Instead, many (like myself) are proud of their race, not because of physical differences, but because race also brings along heritage and culture. In this sense, ending the terminology  or classification of "race" will not end racism. Racism is not a title or the physical characteristics that we have; Racism are the advantages and social differences that certain groups of people have - regardless of race. To end racism, institute equality, and diminish our differences, it is important to acknowledge the source. If people could get together and talk about their differences, they may not be as different anymore - we may feel more comfortable talking to one other, and most importantly, began to treat each other with the same amount of respect.

"The Complexity of Identity: Who Am I?" by Beverly Daniel Tatum

Beverly Daniel Tatum, author of The Complexity of Identity: Who Am I?, defines what, in his terms, identity is, and ultimately who people are.

An interesting observation that he makes is that we classify ourselves as the things that others notice, and reflect to us. Writing about a time in which his students where asked to define who they where, Tatum observed that many of them did not mention certain characteristics that in our society would be seen as "dominant," and that instead they focused on stating those characteristics that tended to be associated as "subordinate."  The "dominant" characteristics included examples such as being White, Protestant, a male, or heterosexual, while "subordinate" characteristics included others such as being of color, Jewish, a female, or homosexual.

Personally, I think that Tatum's definition, or observation, of what a person's identity is, is quite accurate, and pretty much the ugly truth. If I were to be asked who I was, I would probably briefly state that I am a skinny Mexican-American young adult who is passionate about computers. It's pretty self explanatory, and surely something anyone can see. Thus, I agree with Tatum in the sense that identity can be defined as the things that others see, that reflect on you.

"White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack," by Peggy McIntosh

Peggy McIntosh is a member of Women's Studies, a group of women whose role she describes as to "work to reveal male privilege and ask men to give up some of their power." In White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack, McIntosh describes white privilege and advantages as an invisible package of unearned assets. She begins by making a comparison between the relationship between men and women in terms of privilege. McIntosh mentions that women are disadvantaged, while men are advantaged, and that although men are able to acknowledge women's disadvantages, men are not able to acknowledge their advantages and privileges. She continues by stating that the denial to refuse men privilege protects their advantages from being lesser or ended.

It seem a little odd to me, the idea that those who are advantaged should become equal to those who are disadvantaged by lessening or ending their advantages. Why not create equality by setting disadvantages individuals at the same level as those who are advantage (in terms of privileges) instead?

As the article continues, McIntosh presents another point. She compares men privilege to white privilege. She states that White privilege is "unearned," and has several advantages over people of different races, who are not white.

Ultimately, McIntosh concludes that White individuals, like her self, where raised with certain privileges that were unknown to them. She implies that racism is not only shown through acts of meanness by her group, but also through an invisible system that grants unacknowledged racial dominance on Whites since birth.

After reading her complete analogy, I began to rethink my question. Maybe there IS a need to end certain "unearned" privileges to bring equality between men and women, such as there may be a need to end certain racial privileges to end racism.