The Civil Rights Movement

Image: 'Martin Luther King Jr. Stencil' 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/57086069@N00/233106076

During the Civil Rights Movement in southern America, African Americans were not the only people who were targeted by the hate that lingered in the air. Segregationists knew that the people who were delivering the video and images to the entire country were the reason these “separate but equal” laws were being challenged. Northern reporters who flew south to cover the Little Rock Nine, the first nine black students to be enrolled in an all-white school, were treated with the same distaste as African Americans. They were not allowed to stay at most motels, and were often shouted at by the whites.

This staple in American history could not have been placed without the help of television. Had these events been vividly written about in a newspaper or magazine, it would not have caught the attention of an entire nation. It took the north in particular actually seeing young men being held and attacked by dogs, and a woman being held on the ground by five cops to say: “What a minute, this is wrong.”. An image of this black school boy who was held by his shirt by a police officer while a police dog attacked him, was what really laid the pressure on President Kennedy to create some sort of legislature that would put an end to these violent and often gruesome attacks.

Image: 'Speaking up' 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29125594@N03/3655636156

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was one of the main speakers at 1963’s March on Washington, and made an impression on America for years to come with his “I Have a Dream” speech. Television stations ran specials about the March on Washington regardless of whether they had sponsor support or not. Southerners dismissed the media coverage of this issue as propaganda. Television made the passing of two pieces of legislation possible: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and The Voting Rights Act of 1965. The United States of America would never be the same, thankfully.

Image: 'no silence/police violence' 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/18161271@N00/4984368001

The reason for my comparison of the Civil Rights Movement to Occupy Wall Street (which has turned into Occupy the World) has nothing to do with the goals that each expression of protests aimed/aim to accomplish. Although there are many similarities, the focus of the second half of my blog is to compare the treatment of Civil Rights marchers to that of the Occupiers.

The situations that have gotten the most media attention during the Occupy movement have been the most brutal and the most uncalled for. In Occupy Oakland in November 2011, veteran Scott Olsen was hospitalized during a peaceful protest. According to several articles, cops used devices to end protests such as tear gas and rubber bullets. Many witnesses say that these forms or retaliation from police were not necessary. In addition, many credentialed journalists have been arrested and had their recordings and photos destroyed.

Image: 'Arrested!' 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8657955@N02/3412898779

I believe that the public seeing videos and pictures of police brutality during the Occupy movements are as powerful and send a strong message just like the television coverage of the Civil Rights Movement. The public are more likely to feel apathetic toward the people being mistreated when they are able to watch a video and feel as if they are not separated by a television but actually there with the protesters. The more technology progresses over time, the more immediate this type of information will be to Americans and the world. In turn, movements such as that of Civil Rights and Occupy Wall Street can focus more on their goal, and not on the treatment of people as farm animals.

Creating "Rosie the Riveter"

Stenographers: Victory waits on your fingers -- keep 'em flying, Miss U.S.A. Uncle Sam needs stenographers. 

1944. Artist: unknown. Produces by the Royal Typewriter Company for the U.S. Civil Service Commission.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/modestchanges/3213853041/

During World War II, a call went out to women all over the United States. Their country needed them to help in the war effort, and many were reluctant. For years, women were told that their most important job didn’t require them to leave the home, yet women who were employed outside of their home increased by fifty-eight percent between 1940 and 1944. Why the sudden jump in numbers? Did women simply decide that they should go out and find jobs? No, the mystery factor that is responsible for this is our good friend: the Fourth Estate.

When all was said and done, what happened as a result of women being thrown into men’s jobs was not what the original goal planned for. Journalists thought of every possible way to get women to feel as if it were their DUTY to go to work, that it would help save lives and end the war sooner. Certain articles and photographs even lead women to believe that working more than twelve hours a day in a factory could be glamorous. I think many people believed that all would go back to normal once the war was over, but they couldn’t be more wrong. If women hadn’t realized that being in the workforce was something they could do just as well as (and at times better than) men, things might be very different than they are in today’s society.

"I think a lot of women said Screw that noise. 'Cause they had a taste of freedom, they had a taste of making their own money, a taste of spending their own money, making their own decisions. I think the beginning of the women's movement had its seeds right there in World War Two."

-Dellie Hahne, an educator who worked as a nurse's aid for the Red Cross during the war

Image: 'Proud_LOC_PrintsPhotographs_cph05603' 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/17699661@N00/3213853485

Although something so positive came out of women answering the call of their country, this wasn’t the intent. The United States media got into the brains of women from every city and gave them an opportunity that conservatives tried to take back once the war was over, but it was too late.

I believe that the media’s ways of using propaganda to get women to step out of the world they’ve always known and show their “patriotism” actually worked, then backfired. Women answered the call, then wouldn’t let go of the education and information they’d acquired during the war. The media can find ways of making a country’s citizens believe whatever they feel should be believed, and it continues today.

Let me begin this section of my blog by saying that my intent is not to take a stance on either side of the following argument. I have never been in the situation that entitles me to place myself in the shoes of women who have (or have not) made a choice. My intent is, though, to share how I feel both sides of this ethical and now political argument is portrayed through media, and how I see it is on the verge of modern day propaganda. The pro-choice and pro-life debate seems to get more heated each and every day. I believe that each side has its own “home field” that it will always go back to when necessary. Supporters of pro-choice aim to take women back to the days of not having rights and urge them to remember that they do in fact have control over their own body. Pro-lifers harp on the argument that abortion kills an innocent young person, and both sides do the job of tugging on heart strings.

As a woman going into this with no previous knowledge of this debate, I am asked two questions: Do I want to have rights over my own body? Heck yes!! Do I want to kill an innocent unborn human being? Heck no!! I am already torn, so what is a young woman to do? I always thought journalism was supposed to present me with the information I needed to live a free life, but some of the graphic advertisements seem like they want to do more of the thinking FOR me.

Image: 'Image: 'Rally for Planned Parenthood Funding NYC 2/26/11'' 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/40393390@N00/803931026

I begin with pro-choice. Every person wants to be able to make decisions about their own body. People, young adults in particular, make dumb decisions without considering the consequences and repercussions.  If a girl gets pregnant, has the intention to give her baby up for adoption but falls in love once she holds the newborn infant, is the baby better off? I know there are many teens who have children and make the best possible living conditions for their unexpected gift from up above, but there are still a lot of immature young adults out there. If I were to have a child at the age of twenty-three, I would not be able to financially support him/her, nor would my father offer to take on the role of diaper buying duty. If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, should she be forced to carry a child as well as her horrifying memories of this traumatizing event? These are all questions that pro-choice advocates ask us to answer, because they have a feeling that our answers will lean in the direction they want to defend.

The opposing side is pro-life. A fetus has a heartbeat, therefore it should have the same rights that we have after we are born. A woman who has an unexpected pregnancy can give their baby up for adoption, especially considering how many couples there are in this country and all over the world who weren’t blessed with the ability to bear children. If I were to unexpectedly become pregnant, my first thought would be that this baby could be a blessing for a couple who can give him/her a life they deserve.  Abortion is also considered by many to be unsafe, and could complicate future planned pregnancies. In addition to physical health complications, abortion could warrant psychological problems as well. If a woman has an abortion before she has a child through birth, the chances of child abuse are thought to be more likely to happen at home. I’m still torn.

Image: 'Tiny Babies (bullshit propaganda)' 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/77716467@N00/2235440752

This is a topic that I think I need to debate with myself and not have others do the debating for me. During World War 2, propaganda was extremely one-sided and most women of that time were lead to believe that they wouldn’t have any trouble raising children, caring for a home, and working forty-eight hours a week. How could that have possibly not been difficult?? The same difficulty is faced head-on when we discuss issues pertaining to personal rights and ethics, except this time there are two very solid grounds you can choose from. I firmly believe that there are many people who are turning the current issue of pro-choice vs. pro-life into modern day propaganda. I think that in certain cases, the media are trying to make up our minds for us when we are completely capable of deciding for ourselves. Compelling photographs, quotes and cartoons are continuously used to sway people’s choices, and I don’t think it will ever change.