Responses to Prompts from Two Books - Assignment Example

Responses to Prompts from Two Books First Prompt In 1951, the United s Supreme Court ruled on a landmark case; the Brown v. Board of Education case. The court’s decision disallowed racial segregation in American schools on grounds that segregated education was inherently unconstitutional. 37 years after the 1951 landmark ruling, Jonathan Kozol found out that racial segregation was still deeply rooted in the American education system. In fact, segregation seemed to have intensified in public schools. Unfortunately, the black community appeared to have accepted the prevailing state of segregation. Worst of all, Booker T. Washington was the most reference African American public figure in segregated education settings. For anyone familiar with the African American history, the frequent reference to Booker T. at the expense of other notable public figures like Luther King Jr. and Du Bois was disheartening (Kozol 03). Apparently, African American societies held relatively differing perspectives on Booker T., Du Bois, and Luther King Jr. During his research endeavors, Kozol found out that the educational perspectives represented by the three public figures were not only skewed but also subjective. Booker T, Du Bois and Luther King were all champions in the fight for African American rights and freedoms. However, each of these figures approached and conducted their fight distinctively. Booker T was more of a reconciliatory fighter as opposed to the demanding fights staged by both Du Bois and Luther King Jr. (Kozol 13). From a contrasting and comparative perspective, one would say that Booker T. settled for less when he likened the nature of American racial segregation to the innately separated fingers held together by one hand. Technically, Booker T. encouraged blacks to acquire productive skills and economic muscle before staging violent and non-violent quest for freedom. Unlike Booker T., Du Bois demanded for social justice and equality for colored Americans. Du Bois was indifferent to the idea of acquisition of industrial skills at the expense of classical education (Kozol 14). Similarly, Luther King Jr. took the footsteps of Du Bois by advocating for non-violent resistance to racial segregation through peaceful protests and economic boycotts. With respect to Jonathan’s book, I am of the opinion that Booker T. was admired not only by the oppressed African American population, but also by the white oppressors. The frequent reference to Booker T. in educational materials is attributed to the fact that the whites liked him for his hidden support of segregation. Booker T. approached the issue of segregation from nonthreatening and mutually beneficial fronts (Kozol 18). In this regard, Booker T. spearheaded a noble cause that seemed feasible from the whites’ perspective. Since the whites were not willing to stop segregation, the government viewed Booker T. as a true leader. Consequently, most advocacy efforts staged by Booker T. were not only approved by the government, but also preserved in historical and scholarly texts. Even the African American population, especially black parents and black officials in schools favored the version of struggle proposed by Booker T. As a result of the government-sponsored popularization of Booker T., his version of advocacy became widely accepted and frequently referenced in scholarly texts. Later, Du Bois would sadly sink and drown when he tried to swim upstream in the river of social campaign founded by Booker T. As aforementioned, Jonathan Kozol realized that Du Bois was never referenced within educational settings. This means that Du Bois had been relegated by both the whites and African Americans into marginalized corners of black civil struggles. Despite being an objective civil rights activist, lack of reference to Du Bois is attributed to his role in discrediting Booker T’s efforts (Kozol 23). Kozol prefers to think that Du Bois posted limited triumphs because he went contrary to opinions of the majority at the time. Despite being unpopular among blacks and whites, Du Bois was certainly an objective activist. Unfortunately, his courage and decision to sincerely criticize the conceptual mistakes of Booker T. was perceived as retrogressive; hence Du Bois received significantly limited support to an extent that his efforts are scarcely referenced in social settings like schools. Based on Jonathan’s book, Luther King Jr. was slightly more revered compared to Du Bois. However, Booker T. still dwarfed the efforts of Luther King Jr. As a result, Luther King Jr. was only cited with cautious selectivity. Unlike Booker T., Luther King Jr. rejected the gradual approach to equality (Kozol 21). Luther King Jr. demanded for equality through practical means like constitutional amendments, peaceful street protests, and frequent economic boycotts. Undeniably, the cautious selectivity employed in referencing Luther King Jr. can be attributed to the activist’s advocacy for peaceful protests. Unlike Luther King J. Du Bois failed to secure reverent popularity in educational settings because he supported establishment of militarized gangs that engaged in violent actions. In his travels, Jonathan Kozol was disheartened by the relative reference to the three figures because Booker T. failed to use his reverent power in securing definite interests of African Americans (Kozol 15). The failure by Booker T. accounts for the prevailing state segregation discussed by Kozol in the first four chapters of his book titled Savage Inequalities. Second Prompt Undeniably, no man is an island. Since time immemorial, men always live together in societies. Apparently, living collectively in societies is an essential part of human existence. The innate influence of societies instills pressure and demands on individuals, thus compromising on the social concept of personal independence. Actually, we all do what our parent societies expect us to do. In most cases, the idea of personal independence is deeply flawed. Admittedly, the food that individuals eat, the type of clothes that one wears, and the destiny achieved by most people are determined by dictates of their societies. The role of society in steering individuals’ lives is evident in Newman and Jones’ book called Our America: Life and Death on the South Side of Chicago. This book is a non-fictional description of the lives of children and adults living in the African American ghettos of Chicago, popularly referred to as the projects. After reading the book, I am inclined to agree with the premise that most people inevitably give in to dictates of the society. Apparently, housing projects in Chicago were constructed in a configurationally manner likely to initiate and propagate criminal activities, particularly violence and drug dealings (LeAlan and Lloyd 47). In the book, the authors acknowledged the fact that these housing projects in Chicago were meant to host poor African Americans. Based on the structural arrangement of the story buildings in the projects, one can easily perceive the ill intent of the projects’ planners. Based on the book, adjacent buildings had multiple hidden corners which were dimly illuminated after dusk. Given the poor economic status of the projects’ residents, these hidden pockets of spaces provided perfect settings where illegal social and economic activities could be conducted. Expectedly, these Chicago projects were notorious for armed robberies, drug dealings, prostitution, and gang related violence. Honestly, there is a thick line between social expectations and free will in practical settings. Individuals are synonymous to twigs and branches supported by a giant tree of their society. In this case, what are perceived to be personal decisions are not actually personal. Rather, one invariably aligns his or her decisions to expectations of his or her society. The book by Newman and Jones contain interviews and responses from children residing in Chicago ghettos. Apparently, residents in the ghettos lack academic and professional experiences. Therefore, the only way to survive involves engaging in illegal activities like dealing drugs and robbing diners (LeAlan and Lloyd 53). Children in these ghettos are accustomed to such illegal socio-economic activities to an extent that they occasionally assist their parents in perfuming robberies and selling drugs from as early as when they are 5 years old. As children grow, their range of decisions and undertakings are invariably restricted by norms in these ghetto societies. In school, children lack the motivation to improve their academic performance because their parents cannot afford to pay college fees. At home, criminal activities involving disregard to law are social norms. Often, hardcore criminals are perceived as heroes. In addition, engaging in gainful criminal activities is revered not only by peers but also by adults (LeAlan and Lloyd 71). Consequently, children and teenagers living in Chicago ghettos are easily absorbed into the projects’ lifestyle. Their genuine willingness to use their freedom and free will in making independent decisions are quickly neutralized by the social and economic rewards of subscribing to social norms. In the end, no one really lives an independent life. In conclusion, it is acknowledgeable that interviews and description of ghetto life contained in the book by Newman and Jones concisely approve the idea that most people are victims of social dictates. Works Cited Kozol, Jonathan. Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools. New York, NY: Crown Publishing Group, 2012. Print. LeAlan, Jones and Lloyd, Newman. Our America: Life and Death on the South Side of Chicago. Pittsburg: Baker & Taylor Publishing, 2009. Print. Read More