The Civil Rights Act 50 Years On.

 

President Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act, 1964

Fifty years ago, Lyndon Johnson showed what a politically skilled President can achieve when facing a hostile Congress. Despite strong Republican and Democratic opposition in both the House and Senate, LBJ, ably assisted by Vice President Hubert Humphrey, brought some long overdue black civil rights laws into existence. The major provisions of the Civil Rights Act, 1964 are listed:

• The Act outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations; however, it exempted private clubs without defining "private," thereby allowing a loophole.

• The Act permitted Justice Department to bring lawsuits to secure desegregation of stated public facilities.

• The Act encouraged the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U. S. Attorney General to file suits to force desegregation. Despite the 1954 Supreme Court ruling in Brown v Board of Education, Topeka, many public schools in the South remained segregated.

• The Act authorized but did not require withdrawal of federal funds from programs which practiced discrimination.

•  Discrimination in employment in any business exceeding twenty five people was outlawed and an Equal Employment Opportunities Commission was created to review complaints, although it lacked meaningful enforcement powers.

•  The Act barred unequal application of voter registration requirements, but did not abolish literacy tests, sometimes used to disqualify African Americans and poor white voters. LBJ knew that any stronger legislation at that time would be a step too far for Congress. However, following his landslide victory in November, 1964, LBJ pressed forward with the Voting Rights Act, 1965.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 demonstrated the constraints on the president of the United States in the area of domestic policy. Both President Kennedy and President Johnson had to deal with severe opposition to civil rights legislation in Congress, especially within their own Democratic Party. The so-called Southern Democrats railed against weakening of racial discrimination in the South and the defeat of Jim Crow. But the passage of the Act also illustrated the effective powers the president had at his disposal once he committed himself to a particular course of action. Both Kennedy's and Johnson's use of television to dramatize the nature of the black civil rights crisis to the American people was outstanding. Those members of Congress opposed to the Act were effectively put in the stocks of public opinion. 

Fifty years on, has the 1964 Act remade US politics? Let’s look at the history. In June, 1964, the “Freedom Summer,” a black church near Philadelphia, Mississippi, was burned to the ground. Three civil rights activists, Freedom Riders, investigated while challenging civil rights abuses. The book and movie, Mississippi Burning, tells the story of their murders. Suffice it to say that not until 2005 was Edgar Killen, a KKK member, convicted of the murder of the three activists.

LBJ showed a lot of foresight shortly after the passing of the 1964 Act when he told White House Press Secretary Bill Moyers, “we just delivered the South to the Republicans for a long time.” In 1980, Ronald Reagan, then the Republican candidate for the presidency, came to Mississippi. He spoke at a County Fair, not far from where the murders had taken place but said not one word about the deaths or civil rights. Instead, he spoke about state’s rights, music to the ears of Confederate apologists. For the black community, Reagan’s message was hardly subtle. It seemed to favour the right of the state to continue black oppression.

Reagan was the beneficiary of Richard Nixon’s “Southern strategy,” a policy to reach out to Southern voters by appealing to their culturally conservative instincts and segregationist desires. From 1968, the Republicans won a majority of Southern states, save in 1976 to Jimmy Carter, a Georgian.

But it is clear that the politics of equality and integration, the bedrock of the civil rights movement, have triumphed over the politics of oppression and contempt. The days when whites were in the majority everywhere throughout the United States are over. Whilst the African American population has remained static, the rise of the Latinos and the votes they bring are highly influential. Nowhere is the influence of racial minority more apparent than in the White House. For the past six years, President Obama has risen above racial slurs and prejudice to preside for all US citizens. If evidence is needed to support this claim, one need only consider the Affordable Care Act, bringing some 40 million Americans into the health insurance net. The Act does not discriminate.

Would Mr Obama have been elected? Would statutes have passed through Congress that do not discriminate against race? Would the anti-racial movements have survived without the 1964 Act? History will judge but laws to promote equality have made America a better place to live for numerous American families, black and white.

Mississippi Burning Revisited

This blog was intended to celebrate the passing of the Civil Rights Act, fifty years ago. However, the murder of three Israeli boys, Gilad Shaer and Naftali Fraenkel, both 16 and Eyal Yifrah, 19, brings to mind a shocking event in 1964, three weeks before the passing of the Civil Rights Act.

In the early 1960s Mississippi, like most of the South, was in defiance of federal authority concerning black civil rights. The National Guard was called upon frequently to quell civil disturbance. Supreme Court rulings, particularly Brown v Board of Education, Topeka,  had infuriated the white establishment which responded with bombings, murders, vandalism, and intimidation. Mississippi was no stranger to such outrages.

The establishment of the Freedom Riders, blacks and whites alike, usually from the northern United States, challenged the segregation laws and voting rights imbalances in the South and supporting the black underclass in its demand for change. Among the Freedom Riders were three young men, Michael Schwerner, James Chaney and Andy Goodman, who in June, 1964, headed for Mississippi.

The White Knights, a splinter group of the Mississippi Ku Klux Klan, militaristically prepared for the anticipated Freedom Rider invasion. Media reports overstated the number of youths coming to Mississippi to set up voting registration drives. The reports influenced many white Mississippians who joined the White Knights. More belligerent than other KKK groups, the White Knights had a following of nearly 10,000.

On Memorial Day, 1964, Schwerner and Chaney spoke to the congregation at Mount Zion Methodist Church in Longdale, Mississippi; they talked of setting up a Freedom School and a voting drive in Neshoba County. The White Knights learned of the event and plotted to hinder the work and destroy efforts to help the black community. The White Knights beat the congregation members and then torched the church, burning it to the ground.

On June 21, 1964, Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner drove to Longdale, Mississippi, to investigate the destruction of the Mount Zion Church. After visiting Longdale, they headed west on highway 16 to Philadelphia, planning to take the southbound Highway 19 to Meridian.

Their station wagon had barely passed the Philadelphia city limits when they were stopped. Chaney was arrested for driving 65 mph in a 35 mph zone; Goodman and Schwerner were held too. They were taken to the Neshoba County jail. There is no need to go into gory details. Suffice it to say that Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner were shot, soon after their release from the jail. Their bodies were taken to a remote farm and buried.

Now, some fifty years later, three more young boys have been found murdered on the Israeli border. It seems they were abducted while hitch-hiking. Whilst Hamas has not claimed responsibility for the atrocity, it has praised the kidnappers. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has accused Hamas, the Palestine Islamist group, of the murders. Israel has bombed Gaza. Palestine now holds its breath as more Israeli reprisals are expected.  As yet, the collateral damage, a euphemism for innocent civilian casualties, is not known.

Why are young men, whether American or Israeli, pawns in a larger game? How can white supremacists fifty years ago or Palestinian “freedom fighters”, otherwise known as thugs, possibly justify the abduction and murder of young people as a proper way of advancing a cause? And how is further killing in the name of reprisal warranted.

Both killings, albeit fifty years apart, are appalling and inexcusable. In the case of the Americans, guilty men were brought to justice, one as late as 2005. In the case of the Israelis, how many more innocent Palestinians will lose their lives in revenge attacks for the loss of three boys?

And so the self-defeating acts of reprisal against violence continue, creating to an intransigent history as violence begats violence. Will those who fight these fights ever learn that killing for peace is futile? They might as well proclaim the virtue of the sex act to preserve virginity!

USA and UK: The Cultural Divide.

Two weeks ago, I spent a peaceful Sunday at Lord’s cricket ground, an oasis of calm nestling in the leafy inner-London suburb of St. John’s Wood. For nine hours, I sat with friends and family, plus some 28,000 others, watching young men toil with bat and ball. One would expect a crowd of that size would prevent contemplative thinking. But this is the beauty of cricket. Throughout the day, the game is played at different paces and levels of excitement, allowing a spectator to ponder the future and, more importantly, snooze, missing little of the play, eat and drink.

On numerous occasions, I have tried to explain cricket to my American friends. It is a simple game involving bowling a hard ball, smaller than a baseball and hitting that ball. There are some odd terms, for example fielding positions called slips or gulley or short leg. There are stumps and bails, creases, fast bowling and spin bowling, the latter offering a “chinaman” or “googly.” There are eleven men on each side and in Test and first class cricket, there are two innings per side. When the last batsman of a side is out, his side goes in and the other side comes out. And so on.

Semantics alone should not defeat the intelligent. The real problem is that cricket would never become an accepted American sport because of the length of a game, (sometimes five days) and the fact that a draw can be a very good result for one team. Winning is not the all-important thing in a cricket match. What is crucial is the manner in which one wins. Cricket teaches players and spectators alike the right way to leads one’s life. In short, cricket is so much more than a game.

I have been very fortunate to attend American football games, both NFL and College, in Minneapolis, Denver, New York, Windsor and Los Angeles. I have watched baseball coast to coast in New York, Minneapolis and San Diego. And I watch the games on television at home, although NFL games are quite a challenge as many start at 11pm London time. In any event, I believe I am qualified to comment on the differences between American and British sports and to explain why most Americans will never “get” cricket.

To begin with, it is rare for Americans to engage in a sport where “Team America” plays. An exception occurs when baseball and basketball are Olympic sports. Furthermore, crowds attending big games are not usually partisan, with the exception of the likes of the Superbowl. Usually, distances are far too great and prices too expensive for large numbers of away fans to travel. Hence it is rare to find “the British disease,” in American sport. This expression now used for hooliganism and crowd trouble at soccer games. Why the “British disease” when it happens in, Italy, Spain, France, Belgium and the Netherlands is confusing.

Next, American sports fans like a result, hence “overtime.” There are no draws in American sports. Also, there’s lots of scoring. I am convinced that Major League Soccer is not popular because there are not sufficient numbers of goals for the American audience. Currently, Team USA are doing well in the World Cup taking place in Brazil but will the enthusiasm for the game continue if/when America is knocked out? I don’t mean to sound condescending but. American sports fans are fed on a diet very different to the English. Results and winning are the sine qua non.

Let’s get back to Lord’s, the home of cricket. First, it is a “ground,” not a stadium. The distinction may seem academic but cricket grounds are open places, generally where the playing area is oval shaped, large and surrounded by low-lying stands. The atmosphere at Lord’s is patrician. The ground belongs to the Marylebone Cricket Club, a private club better known as the MCC, which has 30,000 members. Those attending matches at Lord’s who are not members are treated as paying guests and expected to behave accordingly. The members themselves enjoy the exclusive occupation of the Pavilion where they must be attired in jacket and tie. Only a few years ago were ladies accepted as members.

Yes, Lord’s is a place for elitists, people fixated on the 1950s, old-fashioned, wealthy and exclusive but even for revolutionaries like me, it is a hallowed and special and my year is not complete if I do not spend time there. Indeed, in two weeks’ time, I shall spend another day having the time of my life watching very little happen. Cricket is a game for connoisseurs. Could any American sports fan say the same for his or her sport?

What are you thinking, Mr President?

Iraq

Until a few days ago, I thought Isis was a river in Oxford, as well as the name of the second Oxford University rowing eight. I now know it is a group of jihadists, Islamic fundamentalist thugs who practise their vile form of cruelty and physical harm in the name of religion. The West has been caught out as Isis has taken over cities and towns in Iraq. The Iraqi government has called upon the United States for help. The Obama administration has responded by considering USAF making strategic air strikes on Isis forces and sending three hundred “military advisers” to Iraq. This from a President who opposed the war in Iraq when he was a US senator.

Surely, the President is old enough to remember Vietnam. American involvement started with the Eisenhower administration rescuing French forces at Diem Bien Phu, followed by military creep. Kennedy sent a few thousand advisers to South Vietnam and was considering a military escalation when he was assassinated. The Johnson administration went full out and fought a long and unsuccessful war. Nixon spent years trying to clear up the mess made by his predecessors. For all those years, the Americans believed in the domino effect, refusing to recognise that they had interfered in a civil war.

Iraq is divided not so much by territory but by tribal forces, whose religious beliefs are different. The militant elements of the Sunnis and the Shiites have been at each other’s throats for decades. Saddam Hussein kept these opposing peoples in check by force and by fighting wars with his neighbours. When America and the United Kingdom removed Saddam, they created a vacuum, making no lasting peace. Now, the Sunnis welcome the acts of Isis, who are also Sunnis. What is happening in Iraq is another civil war.

Why should America involve itself in the conflict? Will it be under the auspices of the United Nations? The President is not even seeking the approval of Congress, so what chance is there he will build an alliance through the U N?

What I fail to understand is this. Other Middle East countries must be worried by the actions of Isis and the possibility that other militant forces may emerge. Syria is already engaged in an awful civil war. Egypt has been engaged in a revolution which has not yet resolved itself. Iran remains a powder keg.

Each of these nations has an air force and an army. In addition, America has armed Saudi Arabia forces to the hilt. Why aren’t any of these nations coming forward to help Iraq with strategic air strikes on Isis? Presumably, they don’t care to engage themselves in a localised conflict between Islam and Islam. Why would the President yet again give the followers of Islam more reasons to hate America? Middle East politics confuse all but a few experts, none of whom, by the way, seem to be present in the British Foreign Office, nor in Foggy Bottom.

What good would 300 American advisers do in this situation? They will soon advise the Pentagon that more numbers are needed and before the President knows it, mission creep will become a reality as history repeats itself.

What is happening in Iraq is a local problem and one the Iraqis themselves should solve, with the help of their close neighbours. The West should stay out, unless the United Nations resolves otherwise.

What next for Obama?

In May, I posted a blog about President Obama and his impossible presidency, pointing out the many difficulties that faced the President, both internally and externally. I suggested he had achieved a lot in the face of stiff opposition, arguing that his measured and conservative style suited the times and that America was lucky to have him.

However, in the past two weeks, Mr Obama has launched a series of eye-catching initiatives which are politically based. The November mid-terms loom. First, he went to West Point, the headquarters of future army generals, to announce a new foreign policy initiative, the so-called Obama doctrine! He sought to carve out a third way, a middle ground between George W. Bush’s naked military aggression and the isolationist policy demanded by the war weary public over which he presides. His message was soft power over military prowess. Talk about Daniel in the lion’s den. What a place to choose to proclaim a diplomatic military offensive. The Wall Street Journal compared the Obama agenda to Tom Hanks trying to survive in Cast Away: “whatever’s left of the wreckage will do.”

Second, having failed in 2010 to get a climate change bill through Congress, his administration, through the Environmental Protection Agency, unveiled new environmental rules, imposing cuts on carbon pollution emissions from power plants from 30% to 20%. Democrat hopefuls in pollution-heavy states cannot be happy, not to mention the business lobby, the energy lobby and the Republicans. It is difficult to envisage any success getting this policy into law.

Third, the exchange of Bowe Bergdahl for five Guantanamo Bay detainees has received criticism from the media and both sides of the aisle in Congress. Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser, did not help when she claimed that Bergdahl had served “with honour and distinction.”

Fourth, the President has continued to use executive orders to get his agenda through. This week, in another attempt to stem the economic threat of high student debt and win support for his party before November, he signed an order to limit federal student loan payments for five million people. However, Mr. Obama’s administration has not addressed the rocketing price of tuition, which has grown by more than 250% over the past thirty years at public colleges. Also, those students who did not qualify for federal student loans and hold private student loans from banks are left out in the cold.

What I deduce from these presidential moves is a man seeking to go it alone. He seems to want votes first and policy second. How will this square with the events of the past few days in Iraq? Islamist extremists are hell-bent on taking over the country. Not only the Iraq government but the rest of the world has been taken by surprise. In no time, I expect the free world’s media will demand that action be taken by the international community as another human refugee disaster beckons in the Middle East, alongside that of Syria.

What can the President do? If only he had followed the example of Bush senior and created an international coalition, there would have been available a ready-made response. Now we will probably watch as the United Nations achieves nothing effective. Why was the free world caught by surprise? I’d like to hear the exchanges between the President and the CIA director as the latter explains why no warning was given.

When a totalitarian government collapses, there is a vacuum to be filled. Marshal Tito ruled Yugoslavia with an iron fist but he kept the warring factions quiescent. After Tito died, the Balkans descended into anarchy. So, for that matter, did the nations ruled by men like Stalin and Saddam Hussein.

I’m not advocating dictatorships in any way. I merely suggest that history predicts what is likely to happen when a dictatorship ends. Assuming there is an abhorrence of militant extremists taking over swathes of a country, free world leaders should recognize the dangers and prepare so that when cities like Mosul become killing zones, an international coalition can take speedy action. If the public of free world countries is told in advance of protective initiatives, designed to support fledgling democracies under military attack, it is likely that such initiatives will receive strong support.

So, Mr. President, may I suggest you get on the phone to your G7 friends and Mr. Putin and start building alliances, rather than going it alone just to make headlines for the mid-terms.