Smashing the Liquor Machine

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lawrence Schrad
Keyword(s):  
Native American ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Indigenous Rights ◽  
American Exceptionalism ◽  
The United States ◽  
Labor Rights ◽  
Woodrow Wilson ◽  
Upton Sinclair ◽  
William Lloyd Garrison ◽  
Self Protection

This is the history of temperance and prohibition as you’ve never read it before: redefining temperance as a progressive, global, pro-justice movement that touched virtually every significant world leader from the eighteenth through early twentieth centuries. American prohibition was only part of a global phenomenon, which included pro-temperance leaders like Vladimir Lenin, Leo Tolstoy, Tomáš Masaryk, Kemal Atatürk, Mahatma Gandhi, and anti-colonial activists across Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Temperance wasn’t “American exceptionalism,” but one of the most broad-based and successful transnational social movements of the modern era. Temperance was intrinsically linked to progressivism, social justice, liberal self-determination, labor rights, women’s rights, civil rights and indigenous rights. Prohibitionism united Native American chiefs like Little Turtle and Black Hawk; African-American leaders Frederick Douglass, Ida Wells, and Booker T. Washington; suffragists Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Frances Willard; progressives from William Lloyd Garrison to William Jennings Bryan; writers F. E. W. Harper and Upton Sinclair, and even American presidents from Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln to Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Progressives rather than puritans, the global temperance movement advocated communal self-protection against the corrupt and predatory “liquor machine” that profited off the misery and addictions of the poor around the world, from the slums of South Asia to the beerhalls of Central Europe to the Native American reservations of the United States.

Southern Literature, Cold War Culture, and the Making of Modern America

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jordan J. Dominy
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Civil Rights Movement ◽  
Southern Literature ◽  
American Exceptionalism ◽  
The United States ◽  
Societal Pressure ◽  
The Cold War

The formalized study of southern literature in the mid-twentieth century is an example of scholars formalizing the study of modernist aesthetics in order to suppress leftist politics and sentiments in literature and art. This formalized, institutional study was initiated in a climate in which intellectuals were under societal pressure, created by the Cold War, to praise literary and artistic production representative of American values. This even in southern literary studies occurred roughly at the same time that the United States sought to extoll the virtues of America’s free, democratic society abroad. In this manner, southern studies and American studies become two sides of the same coin. Intellectuals and writers that promoted American exceptionalism dealt with the rising Civil Rights Movement and the nation’s complicated history with race and poverty by casting the issues as moral rather than political problems that were distinctly southern and could therefore be corrected by drawing on “exceptional” southern values, such as tradition and honor. The result of such maneuvering is that over the course of the twentieth century, “south” becomes more than a geographical identity. Ultimately, “south” becomes a socio-political and cultural identity associated with modern conservatism with no geographical boundaries. Rather than a country divided into south and north, the United States is divided in the twenty-first century into red and blue states. The result of using southern literature to present southern values as appropriate, moderate values for the whole nation during the Cold War is to associate these values with nationalism and conservatism today.

scholarly journals The Journey to and After Alcatraz: The Legacy of the Occupation of Alcatraz for Native American Protest Movements

2014 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen Ly
Keyword(s):  
Native American ◽  
Native Americans ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Civil Rights Movement ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Government ◽  
Government Action ◽  
National Debate ◽  
The Government

The Occupation of Alcatraz was a movement in 1969, which sparked National Debate in the United States. The Occupation lasted from 20, November 1969 till June 1971 when 15 last occupiers were peacefully escorted off the island. The protest did not end with a change in government policy but inspired other protests and an activist group to be created for Native American rights. Reflecting on why the occupation at Alcatraz was ineffective, Vine Deloria, Jr. argued in 1994, “we want change, but we do not know what change.” Deloria was a well-known activist during the 1960s and was invited to the island of Alcatraz during its occupation. The Occupation of Alcatraz was seen as an unsuccessful protest because it did not spur government action to address Native American grievances. The occupation occurred at a time when tensions between minority groups and the government were rising due to the civil rights movement. Native Americans were forcibly removed from reserves due to relocation and assimilation programs, and land was being taken away for resources as well. The Occupation was a response to what seemed to be the continuous cycle of abuse from the American government. Termination and assimilation policies divided and separated families and tribes, which created disconnections among Native Americans, making it hard to unify against the American government. Though the Occupation did not end with government action or policy change, it started a collaboration of Native American protests, which revived Native American identities for many people. Native Americans’ reactions to federal suppression at the Occupation of Alcatraz led to a legacy of protests that changed Native American life.

Repressive Legislation: Slave Codes, Northern Black Laws, and Southern Black Codes

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Middleton
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Schools ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
Free Blacks ◽  
Black And White ◽  
Southern States ◽  
William Lloyd Garrison ◽  
Black Laws ◽  
Black Codes

Beginning in the 1630s, colonial assemblies in English America and later the new United States used legislation and constitutions to enslave Africans and deny free blacks civil rights, including free movement, freedom of marriage, freedom of occupation and, of course, citizenship and the vote. Across the next two centuries, blacks and a minority of whites critiqued the oppressive racialist system. Blacks employed varied tactics to challenge their enslavement, from running away to inciting revolts. Others used fiery rhetoric and printed tracts. In the 1760s, when whites began to search for political and philosophical arguments to challenge what they perceived as political oppression from London, they labeled their experience as “slavery.” The colonists also developed compelling arguments that gave some of them the insight that enslaving Africans was as wrong as what they called British oppression. The Massachusetts lawyer James Otis wiped the mirror clean in The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved, stating “The colonists, black and white . . . are free-born British subjects . . . entitled to all the essential civil rights.” The Declaration of Independence polished the stained mirror by asserting, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” However, the Constitution of the United States negated these gains by offering federal protection for slavery; it was a covenant with death, as abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison later asserted. After the Revolution, many states passed black laws to deprive blacks of the same rights as whites. Blacks commonly could not vote, testify in court against a white, or serve on juries. States barred black children from public schools. The Civil War offered the promise of equality with whites, but when the war ended, many southern states immediately passed black codes to deny blacks the gains won in emancipation.

From Theory to Practice: Neo-Wilsonianism in the White House, 2001–2017

2018 ◽  
pp. 235-275
Author(s):  
Tony Smith
Keyword(s):  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
American Exceptionalism ◽  
The United States ◽  
Security Strategy ◽  
Woodrow Wilson ◽  
White House ◽  
Liberal Internationalism ◽  
Bush Doctrine ◽  
Theory To Practice ◽  
National Security Strategy

This chapter examines neo-Wilsonianism in the White House, considering the Bush Doctrine—often referred to as the National Security Strategy of the United States, September 2002, or NSS-2002. In the annals of American foreign policy there had never been anything even remotely like NSS-2002, its façade of Wilsonianism covering a far more aggressive imperialist claim for American exceptionalism than Woodrow Wilson had ever espoused, which in due course threatened to destroy altogether the credentials of good stewardship for world affairs that American liberal internationalism had enjoyed from the 1940s through the 1980s. One month after NSS-2002 appeared, the Iraq Resolution passed Congress with strong majorities in both chambers. Neo-Wilsonianism, born in theory during the 1990s, entered into practice five months after this historic vote with the invasion of Iraq that started on March 20, 2003. The chapter then looks at neo-Wilsonianism during the Obama presidency.

Gender and the Civil Rights Curricula

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Belinda Robnett
Keyword(s):  
African American ◽  
Native American ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Social Movement ◽  
Asian American ◽  
Parental Leave ◽  
The United States ◽  
Feminist Movement ◽  
Second Wave ◽  
Racial Ethnic

For decades, women in the United States have fought for civil rights. Other than the fight for women’s civil rights, women’s activism in other types of social movements has been largely ignored in textbooks and in the media. Two factors contribute to this neglect. First, historically, women have held differential access to structural and institutional power. Second, with a narrow definition of leadership, researchers focused exclusively on charismatic and formal social movement leaders. However, women served as leaders and participants not only in the Suffrage movement and the second-wave feminist movement but also in the U.S. civil rights movement, the Chican@ movement, the Asian American movement, and the Native American movement. Among the causes, women have fought on the front lines for voting rights; equal employment opportunities; equal pay; desegregated housing, schools, and public facilities; reproductive rights; tribal land rights; cultural and religious preservation; LGBTQ+ rights; criminal justice; welfare rights; universal healthcare; parental leave; environmental justice; and subsidized child care. Women served as formal leaders in women’s movement organizations, and as bridge leaders in mixed-gender groups. As bridge leaders, they fostered ties between the social movement and the community, between strategies (aimed at individual change, identity, and consciousness) and political strategies (aimed at organizational tactics designed to challenge existing relationships with the state and other societal institutions). The African American, Asian American, Native American, and Chicana women’s movements did not emerge after the second-wave feminist movement, which mainly comprised white middle-class women, but simultaneously. In the case of women of color, African American, Latinx, Asian American, and Native American women have struggled for justice and equality on behalf of their specific racial–ethnic groups. Born out of gender inequality within their respective racial–ethnic movement, the activists formulated a multicultural/womanist feminism/womanism that addressed the intersectionality, race–ethnicity, gender, and class dimensions of their lived experiences.

scholarly journals Indigenous Rights

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Sargent
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Native American ◽  
United Nations ◽  
American Indian ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Indigenous Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Impact

The attention given to indigenous rights has increased since the approval of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2007. Although it is a soft law declaration and technically not binding, it serves as the cornerstone of much of the contemporary research on indigenous rights. Four states that initially voted in opposition to the UNDRIP—Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States—have now endorsed it. Despite the attention it garners, the UNDRIP is not the only international instrument that has been utilized to establish and protect indigenous rights and interests. The regional inter-American human rights system has also been key in the development and protection of indigenous rights. Another important facet of the UNDRIP is that it took twenty-two years of drafting effort before it was approved by the United Nations General Assembly. During those twenty-two years, many discussions, debates, and analyses were undertaken over the meaning of rights and principles included in the drafts of the declaration. Research and scholarship from the era before passage of the declaration is helpful in understanding the content of the document. But the approval of the declaration did not end the controversies over indigenous rights. Debate and examination of the evolving body of indigenous rights continues during the period after passage of the declaration. As well, indigenous rights are not simply “human rights”; rather, they are a complex set of rights that can impact a broad swath of other legal doctrines. Intersections of indigenous rights with laws regarding economic development, the environment, and land claims can give rise to new interpretations and understandings of the impact of indigenous rights. While the four “no states” might be what most readily comes to mind when thinking about where many indigenous peoples live, indigenous peoples are, in fact, scattered throughout the world, including Europe. Research on indigenous rights is not carried out only from a legal perspective. Indigenous rights cover many different kinds of rights. Some have an emphasis in international law doctrines, such as the right to self-determination and issues about indigenous and tribal sovereignty. Other rights emphasize the importance of culture and heritage, and it can be useful to consider research in other disciplines, including history, political science, and anthropology. This article includes research and resources in related disciplines as well as legal research and law-based resources. (A note about language: American references to indigenous peoples are inclusive of the words “American Indian” or “Indian.” “Indian” is a legal term of art used in federal and state statutes. Indigenous peoples in the United States refer to themselves as “Indians” rather than Native Americans. For these reasons, where appropriate, the article makes use of the terms American Indian and Indian in preference to Native American. This usage may be confusing to non-American readers and so a clarification is offered).

Native American Studies

Education ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiffany Lee ◽  
Lloyd Lee ◽  
Myla Vicenti Carpio
Keyword(s):  
Native American ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
American Studies ◽  
Public Awareness ◽  
Interdisciplinary Approach ◽  
The United States ◽  
Native People ◽  
Native American Studies ◽  
Academic Field ◽  
The Right

While Indigenous knowledge systems, theories, and research have been in existence for time immemorial, the academic field of Native American Studies (NAS) grew out of the civil rights era in the late 1960s. During the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s, Native people in the United States organized resistance efforts, such as the reclaiming of Alcatraz Island in 1969, the 1972 Trail of Broken Treaties march to Washington, DC, and the seventy-two-day protest and prayer at Wounded Knee in 1973. These activities are a few of the most well known, yet Native peoples have been resisting occupation of their lands, assimilationist forces, and settler colonialism and reclaiming land for decades. Activist groups such as the American Indian Movement organized many of these efforts, and with the increase of Native American students entering college during this time period, the level of activism and public awareness aligned with students’ demands for Native knowledge, perspectives, and experiences to be included in college courses. They also challenged universities to hire more Native American faculty. NAS in universities came out of these efforts, and academic programs were created from the West Coast to the East Coast in several universities. NAS draws on interdisciplinary perspectives from areas such as history, political science, anthropology, sociology, and education to examine the historical and modern issues faced by Native American and other Indigenous people and communities globally. This interdisciplinary approach allows scholars of NAS to examine the complexities and breadth of interests and problems in Native American communities. Of particular significance is the understanding and exercise of political sovereignty among Native Nations, which sets NAS apart from other ethnic-studies areas. Sovereignty is the right of a people to self-governance and self-determination. This includes rights to self-education and linguistic and cultural expression. Native Nations’ inherent sovereignty was recognized during treaty negotiations and agreements, and it has provided the basis for policies affecting Native communities today. This article recognizes the diverse areas of study that encompass NAS, including important areas connected to Native Nations’ application of their sovereign rights. The article identifies twelve subject areas that have prominence in scholarship that informs NAS. It also prioritizes scholarship by Indigenous authors, who provide the perspectives and lived experiences relevant to NAS.

The Lumbee Indians

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malinda Maynor Lowery
Keyword(s):  
Native American ◽  
Native Americans ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Civil Rights Movement ◽  
Jim Crow ◽  
War On Drugs ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Experience ◽  
Origin Stories ◽  
History Of

Jamestown, the Lost Colony of Roanoke, and Plymouth Rock are central to America's mythic origin stories. Then, we are told, the main characters--the "friendly" Native Americans who met the settlers--disappeared. But the history of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina demands that we tell a different story. As the largest tribe east of the Mississippi and one of the largest in the country, the Lumbees have survived in their original homelands, maintaining a distinct identity as Indians in a biracial South. In this passionately written, sweeping work of history, Malinda Maynor Lowery narrates the Lumbees' extraordinary story as never before. The Lumbees' journey as a people sheds new light on America's defining moments, from the first encounters with Europeans to the present day. How and why did the Lumbees both fight to establish the United States and resist the encroachments of its government? How have they not just survived, but thrived, through Civil War, Jim Crow, the civil rights movement, and the war on drugs, to ultimately establish their own constitutional government in the twenty-first century? Their fight for full federal acknowledgment continues to this day, while the Lumbee people's struggle for justice and self-determination continues to transform our view of the American experience. Readers of this book will never see Native American history the same way.

Movements and Resistance in the United States, 1800 to the Present

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary E. Triece
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Native American ◽  
Social Change ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
White Women ◽  
Public Spaces ◽  
The United States ◽  
Marginalized Groups ◽  
Wage Cuts ◽  
Work Stoppages

A study of social movements advances a people’s history of the United States, providing a window into the ways ordinary people often took extraordinary measures to make laws, workplace conditions, the educational system, the quality of home life, and public spaces more open and responsive to the needs and concerns of marginalized groups. With the rise of industrial capitalism in the early 1800s came a host of social ills that prompted individuals to form organizations that enabled them to operate as a force for social change. As the Native American Chief Sitting Bull is purported to have said, “As individual fingers we can easily be broken, but together we form a mighty fist.” The 1800s through the early 21st century provides numerous examples of people acting together as a mighty fist. As early as 1824, workers in textile mills in the Northeast United States enacted work stoppages and strikes in reaction to wage cuts and deplorable working conditions. The movement to abolish slavery in the mid-1800s provided a way for disenfranchised black men and women, such as the eloquent Frederick Douglass and Maria Stewart, as well as white women, to speak and organize publically. In the area of labor, female and black workers, excluded from the more formal organizing of trade unions through the American Federation of Labor, organized their own labor meetings (e.g., the National Labor Convention of the Colored Men of the United States), unions (e.g., the Women’s Trade Union League), and strikes (e.g., the Uprising of 20,000). By the late1800s through the 1930s, American socialism and the Communist Party, USA, influenced the philosophy and tactics employed by labor activists, many of whom were factory girls who played a formidable role in mass walk-outs in the Progressive Era. Struggles for workplace and civil rights continued throughout the 20th century to undo Jim Crow and segregation, to advocate for civil rights, to advance the rights of women in the workplace, and more recently, to fight for the rights of the lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender communities, undocumented workers, and immigrants, and to fight against the police repression of black and brown communities and against imperialism and globalization. Activists’ tools for resistance have been as diverse as their causes and include petitioning formal legislative bodies, picketing and rallying, engaging in work stoppages, occupation of public spaces (e.g., sit-downs, walk-outs, occupying squares and parks), and most recently, using social media platforms, blogs, and other forms of Internet activism to facilitate empowerment of marginalized groups and progressive social change. The Internet has provided an important tool for facilitating international connections of solidarity in struggle. Although what follows focuses specifically on movements in the United States from roughly the 1800s to the present, efforts should continue to focus on the ways movements join forces across and around the globe.

American Mothers of Nonviolence

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Selina Gallo-Cruz
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
Double Standard ◽  
Women's Activism ◽  
Radical Feminist ◽  
Second Wave Feminism ◽  
The Us ◽  
Historical Relationship ◽  
Self Protection ◽  
Second Wave

This chapter explores the historical relationship between and dynamics among feminists and nonviolent activists in the United States, surveying three waves of feminist nonviolent mobilization and interrogating the contributions to and erasure of feminist thinking from popular nonviolence histories. The US feminist and nonviolence movements were born of the same social heart among early, nonviolent abolitionists. It was from the experience of marginalization among nonviolent women abolitionists that the US suffrage movement was born, and again, following women’s activism in the civil rights and antiwar movements, second-wave feminism. The chapter examines and discusses (1) a double-standard of gendered effectiveness and invisibility among nonviolent movements, (2) a radical-feminist challenge to patriarchal tendencies in nonviolent organizing, and (3) the feminist-led transformation from a nonviolence that glorifies “self-sacrifice” to a nonviolence that values self-protection, preservation, and health in the realization of collective social justice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document