Bloody Conflict in America and Ireland: 1968-69

After reading and discussing this week, what really stuck with me was the dichotomy between the good of the group and individual survival. In both The Informer and Uptight, one character, out of desperation, chose to sacrifice another in the movement for money. Their willingness to give up on the movement for money to survive and start a new life demonstrates the desperation that poverty creates. Guilt over the deaths of their friends has an interesting effect on both of these characters, though. Although they both originally intended to use the money to get out of their current situation and start a new life with their significant others, they both use the money to get drunk and cause chaos throughout the night. At the end, they both claim that they had no idea what they were doing, and did not know the effects of their actions. Both still want to be accepted back into the group and try to be loyal to the movement, even after their mistake.

The behavior of the characters in both The Informer and Uptight elucidates the inner conflict between the individual and the good of the group that seems to exist in all movements. Movements are born out of chronic problems within a society, and economic issues are usually always a factor. One of these movements’ goals was to end the cycle of extreme poverty and economic inequality in these communities, but the poverty that they were fighting drives some of the members to act out of desperation.  The members are loyal to the movement and are willing to do so many things to be accepted back into the group, but they also give up on it when they are offered a way out of their poverty and problems. Most of all, I think these works  perfectly demonstrate that individual need will always take priority over the human desire to be accepted and belong to a group with a greater cause.

After discussing whether or not “Uptight” and “The Informer” are trying to equate the two narratives of the black struggle in America and the Irish struggle, I do not believe that to be the case. The two stories are not trying to equate the Irish quest for independence and resulting internal strife with the black struggle for equality. However the reason Dassin would create his adaptation of “The Informer” is to show how despite the differences of the two movements, both faced the same breaking point and sense of crisis as they looked to turn to violence.

The striking similarity of both movements that built up to their respective breaking points that we witnessed in both works was the duration of tolerance of mistreatment and injustice by the oppressed. Obviously the problems faced by both groups are very different; the Irish lived under British rule for 800 years while black people faced four centuries of discrimination and oppression in America.

However as Martin Luther King Jr. talked about in “Our Struggle,” in America – the South, specifically – the black community almost accepted white people’s rationalization of their actions and some started to believe it. And then at the start of “Uptight” we see King’s funeral procession and the committee’s decision to take up arms. After centuries of discrimination, they turn to violence because they’re too frustrated. Not only have they been mistreated, but once progress starts to actually occur, one of their most prominent leaders is killed in an act of violence. This is the breaking point we witness in “Uptight.”

For the Irish, their breaking point comes after the Easter Rising. Following their first significant uprising in over 100 years, the British execute the leaders at Kilmainham. This sparks outrage and increases support for Irish independence causing a period of violence in which the War of Independence and Civil War occur – the settings of O’Flaherty’s and Ford’s versions, respectively. The brutal acts of violence by the British, mainly the executions, are the breaking point for the Irish revolutionaries causing the sense of crisis and paranoia that we witness in “the Informer” as they get tangled into violence and begin to question how to proceed with their movement.

While the problems faced by both groups are obviously different, Dassin turns to the Irish struggle because the period of crisis and internal strife among revolutionaries captured in “the Informer” is what the Civil Rights Movement experienced as it grew increasingly violent following the death of leaders such Malcolm X and King.

(I am including all my posts from Sakai in this post to catch up) I have been thinking a lot about this Richard Viven article that I read about the arc from the 68′ generation to the current situation. One of the rather ironic factoids noted in that Daniel Bendit Cohen, an ardent 68er and anti establishment figure, who now in his old age has pledged his political support to the technocrats technocrat, Emmanuel Macron. There is a very interesting ‘the day after the revolution’ dynamic. Now that the 68 generation has had control of the system for so long they favor stability and expertise over change. I think that there are two things that have been going on for a while now. First, the 68ers were never as anti establishment as they let on. There is the great Tom Wolf essay ‘Radical chic’ that very much skewers the many establishment figures who aligned themselves with the revolution, it wasn’t that they were anti-establishment as a principle, they simply did not agree with the current one. The second is that age and self interest took a lot of fire out of the belly of even true believers of that generation. The hippies of the 60s and 70s were often the same people in the money obsessed boardroom culture of the 80s and 90s. The boomer generation has had an incredible demographic clout more so than any generation and you can very much see how they shifted that clout as they aged and their desires changed. I suppose I would conclude by saying that it is no surprise the revolution did not hold together. There were always to many disjunctions between factions along economic and ethnic lines for it to remain coherent for long. The upper class students rioting in Paris over access to co-ed dorms were as much a world away from the Prague spring. Same with Americans who went to Woodstock and those protesting segregation in working class Birmingham Alabama. 

Responding/ commenting on the ‘Us vs them blog’

I thought this was an interesting blog post. I think that the us vs them mentality is deeply engrained in human psychology and morality. The controversial political theorist Carl Schmitt coined the friend/enemy distinction as the central distinction in politics. Sometimes it can be over economic interests, rich v poor, other times it can be racial, white vs black. What ever the case may be, the distinction between friends and enemies is the central feature of any political conflict. What is to be done then. I suppose we either try and make the right enemies and fight only for just causes. The other option I suppose might be to try and transcend the distinction all together. What would that look like? For King it might mean making our only enemy the devil and people of every color our friends. My political theory professor suggested that we make climate change the enemy and all of humanity our friends 

Response: 

To Slavery and perspective: I do agree I think the Irish slavery claims are heavily overblown. Is the argument actually that they are still oppressed? I took the argument to be more of a bootstrap argument kind of claim, that is that the Irish too were disdained disliked and oppressed because of their heritage when they arrived here in America and that through buying into the culture and working hard they achieved social acceptance so as not to be oppressed. Certainly chattel slavery was much worse but does that mean that indentured servitude was not a harsh and exploitative practice used to take advantage of the poor of Ireland? 

A revolution against who and what?

I was intrigued by something I heard the other week from the UK 68ers we heard from. I found it quite humorous when one of them called out Bill Clinton who was at Oxford at the time for not being a real 68er. That must have been quite a time to be alive in the UK. Their parents generation was one that grew up in an empire that ruled a large part of the known world. By the time they came of age that empire had fallen apart, hit rock bottom and what few possession were left, like Northern Ireland, posed nothing but problems. Despite being one of the original bearers of the liberal tradition the UK also has an ancient regime of aristocracy and of church and state. It seems like there was a lot of weariness with the old regime. 

One thing that puzzled me was when the lady who was speaking to us started bemoaning Brexit. She was talking about advocating for ‘the peoples vote’ to overturn Brexit, which I guess poses an interesting question of if its real democracy if the question of membership gets posed over and over again until the elites get the answer that they want. Think what you will of Brexiters, but what kind of radical supports the EU? The EU is the institution of global capital and financial interests. I made the point earlier in the course that the 68ers were not that far from the Reaganites and Thatcherites but where the former advocated for social liberalization the later in the 80s advocated economic liberalization. That is to say that for all of their surface level differences the two camps represent two wings on the same bird of liberalization and liberalism writ large. So I would pose the same question I did earlier in the course, were the 68ers ever really a real threat to the economic establishment? If the corporatism of the 80s and 90s that resulted from the era are any sign, then probably not. For that reason I would argue that for all of his hyperbolic and uncharitable rhetoric about immigration, Enoch Powell was more of a radical and rebel towards the establishment than any of the 68ers we heard from in his staunch, principled opposition to the highly anti-democratic institutions of the European Union. The 68ers were never a real threat to capitalism or the political establishment as the example of former radical Daniel Bendit Cohen in his now vocal support of the technocrat Emmanuel Macron has shown. 

Over our last few discussions, I have learned a great amount about specific characters and figures that stood for something greater than themselves. I learned about their sacrifices and the hardships they faced to keep their protests peaceful. The quote “You have to be twice as good to get half as much” has stuck with me recently as a lens to look through in order to understand the hardships so many people dealt with and still face today. However despite the great figures we have learned about and the informative presentations we have watched, the idea that has occupied the most space in my mind came about the other day in class. Dr. Kinyon emphasized the inadequate discussion of the Civil Rights movement in the American education system. Though a targeted portrayal of history had been something I did not consider unlikely in American education, until recently I had never given the idea proper thought. 

While there are many things to be proud of in American history, slavery, segregation, and the need for a grand movement for black equality clearly do not fall into this group. America grew and became what is today in large part thanks to the help of great amounts of slave labor. The heroes of the civil rights movement were not treated or thought of as heroes by many white Americans just around sixty years ago. American wars and scuffles are discussed for weeks in classrooms while the fight of a whole race for equality is often glossed over. The civil rights movement made incredible strides towards their goal for equality, but it is evident today that this goal is  yet to be reached in it’s entirety. While crucial change and reform is being called for in policing and the workplace, it is important to seek the same progress in the history we teach to the next generation(s).

Dr. King is obviously admirable for a multitude of reasons. However, I am most impressed with his resilient commitment to nonviolence. Time and again he was mistreated— I cannot begin to imagine the stress and frustration he must have felt. The FBI, an entity intended to protect and serve, urged him to commit suicide. His house was bombed. He was jailed several times. It must have felt as if the whole world was against him. His mission was not only good and just, but also empirically right. His belief that all men are created equal is simply fact. To be so dramatically opposed whilst knowing that you are right is incredibly frustrating under any circumstance. Add in all the abuse that he endured and it is remarkable that he remained committed to peace throughout his life.

I feel this sentiment can be connected to today. I understand the present frustration from the black community over police brutality. I therefore also acknowledge that it is unreasonable to expect a completely peaceful reaction each time a black person is killed by police. I do not condone the violence that has occurred, nor do I feel that it is just. Rather, I simply feel that it should be expected. The marginalization of black people is utterly unjust. To expect an entire community, mistreated and forced to live on the periphery, to act peacefully and rationally one-hundred percent of the time is simply foolish. We must accept that violence is a consequence of the injustices that we as a society allow to occur. If we wish to see violence snuffed out, we must be committed to reform.

The concept espoused by Dr King, namely “love the person who does the evil deed while hating the deed the person does” is firmly rooted in scripture, as Christ teaches his followers to love the sinner but hate the sin. This is the root of many of the churchs teachings on topics ranging from homosexuality to warfare. Regarding comments made in class regarding parallels between todays Black Lives Matter movement and the mid twentieth century civil rights movements, I would disagree with the assertion that Dr. King would approve of todays general culture of unrest. 

The Black Lives Matter platform as formally organized, advocates for the dissolution of the western prescribed nuclear family, this is one of the primary goals of the movement that Dr. King would resist with gusto, in his own words, King espouses the nuclear family as the single most important organization within a society, saying: “The group consisting of mother, father and child is the main educational agency within mankind”

Dr. King would also speak out against the widespread destruction of private property, ironically occurring primarily within minority majority neighborhoods, which at this point has likely exceeded hundreds of billions of dollars.  King, when saying “riots are the language of the unheard” was not justifying or defending violent property destruction, but merely emphasizing he understood the anger behind such behavior. In fact, a quotation from his speech regarding such activities from a Stanford speech captures this balance of rhetoric perfectly: “It is as necessary for me to be as vigorous in condemning the conditions which cause persons to feel that they must engage in riotous activities as it is for me to condemn riots.” This quotation gives much needed context to the quote that BLM activists are currently using to justify their felonious behavior. Half of understanding rhetoric is context, something many people lack in our information overloaded society. To drive this point home, this excerpt from the paragraph preceding his “riots are the language of the unheard” soundbite drastically changes the message of the aforementioned sentence: “Let me say as I’ve always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I’m still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. I feel that violence will only create more social problems than they will solve.”

Simply put, I find it comical that one would believe that Dr Martin Luther King would support Black Lives Matter. There is simply not enough evidence to convince me that a conservative southern Baptist preacher would advocate for the abolition of the nuclear family and support violent destruction of minority neighborhoods 

Maya Angelou, a famous American poet, once wrote, “See, I don’t personally trust any revolution where love is not allowed.” I wonder why she feels this way, does she think that love within a revolution makes us fight harder or believe more in what waits on the other side of the fight? Her motivations behind the statement aside, one thing I am sure of is that Martin Luther King would agree with her, as he said: “at the center of our movement stood the philosophy of love,” (Page 41) and with love on our sides “the aftermath… is reconciliation and the creation of a beloved community…the end is redemption,” (Page 40).

This past week I’ve been incredibly interested in the theme of love and religion in MLK’s speeches and letters. Whether it be when he delves into agape, one of the Greek words for love that “biblical theologians would say is the love of God working in the minds of men,” (page 40) or his use of parables to highlight the need and justness of the movement, his words have managed to stick with me greatly. When he wrote about loving the person who does the evil deed while hating the deed that person does, I asked myself if that kind of love is visible today. Last week I read a blog post about self-serving people and the opinion that many people that join these movements are self-serving. Yet, MLK sees it from another perspective, he sees the motivations of individuals joining the movements to be agape for fellow man. In his use of the parable of the Good Samaritan, he framed the two sides as follows: “‘If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?’ [and] ‘If I do not stop to help this man what will happen to him?’” (Page 258). He emphasizes the capacity of the Good Samaritan to “project the ‘I’ into ‘thou,’ and to be concerned about his brother,” (Page 257). Are the widespread movement happening today and the emotions flowing through it so different from the one in 68’ that we now have the perception of self-serving intentions when people outside of the minoritized race join ranks, or perhaps was MLK deluded in his thinking all along? While there may be a lot of love within the communities of people protesting and those fighting back, is there any across the line? And additionally, what would MLK say about our movement today, would he be proud? 

If the movement today, or for lack of better words, the movement of 68’ has turned into now,  lacks the foundation of love that MLK argues is needed to ultimately change humanity and make for the society that we all long for, would he have trust in it, and should we?  

Among Dr. King’s many remarkable attributes and accomplishments, his consistently non-violent attitude will always stand out to me as the most wondrous. As a Christian minister, to preach the importance of nonviolence is practically required, but how often do Christians hold fast to these ideals as Dr. King did? He continued to believe even when the challenge was greatest, and he persevered with his Christian ideals until the bitter end. I think that his own understanding of himself, within his own Christian context, is also critical in understanding how he maintained such an important presence.

In “I See the Promised Land,” Dr. King very clearly draws distinct parallels between himself and the Old Testament figure of Moses. As a Christian minister, he would have been intimately familiar with the story of Moses and the Promised Land of Israel, and he understood that the similarities were uncanny. Dr. King, when faced with such extreme resistance, must have realized that he may not see the day of equal rights himself. Instead, he claims, he will lead others to the treasure that he couldn’t have, and show them the way that was shown to him by God. It is important to note that Dr. King understood this parallel himself, and was so confident in it that he presented it as one of his greatest speeches. I believe that he showed great confidence by embracing that comparison as well as great foresight regarding the struggle for racial equality.

While listening to the presentation on Dr. King this week, I had the thoughts surrounding the his legacy and movement in mind. This is especially true in relation to the 2020 reaction to systematic racism. Ever since the murder of George Floyd, one of the main points that people have brought up is how they think Martin Luther King Jr. would view the current protests and the Black Lives Matter movement. To be honest, I kind of hate these types of questions where people try to assume what historical figures would say about the current situation. The reason I dislike this so much is because I think its a mostly useless exercise because contexts change. I know it’s a common to say that history repeats itself, and while there is some truth to this, I think it is an overused saying that stems from the natural human desire to simplify and categorize. I think it would be better to say that events and patterns emerge in a loose framework of history. Yes, there are many similarities between 1968 and 2020, but there are many details that are different, and these details are incredibly impactful in the way people form their beliefs.

This is why I think it is so hard to answer the question, “What would Dr. King say about 2020?” Would the fact that racism has persisted in strength more than 50 years after his death change his viewpoints? Would the fact that the opposition to the movement lies more in the population that believes systematic racism doesn’t even exist change anything? Would he even be happy with his legacy? The truth is that we don’t know. The people with the best answers to the issues of 2020, are the people of 2020, not the  surmised opinions of past figures.