Saturday, September 22, 2012

Blog Synopsis: Thursday, September 20th

On Thursday, we delved into Reconstruction: its literal components, what it mean for new freedmen, and whether or not it can be simply categorized as a "success" or "failure."  The class began, however, with a return to a previous hot-button topic regarding the notion of activism.  We struggled with the question of what, exactly, constitutes activism?  Perhaps, we concluded, it would be even more difficult to determine what did not constitute activism.  Context, it was determined, is an absolute necessity in viewing early African-American activism.  While an African-American couple purchasing a home in white neighborhood in present-day Cincinnati would be a non-event, in the 1950's, that same event would certainly exemplify activism.  We must be careful not to retrospectively judge early, seemingly non-consequential modes of resistance, as they must be viewed in light of the total institution of slavery.

The Constitutional framework of Reconstruction: the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, allowed African-Americans the opportunity to not only engage in institution-building on a massive scale, but to challenge the socio-economic status quo by exercising control over their own labor.  For the first time, African-Americans can say no!  This heightened sense of personal autonomy catalyzed a massive diaspora during Reconstruction.  Former slaves sought better jobs, displaced family-members, and expressed a distinct desire to move away from their former masters.  The Freedman's Bureau, for instance was designed to assist African-Americans and landless whites during Reconstruction, offering funding for schools and infrastructure.

Family-life for African-Americans in the Reconstruction era was immeasurably different.  Now, African-Americans could get legally married; no more "jumping the broom."  The tenuous connection which existed between family during bondage, the knowledge that, at any time, one member could be sold away, dissolved immediately.  In the 1870s-1890s, African-American families begin to rename themselves, rejecting the surname of their former owner, in favor of ones that more readily indicated their destiny as sons and daughters of America (Washington, Jefferson, etc.).  Central to notions of family, was the concept of identity creation.  Freedmen diligently sought, both collectively and individually, the opportunity to recreate themselves in their own image, according to their standards.

The Church was another major institution which quickly developed in the immediate post-Civil War era.  Much like the situation regarding the rejection of former master's names, African-Americans sought to distance themselves from the churches of their former masters.  By 1870-1880, Several different denominations of African-American churches were flourishing: the African-Methodist Episcopal Church, Church of God in Christ, among others.  In addition to offering spiritual guidance and providing valuable community service, African-American churches represented some of the largest and most important pieces of public space available to African-Americans in the period.  With growth of so many new denominations in a short amount of time, African-Americans faced a dilemma: Do I want to join an African-Methodist Episcopal Church or go to a traditional Methodist church?  The greater variety of options available to African-Americans during Reconstruction allowed for an even more individualized rout to the systematic cultivation of group and personal identity.

Early on, African-Americans realized the centrality of education to achieving the fulfillment of their recently-granted status in America.  This voracious appetite for learning did not suddenly spring up during Reconstruction, however.  Slaves exhibited a conscious desire for self-education while in bondage.  "Pit Schools," holes 6-7 feet deep where slaves would organize clandestine meetings in order to teach each other to both read and write, demonstrate the fact that African-American desire for higher education was not a new or novel concept come Reconstruction.  Rather, the efforts to advance African-American education during the Reconstruction period represented a continuation of past exertions.  Nobody had to tell freedmen that education was important.  It was obviously key, they realized, because since 1830, they had been legally barred from learning to read/write in most southern states.  The rise of Historically Black Colleges occurred during this period.  From 1866-1867, Morehouse College, Spelman, and Howard were founded.  Ex-slaves were, tellingly, the biggest proponents of the public school system in the South.  The region was overwhelmingly agrarian and rural, with very few members living in cities.  As a result, few Southerners prioritized education in a manner analogous to that of African-Americans.  The state constitutions of 1868, constructed under a period of high-percentage African-American representation, established the basis upon which southern public school systems were created.

Throughout Reconstruction, African-Americans sought to "build freedom from the ground up."  Provided the legal infrastructure to challenge extant socio-economic hierarchies,African-Americans engaged in a protracted negotiation, most notably for labor and public space.  Though seemingly uninspiring now, public space was of paramount importance in the early 20th Century.  Parades, for instance, were extremely well attended, and were used by sundry institutions to assert their political independence and identity.  When African-Americans began to exercise their freedom with regards to the notion of public space, whites often viewed it as an intrusion, resulting in the initiation of a protracted negotiation for the exercise of legal freedoms and political power.  As a result of the percieved "encroachment" of African-Americans into the public sphere, the American South begins to develop the legal structure, beginning with Plessy v. Ferguson  for legal segregation.


3 comments:

  1. There are a few things that jump out to me:
    Feminism and female advancement during the Reconstruction period is fascinating. Since newly enfranchised African Americans were so pro-equality, on the very front end, women were equal to men. This difference had a hand in prolonging African American advancement because although it was hard to recognize Black folks as equals, it seemed just as hard to recognize women as equals. The White value system on this end seems so screwy, but it was what it was; and they had the audacity to think that Black folks didn't understand democracy. I believe that as a female myself, I probably owe much of my condition today to Black activists. I know for a fact black female suffragists had great significance for women's voting rights.
    The large-scale movement of African Americans during this time is not surprising, but the stereotypes developed in tandem are. I was puzzled when Whites assumed Blacks were lazy because they would no longer work for their former masters, would barter farmers for better wages, and women would take off work during pregnancy. It literally makes no sense. I'm with Jiehl, wondering if they really believed that. Surely as the stories were passed around, they grew hyperbolic, but the initial refusal to work for a former master is no way a display of laziness. This jump trips me up, I just can't wrap my head around it because it's so obviously short-sighted, bigoted, and wrong. UUGH!
    Recreating the Black individual (renaming themselves, for example) and the social group as a whole is such a arduous task. I'm pretty sure I made the connection between the Reconstruction period struggles and today's Black agenda before, but the parallels are surprisingly numerous. Reconstructing the Black image due to the overwhelming and overbearing gossipy stereotypes is a prominent theme today. It's easy to say Black folks were building themselves in their own image, but how pervasive were their new identities really when the rest of society had already made up its mind about them? Today, it's the same struggle. How can Black and Brown folks receive social justice and change their image when the dominating culture won't necessarily allow it? Maybe I'm not using the right words, but this is a huge issue, and it amazes me that this same issue goes back to the 19th century. Was there EVER a time in the United States that Black folks weren't considered inherently sub par!?? And was there EVER a chance for them to *actually* define themselves the way in which THEY wanted to be defined? No one lives in a socio-cultural vacuum, but when the surrounding society/culture is so negative towards you, how can you (re)define your reputation? You have to over-compensate and that causes imbalance. Okay, now I'm ranting. I'm done.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I would like to go back to the issue we discussed during class about what exactly can be defined as "activism". Like Jehl pointed out, these things need to be considered in context, so therefore actions like refusing to work your hardest should be considered activism because at the time there were little other opportunities to act out against the dominate ideologies, in this case the institution of slavery. While I tend to not consider this activism, it is not to discredit the risks that slaves took, or to make them seem less brave or anything like that. Instead, I just have a hard time classifying it as activism, because then what wouldn't count as activism? This goes along with the problems I had with our scale of submission and rebellion, and like that, I feel like things can fall along a scale, even when considering things in context, because no matter what period of time, I believe there were some slaves or African American activists who put a lot on the line to change their conditions and even risked their lives. So while not doing your hardest is certainly a form of resisting and not submitting to the institution of slavery, I'm not sure it can be considered pure activism.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I tend to agree with Emily's stance. I tend to think of "activism" in the context of those who put their life on the line in order to oppose the institution of slavery. Examples could be those escaped slaves who crossed Union lines or provided information to Union troops in Southern territory. As Emily stated, doing half-hearted work is a form of resistance to the institution of slavery; however, I do not believe it is "pure" activism.

    ReplyDelete