Question

Read the book I upload, and write a memos. Note that this does not mean summarize. It would be useful to also keep in mind, given what you’ve read, what’s the next question to be asked? How would you ask it? Are they key dependent/independent variables that the authors neglected to address? Are there theoretical mechanisms that have not been explored? What are the narratives saying about agents and institutions? How do the accounts vary in the different sources? Can you pull together the conflicting historical accounts and explain why the sources and interpretations of particular events differ greatly? Format may vary but it is useful to include ideas, concepts, arguments that you found stimulating, worth remembering and building on; questions, concerns, disagreements with ideas encountered; connections, linkages, contradictions between one idea or approach and another.

Answer

Name of Student

Name of Professor

Political Science Paper

12 May 2015.

Memo on the Clay Risen’s Book

Contents

Introduction. 1

Contradictions. 1

Varying Historical Accounts. 2

Neglected Variables. 4

Different Perspectives, Different Perceptions. 5

Conclusion. 6

Works Cited. 7

Introduction

            The passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was arguably the most important legislative action of the twentieth century (Risen 1). It led to the falling apart of a social system that had been built on the premise of excluding and oppressing black Americans. However, many questions regarding the accuracy of different historical accounts of the real heroes of the process that culminated in the passing of the law remain unanswered. The aim of this memo is to highlight different historical accounts, neglected variables, and varying perspectives about the human rights struggle, and the different roles that various Americans played in it.

ORDER POLITICAL SCIENCE PAPER NOW

Contradictions

The idea that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 worked as planned seems rather contradictory. On the one hand, the idea of the instantaneousness with which changes occurred is presented. On the other hand, the issue of “pockets of resistance” has been brought up in the book (Risen 1). Moreover, the author admits towards the end that southern whites had accepted the letter of the new law but not its spirit. With almost the same breathe, the author indicates that many whites in the South were tired of the ensuing racial conflict and wanted to have the fight over with. In other words, there are some sets of contradictions in the book that seem to indicate that the author, too, has been influenced negative by conflicting historical accounts of the developments that occurred before and after the passing of the civil rights law.

Varying Historical Accounts

            Indeed, the author of the book acknowledges at the outset that different historical accounts of activities that characterized the human rights struggle have been presented. It is true that although the basic outlines of the events are similar, the complete story regarding the many people who worked tirelessly to ensure that the law was finally enacted has not been told. The author of this book sets out to tell this story. The core of his argument is that historians, media practitioners, and politicians have erred by portraying Martin Luther King and President Lyndon Johnson as the most important heroes of the Civil Rights Act, yet there were other unsung heroes who went through the day-to-day rigors of legal, political, and advocacy work to ensure that a bill that read like a mere wish list was finally signed into law.

            Whether or not the story of the struggle has been warped to give too much credit to King and Johnson is not the main issue. After all, Warren Magnusson, one of the most vocal senate liberals at the time, predicted that once historians starting writing the story of the new law, different versions of the efforts that different people made in the human rights struggle would emerge (Rise 165). Rather, the main issue here is the ongoing debate on what the true account of the efforts that different people made to contribute to and support the bill really is. Towards this end, the book provides an important highlight of the multiplicity of agents and institutions as well as competing political interests.

            True to Magnuson’s prediction, history professors have described the story hundreds of times, each time focusing on different aspects, and in most cases reinforcing the same old myths about the activities that greatly contributed to the crowning achievement of the civil rights struggle. Based on a reading of this book, one gets the sense that historians have neglected the element of pluralism in the entire back-and-forth process of enacting the law. This is perhaps because these historians are not willing to address the complexities and contradictions that characterized the entire this struggle. For example, many unsubstantiated claims have been made regarding the real motives for some political leaders’ change of mind to support the bill. For example, one account indicates that Senator Howard Cannon agreed to support the bill at the last minute following White House’s promise to build a dollar minting facility in Nevada (Risen 154).

ORDER POLITICAL SCIENCE PAPER NOW

            Regarding the spirit and the letter of the new law, the book raises some very pertinent questions. Based on these questions, it seems that perhaps the defeat was not as resounding for southern whites as historians and mainstream commentators have suggested. As the bill neared enactment into law, many southern whites started supporting it. The impression that has been created by many historians is that these whites were finally tired of the racism tirade and were ready to march into the new future where the protection of human rights for everyone was the clarion call. This book creates a totally different impression by highlighting numerous filibusters and attempts by southern senators to add a poison pill to the law while at the same time implicitly encouraging their constituents to retain racism under an entirely new strategy. Indeed, the passing of the law heralded a new kind of de facto racial segregation, whereby whites took their children to private schools, clubs, and wealthy suburbs, thereby leaving economically disadvantaged racial minorities in poor neighborhoods, run-down public amenities, and poorly managed public schools.

Neglected Variables

Although the author has made an excellent attempt to bring into focus the diverse contributions that culminated into the enactment of the law, he has neglected to ask some important questions. For example, although King did not actually plan the Birmingham protest campaign, he was at the forefront in ensuring that it contributed towards progress in the struggle. I think the book explains the pluralism of the process of making the civil rights law at the expense of providing an adequate explanation of the roles that people like Martin Luther King Jr. and President Lyndon Johnson played. My concern is that if the viewpoint adopted in this book was to be viewed as wholly true or accurate, thereby serving as the foundation of future accounts, then the next generation of historians would relegate the likes of King and Johnson into irrelevance just in the same way the current generation of historians has neglected the important contributions men like Clarence Mitchell and Hubert Humphrey who lobbied intensely for the bill at the NAACP and senate respectively.

The book provides in-depth details of how vice president Hubert Humphrey worked tirelessly convince the likes of Nevada senator Howard Cannon to support the cloture motion. Yet it also refutes claims by some historians that Hubert Humphrey should not be viewed as a “field marshal” of the civil rights law. This implicit contradiction is an embodiment of the complexities that characterized the civil rights struggle itself. To resolve these contradictions, historians and political scientists should put into consideration the question of what would have happened had the various political leaders and activists not participated in the struggle. In that case, they would realize that the role of Martin Luther King Jr. in mobilizing African Americans was critical for the struggle. Similarly, it goes without saying that President Johnson’s support for the new law provided impetus for the entire legislative process. Thus, it may be similarly important to determine whether the contributions of these great Americans should be downplayed in order to establish a new version of history or if it would be better to amend existing historical faults by simply bringing the news of the unsung heroes into the foreground.

Different Perspectives, Different Perceptions

It is understandably difficult for any single book to address the contributions of everyone who participated in the civil rights struggle in an in-depth manner without appearing to emphasize on some of the participants and neglecting others. This is demonstrated in the present book, which, while attempting to highlight the contributions of unsung heroes like Humphrey, Mitchell, and Katzenbach, ends up creating the impression that the role that King and Johnson played was not as important as it has been portrayed in academic and popular literature. In all fairness, an objective analysis should acknowledge that variations in levels of appreciation of the efforts that various individuals made mainly arise because of differences in thematic focus as well as the dependent and independent variables being examined. For example, any book that examines Martin Luther King’s contributions from the point of view of black consciousness and the power of activism will acknowledge that he was the field marshal of the entire struggle. In contrast, those who read books that examine the developments that culminated into the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 from the point of view of the various legislative processes involved will identify Hubert Humphrey as the most vocal crusader of the civil rights movement.

The present book’s focus is somewhat inclined towards the legislative discourse, the back-and-forth deliberations, and behind-the-scene political maneuvers that shaped the debate on how to improve racial relations in the United States. Nevertheless, the author makes an excellent attempt to bring into focus as many perspectives and first-hand accounts as possible in order to contribute to an impartial assessment of the motivations of various actors during the civil rights movement. For example, his analysis shows that President Lyndon Johnson was an enigma, and that he preferred to view the discrimination issue more from the point of view of economic inequality than from the perspective of racial discrimination. Similarly, the book contains numerous suggestions regarding Johnson’s desire to sign the bill into law in order to be seen to be actualizing his predecessor’s policies. It is also true that Johnson was aware that his chances of election were pegged on his ability continue moving the country with the same vigor that had been exhibited by his predecessor, John F. Kennedy. Moreover, there are numerous explanations on how Hubert Humphrey pursued the legislative process of passing the civil rights law in order to achieve certain political objectives.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the book sheds light on the various contributions that various great men made to actualize the dream of a civil rights law. The main highlight of the book is that many mainstream historical accounts of these men’s contributions are inaccurate, and that there are many contributors who went through seemingly endless day-to-day hassles to not only ensure that the bill became law but also that the resulting law would live up to the expectations of millions of Americans of racial-minority backgrounds who had lived in racial segregation and extreme discrimination.

Works Cited

Risen, Clay. The Bill of the Century: The Epic Battle for the Civil Rights Act. New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2014. Print.