"Driving Miss Daisy" Reaction: 

Driving Miss Daisy, a 1989 dramady by Bruce Beresford, based on the play by Alfred Uhry, is a critically acclaimed movie. Spanning a quarter of a century, this movie follows Southern matriarch, Daisy Werthan, her son, and her chauffeur. 

After a minor car accident backing into her neighbors yard, the insurance companies, and her son, will not allow her to drive herself. Boolie, her son, hires African American Hoke Colburn to chauffeur Daisy around to her various appointments and engagements. 

Initially, the fiercely independent Daisy is extremely reluctant to have her autonomy taken away even in this minor way. She is very rude to Hoke, not allowing him to take her anywhere. She yells at him for things that he is trying to do to help her, like dust her lightbulbs, plant a vegetable garden, talk to Idella, or tend to her azaleas. After a few days though, she reluctantly lets him drive her to the Piggly Wiggly. 

She is a backseat driver extreme and is very short with Hoke most times. Early on, she even tries to fire him for eating a $0.33 can of salmon. However, as the movie progresses and the years pass, they grow closer and she begins to trust him. The comradery between Daisy, Hoke, and Idella and the familiar phrase of "Good Mornin' Miss Daisy" become a comfort. 

This movie takes place before, during, and after the Civil Rights Movement, however, it is a minor subplot. There are few subtle mentions of race relations and Civil Rights. The story at its core is a story of friendship

The movie begins in the late 1940's and the way of life in the south is very clearly segregated. The African Americans are the working class (at least in Daisy's community) and the work for the rich white folks in the community. Although  Daisy claims to have "never been prejudiced in my life" she sometimes does not treat Hoke with the respect he deserves. 

For example, when they are driving to Mobile, AL and get lost and she doesn't want to let him pull over to use the restroom and also when she goes to the MLK dinner, a great show of character development on her part, but she doesn't invite Hoke to go in with her even though she knows he really wants to. 

Another instance is when the cops stop them when they are on their road trip, using a racial slur and being rude to Hoke just because he is African American. This really showcases the deep internalized prejudices of the time, especially in Daisy who doesn't do much to stand up for him.

It seems that throughout most of the movie, Daisy is embarrassed to be seen in public with Hoke, in fact, he first time he takes her to the grocery store she tells him to wait by the car. However, as time passes she gets better and becomes great friends with Hoke. 

The score of this movie was great, and was done by Hans Zimmer at the beginning of his career. I really enjoyed the iconic opening music. It's snappy, its fun, and its playful, just like Daisy and Hoke's relationship turns out to be. The other piece of music was melodically beautiful and nostalgic and playing it while they were looking at her old pictures and selling her house was a tug on my heartstrings. 

The best part of the movie though, was near the end where Daisy told Hoke that he was her best friend. The character development for Daisy and the interracial friendship development between Daisy and Hoke was heartwarming and a touching end to the movie. 

 EOTO #3: "The Birth of a Nation"

"The Birth of a Nation" is a film that some describe as "...history written with lightning..." and others claim as the "....most virulently racist imagery ever to appear in a motion picture...". The film was directed by D.W. Griffith and was based off a stage play by the Rev. Thomas F. Dixon Jr. 

The play itself was based upon two of the Reverend's books:  “The Clansman: A Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan” and “The Leopard’s Spots.” It was a landmark film for the industry and is credited as being the first true blockbuster film, the longest and most profitable film of its day, and the film that secured feature films as a respected and profitable medium of entertainment. 

The film follows two families, the Stoneman's, who are stuffy
and intellectual Northerners, with the patriarch based off of Thaddeus Stevens, and the Cameron's, who are plantation owners living in a small Southern town. The political tensions between the North and South are shown through these two families and the interpersonal tensions between the Union and Confederacy are shown through the forbidden love of Elsie Stoneman and Ben Cameron. 

Though the film portrays the Civil War and Reconstruction Era in an epic way, the inherently racist portrayals of the characters is what caused the immense controversy and chaos surrounding the movie. The Cameron brothers are portrayed as effeminate and weak, with Ben only fulfilling his traditionally masculine role when he becomes a Klan member and dons the white robes. 

The youngest Cameron and one Stoneman brother bond in the war in numerous "homoerotic" ways and will die on the battlefield in each others' arms. The lack of traditional masculinity in some of Griffith's characters bring into his style the idea that masculinity "...needs to be curbed...". 

This masculinity is portrayed by African Americans in the film in a brutal way, tying them to brute sexuality. The character of Gus Long, a liberated slave, attempts to rape Flora, a white woman, and all male African Americans in the movie are depicted as "...lusting after white women...". 

Not only are they portrayed as sexually brutal, particularly in the Reconstruction era, the Blacks are depicted as "...the root of all evil and unworthy of freedom and voting rights...". Contrary to this, the KKK is portrayed as heroically masculine and a "...healing force, restoring order to the chaos and lawlessness of Reconstruction".

The effects of this movie were immediate and stark. Not only were the Los Angeles, Boston, and New York premieres accompanied by riots against this film, Civil Rights activist and author of The Guardian, William Monroe Trotter joined forces with the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) and vehemently bid to ban the film. 

The direct-action demonstrations that this film provoked provided a model and a template for the civil rights demonstrations of the 1960's. Though the protests played out in various venues and sometimes turned violent, it did not stop the release and consumption of Griffith's film.  However, Trotter's efforts succeeded in propelling Boston's Civil Rights movement, and by proxy, the Civil Rights movements across the nation, and "...exposed in no uncertain terms, the movie's bigoted treatment of historical events". 

The most significant impact perhaps, was the reemergence of the KKK. The film's heroic portrayal of the Klan revived the order, as it had mostly disappeared after the 1870's. After the movie premiered in Atlanta, Col. William J Simmons, led a cross burning on Stone Mountain in Georgia, leading to a "...new era of Klan activity". 

Though there have been many attempts to ban the film, it was shown and narrated to new Klansmen through the 1970's, is still taught in film schools today, and was claimed by the Library of Congress to be one of the "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant films" ever and is preserved in the National Film Registry today. 

 EOTO #2 Reaction: 

The Reconstruction era was a tumultuous time in the United States, for the government, for the white citizens, and for the newly freed slaves. Because the freeing of African American's was a completely unprecedented event in American history, where to proceed as a nation was in question. Not only that, but the differing attitudes of pro-abolition and pro-slavery individuals made for both considerable advancements and considerable stagnation to black progress. 

The passage of the Reconstruction amendments, also known as the second Bill of Rights were significant strides forward in the fight for African American rights. The 13th Amendment outlawed slavery officially in all US territories forever answering the questions legislatures had spent the better part of a century trying to answer. 

The 14th amendment gave citizenship to ALL people born in the United States, thusly nullifying the 3/5 compromise, and afforded all citizens equal protection under the law. It also gave the federal government power to punish any state that did not abide by those laws. 

The 15th Amendment gave all black men the right to vote in the United States. These amendments were enormous steps in African American progress post Civil War. The creation of the 1st Black college and the election of the first black people to Congress were other significant advances to the black cause. 

Initially, the government struggled with the fact that there were 4 million freed black men, women and children with virtually no possessions and no property. The governments created an agency called the Freedmen's Bureau to redistribute Confederate lands to freedmen, provide food, build hospitals, and even reunite slaves with their long lost family. The Bureau was supposed to last for a year, however the federal government soon realized it needed to continue for longer. 

Even though Congress overwhelmingly voted to continue the Freedmen's Bureau, the new President Andrew Johnson vetoed the bill and Congress chose to not to overrule the veto. However, soon after, Congress realized the positive effects of the Freedmen's Bureau and voted to continue it; but it was too little, too late. Andrew Johnson had decided to issue Presidential pardons to the Confederate leaders and distribute their lands back to them...the same lands that had been given to the Freedmen's Bureau. Thus begins the backslide of African American progress. 

An enemy of the Freedmen's Bureau was the Ku Klux Klan, a white supremacist organization that reached its peak in the 1870's and used violence and intimidation tactics to kill and harm freedmen in nighttime raids. Lynching, public killings with no trial, were also used by the Klan and other pro-slavery groups to put down black individuals. 

The assassination of Abraham Lincoln and the inauguration of Andrew Johnson changed Reconstruction in a tangible way. Not only was the nation in mourning, opinions regarding Lincoln and his ideals and policies created a lot of hatred, vitriol, and divisive dialogue. Carpetbaggers, Republicans that moved South after the Civil War for economic and political reasons created more tension, especially after military reconstruction was put into place. This kept the South in its place and under the thumb of the Radical Republicans for a time...until the election of 1876. 

Once military reconstruction ended by the Compromise of 1877, black progress was undoubtedly halted, allowing for racists, former Confederate, and pro slavery activists to put in place Black Codes, codes that limited the freedoms of African Americans and ensured their existence as cheap laborers and second class citizens (ex: literacy test, Jim Crow laws, and the grandfather clause). 

Although Reconstruction had many hopes for black equality, it truly just sent the nation into a spiraling of continued segregation. The fight for civil rights and social equality for African Americans was far from over. 

 Reconstruction Video Post: 

This video begins with the statement that the Reconstruction Era is the lynchpin for the anti-black hate crimes of the modern day. America after the Civil War was supposed to be a hopeful time. The Emancipation Proclamation had the executive branch on the side of abolition, the war had ended, and the Reconstruction amendments were passed. 

A spirit of hope was alive in the spirits of the African Americans. However, as the video stated: they had no idea what cliff they were headed towards. The slaves were freed, but where were they to go? The government was grappling with process of Reconstruction, and it soon became clear that the North and South had different ideas of what Reconstruction would look like. 

The surrender at Appomattox was merely the beginning of a tenuous struggle for peace. Newspaper ads began emerging highlighting the separation of slave families during the peculiar institution. When Lincoln suggested that black men could vote, he was assassinated for having those views. 

Enter Andrew Johnson, a man that no one believed would ever become President. He was the first President to gain power as the result of an assassination, and while Congress was out of session, he had all the power. 

Johnson's views were complicated. He was a poor white Southerner who hated the planter class and believed that they were to blame for all of the countries' problems. Johnson even had racist tendencies, unwilling to shake the hand of Fredrick Douglas. How were these views to affect the Reconstruction process?

While Congress was in recess, Johnson decreed that wealthy Confederates would have to personally beg him for a pardon. Johnson enjoyed having the people that he hated beg for forgiveness and eventually gave all of the land belonging to the Freedman's Bureau back to the newly pardoned Confederates. 

The Freedman's Bureau was an organization that attempted to give former plantation land to the newly freed African Americans, however the land was redistributed as a result of Johnsons' pardons. This had a devastating impact on black progress, as the African Americans were forced to enter into labor contracts working for many of their former owners. It was not "slavery" but it was pretty darn close. 

Not only were the African Americans consigned to a life of servitude yet again as a result of Johnson's poor reconstruction policies, many Southerners still clung desperately to their old way of life. This was what truly unified the Confederacy for the first time. 

The creation of the Black Codes during this period ensured that there was as little change from slavery as possible. Not only were African Americans forced to enter into labor contracts with white owners, some African American children were forced to enter into apprenticeship and were separated from their parents, subjecting them to physical and sometimes even sexual abuse. The Black Codes ensured that African Americans stayed subordinate forever. These are the effects of 6 mere months of Reconstruction under Andrew Johnson.

Additionally, Confederate generals and plantation owners were allowed to represent their states in Congress again after "meeting Johnson's terms".  Congressional Republican Thaddeus Stephens found this abhorrent. 

The very moment that the 39th Congress came into session, the clerk refused to acknowledge the Southern delegates, effectively terminating their membership in Congress. This began Congress' prominent role in Reconstruction. 

Tensions were mounting in the country, as Congress was in an explosive position, and freed people were moving toward cities. The riots in Memphis and New Orleans were horrific and opened the eyes of the Northerners to the fact that Johnson's reconstruction plan was a failure. 

Congress passed the 14th Amendment which forever changed the rights of freedmen and all American citizens. The issue was how to get the Southern states to ratify, however the 1866 midterms provided a solution: Republicans gained a majority in Congress and began to enact a new phase of reconstruction: Military Reconstruction. 

The southern states were split into districts and ruled by a US general. They were given the ultimatum that in order to gain their representation in Congress, they would have to pass the Reconstruction amendments (13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments). This was a huge step forward in the Reconstruction process. 

The 1868 Presidential election was a hopeful moment, with the election of Republican Ulysses S. Grant and the election of dozens of African Americans, who had been slaves a mere years earlier. The end of the decade provided an glimmer hope for black progress, however the future would bring even more turmoil for race relations
in America. 

 Plessy V. Ferguson: 14th Amendment Argument 

Ladies and Gentlemen, Your Honor, I stand before the court today to cement the plaintiff's argument that the Separate Car Law is deeply unconstitutional. I stand here to showcase that the law, plain and simple, says thusly.

I will begin with the reminder that our Declaration of Independence states: "all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". Our country was created and built off of these principles, and we would do well to remember them here today. 

As a nation, we are on the precipice. What this court decides today will determine how we are viewed as a nation both internally and externally. If we ignore the values that our nation was built on, how are we to move forward? How are we to be taken seriously? 

Need I remind you of our new Constitutional amendments? This nation came together to add these amendments to the constitution, meaning that the majority believes in these principles. African Americans have been given citizenship, the right to vote, and most importantly, equal protection under the law. If the court overlooks these rights, our liberty, the very fabric of our democracy, is in grave danger. 

This case specifically cites the 14th Amendment, which states: "No state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Equality is not a vague, or ambiguous concept. It is unchangeable, concrete, and absolute. There should be no caveat when it comes to equality. 

Because the state law is worded in such a way that regulates the transportation system solely based on race, it is not only unjust, but un-Constitutional. The Constitution is color-blind, there is no caste system, and no dominant ruling class of citizens. The 14th Amendment was created to ensure that would be the case. 

You would have to be ignorant to overlook that the intent of the state law is to segregate based solely upon race, and doing so is a gross Constitutional breach. One of the most fundamental rights, personal liberty, is under attack. It is a man's right to choose whether or not to occupy the same car as a man of another race, and the government cannot infringe upon that right using race as the sole argument. 

"In respect of Civil Rights", and in respect of the 14th Amendment, "all citizens are equal before the law" regardless of color. We are one common nation and the sooner we as a nation can reach that point, the less aggression, and less brutality there will be. 

If this court rules against Homer Plessy today, it will forever be undermining its authority, and defeating the purpose of putting the 14th amendment in place to begin with. Not only that, but we will lose the ability as a nation to "boast about our freedoms" because we have attacked the most fundamental that our nation was built on: personal freedom and personal liberty.