Always Do the Right Thing

                  Shame and Fear are the basis behind drastic actions of people. Not only did the character, Bigger, in Native Son have a fear of the white world, but the author, Richard Wright also did. Wright said, "I must write this novel, not only for others to read, but to free myself of this sense of shame and fear" (448). He used Native Son as a way of expressing his fear. Sal, the owner of the pizzaria in the movie, Do the Right Thing, also did a drastic action to free himself of his fear. He was white, and he owned a shop in an all black community. Though he tried to portray himself as a non-racist man, he had an unintentional fear of what blacks could do to him because he was white. Near the end of the move Sal finally let his fear go by using a baseball bat to smash Radio Raheem's radio. Though the action ended up causing more trouble, it was done as an expression of fear from the black man with the loud music. The blacks then grew a fear of Sal, comparing him to the common white folk at the time, and to release their fear they fought him and burnt down his pizzaria. The reason for all of these actions was to protect themselves from what they feared. It was their self-defense mechanism. Write said, "yet, some curious, wayward motive urges him to supply the answer, for there is the feeling that his dignity as a living being is challenged by something within him that is not understood" (434). They used their violence as self defense to find their answer of why they felt angry. Because of reasons like this, Malcolm X said, "I don't even call it violence when its self-defense, I call it intelligence." X was a supporter of violence when necessary. Do the Right Thing shows that self-defending violence will just lead to more violence, and that the chain will never end. Martin Luther King Jr. supported this idea when he said, "Violence ends by defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers." As long as violence is going on, it will keep going until all sides wear out. With this never ending cycle it was good that mookie and Sal had no hard feelings for eachother at the end of the movie. That represented one step closer to black and white equality without violence.
                     The whole fight at the end of Do the Right Thing was brought upon by two characters, Sal and Radio Raheem. The debate is left open to who did the right thing. Sal owned his pizzaria, and what he did with it was his choice. He had the power to allow in who he wanted, and display what he wanted. Buggin' Out was disturbing the peace in his shop when he complained that there were no "brothers on the wall." When Sal fairly refused to add them to the wall, Buggin' Out just got madder. On top of this disruption, he brought his friend Radio Raheem with him to blast his music. When Sal asked for him to turn it off he refused. Sal had a good option to call the police and ask an officer to deal with the situation, but instead he smashed up the radio by himself. Both Radio Raheem and Sal did the wrong things by not turning off the music and personally smashing the radio. To me this further enforced the fact that the Civil Rights Movement was not only black people trying to fight whites to get power, but it was the strive toward acceptance of one anther in both races. Radio Raheem and Buggin' Out didn't accept Sal, just like Sal didn't accept them. Because of this one way street of unacceptance, equal rights would never be a result. In my oppinion Mookie was the peacekeeper in the film. His throwing of the garbage can through the window at the end was very controversial, but I agree that he did the Right thing. Not only was he giving his black peers the opportunity to express their anger towards white america, but he also gave his boss, Sal, the opportunity for him and his boys to back away to safety. Mookie was the only one who fully understood the reasons on both sides of why blacks and whites were against eachother. Rather than having to fight for his freedom, he had to struggle with how to deal with his respect towards both sides of the street.

The Poor People's Campaign

The Poor People's Campaign was all about support of power and finances towards the people in poverty in America. Martin Luther King, Jr. supported this campaign before his assassination. This was a group of unhappy people who did not have enough money to support their families or give their children a better life. They complained that they had no power, and they started this group to gain a special poor person's power. What was special about this group was that it was not only poor black citizens, it included all races including poor whites. They had a very good intention in their hands. This campaign finally ended with no special results.

How did the Poor People’s Campaign seek to address poverty in the United States? In what ways

was the campaign similar to other campaigns that the SCLC had organized? What do you see as the

key differences? How would you address the issues of poverty today?
        They intended to campaign in Washington DC where the government ran the country. Almost all of the SCLC's campaigns ended up in the country's capital. Poverty today still exists in large amounts, but a plan like this would not work nowadays. We would have to address it in a new light.

Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Robert Kennedy was a strong supporter of Martin Luther King, Jr. He gave him advice and publically tried to help him. He was saddened very much by the assassination of King. He became in charge of breaking the news to a crowd of mainly black people. His speech was not pre-written. He simply spoke from his heart. He talked about how King died from the act trying to gain justice for his peers, which was a great thing. Kennedy related this assassination to the one of his brother, John F. Kennedy. He begged for his audience not to blame this action on all white people. Just like JFK was killed by one white man, King was also. This was not a crime to use all white people as the scapegoat. He spoke about how he was eager to find love, wisdom, and compassion towards one another in the United states. He asked for his audience to not only pray for King's family, but for the United States as a whole so that they could move on to a better and more compassionate future. He spoke, "But the vast majority of white people and the vast majority of black people in this country want to live together, want to improve the quality of our life, and want justice for all human beings who abide in our land." He had given a powerful and compassionate speech, though many riots still broke out after the tragic assassination. Later in life, Robert Kennedy was assassinated as well as his brother and King. Kennedy's support of King's actions is one to admire and use to increase our own compassion towards our country.

9/11 Quran Burnings and the 1st Amendment

After reading the article, Quaran-burning on again, off again, I am disappointed. Disappointed with the Americans AND the Muslims. They both are letting a select few in the culture represent the beliefs of the whole cultural community. Yes, the terrorists who took the lives of too many American's the day of September 11th were indeed Islamic extremists. Naturally this would give a large population of America fear of all Islamic people. It is human nature to be afraid of the unknown, and not all American citizens knew that to be Islamic did not mean they were extremists or terrorists. We need to stand up as a community and realize that Islam is a religion, and they have just as much a right to freely practice their religion in our country. It says so in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. We need to step aside, and not proclaim their religion as our reoccurring scapegoat. While people may write that it is all our fault, and that America is to blame for the prejudice against Islamic people, I look at it the other way too. Just because we live in the same country as Terry Jones, a reverend in Florida, it is believed by many muslims that we as a country have the same beliefs as him. He made an offensive decision to burn copies of the Quran on 9/11, and this angered the Islam religion. He was doing this because he was against a mosque being built near ground zero. Personally, I don't want innocent Islamic people thinking that I would want to do that. Neither do many other Americans. The muslims have to realize that not all Americans are out to get the whole Islam culture. The worst part about it is that the action of one Man who used his freedom of the press to get out his message would risk the safety of all of America. The article said, "If he'd gone through with it, it would have been tantamount to war," the cleric said in the coastal town of Lhokseumawe. "A war that would have rallied Muslims all over the world." It shows how much the words of one man can get blown out of proportion. Muslims should feel as welcome as other people to live in America. They should not feel that they must protest and fight for their freedom.
Another fight that can relate is the one between the Israelis and Palestinians. They have been fighting for all of history about who should own Israel. The difference between the building of the mosque near ground zero, and the settling in the city of Jerusalem is that the Israeli Palestinian fight has biblical connections to the location desired. Jerusalem is mentioned in both of their religion's holy texts, and they both feel entitled to the land that is there. I am not sure if it is just me, but I haven't read any part in the quaran connecting to the land that ground zero is built on. All the mosque would be doing in that location is upsetting people with personal stories towards the 9/11 attacks. With no spiritual connection to build the mosque on that piece of land, why not build it in a place that it can sit peacefully with less prejudices? I am against the burning of the quaran, for it symbolizes the prejudice against an innocent religion, while I am also against the mosque being built by ground zero. Though these men wouldn't get the mosque in their desired spot, less public argument would be caused if it were to be somewhere else. This one man should not have gone as far to create a fear of public security, which should not have made president Obama comment on the matter. Are people forgetting about the separation of church and state?




http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=23360 

Thomas Paine: The American Crisis

Thomas Paine wrote out to "General Washington's demoralized troops at Valley Forge (AR 50)" to express his desire for American freedom. He began by telling us of his beliefs about God's power over the war. He believed that the higher being wouldn't let men die if it weren't for a good cause in the end. He then goes on to talk about his country and that they have to put all they can into this war if they want to keep a free country. He expresses this by saying, "...I call not upon a few, but upon all: not on this state or that state, but on every state; up and help us; lay your shoulders to the wheel; better have too much force than too little, when so great an object is at stake" (AR 52). If they could win, the prize would be more than rewarding. Later in his letter he refers to some of the absurd laws that the British had put on them. One of them was how a British soldier could invade any home at any time and do whatever they wanted to do. He said that the idea of that happening to his home put him over the edge. We read about this law in another passage when someone was arguing against it also. Paine's opinion is that he is not a strong believer of war, but when his life is at stake he will act against it. The introduction to Thomas Paine's life is very interesting. He was involved with both the American and French Revolution. I have never realized that both Revolutions went on at about the same time. I have learned that Thomas Paine was one of the world's greatest political propagandists.

The American Reader