|Perfect Number of Pages to Order||5-10 Pages|
The Beatles on The Music Scene Discussion
Greetings Fellow Classmates/Dr. Beach:
This was one of the most turbulent times in American History. White youth were protesting the Viet Nam war by burning their draft cards. Dissatisfied with the world they inherited and following a pattern of dissent from their parents’ generation, the youth of the 1960s formed a “counter-culture” which rejected many of the fundamental values of American society. A much larger generation than previous ones (economics was not all that boomed after World War II), this generation grew up with every advantage their parents could afford to give them, including a college education.
(Yale New-Haven Teacher’s Institute, 2021). A great deal of white college students realized that what they took for granted as “self-evident truths,” rights such as liberty and equality, were blatantly denied many black Americans. It was on college campuses that protests for equality took place. One of the most pivotal events that defined protests on college campuses happened on the campus of Kent State University (Johnson, et al., 1980). Students were protesting the escalation of the Viet Nam War. The protests escalated and when it was over, the National Guardsmen fired sixty-one shots within thirteen seconds, killing four students and wounding nine.
A lesser-known protest happened at Jackson State University in Mississippi. The Black students were protesting many of the injustices, and segregation that occurred in the south. During the protests, someone threw a bottle which smashed at the feet of several Guardsmen. In the next twenty-eight seconds a whole barrage of shots was fired, killing two students and wounding twelve. All those shots were black. All law enforcement officials were white (Johnson, et al., 1980). The tragedy at Jackson State pointed up a problem that the whole United States has of race relations. While white college students did protest segregation in the south and were freedom riders journeying down to the South to register blacks to vote, the incident at Kent State University was a catalyst for the escalation of student activism to the point of lawless violence (Johnson, et al., 1980).
The evolution of the culture can be seen in the changes which occurred in its music. In 1969 there was Woodstock which, was a music festival held August 15–18, 1969, on a dairy farm in Bethel, New York 40 miles (65 km) southwest of the town of Woodstock (Tiber, 2010). Billed as “an Aquarian Exposition: 3 Days of Peace & Music” and alternatively referred to as the Woodstock Rock Festival (it attracted an audience of more than 400,000.
Thirty-two acts performed outdoors despite sporadic rain. (Tiber 2010). The festival has become widely regarded as a pivotal moment in popular music history as well as a defining event for the counterculture generation (Tiber, 2010). In 1963 and the years to follow, several social influences changed what popular music was and gave birth to the diversity that we experience with music today. The assassination of President John Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy, the escalation of the war in Vietnam and the forward-progress of the Civil Rights Movement all greatly impacted the mood of American culture and the music began to reflect that change (Johnson, Feinberg, 1980).
The “British Invasion” began around 1963 with the arrival of The Beatles on the music scene. There was the folk music that white youth listened to that defined their generation. In the beginning of the 60s Bob Dylan (“The Times They Are Changing”) became the anthem of social change in the United States among white college students. James Brown with “Say It Loud, I’m Black and I’m Proud and Sam Cooke’s, “A Change is Gonna Come” and “We Shall Overcome” became anthems of the Civil Rightst Movement for Black Americans. This song has also become a rallying cry for the present-day Black Lives Matter movement even though this song was released 58 years ago.
Joan Baez and Phil Ochs told of changing times in their folk songs. For white youth, rock dominated the scene with bands such as Jefferson Airplane and the Grateful Dead leading the way. The Motown Sound, featuring Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, (What’s Going On?”) the Temptations, and Diana Ross and the “Queen” of Soul, Aretha Franklin, were some of the big “Soul” singers of the sixties. While whites enjoyed both genres of music, folk and Soul, blacks listened mainly to “soul music.” The 1960s was indeed a decade of change—change driven by the demands of equality, freedom and tolerance by both blacks and whites.
Johnson, Norris R., & Feinberg, William E., Youth Protests in the 60’s; An Introduction., Sociological Focus., August 1980.
Rhinehart, RJ., Protests and the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960’s. Popular Resistance.Org., Undated
On page 161 of the text, the author states that in order for individuals, social networks, bureaucratic organizations, and political parties to gain power, they have engaged in litigation, hunger strikes, migrating, joining clubs, forming bands, patronizing clubs and bars, throwing stones, joining mobs and riots, organizing rebellions and armed insurrections, campaigning for office, and passing legislation to claim or shape human rights (liberty, equality, and the solidarity found in community).
Using these words as your model: Which form of protest is the most successful? Which one is the least successful? Give an example of each type.
This is from page 161
Before the revolution, British officials “dealt with independent and conquered [American Indian] tribes on the fringes of the white settlements as sovereign political communities, negotiating with them as with foreign nations” (italics added), like France or Spain. In many respects, Indians possessed a status that was superior to white settlers, who were merely subjects of the king.
“The Indians, though living among the king’s subjects . . . are a separate and distinct people from them, they are treated as such, they have a policy of their own, they make peace and war with any nation of Indians they think fit without control from the English.” Indian autonomy rankled white settlers, who complained, “I can in no manner consider the Mohegan Indians as a separate or sovereign state. . . .
[Such a view] exposes his majesty and sovereignty to ridicule.”When the Revolutionary War erupted, most Indians fought on the side of the British, largely because the British promised to protect Indian rights and land. “The logic of nearly two hundred years of abrasive contact with colonizing Europeans compelled the choice most Indians made to support Britain,” the historian Gary Nash observes, “since it was the colonists who most threatened Indian autonomy” (italics added). But at war’s end, the Indians, who had not been defeated on the battlefield, “emerged from the conflict with their independence decisively impaired.”
During postwar negotiations, the British betrayed their promises to protect the Indians and ceded Indian lands from the Appalachians to the Mississippi to the new republic without the consent of Indian peoples. US negotiators, led by John Quincy Adams, who regarded the Indians who fought with the British as traitors, refused to recognize the sovereignty of Indian tribes, arguing that they were “‘subjects’ of the United States rather than ‘nations,’ [and were] incapable of treating with a foreign power.”
 US officials demanded the surrender of Indian lands and rights as part of the peace agreement, and the British eventually agreed. These developments degraded the rights and status of diverse and autonomous Indian tribes and reduced them collectively to denizens of the United States, a status comparable with resident aliens or unnaturalized immigrants, except, of course, that they were indigenous “aliens,” not foreign “aliens.”
 One federal court ruled in 1823 that Indians were “of that class who are said by jurists not to be citizens, but perpetual inhabitants, with diminutive rights. They were considered an inferior race of people without the privileges of citizens, and under the perpetual protection and pupilage of the government” (italics added).
 The Supreme Court later refused to treat Indians as people who deserved protection under the Constitution, arguing that Indians are “in a state of pupillage. Their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian.”As the Republic expanded to the West, white settlers and state officials increasingly viewed Indians as a threat to public safety, not only in lands west of the Appalachians but also east of the mountains, and demanded the removal of Indians there to lands west of the Mississippi.
 Although state officials first discussed removing Indians in 1803, the War of 1812 and wars with the Creek in 1812–1814 and the Seminoles in 1817–1818 “gave new impetus to the removal policy,” which was advanced by President Monroe in the 1820s and forcibly implemented by President Andrew Jackson after passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830. During the next twenty years, “three quarters of the 125,000 Native Americans living east of the Mississippi were ‘removed’ with the loss of one-fourth to one-third of all southern Native American lives.”
 As a result, Indians descended from denizens to the subjects of US military authority and were forcibly deported to reservations, which the commissioner of Indian affairs described as a “legalized reformatory” for Indians, “a place where they must adopt non-Indian ways, ‘peaceably if they will, forcibly if they must.’”
 The Supreme Court refused to consider Indians as “people” protected by the Constitution before the Civil War. After Congress and the states adopted the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the court refused to extend its provisions to Indians, thereby denying Indians the right to either citizenship or suffrage, even though they were born in the United States. In the landmark 1884 decision in Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court concluded that John Elk, an Indian born on tribal lands, could not claim citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment or suffrage under the Fifteenth Amendment.
 Still, in the late nineteenth century, state governments and federal officials adopted policies that allowed adult Indian males to claim citizenship and suffrage if they abandoned their Indian identity, moved off the reservation, paid taxes, and assimilated, a development that essentially allowed Indians to “immigrate and naturalize,” like foreign immigrants.
 Why did Indians, who descended from sovereign peoples to denizens and then subjects of state authority in the United States, fall so far? First, state officials and white settlers saw them as a military threat before and after the Revolutionary War. Although Indian military capacities diminished rapidly, sporadic and small-scale conflict kept the Indian military threat visible until late in the nineteenth century. State officials and citizens viewed Indian resistance as a betrayal, which deserved serious punishment, though state officials and private citizens routinely provoked Indian resistance by seizing Indian lands and “removing” Indian peoples.
Second, almost no one in the Republic defended or assisted Indians. No one organized a movement, comparable to the abolitionists, that objected to the mistreatment of Indian peoples, perhaps because white settlers viewed Indians not only as racially inferior but also as domestic “terrorists.”
Third, although Indians were collectively punished for the resistance of individual groups, they were enormously diverse and found it difficult to collaborate or unite against a common foe. Moreover, they did not generally seek citizenship and suffrage, but rather sovereignty as a political goal, which may have been an unrealistic or utopian aspiration in this context. Still, Indians filed lawsuits, organized social movements, and, during World Wars I and II, served in the army, which helped improve their social and legal status.
Responses Due Wednesday night
Society has operated on its own, as individuals and in public systems, in various methods to create, support, and fight change. People also shaped bureaucratic organizations to form changes. Bureaucratic organizations are the most successful because they are unlike any other social networks in two significant respects (Schaeffer, 2014). Primarily, because it permits actors to produce an organization managed by specialists, in a categorized classification of work, according to recognized guidelines or procedures, to accomplish particular objectives. Next, they allow actors to pursue these goals for a long period of time. Bureaucratic organization allows actors to accept challenging projects—resistance that contradicts dynastic power, takeover of rulers, and extension of women’s suffrage—which may take centuries to complete (Schaeffer, 2014).
Women struggled for seventy years to acquire suffrage in the United States. The women who at first originated this movement did not live to see its conclusion. However, the organizations they shape make it possible to transform employees, raise funds, and accept strategies to subsidize the achievements of long-term plans (Schaeffer, 2014).