The March on Washington (1963)

          The movie we watched in class today was about Martin Luther King Jr.’s March on Washington in 1963.  I have heard his famous “I Have a Dream” speech many times, but never really understood the magnitude of the moment until we studied it in class.  I found this movie to be very interesting due to the fact that it provided a significant amount of background detail and presented in-depth information regarding the fundamentals of The March.  Another aspect that I found to be extremely intriguing was the level of importance that college students held throughout this period.  People were flooding into Washington from all over the country, and the March demonstrates the true level of power that the citizens possess as a whole.  The footage of Martin Luther King Jr. was effective in demonstrating his passion and anger towards the mentality of the American states against black individuals.  Overall, this movie was extremely effective in its teachings and historical reflection of the March on Washington.

Moot Court: Plessy v Ferguson

          Today in moot court, the historic case of Plessy v Ferguson was debated.  Plessy was unhappy with being forced to move to the “black section” of the railway car, despite purchasing a ticket that allowed him to sit with the white individuals.  The original trial occurred in 1896 and has become known as a landmark United States Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities under the “separate but equal” doctrine.

          The trial began with Team Reagan presenting the fact that Plessy was legally allowed to purchase the ticket despite the fact that he was a coloured man.  Plessy purchased his ticket legally and peacefully but was thought to be set-up by the railroad company in order to facilitate his arrest.  Team Reagan stated that the Louisiana state law had no constitutional power in regards to the operation of the railroad system due to the fact that the railroad extended across various state lines. On the other hand, Team Red, White & Better Than You argued that the state had rights regarding the laws of public transportation.  They also described their beliefs in regards to “Racial Mixin” in stating that having blacks and whites on the same train car poses potential causes for conflicts and would not be in the best interest of the public.

          In conclusion, Team Red, White & Better Than You presented a solid argument that resulted in them winning the case.  Team Reagan presented many strong points but their moral arguments were not as persuasive or valid as the facts and images presented by Team Red, White & Better Than You.

Causes of the American Civil War

          The American Civil War was fought from 1861 to 1865 to determine the survival of the Union of independence for the Confederacy. The Northern and Southern states went to war due to a build-up of numerous events.  The Northern states were knows to be industrial, while the Southern states were known for their agricultural profits.  Due to the heavy amount of manual labour that was required to maintain the southern crops, slavery developed into a horrendous issue.  Manual labour was needed to work in the fields as slaves grew and harvested crops such as tobacco and cotton.  Slaves were not given a choice or any rights regarding their work. They were essentially viewed as animals and were often expected to survive in unacceptable living conditions and were often beaten by their owners.

          One of the major turning points in American history was the case of Dred Scott v Sandford.  This trial occurred prior to the Civil War and to many was the decisive case when the citizens of American collectively decided that they needed to work together to drive change.  Slaves of all ages, children to pregnant women, were abused and beaten by their owners.  As the public became aware of the situation, numerous individuals decided to speak out to initiate a change of mentality.  Fred Douglas was a powerful figure in the fight against slavery, and made a significant impact with his autobiography, “Narrative of the Life of Fredrick Douglas” in which he shares his journey to gaining freedom from slavery.  He discussed ‘free-blacks’ who were slaves that had been bought out my relatives, released out of consciousness, or escaped to their freedom.  These ‘free-blacks’ were given the opportunity to work manual labour jobs and some even became doctors and lawyers. Over time, tension continually built as more and more slaves wanted to gain their sense of independence and freedom.  The drive for freedom lead slaves to formulate the Nat Turner Revolt in Southampton County, Virginia and the 1811 Louisiana Slave Rebellion.  Following these events, and the trial of Dred Scott a 34 hour battle took place at Fort Sumpter, and shortly after war was declared between the Northern and Southern states.

Part One
Part Two

Glory (1989)

         Today in class we watched the movie Glory (1989).  The film is directed by Edward Zwick and features Matthew Broderick, Denzel Washington, Cary Elwes and Morgan Freeman.  The film is about the 54^th regiment, which was the first formal unit of the Union army during the Civil War that was made up entirely of African-American men.  The film explores in-depth detail and is extremely interesting.  Numerous African-American men gained respect for their bravery during battle.  This demonstrates a cultural shift and puts the African-American soldiers on the same level as white soldiers.  For the first time in American history, the color of their skin was overlooked and it became evident that the pigment of someone’s skin does not determine what kind of person he or she is.  The men in the Union recognized their significance and in result were not vain.  Many men were sacrificed and due to the regiments’ great efforts and therefore a significant amount of respect was gained by the Union.  The 54^th regiment demonstrated that black men were extremely capable and this changed the public mentality moving forward as black soldiers became accepted and equally viewed as their white companions.

Moot Court: State v Mann

Defendant: John Mann (Group Trippy)

Convicted Crime: Assault and Battery

Prosecutor: Slave Lydia (Group Starbucks)

Judge: Thomas Ruffin

Location: North Carolina
December 1829

            The trial of North Carolina State v. John Mann, in 1829, was a ruling in which the Supreme Court of North Carolina decided that slave owners had complete ability and right over their slaves, and could not be convicted guilty of committing violent acts against them.  In this trial, Elizabeth Jones owned a slave named Lydia who she rented out to work for John Mann.  Mann shot and wounded Lydia when she attempted to escape a lashing.  Mann was charged $10 for his crime but proceeded to appeal the decision, claiming that ruling was against his constitutional rights and that he had not broken the Law.

          During our moot court, Group Trippy argued on behalf of John Mann, and Group Starbucks argued on behalf of the State of North Carolina.  Group Starbucks declared that Man was not the absolute owner of Lydia because the exchange happened under a lease and was not an outright ownership exchange of property.  Under this context, the group argued that the fine imposed on Mr. Mann was valid under law.  They claimed that the case should be viewed from an empathetic and moral perspective.  Group Starbucks made a valid point in stating that people are not property, due to the fact that property is not capable of making decisions for itself.  DJ argued that Lydia was not, and should not be viewed as Mr. Mann’s property but instead should be viewed as a capable human being.  The group also formulated a formidable argument in quoting the Bible’s words, which stated that owning slaves is punishable by death.  On the other hand, Group Trippy argued that since Lydia was under contract to work for John Mann, he was granted full ownership of her during the lease. Therefore Mr. Mann had the right act however he felt appropriate towards his slave.  They argued that the fine imposed on him was unjust due to the fact that he acted within his lawful rights.  Group Trippy presented many impressive quotes and laws that supported their argument and therefore were declared the victors of the trial.

Chapel Hill Murders

          On the evening of February 10^th, 2015 around 5:15pm, 3 young and promising students were shot and killed at a condominium complex near the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill campus.  Initial reports indicated that the shooting was regarding an escalation of a neighborhood parking dispute, but further investigation proves that religion may have played a factor in the attack.  The three victims, one man and two women were of Arab decent, which sparked speculation that the killings could have possibly been a hate crime.

Police have named the victims as 23-year-old Deah Shaddy Barakat,

his wife, Yusor Abu-Salha, 21, and her sister, Razan Abu-Salha, 19.

          The suspected shooter is 46-year-old Craig Stephen Hicks, who on social media has described himself as a former auto parts dealer who studied to be a paralegal.  His posts and ‘likes’ on Facebook suggest that he is a fervent religious critic.  He has shown his support towards groups such as Atheists for Equality, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation.  He also recently posted a photo that states, “Praying is pointless, useless, narcissistic, arrogant, and lazy; just like the imaginary god you pray to.” His support of these groups as well as his picture caption provides evidence that his hatred of religion could have played a fairly significant role in the murders.

          Crimes like these seem to occur way too often in society, and in my opinion are purely disgusting.  If in fact these murders were motivated by Prick Hicks hatred of religion, than he should be dealt with accordingly.  The fact that he took it upon himself to murder three young individuals who were active in the community and had promising futures makes me sick to my stomach.  There is no further explanation than the fact the Criag Hicks is a coward.  My thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of the victims, who have had their lives uprooted due to the selfishness of a Rotten Tomato.

R.I.P.

New York Times

The Independent