Skip to main content

Why Isn't This Talked About More? /////// Isabelle Ferguson

 While reading Livy and Cicero, my brain was screaming at me “Civil Rights Movement! It’s right there in the speech!” There’s a racial hierarchy in America. During the Civil Rights Movement, African Americans were the plebeians: no place in government, regarded in lower esteem than Caucasians, expected to treat Caucasians with “the highest form of respect,” and interracial relationships were not allowed (and that’s putting it lightly). “Now, however, it is perfectly obvious, seeing how bitter an opposition they have raised to our proposed laws. For what is our purpose in framing them except to remind them that we are their fellow-citizens, and though we do not possess the same power, we still inhabit the same country...” (Livy, pg. 2). The Civil Rights Movement was about being able to vote people into office that represented African Americans, because, although they lived in the same country, Caucasians and African Americans were not near equal. The plebeians rose up in the same way.
I liked that these selections talk about intermarriage, because, at least in my education, we never talked about interracial relationships. I was raised with an example of intermarriage through my parents, so, I always assumed it was an accepted thing. When we go through the different civilizations in history, I always understand the hierarchies. I get that we need some form of a hierarchy in order to maintain order. Someone has to be in charge. What I never understand is the idea that marrying someone who is a higher or lower class was not allowed. To keep with the theme of connecting the Civil Rights Movement, it blows my mind that marrying someone of a different race used to be punishable by death. 
P.S. I commented on Abigale Bell's post and Caroline Tucker's post.

Comments

  1. Interracial marriage was always an intriguing subject when researching different civilization's views on the matter. It seems as though controlling imperial-like forces usually restrict this freedom because they have exalted their own idea of an ideal race, and have thus considered everyone else folly. In more "harmonic" nations, shall we say? The interracial marriage restrictions were less applied because the nations were more accepting of different races in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Isabelle! I loved reading your post! You touched on a point which is highly debated in our country even today. I found it astounding in 'History of Rome' that the plebeians were allowed citizenship, they were even allowed a small place in government, but they were not allowed to intermarry. Such was the patrician fear of contaminating their "pure" bloodline. Much like during the Civil Rights Movement (and even still today), the people have a similar mindset towards African Americans. I cannot understand how people can be so prejudiced against each other for so petty a reason as this.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Aristotle Might Not Like Me...Or Jesus//Haylee Lynd

      Aristotle says that the man who does not get angry at the things he should be angry at "is thought unlikely to defend himself; and to endure being insulted and put up with insult to one's friends is slavish" (Aristotle 41). While he states that passivity is preferred to excessive anger, he still gives great criticism to it.  In contrast to Aristotle, the man who Christians believe to be the most just is Jesus who states in Matthew 5:39-40, "...do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well." Essentially, arguing that one is not to respond in anger when insulted or hurt, to not defend one's self. Most individual's are unable to achieve this. Our natural instinct is to defend ourselves, especially in physical cases. However, Christians strive to be like Jesus in this way. I would also argue that it is a very admirable wa...

Oedipus’ Children/Siblings—Lily Caswell

Ok, so Oedipus is a bit of a train wreck to say the least. I love the fact that even after Oedipus found out about his less-than-appealing relationship with his mother, he still tried to look after his children/siblings. After he gouged his eyes out, his children came to him at which point Oedipus talked about how that when they were old enough to marry, no one would want them due to them being products of incest. He said for the people not to condemn them based on what their father had done. Even after he knew what he had done and what his children were, he still wanted the best for them. I commented on Logan’s and Ian’s posts.

Overanalyzing Everyone's Intentions Here-Rachael Gregson

 First off, I'd like to say this is going to be a two part blog post, because a lot of things happened in this reading assignment that demands to be discussed.  As with any war I've realized, it's tricky not to fall into the initial perspective I am given. I began this book skeptical of Hector because I was bias toward the movie Troy, which was told mostly through the eyes of Achilles, but neither were what I was expecting. It's actually funny that they both hold values completely opposite from one another. Hector represented everything related to city-state pride, honor, and humility whereas Achilles was everything wild, reckless, and unpredictable solitary. This isn't to say that Hector is all good and Achilles all bad. Both had instances where I rooted for the other more or less. I just thought it was interesting how their two personalities represented something that basically causes all wars: the clash between civilization and savagery.  Secondly, I'm not de...