First Paragraph
In HA, it shows that there was Anti-immigraion force over a few years. It explains about the organization, Ku Klux Klan (KKK) which was against for immigration aggressively in 1920’s. The immigration proceeds, they declared, “The Klan is intolerant” and started to oppress people who are UN-American. Howard Zinn also agreed to revival of KKK. He shows the immigration quotas which was favor of Anglo-Saxons. This unfairly immigration quotas made KKK become stronger. So both of them agrees that KKK was existed and its power was getting stronger in 1920’s. In Schweikart, he agrees that KKK was there in racism and Anti-immigration in 1920’s, however, he thinks KKK was not much effective. According to his perspective, the KKK had plummeted in membership since the 1920’s. That means 1920’s was the ruin period of KKK.
Second Paragraph
In HA, liberal thought that KKK was a nemesis, so some of pacifists and social activists made an organization, is called American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to protect their rights of speech. In first year, they went fight for immigrants who were suffering from radical force. Zinn shows another liberal organization, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). However, he thinks it was helpless to support the immigrants because mob violence and race hatred were everywhere. In Schweikart, he says liberal was existed and it works in some parts, but even the liberal segregate the immigrants. They seemed that they are helping the immigrants, but they sent their children to All-White private schools.
Third Paragraph
In HA, he says that the U.S government was standing for Nativists. A number of members in KKK have political power, lawmakers were under the pressure of Nativists so that KKK could control some states; Oregon, Oklahoma, Texas, and Indiana.Howard Zinn also says that U.S government set the limitation to the immigrants. That was quotas which was favor of Anglo-Saxons. They kept out black and yellow people and the quotas for other colors people also noticeably low, comparing with Anglo-Saxons. He mentioned Marcus Garvey who promoted Black pride. However, all blacks weere not in sympathy with him so it was not effective. On the other hand, Schweikart says another things which is different from the issues. He mentioned KKK once, however, after that he turns the topic to something about covert segregation by liberal force. So he just keeps silent on the issue.
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기