Jason Sokol

Racism in the North is different from racism in the South. The North lacks, and lacked, the most visible signs of racism as known in the South: lynchings, Jim Crow, and the visible presence of the Klan (though it did exist up north). But, as Sokol shows us, that does not mean the North lacks racism.

This is not a complete history of racism in the North. Instead Sokol focuses on select periods and incidents in the postwar period, focusing on Boston, New York City, and Connecticut, as representative examples of his thesis. In the South, racism is overt. In the North, it is covert. Northerners are taught to revere a mystique of anti-racism: that the North is different. The sin in the North is to declare one's racism, not to live it.

In order to resolve this paradox, Northern whites have to tell themselves other myths: that school segregation is merely a result of living in different neighborhoods, and that living in different neighborhoods is either by choice or because black families can't afford to buy in white ones. Massachusetts sees itself as the cradle of liberty and home of the abolitionist movement. In New York City, the myth of the melting pot is employed to obscure fault lines. Thus, Jackie Robinson's tenure with the Dodgers is hailed as evidence of New York's progressivism and Brooklyn's diversity--and it is. But it's also true that Jackie and his family were unable to buy a house in the suburbs, and after they were finally able to do so (because they went to the newspapers) their children were treated miserably in their white schools.

Black politicians (Ed Brooke and Shirley Chisholm are featured) get elected through a delicate dance around their race. On the one hand, many white voters wanted to laud their progressivism by voting for a black candidate. On the other, the candidates face backlash for emphasizing it--implying that they are not being voted for on the basis of their qualifications, but their race. This bind of "voting for the most qualified candidate" continues for minority candidates today. As a Republican seeking statewide election in a predominantly white state, Brooke emphasized how his election would really be a color blind choice. As a Democrat in a majority-minority district with substantial minorities of both white and Puerto Rican voters, Chisholm emphasized outreach to all groups, her independence, and a canny ability to play New York's political machines. A later section of the book deals with the perils of black politicians in the 1980s at a time when crime was on the rise and cities were being starved by Reagan. Dinkins' initial promise was deflated by racial violence he was unable to calm.

As time progressed, tensions that had not been spoken about began to bubble to the surface and explode--and chief among them was school busing. The North resisted it. When segregationist senator John C. Stennis called the North out on its hypocrisy, Connecticut Sen. Abraham Ribicoff took on his challenge--and acknowledged it. But while many white Southerners were only interested in Northern hypocrisy as a deflection, Ribicoff meant it, and ultimately backed major plans to reverse segregation. They landed on deaf ears. In Boston, too, fierce opposition arose to the idea of busing. The Northeast would accept equality under the law; it would accept equality at the ballot box; it would not accept change in day to day life.

Because the book is selective, there's much more material that could be mined--for example, federal housing policy was instrumental in white flight, and racial steering as well as discrimination ensured that the suburbs would remain as segregated as the cities. Supreme Court decisions restricting desegregation to within district lines would preserve suburban segregation, where districts were small and black (and later Latino) residents continued to be steered away from white suburbs. However, Sokol does a good job of using his cases as illustrative. As well as Boston and New York City, Springfield and Hartford are studied.

As a native Long Islander, I recognized the racism I had grown up with. It's vital for those of us who grew up and continue to live in the Northeast to understand our own history with racism and its unique flavor.… (meer)

April 2018, marked fifty years since the murder of Martin Luther King on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee. There to give support to a garbage workers strike, in his clear, telling speech, he predicted his death. Extensively researched, this author outlines the events occurring after King's assassination. In a majority of American major cities, riots broke out wherein shooting and looting reigned as buildings and entire city blocks were set on fire.

Before his death, King seemed to change his direction from Civil Rights to focus on the travesty of Viet Nam. A year before his death, from the pulpit of Riverside Church in New York City, King implored America politicians to enact bills to spend money on feeding their poor instead of raining deadly chemicals down on innocents in a foreign land. King spoke of an increasingly vile, morally-lacking society. America was in trouble and going downward more rapidly than any could predict.

Advocating for jobs and housing for the poor, King's speeches became increasingly caustic. When he walked with those working in the sanitation field, chaos and looting occurred on a large scale. This, his opposition noted, was nothing new -- King fostered violence where ever he went.

While the joy of the previous passing of the Civil Rights Act occurred, increasingly, President Johnson put distance between himself and King as King threw volley after volley of criticism of a war that should not have started, and could not be won.

Many believed that King was nothing more than a rabble-roser, who created crime, looting and violence where ever he was. Post his receipt of the Noble Peace Prize, even those who counted themselves as members of his team, felt his ego was increasingly out of control.

And, as his control slipped, no longer was the focus on passive dis-obiedence, now instead, there was a loud call for militancy. Instead of hope and love, the call for violence on the white man rang throughout American as Malcolm X and Stokley Carmichael were able to lead a majority of disenfranchised poor who were weary of the wait. And, throughout America as the rift between black and white grew, the cities burnt.

The author does an incredible job in outlining how King's legacy of hope and love, grew to be a sharp focus on the black who blamed the white man for killing King, while the white majority continued the chasm of meeting in the middle.

Four Stars!… (meer)

I am reading this book for a fascinating class on the Civil Rights movement. As I am finishing I find a lot of my high hopes for the book unfulfilled. The book does provide interesting insights into the reactions of white southerners to Civil Rights, but it tries to do entirely TOO much. The reader would be better served with more depth into a particular issue: voting rights or desegregation. Instead, there are literally hundreds of citations to make the same point, and far too large a span of time is covered. The content is excellent , but lacks organization and focus, and would be a difficult read for anybody without a good historical background. While Sokol has some amazing content, the book is difficult to wade through to find it. I am disappointed since it is a subject so rarely addressed in history books, and is an essential component to understanding the Civil Rights movement… (meer)

4374. There Goes My Everything White Southerners in the Age of Civil Rights, 1945-1975, by Jason Sokol (read 26 Oct 2007) This 2007 book tries to look at the civil rights struggle from the standpoint of the white Southerner. It begins somewhat disorganizedly but then tells of some events and the narrative catches one up. Especially striking is the account of the school integration struggle in New Orleans, where the white people who wanted to do the right thing had a terrible time--even worse than the blacks who sought integrated schools. The effect of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is studied in detail, and there is some study of the Voting Rights Act's effects. The author is not a lawyer and it would have been good if he had been and had given more account of the legal struggles of the time. The book shows there has been progress but that many in the South are in their hearts still racist. A book full of interesting material but not as well-organized as I had hoped.… (meer)