Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Using this book (which has a lot more fiction to it than fact) as a real and factual comparison to discrimination is difficult when those of us who lived there know there was a lot more to it than what she wrote.
I didn't live there in the 30's..... I'm 34 years old.
However, my grandparents were alive and well during that period as were the black people who I grew up with that worked alongside my grandfather in the fields. My father worked alongside their kids in the field, and I worked alongside their grandkids in the same fields. I've heard the stories from both sides of the people who actually lived there during these times, along with the actual author of the book. My father was the one who buried her when she passed this past February.
I didn't live there in the 30's..... I'm 34 years old.
However, my grandparents were alive and well during that period as were the black people who I grew up with that worked alongside my grandfather in the fields. My father worked alongside their kids in the field, and I worked alongside their grandkids in the same fields. I've heard the stories from both sides of the people who actually lived there during these times, along with the actual author of the book. My father was the one who buried her when she passed this past February.
What you heard was what they chose to tell you, which I guarantee you was not what they say in private.
What you heard was what they chose to tell you, which I guarantee you was not what they say in private.
The only thing any of us can guarantee is death and taxes. If they didn't like us, they didn't have to hang around with us. You can make assumptions all you want but that doesn't change the way it went and your lack of experience in that specific area isn't sufficient to make your assumption truth.
The main theme of the book was about the various "tribes" of southern society and the nuances between those tribes--the issue of race being only one of them. It was also about how Atticus Finch--a unique individual--affected the life of his daughter. The Tom Robinson case was only a plot device, not the primary theme of the book.
Oh, yes we were. By far, and in ways much worse than in the south, ways that are clearly visible even today. Blacks in the South were far more able to recover from segregation after 1964 than blacks in the north--who have still not recovered to any substantial degree.
FWIW, I was an English Lit major. The main theme of the book was innocence and the destruction of innocence due to (and I'll even quote Spark Notes) "the forces of evil."
The "evil" for Tom Robinson was institutional racism and was portrayed through the disparate treatment he received as a black man in the criminal justice system.
On the second part of your comment in regards to segregation and the south, the south is still segregated...
I lived in the south for nearly 20 years, in the actual city of Atlanta which is commonly referred to as the "city to busy to hate" and there is still entrenched segregation in that city and practically every southern city to this day, just like in "the north." Today it is no longer legally enforced by local law (which states and localities did all over the country) but it is still prominent nationwide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nlambert
I'm telling you what I heard from the mouths of the very people who lived there during those times. This isn't something I read online or in a book. Harper Lee and my grandmother ran a quilting circle until my grandmother passed in 2010. We've all heard the stories. Harper Lee would quickly tell you that it was a book based on fiction with little hints of truth sprinkled here and there.
The fictional Tom Robinson was based off of Walter Lett, of whom's grandchildren I went to high school with and am still friends with to this day. Walter was accused of raping a white woman because she nor her father wanted it known that he was abusing her. Walter was there at a convenient time and instead of admitting to the people who saw her condition, they accused Walter so as not to air their dirty laundry. Walter was convicted and put in prison with the death sentence, but it was later appealed and reduced to life in prison.
I'm not saying there weren't differences in their legal rights, but merely pointing out that not all whites practiced discrimination in these small towns. Blacks and whites coexisted and worked together without fear of repercussion in our town out of necessity. No one could afford to be discriminatory.
Using this book (which has a lot more fiction to it than fact) as a real and factual comparison to discrimination is difficult when those of us who lived there know there was a lot more to it than what she wrote.
I agree with what Ralph told you. You were only told what your grandparents wanted to tell you. Also, it is interesting to me that it seems you don't really consider the fact that the real person you mention who's story Tom's was based upon, actually did spend his life in prison for a crime he did not commit. Do you think that he would have been treated in such a fashion if he were a white man?? I don't believe he would have considering white women were also seen as inferior and to this day many think if a woman/girl acts a certain way or dresses a certain way she "deserves" to be raped/assaulted.
The fact that the "legal rights" as you described them were "different" negates your belief that whites were not discriminatory against blacks in your town. If all the whites knew that the white woman's father was the assailant and they respected Walter Lett as an actual human being, a man with a family who needed him, then those on the jury would NOT have convicted him and sentenced him to death. They would NOT have let him sit in jail his entire life. They would NOT have cared more about dirty laundry versus Walter's freedom and the reputation (i.e. "dirty laundry") of a man who was abusive to his daughter.
Treating someone with common pleasantries as you describe does not mean that those citizens did not actively discriminate against the black populace. By your own description above, it shows they were discriminated against. Example - they could be accused by any white person of wrong doing and subsequently sentenced to death and none of their white "friends" who "co-existed" with them would vote for their freedom on a jury.
And of course the book was more fiction that fact. It is a fictional book, but fiction many times mirrors reality. Especially so for excellent literature IMO.
FWIW, I was an English Lit major. The main theme of the book was innocence and the destruction of innocence due to (and I'll even quote Spark Notes) "the forces of evil."
The "evil" for Tom Robinson was institutional racism and was portrayed through the disparate treatment he received as a black man in the criminal justice system.
On the second part of your comment in regards to segregation and the south, the south is still segregated...
I lived in the south for nearly 20 years, in the actual city of Atlanta which is commonly referred to as the "city to busy to hate" and there is still entrenched segregation in that city and practically every southern city to this day, just like in "the north." Today it is no longer legally enforced by local law (which states and localities did all over the country) but it is still prominent nationwide.
I agree with what Ralph told you. You were only told what your grandparents wanted to tell you. Also, it is interesting to me that it seems you don't really consider the fact that the real person you mention who's story Tom's was based upon, actually did spend his life in prison for a crime he did not commit. Do you think that he would have been treated in such a fashion if he were a white man?? I don't believe he would have considering white women were also seen as inferior and to this day many think if a woman/girl acts a certain way or dresses a certain way she "deserves" to be raped/assaulted.
The fact that the "legal rights" as you described them were "different" negates your belief that whites were not discriminatory against blacks in your town. If all the whites knew that the white woman's father was the assailant and they respected Walter Lett as an actual human being, a man with a family who needed him, then those on the jury would NOT have convicted him and sentenced him to death. They would NOT have let him sit in jail his entire life. They would NOT have cared more about Walter's dirty freedom versus the reputation (i.e. "dirty laundry") of a man who was abusive to his daughter.
Treating someone with common pleasantries as you describe does not mean that those citizens did not actively discriminate against the black populace. By your own description above, it shows they were discriminated against. Example - they could be accused by any white person of wrong doing and subsequently sentenced to death and none of their white "friends" who "co-existed" with them would vote for their freedom on a jury.
And of course the book was more fiction that fact. It is a fictional book, but fiction many times mirrors reality. Especially so for excellent literature IMO.
Except my grandparents weren't the only ones who told me. Plez (the black man I refer to that is close to our family) was the other half of the storytelling duo. Atlanta and rural South Alabama with a town population of a few thousand are two very different places. At the time no one knew whether Walter was telling the truth or not. It wasn't until much later that most of the town people found out.
I never said there wasn't any discrimination at all. I said it wasn't as common as people make it out to be. At least not in that town.
Except my grandparents weren't the only ones who told me. Plez (the black man I refer to that is close to our family) was the other half of the storytelling duo. Atlanta and rural South Alabama with a town population of a few thousand are two very different places. At the time no one knew whether Walter was telling the truth or not. It wasn't until much later that most of the town people found out.
I never said there wasn't any discrimination at all. I said it wasn't as common as people make it out to be. At least not in that town.
One other black man's agreement with your grandparents does not constitute every black person's experience in your town.
Also, didn't want to go here, but many black people will just agree with a white person's account of something when they are around white people. They will then go back to the black community and lambast the gall of the white people for believing things were okay.
There was a poem written about this sort of phenomenon that is rather famous called "We Wear the Mask" by Paul L. Dunbar, a black poet. The poem starts out with
"We wear the mask that grins and lies. It hides our cheeks and shades our eyes...."
This was a common phenomenon (and IMO still is) for black people in the company of other ethnicities and especially so in the south with blacks around white people.
I have personally seen black people in the south go out of their way to be kind, nice and decent and agreeable with white people, who transform when the white people leave the room.
But, I am not arguing with you that the blacks and whites "got along." Most people get along in any community IMO. However in the early to late 20th century, there was discrimination in every town IMO where there was a white/black population in the south. It was legalized discrimination and traditional discrimination amongst others.
Due to it not affecting white people, they would never have "seen" it because they felt everything was "okay."
I am not originally from the south, as stated above, and the whites I know/work with in my own hometown paint a great picture of race relations in the past the 1930s-1950s especially. Yet if you asked my great aunt, she would regale you with stories of daily race based discrimination she faced. Not overt, violent sorts of things, but "little things" like not going into certain neighborhoods after a certain time, or not being allowed to buy a home in certain areas, or not being able to get a job at a certain business, etc. Stuff most people don't think about in terms of it being "racism." My dad (he is only 60) remembers not being able to go past a certain street when he was a kid in the 60s without a group of Polish boys rushing out to beat them up for having the audacity to step foot on "their street." Lots of daily interactions that would not be seen as discriminatory by whites in that era actually were and people usually paint a rose colored picture of the past.
Except my grandparents weren't the only ones who told me. Plez (the black man I refer to that is close to our family) was the other half of the storytelling duo. Atlanta and rural South Alabama with a town population of a few thousand are two very different places. At the time no one knew whether Walter was telling the truth or not. It wasn't until much later that most of the town people found out.
I never said there wasn't any discrimination at all. I said it wasn't as common as people make it out to be. At least not in that town.
It wasn't as common as people make it out to be? LMAO....RIGHT.
There was no relief from it in any town in the South. Every town had a black water fountain, black school, black area at the theater, black restrooms, black fitting rooms (in most stores however, blacks weren't allowed to try on clothes and couldn't return them if they didn't fit). Blacks couldn't use ANY hotel in the south that wasn't on the wrong side of the tracks, they couldn't be paid the same as a white man for the same job, couldn't go to any church that wasn't designated a black church, couldn't ride at the front of any public transportation...bus, train or anything else.
And the little humiliations NOT written into law like standing in line to pay for an item, but having the white person behind you go around you to pay for their items before you did although you were there first.
Or maybe like the state of Virginia, you decide that instead of integrating schools, the whole southern portion of your state closes all of the public schools and opens up private schools ONLY for white children and have no schools at all for black children.
Hearing white people recount the good old days of Jim Crow where "it really wasn't as bad as everyone says it was" is always a hoot.
On the second part of your comment in regards to segregation and the south, the south is still segregated...
I lived in the south for nearly 20 years, in the actual city of Atlanta which is commonly referred to as the "city to busy to hate" and there is still entrenched segregation in that city and practically every southern city to this day, just like in "the north." Today it is no longer legally enforced by local law (which states and localities did all over the country) but it is still prominent nationwide.
I did not say the south was not segregated. I spoke very precisely:
"Blacks in the South were far more able to recover from segregation after 1964 than blacks in the north--who have still not recovered to any substantial degree. "
This is a comparison of northern blacks and southern blacks with regard to conditions immediately following the Civil Rights Act and in these decades later. I'd still rather live in Atlanta or Dallas today than Chicago or Cleveland.
It wasn't as common as people make it out to be? LMAO....RIGHT.
There was no relief from it in any town in the South. Every town had a black water fountain, black school, black area at the theater, black restrooms, black fitting rooms (in most stores however, blacks weren't allowed to try on clothes and couldn't return them if they didn't fit). Blacks couldn't use ANY hotel in the south that wasn't on the wrong side of the tracks, they couldn't be paid the same as a white man for the same job, couldn't go to any church that wasn't designated a black church, couldn't ride at the front of any public transportation...bus, train or anything else.
And the little humiliations NOT written into law like standing in line to pay for an item, but having the white person behind you go around you to pay for their items before you did although you were there first.
Or maybe like the state of Virginia, you decide that instead of integrating schools, the whole southern portion of your state closes all of the public schools and opens up private schools ONLY for white children and have no schools at all for black children.
Hearing white people recount the good old days of Jim Crow where "it really wasn't as bad as everyone says it was" is always a hoot.
"Our darkies were just fine 'till those Northern agitators came down here."
Back in 1996 I had an opportunity to do a civic project in a Montgomery AL middle school. I saw an "Alabama History" textbook on a teacher's desk and flipped though it.
It had a single paragraph on the Civil War, and essentially said just that: Everyone in Alabama was perfectly happy and content until the Civil War, and after that everyone was unhappy.
Yes, I said 1996, not 1956.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
