Crucifixion Eclipse The Large Gizāh  Pyramid : Nostradamus’ Birthdate at Central Axis of Giza Pyramid :

  Welcome, Guest                        Michael Report  

[Contact, Search] World History - Yahoo! - Help

 : H O M E :  



 I N D E XBook of Life  Index  directory B I B L E Apocalypse Book of Revelationsdirectory W E B S> Internets  directory J O U R N A L  > Journal Directory directory G A L L E R Y >photo gallerydirectory W M D  > XLXXII  ARMAGEDON  directory G A M M A > gamma index 

Privacy  [Public]  

United States of America -- Oakland California, Civil Rights & New Liberalism: POakland in the 1960s-1970s


By Michael Johnathan McDonald

1960s Political Shift in America

1960s * Democrats switch to Federalism, and give up state rights, and Republicans give up federalism and take up State Rights. South Votes Republican and North (east/west coast) Votes Democratic --- According to New Left Irrationalism. Democrats under Roosevelt secured the most centralized government in history. The New Left’s facts simply do not succinct with history.  The New Deal of the 1930s-1970s was profoundly federalist. States Rights were predicated upon each state controlling its social spheres and has nothing to do with action of the federal government in both cases of the South or the North in history. Both the south and the northern lands of the United States of America battled each other over federal representation to change federal laws only to win elections and win representation. The New Left simply frames this argument so that it can revise its role as current role of inclusionists and rewrite history of its segregationist sentiments.

Emerging Language of Community Power

1960s: decade of sustained pressure from civil rights (economic implied) “Wore away visible holes in the all white enclave barriers.”

Affirmative Action: not a new term or concept in U.S.A. history, re emergence 1960s

Anti-War Movement: ended the Viet Nam Intervention (a.k.a. war) by sustained grass-roots efforts. Not a tactical or economic interest to the U.S.A.

Anti-War Movement backlash:  led to foreign countries shutting their markets to the U.S. therefore destroying the U.S. unions’ market access because the U.S. federal government lessened its foreign interventional policies in general that were frequent  during post-war and before the 1980s (despite the interruption of 2003, as the most significant sense.). The Anti-War Movement helped end U.S. economic hegemony by bring in arguments of morality and ethics – human rights in contemporary terms. Enemies of the United States simply seized on these New Left sentiments to help demoralize the U.S. and place guilt into its social structures—which helps to make it fall and more easier to conquer once it is weakened.

Bank of America (CA) became affirmative Action standard in California.

BART: (Bay Area Rapid Transit) Block Working class opportunity or out sourcing to other states. Construction jobs are out in the open ~ visible representation of ethnicity.

Civil Rights: also understood for economic rights.

Civil disobedience: to dismantle the front-of-the-house-to back-of-the-house (restaurants, hotel, retail ~Oakland and San Francisco (decade pressure ~ sustained success).

Civil disobedience: Oakland induction center, stop Viet Nam recruits (failed, damaged innocent property ~ led to hallucination of revolutionary movement in Berkeley)

CORE: (Committee on Racial Equality) William Bradley, head of San Francisco, 1964

Counter culture; launched uninhibited and militant protests.

CRCC: Civil Rights Coordinating Committee. Nine points to direct action.

Federal Grants: hire minorities on a proportional bases.

Global Racism


JOBART: Black activism, San Francisco NAACP formed JOBART; helped change the language and philosophy of local black struggle.



Oakland: 1970s epochal redistribution of resources~ of people, property, and capital.

Outcome’: Most African American leaders stressed ‘outcome’ of fair employment -- a fair distribution of jobs -- as opposed to accepting legal measures as empirical justification.

Out Front’: better paying jobs

Power: Rise of demonstrations: objective, affirmative policies.

Racial Pluralism: means collective agreement of an ethnicity to stick together, be it tacit or arranged; a reaction to dominant ethnic control of politics, economics, and society (white); denotative ~ integration of ethnicities.



Student ad hoc Committee to End Racial Discrimination

War escalation:

War on Poverty: two phases (1) Employers side of economy~ employment practices, (2) workers side of the issue.

White Rule


Volunteer Affirmative Action: Did not work well.


1964- 1965: Montgomery Ward, AGE ( Oakland)


1960s Federal To State Great Society

Demographic: Linked to distribution of resources.

Nationally four million African Americans left the south for northern and western cites in three post war decades (1950-1970).

1950-1970: Suburban population increased from 36 million to 74 million.

Redistribution of property tax base: from city to suburb, old to new, industrial to post industrial.


What did this create? Opportunity politics.


Circumstances: African American  and blacks had sought to fight against “front-of-the – house/ back-of-the-house” racial line.[1]



Student Ad hoc Committee to End Racial Discrimination: Emerged in 1960 & a hallmark of New Left Protest.


Individual to Collective/ Capitalism to Socialism/ State Rights to Federalism

Civil disobedience: “From faith in Law to Faith in Direct Action.[2]


The War on Poverty was established in 1964 on the heals of Lyndon Baines Johnson’s inaugural address.


Results of the 1964 election brought in stunning relief of the extent of white California’s resistance to desegregation. 60 percent of California voters cast votes for L. B. Johnson, and 65% approved proposition 14.[3] The results in Oakland, California, confirmed that large number of white homeowners opposed desegregation and radical liberalism[4] [although a better work than radical liberalism is radical integration ~ liberalism meaning free at its root is connotatively freedom, and radical is connotatively extreme]. Yet, liberalism is the word associated with historiography of this time.


The Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) was the agency responsible for administering most of the War on Poverty programs created as part of United States President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society legislative agenda.

(OEO): VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action Program, and Head Start (though that program was later transferred to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare) were all administered by the OEO.


1964: Emergence of black organization, phase two of period 1950s-1960s.

War on Poverty:

Civil Rights Liberalism: Two approaches

(1) A stressing of fair employment and hiring of black workers.[5]

a.Correlate it to white student civil rights movements and global decolonization of white domination over the world’s races.
(2) Reforming hierarchical structures from white domination to inclusion of black agency.
a. African educational disadvantages. Between 1957 and 1976, a move toward the philosophy of “faith in law,” to “direct action;” from faith in individualist remedies to faith in collective and community-based remedies; from faith in American pluralism to faith in black nationalism and radicalism.”

 African American education, training in vocational careers, but problems under representative, inaccessible jobs due to “freedom [7]” restriction ( i.e. white Union decisions to limit black or exclude blacks for jobs).


Problems: “Judging liberalism and its promise of inclusion a failure of black leaders turned their attention to brining political institutional power to African American communities. To remake opportunity was to tackle [become physical], and attempt to counter, the social and special arrangements of the ghetto and the legacies of both slavery and segregation embedded within it.”[8]


War on Poverty

Employment desegregation and the push for both equal opportunity and a fare share’ of jobs, though thwarted in many instances, had begun to yield. Results affirmative action agreements and pressure from protestors and the state FEPC and federal EEOC had begun to pry open some previously all-white enclaves. Enforcement mechanisms remained weak, as in the BART case, and the structural legacies of Jim Crow and the monopoly power of unions still blocked paths of economic mobility for working-class blacks. But a decade of sustained pressure from civil rights groups had at least worn away holes in those barriers. Such incremental progress, however, had done little for the city’s poorest workers Poverty, unemployment pervasive, underemployment remained Oakland’s most pervasive social problems. The city’s overall unemployment rate in 1966 stood at 8 percent, 12 percent among African Americans. Worse, as many as one-third of African Americans and Latinos in the city lived in poverty.[9]


New Deal Programs (Phase Two or separate form the New Deal ideology?)

To understand the trajectory of Oakland’s War on Poverty requires both a national and local frame of reference. Nationally, Johnson’s war was one component of his and Congress’s Great Society initiatives, a series of programs designed to erect a more stable economic foundation under the nation’s middle class and to appeal to that class’s cultural sensibilities. The Great Society included Medicare, Medicaid, federal subsidies for education, new urban renewal initiatives, expansions in Social Security, creation of federal arts and humanities endowments, and improved national park and highway programs, to name only the major programs. As a fresh-faced New Deal, and Johnson’s effort to distinguish his liberalism from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s, the Great Society’s foundation was an optimistic theory of American society: opportunity existed for those who, with the government’s assistance in education and welfare, were willing to look for it. “A generation ago,” Waiter Lippman wrote on the eve of the War on Poverty, “it would have been taken for granted that a War on Poverty meant taxing money away from the haves and turning it over to the have nots.” But, he continued, “a revolutionary idea has taken hold” in which “the size of the pie can he increased by intention” and every part of society rewarded—an extension of the growth liberalism of which California was the preeminent national example. The central War on Poverty legislation, the Economic Opportunity Act, established the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) on the heels of Johnson’s 1964 inaugural address. Congress approved a dizzying array of programs and grants between 1965 and the early 1970s aimed at eliminating poverty in the country’s two most publicized deindustrialized spaces: central cities and the rural counties of Appalachia. The bulk of these programs, including the Manpower and Development Training Act (MDTA), the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA), and Model Cities legislation, provided education and training. Programmatic diversity characterized the federal government’s antipoverty initiatives, but two fundamental concerns united them: holding Johnson’s middle—class political coalition together and attacking poverty through education and other social services.[10]



Below is Robert Selfs Conclusion to his work American Babylon.

The story of this hook ends at a poignant but ambivalent moment. The enormous costs of postwar metropolitan growth in the East Bay had become undeniable. “Those who govern American cities today face such terrible problems that no solutions seem achievable,” wrote Paul Jacobs with more than a hint of defeatism.’ But a new generation of political movements, from both the liberal left and the conservative right, sought to revive and reinvent the promise of California as a place of economic security and upward mobility. As they did so, they moved ever more explicitly into contention, framing a contest that took place not just across a political divide, hut literally across the spaces produced by the postwar metropolis, the spaces of the nation. The story of that ongoing struggle after 1978 is another history. In what follows, I reflect hack on the history I tell here and in doing so underscore the importance of the period between I 945 and the late I970s as a coherent moment in twentieth- century America. Those three decades, the long postwar period, were de- fined by three major developments: the emergence, flowering, and retreat, under considerable opposition, of the century’s major struggle for racial equality; the articulation of the New Deal welfare state into the fabric of urban life, economy, and politics; and a thirty—year suburban economic boom linked to a white middle-class-centered federal urban policy. As I have argued here, these three developments overlapped and shaped one another. They gave contour and definition to the period.[11]

What I have done in this book is to join these complicated narratives together on the terrain of political culture. The period’s most compelling historical developments and lessons lie at that conjuncture. More specifically, the story of Oakland and the East Bay explored here opens onto four critical historical and historiographical issues in postwar U.S. history. In each case, my hope is that this hook has helped to push our understandings and conceptions modestly in new directions. The first issue is liberalism and the American welfare state. In the last decade and a half a scholarship has emerged that focuses on, in the words of one volume of essays, the “rise and fall of the New Deal order.” This scholarship brackets the period between the late 1930s and the 1970s as the moment of the national welfare state’s instantiation and subsequent erosion tinder a combination of attack from the right and the weight of its own programmatic and political limitations. The best of this scholarship has taken up the analytic task of asking how committed working and middle class whites, the New Deal state’s principle beneficiaries, were to racial equality. The answer invariably is not very or not at all.


Continued work on this question is important, but new scholarship on the New Deal, the welfare state, and midcentury liberalism generally would also benefit from a more explicit engagement with African American history. As Dona Hamilton and Charles Hamilton have recently argued, national civil rights organizations maintained a “dual agenda” in the postwar decades: they fought for racial equality and consistently sought expansion of the welfare state and the social wage for all workers. Indeed, African Americans since the 1930s have been among the most vocal supporters of broad, multiracial social programs: from full employment and national health insurance to antipoverty programs, child care, and unemployment benefits. Black political leaders have maintained this dual agenda in part because black Americans have remained the group most excluded from the welfare state’s protections and support.

My work complements the Hamiltons’ argument and proposes a modified framework for conceiving of the relationship between black-led political movements and the liberal welfare state of the three postwar decades. That welfare state needs to be understood expansively. Welfare, as contemporary political debates have defined it, suffers from a reductionism fueled by two decades of attacks on impoverished African Americans. “Welfare” has been reduced in this assault to a mere handful of programs, such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children, that involve direct transfer payments to poor people. Meanwhile, one of the largest federal welfare transfers in the nation remains the home mortgage deduction, an enormous subsidy to middle-class homeowners, the vast majority of whom arc suburban and white. Historically, the national welfare state that emerged after World War II included social insurance programs (which included the precursor to AFDC), but also the massive federal housing program; labor law and its attendant collective bargaining apparatus; highway construction; urban renewal programs; the War on Poverty and other antipoverty efforts; and a variety of additional programs aimed at urban labor, housing, and property markets. These dimensions of the welfare state profoundly shaped postwar cities and suburbs, both structurally and politically. It would be hard to imagine postwar metropolitanization proceeding as it did without the national welfare state.4

Once we engage a broader, more historical view of the shape of this New Deal welfare state and its political coalition, two developments become clear. First, the long postwar African American struggle for racial equality represented in large part an engagement with and challenge to the deep racial inequities built into the welfare state and the political coalitions behind it. Black leaders pushed for fair employment and fair housing; for desegregation of the labor movement; for public housing; for an unbiased urban renewal program; for antipoverty efforts far more extensive than the Great Society’s; and, ultimately, for federal investment in urban America on a massive scale, what the National Urban League called a “Domestic Marshall Plan.” All of these efforts were either responses to black exclusion from state programs or calls for shifts in the middle-class bias of the state’s supports and subsidies. It is understandable that historical attention has focused on the civil rights struggle against legalized Jim Crow in education, public accommodation, and voting, and that research has concentrated on the principal national organizations, individuals, and places that carried that struggle forward. However, in doing so we have undertheorized and understudied an entire dimension of the postwar black struggle for racial equality—its complex, long-term, militant engagement with the national welfare state and the expression of that state on the ground in local urban and suburban places like Oakland and the East Bay. In the end, the American civil rights movement as a whole represented one of the world’s most sustained political confrontations with the modern state apparatus. (5)

An additional point is clear as well. An urban political economy and welfare state framework for studying African American political struggle helps to explain shifts in ideology and strategy within the broad civil rights movement. The failure of fair employment laws, for instance, explains the shift to affirmative action. The failure of fair housing explains the shift to urban investment schemes. The failure of War on Poverty programs explains the shift to community empowerment and liberation as both practical and ideological positions. The spectacular growth of segregated suburbs under federal subsidy helps to explain the adoption of a colonial analogy of metropolitan America. In general, the failure of the liberal state, and liberalism as a political orientation, to secure black equality and to lift impoverished African Americans into a stable working class helps to explain the rise of self-determination and liberation politics among large sectors of the black population in the 1 960s and 1970s, Urban political economy and welfare state deficiencies do not explain every dimension of postwar African American political movements, of course. However, that context is far more important to the evolution of black political movements than historians have to date suggested. We need more research on these dimensions, and more attention to theorizing these developments, as historical research on this period progresses.

The second major issue has to do with how the 1960s are represented and conceived in American historiography, as well as within the national imagination. Dominant historiographical constructions of the 1960s persist in bifurcating the decade and either explicitly or implicitly treating the second half as a retreat from the legitimate reforms advanced in the first half. The second half of the 1960s represents in this view a period of chaos, violence, and withdrawal from the spirited liberal politics ascendant earlier in the decade. According to this interpretation, a descent into violence and the revolutionary turn of movement activism called forth state repression and marginalized the left within a decidedly liberal national civic culture. While nor entirely inaccurate, this dominant interpretation is seriously flawed, in large part because it rests on the trajectory of two groups—Students for a Democratic Society and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee—that stand for a more complex array of movements and politics. There is little argument that the fracturing of SDS made it a far less effective organization later in the decade. But to allow an SDS narrative to stand for movement activism in the period is to adopt uncritically the subjectivity of a small handful of white, middle-class, disillusioned male radicals. For its part, SNCC helped to win both local desegregation struggles as well as enormous legislative victories in 1964 and 1965 that are among the signal achievements of the postwar period. But to define the long civil rights movement in terms of SNCC objectives is to miss entirely the political trajectory of black-led urban reform and radical movements across the whole of the decade. [12]

Both the SDS and SNCC stories have encouraged an “optimism to disillusionment” paradigm for the decade. That there was enormous optimism among both the white new left and civil rights leaders in the early 1960s is without dispute. That many grew disillusioned between 1965 and 1968 is also undeniable. But to allow those facts to determine our critical purchase on movement activism or the period as a whole is to put on historical blinders. In particular, the “optimism to disillusionment” paradigm implicitly dismisses the enormous flowering of black political movements after 1965 across the nation and ignores the fundamental urban story of the period between 1965 and the middle 1970s: the rise of African American urban political power in dozens of American cities. Indeed, one could argue that despite the costly, destructive, and disheartening urban violence between 1964 and 1968, African American leaders and their urban constituents were more optimistic during and after that brief period than they had been in 1962 or 1963. They may have lost faith in the liberal promises and platitudes of early 1960s activism, but many reinvested that faith in the political rise of new urban coalitions led by African Americans. In addition, the rise of the black studies movement on college campuses, the emergence of internationalism among both black and white activists, and the extraordinary grassroots work that went into implementing the Voting Rights Act of I 965—post-I 965 developments all—cannot he understood or accurately represented within our dominant conceptions of the decade.

Oakland helps us to see the weaknesses of understanding the civil rights movement strictly in terms of a national narrative. That narrative traditionally begins with Brown n Board of Education in 1954 and ends with passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But such a narrative, however powerful and illustrative it may be of critical and defining moments in American politics and racial struggle, is incomplete. In the urban North and West, African American and white voters, activists, and politicians had been engaged in contests over property, housing, redevelopment, taxes, employment, and antipoverty programs since World War II. They continued to do so long after 1965. For Oaklanders, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was profoundly important, but it did not mark a turning point— either a great victory after long struggle or a point when the movement fractured. Oaklanders in 1964 were far more concerned with fighting Proposition 14, with implementing the state’s five-year-old fair employment law, with securing jobs on BART construction, and with building institutions and coalitions to attack poverty, It makes little sense to use either 1964 or 1965 to delineate their story, especially if that delineation is intended to mark one period as implicitly productive and pregnant with possibility and the other as implicitly a fall or a retreat.

A third interpretive issue follows closely on the one discussed above, The dichotomies that have traditionally divided the long postwar black liberation movement—civil rights versus black power, nonviolence versus violence, integration versus separatism — have proven so limiting as to the unhelpful in thorough understandings of the period. This is not to suggest that certain distinctions—as between Black Panther Party armed resistance and SNCC lunch-counter protests, for instance— are unimportant. Rather, it is to argue that raw dichotomies never, at virtually any moment, defined the actual philosophical choices activists and their constituencies faced or made. The political and ideological milieu of black struggle in the three decades after World War II was far more fluid and included far more complex and subtle choices than between supposed polar opposites. An essentially liberal bourgeois organization like the East Bay Democratic Club, for instance, entered into coalitions with whites based on power and organizing in all-black institutions and communities. A strict integration versus separation model or civil rights versus black power paradigm can hardly capture this organization’s history. The Black Panther Party believed that black Americans constituted a nation, that inter- national solidarity with a multiracial colonized world was essential, and that strategic alliances with anticolonial and even liberal whites were an appropriate, even necessary, step toward achieving their goals. None of these positions, and their simultaneity, can he understood if we deploy traditional dualist formulas.


What is needed is a framework that emphasizes the interplay of region, ideology, and strategy. It is clear that regional and local political economies with their own cultural, political, and structural constraints presented unique and specific versions of segregation and discrimination. The post- war civil rights movement emerged within these regional and local contexts across the country. In each, leaders and constituencies responded to both the obstacles and opportunities those conditions presented. Certainly there were national strategies: calls for full employment and fair housing and fair employment laws at the national and state levels immediately after World War II; calls for antidiscrimination in the federal government’s housing program; calls for massive urban investment and antipoverty programs in tile 1960s; and so on. But the differences from city to city and from political context to political context are striking. Think of Detroit and the mobilizations by black radicals within UAW locals; Chicago with its disparate grassroots struggles for open housing in the context of a machine politics with large-scale black incorporation; New York City with its strong labor movement, influential left, and complicated interethnic and interborough politics; and Oakland with its War on Poverty mobilizations, the Black Panther Party, and the East Bay Democratic Club. The trajectories of struggle in each of these cases, and dozens of others, varied with the location of black strength within highly differentiated urban political economics. Their successes and failures, too, were largely (though not entirely) matters of local opportunities and barriers. In the end, my intention is not to suggest that the movement is too differentiated to produce a historical synthesis. Rather, it is to argue that we need more subtle regional and urban-centered paradigms to fill out a useful and accurate historical synthesis. And, we need to pay more attention to specific political ideologies and their relationship to practical political strategies.

A fourth and final issue centers on suburban growth and politics. More than a decade ago Kenneth Jackson’s seminal work of suburban history argued that suburbanization should be understood as a consolidated form of consumption driven by two impulses. The first was the broad subsidizing of the American middle class by the federal government in the post-World War II decades. The second was the privatization of the public sphere in which suburban landscape architecture, detached single—family homes, and property-centered politics together accelerated the demise of public culture and a democratic commitment to communal responsibility. Like much of the recent new work on suburban history, this book stands in tile shadow of Jackson’s. As with civil rights, however, the history of postwar suburbanization must increasingly yield to approaches that judiciously combine local, regional, and national frameworks. But historians have to date understudied and undertheorized local municipal governments as important state actors. As I have noted here, “white flight” was less a flight than the complex and ideological process of state building within discrete spatial boundaries. Suburban Americans came to understand their interests, political obligations, and especially the limits of their social responsibility within those spatially bounded communities. Race, rights, and taxes did not “emerge” in the 1960s in reaction to the fight for racial equality—they were always present as constitutive elements in the decades-long midcentury project of erecting suburban places as  racially homogeneous property markets and arenas of conspicuous consumption.

It is now commonplace to talk about the postwar United States in terms of urban decline and crisis. We posses an extensive popular and academic vocabulary to describe the features of post-1945 urban transformation:  the racialization and deindustrialization of cities, suburban growth, urban decline, the weakening of unions and working-class consciousness, the increasing mobility of capital, and the rise of a politics focused on private property. That these processes victimized African American communities in the North and West more than white communities has been established. But there is a pressing need to move beyond the trope of the black ghetto and the paradigm of crisis and to theorize how African American communities responded — in creative, productive, and at times even halting and unsuccessful ways—to the structural changes brought on by migration and metropolitan reorganization. Further, we historians need to assess more thoroughly the enormous opposition these attempts encountered from the political right. In short, there is a pressing need to place the dynamics of African American political organizing and political ideology between the 1940s and the 1970s in the broader context of American urban and political history. At the same time, there is an equally pressing need to move beyond the trope of white flight to examine the process of suburban city—building and the instantiation of segregation in specific places. Looking at how the various spaces and political cultures of urban America were produced in the postwar decades in places like Oakland is one way to do this.[13]

The Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) was the agency responsible for administering most of the War on Poverty programs created as part of United States President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society legislative agenda.

Programs such as VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action Program, and Head Start (though that program was later transferred to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare) were all administered by the OEO. The War on Poverty was established in 1964 on the heals of Lyndon Baines Johnson’s inaugural address.

 ande target of both left-wing and right-wing critics of the War on Poverty. The OEO was dismantled by President Richard Nixon in 1973, though many of the agency's programs were transferred to other government agencies.

American Babylon (2003), by Robert O. Self, is an academic work illustrated of the brilliance of the continuing new left academic movement that seeks to explain historicism through the spectrum of race. Written for the highest levels of academia, the work seeks to explain that the white Anglo race conspired with full understanding their preferences to homogeny and socio-economic-politico agency. An argument that denies, yet affirms, Charles Darwin’s natural selection process, the American way meant a qualified democracy geared toward white control in the East Bay corridor of the region of San Francisco. Framed with moral conjoiners, it reflects a continual white liberal hegemonic black-paternalistism in social academia. The book is about racism, framed and argued in the highest rhetoric of prestigious academia. As pedagogical, its aim is toward a minority audience who accepts freedom as morally bankrupt. As moral conjoiner, these arguments of deductive logic describe irrationality as the triumph of the scientific method. It is a continual part of referential textual material that seeks to differentiate social justice from social freedom. It claim is freedom of choice leads to ethnic hegemonic dominance, as long as the ethnic ruling traditional body holds the controls of the socio-economic-political sway. Therefore, if ‘freedom of choice’ leads to defeatism, as a moral conjoiner, than the United States of America was a total defeated disaster in history. Its experiments failed, its history demonstrates hatred at the most bane levels, and its white ethnic dominated population is the vilest of creatures ever to exist on the face of the earth. From the beginning of the text till the end of the text the constructive narrative elucidates racism in its contracted form, as its base argument. While the book reveals sensitivity to other races such as Mexicans (more aptly Latins) and Asians the focal point of segregation determinism is the battle of agency between whites and blacks. While Self, a capable and resilient writer, wins his arguments with anecdotal evidence, the inductive approach leads to misplaced emotional moral conjoiners. A natural summery, I suggest, is to argue that humans according to preference with coalesce and gather themselves together by sight, sound, symbol, vision and its connections to the spiritual self. If natural selection is the predominate solution to the scientific method, as proposed by the new left, then natural selection over the course of history reveals a tale of similar likeness groups fighting, even mortally, to live together in happiness. The issue is not deficiency; Self knowingly or unconsciously, does not look at state historicism as a reflection of the historic course Americans have followed. If the issue is race, then what is race? I have no clue. It is a socially-economically-politically constructed frame of reference to the human sense preference. Written in typical discursive fashion, and loosely following a chronological construction, this book is worth anyone’s time, and I fully recommend it, while keeping some of these thoughts in mind. As Marxism (not Marxist), this book looks directly to the economic forces, be it inadvertently, as Self claims when he looked in the  East Bay municipal archives and found the rationalization for the white flight, which was tax based and fully economic instead of racist, the study give deep insights into the construction of towns and cities in a monographic spectrum of the San Francisco East Bay area from the 1940s-1970s, as in-depth as any work I have ever seen. Self proves that white flight was not a racist ‘reaction’ as been recorded earlier, but a conscious choice of economic preservation and extension of the middle-class. His economic studies of the East Bay, possible give the student, reader or investigator a solid foundation to what to expect when studying other historical archives in cities across the United States of America. Capitalism and freedom of choice and freedom of speech are interpretable. If these prescriptions demarcate racism than the only logical solution is to replace them with a police force to regulate integration and stamp-out segregation. Michel Foucault proposed a different solution, such as a possible self-disciplinary consciousness that solves the need for a police force to regulate integration. As with the Soviet Model of anti-capitalism, anti-freedom of choice, and anti-free speech, their society was predicated upon social justice as normative construction for a ‘moral society.’ However at Bandung, Philippines, in 1955 the exposure of Slavophil Soviet elite dispersed the shadows of moral justice. Edward Said revealed that because of these determinates of society, the only solutions to minority representation is for ethnicities as groups to create their own histories (as agency). That can be described as a police force cannot force integration without the observance of its connections to the ruling ethnicity. Ultimately, the Soviet model failed, as well as illusionary Chinese Communist model, exposed to a single ethnic elite group that controlled the social-economic-political institutions’ by force. China has turned toward a totalitarian dictatorship, with limited capitalistic zones, and forced rural economic-slavery. This was done with a positive purpose, to facilitate economic independence and social-economic-political progress. Yet, over time, and as with the same inductive methods Self uses to construct the East Bay corridor, the Chinese intellects that will become social activists will condemn, as classism, their ruling elite and the cyclical process will began anew. In this sense, we can view the monograph of Self’s work into a wider context of global historicism. The push-and-pull forces between the African Americans and the European Americans in the United States between the 1940s-1970s, is an all too familiar normative occurrence that is not connected to moral conjoiners, but as natural selective processes. Is there a solution by utilizing the scientific method for integration? Yes, everyone needs to disimilarize their physical appearance, their symbols, their linguistics, the utterances, their emotional make-up and their intellectual dissimilarities. By doing so, there will not be any perceptual difference at any sense or mental capacity. We will all look the same, act the same, and want the same – that is each other. While Self criticizes the deductive scientific method and places a moral conjoiner of ‘defeatism,’ if anyone does not agree with his social contraction of Marxism, then it will cause a vicious reaction from the ‘rationalists’ who describe happiness – not as racism—but as preferential agency and seek to destroy the system that seeks to end freedom of choice. If a deductionist can view in history a civilization as success in total integration (none-exist), then it could use the model for representing modernity. Yet, by proceeding with inductive qualifications, one will forever upset the empirical data and evidence that deductionist use and will create the reaction that will destroy the foundations of the inductionist. While the inductionsts claim that deductionists do not see the data properly by generalizing concepts as the starting point, the deductionist claim that inductionist do not offer all the data for a conclusive argument. As with Self, are the white Europeans really the only vile racists that have appeared in history? By utilizing the induction method as monograph in a selected and limited special reference, the evidence appears to confirm. Yet, is that reality?

The audience for the book is for the blacks. It is a part of the new left’s conclusion to pacify the social forces of discord. In this way, it is beneficial. As part of white paternalism, this methodology seeks to explain to the blacks the rationality or irrationality, however one looks at it, the processes of white flight, of segregation, or hegemonic control of the forces of self-agency. By demonizing the whites, or as identified parties connected to guilt-displacement, blacks can feel empowered and understand the infallibilities of white motivations. As prescriptive, it seeks to calm social forces of continual instability, while if affects foment to a progressed stage of empirical observation. It is part of the move away from humanistic approach to historical construction and neo-historiography and toward the new left’s social science approach to history. That is to say, it seeks to offer elucidations to moral questions and, issues that otherwise would offer prescription to issue not addressed in humanitic approach. Of course, this is a natural process for any state and not markedly connected to the twentieth century United States of America. In effect, it can be viewed as prolonging the inevitable. That is the decolonization of white European dominance of a spatial region. Marx had argued that it is in the best interests to destroy the superstructure, and replace it with the substructure or what he called the structure. That is to say, the top forces that traditionally and continually rule the bottom forces will finally replaced with the bottom forces. Yet, and as empirically observed, all attempts have illustrated that the bottom forces that overthrow the top forces, replace the top forces and are overthrown or die out over time. In a sense, the deductive impasse, that is abhorred by the new left, and called defeatism, has not been overthrown with re-framing of the scientific method. This is because the inductionists refuse to understand or cannot understand that change is time itself, and we exist in a linear timeframe which always contests but reveals opposites and contractions. While Michael Foucault had tried his whole life to change this view, and understand the forces of pure positivism, that is to say that all energy is positive, he administered in one of his final lecture-speeches that his investigations had failed. While, he may not have fully understood the reasons for his failure, it is because we understand only 1% of energy in our universe. Dark Energy, that projects are universe’ galaxies’ motion(s) and cannot be understood at this movement, makes up 99% of energy in our universe. Until we understand all of energy, we cannot make conclusive statements without refutation by some form or anther. While much of Foucault’s heuristic investigations are useful, such as power equal’s knowledge, it is not all predicated upon the positiveness in force. While Said utilized both Foucault and Marx to construct his Orientalism, to Said all power was not positive, it had negative moral ramifications. These forces of Capitalism to Marx contained the negative energy associated with social injustice and historic inagency.  We do not understand all the negative energy of our universe, and somewhat as future course and as cyclical, mysticism may reveal some answers. Yet, as the new left and in general academia, mysticism has been a conquered insufficiency, replaced by qualified dominance of atheistic speculation, framed as all positive. By understanding this historicy, the cyclical implications of perpetual history come into focus to our understanding of the forces that we contend with in our universe. If one reads this book and places themselves in the perspective of a poor Oaklander and repressed city subject, one can champion the heroic struggle presented. The political legacy, as Self intends, demonstrated three decades of struggle over the fate of the East Bay metropolis in which populism had triumphant implications secured to the base issue (Marx’s structure) of tax redistribution. Blacks by the 1970s, in part of as significant, fought the whites for political representation at the state and local levels illustrated the ascendancy of black agency into the complex representation of capitalist-democratic-populist society. From mere wandering porters, emigrants from the southeast to mayor in 1977 with Wildon, blacks had struggled for their civil rights, and in reflection their human rights – but that struggle came the same way as with the whites who from la longue durée, had figure out that self-agency as self survival, one had had to “fight” for their rights. The struggle between racism, democracy and police forced socialism/communism continues today in the throws of the writings of the new left. If one likes capitalism, the sacrifice is recognition of populism; if one prefers justice, the sacrifice is a police force that forces justice. The overall lessen that Self does not frame or recognize is that black liberation came about because of the sacrifices of certain individuals who had known that their lives would change if they struck at the foundations of normalcy of the American qualified democracy. That is to say, in order to be free and attain self survival physical confrontation against forces that restrict one or a group must be seen as sacrificial – a partial compromise of the whole of a part to a cause. By fighting, and still losing total socialization, Blacks had carved out a piece of the capitalistic—or semi-capitalistic- pie for themselves. Yet, as continuing, Blacks or whoever identifies with like-framed groups fighting for one’s rights is intertwined with the ancient liberal ethic of sacrifice of a part of the whole. The Black Panthers and other Black liberation groups, I intend, illustrated this sacrifice, and as contestant against the normative national narrative, inspired communities around the United States of America and forged their own identity. There is ample evidence that before Martin Luther King, Jr.,’s assignation, the Reverend and Doctor had concluded the same and was about to turn toward this trajectory. By framing the historicism in this light or dark, whatever you want, we can conclude that blacks are no different than whites, it was the object that gained the success – the fight—it was not the subject—the color of the skin. Blacks and whites or whomever an ethnicity or race is identified in construct all want the same thing: self agency.[14]

Section II

1.       Industrial Gardens

2.       2. working class

3.       Tax Dollar

Part II

4. Redistribution

5. Opportunity Politics

Part III

6. Black Power

7. White Noose

8. Babylon

Part I.

1.                                Industrial Garden: Post-World War II, suburbanization v. dilapidated urban centers (deindustrialization of urban centers, and new industrialization of suburban centers. Called “Industrial Gardens.”

2.                                Working Class: Working classes, organization into unions, and political cliques.

3.                                Tax Dollar: White flight directly connected to tax incentives in suburbs, taxes run cities, so therefore, and a tax base as result of white flight increases suburban sustainability. National industry is lured toward the rich suburban bases with lower property taxes, and municipal incentives.  The urban centers without a vibrant tax base with increase in lower income housing, and lower city taxes.

Part II

4.                                Redistribution: blacks after World War II migrate to the north west, many making Oakland home due to the end of the rail line in Oakland California. Trying to integrate into white unions, blacks have a difficult time securing local political representation due to city-wide voting policies. Therefore, they need a 51% margin, city-wide, to win seats in the Oakland city council and other municipal functionaries.

5.                                Opportunity Politics: Turning from local legislative to state legislation to pass equal opportunity laws, aimed at black integration, black representative believed the state laws would offer them opportunity at the local level. The white establishment continued to promise blacks jobs for the future at the local levels with no plan of action. This was a struggle against segregation.  Blacks saw an urban transformation, white people in general becoming rich, living in single-home middle class lifestyles, while the urban centers were multi-home structures, cramp, dilapidated, and a dead end.

Part III

6.                                Black Power: After continuous promises of job employment, a more equitable job representation, and witnesses whites reluctance to allow blacks higher paying jobs than “back of the house,” employment, and witnessing poverty rise in the ghettos across the nation, black liberation movements sought to solve the situation with militancy, as the only recourse of action left after all other avenues has been exhausted. Still connected to economic issues, blacks after seeing Civil Rights linger in the courts, and after passing fail to offer economic benefits began to revolt.

7.                                White Noose: “The suburban “white noose” surrounded the urban black community and stood metaphorically for metropolitan inequality and segregation.”[15] Repeal of Proposition 14 forced housing integration—“The CREA framed Proposition 14 as a decision between “ freedom of choice” and “ forced housing” and asked California homeowners to chose segregation under a different name.”[16] discrimination against people of Mexican decent persisted, but was not as vicious and widespread, nor as vigilantly enforced as by white/Anglo homeowners, as that against African Americans. Colinias, were emerging suburban communities like Milpitas that often served to improve the housing and employment options for ethnic Mexicans.[17] A Tax revolt  occurred over time and came to fruition with the statewide passage of Proposition 13, the nations first property tax limitation measure. Property taxes help run metropolitan city programs, which help distribute wealth, with a philosophy to make the city run smooth, and lessen social tension within cities. “Between 1965 and early 1970s property taxes increased in two ways in California.” As a prelude to the Tax Revolt,  “Tax rates went up as municipalities, counties, and school districts faced rising costs, and property value assessments rose in a real estate boom tied to the state’s extraordinary postwar growth.”[18] “The strength of the “white noose” trope was its symbolism,” Self explains. “It stood for segregation’s power to shape opportunity and access in the postwar metropolis by strangling a disadvantaged black community. Its weakness was a deductionist logic that collapsed contingency and politics into frozen categories.”[19]

8.                                Babylon: Babylon represented “the political and institutional mobilization of the War on Poverty activists [that] had done little to displace the Tribune-led downtown interests that still ran Oakland. “The Black Panthers had emerged as one of the most important new left organs in the country with a wide national distribution.”[20] The Panthers represented “revolutionary idealism, practical social programs, and street bravado,” which had “enjoined enormous popularity.[21]” By the 1970s, the Panthers enjoined a grass roots approach to politics, and as its “Survival Programs, included day-care centers and the Panther Liberation Schools, free breakfasts for children, sickle cell anemia testing, shoe and clothing programs, health clinics, and massive grocery giveaways. The Black Panther itself was published and distributed by a dedicated local staff, who increasingly understood themselves as journalists as well as revolutionaries and polemicists – but not, as they wrote idealistically in 1970, like “ the bourgeois press,” to be read once and then discarded in the nearest trash can.”[22] The Oakland success of the Black Panther movement can be deduced by the framing of black agency under the auspices of international decolonization framework. As with Malcolm X who lectured African Americans saying they should not turn to the United States of American government for emancipation but to the United Nations. As Self concluded, “ African Americans, in this view, were particularly well placed to lead global opposition to imperialism and neo-imperialism, because they had more than three hundred years of experience in dealing with European racial oppression and two hundred years of experience with the state apparatus of the United States.”[23] In effect, it was “Revolutionary Intercommunalism,”[24] as a transforming ideology. The Panthers objectives, as the party leadership had concluded was “electoral power and public office,” the decimation of knowledge to illicit reaction to that of outsourced jobs by federal contract to Oakland be demolished and a “sustained operation as a means of educating the city’s African American and Latino residents in preparation of political action [c. 1972-1973].”[25] Leaders of the Black Panthers put their plan into action with the up and coming 1973 and 1975 elections. There platform, as as grass roots campaigning as operations, sought “[C]ommunity control of the port [of Oakland] and City Center, affirmative action, residency requirements for employers of the city police and fire department [ for inclusion of African Americans and Latinos], and a new ‘revenue-raising, revenue-sharing’ plan designed to redistribute the tax burden from the neighborhoods to downtown topped their list of proposals.”[26] Panthers as part of their “People’s Plan” sought to restrain jobs for Oakland residents only, as political policy. In this sense, Oakland would be a satellite colony in the United States of America ruled by its redistribution of colonial rule, and predicated upon community rights. As relevant to persistent trajectories, and in lieu of Seal’s fare showings in the voting returns of 1973, the Democratic Party split, and was framed as memories of the more activist portions of Seal’s past. Elain Brown moved on after the 1973 elections and formed a separate constituency for women’s rights and feminist politics. In 1975 Brown ran for Oakland seat on the city’s council and lost, the second attempt by the Black Panthers. However continual chipping away and grass roots efforts and a larger black populous in Oakland and campaigning for swing votes finally paid off with its coalition supporting Lionel Wilson to the position of Mayer of Oakland in 1977. Black Panthers finally rationalized as campaign rhetoric to run platforms that called for “’multi-ethnic Oakland,’ promising the city’s African American, Latino, Asian, and white voters ‘a new day in Oakland.’”[27] After 1975 Ron Dellums, Brown and other Black Panthers understood to win and retain power in Oakland, they would need to reduce the radical rhetoric once in power. At a continual aggressive policy, they understood they would alienate the other radical left, including middle-class blacks.[28] In circumstance, this was their baptism of fire into the political arena. They now understood the complexities of the political game. This can explain why in 1977 Wilson ran as a “moderate liberal who wanted to increase social welfare without alienating business, emphasizing both fiscal conservativism and the expansion of social services. Unemployment, public safety (crime), and the ‘eroding tax base’ were his principle stump issues.”[29] “ Wilson’s victory was part of a nationwide pattern. In the 1970s, in urban centers across the United States, African Americans achieved civic power in unprecedented numbers. In 1973, black mayors were elected in 48 U.S. cities. Another 268 came in the next decade and a half. All told,” Self proclaims, “ it represented one of the postwar half-century’s most remarkable and sweeping political changes. White suburbanization, the War on Poverty, three decades of black political coalition-building, and the civil rights/black power movement all contributed to the enormous shift. In addition, the ascendance of African American-led coalitions to civic power reflected a reenergized urban liberal agenda [we see this today with urban centers across the U.S. refurbished and rebuilt]. Even as liberalism was in decline [ maybe it was part of the new-republicans that oversaw the emancipation program? Did anyone notice that while democratic extreme liberals were in national office 1940s-mid-1970s segregation flourished at the local levels?] in national politics and its virtual death was declared in much of the nation’s suburban areas, urban voters overwhelmingly supported a wide range of liberal candidates and programs.”[30] In retrospect, capitalism was regulated in the 1970s, as opposed the boom of the 1960s suburban gardens, port and city businesses. By eliminating capitalism’s free range of motion, Oaklanders retrieved their businesses for their city representatives – themselves. “But without growth,” that is outside investment that drove city politics in the 1960s, “the city would ultimately lose more jobs than it created.” This realization was predicated upon the radical Black Panther model, redistributing the tax system, that would upset the urban-suburban competition “and make it more unfriendly [ the capitalist keyword] for businesses to invest than it already appeared to outsiders.”[31] On the heals of Wilson’s election, in June of 1978, California voters passed proposition 13, considered in history as the tax revolt. Voting for the measure came from places such as “San Leandro and Fremont, places where a low tax populism was nurtured in postwar city building.”[32] In this case, democracy of voting, the overwhelmingly white Californian population can be seen as reaction against forced tax distribution. Therefore, Capitalism is not only to blame here as a moral conjoiner, but populism in the form of democracy. That is why the Soviet Union, Cuba and a plethora of other governments use police states to distribute wealth. It does not come from democracy. As self argues, “ Tax reform in the late 1970s emerged as one component of a larger attack on liberalism.”[33] Here is a basic framing example. To which liberalism is Self contending. To whites who were affiliated the democratic parties in California believed they were liberating themselves from unfair economic distribution practices. What Self may need to frame is another term that describes desegregation of economics. By using liberal(ism) or any other construct of a traditional world that is associated and intertwined with freedom of choice, one will confuse the interpreter of his words. Example, does liberalism belong solely to African American’s and polices of tax base distribution? Self intends, that the tax revolt was part a larger process of anti-New Deal society, or the Great Society, mainly of the welfare state begun by Johnson in 1966. It was “fueled by the same mixture of populist resentment and property politics.”[34] Here again is a stark criticism of democracy, framed as populous negativism. “California voters passed Proposition 13 by a margin of two to one, despite the opposition of nearly the entire state political establishment, both Democrat and Republican.”[35] “The tax revolt was engineered and led by political forces primarily from Southern California – Los Angeles and Orange Country in particular.”[36] “ In Babylon, there was always the possibility of deliverance and rebirth. Yet African American radical and nationalist politics in the 1960s and 1070s were strongest at the level of the U.S. state system, municipal government, where mechanisms for political realization remained the weakest. Dispite the black Panther Party’s enthusiasm for intercommunalism and its ambitious plans of socialism in one city [this is reflectant of  socialism in one country—Stalinism], municipalities like Oakland are poor instruments for either revolutionary or social-democratic projects. The property tax can never act as  the primary leverage for  redistribution [of wealth] because the very survival of the city’s institutions depends on it—overtaxed employers and industries simply flee to cities that will not burden them [ Karl Marx’s correct criticism or observation of capitalism] with high taxes.”[37]

Oakland is a horizontal city.

Working-class lived in the flatlands.


“The Double-V campaign—victory over racism abroad and at home – had come to symbolize the fusion of national duty and criticism of national hypocrisy within the 1940s black politics.” ( p. 23)


Urbanization begun approximately 1929 ( embedded in the later liberal modernism of the New deal that promised the end to urban tensions in the 1930s.


Metropolitan Oakland Area Program ( MOAP). “ In the decades between 1945 and 1955, the Oakland Chamber of Commerce married boosterism to regional planning in its Metropolitan Oakland Area Program ( MOAP). ( p. 25)

MOAP stood for something quite important in midcentury Oakland: an employer and property-owners’ vision of how to develop and sell an entire region to outside owners of capital [to bring  investments into the east bay area]” (p. 33) MOAP signaled the dedication of Oakland’s business class to the territorial expansion of industry and residence along the greater East Bay corridor, but it did not advocate abandoning Oakland proper in favor of suburban development

Arsenal of Democracy: “ Oakland and the East Bay occupied a crucial niche in California’s industrial “ arsenal of democracy.” ( p. 27) ( mjm— Arsenal of imperialism, all large states are imperialistic)

Garden-city models: “ The Chamber’s imagery celebrated a garden-city model of neighborhood development and industrialization. Homes were literally gardens in which factories while accessible by automobile, did not intrude.” (. 29) What had changed from the Wild-Wild West frontier into a secure future and stability of a garden-state?

MOAP’s goals to invoke industrial garden and “a gendered social order that would have a familiar and comfortable”  environment to investors. ( p. 30)

“[…] American cultural ideas about capital, class, gender, and space. And it anticipated how the home—as property, as a site of consumption, and as a political identity—would come to dominate post-war politics and urbanization. “ (p. 31)

After the war, there was a “decentralization of industry and residence in discrete units within a balanced metropolitan area. Industrial and residential districts were distinct form one another, but there close proximity was an intentional and definitive element of suburbanization” ( in the bay area). ( p. 31)

“Both government and private developers way the ownership of property as the key to ensuring a long-term bourgeois ideological consensus. In this sense planners and boosters understood geography as more than a backdrop to social relations.” ( p. 31)

Creating the Housing Market

“ Hoover argued that a housing market more accessible to large numbers of working-class Americans could became an economic engine on a par with the automobile industry, one recently revolutionized by Henry Ford. By 1934, when Congress passed the first of several New Deal hosing bills, it was widely believed that reconstructing the housing industry would stimulate production by encouraging a home-centered consumption – of building materials, but also of home appliances, electric energy, and the financial production pioneers like William Levitt, Henry Kaiser, and Fritz Burns had begun to build vast subdivisions of affordable` homes, homeownership was understood to =promote class consensus, political stability, and economic growth – an ideological formation of enormous consequences for both postwar government policy and metropolitan political economy.” ( p. 32)

Local 560’s Vision racial democracy

Robert O. Self American Babylon

Robert O. Self, in Chapter three discusses three Bay cities

Competing Versions of Democracy

#1) San Landro

#2) Sunnyhill

#3) Fremont

East Bay

Three sets:  issues…

“In the postwar decades, three primary sets of interest came together to shape suburbanization and the kinds of suburban markets celebrated by [ Fred]Cox: the federal state, local city-builders, and white homeowners. Each brought an ideological and material investment in the process of market creation.” (p. 97). “[…] Fred Cox, president of the Southern Alameda Country Real Estate Board told an audience in 1950.” (p. 97)

“East Bay was a set of expectations and ideologies that could be mobilized politically. Three key elements lay at the core of those expectations. First, homeowners came to expect, and later demand, low property taxes. Second, they came to expect and rationalize racial segregation. Finally, they came to accept as natural the conflation of whiteness and property ownership with upward social mobility. None of these expectations emerged in a linear fashion form a single source, nor were they unchallenged.” (p. 99)” […] homeowners expectations were the glue that held the new cities together.” (p. 99)

“First, postwar homeownership developed with the assistance of massive state subsides. The federal government dramatically democratized the housing market for whites while simultaneously enforcing a racial segregation that resembled apartheid.” (p. 97)

“1958 pushed Republicans further to the right and toward Los Angeles, southern California. “ (p. 95

“The New Deal together stymied progressive reform.; In Oakland post warlib3erals were unable—because of both liberalism’s own limitations and its extraordinary opposition – to define a universalist vision of the Oakland politics, where Knowland returned in 1958 to run the Tribune [ anti-union], the at-large election system discouraged political reform, and a small circle of downtown property holders, attorneys, and business people shaped the political climate.” (p. 94)


The Tribune demanded, city vote and represent anti-labor. (Republican Dominated) “Alameda boasted a Democratic electoral majority; after 1936 Democrats never accounted for less than 56 percent of registered voters. “ (p. 64) “because of its at-large electoral system, Oakland politics were newspaper-advertizing –dependent and expensive; […]” (p. 64)

Labor Unions: “Old South survived in the anti-union crusade of right-to-work advocates in California.” (p. 89)”Labor officials spoke for a broad notion of community in which the unions defended high wages and middle-class California living standards.” (p. 89)

“Proposition 18’s most vocal advocate was U.S. Senator Bill Knowland, republican gubernatorial candidate and Oakland native.” (p. 89). Knowland sough to mobilize the conservative wing of the party using his father’s old strategy of baiting and vilifying labor, a formula that proved disastrous in the late 1950s.” “Everything in 1958 election hinged on Proposition 18. Knowland did not endorses the measure.” (p. 89)

MOAP: Oakland was the intention of having

Keep Mississippi out of California

“In the middle of the 1958 campaign, the San Francisco and Los Angeles offices of the NAACP issued a pamphlet entitled “ Keep Mississippi Out of California,” On the cover, an employer in white shirt and black tie whips a kneeling “California Worker with a “Right to Work” lash. A Nazi insignia and the states “Tennessee,” “Arkansas,” “Texas,” “Alabama,” “Georgia,” and others from the South leap from the whip.” (p. 87)

“[…] C. L. Dellums shaped a labor-civil rights coalition in the 1950s to push for a fair employment law in the state legislature and, he hoped, to transform the place of black Americans in California. His long association with A. Philip Randolph had convinced Dellums that a commitment to both civil rights and trade unions was essential to the social and economic progress of African American workers. “(p. 82)

“In 1950, 29 percent of black men between the ages of twenty and twenty-four were jobless, twice the rate for men between forty and forty-nine.” (p. 83)

“D. G. Gibson may very well by the father of all of us who are now active in the black political arena,” a former California Assembly leader and San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown observed in the 1970s.” (p. 79)

San Leandro

Key terms: “A close door” policy (apartheid), a closed door to blacks in San Leandro.

Supreme Court’s ruling against covenant enforcement: 1948 (Shelley v. Kraemer) slowed but did not halt the process of “covenant enforcement.” (p. 105)

San Leandro was first discovered on March 20, 1772 by Spanish soldier Captain […]

Wall Street Journal (1966), San Leandro was communicated as a city of a national model [ of white power], low taxes and model of an industrial-garden.

“San Leandro residents realized one version of suburbanization: dynamic industrial job growth and pastoral neighborhood enclosed behind the exclusionary walls of apartheid.” (p. 101)

“The most successful dimension of this push in the immediate postwar years had its roots in the black railroad culture and African American professional and middle-class circles. The East Bay Democratic Club, the Bay Area’s most important African American political organization, based in Oakland and Berkeley, joined with liberals within the Berkeley Democratic Party to run a candidate for the California Assembly. “(p. 79)

“The midcentury American labor movement embraced a wide range of political ideologies, form radical to reactionary, but the great bulk of working-class economic and electoral power remained invested in the reformist New Deal welfare state, its Kenysian growth liberalism, and its promise of security to workers in the core of the economy.” (p. 77)

“Tax reform was the first major issue to damage Oakland’s liberal coalition. Public housing was the second. Together they proved fatal.” (p. 73)

“Cold war change Communist Part tactics, the tribune Attack blacks “Americanism,”  called “red baiting.” (p. 71)


“On Labor Day of 1947, tens of thousands of AFL and CIO unionists massed in downtown Oakland for a march celebrating the OVL’s success, especially the symbolism defeat of Knowland and the Tribune. “ (p. 70)

Popular Front: OUC, OVL…”activists from the left participated fully in both the OVL and UOC campaigns, though in neither did they win nor were they allowed to dominant voice. The Alameda County Communist Part (CP) was one of many radical groups active in the OVL campaign, and numerous CIO leaders moved back and forth between unions (especially the ILWU), the CIO-PAC, and the CP during the 1930s and early 1940s, building the bridges of the Popular Front.” (p. 69)


SunnyHills as the Bay Area’s “neighborhood where democracy lives.” Welcoming buyers from all backgrounds.  Sunny hills challenged questions of race and property.

“By 1962 Sunnyhills had a 15 percent African American occupancy rate, but it never climbed much higher, even as Ford’s workforce grew.” (.p 116) “ In a nation in which less than 1 percent of new housing built between 1935 and 1952 went to nonwhite families, Sunnyhills was, as the union boasted, a unique, much needed beacon of hope and a compelling liberal vision of the transformative possibilities of open housing. But it could not by itself remap the racial segregation produced in the East Bay in the 1950s.” (p. 116). 1935-’52, 1% of blacks owned housing. (?) In 1960s, Sunnyhill went white-suburban.

Populism definition in American Babylon: “They crafted a populism, which, like it nineteenth-century counterpart, embraced both the possibility of an inclusive progressive politics of the “little guy” and an exclusionary racism mobilized against blacks.” ( p. 104) “ For San Leandro’s real estate brokers and homeowners, racial restriction was rationalized as a way to maintain low property taxes and federal government had promoted white-only suburbanization since the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), whose Underwritten Manual in 1930s, first through the Home Owner Loan Corporation, then through in 1938 maintained that “it is necessary that properties shall continue to  be occupied by the same social and racial groups.”  (p. 104)

“African Americans could not purchase homes where in East Oakland until 1950 because of policies enforced by the real estate industry in Oakland.” (p. 105)

East Oakland’s deindustrialization (White industry grew, East-black industry declined) (.p105)

Civil Rights Desegregation, Riots & Bussing

forced Southern U.S.  Integration, Women’s Rights.

Apartheid United States of America

Civil Rights Act (1964), desegregation was practiced as “ ingenious procrastination” rather than progressing toward desegregation.[38] Desegregation or Integration? “For a decade the Supreme Court had avoided the use of the word integration in writing about school cases.”[39] The became apparent in the U.S. v. Jefferson County Board of Education (1966), the term desegregation and integration were used interchangeably and the decision made it clear that the law provided for “not white schools of Negro schools—just schools.” By 1969 a unanimous Supreme Court decision stripped southern school officials of all of their favorite legal crutches to avoid compliance with the law, stating that the obligation of every school district is to terminate dual school systems at once and to operate now and hereafter only unitary systems.”[40] Ironically, these decisions impacted southern schools more directly than schools where separation of races was de facto [ possibly private]. By 1970 a higher percentage of blacks were attending integrated schools in the South than in the rest of the United States of America.” Remember, Charles Postel said the Republican shift after 1964 turned to the south and the north as coasts became the liberal majority-voting bastions.  Therefore, I intend, segregation of the South was placed back onto the permanent geospatial relationship of U.S. traditional segregation sentiment. But since the laws had change this, and were directed toward the south, the republican voting base saw an increase over the north in actual “real” integration. In fact, empirically, as I have lived in Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay Area, the integration is more prevalent in Los Angeles than in the S.F. Bay Area. However, racial studies and instruction in Northern California, dwarf the southern Californian landscape. This could be explained in that desegregation was aggressively perused in the early 1970s Los Angeles school systems and school riots had long played out since then, and desegregation was not a major topic by the 1990s. While the Bay Are boasts a deeper integration in and of its communities, a more diverse multiculturalism marks Southern California.  The 2000 National Census earmarked Southern California as the most devise set of ethnicities in the United States of America. In the 2008 Presidential Primary, Northern California voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Rodham Clinton, a white candidate, over a mix black candidate Barak Hussein Obama. As empirical, Northern California discusses racism while Southern California discusses it less, and as psychologically this could be a process of viewing the realities that surround the inequality in North California and the issue of integration within the psyche. It appears that Southern California took aggressive action by the 1970s, where as Northern California is still going through this process.

Urban Rebellions

Race riots more violent than any in the history of the United States of America history shocked Americans during the 1960s; in every region of the country major cities threatened by minorities and white alliances to go up in flames. “Since the years immediately following World War II, middle-classes urbanization resulted in whites leaving cities for nearby suburbs, building industrial gardens. High-paying jobs provided by businesses provided tax breaks and a tax base ( vital for running municipalities), in which industry quickly followed. Increasingly, down-town—the inner city (a.k.a. the urban landscape) resulted home to the lower income minorities. Many of the urban northern centers were occupied by southern blacks fleeing the violent and segregated traditional U.S. south. The cities infrastructures started to decay leading to the dilapidation, low-rent, disadvantaged Americans and then riots for survival, as reaction.

·                     Starts with Harlem in 1964

·                     1967, Newark New Jersey,

·                     SF, Chicago, 1966

·                     Detroit, Newark, 1967

·                     Washington + 100 cities, 1968.

·                     Watts, August 11, 1965

Watts, August 11, 1965 ( How is Watts Connected to LA Bussing?)

Watts, South Central, Los Angeles, was probably the most notorious uprising of the 1960s; many had come to a consensus. Protests were conducted there as part of the 1960s nonviolent movement, but Police officers mistakenly arrested a woman that they believed had spit on them. The crowd lashed out in anger, pelting nearby cars and busses. Police reinforcements arrived, and they squared off against the angry crowd. Disturbances spread from South Central to Watts, a neighborhood several miles away. The demonstrators threw rocks and the police reacted with riot sticks. The Television reporters were on the scene, and some engaged the rioters to increase the violence so they could get more exciting news footage.[41] At midnight the police decided that their presence was antagonizing the crowd, and they withdrew from the scene. “ The mod was triumphant and had no intention of dispersing. Newsmen who had stayed behind after the police left were attacked, and rioters overthrew the mobile television-news vans. By this time the local store owners were feeling the wrath of the crowd’s anger, too: rioters smashed shop windows and made off with the merchandize they found inside. The hostility they felt for the  oppressive environment in which they lived fueled their anger. “Burn, baby, burn,” which was the trade mark phrase of a disk jockey on one of Los Angeles’s black-music stations, became the motto of the rioters over the course of the uprising. As their rage grew, they attacked blacks as well as whites: as a black automobile worker reported, he was on his way home form work when, “a man run up to the car and struck me through the windshield with a two-by-four [ a short plank of wood] and ran.”[42]

“Violence continued over the next several days, encouraged by confused reports of police brutality among the black community and by leaflets distributed by the radical Black Muslims in the neighborhood. By 3:30 A.M. on Friday, 13, August, seventy-five stores in the area had been burned. African American store owners began putting signs in their shop windows telling the rioters that they were “blood brothers”; in many cases the signs were ignored. Black leaders, including members of CORE and stand-up comedian Dick Gregory, appealed to the crowds to go home, but with little success. Gregory actually received a minor gun shot wound for his efforts. Later that day the Los Angeles Police Department decided that further support was necessary, and the California National Guard was called to help restore order. The fifteen hundred guardsmen who arrived at the scene on Friday evening clearly were too few in number, however, considering that at the height of the violence nearly ten thousand African Americans had taken to the streets. By Saturday morning another two thousand troops had been deployed. Before the uprising was over, more than thirteen thousand guardsmen would be involved.”[43]

“The rioting continued three more days. With the presence of the heavily armed guardsmen, the violence began to subside. Martial Law was imposed, a curfew was established, and no one was allowed on the street without a good reason. An area of nearly fifty square miles of the city was put under military control. When the smoke finally cleared, the loss of life and property stunned Los Angeles. Thirty-four were dead, most of them participants in the riot, and more than a thousand were injured. Six hundred buildings were damaged, and a third of them totally destroyed. Property damage was estimated at $40 million. When order was restored the police chief of Los Angeles, William H. Parker, was reported to say, “We’re on top and they are on the bottom”; but as Roy Wilkins, director for the NAACP, responded, “the philosophy behind the ‘we’re on top’ expression was the tinder under the Watts explosion.” The rioting in Los Angeles and throughout the country during those violent years was a dramatic demonstration that the complex relationship between black and white Americans was still far from being understood.”[44]

As result, bussing poor African Americans from Watts to affluent white neighborhoods, sometimes as far as forty-miles away became a forced policy in the 1970s. As with I, African Americans in took out their aggressions, physically on white students at the grades 3-6th elementary schools. I attended Prairie Street elementary school in the 1970s, and African American schoolchildren were bussed in to Northridge, California, in the San Fernando Valley. When I was beaten often for things I had no idea of, I rationalized it as kids being forced to wake up at 4:00 A.M. in the morning, and go to a buss stop when it was still dark, get on a buss for a long ride on the freeways and then at 4:00 P.M. get back on those busses and reach their homes sometimes at 7:00 P.M. in the evening, and do it all over again the following days of the week over the course of these school years. This was forced integration, but there was a deeper issue I was not aware of at that time. Robert F. Williams had sent his tapes and writings to the United States of America and these writings were distributed all over the United States of America, and one of its targets was Watts. As collective, I was a part of slavery, even though I was born in 1966. The European white heritage of the U.S.A. was the reason I was continually attacked physically, as well as other white students. The officials of the school did little to stop it as they could not ban the students unless they had demonstrated the use of knives or guns in their attacks. When I went to Homes Jr. High, grades 7-9, in Northridge, the Latin Americans were bussed in from northeast San Fernando Valley. Each semester there was at least three major-school-wide riots, in which the local white students had to flee over the fences to escape.  The Latins, as with the African Americans, were forced to leave their localities and integrate in the U.S. southern integration experiment. When looking back, it seemed to work to some extent, but I was pulled out of Homes Jr. High by my father after the first year due to physical attacks and repeated threats of school-wide violence. Usually twenty-five police cars would show up on the scene many hours after these riots had taken place. The object of bussing was to give access to otherwise less represented minorities access to better equipped schools and more qualified-trained.  Faculty. After one year of private school, I had returned to public schools but my family life had also significantly changed.

While southern California had forced integration which lead to a more integrated society by the 1990s. In northern California, the disparity had taken much longer. This could be viewed that the south was considered more important historically in the U.S. traditions of segregation. Ironically, U.C. Berkeley, which claims to be the most liberal of institutions, possibly on the earth, is extremely dominated by white faculty. Over forty-years black instructor representation had not changed. Between forty- and forty-seven black instructors in a period of forty-years described a non- progressive program of integration at U.C. Berkeley.  I argue, this is why racism taught as subjects in classroom at the undergraduate level of U.C. Berkeley is the most common among the Letters and Science college. It appears that speaking, investigating, researching are the viewed as the only way to integrate and discourse of the complex issues of integration. While, I intend, it is a proactive position to integrate and intellectualizing an issue over and over again reveals not results. It also explains why the Republican Party is continually attacked. This can be explained in that an escape rout for non integration can be “significantly stymied” if one takes the focus off of a direct problem at the University of California --- and that is proactive integration. A riot after Affirmative Action on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley exemplified these sentiments. The building California Hall, adjacent to Moffitt undergraduate building and to the west of  Doe Library, students for pro-Affirmative action took the doorknobs off the building and the Chancellor had to escape in the underground sewer systems. Till this day, the building has no boor knobs in which to attack a chain-linked lock, as the protestors had done. This is the continual fight to keep blacks and other minorities from positions of power in the U.S.A. It is vitally connected to the Los Angeles bussing philosophy, and bussing across the nation.

Even black students are taught white history, and are graded according to white culture. Therefore, automatically they are at a disadvantage to other students who feign better at acceptance into the University of California, Berkeley. Often, as U.C. Berkeley competes nationally with private colleges and Universities for academic prestige, it admits students with high-Grade Point Averages, the system of important admittance procedures. The fore, as philosophy, if blacks are school in white culture, then logically blacks are not as motivated for the subject matters – thus the poor test results. Thereas, the G.P.A. will not reflect the aspirations, motivations, and inspirations of whites who “emotionally” connect to the subject matter. So why in sciences this is different? Because math and much of science is universal, but government-economic-social polices are directly connected to social science curriculum.  Politicians are the administrators, the societal law-givers that allow these sciences to operate within the social constructs. Therefore, the critical integration for the minorities will take place in the social fabrics of social education, and not these sciences – unless these science becomes the overwhelming factor in the social governance in the future – in which at the moment, it is not.

Women’s Liberation

“American women had long struggled against the perception that they were second-class citizens, too emotional, too childish, too feminist to participate in the affairs of men—which included almost everything outside of the home. Still, by the 1960s job opportunities and fair play for women were gradually lacking, and young women found that their aspirations to be anything other than a wife or mother were stifled. For many women this did not seem to matter: 96 percent of women who responded in a 1962 Gallup poll said that being a housewife made them more happy. But different feelings were stirring, too. In her 1963 book The Feminine Mystique Better Freidad, who was dividing her time as a housewife, a mother of three, and a freelance writer, tried to give a voice to what she called “a strange stirring, a sense of dissatisfaction, a yarning that women suffered  in the middle of the twentieth century in the United States….As she made the beds, shopped for the groceries, matched slipcover material, ate peanut butter sandwiches with her children, chauffeured Club Scouts and Brownies, lay beside her husband at night, she was afraid to ask even of herself the question –“Is this all?”

“Clearly, society was changing during the decade, however’ the election of President Kennedy in 1960 gave new hope to women’s rights activists when he appointed Esther Peterson as the first women head of the Women’s Bureau of the commerce Department, a sub agency that monitored women’s issues in the workplace. Peterson counseled the president to consider appointing a commission with broad powers to examine the status of women in American society; included in the discussion would be the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), a controversial (and eventually defeated) amendment to the U.S. Constitution (“Men and women will have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction.”) first proposed in 1923. The formation of the Commission, Peterson told President Kennedy, would likely give him a base of support among women’s voters.”

The Presidential Commission on the Status of Women was formed in 1961 and included experts from around the country to study the economic and legal rights of women. The commission submitted its report in 1963, and although it made several important recommendations for changes in employment policies and social services, it was criticized form within the ranks of the women’s movement for not taking a strong stand on the ERA. Constitutional protection for women, the commissioned argued, could be found in the fourteenth Amendment, passed shortly after the Civil War, which was intended to guarantee equal protection under the law for African-Americans but could provide the basis for women’s rights as well. Despite the fact that the report may not have gone far enough, and despite the condescending treatment the work of the commission received in the national press, many women’s rights activists took the report as a call to action. Thus it helped shape the direction of the women’s movement would take.”

Over the next several years American women achieved a string of successes in the form of laws against sex discrimination [mainly in the workplace]. One of them, the equal-pay bill of 1963, was a direct result of the recommendations made by the Commission of the Status of Women’s to President Kennedy. Another came about in strange fashion. The year was 1964 saw the passage of the Civil Rights Act, [in] which granted by force of federal law many of the rights for African-Americans had struggled. The bill had languished in Congress for several years during the Kennedy administration, but after President Kennedy’s assassination it gained momentum, thanks in large part to the deal-making skills of President Lyndon Johnson, Kennedy’s successor. Women’s rights activists were determined to add their own demands on the bill: as they saw it, according to Rosalind Rosenberg, “‘Jane Crow’ was just as repugnant to the sprit of the Constitution as ‘Jim Crow.’” When the issue came up during congressional debate on the civil rights bill, it was Congressman Howard Smith, a southern Democrat and an opponent of the bill, who suggested that it be amended to include sex discrimination.”[45]

“Historians differ about [Howard] Smith’s motives, but it is generally thought that he introduced the sex amendment in order to ridicule the civil rights bill. Certainly, not many of his fellow House members took him seriously. According to Lelia J. Rupp and Verta Taylor, “Smith’s presentation and the subject itself provoked a great deal of laughter, contributing to the legend of what come to be known as ‘Ladies’ Day in the House.’” When the amendment passed, it was the support of the Republicans and southerners, two groups that formed the basis of the opposition to the bill. With Title VII of the bill, which prevented discrimination in employment, now amended to include women and African-Americans, the women activist of Washington, many of whom had been involved with the Commission on the Status of Women, worked hard to see the bill pass the House and then the Senate. Singed into law in 1964, the bill was considered a major triumph for black Americans, but women rejoiced in their victory, as well.”

“The triumph of women’s rights activist felt was short-lived. Franklin Roosevelt, Jr., head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), whose job was to enforce Title VII, announced that since gender had been added to ridicule the concept of equal employment, the EEOC had no intention to enforcing the sex discrimination clause. Women’s groups were outraged at the government’s refusal to enforce what they had long hoped to see signed into law. At a 1966 national conference for women, Friedan and two dozen other women conceived of the National Organization for Women (NOW), whose purpose would be to represent women’s issues at the NAACP did for African-Americans. At its first meeting in October, NOW elected Friedan as its first president and drew up its statement of purpose, in which the group rejected all laws and traditions that “not only deny opportunities but also foster in women self-denigration, dependence, and evasion of responsibility, undermine their confidence in their own abilities and foster contempt for women.” Rather than threaten the status of men, the NOW organizers claimed that the treatment of women as inferiors damaged society as a whole.”

In the months that followed NOW flexed its muscles: in 1967 members pressed President Johnson to include gender discrimination in his affirmative-action legislation [ the gay-rights movement emerged as result in 1970-‘71] ( which required employers to take definite steps to rid their businesses of inequality); next, they targeted the EEOC to include more women in administrative positions. When one of the commissioners of the EEOC told NOW representatives he was interviewing “girls” for an important opening, he was told in no uncertain terms that such a demeaning title was no longer an acceptable way to refer to women. Due to its success, NOW began to dominate [men] the women’s movement; as a result, the movement became younger, more liberal [ meaning emancipation from tradition] , and more vocal. Soon the group had championed two new, controversial issues: the ERA and the discrimination of abortion.”

“In September 1968, taking a cue from the antiwar protests of the youth movement, women activists ( who had adopted for themselves the name feminists) staged a rowdy public demonstration against one of the nation’s most cherished institutions: the Miss American pageant. About one-hundred women marched up and down Atlantic City’s boardwalk, chanted, and carried signs. “Ain’t she sweet?,” the protestors sang about the contestants, “Makin’ profit off her meat.” They had a huge trash can on hand, in which they dumped girdles, bras, high-heeled shoes, copies of Vogue and Ladies’ Home Journal, and other symbols of their oppressed status.”[46] Charles Postel, in lecture, intends the burning of the bras’ was a myth, in that the boardwalk was made of wood, and the women were too scared to start a fire on an historic landmark. However, here, a trashcan represents a protectant against a possible fire hazard. Whatever the case may be, the legend stands as an extreme position of gender repression, as the women activists had seen it as part of their history. “Later, they led a live sheep on to the boardwalk and put a crown and a sash on it. The women were arrested when they tried to disrupt the official pageant that night. Still, as one of the protestors recalled. “It was the best fun I can imagine anyone wanting to have on any single day of her life.”[47]

As part of the Rise of Feminism, “[B]y the end of the decade various other radical feminist groups had joined NOW in the ranks of the women’s movement. There was WITCH (Women’s International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell), which was formed by Robin Morgan, the former child across who had led the Miss America protest; the Redstockings, who led “speak-outs” on abortion in 1969; Cell 16; and the October 17 Movement. All of these groups, caught up in the heady atmosphere of the late 1960s, had become convinced that nothing short of social revolution would end the white-male domination of society. Also drawn into the radical feminist camp were African-American women, who had become alienated form the civil rights movement as it evolved from peaceful protest to black power; and lesbians, who had quickly found it difficult to cooperate with homosexual men in the developing gay liberation movement. Feminist groups formed newspapers, shelters, and health collectives to reach out to other women and inform society about the pervasiveness of sexism.”

“Fundamental to the movement were consciousness-raising groups, which thousands of women joined in the late 1960s. Members of these small groups could share with each other intimate details of their lives; in such an atmosphere of trust many women felt free to speak openly for the first time in their lives.”[48]

Proposition 14

Proposition 14: backlash to the 1959 state fair employment law.

Fair Employment Law

What Is the Law’s Purpose?

The purpose of the law is to protect the rights of people to employment free of unlawful discrimination.

It is unlawful, for public and private employers, employment agencies, licensing agencies and unions, to refuse to hire, to discharge, or otherwise discriminate in any term or condition of work, because of a person’s protected class.

What Protections Are Provided?

Generally, it is unlawful to treat people less favorably than others because of their protected class. The law prohibits discrimination in employment related actions such as:


Recruitment and hiring




Lay-off and firing


Job Assignments

Leave or benefits

Licensing or union membership

Other employment related actions


Other prohibited practices are:

Retaliation against persons who assert there rights under the fair employment law, the family and medical leave law and other labor standards laws.

Harassment on the job because of a person’s sex or because of their particular protected class.

Engaging in most types of Genetic Testing or giving an improper Honesty Test.


Protected Classes


Year WI Adopted

Federal Laws


Generally, a member of a group united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality or geography


Title VII



Black to white and all colors in between.


Title VII



Religious, moral or ethical beliefs about right and wrong that are sincerely held. Employer has “duty to accommodate.”


Title VII



The country, nation, tribe or other identifiable group from which one descends.


Title VII


National Origin

Generally a member of a nation by origin, birth or naturalization or having common origins or traditions.


Title VII



Being age 40 or older.





Being Female or Male.


Title VII & ERP


Handicap Or Disability

Physical or mental impairment making achievement difficult or limiting work capacity or having a record of or being perceived as having a disability. Employer has “duty to accommodate.”




Arrest/Conviction Record

Information indicating a person was questioned, arrested, charged or convicted of a felony or misdemeanor.




Marital Status

Status of being married, single, divorced, separated or widowed.




Sexual Orientation

Having a preference for heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality or having a history of or being identified as having a preference.




[1] Self, Robert O, American Babylon: Race and the Struggle for Post War Oakland (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 172.

[2] Self, Robert O, American Babylon: Race and the Struggle for Post War Oakland (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 179.

[3] Self, Robert O, American Babylon: Race and the Struggle for Post War Oakland (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 168.

[4] Self, Robert O, American Babylon: Race and the Struggle for Post War Oakland (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 168.

[5] Self, Robert O, American Babylon: Race and the Struggle for Post War Oakland (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 179.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Freedom, in this sense, indicates a value of choice that is unregulated by the state which will never guarantee justice if justice is defined as all ethnic inclusion of uqual rights, equal representation, and equal inheritance.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid., Self, p. 198.

[10] Ibid., p. 199.

[11] Internationalists would have good arguments with this assertion, because the Cold War, emerging U.S. neo-colonialism, and the extension of American global economic hegemony under Bretton Woods also help to define this long post-war period. I make no claim that these are unimportant. Indeed, the domestic sociopolitical developments that I emphasize are linked with these international events in enormously consequential ways. But I leave to other historians the drawing out of the specifics of those connections and the making of that argument. In Self, f. 2, p. 378.

[12] For examples of works that do this, see Doug McAdam, Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970 ( Chicago, 1999), and Bondi, To Stand and Fight, in Self, p. 331, f. 377.

[13] Ibid., Self, Conclusion, pp. 328-334.

[14] Michael Johnathan McDonald, 21April 2008 (Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, Doe Library, 2008).

[15] Self, Robert O, American Babylon: Race and the Struggle for Post War Oakland (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 256.

[16] Self, Robert O, American Babylon: Race and the Struggle for Post War Oakland (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 264.

[17] Self, Robert O, American Babylon: Race and the Struggle for Post War Oakland (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 274.

[18] Self, Robert O, American Babylon: Race and the Struggle for Post War Oakland (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 282.

[19] Self, Robert O, American Babylon: Race and the Struggle for Post War Oakland (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 289. Here R. O. Self frames the scientific method of reason into an irrationality argument, integrating a moral projection onto reason’s failed prescriptive. Somehow the dominant ethnic groups ‘must’ decolonize as moral agency in opposition to reason. A reason that possibly happiness is associated with “likeness.” Therefore, without realizing it, Self implicates every civilization of history that has been dominated by a single ethnic clan, class, group, and entity. I intend the United States of America follows a consistent theme in historicism. A single ethnic group dominates to some degree the socio-economic-political structures until the bottom social forces other throw its dominance. As with cases in most civilizations, a revolution creates a promised new structure or the dominate ethnic class takes their monies and leaves the spatial boundaries. As with many new liberal hegemonic black-paternalists, Self identifies the conservative forces of certain political institutions with more textual weight than actual forces that made up the moral majority. It is not only Republicans that denied black agency in the Bay Area communities, but an overwhelming democratic white-based community. I intend that framing one side of the political spectrum helps white liberal hegemonic black-paternalists displace guilt associated with “guilt by association.” Therefore, the correct course of action would be all the white people need to go live in huts, tents and sheds on a plantation and allow all the blacks, and other repressed minorities to take control of all the socio-economic-political foundations of the United States of America. Then, speaking on topics such as moral conjoiners could be alleviated altogether. If conservatives believed in the ‘freedom of choice,” and the socialist left framed that freedom as immoral, then the correct course of action, which is of course natural is to fight back against the opposition to destroy them. If white liberal hegemonic black-paternalists have prestigious jobs, and epistemological deny conservative that right in moral conjoiners, then conservatives naturally will fight back to underscore the “reason” for those white that still have economic privilege due to claims of white liberal hegemonic black-paternalists. It is not that this model is new, but an old model that is natural and efficient, and does not apply  to a color of the skin, but manifests itself in all ethnicities of each civilization. The issue is not that self denies the other side of the argument, it is that moral conjoiners appear emphasized and weighted toward one main political party, when it is in fact more complex and integrated as white Angelo institutions’. What this demonstrates is that justice and freedom are incompatible, as social constructs, or deconstructs and parallel constructs. Form whichever perspective one approaches the logic, the results stay the same. The scientific model of like-atoms attracting like-atoms is given toward “irrational” behavior, and placed as a moral conjoiner – as defeatism. Since science and nature cannot be beaten by mankind, the only recourse is to destroy the “likeness.” The reaction is of guilt, the Sins of the Past, a Herodotus’ observed conscript. Thomas Jefferson who did not free his black slaves, as laid out in his will, wrote that Americans will pay for the sins against slavery. Since the ‘likeness’ was in place at the time of slavery, the sins will affect that likeness, and the overthrow of that likeness is inevitable. It is not defeatist, or an irrational viewpoint, it is a natural course of action. The ‘likeness’ will attract itself somewhere else in another space, as all atoms do over time.

[20] Self, Robert O, American Babylon: Race and the Struggle for Post War Oakland (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 299.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid., p. 301.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid., p. 303.

[26] Ibid., p. 306.

[27] Ibid., p. 311.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Ibid., p. 313.

[30] Ibid., p. 314.

[31] Ibid., pp. 314-314.

[32] Ibid., p. 317.

[33] Ibid.,

[34] Ibid., p. 321.

[35] Ibid., p. 323.

[36] Ibid., p. 324.

[37] Ibid., p. 326.

[38] Jack Bass, Unlikely Hero ( New York), Hubert Wey, “Desegregation and Integration,” (Phi Delta Kappan, 47 (May 1996) in Public School Integration, “American Decades: 1960-1969,” eds. Richard Laymen & James W. Hipp (Detroit: Gale Research Inc., 1995), p. 129.


[39] Jack Bass, Unlikely Hero ( New York), Hubert Wey, “Desegregation and Integration,” (Phi Delta Kappan, 47 (May 1996) in Public School Integration, “American Decades: 1960-1969,” eds. Richard Laymen & James W. Hipp (Detroit: Gale Research Inc., 1995), p. 129.


[40] Jack Bass, Unlikely Hero ( New York), Hubert Wey, “Desegregation and Integration,” (Phi Delta Kappan, 47 (May 1996) in Public School Integration, “American Decades: 1960-1969,” eds. Richard Laymen & James W. Hipp (Detroit: Gale Research Inc., 1995), p. 129.


[41] Jerry Cohen and William S. Murphy, Burn, Baby, Burn!: The Los Angeles Race Riots, August 1965 ( New York, Dutton, 1966), Robert E. Conot, Rivers of Blood, Years of Darkness ( New York, Bantam, 1967) in Watts, “American Decades: 1960-1969,” eds. Richard Laymen & James W. Hipp (Detroit: Gale Research Inc., 1995), pp. 329-330.

[42] Jerry Cohen and William S. Murphy, Burn, Baby, Burn!: The Los Angeles Race Riots, August 1965 ( New York, Dutton, 1966), Robert E. Conot, Rivers of Blood, Years of Darkness ( New York, Bantam, 1967) in Watts, “American Decades: 1960-1969,” eds. Richard Laymen & James W. Hipp (Detroit: Gale Research Inc., 1995), pp. 329-330.

[43] Jerry Cohen and William S. Murphy, Burn, Baby, Burn!: The Los Angeles Race Riots, August 1965 ( New York, Dutton, 1966), Robert E. Conot, Rivers of Blood, Years of Darkness ( New York, Bantam, 1967) in Watts, “American Decades: 1960-1969,” eds. Richard Laymen & James W. Hipp (Detroit: Gale Research Inc., 1995), pp. 329-330.

[44] Jerry Cohen and William S. Murphy, Burn, Baby, Burn!: The Los Angeles Race Riots, August 1965 ( New York, Dutton, 1966), Robert E. Conot, Rivers of Blood, Years of Darkness ( New York, Bantam, 1967) in Watts, “American Decades: 1960-1969,” eds. Richard Laymen & James W. Hipp (Detroit: Gale Research Inc., 1995), pp. 329-330.

[45] Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique (New York: Norton, 1963), Rosalind Rosenberg, Divided Lives: American Women of the Twentieth Century ( New York: Hill & Wang, 1992), Leila J. Rupp and Verta Taylor, Survival in the Doldrums: American Women’s Rights Movement, 1945 to the 1960s ( Ney York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987),   in Women’s Lib, “American Decades: 1960-1969,” eds. Richard Laymen & James W. Hipp (Detroit: Gale Research Inc., 1995), pp. 331-333.

[46] Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique (New York: Norton, 1963), Rosalind Rosenberg, Divided Lives: American Women of the Twentieth Century ( New York: Hill & Wang, 1992), Leila J. Rupp and Verta Taylor, Survival in the Doldrums: American Women’s Rights Movement, 1945 to the 1960s ( Ney York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987),   in Women’s Lib, “American Decades: 1960-1969,” eds. Richard Laymen & James W. Hipp (Detroit: Gale Research Inc., 1995), pp. 331-333.

[47] Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique (New York: Norton, 1963), Rosalind Rosenberg, Divided Lives: American Women of the Twentieth Century ( New York: Hill & Wang, 1992), Leila J. Rupp and Verta Taylor, Survival in the Doldrums: American Women’s Rights Movement, 1945 to the 1960s ( Ney York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987),   in Women’s Lib, “American Decades: 1960-1969,” eds. Richard Laymen & James W. Hipp (Detroit: Gale Research Inc., 1995), pp. 331-333.

[48] Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique (New York: Norton, 1963), Rosalind Rosenberg, Divided Lives: American Women of the Twentieth Century ( New York: Hill & Wang, 1992), Leila J. Rupp and Verta Taylor, Survival in the Doldrums: American Women’s Rights Movement, 1945 to the 1960s ( Ney York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987),   in Women’s Lib, “American Decades: 1960-1969,” eds. Richard Laymen & James W. Hipp (Detroit: Gale Research Inc., 1995), pp. 331-333.



Direct corrections and technical inquiries to
Please direct news submissions to Here

Copyright © 1999 - 2013 Michael Johnathan McDonald