Freedom Road: Edwards

"The Selma of the North": Civil Rights Insurgency in Milwaukee

Between 1958 and 1970, a distinctive movement for racial justice emerged from unique circumstances in Milwaukee. A series of local leaders inspired growing numbers of people to participate in campaigns against employment and housing discrimination, segregated public schools, the membership of public officials in discriminatory organizations, welfare cuts, and police brutality.

The Milwaukee movement culminated in the dramatic—and sometimes violent—1967 open housing campaign. A white Catholic priest, James Groppi, led the NAACP Youth Council and Commandos in a militant struggle that lasted for 200 consecutive nights and provoked the ire of thousands of white residents. After working-class mobs attacked demonstrators, some called Milwaukee “the Selma of the North.” Others believed the housing campaign represented the last stand for a nonviolent, interracial, church-based movement.

Patrick Jones tells a powerful and dramatic story that is important for its insights into civil rights history: the debate over nonviolence and armed self-defense, the meaning of Black Power, the relationship between local and national movements, and the dynamic between southern and northern activism. Jones offers a valuable contribution to movement history in the urban North that also adds a vital piece to the national story.

Buy it here!

Spread the word...

Blurbs:

Think you know the full story of the civil rights era? Patrick Jones's masterful study of the movement in Milwaukee will make you think again. Meticulously researched and elegantly written, The Selma of the North provides a devastating rebuttal of many of the conventional narratives of the civil rights movement. Here a vibrant nonviolent movement in the de-industrializing Midwest grows into a Black Power movement led by urban youth and a white Catholic priest who use confrontational direct action to lay bare the fissures of racial inequality in the 'liberal' North.
--Jeanne Theoharis, Brooklyn College, editor of Freedom North and Groundwork

A well-researched, well-written, and important history. Based on a rich array of sources, this book enhances our understanding of civil rights activism in the postwar urban North and establishes a useful foundation for the comparison of similar developments elsewhere in the country.
--Joe William Trotter, Jr., Carnegie Mellon University, author of Black Milwaukee

This book fills a serious gap in the literature of the civil rights revolution, joining studies on other cities in laying the groundwork on race and civil rights in the postwar urban North. Jones tells a good story, capturing events that might otherwise be lost to history.
--Arnold R. Hirsch, University of New Orleans, author of Making the Second Ghetto

The Selma of the North is an insightful and invigorating addition to the growing literature on black freedom struggles outside of the South. Jones's important and informative account writes Milwaukee back into the narrative of the civil rights-Black Power era and in the process expands our understanding of postwar America.
--Peniel E. Joseph, Brandeis University, author of Waiting Till the Midnight Hour

The Selma of the North is a riveting new story of the civil rights movement in America, a tale on par with Selma, Birmingham, and Montgomery in its power and importance. Jones's magisterial research and magnetic prose illuminate the untold story of the battle for the urban north in the 1960s, a battle that shows how race has always been the Achilles heel of white progressives. This story transcends easy dichotomies of black and white, North and South, radical and reformist. How did a group called 'the Commandos' define nonviolence? How did a white Catholic priest become a 'Black Power' leader? If this is not a saga for the age of Obama, I don't know what is.
--Timothy B. Tyson, Duke University, author of Radio Free Dixie and Blood Done Sign My Name

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Thank You, John!

John Edwards has decided to abandon his quest for the presidency today by heading back to where it all began for him, New Orleans. I want to take this opportunity to STRONGLY praise Edwards and his campaign, particularly for raising the two issues that are closest to my own heart: the tragic link between race and poverty as well as the undemocratic influence of corporations on our political system. It was a noble campaign that just could not break through against the two other celebrity candidates. It is a shame, but his voice was, and continues to be, an important one.

Here's to you, John! Thank you.

By the way, how does Attorney General in an Obama administration sound?

Thursday, January 03, 2008

Iowa Caucus Day!

Well, here we are. We made it... the day that never seemed like it would really come. I think I speak for most of us when I say: thank our lucky stars, today is finally - FINALLY! - Iowa caucus day. This election has already been interminably long and we haven't even made it to the general election, yet! But, whoever wins tonight, at the very least, the process will be formally in motion.

That written, in case any stray, uncommitted Iowa Democratic caucusers wander into this blog, here is my final pitch:

A picture is worth a thousand words...

Even the undergraduates at Hillary's alma mater prefer Obama for the Democratic nomination...

And, for whatever it is worth, here is my prediction (admittedly, on the Democratic side, it is probably more of a fantasy than a cold, reasoned prediction, but I'll throw it out there...):

Dems:
• Obama
• Edwards
• Clinton

Repubs:
• Huckabee
• Romney
• McCain

What do you think...?

Monday, October 01, 2007

Obama in a Landslide!

According to my very (un)scientific blog poll, Barak Obama is the overwhelming choice of my blog-watchers for the presidency in '08; it wasn't even close! Here is the final break-down:

Obama: 56 votes (56%)
Clinton: 19 votes (19%)
Edwards: 14 votes (14%)
Richardson: 6 votes (6%)
Giuliani: 3 votes (3%)
Thompson: 2 votes (2%)
Romney: 1 vote (0%)
McCain: 0 votes (0%)
___________________________
101 votes (100%)

I should probably be honest at the outset... early on, Obama was getting ALL the votes, kicking sooo much butt (with the exception of a couple of stray Edwards votes), that I logged on from two different computers and voted for Hillary twice, just to get things going a bit. So, technically, we could take down 2 of Clinton's votes.

A few comments based on the results... Obama jumped out early to a huge lead and sustained it. More recently, he didn't receive as many votes, but he did get the last four or five that were cast. Until about 2-3 weeks ago, Edwards was consistently leading Clinton for the no. 2 spot, but then Clinton surged ahead of Edwards. Edwards has not received a new vote in a couple of weeks, nor has Richardson. Beyond that, there weren't really any notable trends to report.

Clearly, given my own perspective on politics and the fact that my blog reflects those politics, it is probably not suprising that visiters here tend toward the liberal/progressive/left side of things and so the poll was stacked toward those types of candidates. But, still, how do we understand the overwhelming victory of Obama in this poll but his inability to make a move on Clinton in the national polls? There seems to be a disconnect. I experience this a lot. There is a ton of positivity and energy behind the idea of Obama across the nation, and he has raised truck-loads of money from record numbers of donors, yet Hillary has been consolidating her lead in national polls and in key early states (although a new Newsweek poll has Obama moving ahead by 3-4 points in Iowa). What is up with these numbers? Is it that many people like Obama, even prefer him to Clinton, but don't think he is electable as a black man? Does this indicate Americans are more willing to elect their first woman president than their first black president? Is there a sense of "inevitablity" among Dems about Hillary as the nominee? Is the "experience vs. change" argument being won by Clinton's camp? Is the Establishment steamroller that is so clearly backing Clinton right now just too strong to overcome for any of the other candidates? Is Obama's campaign faltering? Should he be directly attacking Clinton? Are these polls a lot of bunk because it is so early? Are things more fluid than they seem? Is something else going on here? And, what's up with Edwards. He has been swinging hard at Clinton lately, but his numbers don't seem to budge at all here or nationally. Is this truly becoming a two-person race, between Clinton and Barack?

As for the Republicans, well, that is a fairly sad field of candidates. I don't know any Republicans/conservatives that are enthusiastic about ANY candidate on their side. Seriously, they might say they are for this or that candidate, but nobody seems excited on the Right... and with good reason, I think. If Kerry was a flip-flopper, these guys have redefined and super-sized that term. You've got Romney pandering to every conservative constituency by running so hard from his established political record in Massachusetts. Pathetic. Then there is Giuliani, who has relentlessly played the 9/11 fear card, all the while continuing to cash in on the tragedy for personal financial gain. Disgusting. Thompson appears to have been a better idea than reality now that he is in the race. b-o-r-i-n-g! And, McCain is just sad and pathetic at this point. He has reaped what he sowed by hitching his wagon inexplicably to the Bush war machine in Iraq. He, too, has undermined his strongest asset (the perception that he is a "maverick") by pandering to a variety of hard Right constituencies, like conservative Christians. Overall, it looks bleak over there to me...

What do you think? Post a comment!

In honor of Barack's big win in the Freedom Road poll, I've placed an Obama widget on my blog and am posting the following video from his recent campaign stop in New York City. Dig it!

Freedom Road

My Book: