1. Explain the meaning of the “American standard of living” during the 1950s.
2. Describe how the automobile transformed American communities and culture in the 1950s.
3. Identify the prescribed roles and aspirations for women during the social conformity of the 1950s.
4. How did governmental policies, business practices, and individual choices contribute to racially segregated suburbs?
5. Explain the ideological rifts between conservatives in the 1950s. Why did many view President Eisenhower as “not one of them”?
6. What was the new “social contract” between labor and management, and how did it benefit both sides as well as the nation as a whole?
7. How did the United States and Soviet Union shift the focus of the Cold War to the Third World?
8. What were the most significant factors that contributed to the growing momentum of the civil rights movement in the 1950s?
9. How did many southern whites, led by their elected officials, resist desegregation and civil rights in the name of “freedom”?
10. How and why did the federal government’s concern with U.S. relations overseas shape its involvement with the Brown v. Board of Education case?
______________________________________________________________
A. What were the main characteristics of the affluent society of the 1950s?
B. How were the 1950s a period of consensus in both domestic policies and foreign affairs?
C. What were the major thrusts of the civil rights movement in this period?
D. What was the significance of the presidential election of 1960?
History 221 Winter 2016 
Several factors contributed to the growing strength of the civil rights movement in America in the 1950s particularly. While can be said that civil rights and movements supporting the rights of African-Americans and other minority groups in the United States, it wasn’t until after the second World War the civil rights began to reach its full stride. Indeed, it’s possible to draw a line between pre-war civil rights and post-war civil rights, they are, in many ways, strikingly different movements.
It is impossible to fully comprehend the significant strides forward made by civil rights in the 1950s without paying respect and noting the crucial role of the events of the 1940s. The second World War, although it stands as one of the most tragic and dire moments in the history of the world, provided America with several giant leaps forwards in race relations. Hitler and the Third Reich, based entirely upon principles of ethnic and racial inequality, had truly united the United States under a banner of freedom for all people, regardless of race, gender, religion, or social status.
Following the second World War, racial system of America was weakened, thrown off balance by the American chest-thumping sentiments of the era. This allowed for well-known figureheads to step into the spotlight and give the civil rights movement new and charismatic faces unlike it had ever had before. The understated bravery of Rosa Parks and the passionate leadership of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gave civil rights a new fresh vitality in a country poised for racial reform.
Another pivotal moment of 1950s civil rights was during the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka case. For decades, the American educational system had operated under the principles of the results of the Plessy v. Ferguson case, which had segregated public education. In the Brown case, however, the United States Supreme Court came to the unanimous conclusion that segregated educational institutions were unconstitutional. This resolution had significant countrywide implications, from North to South. Ruby Bridges, the first black child to attend an all-white elementary school in the Southern states, later became the inspiration for Norman Rockwell’s emotionally charged painting The Problem We All Live With.
The civil rights movement in the 1950s experienced several thrilling bursts of speed in the United States. Whether such growing momentum can be attributed to the end of the second World War of the last decade, or new and striking figureheads for civil rights like King or Parks, or the victorious outcome of the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka case, it cannot be denied that civil rights growth during this decade was integral to the further massive successes in the 1960s in a nation poised for largescale racial reform.
LikeLike
C. What were the major thrusts of the civil rights movement in this period?
The events that occurred at the end of World War II helped to spark the civil rights movements. Some of the major events that helped push this movement along include the Mendez v. Westminster case, the replacement of Chief Justice Fred Vinson with Earl Warren, the Brown case, Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott, and the rise of Dr. Martin Luther King Junior.
The Mendez v. Westminster case was significant because this was one of the first times in history when segregation was put to an end in California. This put an end to the segregation that happening in employment offices, housing, and schools.
Earl Warren was already known for his role in the Japanese internment camps during WWII. However, he changed his ways of thinking and played a very significant role in the Brown case. Since he was the new chief justice, he became the voice in the court to end segregation. His claim that segregation in school was unequal was significant enough to win the case in favor of Brown. According to the text, “It inspired a wave of optimism that discrimination would soon disappear.”
That could be seen through the events that happened in Montgomery. Even though all of these court cases ruled in favor of the blacks, the south still had their very strong support for segregation. Blacks were still segregated in schools, restaurants, and on the bus. Rosa Parks was arrested because she didn’t follow the rules and give up her seat to a white person. Her arrest in the south was heard by everybody and let to a boycott of public transportation. After a year, the Supreme Court had to step in to clarify to everybody that segregation on public transportation was against the constitution. The government was making improvements for blacks all over the U.S., but the people still needed guidance in the midst of all the changes that would take place. Martin Luther King Jr. became that voice of guidance for the blacks. His beliefs were that they should take a non-violent approach.
LikeLike
10. The United States has always portrayed itself as a nation of freedom, and at no time more than during the Cold War. The Truman Doctrine especially declared America’s role to lead the world in supporting freedom in all nations. The irony of the contrast between these ideals of freedom and the racial discrimination within the United States was not lost on Presidents Truman and Eisenhower, nor on many others. President Truman said that Americans can’t “ignore what the world thinks of our record,” referring to civil rights issues.
When Brown vs. Board of Education came to the Supreme Court, President Eisenhower’s administration recognized the opportunity to support freedom for blacks at home to match the US’s call for freedom abroad. The State Department filed an amicus curiae brief to that effect, noting that other countries judged the United States to be hypocritical because of its racist practices. Although the civil rights movement did not have much success until the 1960’s, the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown vs. Board of Education and the State Department’s support of that decision were noticed by the worldwide audience. The international reaction “was overwhelmingly positive,” as the text says.
The “Cultural Cold War” was all about spreading a good image of the United States throughout the world. However, many nations who either had or were working toward racial equality, especially former colonies in Africa, did not approve of US racial practices. In order to convince them of America’s goals for freedom for all peoples, the American government would have to do more about civil rights. At least to some extent, the federal government recognized that fact, and showed it did in its reaction to Brown vs. Board of Education.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What was the new “social contract” between labor and management, and how did it benefit both sides as well as the nation as a whole?
The 1950’s brought in a new social order in the American work industry. Relationships between the workers and management developed gradually. Intense working conditions caused a demand by the workers to increase pay and labor strikes. To prevent the unauthorized work stoppage by workers the unions and major industries came together to construct the new “social contract”. Companies compromised with the workers to invite the labor back. Employers agreed to create better working conditions and increase wages and benefits. Union workers were awarded health insurance, pension plans regarding retirement, and other aids towards cost of living.
This new social contract didn’t apply to workers who weren’t part of a union. Nonunion laborers fought for their value on the employment social structure. A smaller number of nonunion employees used the influence of the social contract to gain an increase in minimum wage. However, the majority of workers who were not directly involved with unions did not see any change or benefit from their employer. Organizations such as the National Association of Manufacturers felt that unions groups violated and limited the employer‘s authority.
A few companies migrated their factories and jobs to the south where union groups had less impact. Industries such as the automobiles and steel were unwilling to adjust to the needs of workers. This resistance was weakening the “social contract”. In 1959 the American steel industry profits were in a slump. To stimulate their profits they stopped wage increases and disregarded any previous benefits. As a result half a million steelworkers took part in “wildcat” strikes. Which caused the new “social contract” reform back into action. This 1950’s movement created less commotion but was costly for management.
Even though America’s work industry was not perfect the nation saw a decline in labor conflict. The new “social contract” forced employers to perceive american workers as valuable and obligated to still better working conditions today.
LikeLike
7. After World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union emerged as world powers. As they had opposite views and government structures, it was natural that the world’s stage would be defined by the United States and the Soviet Union. Western Europe, among others, sided with the United States as they shared a similar capitalistic society. The Soviet Union and other communist countries made up the other side. While there was a clear line of which country allied with which world power, there were countries that decided to remain neutral. These developing nations were called the Third World. These nations were focused on developing a structure that was in between communism, like that of the Soviet Union, and capitalism, like that of the United States.
World War II caused large scale changes throughout the world. The economies of the countries where the war directly took place, e.g. Great Britain and France, were drastically weakened. Worldwide decolonization also began to take place. Britain gave independence to India, Pakistan, and countries in Africa. Likewise, Portugal gave independence to Mozambique and Angola. With all of these newly formed countries, there was an absence of power that both the United States and Soviet Union wanted to fill. Most of the countries wanted to remain neutral, while others wanted to side with America because of its past with gaining independence. Though communist, the leader of Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh, sought assistance from the United States.
Since George Kennan’s Long Telegram, containment of the communist ideology has been a major point of the foreign policy of the United States. With the Soviet Union seeking to exert its government structure on the new countries, the United States took it upon itself to make sure that doesn’t happen. Thus the Third World begins to be a major focus of the Cold War.
With the change of focus from just the Soviet Union to all of the world, the policy of containment expanded. It now not only included the prevention of the spread of communism, but the United States took a self-centered approach, more or less, to prevent the establishment of any government that would interfere with the interests of the United States or its companies. When Guatemala elected a leader that would largely affect the United Fruit Company, owned by Americans, the CIA worked to overthrow the new government. Likewise, when Iran’s newly elected leader was going to affect Britain’s access to oil, he, too, was overthrown through the efforts of the CIA. Regardless of consequences, the United States did not want anything opposing its interests to exist. The United States became a monitor of all countries’ governments and, if the United States wasn’t in agreement, they would cause the government to change through upheavals and revolts.
Going along with this idea of being an international monitor, when Egypt was invaded due to nationalizing land owned by Great Britain and France, the United States ordered them to stop what they were doing and to leave the area; they listened. This further established that the United States was, and is, a major world power. The United States was not only in the role of overthrowing governments not in line with its interests, the United States also worked to make sure that governments that did have the same interests as America stayed in power. This can be seen when the government of Lebanon was defended against the leader of Egypt’s attempt to join all Arab nations so that he could rule them.
Vietnam also became a focus of the Cold War. After gaining independence from France, after inaction on the part of the United States, a peace conference divided it into north and south. Ultimately, the communist leader, Ho Chi Minh, revolted and overtook the whole country, leading to an all communist country. The United States attempted to hold back the communist army, but failed.
Though not directly fighting each other, the United States and the Soviet Union worked through the Third World to exert dominance and show that it was truly the world power. In the third world, the developing countries had decisions to make on the type of government they wanted. If the United States was not pleased, they would get involved to make sure its interests were satisfied. Both world powers attempted to cause the Third World to develop in their way of society, whether capitalism or communism. The Third World became a “battlefield” between the ideologies of the Soviet Union and the United States.
LikeLike
2) During the 1950s, the emergence of the automobile led to significant changes in the development of American communities and the rise of suburbs. The automobile was crucial to the rise of suburban neighborhoods, communities, and cities. These new cities were unlike the traditional urban centers with downtown business districts and public transportation linking neighborhoods; the new suburban cities were considerably more decentralized, and were linked by highways. In the Los Angeles basin, for example, the old system of trains and buses was dismantled and replaced with freeways for automobiles. Automobiles effectively became the center of life; people drove to work, shopped at malls, and went on long-distance vacations, all with their automobiles. Because of this new facet of society, communities developed accordingly to accommodate these changes. All-new businesses such as motels, drive-in theaters, and fast food restaurants sprang up; McDonald’s for instance, began in Illinois in 1954, and within ten years 700 McDonald’s stands had been constructed. Overall, the automobile transformed American communities in the 1950s, and these changes are still very prevalent in 2016.
More importantly, the automobile played a major role in transforming American life and culture in the 1950s. This time period marked a stark shift in American ideals of freedom, becoming centered on economic abundance and consumerism. Because of technological innovations, low unemployment, and improved standard of living, the average American people could now enjoy amenities that had only been available to the wealthy up to this point. The automobile was one such luxury that, in the 1950s, became more accessible than ever before. In 1959, there were 56 million cars in America, and by 1960, 80 percent of American families owned at least one automobile. One of the most important changes that the automobile symbolized in America was increased individual freedom, or the ability to gratify oneself according to one’s desires. Automobiles represented life on the “open road,” and the ability to make one’s way in the world. Along with other innovations, the automobile effectively transformed life, and created, as Richard Nixon put it, “prosperity for all in a classless society.” Ultimately, the automobile played a significant role in changing American life and promoting a culture revolving around consumers and capitalism.
LikeLike
9. How did many southern whites, led by their elected officials, resist desegregation and civil rights in the name of “freedom”?
Despite a growing civil rights movement and an attempt at desegregation, the South remained largely segregated. A major cause of this was suburbanization. White who purchased homes viewed their house “not only [as] an emblem of freedom but the family’s major investment” (Foner 941).As as result, they were fearful of anything that would lessen their investment. This included African-American neighbors. One man said of a potential African-American neighbor “‘He’s probably a nice guy, but every time I see him, I see a $2,000 drop off the value of my house.'” (Foner 941) White homeowners would be chased from areas when the threat of ethic minorities moving in was raised. While not official, such housing discrimination reinforced racial segregation in schools and jobs.
While segregated housing was an unofficial segregation of blacks and whites, there were plenty of official acts that kept the races apart. Segregation was considered lawful as long as the races had equal facilities. This was commonly known as “separate but equal” from a phrase in Plessy vs. Ferguson. White Americans believed this protected their freedom of not having to share facilities with people they considered inferior and protected the rights of parents to “‘direct the lives and education of their own children'” (Foner 958). The problem with this idea is that the races were kept separate, but hardly kept equal. Black schools had inferior supplies and funding. Their facilities were worse than white schools and their teachers were usually less educated. When the federal courts tied to desegregate schools in what The Southern Manifesto of 1956 refers to as “a clear abuse of judicial power” (Foner 958), white citizens were livid. They showed up at previously-white schools when black children were showing up and protested their admission, even resorting to violence. The state governments helped by not persecuting this violence as well as sending police and state troopers to block the entrance of the students. The national government had to send its own troops to force the students into the building. The national government was not very successful as by the time “Eisenhower left office, fewer than 2 percent of black students attended desegregated schools in the states of the old Confederacy” (Foner 967).
Housing and school were not the only places where segregation and civil rights of black Americans were abused. In the South, violation of voting rights for African-Americans was a major problem. Legally blacks could vote, but measures were put in place to limit the amount of actual voting by blacks. One was a poll tax that was too steep for many blacks to afford. There was also significant violence that blacks faced when visiting the polls. Finally, a literary test was put in place that many blacks could not pass thanks to their inferior schools. The results of these tests were also often changes so that blacks would fail. Rosa Parks supposedly failed such a literary test twice before passing the third attempt to become “one of the few blacks in Montgomery able to cast a ballot” (Foner 963).
The fifties and sixties were a tumultuous time in the South, The national government was trying to desegregate and preserve civil rights for blacks, but the general white populace as well as the state senators viewed this as an attempt on their freedoms. Despite violence and discriminatory laws against Blacks, civil rights would eventually succeed.
LikeLike
1. Explain the meaning of the “American standard of living” during the 1950s.
Answer: The idea of an “extraordinarily high standard of living” first emerged through an address from Vice President Richard Nixon. He remarked that in comparison to the Soviet Union, the United States had achieved “prosperity for all in a classless society,” which was something the Soviet Union could only hope for. This lifestyle consisted of high-quality products and inventions, where a majority of Americans enjoyed the freedom of consumer choice within a suburban setting. This era brought the “golden age” of capitalism, where most citizens lived better than their parents and grandparents had. There was low unemployment, stable prices, and economic expansion. The high standard of living also displayed a change in American values; it showed a shift in mindset toward material goods, new products, and innovative inventions. This was so widespread and significant because there was a population that supported it. There was a tight association between the concept of freedom and the ownership of consumer goods. Nearly 90% of Americans had a television within their home, and owning a car seemed essential to being a true American. With its stable economy and a booming consumer society, America was a large influence on the rest of the world. The soft power of American culture was stronger than its military force. The United States had emerged as a real world power in both world wars, but its heightened standard of living established it as one of the most dominant countries worldwide.
LikeLike
5. Explain the idealogical rifts between conservatives in the 1950’s. Why did many view Eisenhower as “not one of them”?
In the 50’s the conservatives split into two groups called the Libertarian Conservationists and the New Conservationists. This was cause by ideological rifts. The difference between these two groups of conservationists were the way that the thought. The libertarians were opposed to a strong national government because they strongly wanted true freedom meaning that the government was there to protect us, but we have our own God given free-will. The New Conservatives believed freedom was a moral condition, and sometimes the freedoms needed to be take back a bit. The reason the conservationists didn’t think of Eisenhower as one of them was because what he wanted didn’t necessarily go along with what the republicans views, like limiting freedom and expanding bureaucracy. He wasn’t a classic republican.
LikeLike