Harlem Riots

Hi my name is Enis Bektesevic. I am currently studying Violence in American Art and Culture taught by Professor Justin Rogers Cooper. This class focused on major riots that took place in America and some fiction novels that relate to these riots. We are finishing off the semester with the Harlem riots. The takeaway from this class that will stay with me is not only the simple fact that I have learned about these riots that would've been otherwise hidden from me, but knowledge as to why people caused the riots because as a class we discussed the possible reasons and shared many different point of views. My belief is that people riot when they feel that their human rights are violated and there is no civilized options left on the table, so expressing rage is an effective way of getting a point across.

The Harlem riot of 1935 began after a black Puerto Rican boy was caught shoplifting. Authorities kept the boy away from excited spectators, an action that ultimately lead the spectators to believe that the boy had been later killed. This was just a false rumor and caused that African American community to riot and cause destruction to Harlem.

But this incident is merely the reason why this riot took place. The African American community in Harlem was severely mistreated by whites because of their race. All of the local stores were only owned by whites and blacks were not allowed to open their own stores. Another thing was that blacks weren't even allowed to work at these stores. In fact, blacks were only allowed to spend their money in these stores, go figure. Blacks were also mistreated by white police officers frequently. Meat prices were raised past the normal prices because blacks did not have any political power to prevent this from happening, which forced them to spend more money on meat that they didn't have. These are just a few examples of a typical day in the life for an African American living in Harlem.

Any one who has empathy can see why these riots occurred. This incident was just a spark to an already angered African American community. A tipping point that gave this fed up community a reason to let their anger come out in order to fight against discrimination.

May Day

Hello my name is Enis Bektesevic from ENN195 Violence in American Art and Culture, an Urban Studies course at LaGuardia Community College in Queens New York. After reading through many riots that took place and after reading a few fiction novels, I've gained some knowledge as to why violence has occurred here in our country and I believe in most of the riots, violence is a consequence of Capitalism.

In May Day, by F. Scott Fitzgerald, the observation of the text leads you to believe that he is not for Capitalism and is for Socialism. This is why this piece was not used around public schools after it was published. What sticks out to me most after the reading is the fact that Fitzgerald kind of portrays  the soldiers who came back from WWI as brainwashed ignorant proud citizens who are actually supporting a system of Capitalism that used them for the benefit of making a few people rich and not really doing much for them. After a Jewish socialist gave a realistic speech to the soldiers on how J.P Morgan and Rockefeller are the only ones capitalizing from the war while the soldiers are lucky to even still have their wives if they haven't already ran off with someone else while they were serving their country. Fitzgerald pokes fun at the mentality of the soldiers by making them ignorant to this fact by beating up the truth speaking Jewish man. The soldiers are clearly full of pride-or a weapon the the government instilled in this soldiers to support this way of Capitalism. They are brainwashed by thinking they are benefitting themselves by risking their lives for their country to gain a sense of belonging and entitlements when in fact they are not being rewarded because they are still in the low ranks of society while the rich are benefitting by selling and making money off of the war.

Blog Comments

These are the links to the blog comments that I left for Taylor and Eric.

Casear's Column 2

Hello, my name is Enis Bektesevic from LaGuardia Community College. I am currently studying a course in Violence in American Art and Culture. This has been an interesting class that has me focusing on why people commit violence and if it is every justified. We have studied violence from real and fictional text. Right now we are reading Caesar's Column by Ignatius Donnelly, a fictional story involving the clash of the classes about a secret society that is trying to over throw a corrupt-rich favoring American Government.

The theme that catches my eye in this novel is the Sociopathic nature displayed by the rich people and Oligarchy-who are obviously also rich. While the corrupt and poor man hating Prince Cabano forms a meeting with other members of the Oligarchy, a description of the members are given. Donnelly points out, "You can tell them at a glance-large, coarse, corpulent men; red faced, brutal; decorated with vulgar taste; loud-voiced, selfish, self-assertive; cringing sycophants to all above them, slave-drivers of all below them. (93). All these characteristics are all little elements that make up a sociopath, but the keywords are "slave drivers". This sociopathic nature is basically what is the main force that drives the rich to take all the money in the world for themselves while allowing the poor just enough to eat and survive in order to have the ability to work for pennies that ultimately allows the rich to maintain their wealth. There is absolutely no other way for the rich to be able to do something so inhumane, they have to be unemotional and unsympathetic towards the people they are causing such misery to. In the beginning of the novel, Gabriel describes the rich, "The chief features of the men were incredulity, unbelief, cunning, observation, heartlessness. I did not see a good face in the whole room..." (15). Again, we see the rich described with elements that point out to sociopathic nature. This theme floats around constantly whether it is describing physical features of the rich, or the actions of the rich. I think Donnelly uses theme heavily to really make the rich stand out as the "bad guys."

Caesar's Column

Hello, my name is Enis Bektesevic, I am currently studying a course in Violence in American Art and culture at LaGuardia Community College. We've started out this course studying infamous violent riots that took place in America and now shifted to fiction novels, we are currently reading Caesar's Column by Ignatius Donnely which was published in 1891. This is an interesting science fiction story about a secret society that is trying to overthrow a corrupt American government and implant a system which is fair for all of mankind to enjoy.

As Gabriel theoretically discusses with his companion Maximilian about the way he would reform world business regulation, he comes up with many interesting and well thought out ideas. The one that really stuck out to me was when he says "I should establish a maximum beyond which no man could own property. I should not stop his accumulation when he had reached that point, for with many men accumulation is an instinct; but I should require him to invest the surplus, under the direction of board of management, in great works for the benefit of the classes." (63). This greed stifling regulation sounds promising and most importantly effective because it minimizes poverty by producing more valuable resources that also produce more jobs for people such as schools, orphans, libraries etc,. that provide a much needed lift for people in the lower classes. Imagine, having rich people being required to build Colleges with the extra money they have laying around. Even though this all sounds like the ethical thing to do, it seems to be absolutely ridiculous to ask any government to make this type of tweak to the existing system because the rich have so much say in terms of policies and regulations that shape the system of how businesses need to run. They would laugh at this very idea and make it seem like it is completely absurd and some how make convincing arguments against it.

Looking back at the Railroad riots of 1877, I try to picture how things would have unfolded if this kind of system was in play. Even if wage cuts would have still happened, Railroad workers would have some type of resources to fall back on to ease their loss in pay. Maybe the surplus would have been used for welfare that didn't exist at the time. Railroad owners would also be limited to own a specific amount of profit earning railroads, that would  probably open more doors for other aspiring business men who are trying to climb up the ranks of their place in society. Business men would be known for how much they've contributed to the lower classes and not by how much wealth they have accumulated. Today, we usually say "wow, that person is so rich" but imagine saying "wow, that person did the most for mankind, God bless him/her."

The Destruction of Gotham

Hello my name is Enis Bektesevic, I am a student at LaGuardia Community College. In am studying violence resulting from rioting in past America in my Violence in American Art and Culture class. The course has covered important riots that are often overlooked today. Currently, our class is reading Joaquin Miller's fiction novel The Destruction of Gotham.

Dot Lane is a very young character from the story whose father, a southern American soldier, passes away at war with her mother dying shortly after. According to a passage from chapter three, Dot is all alone in the big city of Manhattan appearing to be so small and insignificant in her new environment (28). According to the text, "every poor waif of this world, no matter how poor, lone, friendless, despised, did, at one time, fill some such young mother's cup of life completely with unalloyed delight."(28). The narrator suggests that observing a "wretched" person will make more fortunate people feel "tender" for such a person (28). Furthermore, a "waif" at some point in the past could have meant the world to someone else, therefore the narrator may be suggesting that we should try to relate and feel sympathetic for a person in this situation.

In another passage, Dot Lane is sitting on a bench with her daughter. The day drags on and Dot is feeling very idle (54). Then, "She suddenly sprang to her feet" (54) after seeing the father of her child (Matherson) walking towards her, "her face radiant with love and hope and fear, her glorious eyes glowing with uncommon fire, her whole frame quivering and trembling with a wild delight."(54). Matherson's presence completed shifted the mood of the passage and Dot's emotions after making her face "radiant with love and hope and fear,...) (54). Furthermore, this shows that Dot is extremely emotionally attached to Matherson. The connection between these two passages is that both give different angles of how significant others are emotionally attached to another person. Dot meant the world to her mother, and Matherson means the world to her.

"The Great Railroad Riots of 1877"

Hi, my name is Enis Bektesevic from LaGuardia Community College. Violence in American Art and Culture (ENN195) is one of the courses I am currently studying here. So far we have been acquainted with extremely violent Bread and Railroad riots that occurred in the 19th century. It is not surprising that these extreme events are rarely mentioned today because of the influence they can provide to people who are fed up with American Government, City and State laws, and the Corporate world etc.

In J.T Headley's "Railroad Riots of 1877," railroad workers are bitter about wage cuts and decide to strike and completely put the railroad system at a standstill until they get what they want. The initial Martinsburgh strike sends off a chain reaction east and west to the point of National Crisis. The narrator's tone and language suggest that he is on the side of the owners although he sometimes mentions that workers are being treated unjustly. His main idea is that: being a victim of unfair wage cuts does not give anyone the right to commit a crime in return, in this case violence.

The Railroad owners are displaying abuse of power because they feel they are "above" the social status of the workers. It's fitting that the narrator (Headley) is against communism and one of the reasons being is that he believes people should have distinct ranks based on their position in social class. People are people, no matter how successful we are. Owners didn't really have a legit reason to cut wages, Headley himself admits that owners sometimes cut wages for the sole purpose of making more money (350). It's obvious that this is unethical and the workers have every right to strike and be angry. The owners are simply taking advantage of the workers and the workers simply don't want to take it. Can you really blame them? the owners are basically taking money away from their employees but are not taking away any amount sweat off their backs.

Do you think it is unethical for businesses to cut wages or layoff employees for the sole purpose of making more profit? Or do you think businesses are responsible for creating sufficient jobs for people as long as these businesses are doing well?

Is there any other way for the Railroad workers to get a solution to their unfair wage cuts beside acting violently? If there isn't, do you think their actions are justified?

"Flour Riot of 1837"

Hi my name is Enis Bektesevic, I am a student at LaGuardia Community College. One of the courses I am currently studying is ENN195 or Violence in American Art and Culture. The course involves reading and film of violent rioting that occurred in past America.

The first thought that comes to my mind when reading about violent rioting is whether or not the violence by people is justifiable. Some people can argue that violence is completely unacceptable, and probably should be; however, it's very important to try to understand why someone would resort to violence. Some times becoming violent is the only option in a situation where a solution is absolutely necessary. In the "Flour Riot of 1837," J.T Headley points out "... when they have a large stock of anything on hand, of which there threatens to be a scarcity, to hold on in order to make the scarcity greater- thus forcing higher prices." (99).  The unfair effects of monopoly that the merchants are using as a weapon to make more money than they normally would is viewed as simply being greedy in the minds of New York residents. Residents do have the right to feel rage because merchants are playing around with the survival of other human beings. In this time period, flour was a vital part for food preparation. Instinct also tells the residents that if merchants get away with jacking up flour barrel prices to the point of being unreachable then maybe other merchants will do the same with other types of food ingredients. The reason behind the merchants greedy decision making is simply because they feel they can get away with it, which is most disturbing and deserving of retaliation even if it means violence.