tv Lectures in History Expanding Rights in the 1960s 70s CSPAN March 24, 2020 10:08am-10:59am EDT
time this week as a preview of what's available every weekend on c-span 3. tonight, we'll show you an academic tour of the big 10 conference from our lectures in history series with classes from purdue, rutgers, michigan and nebraska. university of maryland professor christopher bonner leads off with a class about the concept of power in antebellum slave societies. american history tv, tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. we take you now to the university of north carolina at chapel hill for a history lecture on expanding rights in the 1960s and '70s. you'll learn about how the women's liberation and gay rights movements began and expand into public rights acceptance. >> the rights revolution today, let's start with a little story. 1963, this woman, cherry
finkbime, not her real name, the story was about a choice that her family was facing. she was pregnant. her husband had recently travelled to europe where he acquired a drug called thalidimide. it had not been approved for use yet in the united states of america but it was available in many european countries to treat a number of different things, anxiety, insomnia and nausea. nausea here is key. so, women began taking it to aleve morning sickness. sherry's husband had been in europe, he acquired these pills and brought them back home for her. she's pregnant, she takes about 40 of them during -- early on in her pregnancy. she and her husband did not know that thalidomide causes birth defects. then she read an article about the drug, found out more, and she called her doctor. she started to learn more about what thalidomide can do.
for developing babies, children, thalidomide caused brain damage, damage to the eyes, nose, ears, face and it can also severely damaged growth of limbs. in many cases, the children affected by thalidomide did not survive at all. in england, about half of the thalidomide babies died within a few months. somewhere around 10,000 of these children were born in total we think. all across the world, mostly in western europe. making this an incredibly dangerous drug before the problem was discovered and the drug was later banned. so the issue for sherry finkbein is this. she has four children. she calls her doctor when she learns about what the drug can do. her doctor says come on in. she goes in and he starts to show her pictures of these
children who had been born to mothers who had taken the drug. she said she remembered feeling like someone telling you your child has been run over by a truck. her doctor recommended an abortion, which was only legal in cases that might affect the mother's life at that point in time. sherry and her family are faced with a choice. do you have the child knowing that his or her life is going to be -- might be incredibly difficult, provide an enormous financial and emotional burden for you and your other children, or that the child might not survive past a few months any way, or do you follow the doctor's suggestion and have an abortion? she said, naturally i had misgivings. there is life there. do i have the right to take it? but is it like when you can't dress yourself, run, walk, dance, play games? have dates? if i had no choice, i would have the baby, but i have a way to prevent this tragedy, this sadness. then something happened here that removed that choice. a panel of doctors said that she could not have an abortion in
the state of arizona. at the end of the day, that meant that she had to leave the country if she wanted to have the procedure. ultimately, the details here are not as important as the broader concept, that the choice was not hers and her family's to make. it was the panel of doctors or the state that got to make that choice. so this is at the heart of the issue of much of what we are going to talk about today. not the details, but who gets to make that sort of a choice and how that changes. should that choice that's an incredibly difficult, ethical, moral choice, be made by the family, by the doctor, by a team of doctors, the government or people that don't even know the family perhaps? who knows? it is not my job to tell you how to make that choice or who should make it. i think that's between every family, their doctor, certainly perhaps their god. i'm going to talk about how that changed in the united states of
america. that is much of what we are going to do today. of course this was part of a broader rights revolution in american society that fundamentally changed american society in the 1960s and 1970s. we've been talking about rights in the class and we will crescendo with that rights revolution. one major change here. one of the big difference between this in the civil rights movement is this is a movement that is calling on the expansion of what rights actually are. in the civil rights movement, it was largely about rights that were already guaranteed to african-americans that were not being enforced. 14th amendment, 15th amendment, the civil rights act, voting rights act were largely about reconstruction amendments. this is about asking the constitution to be expanded. to consider a different kind of rights. that is what we'll talk about today as we close the book on
the '60s. i have a generic '60s collage here. the '60s were a complex decade. they are famous and remembered in a particular way. when you're think of the '60s before this class, what do you think about? >> disco. >> disco, dancing, music. what else? >> civil rights. >> a huge part. >> the kennedy assassination. >> the assassination of john f. kennedy in 1963. not the only one. >> sexual revolution of the '60s. >> sexual revolution of the 1960s. again because we cover so much in this class, i teach a class on the '60s but we are going to
try to cover that here in the next 40 minutes or so. so, the '60s generally speaking. a big misconception is that it was revolution and chaos for everybody all the time. it was certainly not. for many americans, the 1960s are basically this, a continuation of the 1950s. especially the early 1960s. it's an era of prosperity. the median family income was $5,3663. about $43,000 today. it's an era of security, upward mobility, social economic class. unemployment rate was 4.8% for men. for women, it was 5.4%. consumerism and youth culture, suburban growth, rock and roll. when we think about the 1960s, people might think about woodstock as a major cultural event. but the hippies and counterculture didn't have
anything on the actual cultural flashpoints that most people experience. the three highest grossing films of the 1960s, the sound of music, 101 dalmatians, and the jungle book. you have seen many of those movies. disney dominates the 1960s because of all the baby boomers going out wanting to go to the movies. a lot more salt the sound of music man went to woodstock. of course, as we talked about, the 1950s did not work for everyone. the '50s were good for many but had problems for many other people. racial limitations, jim crow in the south and housing segregation in the north. poverty come as we have talked about before, one-fifth of all americans lived in poverty. gender limitations. this is one we will lean into today. women did not have the same
opportunities as men for employment and social advancement. there were also unique disadvantages that women faced. also conformity, boredom. doesn't work for everybody. but the 1960s were also characterized by this incredible sense of optimism and hope. the sense of optimism is incredible. so people from all walks of life, even the most downtrodden disadvantaged people, poor black southerners who had never had voting rights, are so hopeful because of america's place in the world and the rhetoric of its leaders. some of the famous lines from the 1960s were dripping in this sense of hope. john f. kennedy, january 21, 1961. washington, d.c., i quote, i do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. the energy, the faith and devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it and the glow from that fire can light the world. the expansiveness of that optimism. martin luther king jr., perhaps the most hopeful speech in american history. i have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will be not judged the color of their skin but by the content of their character. i have a dream that one day
every valley shall be exalted and every hill shall be laid low. the crooked places will be made straight in the glory of the lord initial be revealed and all flesh shall see it together. that is an incredible sense of optimism that many people share. so we've had these moments so far where we fixed some of these issues in the class, and we'll dig in on sort of a new one today. a couple weeks ago, we were talking about the civil rights movement and how that works. the sit-s in, the student nonviolent coordinating committee, voting rights act. jim crow is dead. killed in the mid-1960s. a system that had existed since the new south. black southerners can vote. civil-rights movement did not solve all racial problems but it did fundamentally change the nation and of course we should recognize that. poverty. this great society. equal opportunity act, medicare and medicaid help people that are susceptible to falling into deep debt because of health care costs. we get housing grants, higher education act, which affects all of you today.
the poverty rate declines rapidly in the 1960s. for some groups, the 1960s is the definitive moment of the decline of poverty in the history of america. helped people go to schools, receive job training, and it remains an enormous part of the society. the great society did not end poverty by any stretch of the imagination. of course, that is one criticism of it. at the end of the day, we have never gotten back to poverty like that in this country ever since then. we have some solutions already. let's look at some other issues. one that we will focus on today here are gender limitations. especially limitations for women. we talked about this in the 1950s, after the midterm. women's domestic roles -- y'all remember the kitchen debate? what was that kitchen debate about? richard nixon and nikita khrushchev. what is the whole point of the kitchen debate?
what is up with women in the kitchen? >> talking about how in america the women's place was in the kitchen and it described her identity in the household. >> okay. yeah. anybody else want to add to that? >> also focused on how in america the children were at the forefront, the women were able to offer the children a safe place and educate them. >> okay. yeah. so there's this notion that a woman's place is in the kitchen with the children and as benign as that might seem in some television shows and all that, there were real serious results here. there were some serious problems. look, it's sheer sexism in some case. a lot of people believe that women lack the intelligence or emotional stability to perform many of the same jobs as men. that women need a man to take
care of them and manage broader parts of their lives. also, they really don't have a broader role in society outside of rearing those children in the kitchen. again, they have real consequences here. it is not just a moderate inconvenience. aw shucks, i can't go to law school because i have to have the baby, but it's real discrimination that limits women's freedom and affects the potential of their lives. in 1960, a credit card company could refuse to give a woman a credit card because she was a woman. if you have a credit card in your pocket today, that was not always the case. women could not serve on juries in every state. you could not get birth control in every state. a woman could be fired from her job for becoming pregnant. women could not go to ivy league law schools. yale and princeton did not admit women until 1969. consider the opportunities that all the men who go to the schools get that women are instantly blocked from. all those career paths. it is not a meritocracy. it's not competitive.
no women allowed quite literally. women did not receive the same pay for the same work as men of course. in many states, women by legal definition could not be raped by their spouses and they could not unilaterally divorce their husbands. that means that legally many women did not have recourse for a bad or dangerous marriage. they were at a severe financial disadvantage if they tried to leave the marriage and couldn't get a credit card or a job. so many people were simply trapped. then of course, who gets into law school, who gets to become a doctor, who gets promoted. just this general outright sexism that limited women's ability to rise in society in the same way as men. of course many women, especially at this moment when we had this generational shift, baby boomers coming up being told there are endless possibilities, they want better lives. they don't want these artificial restrictions placed on their lives. they want better opportunities than their mothers had had. so, in response to these limitations, progressive women
launched a civil rights movement of their own. largely understood and called second wave feminism. also referred to as women's liberation movement. we often call it second wave feminism, because the first wave occurred during the progressive era. the female dominion. we talked about many of the changes that occurred in the 1910s. second wave feminism is inspired by the civil rights movement. the civil-rights movement inspired a whole host of movements after it. people see what people like martin luther king jr. are doing, they say we have a problem with our group, too, so we launch a similar movement. they use the same tactics. sit-ins, boycotts, marches. in fact, leaders were part of the civil rights movement for joining the women's liberation movement. of course, the idea of rights here is different. one thing that's different is that they seek to expand the idea of rights. not just say be true to what you set on paper like martin luther king jr. said, but actually these are rights that women should have even though they are not explicitly guaranteed in the constitution already. so they build upon the leadership of older women's
activists, but they are sparked by the injection of new energy. it begins in the early 1960s and lasts through the late 1970s. you could argue with people about when it ends, if it's over, et cetera we don't have time to get into that now. the goals are this, reproductive rights, end employment discrimination, so all of these limitations with jobs, one of the readings for today mentioned that less than 10% of doctors and attorneys in the early 1960s were women. end employment discrimination. educational access. in these rules that restrict schools to being only for men, of course, this cultural aspect. women's liberation. free themselves of norms and expectations that constrict women's roles in society. and one thing we've got to understand here too is this is not just a binary.
it's not all women who are pushing for second wave feminism at all. we'll talk about one of the women who was an opponent. there were plenty of male advocates of second wave feminism too. let's start with reproductive rights by looking at the pill. so one of the most important inventions in modern american history, we don't think of that way because it's not, you know, steal or it doesn't fly or it doesn't shoot or anything like that, it doesn't blow anything up. the pill is absolutely essential throughout much of the rest of the course and to this point in time in your own lives. in 1960, the fda approved the
pill for use by the public. 1962, 1.2 million american women were on it. by 1963, it went to up 2.3 million. at that moment in 1965, it had become the most popular form of birth control for women in america. the pill offers a lot of benefits for women. okay, gives them more power of their reproductive lives, it allows them to discreetly control the number of children that they have. it's birth control that is effective and does not rely on a man's cooperation. and it's not just for single women by any means. a lot of married women also take the pill because it enables them to take control of the size of their family. that's not just a decision about how many babies you want to have, it's an economic decision and a labor decision. more people would have used the pill, but it was not legal everywhere. i know, that's hard for us to
wrap our head around. the pill was actually outlawed in several states until 1965. enter some of our activists, ellen griswold. i'm sorry. estelle griswold. she was the director of planned parenthood in the state of connecticut. the state of connecticut had this old law passed in 1879 that made it illegal to use a camera exception or to assist in helping advise others how to use or access contraceptions. we could be fined and receive a light prison sentence for helping people use contraception. with the support of planned parenthood, griswold decides to challenge this law. she and a doctor open up a birth control clinical that provides
contraceptive services to married couples. instead of the stigma of working with single women they decide to work with married couples. so they of course charged with violating the state law and they decide to challenge that ruling based on the constitutionality of the law. it goes up the ladder, goes to the supreme court. in 1965, the supreme court rules in the favor of griswold. the ruling is largely based on the ix amendment to the constitution. a lot of amendments are invoked, but it's about individual rights. this is what -- part of the ninth amendment says. the enumeration and the constitution of certain rights should not be constructed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. it means that rights are implied but not stated can also be rights. so the thinking behind this logic of deciding griswold v. connecticut, it's individual couples should have the freedom and right to decide whether or not they're going to use contraception. it's about private, family life. that's who gets to make the
decision. and so it's a major victory in terms of access to contraception. it prevents states from forbidding the use of the pill it gives women, married and unmarried, greater access to the birth control pill and it serves as a forerunner to roe v. wade which is of course much more famous. in 1970 a woman with the fictional name of jane roe filed a lawsuit over the anti-abortion law in that county. before roe abortion was widely illegal unless you could have a panel of doctors write you a note or approve of an abortion in cases that were needed to save the life of a woman. so that does not mean of course that women did not have abortions. women with access to doctors had abortions off the books. others went to underground providers because they were
desperate which could be dangerous. part of the protests surrounding reproductive access focused on basically saying, abortions are going to happen anyone, it's better if they occur aboveground as opposed to underground. it's going to happen whether or not there's an open market for it or not. if they were legal, perhaps they would be safer. 1953, sexologists at indiana conducted a survey and found that 22% of married women had had an abortion. the data is part of the kensie report. clearly come women were having abortions but it wasn't something that people talked about openly with their friends all the time. these things were hidden. of course people were having them for a number of different reasons. financial reasons, too many
children already, the health of the mother, the baby may not live. when we have these conversations now, we tend to focus on the extreme cases. every case back then, like it is now and individual. every single case is hard and it should be hard. but what roe v. wade did in 1973 was it decided similar to griswold v. connecticut that it was not up to the government to make these decisions for women. in the final decision, the court -- they spoke of a number of different precedences and they spoke of another precedent. i'm going to quote from the decision of roe v. wade. the right of the individual married or single to be free from unwarranted government intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear
or beget a child. and of course they ultimately conclude, and i quote, that right necessarily includes the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. so in terms of a legal matter, all of these debates we have about abortion today you all saw of course the protests that were out on polk place a couple of weeks ago. how many of you saw those? there's a lot of conversations happening out there. they're using a certain tactic. but legally, it's not about morality or religion. it's just not. there's a question that individuals have to deal with, but when roe v. wade was decided, it's a question of choice and authority. it's a question of who gets to make this difficult choice, who has the authority to make this incredibly difficult choice. it's not about what those people think, the law as it stands today is about what individual actors think. anybody have any questions so far? okay. something that's an incredible
coincidence, i would say, is not only people realize this, roe is decided on the same day that president johnson died in texas. here's the headline for "the washington post" on that particular day. lyndon b. johnson dies at 64 and supreme court allows early stage abortions. of course they're also talking about the vietnam war at the same time. pretty big news day. let's move on to employment discrimination. the 1964 civil rights act when it was passed, to sabotage the act, a couple of legislators decided to insert a gender clause. that backfired. it also in terms of what it did for race which we talked about
in the class, it made it illegal to discriminate based on sex. and so initially a lot of women's organizations are pretty optimistic that this will be enforced. but when it is not, of course, a group of women in 1966 found an organization called the national organization for women. so now it's founded in june of 1966 at the third annually conference of commission. by its first major organizational meeting in 1966, it was small. had about 300 members. by the early '70s, it had grown to 40,000 members. now it's primary purpose is to create pressure to enforce -- to pressure local governments and the federal government to enforce title seven of the civil rights act which made it illegal to discriminate based on sex as well as race. there's this legislative base that's there already. you can challenge the law based on what you know is going on, they have to go out and prove it. they're going to fight legally for women in terms of job discrimination, college
discrimination, college admission discrimination, so on and so forth. even beyond that, they expand more fully. they're lobbyists, they deliver speeches, take part in demonstrations. they vote, of course, they conduct boycotts to make sure that title 7 is enforced. one of the first things they do, they help fight sex segregated help wanted ads. a lot of the ads would say we want a man for this job, a woman for this job. and they helped fight against that and got that removed from the new york city papers. a lot of ads would explicitly say we want a man for this job, we want a woman for this job and they fought to get that removed. they're also the first national organization to publicly endorse the legalization of abortion. in 1968, now member shirley chisholm becomes the first black woman elected to congress. the equal credit act, title nine, proving employment
discrimination, they win thousands of women back pay, that sort of a thing. they're the big sort of watchdog against gender based job discrimination and they're a vanguard of second wave feminism. it has also has a number of goals and there's a whole series of different protests where people -- people show up to talk about different things happening in society that are problematic for women. okay? they want to expand this idea of women beyond not only just homemakers, wives, mothers, that sort of a thing, but also beyond that of just sheer sex objects. so here is an image of women protesting outside the 1968 miss america pageant in atlantic city, new jersey. this pageant is going on. you all have seen miss america pageant. you know there's different talent contests but a lot of is is the women march across stage
in a variety of outfits. these women showed up in 1968 to protest. what do you see here in terms of their protests and sort of this tactic? i wonder what you make of that. what's the argument here? >> they're emphasizing the dehumanization of women, the miss america perpetuates. >> okay, yeah. other observations? what do you make of this? >> looking at the physical attributes versus the mind pretty much. >> is this a little too far, do you think? this chart, you all have seen the chart, you go to a steakhouse and they show you where all the cuts are from, and they're mocking it with this. that a woman is like a cow, being reduced to the different parts of her body that should be celebrated at the miss america cattle auction, as they say. the argument is that women here
are being treated merely as sex objects. that there is a major problem with the culture of the miss america pageant. this is one thing and different protests that people have a problem with. they want to have women portrayed more for their minds, for their ambitions, who they are as more complete people, as opposed to this miss america protest. and this draws a great deal of attention. this is covered in every major national publication and gets this incredible backlash where people are like, these are beautiful women. there's a talent part of it. they're doing their thing. it's an enormous controversy. we're seeing more open, direct protests against these depictions of women in more
traditional ways. think back to the ads they're protesting about as well. a lot of this action leads people to be more careful about the way women are depicted in magazines and advertisements. that's not an issue that we've moved entirely beyond. but we get access to different programs that help women intellectually for college campuses. the department of women's studies opens in 1976. all of over the country you get departments that open at this exact period of time. they also protest and call for what's known as the equal rights amendment. so the late 1960s, women's rights activists gain some ground in terms of adding a new amendment to the constitution that deals specifically with sex and sex discrimination. the equal rights amendment, the e.r.a. for sure. this idea is old. and it was really revived in the early 19660s with the national organization of women picking up
this fight to call for this equal rights amendment. supporters of the equal rights amendment, they argued that the constitution needed a unique amendment that dealt with gender and sex discrimination. current supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg in 1973 argued this, and i quote, the equal rights amendment in some would dedicate the nation to a new view of the rights and responsibilities of men and women. it firmly rejects sharp legislative lines between the sexes as institutionally tolerable. it looks toward a legal system in which each person will be judged on merit and not on a trait of birth. but of course the e.r.a. was not popular. it met a great deal of resistance. one of the most important figures in the resistance to the e.r.a. is this woman. phyllis is a longtime consecutive from st. louis, missouri. she was a graduate of washington university in st. louis.
she also has a masters degree in government from radcliff college and also a law degree from washington university in st. louis. she has three college degrees. she is an incredibly exceptional woman in terms of her public facing nature but also in terms of her education. and one of the interesting issues of phyllis is what women are arguing for, she's already achieved. getting a law degree from washington university was not normal woman who was born in 1924. she uses this very same educational achievement of her own to become this enemy of equal rights amendment in the 1960s and 1970s. we're going to talk about her more on wednesday.
but she has a lot of different thoughts about equal rights, sex discrimination, sexual harassment in the workplace. she becomes famous of a leading critic of second wave feminism. she says that a woman's role is in the home and that the 1950s system, this idea behind the kitchen debate that we just talked about, that's exactly how it should be. not only that, it was actually great for women and families to have this protected status, right? where you can enjoy all of the modern appliances, the safety, where you can enjoy this unique role that women have in the household that was provided by them by not only their husbands but the american system of capitalism. she does not think that women need to work and that women need to even worry about equal rights in the workplace. she doesn't think that women who have children need to work. she says that a lot of the problems that are described by the second wave feminists aren't legitimate concerns. for example, she has a particular view of sexual harassment.
she says, request i quote, sexual harassment on the job is not a problem for virtuous women. so she suggests that women who experience sexual harassment experience that because they dress in a provocative manner. if you're a christian woman who dresses conservatively, you don't have that problem, okay? she also accuses them of being anti-male and accuses it of being a path toward homosexuality and her most direct battle is against this equal rights amendment. she founds an organization with the acronym s.t.o.p. she argues that women that have equal status would undermine the status in this country. it would expose women to the military draft which would make the american military weaker.
she says that it would hurt families by nullifying widows' benefits and lead to gender neutral bathrooms and she's not alone. a lot of labor organizers and different companies also worried that it would undermine gender specific laws. ultimately, the e.r.a. is never passed. the house passed it in 1971. the senate passed it the following year. this equal right amendment in part read equality of rights under the law shall not be denied by the united states or any state on account of sex. but what happened was that not enough states ratified the amendment for the equal rights amendment to be added to the constitution. there was a period in which the amendment would expire and ultimately it was defeated as the deadline was expired. we do not have an equal rights amendment in the united states of america despite there being a good bit of energy at first. we have some real clear results from second wave feminism. 1963, equal pay act, griswold, 1965, the national organization of women. shirley chisholm's elected to congress.
first woman elected to congress was actually 1917 from the state of montana. out west, where a lot of women could vote before they could in other parts of the country. roe v. wade is seen as a great victory for second wave feminism in many people's eyes. in 1974 we get the equal credit act, which ends this discriminate practice of denying people credit based on not only sex and gender but on race. women's studies courses and departments are a direct outcome of second-wave feminism. of course, as you all know, this does not solve every single problem that women face in our society but it is a major leap forward at this moment that a new generation is emerging. one of the things that is so interesting and instructive for our own society today is the way this conversation is still happening.
and so the fight for the equal rights amendment itself is not over. this is a picture from a march of 2017. there are marches all over the country this year, next year, where people are calling for this equal rights amendment to be added to the constitution. like i said, this goes back to the 1920s but it really picked up in the 1960s and people are still calling for it. of course women in recent years have organized to participate in activities at levels we have not seen since the 1960s. january 21st, 2017, somewhere north of 5 million people participated in the women's march across the united states of america. we'll talk more about that but i just want to talk about it in the scope of the 1960s. it's a direct continuation on some of the things that people were advocating for in the 1960s, reproductive rights,
e.r.a., job discrimination, the pay gab. many of the same issues. even though there are victories people are still fighting for those today. we'll talk more about why this happens. the women's march that occurred on january 21, 2017, was the largest civil rights demonstration in the history of the world. okay? so it's a pretty big number. it's in the news all over the place. we have almost 130 women in congress now, we'll get back to this more as we get toward the present in the class. so the same time all of this is happening, second wave feminism is rising, we get the most visible gay rights movement in american history to that point in time that was also emerging. we haven't talked a lot about it. we haven't had the room in this class. but homosexuals and transgender people had been repressed. some specific details, homosexuality was seen as an illness or crime. you could be taken to a hospital
or thrown in jail for being suspected of homosexual activity. homosexuals were classified as sexual deviants. along with child molesterors rapists. it was designated a mental disorder. in all states, sodomy, which targeted homosexual behavior, they thought, was illegal. in some states oral sex was illegal. there was specific legislation targeting homosexuals and there's the discrimination. lgbtq people experienced receive severe discrimination in the same way that women and african-americans had. 1953, the eisenhower administration barred gays and lesbians from all government jobs. the fbi kept a list of people they knew or suspected of being homosexuals.
of cours they were subject to employment and housing discrimination and they were harassed, police arresting them, beating them up, and these folks were subject to extraordinary violence. if you were gay, you couldn't live openly in many parts of america and people tended to congregate in cities such as new york and san francisco where they would have a more close-knit community. in 1969, police entered a gay bar at the stonewall inn in new york city. this happened all the time all over the country. police raiding gay bars. they beat people up, sometimes they stole money, confiscate some of the booze, that sort of a thing. this sort of behavior is happening at stonewall on june 28th, 1969. they're sort of strong arming this woman who is a lesbian and she basically says, you know, what are you all going to do about this? can i get some help here? and the patrons of the bar start to openly resist the police officers. right? they don't necessarily pull out guns and point them back, but
they start to resist the arrest, escape out into the streets, push back on the police officers. as one patron observed, we all had a collective feeling like we had had enough of this kind of shit. the uprising lasts for several days. led to a resurgence of gay rights and visibility. it's huge news all over the country. it's not the first of these. there was actually something similar that occurred in san francisco in 1966. it has this heightened awareness because of this cause it lends to gay rights. things start to happen in the months immediately after the famous stonewall uprising in 1969. there's a wave of activists pro gay newspapers that start in different cities across the country. seas
stonewall. what's happening it's a gay rights movement that existed but more dormant. not a community that always knew who each other were. dangerous to be a part of it. but now coming out in the open after stonewall. exposed to rest of america. what we have here are so many allies start to participate, especially in pride parades and marches. then we get a bunch of firsts that occur in the 1960s then especially the years after stonewall. we start to get openly elected gay officials. first one in ann arbor, michigan. harvey milk's campaign, supervisor in san francisco. 1975 a gay rights bill is introduced into congress. it fails. still have something like that quite like today but introduced in congress. 1974 american psychiatric association changes their
conclusion it's a mental illness. wisconsin became the first state to ban discrimination. 1960s as a whole, we've been talking about this for several weeks. think about taking this all in. we started the lecture right before mid-term with john f. kennedy, the cold war and that whole thing but it is this era, even though benign and pretty stable for most people, era of incredible dramatic change. america looks so much different at the other end of the decade. and we talked about a lot the civil rights movement, great society, vietnam war, all the massive protests. women's liberation. we didn't have time in this class but all sorts of different power moments, different groups who had not their goals satisfied by the civil rights movement start their own power moments and it's not just black people. black power is the most famous
one. american indian movement, red power. yellow power. brown power. hispanic moments. all sorts of new freedoms that people gained throughout the 1960s. this issue of counter culture. we didn't talk about hippies in this class. you know the's sees of what the hippies are. most people growing your hair longer, wearing colorful people. for others taking acid and intexting entire water supplies with acid. then this chaos and confusion and it's not quite as benign and peaceful as many people remember the 1950s to be. then of course the deaths. as paul mentioned president kennedy shot and killed in 1963. all the people killed fighting for the civil rights movement. talked about the four little girls in birmingham, three missing workers in mississippi.
then, of course, all of the people killed in vietnam, the american soldiers. the innocent vietnamese civil n civilians. people are consuming quantities of death in the news all the time. on april 4th, 1968, martin luther king jr. shot and killed in memphis. in 1968 robert kennedy, john f. kennedy's brother was killed in california while campaigning for president. i just want to share as we get down to ten here, i want to share a letter written by one north carolinian to his senator in the summer of 1968, 12 days after bobby kennedy was shot in california. it was written by a white man, father of five from north carolina. i quote, i'm sick of crime every where. i'm sick of riots. i'm sick of poor people demonstration. in parenthesis, black, white, red, yellow, purple, green or any other color!
i'm sick of the u.s. supreme court ruling for the good of a very small part rather than the whole of our society. i'm sick of black law enforcement. i'm sick of vietnam. i'm sick of hippies, lsd, drugs and all the promotion the news media gives them. end quote. the people at the end of 1960s wondered whatever happened though. recall when we started after the mid-term, richard nixon coming home, comes to the house, comfortable life, wife, children, dog, whatever happened to this? so what we're going to see is largely a backlash to the different changes in the 1960s, some more specific than others. parts of the 1960s such as the revolution and end of jim crow but roe v. wade second wave of femininism that people don't accept. in wednesday we'll pick up here with the 196 election where we get another third-party challenger. guess one that is.
guy with the stars in the bars. deep south once again says the hell with the democratic and republican parties and goes after another third-party. we'll talk more about that on wednesday. okay. any questions? >> my wife graduated from high school in '62. she couldn't apply to north carolina because of her gender. >> not this lecture exactly but what made the vietnam war in the late '50s as severe as it was taken during the '60s. >> the number of troops the u.s. had going. the draft wasn't instituted until 1965 pap lot of advisors. people had troops in vietnam. cia is in vietnam. but then the sheer number of
people going that didn't command a lot of people's attention that it did later. anything else? all right. great. i'll see you on wednesday. coming up during this presentation of american history tv, how photography was used to manipulate public opinion during the cold war. then the different opinions, the founding fathers on how the new west should be handled and how the laws changed depending who had influence. we're featuring american history tv programs in primetime this week as a preview of what's available every weekend on c-span 3. tonight we'll show you an academic tour of the big ten conference from our lectures in history series with classes from purdue, rutgers, michigan and be
nebraska. university of maryland professor christopher boehner leads off with a class on history of power in antebellum slave societies. that's tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. the concept of fake news is not new to this generation. wake forest university professor john curly says manipulated photos were used in the cold war. he has samples from mccarthy's crusade. so, last time we were talking about world war ii photography and the ways, you know, ways photographers were interacting with the war and trying to capture the war and he we ended the last time looking at this image right here, the mushroom cloud emerging after the atomic bomb was dropped on