How To Survive A Plague recounts the story of Act Up during the 1980s, when the LGBT community dedicated themselves to ending the Aids crisis and demanded treatment they deserved. Greenwich Village became the epicenter for the movement, and members of the organization were determined to rid society of the sentiment that, as the movie states, gay people deserved Aids and the discrimination that accompanied it by being denied treatment. Sick patients could go four days in a hospital without a bed because the hospitals had incentives not to diagnose, and as a result, people died every single day.

The use of “sacred spaces” in their movement was critical to the success of Act Up. The first example we saw was when the organization protested in front of City Hall, all chanting that, “The government has blood on their hands” and that, “Silence is death”. Then of course medical institutions and hospitals were targeted by Act Up because they wanted to challenge the idea that these places were legitimate in calling themselves sacred, being they withheld treatment to those suffering from Aids. Then there was the extremely moving clip of people pouring their loved one’s ashes on the grass of the White House because Raegan and Bush were responsible for their deaths, and lastly, we saw Act Up protest in the Catholic Church, blaming them for murdering the gay community as well.

This movement was so powerful because of this strategy of theirs to target sacred spaces and to challenge the underlying foundation of all these institutions. Though the government, hospitals and religion pride themselves on being fair and just to all, Act Up was publicly showing that all were failing in their duties regarding the Aids crisis, and no one should be exempt or justified in their actions. And even though they may have widened the gap between the LGBT community and the Church, their efforts were still effective because the media coverage allowed them to reach a far greater amount of people than those within the Church who disagreed with them.

All movements, including the one against police brutality, can learn from Act Up. It is important to try and influence the people who are ignorant, uninformed, or even neutral regarding the matter. Trying to sway extremists is often ineffective and won’t be successful. However, members of Act Up knew that they could influence people because of the attention they would receive since their actions were done publicly. It is this strategic type of activism that has the potential to implement real change in society, just like it did during the Aids crisis.

Molly Ottensoser

In the early 1920s, racism, in its different shapes and forms, took the nation by storm. African Americans were being tested like never before and facing adversity all around the country. Even a place like Harlem, with over 300,000 Black people wasn’t considered safe. This was a time where the Black population had to decide how they would take action and avoid the catastrophes their people were facing too frequently.

Langston Hughes poem “Christ in Alabama” and Billie Holiday’s song “Strange Fruit” give detailed and descriptive insight into how catastrophic these incidences were. They explain that Black people were being tortured, lynched, and killed simply because of the color of their skin. They make no mention of the rape, murders, and crimes that White people claimed the Blacks had committed, because in reality, all these claims were false. Rather, the Whites only said these things to get away with the viciousness and brutality they felt entitled to. Black bodies would be hung for thousands of people to see, and also served as a reminder for people all across the country of what could happen. Both these accounts prove why much of the Black population lived in great fear for the first half of the 20th century.

There were those though who took a stance and became leaders of reform during this time in history. They had different ideals and philosophies on how to end racism once and for all in America. One of these people was Marcus Garvey. Steven Jaffe explains that in 1921 Garvey began the movement of bringing all Negroes back to their homeland, Africa. He felt racism could not be in America any longer if the Blacks were not there either. He started the Universal Negro Improvement Association in order to put his mission of “Africa for the Africans” into action. This would allow his shipping fleet, the Black Star Line, to raise enough money to essentially, be able to transport both cargos and passengers back to the homeland. While this plan excited Black people across the nation, Marcus Garvey made one mistake in his pursuit, that eventually turned this plan upside down.

Marcus Garvey had been so focused on sending all Black people out of America, that he was criticized for having the same mentality as the racists themselves, who claimed that Black and White people must have their own territories and should live in segregation. The NAACP, on the other hand, had an entirely different approach. Led by W.E.B Du Bois, they believed that the only way for racism to stop was by the Black population fighting for the rights they deserved and were guaranteed. They were extremely aggressive in their fight to abolish lynchings, defeat racist legislation, and end the severe discrimination of Black people. The NAACP proved to be much more than just a voice for Blacks, but an organization to rely on in times of need.

Finally, Du Bois’ position as editor of The Crisis contributed to his everlasting legacy. This publication gave brutally honest accounts of the violence by Whites, specifically “The Lynching Crisis.” White people would take whatever means necessary, and make up any claims in order to watch Black people get lynched, and distribute their limbs as “souvenirs.” He wanted to make this known, as well the other opinions he had on key controversial topics. He wanted to show the danger of race prejudice, believed in the “Talented Tenth”, and wanted to showcase the Black middle class as a beacon of hope and empowerment.

Despite the terror that most of the American Black population felt prior to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s, there were also those who took it as an opportunity to make a change. Whether it be through silent marches, personal and opinionated publications, or joining one of the many organizations formed during this time, African Americans showed that they would do whatever it took to end racism and create an America they desperately needed.

-Molly Ottensoser

Though today New York symbolizes a place of diversity and acceptance, under English colonial rule in the late 17^th century existed a rigid slave system that treated African slaves harshly and strictly. Not only were slaves unable to own property, but they could not even practice their own religion. As Steven Jaffe writes in, “Educating the Enslaved in Colonial New York”, “Many New York slaveholders resisted the idea of baptizing their slaves or teaching them to read the Bible, fearing that Christianity and literacy might embolden their human property to ask for freedom, or even try to seize it through violent rebellion.” However, Elie Neau directly challenged this notion in 1704 when he opened a revolutionary institution that for the next 19 years would teach the enslaved how to be “thinking literate Christians”. Though he wasn’t an abolitionist, his belief that all people had the right to be educated and religious set the foundation for antislavery activism in the future.

As Jaffe writes in, “Leather Aprons & Silk Stockings: The Coming of the American Revolution in New York”, this brutal treatment of slaves and the taxes and regulations on working New Yorkers sparked a sense of rebellion within them. The New York Tea Party on April 22,1774 showed Parliament that New Yorkers were no longer willing to be oppressed. Workingmen known as “leather aprons” and lawyers known as “silk stockings” felt these similar sentiments. Prior to and during the American Revolution, these groups were forced to work together. However, the aristocratic patricians and the laborers who protested in the streets often couldn’t see eye to eye. Nicholas Lampert in, “Visualizing a Partial Revolution” explains this when describing Paul Revere’s publication of, “The most influential Boston Massacre image.” His image did not accurately depict reality because it showed a revolution led by educated and wealthy whites, while in truth it was led by a diverse and multi-cultured mob. Jaffe concludes though that despite it being a violent war with the tensions between the “leather aprons” and the “silk stockings” constantly arising, in 1783 George Washington triumphantly rode into the streets of New York. However, though the victory was shared between both groups of Patriots, “Those divisions would spark future conflicts and future activism in the name of the revolution’s principles of liberty and independence.”

Lampert mentions that farmers and artisans were left out from the Constitutional Congress and were not invited to draft the new Constitution. This was particularly troubling because the absence of the working class meant that if a strong federal government was created, one again they would be oppressed. Liberty Poles were set up and resistance by laborers one again began. Simply put, “The success of the Conservative elites did not defuse class tensions during the War of Independence (1775-1783) or after. If anything, the tensions heightened.”

This is evident when looking at the 3/5 compromise. The decision to count three fifths of the slaves in a state’s population, “would help to elect slaveholding presidents” from 1800 to the 1850s. It is also evident when looking at the U.S. Voting Rights Timeline. In 1776, only landowners could vote, and the majority of landowners were white male Protestants over the age of 21. In 1787, because there was no national standard for voting, white male landowners still controlled voting for the most part. This is why George Washington was elected in 1787 by only 6% of the population. And lastly in 1790, only “free white immigrants” could become naturalized citizens.

Therefore, despite their undeniable success in the mid-18th century, it seems that at this point in history, many New Yorkers must have questioned how much progress they had really made since the days of Elie Neau.

-Molly Ottensoser