Source 9 is a speech given by Harvey Milk to his supporters; it contains an anecdote that reveals that there was opposition to the gay rights movement among Christian conservative Americans. The very existence of the source and the reference within the source to Milk’s election to be city supervisor shows that there was widespread acceptance of gay people at this time, despite the opposition. Source 11 is an extract from Justice Thurgood Marshall’s decision on the Bakke case, in which he decided against Bakke, that details the position of black Americans in the late 1970s. The Source argues that black Americans were in a disadvantaged position and that they did not have equality with white people at this time. Source 9 provides some
…show more content…
However, the content of the source can be criticised. For example, Milk’s idea that the general American public was becoming more left wing could be countered with Reagan’s election in 1980, as Reagan was Republican and very conservative. The origin of the Source also limits its usefulness. Source 9 was a speech given by Milk to his supporters shortly after his election meaning he was likely to be as positive as possible so as to buoy the spirits of his followers and keep their support. Furthermore, Milk was elected in San Francisco, which in a 1964 Life magazine article was described as the ‘gay capital of America’. So, it is possible that gay people were almost universally accepted in San Francisco in the period 1973-80 but it is equally likely that there were many parts of America, such as in the conservative deep south, where being openly gay was very dangerous, as it ultimately was for Milk himself. The usefulness of Source 9 is further limited by its lack of acknowledgement of change throughout the period. The speech was given in 1978 and regardless of how useful it is concerning the understanding of gay rights in 1978, it tells the historian absolutely nothing about how those rights had changed …show more content…
Source 9 provides the historian with some valuable information on the rights gay people had in 1978, and Source 11 is also useful for investigating the position of black Americans at the time. Neither Source presents much of a balanced view which limits both of them, but it is evident that Source 11 is the most useful of the two Sources. This is because Source 11 is more well-researched and provides more evidence to support its argument while Source 9 is more anecdotal and possibly more provincial. Neither Source addresses the issues of women 's rights, Native American rights or the rights of workers. All of these groups saw some improvement in this period, for example, in 1970 only 43% of women were employed but by 1980, this had risen to 52%. Workers saw legislation passed to protect them, such as the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which banned discrimination on the basis of disability. Native Americans fought for their rights by forming the American Indian Movement in Minneapolis in 1968. However, all these groups also faced setbacks, such as the continued high rates of poverty among both Native Americans and black Americans while the feminist movement started to fragment which weakened it and reduced its influence. Nevertheless, the historian would not glean any of this from either Source, separately or together, meaning that they are ultimately only narrowly
However, the content of the source can be criticised. For example, Milk’s idea that the general American public was becoming more left wing could be countered with Reagan’s election in 1980, as Reagan was Republican and very conservative. The origin of the Source also limits its usefulness. Source 9 was a speech given by Milk to his supporters shortly after his election meaning he was likely to be as positive as possible so as to buoy the spirits of his followers and keep their support. Furthermore, Milk was elected in San Francisco, which in a 1964 Life magazine article was described as the ‘gay capital of America’. So, it is possible that gay people were almost universally accepted in San Francisco in the period 1973-80 but it is equally likely that there were many parts of America, such as in the conservative deep south, where being openly gay was very dangerous, as it ultimately was for Milk himself. The usefulness of Source 9 is further limited by its lack of acknowledgement of change throughout the period. The speech was given in 1978 and regardless of how useful it is concerning the understanding of gay rights in 1978, it tells the historian absolutely nothing about how those rights had changed …show more content…
Source 9 provides the historian with some valuable information on the rights gay people had in 1978, and Source 11 is also useful for investigating the position of black Americans at the time. Neither Source presents much of a balanced view which limits both of them, but it is evident that Source 11 is the most useful of the two Sources. This is because Source 11 is more well-researched and provides more evidence to support its argument while Source 9 is more anecdotal and possibly more provincial. Neither Source addresses the issues of women 's rights, Native American rights or the rights of workers. All of these groups saw some improvement in this period, for example, in 1970 only 43% of women were employed but by 1980, this had risen to 52%. Workers saw legislation passed to protect them, such as the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which banned discrimination on the basis of disability. Native Americans fought for their rights by forming the American Indian Movement in Minneapolis in 1968. However, all these groups also faced setbacks, such as the continued high rates of poverty among both Native Americans and black Americans while the feminist movement started to fragment which weakened it and reduced its influence. Nevertheless, the historian would not glean any of this from either Source, separately or together, meaning that they are ultimately only narrowly