In The Heat of the Night (Movie Reflection)

This is a movie poster for In the Heat of the Night after it received its Academy Awards in 1967.

In the Heat of the Night is a very famous film that reflects on discrimination in the Jim Crow South around 1960. It presents some very important topics and themes that were truly present then, like the privilege of white men, society's views on women, and even the issue of abortion.

This is a screen capture from the movie of Tibbs face during the encounter.

I believe one of the most pivotal and important scenes in this movie is the one in the plant nursery, where Endicott slaps Mr. Tibbs and, in return, Tibbs slaps Mr. Endicott. This scene is especially important because, after Tibbs leaves, Endicott begins to cry. 

I feel this could be up to interpretation; however, at the time, Endicott lived on a slave plantation and was very discriminatory towards those practically enslaved, working there. His character was framed as extremely racist and sort of careless about the effects of his actions and words. 

In my personal opinion I believe that the reason he cried was due to the fact that at that point, he most likely had never had someone, up to that point, stand up to him for what he was doing. He received a "reality check" in the sense that no one else had yet had the bravery to do so.

Looking at this even deeper, I think that this can represent a wave across the entire South in this time period of people finally standing up for themselves, as well as the South beginning to realize what they allow is racist and wrong. If everyone were to stand up and revolt at this time, nothing could really have been done.

This is Mr. Tibbs (left) and Chief Bill Gillespie (right).

Another large point that this movie gives insight into is the facts of white privilege at the time. I believe that people who were said to have had this privilege, at least in this time frame, had no right to talk to Tibbs like they did. 

They, specifically the police staff, initially acted like they had such a tall pedestal to stand on, yet he made more money than all of them. After some of them later came around to liking Tibbs, like Chief Bill Gillespie, who eventually slightly respected him, while others held that full disdain throughout the entire film, even though he was a huge help in solving the murder case, and they knew he would be.

There are probably dozens of more topics explored in this movie that I could discuss; however, this film, with the many deserved awards it won, was extremely influential in society. 

Even though it was released just after the documented end of the Jim Crow era in 1967, as the film portrayed, we know that the South still most likely held this prejudice against black individuals. It is very evident that Movies like this one, throughout history, can make significant change, whether that be good or bad, just by influencing people's mindsets or opinions on their actions or even the actions of others around them. 

This film definitely made some important change, even though most of the change around the end of the 60s was a coincidence and unrelated to this movie; films like this one could have definitely been a driving factor in the changing mindsets of individuals in the South, guiding the U.S. to an even more equal society. 

Plessy V. Ferguson Mock Trial Reax

This is a student giving an argument for one side of the case. 

The case of Plessy v. Ferguson was one of the most influential cases in the late 1800s for the future of racial segregation at the time.

This isn't to say it caused any betterment of racism and segregation, as it actually did quite the opposite.

This is a headshot of Homer Plessy.

The case started when a man named Homer Plessy, a black man of very light complexion, bought a first-class train ticket. He was arrested because of this and later charged under the Separate Car Act, which was just passed in 1890 in Louisiana, two years before this event, which occurred in New Orleans on June 7th, 1892.

An important question that was presented by the defense team for Homer Plessy was, "Does the Separate Car Act violate Homer Plessy's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically, the Equal Protection Clause?" 

He was not drunk, nor violent, nor disorderly, so there should not have been any reason to charge him with a crime. He simply bought a ticket with his own money and then redeemed that ticket for a first-class train seat.

Another good argument that the defense of Plessy presented in the mock trial against the Separate Car Act is that it was harmful to the economy. It forced businesses to divide their resources; there could be valuable seats left unfilled, and segregation harms workers and consumers; racial injustice makes people not be able to go to work, therefore losing businesses money. 

From this evidence, it can be deduced that since every citizen presents and holds economic potential, equality could lead to more workers and businesses, as well as greater productivity.

The opposite side of this argument is presented just as well by the team on the side of Ferguson. A very important factor they brought up from a moral standpoint is that what is considered an insult comes directly from the interpretation of the individual; however, in this situation, the conductor only directs people to colored or white cars; there is no prejudice involved whatsoever.

This is a headshot of Judge John Howard Ferguson.

They also made various arguments regarding how these types of things are done to prevent public conflict, and that no society has ever existed without some sort of social organization. These kinds of separate institutions have existed for decades. They end their argument by mentioning that Louisiana had a right to pass this law, and that even though the Fourteenth Amendment does say everyone gets equal treatment, it also says they can sit in separate cars.

As mentioned previously, this case was very influential in the development of discrimination as the world developed into the 1900's. Both of these arguments posed crucial facts; however, we know that in any situation, the act of splitting a people group up from another, just because of the color of their skin, does and always will have a very immoral undertone.