Wednesday April 25, 2012
Well it has finally come...the last full day of class! This is the last normal day with discussions. The next time we meet is next Wednesday at Luigi's to hand in our oral history reports, annotated bibliographies, and have some fun! I am actually hoping that we will have a laser-tag showdown professors versus students! That would be something to remember! Anyway, today being the last day in class we discussed Chapter 5 from Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime. It is actually kind of a bummer that we did not get to talk about the Vietnam War, the 1960s & '70s, or get more into events that are happening today. The title of this course is "Problems in History" and I think there are several problems that have happened recently that will eventually be history. Anyway to talk about today's class...
Robert Hutchins said that, "universities exist for the sake of such inquiry [exploring political options like Communism], that without it they cease to be universities and that such inquiry and hence universities are more necessary now than ever." Robert Hutchins was an educational philosopher, a dean at Yale Law School, and the president and chancellor of the University of Chicago. While he was the president of the University of Chicago, he did several things that were controversial, like getting rid of varsity football. People need to remember that professors in universities are often more liberal than others. Conservatives believe that universities are indoctrinating America's youth with liberal views. This battle has been debated over the last several decades. Even today, people like Rick Santorum think that universities are not good anymore because they do not accomplish the goals of educating people.
This chapter also talks about the infamous question, "are you now or have you ever been..." when referring to communism. What many people do not actually understand is that there is a difference in believing in communism and thinking it is a good ideas versus trying to put it into practice. In fact, communism does sound like a good idea because it offers equality and economic stability to everyone. However, like many governmental plans, communism looks far better on paper than it does in practice. This question though, can be manipulated for any reason, such as terrorist organizations, terrorists supporters, Muslims (or any religious group), or even pro-life or pro-choice. Ever since the beginning of this country, the government has tried to categorize people in order to get a better feeling for who they are and what they want. There could easily be problems to this. For example, the government can look at an event like the attack on Pearl Harbor and make the conclusion that all Japanese are a threat to the country. In reality, it was the Japanese government commanding the attacks. Another example would be 9/11. The government could have said that all Muslims are a threat to the country, but learning from the mistakes of the 1940s they did not. 9/11 was not an attack by all Muslims or people from the Middle East, it was an attack from one organization. This one organization should not be a representation of all the Muslims or people from the Middle East. The government really needs to understand that placing people into categories can be a bad thing.
Now onto Joe McCarthy....
Joe McCarthy was a Republican politician who served as U.S. Senator for Wisconsin from 1947 until his death in 1957. he is known for making claims that there were large numbers of people in the U.S. that were communists spies for Russia. McCarthy got the public all worked up into a panic and made them believe that there were communists everywhere. Soon everyone was accusing each other of being communists. The police often required little or no evidence when making an arrest. McCarthy also went after people in the government, mainly Democrats. Many other Republicans called the Democrats communists in order to get their own political gains. Many of the people who were targeted during this time were those in Hollywood. These people were often Jewish, gays, and famous actors, writers, and producers. Antisemitism ran wild during this time and people were fired, arrested, blacklisted, and more. One funny thing is that Joe McCarthy's right hand man, Roy Cohn, was both gay and Jewish! Cohn went against people that shared the same beliefs he did in order to be famous and follow the crowd. Other people who were targeted were those in any civil rights movements and anyone in inter-racial relationships. Racism against African Americans peaked during this time. Eventually, McCarthy was brought down by his own machine... McCarthy accused the U.S. Army of communism. This accusation was one of the major breakdowns of McCarthyism. In December of 1954 the Senate voted to censure McCarthy (or reprimand him). McCarthy died in 1957 at the age of 48 from hepatitis.
We then went on to discuss the McCarran International Security Act of 1950. This act made it so that any communists had to register with the Attorney General. It was designed to make it impossible for left wing organizations to function. Truman actually vetoed this act, even though he hated communists. This act has often been compared to the Alien & Sedition Acts.
We also talked about Dorothy Bailey. Dorothy was suspected and accused of communism. After this accusation, she had to face a loyalty review board. During this time it was hard to face your accuser because the person's name was kept anonymous. This actually violates the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right: to a speedy trial, public trial, judged by an impartial jury, notified of the nature and circumstances of the alleged crime, confront witnesses who will testify against the accused, find witnesses who will speak in favor of the accused, and the right to a lawyer. Often times, people who were accused of communism were kept in prison for a long time before they were able to go to trial. In Dorothy's case, she was not allowed to face her accuser or find her own witnesses. She was basically guilty by association. Dorothy, like so many others, had her life ruined just by being accused of communism. After a person was accused (even if they were found not guilty) they could not find a job, their reputation was destroyed, and the person was basically blacklisted. The example we gave in class was that if someone was accused of being a pedophile and the person was found not guilty the class would still look at that person differently simply because they were accused. In this day and age, there has to be a substantial amount of evidence against someone to be accused of being a pedophile, so I do believe that people would look at someone differently because of it. Back in the 1940s and 50s it was a similar thing, even though there didn't need to be any evidence against the accused. A person would probably rather been accused of being a pedophile back then than being accused of being a communist.
Oh how times have changed! And in some cases, times have not changed so much. Like I stated earlier, this is the last blog that we have to do for this class. I must say that I really liked this class! I have never had a history class where we read the book then discuss it. Every class that I have had was basically a lecture where the teacher spits information at the students for about two hours. This class was much more engaging than any other class that I have had and I think that I learned a lot. The only thing that I would change is that I wish we would have gotten farther in the last book that we read. This class basically started in the 1800s and went up until the 1950s, but it would have been nice to talk about the several constitutional issues that went on during the Vietnam War and Civil Rights Movements! All in all, I think this class was very helpful in opening my eyes to viewing history from a different perspective. I have never looked at history through the eyes of the Constitution or court cases and this was definitely a new experience for me!
Thursday, April 26, 2012
World War Two Continued
Monday April 23, 2012
Today was our last Monday discussion. It still amazes me how fast this semester went by! I have never blogged before, but I really think that doing this after every class discussion has actually helped me understand the materials better. We ended our discussion about World War Two today, but there were several interesting discussion questions throughout the class.
First, we talked about a quote from Elmer Davis. Davis said, "that a democracy fighting a total war will fight it more enthusiastically and effectively if it knows what is going on, and if it feels that it's leaders trust it with as much information as it can possibly be given without aid and comfort to the enemy." I agree with this statement because the government should tell the people what is going on and not try to hide information. Hiding information makes the American people not trust its government. However, I also think that there is a certain amount of information that should be kept within military limits because it could be hazardous to troops if the enemies discover it. Throughout the years, the government has struggled with figuring out exactly how much information that the American people should be let in on. For instance, during the Vietnam War, the government reported the total numbers of Viet Cong that were being killed, but they lied about the numbers of American soldiers that were killed. The government and news medias also embellished the numbers for both sides. I give a lot of "props" to President Kennedy because after the horrendous events during the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy admitted to the American people that he was wrong and the event was a disaster. People respected him, not because he made a huge mistake, but because he came out and told people that he was wrong and was sorry. This proves that honesty is the best policy.
After the attacks on Pearl Harbor, over 120,000 people of Japanese heritage along the Pacific coast were forced to enter detention camps. The majority of these people were legal U.S. citizens and their rights were set aside when they were forced to leave their homes. I believe that this action was an impulse decision based on paranoia. People at this time were afraid of invasion and collaboration and since the Japanese were the ones who led the attack, it was only logical that the government would blacklist them and send them away. This act, however, went against laws that were established in the early 1900s that said Japanese had the right to become naturalized American citizens, own land, and to marry outside of their race. Putting Japanese Americans in internment camps made America look bad because the government had given them rights (and they were technically citizens) then took them all away just because of what the country of Japan was in control of. Many of these people had completely broken ties to their homeland, did not affiliate with the traditions, and considered themselves regular Americans. At the time America was defending freedom abroad, but declining it at home. There is some evidence to support that there was an economic motivation to collecting the Japanese people. During this time a lot of big American companies wanted to get their hands on the lands that Japanese Americans owned in order to grow their own establishment. The idea of putting Japanese Americans in internment camps is difficult for people to think about today because Japanese Americans are considered the "model minority." Many Japanese Americans have high educations, have good jobs, and make lots of money. After the September 11 attacks, I actually thought that the government would relive their mistakes, only with Muslims and people of Middle Eastern descent. Fortunately, the government learned from its mistakes and this did not happen in 2001.
On the same topic, Attorney General Biddle opposed Japanese internment. He said it was unnecessarily cruel and the government should not arrest people based on assumptions. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Japanese Americans helped to rebuild the warships and many went to fight in Europe for America. Biddle said that Japanese internment was a HUGE undertaking and the government left many questions unanswered before they started rounding up Japanese Americans. The government did not know where to put the people, how to pay for it, what the people would do, or who would be in charge of them. This argument suggests that the internment of Japanese Americans was, in fact, and impulse decision based on paranoia. Biddle also said that it was funny how no Japanese Americans were rounded up on Hawaii. The Japanese American population on Hawaii was phenomenal and the task would have proved impossible.
What is also interesting during this time is the level of racial talk and slanders. Even people that were in favor of civil rights supported Japanese internments! These people often went along with it because there was a strong sense of patriotism and fear. It was easier to go along with it and support the government's decision than to speak out against the internment. This shows the hypocrisy of advocators of civil rights: everyone is equal, unless something bad happens to the country then its okay if those people are targeted and their rights taken away.
After the events unfolded, President Roosevelt waited to release the internees. There are a few good reasons as to why he waited. First, 1944 was an election year and he wanted to make sure he had the majority support of the people; Roosevelt did not want to appear weak. Now, I believe that he would have won the election anyway, but I understand that he did not want to take any risks. I also think that Roosevelt waited because he was taking the economic status into account. When the Japanese Americans were sent to internment camps they basically lost everything. Upon release these people had to find houses, jobs, food, and basically start their entire lives over again. These people also probably did not want to go back to their old neighborhoods because many times it was their neighbors who turned them in to the government. So with all this, Roosevelt might have wanted to make sure that the economy could handle such an event without being flipped upside-down.
In the end, America has always portrayed itself to be a nation of equality, but during the 1940s America sent mixed messages around the world. This time was the early beginning of the Civil Rights Movement, but yet the government put basic rights aside when collecting the Japanese Americans. More and more people began to oppose of the internment camps when they began being compared to the concentration camps for Jews in Europe. Supreme Court judges (and other governmental officials) from this time have written in their memoirs that they regretted their decisions and support of Japanese internments. Many people agree that it was the biggest mistakes of not only their careers, but their lives. The Civil Rights Movements would later used the internment of Japanese Americans, along with several other events, as their base against the government in their fight for equality and rights.
Today was our last Monday discussion. It still amazes me how fast this semester went by! I have never blogged before, but I really think that doing this after every class discussion has actually helped me understand the materials better. We ended our discussion about World War Two today, but there were several interesting discussion questions throughout the class.
First, we talked about a quote from Elmer Davis. Davis said, "that a democracy fighting a total war will fight it more enthusiastically and effectively if it knows what is going on, and if it feels that it's leaders trust it with as much information as it can possibly be given without aid and comfort to the enemy." I agree with this statement because the government should tell the people what is going on and not try to hide information. Hiding information makes the American people not trust its government. However, I also think that there is a certain amount of information that should be kept within military limits because it could be hazardous to troops if the enemies discover it. Throughout the years, the government has struggled with figuring out exactly how much information that the American people should be let in on. For instance, during the Vietnam War, the government reported the total numbers of Viet Cong that were being killed, but they lied about the numbers of American soldiers that were killed. The government and news medias also embellished the numbers for both sides. I give a lot of "props" to President Kennedy because after the horrendous events during the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy admitted to the American people that he was wrong and the event was a disaster. People respected him, not because he made a huge mistake, but because he came out and told people that he was wrong and was sorry. This proves that honesty is the best policy.
After the attacks on Pearl Harbor, over 120,000 people of Japanese heritage along the Pacific coast were forced to enter detention camps. The majority of these people were legal U.S. citizens and their rights were set aside when they were forced to leave their homes. I believe that this action was an impulse decision based on paranoia. People at this time were afraid of invasion and collaboration and since the Japanese were the ones who led the attack, it was only logical that the government would blacklist them and send them away. This act, however, went against laws that were established in the early 1900s that said Japanese had the right to become naturalized American citizens, own land, and to marry outside of their race. Putting Japanese Americans in internment camps made America look bad because the government had given them rights (and they were technically citizens) then took them all away just because of what the country of Japan was in control of. Many of these people had completely broken ties to their homeland, did not affiliate with the traditions, and considered themselves regular Americans. At the time America was defending freedom abroad, but declining it at home. There is some evidence to support that there was an economic motivation to collecting the Japanese people. During this time a lot of big American companies wanted to get their hands on the lands that Japanese Americans owned in order to grow their own establishment. The idea of putting Japanese Americans in internment camps is difficult for people to think about today because Japanese Americans are considered the "model minority." Many Japanese Americans have high educations, have good jobs, and make lots of money. After the September 11 attacks, I actually thought that the government would relive their mistakes, only with Muslims and people of Middle Eastern descent. Fortunately, the government learned from its mistakes and this did not happen in 2001.
On the same topic, Attorney General Biddle opposed Japanese internment. He said it was unnecessarily cruel and the government should not arrest people based on assumptions. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Japanese Americans helped to rebuild the warships and many went to fight in Europe for America. Biddle said that Japanese internment was a HUGE undertaking and the government left many questions unanswered before they started rounding up Japanese Americans. The government did not know where to put the people, how to pay for it, what the people would do, or who would be in charge of them. This argument suggests that the internment of Japanese Americans was, in fact, and impulse decision based on paranoia. Biddle also said that it was funny how no Japanese Americans were rounded up on Hawaii. The Japanese American population on Hawaii was phenomenal and the task would have proved impossible.
What is also interesting during this time is the level of racial talk and slanders. Even people that were in favor of civil rights supported Japanese internments! These people often went along with it because there was a strong sense of patriotism and fear. It was easier to go along with it and support the government's decision than to speak out against the internment. This shows the hypocrisy of advocators of civil rights: everyone is equal, unless something bad happens to the country then its okay if those people are targeted and their rights taken away.
After the events unfolded, President Roosevelt waited to release the internees. There are a few good reasons as to why he waited. First, 1944 was an election year and he wanted to make sure he had the majority support of the people; Roosevelt did not want to appear weak. Now, I believe that he would have won the election anyway, but I understand that he did not want to take any risks. I also think that Roosevelt waited because he was taking the economic status into account. When the Japanese Americans were sent to internment camps they basically lost everything. Upon release these people had to find houses, jobs, food, and basically start their entire lives over again. These people also probably did not want to go back to their old neighborhoods because many times it was their neighbors who turned them in to the government. So with all this, Roosevelt might have wanted to make sure that the economy could handle such an event without being flipped upside-down.
In the end, America has always portrayed itself to be a nation of equality, but during the 1940s America sent mixed messages around the world. This time was the early beginning of the Civil Rights Movement, but yet the government put basic rights aside when collecting the Japanese Americans. More and more people began to oppose of the internment camps when they began being compared to the concentration camps for Jews in Europe. Supreme Court judges (and other governmental officials) from this time have written in their memoirs that they regretted their decisions and support of Japanese internments. Many people agree that it was the biggest mistakes of not only their careers, but their lives. The Civil Rights Movements would later used the internment of Japanese Americans, along with several other events, as their base against the government in their fight for equality and rights.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
World War Two
Wednesday April 18, 2012
Today we began discussing World War Two. In exactly one week from today we will be having our last group discussion for the entire semester! I am excited, but at the same time it's sad because this has been one of my favorite history classes so far in college. So only two more discussions next week on Monday and Wednesday then no more!
We started off by talking about Justice Brandeis. He was a Supreme Court Justice who agreed with Holmes' ideas. He was also one of the first lawyers to use psychological evidence in the court room. He worked hard to protect worker's rights. When Justice Brandeis was appointed by President Wilson chaos soon erupted. Brandeis was Jewish. It is actually kind of funny that Wilson choose Brandeis because Wilson was not a forward thinker and even wanted to keep Washington D.C. segregated! Wilson seemed to be a traditional man, but he appointed a Jewish person to work in the government. Anyway, Justice Brandeis was a forward thinker. He once wrote:
Today we began discussing World War Two. In exactly one week from today we will be having our last group discussion for the entire semester! I am excited, but at the same time it's sad because this has been one of my favorite history classes so far in college. So only two more discussions next week on Monday and Wednesday then no more!
We started off by talking about Justice Brandeis. He was a Supreme Court Justice who agreed with Holmes' ideas. He was also one of the first lawyers to use psychological evidence in the court room. He worked hard to protect worker's rights. When Justice Brandeis was appointed by President Wilson chaos soon erupted. Brandeis was Jewish. It is actually kind of funny that Wilson choose Brandeis because Wilson was not a forward thinker and even wanted to keep Washington D.C. segregated! Wilson seemed to be a traditional man, but he appointed a Jewish person to work in the government. Anyway, Justice Brandeis was a forward thinker. He once wrote:
Those who won our independence believed...liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and speak as you think are means indispensable to discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.
Brandeis was WAY ahead of his time! He fought for free speech and though. He also constantly tested the strength of the First Amendment. He reminded people that the Founding Fathers were not afraid of change, and neither should they. Brandeis realized that the country, and even the world, was changing and America needed to be prepared for the changes, starting with the government.
Question two of the discussion was, "According to Charles Seymour, President of Yale University, "It is in periods of national emergency is when free speech is most essential." Seymour said this after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. It is important to let people express themselves during a time of war or emergency because putting a limit on people can only make them more frustrated with the government. In my opinion, it might just be easier for the government to let things stay the same in a time of emergency rather than trying to put limits on things such as freedom of speech or religion. By not doing this, the government can have more time, energy, and resources to focus its' attention elsewhere. During this time the Supreme Court was still very conservative.
One important aspect of studying history is comparing events of the past to those of the present. People often compare the events before, during, and after the attacks on Pearl Harbor with those of September 11. I think that the government did learn from the first event. After the attacks on Pearl Harbor, Japanese Americans were rounded up and sent to interment camps. There was a very bad stereotype throughout the entire country against Japanese Americans. Though the racial stereotypes went around against Muslims after 9/11, they were not as hateful. The government also did not send the Muslim Americans to interment camps, which, I believed, made the government look better on a global viewpoint.
Another comparison that is sometimes made is the Vietnam War versus the current War on Terror. This is where I do not think the government has learned it's lesson. Both of these wars are undeclared. I do, however, think that American troops have more reason to be in the Middle East than they did in Vietnam. But we must keep in mind how long the Vietnam War lasted and the thousands of men who died fighting. I really do not want to see this happen in the Middle East. I mean, we spent years in Vietnam and right after American troops pulled out the country went right back to how it was. We lost thousands of men and dollars and have nothing to show for it. It just makes me wonder about how long we have been involved in the Middle East, how many people have died and what we currently have to show for it. I really think the War on Terror should be ended, or at least reduce the number of troops. I am not just saying this because my boyfriend is in the Army, but for the thousands of men and women who are showing their support for their country, but not all necessarily agree with the war.
Question two of the discussion was, "According to Charles Seymour, President of Yale University, "It is in periods of national emergency is when free speech is most essential." Seymour said this after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. It is important to let people express themselves during a time of war or emergency because putting a limit on people can only make them more frustrated with the government. In my opinion, it might just be easier for the government to let things stay the same in a time of emergency rather than trying to put limits on things such as freedom of speech or religion. By not doing this, the government can have more time, energy, and resources to focus its' attention elsewhere. During this time the Supreme Court was still very conservative.
One important aspect of studying history is comparing events of the past to those of the present. People often compare the events before, during, and after the attacks on Pearl Harbor with those of September 11. I think that the government did learn from the first event. After the attacks on Pearl Harbor, Japanese Americans were rounded up and sent to interment camps. There was a very bad stereotype throughout the entire country against Japanese Americans. Though the racial stereotypes went around against Muslims after 9/11, they were not as hateful. The government also did not send the Muslim Americans to interment camps, which, I believed, made the government look better on a global viewpoint.
Another comparison that is sometimes made is the Vietnam War versus the current War on Terror. This is where I do not think the government has learned it's lesson. Both of these wars are undeclared. I do, however, think that American troops have more reason to be in the Middle East than they did in Vietnam. But we must keep in mind how long the Vietnam War lasted and the thousands of men who died fighting. I really do not want to see this happen in the Middle East. I mean, we spent years in Vietnam and right after American troops pulled out the country went right back to how it was. We lost thousands of men and dollars and have nothing to show for it. It just makes me wonder about how long we have been involved in the Middle East, how many people have died and what we currently have to show for it. I really think the War on Terror should be ended, or at least reduce the number of troops. I am not just saying this because my boyfriend is in the Army, but for the thousands of men and women who are showing their support for their country, but not all necessarily agree with the war.
Moving on.... We began to talk about the Smith Act of 1940. This act requires all resident aliens to register with the government. It also streamlined the procedures for deportation. The textbook states that it, "forbade any person knowingly or willfully to advocate, abet, advise, or teach the duty, necessity desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the U.S. by force or violence." These acts are still in the law books today, yet are not enforced as much as they were in the 1940s. I believe that people who were involved in 9/11 could be prosecuted under this act, but the government has used other reasons for prosecution. In my opinion, any terrorist group or anti-governmental organization can be persecuted under this act. I know that immigrants in the U.S. who have green cards must register with the government. I think that the main people who are being targeted currently are illegal immigrants and that the government is focusing less on anarchists groups.
One of the last things we discussed was America First. This was a group designed to protect America even if other countries are fighting. The group worked from 1939-1941. The groups used famous people to get their points across to the large public by using propaganda, such as having short informative films play before movies. The group had strong feelings that American should NEVER be involved in war of any kind. The group also worked with the Nye Commission, which was a group who was trying to figure out the true origins of World War II. It came to the conclusion that American only got involved in the war because arms manufacturing companies wanted to get involved so they could make money. These companies were pressuring the government to get involved. Now, I don't know how accurate those allegations are, but as many people know, wars are good for the economy, so this could have been one of many reasons for U.S. involvement in WWII, but I don't believe that this was the only or main reason.
One of the last things we discussed was America First. This was a group designed to protect America even if other countries are fighting. The group worked from 1939-1941. The groups used famous people to get their points across to the large public by using propaganda, such as having short informative films play before movies. The group had strong feelings that American should NEVER be involved in war of any kind. The group also worked with the Nye Commission, which was a group who was trying to figure out the true origins of World War II. It came to the conclusion that American only got involved in the war because arms manufacturing companies wanted to get involved so they could make money. These companies were pressuring the government to get involved. Now, I don't know how accurate those allegations are, but as many people know, wars are good for the economy, so this could have been one of many reasons for U.S. involvement in WWII, but I don't believe that this was the only or main reason.
World War One Continued
Monday April 16, 2012
Today was my last and final day to lead group discussion. I was not really leading discussion because there was three other people besides myself in the group, but I still got my turn to ask questions and engage the other students. Today we were also finishing up discussing World War One, focusing mainly on the Red Scare and events that came from it.
The first question we addressed today was "What is your opinion on why Freedoms seem to get taken away from citizens during times of trouble such as the Half-War with France and the Sedition Act of 1918 during World War I?" I believe that the government is more likely to take certain freedoms away during times of war in order to protect the people. During the times mentioned above, many people were willing to give up their freedoms in exchange for security. Normally the first Freedom to be "cracked down" on it the Freedom of Speech. I think this is because during times of trouble the government wants to create a unified front against the enemies. It looks bad it the government of a country says one thing, but the people say something different. Another reason why this might be so is because the government is more focused on the war that is going on than the basic rights of the people. The government could put a limit or restriction on the rights for a certain time just so they can focus their attentions elsewhere without having to worry about citizens doing things that they should not.
We also discussed the court case Schenck v. United States. This in this case the people being tried were handing out pamphlets about the draft and encouraging people to sign a petition to stop the draft. These people were trying to make others aware of their rights in regards to the draft; they were not really doing anything dangerous. However, the people were charged with creating a "clear and present danger" to the government of the United States. I, personally, feel that this was bogus beyond belief! If anything these people could have been charged with obstructing justice or something like that. The people were just making others aware of their rights, not even encouraging them to dodge the draft. As the textbook states, "The pamphlet expressly called upon readers to support the repeal of the draft through lawful political means" (page 193). These people were not creating a dangerous circumstance at all! It is more difficult to convict people under the bad tenancy clause than the clear and present danger clause.
We went on to discus judicial theories. The class was given a choice as to which theory they believed was more interesting: Holmes' or Hand's. Holmes served in the Civil War and was a great deal more experienced than Hand, so his theory reflects it. Holmes believed that the government should curtail some liberties during war for the overall good. He also believed that the Constitution is a living thing. Hand, on the other hand (haha!), was quite young and believed that people should fight for their rights. His lack of experience and youth show in his theory. If I had to choose one theory, I think i would choose Holmes' theory. I would much rather have a few basic liberties gone during a time of war in exchange for protection. This being said, if the government does not give my liberties back after the time of war is over, I would switch to Hand's theory and fight for my right (to party! hahahaha).
The last thing we discussed was President Woodrow Wilson. The discussion question was, "What reasons did Attorney General Gregory give to President Wilson as to why he should release or reduce the prison sentence of over two hundred people who were in jail for Espionage or Sedition Act convictions? Why do you think President Wilson rejected these opinions? Why did later Presidents (such as Harding, Coolidge, and Roosevelt) grant amnesty to these people?" First, Gregory told the President that the majority of the two hundred people were wrongly accused and injustices were done. These people were in jail because everyone was afraid during the Red Scare and should be released. I think President Wilson rejected Gregory's opinions because he did not want to admit that he was wrong. Plus, Wilson seemed to be very paranoid during this time and he might have wanted to keep the people in jail as to not create more trouble. Last, later presidents released these people because the time of danger had passed. At this point some people had already spent years in jail before the government went "Ooops, we made a mistake, you can leave jail now, sorry about that." During the later years of World War One the First Amendment got A LOT of press! There were court cases popping up all over the nation that tried the rights of the First Amendment and the government had a lot of things to deal with.
The other topic that was covered in class today was Annotated Bibliographies. Since this class is a history course, the bibliography should be done in Chicago or Turabian style. After citing each of the three books that we used in class (and for our blogs), we have to write one good paragraph for each book. This paragraph should summarize the main argument, point of the book, and the topics covered. It should also state if the book was a good source, what its goals were, its readability, if the information was reliable, and if there was any bias. The last part of the paragraph should be a reflection on how the book fits into the class or research on the topics covered. I have never done an annotated bibliography, so I will probably have someone look over my work before I hand it in. Its funny because just like with the Abstracts, in high school my teachers said that you only do annotated bibliographies and abstracts for scientific research and book reports. I have been out of high school for several years now, but I still enjoy finding out that what my teachers said were wrong! I think that is one of the main reasons a person should go to college - to find out that some of their knowledge is full of misinformation and to expand their horizons.
Today was my last and final day to lead group discussion. I was not really leading discussion because there was three other people besides myself in the group, but I still got my turn to ask questions and engage the other students. Today we were also finishing up discussing World War One, focusing mainly on the Red Scare and events that came from it.
The first question we addressed today was "What is your opinion on why Freedoms seem to get taken away from citizens during times of trouble such as the Half-War with France and the Sedition Act of 1918 during World War I?" I believe that the government is more likely to take certain freedoms away during times of war in order to protect the people. During the times mentioned above, many people were willing to give up their freedoms in exchange for security. Normally the first Freedom to be "cracked down" on it the Freedom of Speech. I think this is because during times of trouble the government wants to create a unified front against the enemies. It looks bad it the government of a country says one thing, but the people say something different. Another reason why this might be so is because the government is more focused on the war that is going on than the basic rights of the people. The government could put a limit or restriction on the rights for a certain time just so they can focus their attentions elsewhere without having to worry about citizens doing things that they should not.
We also discussed the court case Schenck v. United States. This in this case the people being tried were handing out pamphlets about the draft and encouraging people to sign a petition to stop the draft. These people were trying to make others aware of their rights in regards to the draft; they were not really doing anything dangerous. However, the people were charged with creating a "clear and present danger" to the government of the United States. I, personally, feel that this was bogus beyond belief! If anything these people could have been charged with obstructing justice or something like that. The people were just making others aware of their rights, not even encouraging them to dodge the draft. As the textbook states, "The pamphlet expressly called upon readers to support the repeal of the draft through lawful political means" (page 193). These people were not creating a dangerous circumstance at all! It is more difficult to convict people under the bad tenancy clause than the clear and present danger clause.
We went on to discus judicial theories. The class was given a choice as to which theory they believed was more interesting: Holmes' or Hand's. Holmes served in the Civil War and was a great deal more experienced than Hand, so his theory reflects it. Holmes believed that the government should curtail some liberties during war for the overall good. He also believed that the Constitution is a living thing. Hand, on the other hand (haha!), was quite young and believed that people should fight for their rights. His lack of experience and youth show in his theory. If I had to choose one theory, I think i would choose Holmes' theory. I would much rather have a few basic liberties gone during a time of war in exchange for protection. This being said, if the government does not give my liberties back after the time of war is over, I would switch to Hand's theory and fight for my right (to party! hahahaha).
The last thing we discussed was President Woodrow Wilson. The discussion question was, "What reasons did Attorney General Gregory give to President Wilson as to why he should release or reduce the prison sentence of over two hundred people who were in jail for Espionage or Sedition Act convictions? Why do you think President Wilson rejected these opinions? Why did later Presidents (such as Harding, Coolidge, and Roosevelt) grant amnesty to these people?" First, Gregory told the President that the majority of the two hundred people were wrongly accused and injustices were done. These people were in jail because everyone was afraid during the Red Scare and should be released. I think President Wilson rejected Gregory's opinions because he did not want to admit that he was wrong. Plus, Wilson seemed to be very paranoid during this time and he might have wanted to keep the people in jail as to not create more trouble. Last, later presidents released these people because the time of danger had passed. At this point some people had already spent years in jail before the government went "Ooops, we made a mistake, you can leave jail now, sorry about that." During the later years of World War One the First Amendment got A LOT of press! There were court cases popping up all over the nation that tried the rights of the First Amendment and the government had a lot of things to deal with.
The other topic that was covered in class today was Annotated Bibliographies. Since this class is a history course, the bibliography should be done in Chicago or Turabian style. After citing each of the three books that we used in class (and for our blogs), we have to write one good paragraph for each book. This paragraph should summarize the main argument, point of the book, and the topics covered. It should also state if the book was a good source, what its goals were, its readability, if the information was reliable, and if there was any bias. The last part of the paragraph should be a reflection on how the book fits into the class or research on the topics covered. I have never done an annotated bibliography, so I will probably have someone look over my work before I hand it in. Its funny because just like with the Abstracts, in high school my teachers said that you only do annotated bibliographies and abstracts for scientific research and book reports. I have been out of high school for several years now, but I still enjoy finding out that what my teachers said were wrong! I think that is one of the main reasons a person should go to college - to find out that some of their knowledge is full of misinformation and to expand their horizons.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
World War One
Wednesday April 11, 2012
So we started talking about Chapter 3 today. I think we skipped Chapter 2 because we have done WAY too much stuff regarding the Civil War this semester! So Chapter 3 discusses the First World War. We started talking about if the U.S. was justified in getting involved in WWI, or if we only got involved in order to protect the interests and investments of the wealthy. I think yes and no that our involvement in the war was justified. Yes because the U.S. was keeping up their relationships by helping their Allies. Plus, war is always good the the economy, ha ha. I do not think we were justified because the war was not really necessary for us. We only joined because our friends invited us. So yes, we did get involved because many wealthy people had investments in Europe and wanted to protect their interests (which is not necessarily a good enough reason to go to war in my opinion).
We spent a great deal of time today discussing the Espionage Act. There are three main parts to this act: 1. a censorship on the press, 2. it is illegal for people to make false claims, and 3. it is illegal to affect opinion within the military (meaning try to make the military think differently/badly about its government). Out of all of these I believe that the censorship of the press is the most important, and not only in a time of war. It is important during a time of war because there has been several times when the press knew more about military operations than the federal government itself! It is important to keep military operations under secrecy because if anything leaks out it could result in the unnecessary deaths of soldiers. The press should be censored during a time of war because it not only keeps soldiers safe, but it makes the country look more united. It looks bad if our government says one thing, but the press says an entirely different thing. The only bad side to censoring the press during wartime is that the government can tell the people only what they want us to know (which means they can lie to us - like the number of people being killed in Vietnam compared to the number of enemies that we were killing). I think it is important not to censor the press when we are not at war too. This is basically the federal government telling the press, and even individual people, that the government trusts the people and lets them print what they want. However, there is always the clear and present danger aspect. I think the government would step in if someone published something that defaced the government or tried to get people riled up to start a revolution or something like that.
We also compared the Espionage Act with the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. The Espionage Act was more focused on its points and stated that it was only for wartime. This act directly affected how we handled the situations that later came from WWII. The Alien and Sedition Acts, however, were more political acts. This act was the first of its kind and later of things were based off of it (or learned from its mistakes). The Alien and Sedition Acts let to Marburry versus Madison. These acts also allowed for the political parties to fight against each other more.
We ended class today talking about the Alien Act of 1918. This act made it illegal to use disloyal or slanderous language when talking about the U.S. government, the armed forces, or anything dealing with American patriotism. This act also made it legal for the any level of government to deport anarchists, even if they were legal citizens. Many were deported, but were not guilty of the acts that they were accused of. About 11,600 people were deported during this time. My question is: what makes a person get deported for anarchy? What were the guidelines or limitations? If the person said anything, attended a meeting, wrote anything slanderous, or simply if someone accused them of it? To me, this period of people being afraid of anarchists seems quite similar to later events when people were afraid of communists. I do not agree that this legislation was right. During wartime the government was already censoring what people published, but then they tried to censor what people thought! Talk about a government being too controlling. I understand that the government was only trying to protect their best interests and that of the American people, but people have a right to believe whatever they want. Now, however, if these people act upon their beliefs of anarchy, then there is a problem, but they should still be allowed to think about and talk about different forms of government and the problems with our government. I don't believe that there has ever been a time throughout the history of the Earth that people have not had some complaint or another about their government, it seems only human nature to me. People complain about the government especially when it directly effects their lives, like going to war, available jobs, and the economy. We blame the government for any problems with the economy because it is easier to blame the entire government as a single person. So, to try to censor what people believe, even during a time of war, seems useless because people will still feel that way. Deporting people for their beliefs about the government only makes matters worse. First, it makes America look intolerant to other people's believes. It also makes the people who were deported mad, and they might come back with a vengeance. Heck, I am not surprised that the 11,000 people who were deported under the Alien Act of 1918 did not all get together and plan an attack on the American government. It seems to me that deporting people for their beliefs will only come back to bite America in the bottom. These people who were non-violent with their beliefs of anarchy could come back in the violent form of terrorists.
So far, we have had amazing discussions in class and I am really enjoying this book! I think our discussions from the last two classes were definitely better than a lot of our other discussions on the other two books. My group leads discussion on Monday and I can't wait to read the chapter and find some good, solid questions to ask the rest of the class.
So we started talking about Chapter 3 today. I think we skipped Chapter 2 because we have done WAY too much stuff regarding the Civil War this semester! So Chapter 3 discusses the First World War. We started talking about if the U.S. was justified in getting involved in WWI, or if we only got involved in order to protect the interests and investments of the wealthy. I think yes and no that our involvement in the war was justified. Yes because the U.S. was keeping up their relationships by helping their Allies. Plus, war is always good the the economy, ha ha. I do not think we were justified because the war was not really necessary for us. We only joined because our friends invited us. So yes, we did get involved because many wealthy people had investments in Europe and wanted to protect their interests (which is not necessarily a good enough reason to go to war in my opinion).
We spent a great deal of time today discussing the Espionage Act. There are three main parts to this act: 1. a censorship on the press, 2. it is illegal for people to make false claims, and 3. it is illegal to affect opinion within the military (meaning try to make the military think differently/badly about its government). Out of all of these I believe that the censorship of the press is the most important, and not only in a time of war. It is important during a time of war because there has been several times when the press knew more about military operations than the federal government itself! It is important to keep military operations under secrecy because if anything leaks out it could result in the unnecessary deaths of soldiers. The press should be censored during a time of war because it not only keeps soldiers safe, but it makes the country look more united. It looks bad if our government says one thing, but the press says an entirely different thing. The only bad side to censoring the press during wartime is that the government can tell the people only what they want us to know (which means they can lie to us - like the number of people being killed in Vietnam compared to the number of enemies that we were killing). I think it is important not to censor the press when we are not at war too. This is basically the federal government telling the press, and even individual people, that the government trusts the people and lets them print what they want. However, there is always the clear and present danger aspect. I think the government would step in if someone published something that defaced the government or tried to get people riled up to start a revolution or something like that.
We also compared the Espionage Act with the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. The Espionage Act was more focused on its points and stated that it was only for wartime. This act directly affected how we handled the situations that later came from WWII. The Alien and Sedition Acts, however, were more political acts. This act was the first of its kind and later of things were based off of it (or learned from its mistakes). The Alien and Sedition Acts let to Marburry versus Madison. These acts also allowed for the political parties to fight against each other more.
We ended class today talking about the Alien Act of 1918. This act made it illegal to use disloyal or slanderous language when talking about the U.S. government, the armed forces, or anything dealing with American patriotism. This act also made it legal for the any level of government to deport anarchists, even if they were legal citizens. Many were deported, but were not guilty of the acts that they were accused of. About 11,600 people were deported during this time. My question is: what makes a person get deported for anarchy? What were the guidelines or limitations? If the person said anything, attended a meeting, wrote anything slanderous, or simply if someone accused them of it? To me, this period of people being afraid of anarchists seems quite similar to later events when people were afraid of communists. I do not agree that this legislation was right. During wartime the government was already censoring what people published, but then they tried to censor what people thought! Talk about a government being too controlling. I understand that the government was only trying to protect their best interests and that of the American people, but people have a right to believe whatever they want. Now, however, if these people act upon their beliefs of anarchy, then there is a problem, but they should still be allowed to think about and talk about different forms of government and the problems with our government. I don't believe that there has ever been a time throughout the history of the Earth that people have not had some complaint or another about their government, it seems only human nature to me. People complain about the government especially when it directly effects their lives, like going to war, available jobs, and the economy. We blame the government for any problems with the economy because it is easier to blame the entire government as a single person. So, to try to censor what people believe, even during a time of war, seems useless because people will still feel that way. Deporting people for their beliefs about the government only makes matters worse. First, it makes America look intolerant to other people's believes. It also makes the people who were deported mad, and they might come back with a vengeance. Heck, I am not surprised that the 11,000 people who were deported under the Alien Act of 1918 did not all get together and plan an attack on the American government. It seems to me that deporting people for their beliefs will only come back to bite America in the bottom. These people who were non-violent with their beliefs of anarchy could come back in the violent form of terrorists.
So far, we have had amazing discussions in class and I am really enjoying this book! I think our discussions from the last two classes were definitely better than a lot of our other discussions on the other two books. My group leads discussion on Monday and I can't wait to read the chapter and find some good, solid questions to ask the rest of the class.
The "Half War" With France
Monday April 9, 2012
Well today we finally started our last book of the semester! The book is called "Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime" by Geoffrey R. Stone. I am actually happy that we saved this book for last because it is SO much easier to read than the first two. The book flows so much easier and it doesn't feel like a bunch of information is thrown at you at once. So today we discussed the first chapter. This chapter was 78 pages long (all the chapters are pretty lengthy), but the reading goes quite quickly.
The chapter talks a great deal about the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. This act was actually four bills that were passed by the Federalists after the French Revolution. The acts were supposed to protect the country against anarchy. Like many acts passed by the government, the Alien and Sedition Acts were very debatable, and still are today. The first part was the Naturalization Act that made the rules of citizenship. Next, was the Alien Act. This act gave the president the power to deport any person who he considered a danger or threat to the United States. Many believed that this gave the president too much power because he could basically deport anyone who he felt like it just by saying that the person could be a threat. The third act was the Alien Enemies Act. This gave the president the power to deport anyone who was from a country that the U.S. was at war with. So if the country was at war with Germany, the president could deport ALL Germans if he wanted to. This did not exclude people who were legal citizens; anyone could be sent back to their home/native country. The last part was the Sedition Act. This act made it illegal for people to publish false or scandalous writing against the government or people of the government. This act goes against freedom of speech, but the government thought it was constitutional because the people who published lies were seen as a threat to the government and; therefore, were not allowed the same rights as others.
We had a great discussion on the question, "Today, would the Alien and Friends Act be viewed as unconstitutional? Had this Act been revived right after 9/11, what would the ramifications of it have been?" I believe that if this was revived that the country would have went mad! People everywhere would be screaming for their Freedom of Speech and say that the government is becoming too communist. If this was re-used after 9/11 the country would have become even more divided between those who support the act or those against it, and the government versus the "common" person.
We also talked about the similarities between the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and the Sedition Acts of 1917. In both cases the U.S. was anticipating invasion from either France or Mexico. There was a state of war or a fear of a state of war. There was also the believe that the government was trying to protect its merchant ships and outside affairs with other countries. However, in 1798 there was a fear of anarchy, whereas in 1917 there was a fear of communism. In 1917 the Sedition Acts were used more as a political tool.
Like in other times during the semester, we talked about the First Amendment, especially the differences between back in 1798 and today. I believe that back then the First Amendment was used more strictly because even though people disagreed with the government and had their own opinions, they mainly kept their ideas to themselves or among their friends. Today, we use the First Amendment a lot. People today believe that they can say whatever that want because they have the freedom of speech. Because our country is more creative and diverse than it used to be, the government lets more things go that would have gotten people into a lot of trouble back in the late 1700s. It could also have something to do with people of today's world: everyone wants to be seen as unique and different, but yet they want to be accepted. I also believe that this could have something to do with the fact that back in the day people had more respect for their government and the majority of people trusted the government to do the right thing and protect the people. Today, after years of being led astray, people are less likely to trust what the government says and go against it.
The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were also discussed today. There were a few different reasons why Thomas Jefferson and James Madison secretly drafted these documents. First, they knew that they were doing was dangerous and the majority of people would not agree with them. Next, they were going against the federal government. This could pose dangerous to their reputations. Last, the American people of the time were already divided over several different issues, and the Kentucky and Virginia Resolution would have only furthered this division. I believe that they also kept the secret because they wanted to make sure that their thoughts were well written and they had ample support for their ideas. For example, I would not write about a topic that I knew nothing about and show it off to people like it was truth because people would know that I did not know what I was talking about. Jefferson and Madison did a good thing by keeping their ideas secret and only sharing with a select few because then if the idea was to take off, it would already have supporters.
Well today we finally started our last book of the semester! The book is called "Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime" by Geoffrey R. Stone. I am actually happy that we saved this book for last because it is SO much easier to read than the first two. The book flows so much easier and it doesn't feel like a bunch of information is thrown at you at once. So today we discussed the first chapter. This chapter was 78 pages long (all the chapters are pretty lengthy), but the reading goes quite quickly.
The chapter talks a great deal about the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. This act was actually four bills that were passed by the Federalists after the French Revolution. The acts were supposed to protect the country against anarchy. Like many acts passed by the government, the Alien and Sedition Acts were very debatable, and still are today. The first part was the Naturalization Act that made the rules of citizenship. Next, was the Alien Act. This act gave the president the power to deport any person who he considered a danger or threat to the United States. Many believed that this gave the president too much power because he could basically deport anyone who he felt like it just by saying that the person could be a threat. The third act was the Alien Enemies Act. This gave the president the power to deport anyone who was from a country that the U.S. was at war with. So if the country was at war with Germany, the president could deport ALL Germans if he wanted to. This did not exclude people who were legal citizens; anyone could be sent back to their home/native country. The last part was the Sedition Act. This act made it illegal for people to publish false or scandalous writing against the government or people of the government. This act goes against freedom of speech, but the government thought it was constitutional because the people who published lies were seen as a threat to the government and; therefore, were not allowed the same rights as others.
We had a great discussion on the question, "Today, would the Alien and Friends Act be viewed as unconstitutional? Had this Act been revived right after 9/11, what would the ramifications of it have been?" I believe that if this was revived that the country would have went mad! People everywhere would be screaming for their Freedom of Speech and say that the government is becoming too communist. If this was re-used after 9/11 the country would have become even more divided between those who support the act or those against it, and the government versus the "common" person.
We also talked about the similarities between the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and the Sedition Acts of 1917. In both cases the U.S. was anticipating invasion from either France or Mexico. There was a state of war or a fear of a state of war. There was also the believe that the government was trying to protect its merchant ships and outside affairs with other countries. However, in 1798 there was a fear of anarchy, whereas in 1917 there was a fear of communism. In 1917 the Sedition Acts were used more as a political tool.
Like in other times during the semester, we talked about the First Amendment, especially the differences between back in 1798 and today. I believe that back then the First Amendment was used more strictly because even though people disagreed with the government and had their own opinions, they mainly kept their ideas to themselves or among their friends. Today, we use the First Amendment a lot. People today believe that they can say whatever that want because they have the freedom of speech. Because our country is more creative and diverse than it used to be, the government lets more things go that would have gotten people into a lot of trouble back in the late 1700s. It could also have something to do with people of today's world: everyone wants to be seen as unique and different, but yet they want to be accepted. I also believe that this could have something to do with the fact that back in the day people had more respect for their government and the majority of people trusted the government to do the right thing and protect the people. Today, after years of being led astray, people are less likely to trust what the government says and go against it.
The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were also discussed today. There were a few different reasons why Thomas Jefferson and James Madison secretly drafted these documents. First, they knew that they were doing was dangerous and the majority of people would not agree with them. Next, they were going against the federal government. This could pose dangerous to their reputations. Last, the American people of the time were already divided over several different issues, and the Kentucky and Virginia Resolution would have only furthered this division. I believe that they also kept the secret because they wanted to make sure that their thoughts were well written and they had ample support for their ideas. For example, I would not write about a topic that I knew nothing about and show it off to people like it was truth because people would know that I did not know what I was talking about. Jefferson and Madison did a good thing by keeping their ideas secret and only sharing with a select few because then if the idea was to take off, it would already have supporters.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
New York Times Article
Wednesday April 4, 2012
Due to the centennial celebration at Aurora University, we did not have class today. Instead we were given a New York Times article to read and blog about. The topic is the very controversial event of the death of 17 year old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida. Though after reading the article several times, I still cannot tell whether it is more in favor of Trayvon or George Zimmerman. The article tells the backgrounds of both men (including good and bad things), the event on February 2, 2012, and the events that have come out of Trayvon's death.
Trayvon Martin's Background:
Trayvon Martin was 17 years old and lived in Miami, Florida. He was the typical high school male: liked girls, video games, and occasionally got into trouble. Many people recalled that Trayvon was easy-going, did not have an attitude, respected his family members, and got average grades. This article, however, states that Trayvon did get into trouble: three suspensions, tardiness, graffiti, and possession of marijuana. Trayvon and his father were in Sanford because they were visiting Trayvon's father's girlfriend of about two years and her fourteen year old son, Chad.
George Zimmerman's Background:
George Zimmerman was originally from Virginia and moved to Florida in 2001. Like Trayvon, many people said that George was a nice person, but had some struggles in life. Zimmerman used to have a good job in the housing market, but when the housing market went under he lost his job. Since then he had several small-time jobs (CarMax and Target). Zimmerman had a history of minor violence. Upon moving to the Sanford area, he recognized the crime rate was rising and he wanted to get the community together to do something about it. In August of 2012 the homeowner's association decided to create a neighborhood watch. The police department came to the area and briefed the people on the proper procedures and rules. They made it clear that volunteers do not possess police power, they should not be armed, and they should be the eyes and ears for the police. Zimmerman, however, had a license to have a firearm. Since August, it was reported that he made several calls to the police department and went above the call of the neighborhood watch program. It was said that he would either call the cops of go up to someone's house in the middle of the night and tell them that their garage door was open. His activities and preoccupation with the welfare of others made some neighbors get annoyed and worried.
February 2, 2012:
On February 2 Trayvon's father and his girlfriend went out to dinner and left the two boys home alone. Trayvon decided to go out for a walk to 7-Eleven. Chad said that he wanted Skittles, so Trayvon got some along with an iced tea. While walking back to his father's girlfriends house (in a gated community), George Zimmerman started to follow the boy from his car. George was reported telling the police "He looks black." The police told Zimmerman not to follow the boy any further and the police would be there soon. Zimmerman, however, got out of his car and started following Trayvon on foot. Trayvon, at the time, was talking to his girlfriend on the phone and was aware that someone was following him. From that point on is a little fuzzy because Zimmerman was not on the phone with the police anymore and Trayvon's phone went dead. It has been reported that the two shared an argument, followed by struggling on the sidewalk, ending with Trayvon being shot. There were people who witnessed the two struggling, but no one saw exactly what happened because it was dark outside. When the police showed up Trayvon was already dead, just a few houses from his destination. His father was unaware of what happened until the next morning when he reported Trayvon missing and the police told him what had happened.
Events Since Trayvon's Death:
Since the event there have been several different accounts of what happened, from Zimmerman along with those who saw and heard the struggle. Zimmerman was taken to the Sanford police department, claiming that he was using self-defense. The police tended to side with Zimmerman, according to the article, because he had a clean record, had a license to carry a weapon, and was studying criminal justice. Because of the "Stand Your Ground" law, Zimmerman was not arrested. The state attorney said that this law is quite controversial because they have about three or four cases every month that deal with the law, this event only makes the law more famous and debatable. Trayvon's family is outraged because the police have not collected evidence, interviewed witnesses, or anything else that police normally do for a homicide. The police have not even interviewed Trayvon's girlfriend yet! Trayvon's family said that "a young man is shot dead, and a month later, still no arrest." Since this event has went national (even international!) Zimmerman is facing death threats against himself and his family.
This event challenges many things: the First Amendment (right to bear arms), self-defense, "Stand Your Ground" law, and it even questions racial discrimination. The death of Trayvon Martin has gained increasing attention since people like President Obama, Rev. Jesse Jackson, and even Opera have went to Florida to visit the family. No one will ever know the entire story because only Zimmerman lives to tell the tale. One thing is for certain: this event and the actions that come out of it will not go away. This case will only intensify the already strong fight among the different races in America.
Due to the centennial celebration at Aurora University, we did not have class today. Instead we were given a New York Times article to read and blog about. The topic is the very controversial event of the death of 17 year old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida. Though after reading the article several times, I still cannot tell whether it is more in favor of Trayvon or George Zimmerman. The article tells the backgrounds of both men (including good and bad things), the event on February 2, 2012, and the events that have come out of Trayvon's death.
Trayvon Martin's Background:
Trayvon Martin was 17 years old and lived in Miami, Florida. He was the typical high school male: liked girls, video games, and occasionally got into trouble. Many people recalled that Trayvon was easy-going, did not have an attitude, respected his family members, and got average grades. This article, however, states that Trayvon did get into trouble: three suspensions, tardiness, graffiti, and possession of marijuana. Trayvon and his father were in Sanford because they were visiting Trayvon's father's girlfriend of about two years and her fourteen year old son, Chad.
George Zimmerman's Background:
George Zimmerman was originally from Virginia and moved to Florida in 2001. Like Trayvon, many people said that George was a nice person, but had some struggles in life. Zimmerman used to have a good job in the housing market, but when the housing market went under he lost his job. Since then he had several small-time jobs (CarMax and Target). Zimmerman had a history of minor violence. Upon moving to the Sanford area, he recognized the crime rate was rising and he wanted to get the community together to do something about it. In August of 2012 the homeowner's association decided to create a neighborhood watch. The police department came to the area and briefed the people on the proper procedures and rules. They made it clear that volunteers do not possess police power, they should not be armed, and they should be the eyes and ears for the police. Zimmerman, however, had a license to have a firearm. Since August, it was reported that he made several calls to the police department and went above the call of the neighborhood watch program. It was said that he would either call the cops of go up to someone's house in the middle of the night and tell them that their garage door was open. His activities and preoccupation with the welfare of others made some neighbors get annoyed and worried.
February 2, 2012:
On February 2 Trayvon's father and his girlfriend went out to dinner and left the two boys home alone. Trayvon decided to go out for a walk to 7-Eleven. Chad said that he wanted Skittles, so Trayvon got some along with an iced tea. While walking back to his father's girlfriends house (in a gated community), George Zimmerman started to follow the boy from his car. George was reported telling the police "He looks black." The police told Zimmerman not to follow the boy any further and the police would be there soon. Zimmerman, however, got out of his car and started following Trayvon on foot. Trayvon, at the time, was talking to his girlfriend on the phone and was aware that someone was following him. From that point on is a little fuzzy because Zimmerman was not on the phone with the police anymore and Trayvon's phone went dead. It has been reported that the two shared an argument, followed by struggling on the sidewalk, ending with Trayvon being shot. There were people who witnessed the two struggling, but no one saw exactly what happened because it was dark outside. When the police showed up Trayvon was already dead, just a few houses from his destination. His father was unaware of what happened until the next morning when he reported Trayvon missing and the police told him what had happened.
Events Since Trayvon's Death:
Since the event there have been several different accounts of what happened, from Zimmerman along with those who saw and heard the struggle. Zimmerman was taken to the Sanford police department, claiming that he was using self-defense. The police tended to side with Zimmerman, according to the article, because he had a clean record, had a license to carry a weapon, and was studying criminal justice. Because of the "Stand Your Ground" law, Zimmerman was not arrested. The state attorney said that this law is quite controversial because they have about three or four cases every month that deal with the law, this event only makes the law more famous and debatable. Trayvon's family is outraged because the police have not collected evidence, interviewed witnesses, or anything else that police normally do for a homicide. The police have not even interviewed Trayvon's girlfriend yet! Trayvon's family said that "a young man is shot dead, and a month later, still no arrest." Since this event has went national (even international!) Zimmerman is facing death threats against himself and his family.
This event challenges many things: the First Amendment (right to bear arms), self-defense, "Stand Your Ground" law, and it even questions racial discrimination. The death of Trayvon Martin has gained increasing attention since people like President Obama, Rev. Jesse Jackson, and even Opera have went to Florida to visit the family. No one will ever know the entire story because only Zimmerman lives to tell the tale. One thing is for certain: this event and the actions that come out of it will not go away. This case will only intensify the already strong fight among the different races in America.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)