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.
Federalism and Judicial Review
Monday, April 2, 2012
Today was our last day discussing chapters from "Major Problems In American Constitutional History." We discussed Chapter 14: Federalism and Judicial Review. This chapter included documents from the 1940s, 60s, 90s, and 2000; which means that there was a lot of different topics covered, but all pertaining to the power and authority of the federal government and the court systems. Document 1 was about the court case Wickard v. Filburn (1942). In this case a farmer was accused of growing too much wheat. The government had put a limit to the amount of wheat a farmer could grow after the Great Depression in order to try to regulate prices and fix the economy. These government regulations sounded a lot like socialism to most people. The farmer was growing the amount limited to the government, but then he grew extra in order to feed his animals with. The Supreme Court actually ruled against the farmer and said that the the power of Congress is increased due to the economic state. I don't think I necessarily agree with the Supreme Court's decision.... Why the economy was still trying to recover after the Great Depression, I do not believe that Congress still needed an increase in their power and authority. By 1941 the economy was doing much better, so I am not sure that there still needed to be government regulations. It is also strange that the court ruled in favor of the Congress because in many other cases the courts ruled against the government.
Document 3 dealt with Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964). This case dealt with a white hotel owner who did not want to serve African American clients. A person who wanted to stay at the motel, but was turned away brought the court case up to the Supreme Court. He said that is was discrimination to turn customers away based on the color of their skin. During the trial, the Fourteenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause were used as justifications. I believe that using the Fourteenth Amendment was a stronger justification than the Commerce Clause because it encompassed more people and said that everyone is equal and can rent a hotel room. It was said that about 75% of the people who stayed at that hotel were from out of state. The defense, in return, used the Thirteenth Amendment and said that he was being forced into slavery by being forced to serve someone that he did not want to. This case contested the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The act was contested very quickly because the same year that it was put into effect there was already a court case using it as leverage. The court decided that Congress was acting within its jurisdiction dealing with the Interstate Commerce Clause. The motel was ordered by the court to receive business for anyone who wanted it. Personally, I do not understand what the big deal is and why the motel owners did not want to serve non-white costumers. Like many other businesses of the time, they could have added a section to their motel for non-white patrons. If the company did this they could still make money from anyone who wanted to rent a room.
Document 5 was United States v. Lopez (1995). This case challenged the "gun-free" school zone act. The decision said that the federal government cannot set a law saying that students could not carry weapons to school. We discussed this court case in relation to President Obama's health care legislation. We talked about how allowing guns in schools could make the price of health insurance go up and how students of younger ages are so dramatic, that if they were allowed guns in schools there would definitely be more shootings and killings. This court case made a more limited federal government and was also a significant turning point toward a more conservative court.
United States v. Morrison (2000) was Document 7. This case deals with the rape of a female student by two male football players at a college. The victim took the case to federal courts and the Supreme Court said that the violence against the Women Act was unconstitutional. I think the make-up of the Supreme Court had a lot to do with how this case was decided. At the time, only two women in the Supreme Court were women. I believe, if there were more women that the case would have been decided differently. The court would have been more in favor of the victim. However, since there were only two women in the Supreme Court, I believe, that they ruled more like the men in order to make a point that even though they were women, they could decide things without making any judgements. I also wonder how this court case made it all the way up to the Supreme Court, since it was a matter of rape. Usually those types of cases are handled by the lower courts. I think Congress overstepped its bounds by making it a federal case. I believe that this case could have easily been handled in the lower courts.
There were two essays at the end of this chapter. Essay one deals with the Constitutions and the Founding Fathers. The author states that since federalism mattered to the Founding Fathers it should matter to the Supreme Court. Then the class went into a discussion on if we believed that the Supreme Court should try to figure out what the Founding Fathers meant on certain issues in the Constitution and how the Founding Fathers would think about current constitutional issues. I think the majority of the class agreed that the Supreme Court should look a the Constitution as a living document. The Founding Fathers had no idea how big the country would grow, what technology would lead to, or other important aspects. If the courts and the people look at the Constitution and constantly try to figure out what the Founding Fathers meant on every little detail, the government would get nowhere! Every way a person looks at the Constitution is an interpretation because no one knows for sure what the Founding Fathers believed. The Constitution was written specifically in a way so that people can make changes to it over time, so it is a living document.
Essay two talked more about the Morrison (2000) case. The author had a very negative outlook on the ruling of the case. The author (a woman) stated that the Supreme Court got the decision wrong because it didn't use equal rights. The woman dropped out of college because she was raped and the two football players were not punished. I agree and disagree with the author. I agree that the Supreme Court got it wrong because the football players got no punishment whatsoever. The court found the boys guilty, but gave them no punishment. That is basically telling everyone in the country that it is okay to rape someone because it is not that big of a deal. I disagree with this author because she stated that the court did not use the equal rights. I believe that if the victim wanted to drop out of college, that was completely her own decision. She could have very easily transferred to another college and completed her degree if she so desired to. One must also take into account that the author of this essay is a woman. A male author might have had the same thoughts, but I believe a male author would have used different reasons for why he disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision. As I have learned throughout many of my classes, it is all about perspective and background knowledge!
Another topic that we covered in class was how to write a good book review. A book REVIEW is much different than a book REPORT (which I have gotten confused several times). A good book review should be about 1200-1500 words (or 3-4 pages). This should include: a brief background on the author, the topic(s), scope or period of time covered, the thesis, the readability (how entertaining it is), the intended audience, any supplemental material, and if the author of the book review would recommend the book. Professor Butters told the class that it is best to make a "Praise Sandwich" out of our book reviews. This means starting with the positive aspects of the book, then have some criticism, then end with more positive comments. I never thought of approaching a book review like this, but now it makes sense. Many times when a person writes a book review it is either mainly positive or mainly negative, but this changes with the field that a person is in. For example, if I become a history major and many people know of my work and I know of theirs I am not going to completely discredit someone's work because they are my college. A "Praise Sandwich" tells the audience the good things about the book, while at the same time stating some of the not-so-great things. This way, the author of said book is not highly offended because they received overall positive feedback. I think I will have a difficult time writing my book review of Doris Kearns Goodwin's book, but I look forward to the challenge!
Today was our last day discussing chapters from "Major Problems In American Constitutional History." We discussed Chapter 14: Federalism and Judicial Review. This chapter included documents from the 1940s, 60s, 90s, and 2000; which means that there was a lot of different topics covered, but all pertaining to the power and authority of the federal government and the court systems. Document 1 was about the court case Wickard v. Filburn (1942). In this case a farmer was accused of growing too much wheat. The government had put a limit to the amount of wheat a farmer could grow after the Great Depression in order to try to regulate prices and fix the economy. These government regulations sounded a lot like socialism to most people. The farmer was growing the amount limited to the government, but then he grew extra in order to feed his animals with. The Supreme Court actually ruled against the farmer and said that the the power of Congress is increased due to the economic state. I don't think I necessarily agree with the Supreme Court's decision.... Why the economy was still trying to recover after the Great Depression, I do not believe that Congress still needed an increase in their power and authority. By 1941 the economy was doing much better, so I am not sure that there still needed to be government regulations. It is also strange that the court ruled in favor of the Congress because in many other cases the courts ruled against the government.
Document 3 dealt with Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964). This case dealt with a white hotel owner who did not want to serve African American clients. A person who wanted to stay at the motel, but was turned away brought the court case up to the Supreme Court. He said that is was discrimination to turn customers away based on the color of their skin. During the trial, the Fourteenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause were used as justifications. I believe that using the Fourteenth Amendment was a stronger justification than the Commerce Clause because it encompassed more people and said that everyone is equal and can rent a hotel room. It was said that about 75% of the people who stayed at that hotel were from out of state. The defense, in return, used the Thirteenth Amendment and said that he was being forced into slavery by being forced to serve someone that he did not want to. This case contested the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The act was contested very quickly because the same year that it was put into effect there was already a court case using it as leverage. The court decided that Congress was acting within its jurisdiction dealing with the Interstate Commerce Clause. The motel was ordered by the court to receive business for anyone who wanted it. Personally, I do not understand what the big deal is and why the motel owners did not want to serve non-white costumers. Like many other businesses of the time, they could have added a section to their motel for non-white patrons. If the company did this they could still make money from anyone who wanted to rent a room.
Document 5 was United States v. Lopez (1995). This case challenged the "gun-free" school zone act. The decision said that the federal government cannot set a law saying that students could not carry weapons to school. We discussed this court case in relation to President Obama's health care legislation. We talked about how allowing guns in schools could make the price of health insurance go up and how students of younger ages are so dramatic, that if they were allowed guns in schools there would definitely be more shootings and killings. This court case made a more limited federal government and was also a significant turning point toward a more conservative court.
United States v. Morrison (2000) was Document 7. This case deals with the rape of a female student by two male football players at a college. The victim took the case to federal courts and the Supreme Court said that the violence against the Women Act was unconstitutional. I think the make-up of the Supreme Court had a lot to do with how this case was decided. At the time, only two women in the Supreme Court were women. I believe, if there were more women that the case would have been decided differently. The court would have been more in favor of the victim. However, since there were only two women in the Supreme Court, I believe, that they ruled more like the men in order to make a point that even though they were women, they could decide things without making any judgements. I also wonder how this court case made it all the way up to the Supreme Court, since it was a matter of rape. Usually those types of cases are handled by the lower courts. I think Congress overstepped its bounds by making it a federal case. I believe that this case could have easily been handled in the lower courts.
There were two essays at the end of this chapter. Essay one deals with the Constitutions and the Founding Fathers. The author states that since federalism mattered to the Founding Fathers it should matter to the Supreme Court. Then the class went into a discussion on if we believed that the Supreme Court should try to figure out what the Founding Fathers meant on certain issues in the Constitution and how the Founding Fathers would think about current constitutional issues. I think the majority of the class agreed that the Supreme Court should look a the Constitution as a living document. The Founding Fathers had no idea how big the country would grow, what technology would lead to, or other important aspects. If the courts and the people look at the Constitution and constantly try to figure out what the Founding Fathers meant on every little detail, the government would get nowhere! Every way a person looks at the Constitution is an interpretation because no one knows for sure what the Founding Fathers believed. The Constitution was written specifically in a way so that people can make changes to it over time, so it is a living document.
Essay two talked more about the Morrison (2000) case. The author had a very negative outlook on the ruling of the case. The author (a woman) stated that the Supreme Court got the decision wrong because it didn't use equal rights. The woman dropped out of college because she was raped and the two football players were not punished. I agree and disagree with the author. I agree that the Supreme Court got it wrong because the football players got no punishment whatsoever. The court found the boys guilty, but gave them no punishment. That is basically telling everyone in the country that it is okay to rape someone because it is not that big of a deal. I disagree with this author because she stated that the court did not use the equal rights. I believe that if the victim wanted to drop out of college, that was completely her own decision. She could have very easily transferred to another college and completed her degree if she so desired to. One must also take into account that the author of this essay is a woman. A male author might have had the same thoughts, but I believe a male author would have used different reasons for why he disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision. As I have learned throughout many of my classes, it is all about perspective and background knowledge!
Another topic that we covered in class was how to write a good book review. A book REVIEW is much different than a book REPORT (which I have gotten confused several times). A good book review should be about 1200-1500 words (or 3-4 pages). This should include: a brief background on the author, the topic(s), scope or period of time covered, the thesis, the readability (how entertaining it is), the intended audience, any supplemental material, and if the author of the book review would recommend the book. Professor Butters told the class that it is best to make a "Praise Sandwich" out of our book reviews. This means starting with the positive aspects of the book, then have some criticism, then end with more positive comments. I never thought of approaching a book review like this, but now it makes sense. Many times when a person writes a book review it is either mainly positive or mainly negative, but this changes with the field that a person is in. For example, if I become a history major and many people know of my work and I know of theirs I am not going to completely discredit someone's work because they are my college. A "Praise Sandwich" tells the audience the good things about the book, while at the same time stating some of the not-so-great things. This way, the author of said book is not highly offended because they received overall positive feedback. I think I will have a difficult time writing my book review of Doris Kearns Goodwin's book, but I look forward to the challenge!
Friday, March 30, 2012
Freedom of and Freedom from Religion
Wednesday March 28, 2012
Today Martha and I got to present Chapter 13 of "Major Problems in American Constitutional History." Our topic was Freedom of and Freedom from Religion. At first, I was not that interested in the topic because I do not have much interest in the topic. However, the text did a good job illustrating different problems between religion and government over the years. It even had court cases from the 21st century. I also was able to relate to some of the issues that were brought up, such as saying "One nation under God" in the pledge of allegiance and having a "moment of silence" at the beginning of each school day because these issues became major problems when I was in high school.
Before we even started our discussion I reminded the class that many people came to America for religious freedom, yet they were intolerant of others. Also, according to the text, religion was not that big of an issue until the 1940s when new immigrants brought a lot more diversity.
Document 1 dealt with the court case of Engel v. Vitale. This case dealt with a city in New York when the government created a prayer and had school children recite it every day. The prayer was, "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country. Amen." This case determined that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage it to be said in public schools. However, some officials still believed that this prayer was worded so vaguely that it did not promote any particular religion, and therefore, did not violate the First Amendment. I find it funny that some people thought that back then. Today, we have many different religions in this country who do not pray to one god, but either several or none at all. Back in 1962 when this case was happening, however, there must not been as many different religions with multiple gods. Either way, government officials cannot create a prayer and make school children recite it (especially because we all know how gullible children are...).
We also looked at the court case from 1985 Wallace v. Jaffree. In this case Jaffree was a parent of 3 children. An Alabama law authorized teachers to set aside one minute at the start of each day for a moment of "silent meditation or voluntary prayer." In this case the teachers were leading prayers and the students was saying them out loud in unison. Jaffree said it violated the First Amendment and that his children were subject to carious acts of religious indoctrination. When his children did not recite the prayer they were ostracized from their peers/classmates. In the end, the Supreme Court said the law was unconstitutional in a 6-3 vote.
The last document was talked about today (we ran out of time to discuss the essays) was document 7. This was the court case of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002). Public schools in Cleveland, Ohio were deemed failures by the federal government. The Pilot Project Scholarship Program was created to provide tuition vouchers for up to $2,250 a year to some parents of students to attend participating public or private schools in the city and neighboring suburbs. The vouchers were distributed to parents according to financial need and the parents got to choose where to enroll their children. The problem with this system was that 82% of participating private schools had a religious affiliation. Many people thought this violated the First Amendment because it was mixing church and state. The Supreme Court ruled that it did not violate the Establishment Clause because it passed a 5 part test:
1.) the program must have a valid secular purpose
2.) aid must go to parents and not to the schools
3.) a broad class of beneficiaries must be covered
4.) the program must be neutral with respect to religion, and
5.) there must be adequate nonreligious options
Upon deciding the case, the judges said that they were being consistent in this case like they were with Mueller, Witters, and Zobrest.
Along with religion, we also talked more about periodization. The lists that we made up on Monday were not periodization, they were chronology. This was to show students that it can be difficult to mix/confuse the two different ways to sort historical events. Periodization has to have years/dates and sometimes things can overlap between multiple periods, again, the Cold War comes to mind. It is important to keep in mind that periodization is not simply a list of events, it is a generalization of a period. Our homework for today was to make two different periodizations of our life. I have chose to do mine in a social aspect and in an economic aspect. Though my life is but twenty years long, I have experienced enough to make a periodization of my life.
Social Periodization
1991-1994 communication only with family
1995-1998 making first real friends/a little shy (early school years)
1998-2001 outspoken (learning to speak your mind)
2002-2005 true tests of friendships (middle/high school)
2006-2009 planning for the future (high school graduation)
2010-2012 working toward goals & keeping best friends close
Economic Periodization
1991-1996 relied completely on parents for everything
1997-2002 chores
2003-2008 first jobs
2009-2012 more independence/pay for everything myself
Today Martha and I got to present Chapter 13 of "Major Problems in American Constitutional History." Our topic was Freedom of and Freedom from Religion. At first, I was not that interested in the topic because I do not have much interest in the topic. However, the text did a good job illustrating different problems between religion and government over the years. It even had court cases from the 21st century. I also was able to relate to some of the issues that were brought up, such as saying "One nation under God" in the pledge of allegiance and having a "moment of silence" at the beginning of each school day because these issues became major problems when I was in high school.
Before we even started our discussion I reminded the class that many people came to America for religious freedom, yet they were intolerant of others. Also, according to the text, religion was not that big of an issue until the 1940s when new immigrants brought a lot more diversity.
Document 1 dealt with the court case of Engel v. Vitale. This case dealt with a city in New York when the government created a prayer and had school children recite it every day. The prayer was, "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country. Amen." This case determined that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage it to be said in public schools. However, some officials still believed that this prayer was worded so vaguely that it did not promote any particular religion, and therefore, did not violate the First Amendment. I find it funny that some people thought that back then. Today, we have many different religions in this country who do not pray to one god, but either several or none at all. Back in 1962 when this case was happening, however, there must not been as many different religions with multiple gods. Either way, government officials cannot create a prayer and make school children recite it (especially because we all know how gullible children are...).
We also looked at the court case from 1985 Wallace v. Jaffree. In this case Jaffree was a parent of 3 children. An Alabama law authorized teachers to set aside one minute at the start of each day for a moment of "silent meditation or voluntary prayer." In this case the teachers were leading prayers and the students was saying them out loud in unison. Jaffree said it violated the First Amendment and that his children were subject to carious acts of religious indoctrination. When his children did not recite the prayer they were ostracized from their peers/classmates. In the end, the Supreme Court said the law was unconstitutional in a 6-3 vote.
The last document was talked about today (we ran out of time to discuss the essays) was document 7. This was the court case of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002). Public schools in Cleveland, Ohio were deemed failures by the federal government. The Pilot Project Scholarship Program was created to provide tuition vouchers for up to $2,250 a year to some parents of students to attend participating public or private schools in the city and neighboring suburbs. The vouchers were distributed to parents according to financial need and the parents got to choose where to enroll their children. The problem with this system was that 82% of participating private schools had a religious affiliation. Many people thought this violated the First Amendment because it was mixing church and state. The Supreme Court ruled that it did not violate the Establishment Clause because it passed a 5 part test:
1.) the program must have a valid secular purpose
2.) aid must go to parents and not to the schools
3.) a broad class of beneficiaries must be covered
4.) the program must be neutral with respect to religion, and
5.) there must be adequate nonreligious options
Upon deciding the case, the judges said that they were being consistent in this case like they were with Mueller, Witters, and Zobrest.
Along with religion, we also talked more about periodization. The lists that we made up on Monday were not periodization, they were chronology. This was to show students that it can be difficult to mix/confuse the two different ways to sort historical events. Periodization has to have years/dates and sometimes things can overlap between multiple periods, again, the Cold War comes to mind. It is important to keep in mind that periodization is not simply a list of events, it is a generalization of a period. Our homework for today was to make two different periodizations of our life. I have chose to do mine in a social aspect and in an economic aspect. Though my life is but twenty years long, I have experienced enough to make a periodization of my life.
Social Periodization
1991-1994 communication only with family
1995-1998 making first real friends/a little shy (early school years)
1998-2001 outspoken (learning to speak your mind)
2002-2005 true tests of friendships (middle/high school)
2006-2009 planning for the future (high school graduation)
2010-2012 working toward goals & keeping best friends close
Economic Periodization
1991-1996 relied completely on parents for everything
1997-2002 chores
2003-2008 first jobs
2009-2012 more independence/pay for everything myself
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Abortion Rights
Monday March 26, 2012
Today in class we discussed Chapter 12 - Abortion Rights: The United States and South Africa Compared. I was quite surprised that we did not have an all out brawl in class on the discussion topic (it tends to be a bit of a touchy subject with some people). Fortunately, everyone got along and we had a good discussion and debate.
One topic we touched upon was Griswold v. Connecticut. This document dealt with the government banning the use of contraceptives because the "government has a right to invade privacy unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision." I do not agree with this at all. To me, the government invading the privacy between two people is quite similar to the government trying to invade religious experiences. These matters between two people should be a private matter, unless they are doing something that is illegal. This court case makes contraceptives legal for MARRIED people, not singles. That again, I do not agree with because the main job of the government is to protect all citizens, not just those who are married. This act can easily force someone to get married just so they can use contraceptives, which seems unconstitutional to me.
In the court case Roe v. Wade Roe wanted to obtain an abortion, but the Texas government said no. In this case, the right to privacy was the main issue. Could a state government forbid someone to get an abortion? The court created some restrictions for abortions. 1.) The woman in question must let their partner know what they want to do and get consent. 2.) If the person is younger than 18 years old they must get their parent's permission. 3.) There is a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure. There were also some restrictions regarding the age of viability and how old the unborn child is (which trimester the mother is in). In many cases, the state governments have tried to put restrictions on abortion, especially for minors.
Document 6 is a part of South Africa's Constitution. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, Africa's is must more clearly stated. There is little room for interpretations, which could be a good thing. This is true in the section of equality: "Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law." or "Everyone has the right to life." or "No one may be subjected to slavery, servitude or forced labor. I think this constitution is actually very good because it clearly defines the laws, not like the U.S. Constitution that seems to dance around the subjects and can have more than one type of interpretation. The only thing from this document that I found that could be interpreted is the freedom of expression clause. It says that everyone has the right to freedom of expression but it does "not extend to a. propaganda for war, b. incitement of imminent violence, or c. advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender, or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm." These parts, especially c, can (I think) be quite vague and possibly be interpreted a few different ways, like what the government considers an advocacy of hatred.
Essay 1 states that Roe v. Wade was a mistake. The main reason the author concludes this is because the age of children. According to the essay, a fetus is not a child of any age. Also, only children under the age of 18 are protected by the government. So if a fetus is a child that does not have an age, then it cannot be protected by the government. This raised the question "what counts as a person?" The government had a difficult time in determining what they will count as a person, child, or anyone else that needs protection. I personally do not know what to believe on the subject because I have mixed feelings. However, I do believe that the mother of an unborn child is a citizen of the U.S. and, therefore, deserves protection and/or support for whatever her decision might be. I also believe that the state and federal governments are beginning to stick themselves in personal and private matters that don't really need government assistance. The government should take their time that they spend in other people's matters and actually do something good for the country and start trying to fix the economy, leave parenting, or lack thereof, to those whom is may concern.
Today we also began talking about chronology and periodization. Chronology is the order/arrangement of events based on their dates. Historians try to put things in chronological order by putting events into sections of dates, such as 1900-1915. Some events, such as the Cold War, can easily span more than one section of time, making it harder to place things in chronological order. We also talked about periodization. this is sort of like chronology, but instead of making a list of things that happened during a certain time period, historians try to label the period based on major events. So, 1950-1970 would not be: Martin Luther King Jr., Kennedy assassination, etc. It would be something like Civil Rights Movement. Periodization is trying to pull several events together and make a defining characteristic for them, such as "The Roaring 20s." We had an in-class exercise in which groups tried to periodize American History and World History from 1900 until present. This was very difficult to do, and my group started just listing events, which is chronology, not periodization. It is very difficult to define an entire era and it can be done in many different ways, such as military, economic, political, women's perspective, global, Euro-centric, and many many more. Like many things dealing with history, periodization is based on the author's perspective and which direction/spin they want to put on things.
Today in class we discussed Chapter 12 - Abortion Rights: The United States and South Africa Compared. I was quite surprised that we did not have an all out brawl in class on the discussion topic (it tends to be a bit of a touchy subject with some people). Fortunately, everyone got along and we had a good discussion and debate.
One topic we touched upon was Griswold v. Connecticut. This document dealt with the government banning the use of contraceptives because the "government has a right to invade privacy unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision." I do not agree with this at all. To me, the government invading the privacy between two people is quite similar to the government trying to invade religious experiences. These matters between two people should be a private matter, unless they are doing something that is illegal. This court case makes contraceptives legal for MARRIED people, not singles. That again, I do not agree with because the main job of the government is to protect all citizens, not just those who are married. This act can easily force someone to get married just so they can use contraceptives, which seems unconstitutional to me.
In the court case Roe v. Wade Roe wanted to obtain an abortion, but the Texas government said no. In this case, the right to privacy was the main issue. Could a state government forbid someone to get an abortion? The court created some restrictions for abortions. 1.) The woman in question must let their partner know what they want to do and get consent. 2.) If the person is younger than 18 years old they must get their parent's permission. 3.) There is a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure. There were also some restrictions regarding the age of viability and how old the unborn child is (which trimester the mother is in). In many cases, the state governments have tried to put restrictions on abortion, especially for minors.
Document 6 is a part of South Africa's Constitution. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, Africa's is must more clearly stated. There is little room for interpretations, which could be a good thing. This is true in the section of equality: "Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law." or "Everyone has the right to life." or "No one may be subjected to slavery, servitude or forced labor. I think this constitution is actually very good because it clearly defines the laws, not like the U.S. Constitution that seems to dance around the subjects and can have more than one type of interpretation. The only thing from this document that I found that could be interpreted is the freedom of expression clause. It says that everyone has the right to freedom of expression but it does "not extend to a. propaganda for war, b. incitement of imminent violence, or c. advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender, or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm." These parts, especially c, can (I think) be quite vague and possibly be interpreted a few different ways, like what the government considers an advocacy of hatred.
Essay 1 states that Roe v. Wade was a mistake. The main reason the author concludes this is because the age of children. According to the essay, a fetus is not a child of any age. Also, only children under the age of 18 are protected by the government. So if a fetus is a child that does not have an age, then it cannot be protected by the government. This raised the question "what counts as a person?" The government had a difficult time in determining what they will count as a person, child, or anyone else that needs protection. I personally do not know what to believe on the subject because I have mixed feelings. However, I do believe that the mother of an unborn child is a citizen of the U.S. and, therefore, deserves protection and/or support for whatever her decision might be. I also believe that the state and federal governments are beginning to stick themselves in personal and private matters that don't really need government assistance. The government should take their time that they spend in other people's matters and actually do something good for the country and start trying to fix the economy, leave parenting, or lack thereof, to those whom is may concern.
Today we also began talking about chronology and periodization. Chronology is the order/arrangement of events based on their dates. Historians try to put things in chronological order by putting events into sections of dates, such as 1900-1915. Some events, such as the Cold War, can easily span more than one section of time, making it harder to place things in chronological order. We also talked about periodization. this is sort of like chronology, but instead of making a list of things that happened during a certain time period, historians try to label the period based on major events. So, 1950-1970 would not be: Martin Luther King Jr., Kennedy assassination, etc. It would be something like Civil Rights Movement. Periodization is trying to pull several events together and make a defining characteristic for them, such as "The Roaring 20s." We had an in-class exercise in which groups tried to periodize American History and World History from 1900 until present. This was very difficult to do, and my group started just listing events, which is chronology, not periodization. It is very difficult to define an entire era and it can be done in many different ways, such as military, economic, political, women's perspective, global, Euro-centric, and many many more. Like many things dealing with history, periodization is based on the author's perspective and which direction/spin they want to put on things.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Race and Civil Rights in the Cold War Era
Wednesday March 21, 2012
Today we discussed Chapter 11. This chapter deals with education, equality, civil rights, and more. The court case Sweatt v. Painter took a stance against Plessy v. Ferguson (which said that separate was not equal). This court case only dealt with one person and did not affect as many as Plessy. This is because it dealt with higher education and no children were involved.
In court cases such as Brown v. Board of Education (I & II), evidence was used to describe how the children and students were affected. The positions of the schools came into place. Often, whites would abandon an old school and build a new one. The old school was left to the blacks to use, often being unsafe and not having enough qualified teachers. Under the 14th Amendment, separate is not equal because the students were not exposed to the same opportunities and experiences as the white students. Simply being separated from the whites had an emotional effect on the students. I mean, wouldn't anyone who was being ostracized from society have a few emotional issues?!
Document 2 was about Brown v. Board of Education II. This targets discrimination and the courts called for desegregation. Though the courts said that ALL schools had to desegregate, it called for "all deliberate speed." This basically means that the court recognizes that the desegregation process can be slow, so they are allowing time for towns and schools to work in into their systems. the NAACP did NOT like this! Mainly because the group knew that the southern states would take their sweet time desegregating the schools. The NAACP wanted is NOW, not whenever it was convenient. And even though everyone was "equal" now, there was still discrimination in schools and the workplace. There was even lynching and murders, such of that of Emmett Till.
Document 6 was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This act discussed that there has to be equal employment opportunities for everyone, no matter what. This, however, is easier said than done. Even today employers can discriminate against someone applying for a job, but use a different reason as for not hiring them. Also, since, technically, employees are not supposed to talk about their salaries with others, employers can also pay each person differently. If there was a problem with difference in pay, the employer can say things like 1. "they have been working here longer and have more seniority" or 2. "this person has more knowledge and works harder than others do." So if they want to, employers can be as discriminatory as they want, just as long as they have some legitimate reason to back it up.
During the 1960s and the Civil Rights Movement many advances were made. After reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's book, however, I have learned that it was extremely difficult for Lydon Johnson to keep up with his Great Society and the Vietnam War at the same time. I always enjoy learning about history that has directly impacted our nation. Even though I know the Civil Rights Movement was a time of struggle, I am still thankful that there were people willing to put themselves out in the open and fight for their cause. Heck, if it wasn't for this movement, being a female, I would probably be getting paid less than minimum wage, working long hours, and have little protections and rights!
Today we discussed Chapter 11. This chapter deals with education, equality, civil rights, and more. The court case Sweatt v. Painter took a stance against Plessy v. Ferguson (which said that separate was not equal). This court case only dealt with one person and did not affect as many as Plessy. This is because it dealt with higher education and no children were involved.
In court cases such as Brown v. Board of Education (I & II), evidence was used to describe how the children and students were affected. The positions of the schools came into place. Often, whites would abandon an old school and build a new one. The old school was left to the blacks to use, often being unsafe and not having enough qualified teachers. Under the 14th Amendment, separate is not equal because the students were not exposed to the same opportunities and experiences as the white students. Simply being separated from the whites had an emotional effect on the students. I mean, wouldn't anyone who was being ostracized from society have a few emotional issues?!
Document 2 was about Brown v. Board of Education II. This targets discrimination and the courts called for desegregation. Though the courts said that ALL schools had to desegregate, it called for "all deliberate speed." This basically means that the court recognizes that the desegregation process can be slow, so they are allowing time for towns and schools to work in into their systems. the NAACP did NOT like this! Mainly because the group knew that the southern states would take their sweet time desegregating the schools. The NAACP wanted is NOW, not whenever it was convenient. And even though everyone was "equal" now, there was still discrimination in schools and the workplace. There was even lynching and murders, such of that of Emmett Till.
Document 6 was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This act discussed that there has to be equal employment opportunities for everyone, no matter what. This, however, is easier said than done. Even today employers can discriminate against someone applying for a job, but use a different reason as for not hiring them. Also, since, technically, employees are not supposed to talk about their salaries with others, employers can also pay each person differently. If there was a problem with difference in pay, the employer can say things like 1. "they have been working here longer and have more seniority" or 2. "this person has more knowledge and works harder than others do." So if they want to, employers can be as discriminatory as they want, just as long as they have some legitimate reason to back it up.
During the 1960s and the Civil Rights Movement many advances were made. After reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's book, however, I have learned that it was extremely difficult for Lydon Johnson to keep up with his Great Society and the Vietnam War at the same time. I always enjoy learning about history that has directly impacted our nation. Even though I know the Civil Rights Movement was a time of struggle, I am still thankful that there were people willing to put themselves out in the open and fight for their cause. Heck, if it wasn't for this movement, being a female, I would probably be getting paid less than minimum wage, working long hours, and have little protections and rights!
Franklin Roosevelt, the Depression, and the New Deal
Monday March 19, 2012
Today we discussed Chapter 10. Even though there were three main topics within this chapter, there was even more topics covered during our discussion. One topic we covered was the National Recovery Act. This act was put in place by the President in 1933 in order to help the nation out of the Great Depression. Like many other actions by other Presidents in the past, this act was highly debated (not only back then, but it still is today). Those who were in favor of the act said that the President was simply taking the measures that were needed to help the economy. This was accomplished by trying to regulate industries. Those who oppose of the act, however, claimed that it gave the President too much power because everything had to be approved by him in order to be put into action. People also thought that the President was getting too involved in economic affairs. This act also gave too much power to the big companies, allowing them to pretty much create their own versions of monopolies by allowing the corporations themselves to set their own regulations. Many people debate that this act was quite socialistic, even given the circumstances. I, personally, think that the President was trying all he knew how in order to help to fix the economy, and possibly his reputation as president. Just like Lincoln, Roosevelt believed that he had a little bit more authority given the economic times. I think it would be easier to understand Lincoln going above his authorities because the nation was in a civil war. Roosevelt, on the other hand, seemed to only be thinking that fixing the major corporations would fix the entire economy. Though this theory is good, it did not provide economic relief as fast as the American people needed it.
One court case that we talked about was Relations Board v. Jones. This court case dealt with discrimination in the workplace (the workplace being the 4th largest steel company in the nation!). The company tried to fire ten workers who were trying to unionize. The courts ruled that the corporation must hire the people back. The court sided with FDR saying that Congress can put regulations on the company because it was an interstate company. Ironically, President Ronald Regan did something similar in August of 1981. In this case, the union called a strike because they wanted better working conditions, better pay, and a 32 hour work week. Regan said that the strike was bad for national safety and told the workers to go back to work. Regan fired the workers that did not go back to work (over 10,000 workers!!!). The workers were replaced, but with inexperienced air traffic controllers. Later, the strikers were allowed to come back to work.
Many of the court cases in this chapter helped to shape the minimum wage system that we have today. Laws regulating wage, hours, and conditions have long since been in place, mainly due to major court cases. For example, in the court case West Coast Hotel v. Parrish the court upheld the minimum wage policy and forced the hotel to pay its employees the right amounts. If people throughout history, especially women and minorities, did not fight for equal rights and pay in the workforce, companies today would still be taking advantage of free labor. Well, I guess some companies actually are.... Many companies hire illegal immigrants because they do not have to pay them minimum wage because they are not citizens. I also remember something about being under the age of 18. In high school teachers told us that anyone under the age of 18 is not titled to minimum wage. I don't know if this is still true today, but I remember I did corn de-tastling one summer (an absolutely horrible job!) and I did not get minimum wage. I do not think that is fair either because weather kids under 18 or adults do the job, it still gets done, so there shouldn't be a reason for not paying everyone equally. Equal pay for equal work should always be enforced. I think it has something to do with the new ideas that Americans want high paying jobs, but they want their goods and services cheaply. That could by why our economy went from a producer to a consumer over the past five decades. No wonder our economy is bad today! We moved all our factories overseas and now have nothing to offer other countries! Hopefully this new generation of politicians can bring something new to the country...
Today's Butters' topic was Historical Revisionism. This is the changing perspectives of a historical event. These re-interpretations mean that there has already been one original interpretation, called an orthodox. This can be a dangerous concept because it is often difficult to redo someone else's work. In order to redo an orthodox, a writer or historian must find something wrong with the first interpretation. This can be hard when the idea or concept has been widely recognized and had been put in place for a long time. This idea can also be good because it shows things from a different perspective. Often times, it is best when time has past since the event and the orthodox version because technology and other resources become available. These new resources can be sealed by the government (like who shot JFK). Technology such as DNA, carbon dating, and anthropology have helped historical revisions. According to many historians, all history is revisionism and it often has a negative slant. This is often because when people write about an event years after it happens, it is hard to capture the zeitgeist (or spirit of the times). Typically, the orthodox version has primary sources that include how people felt and specific events, while revisions often lack in these departments. So while historical revisionism is often looked at as a bad thing, almost all history is some sort of reinterpretation of the past and historians and authors often have their own beliefs about their chosen topics.
Today we discussed Chapter 10. Even though there were three main topics within this chapter, there was even more topics covered during our discussion. One topic we covered was the National Recovery Act. This act was put in place by the President in 1933 in order to help the nation out of the Great Depression. Like many other actions by other Presidents in the past, this act was highly debated (not only back then, but it still is today). Those who were in favor of the act said that the President was simply taking the measures that were needed to help the economy. This was accomplished by trying to regulate industries. Those who oppose of the act, however, claimed that it gave the President too much power because everything had to be approved by him in order to be put into action. People also thought that the President was getting too involved in economic affairs. This act also gave too much power to the big companies, allowing them to pretty much create their own versions of monopolies by allowing the corporations themselves to set their own regulations. Many people debate that this act was quite socialistic, even given the circumstances. I, personally, think that the President was trying all he knew how in order to help to fix the economy, and possibly his reputation as president. Just like Lincoln, Roosevelt believed that he had a little bit more authority given the economic times. I think it would be easier to understand Lincoln going above his authorities because the nation was in a civil war. Roosevelt, on the other hand, seemed to only be thinking that fixing the major corporations would fix the entire economy. Though this theory is good, it did not provide economic relief as fast as the American people needed it.
One court case that we talked about was Relations Board v. Jones. This court case dealt with discrimination in the workplace (the workplace being the 4th largest steel company in the nation!). The company tried to fire ten workers who were trying to unionize. The courts ruled that the corporation must hire the people back. The court sided with FDR saying that Congress can put regulations on the company because it was an interstate company. Ironically, President Ronald Regan did something similar in August of 1981. In this case, the union called a strike because they wanted better working conditions, better pay, and a 32 hour work week. Regan said that the strike was bad for national safety and told the workers to go back to work. Regan fired the workers that did not go back to work (over 10,000 workers!!!). The workers were replaced, but with inexperienced air traffic controllers. Later, the strikers were allowed to come back to work.
Many of the court cases in this chapter helped to shape the minimum wage system that we have today. Laws regulating wage, hours, and conditions have long since been in place, mainly due to major court cases. For example, in the court case West Coast Hotel v. Parrish the court upheld the minimum wage policy and forced the hotel to pay its employees the right amounts. If people throughout history, especially women and minorities, did not fight for equal rights and pay in the workforce, companies today would still be taking advantage of free labor. Well, I guess some companies actually are.... Many companies hire illegal immigrants because they do not have to pay them minimum wage because they are not citizens. I also remember something about being under the age of 18. In high school teachers told us that anyone under the age of 18 is not titled to minimum wage. I don't know if this is still true today, but I remember I did corn de-tastling one summer (an absolutely horrible job!) and I did not get minimum wage. I do not think that is fair either because weather kids under 18 or adults do the job, it still gets done, so there shouldn't be a reason for not paying everyone equally. Equal pay for equal work should always be enforced. I think it has something to do with the new ideas that Americans want high paying jobs, but they want their goods and services cheaply. That could by why our economy went from a producer to a consumer over the past five decades. No wonder our economy is bad today! We moved all our factories overseas and now have nothing to offer other countries! Hopefully this new generation of politicians can bring something new to the country...
Today's Butters' topic was Historical Revisionism. This is the changing perspectives of a historical event. These re-interpretations mean that there has already been one original interpretation, called an orthodox. This can be a dangerous concept because it is often difficult to redo someone else's work. In order to redo an orthodox, a writer or historian must find something wrong with the first interpretation. This can be hard when the idea or concept has been widely recognized and had been put in place for a long time. This idea can also be good because it shows things from a different perspective. Often times, it is best when time has past since the event and the orthodox version because technology and other resources become available. These new resources can be sealed by the government (like who shot JFK). Technology such as DNA, carbon dating, and anthropology have helped historical revisions. According to many historians, all history is revisionism and it often has a negative slant. This is often because when people write about an event years after it happens, it is hard to capture the zeitgeist (or spirit of the times). Typically, the orthodox version has primary sources that include how people felt and specific events, while revisions often lack in these departments. So while historical revisionism is often looked at as a bad thing, almost all history is some sort of reinterpretation of the past and historians and authors often have their own beliefs about their chosen topics.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Total War and the Emergence of Modern Civil Liberties
Wednesday March 14, 2012
Today in class we discussed Chapter 9. It was AMAZING because we got to have class outside. I actually felt more inclined to participate in the discussion just to show that we can hold class outside and not have any problems in participation. I think others felt the same way, because we had a good discussion.
Document #1 talks about President Woodrow Wilson and his regulations for alien enemies. I agree with several of these regulations: 6 (an alien enemy cannot commit any hostile act toward the U.S. or give aid to its enemies, 8 (any person who the President believes can be aiding the enemy or is seen as a public danger can be removed to any location designated by the president, 10 (no enemy can enter into the U.S. unless they follow restrictions), and 12 (if an enemy is caught doing certain things they can be sentenced to jail, prison, military camp, or another type of detention). I do not really agree with how these regulations are worded. They talk about any enemy or person, but it mainly refers to men and excludes women altogether. During this time, WWI, women were very active in gaining support, spreading beliefs, and doing other things that the federal government would see as "enemy acts."
The Espionage Act was discussed in document 2. This act prohibits any attempts to interfere with military operations. Under this act, people are supposed to support the US during wartime (meaning help in any way possible, and especially not interfere with military recruitment). This act also says that any false statements against the US or the war effort are illegal. Today, people would be up in arms if an act like this was put in place. Today, people would argue that this type of act impedes on their 1st Amendment of free speech, press, petition, assembly, and religion. There have been thousands of people since 2001 speak out against the war and they use the 1st Amendment as their base. I think that people today would raise several court cases if an Espionage Act of 2012 was created.
There were several court cases discussed in this chapter, such as Schenck v. United States, Abrams v. United States, and Gitlow v. New York. All of these court cases have things in common. First, in each case the 1st Amendment is involved. Though the rulings are different, the Supreme Court states that the 1st Amendment is not static and it changed over time and they way in which it is interpreted. The federal government claims that state governments cannot put restrictions on the 1st Amendment, only the federal government can. Also, the "clear and present danger" idea is used in these cases to see what the threatening ideas are/could be. This chapter also talks about the Red Scare. This scare happened at near the end of WWI (1919-1920ish). This was a threat of communism. Everyone thought that communists were everywhere and were going to take over the world and things would change for the worst. People had a right to be afraid because there had been several revolutions in Russia and it seemed like Russia was in chaos. Russia is a big country and if it is possible for it to fall to communism, then the U.S. might not have a chance at survival! These fears and rumors spread throughout the entire U.S. Many people believed that if countries in Europe and Asia started to fall to communism, they all would soon fall to it. This idea was later called the domino effect, but during this time people did not call it that. Americans have always thought of themselves as protectors of the "free" world and communist threats were destroying our ideas of peace, liberty, and freedom. I can see how easily people could become afraid and how quickly rumors could spread! Especially during a time when people of America believed that the government said because they themselves did not have any outside knowledge of other countries. In my opinion, the federal government helped to spread the ideas of the Red Scare instead of trying to re-assure the country. Even though the Red Scare came after WWI, laws such as the Espionage Act created a trustworthiness among the US people and people could get their neighbors in big trouble just by spreading a small rumor about them. Again, the government could have done something to help the people instead of creating more problems.
Today in class we discussed Chapter 9. It was AMAZING because we got to have class outside. I actually felt more inclined to participate in the discussion just to show that we can hold class outside and not have any problems in participation. I think others felt the same way, because we had a good discussion.
Document #1 talks about President Woodrow Wilson and his regulations for alien enemies. I agree with several of these regulations: 6 (an alien enemy cannot commit any hostile act toward the U.S. or give aid to its enemies, 8 (any person who the President believes can be aiding the enemy or is seen as a public danger can be removed to any location designated by the president, 10 (no enemy can enter into the U.S. unless they follow restrictions), and 12 (if an enemy is caught doing certain things they can be sentenced to jail, prison, military camp, or another type of detention). I do not really agree with how these regulations are worded. They talk about any enemy or person, but it mainly refers to men and excludes women altogether. During this time, WWI, women were very active in gaining support, spreading beliefs, and doing other things that the federal government would see as "enemy acts."
The Espionage Act was discussed in document 2. This act prohibits any attempts to interfere with military operations. Under this act, people are supposed to support the US during wartime (meaning help in any way possible, and especially not interfere with military recruitment). This act also says that any false statements against the US or the war effort are illegal. Today, people would be up in arms if an act like this was put in place. Today, people would argue that this type of act impedes on their 1st Amendment of free speech, press, petition, assembly, and religion. There have been thousands of people since 2001 speak out against the war and they use the 1st Amendment as their base. I think that people today would raise several court cases if an Espionage Act of 2012 was created.
There were several court cases discussed in this chapter, such as Schenck v. United States, Abrams v. United States, and Gitlow v. New York. All of these court cases have things in common. First, in each case the 1st Amendment is involved. Though the rulings are different, the Supreme Court states that the 1st Amendment is not static and it changed over time and they way in which it is interpreted. The federal government claims that state governments cannot put restrictions on the 1st Amendment, only the federal government can. Also, the "clear and present danger" idea is used in these cases to see what the threatening ideas are/could be. This chapter also talks about the Red Scare. This scare happened at near the end of WWI (1919-1920ish). This was a threat of communism. Everyone thought that communists were everywhere and were going to take over the world and things would change for the worst. People had a right to be afraid because there had been several revolutions in Russia and it seemed like Russia was in chaos. Russia is a big country and if it is possible for it to fall to communism, then the U.S. might not have a chance at survival! These fears and rumors spread throughout the entire U.S. Many people believed that if countries in Europe and Asia started to fall to communism, they all would soon fall to it. This idea was later called the domino effect, but during this time people did not call it that. Americans have always thought of themselves as protectors of the "free" world and communist threats were destroying our ideas of peace, liberty, and freedom. I can see how easily people could become afraid and how quickly rumors could spread! Especially during a time when people of America believed that the government said because they themselves did not have any outside knowledge of other countries. In my opinion, the federal government helped to spread the ideas of the Red Scare instead of trying to re-assure the country. Even though the Red Scare came after WWI, laws such as the Espionage Act created a trustworthiness among the US people and people could get their neighbors in big trouble just by spreading a small rumor about them. Again, the government could have done something to help the people instead of creating more problems.
Protective Legislation and the Liberty to Contract
Monday March 12, 2012
Today in class we discussed Chapter 8 out of "Major Problems in American Constitutional History. This chapter was mainly about workers and their rights/obligations. Document number 2 is called "The People's Part Announces its Agenda for Reform, 1896." This document outlines the demands of the People's Party. There are several good ideas, but there are also some ideas that are not as helpful, in my opinion. Under the Finances section, I liked the 1st demand, which calls for a national money that is issued by the General Government. This would call for no intervention from banks and people would be more protected from debt and unequal distribution. Number 7 actually made me think, the people WANT a graduated income tax! I found it interesting that the People's Party wanted the federal government to own the railroads because it would be in the best interest of the people. If the government owned the railroads there would be less potential for monopolies, and therefore, prices would be competitive (which is a good thing). The people demanded a direct election of the President, Vice-President, and U.S. Senators. This would get rid of the electoral college and make voting a more direct thing: people vote for the person, not for a different person in the electoral college who will hopefully vote how they said they would. I do not really agree with the direct legislation through the initiative and referendum idea. Laws already take a long time to be passed and if people have to vote on them, it could just lengthen the process. This document is very forward-looking though and many of the ideas were later adopted by other political parties.
Document #5 is a court case that ruled that women can only work 10 hours a day. The courts found this constitutional because women are not as strong as men. During discussion we were supposed to take a feminist stance and debate whether we felt this ruling was fair or not. I think this ruling is unfair. The men who created this law said that they were trying to protect women because they are fragile and also cannot work too much at a job because they have lives outside of work. Even though this could have been true for a majority of women, it is not the case for everyone. If I was working back during this time I would be angry. Single women who do not have a family to take care of and only need to take care of themselves should be able to work as long as they can (meaning more than 10 hours). I understand that the men wanted to protect the women because they are "fragile" and will be the mothers of the future leaders of the country, but it is still discrimination. In my opinion, I believe that a strong-willed woman who can work just as hard and just as long as a man can would, in turn, produce strong babies. So, using this way of thinking, the men are only jeopardizing the future of the country by not letting the women work!
The essay "Gender, Law, and Labor in the Progressive Era" was a very interesting article. The author describes that Muller's attorneys argued that women did not need protection, and that by giving them more protection just widens the gap of equality between men and women. This essay shows how psychological evidence was used in court for the first time. In the end, the courts used this to justify sex discrimination in the workplace, saying that women were, indeed, weaker than men. This is especially true in jobs such as police, firefighting, military, and more physically demanding jobs. This is very interesting to me because I knew several women in the military and they try twice as hard to prove that they are just as good as the men are, but men still look at them as half of what they are. For instance, my boyfriend is in the Army and there was a woman in his class. One day they had to go out on a ruck march and the woman's heal of her foot got cut open because of her boot. It was a several mile march, but she refused to stop because she knew that she had to prove herself. Today, everyone in the group knows that the girl is super tough and no one messes with her and sees her as a great soldier. It really sucks that woman have to work twice as hard just be seen by men as half their equal!!!
Today's Butters' Topic was Morality in History. The main question was, "should you include your sense of morality when you write about history?" At first, I thought that you should include your own thoughts and beliefs because you know what you are writing about and who your intended audience is, so it your audience would most likely belief the same things that you do. I learned that history should be done through amoral stand point - one should not impose any morality. As historians, we pick subjects that not only interest us, but also show who were are. So by picking subjects that show who we are, we are initially showing our own morality. For example, if I wrote about how great a person Adolf Hitler was, people would be able to sense my morality through my writings. Morality is where the argument of any topic comes from, such as good and evil. Doris Kearns Goodwin explains what makes a good leader through writing about what we consider great and controversial presidents, like Lincoln and Lydon Johnson. Edmund Burke thought that in order to understand the present, you have to look at institutions and morality of the past. For example, historical experiences help us to distinguish what is considered good and evil: we believe that Hitler is evil, but the U.S. was good in trying to stop the spread of communism throughout the world. This type of value-centered history can be difficult to understand and master, but it makes for better writers and readers once you learn the pros and cons. The downfalls of using morality in history include presentism and ethnocentrism. When used correctly, a person can illustrate their ideas and beliefs and get others to join them, but this needs to be done by using concrete examples and experiences in history.
Today in class we discussed Chapter 8 out of "Major Problems in American Constitutional History. This chapter was mainly about workers and their rights/obligations. Document number 2 is called "The People's Part Announces its Agenda for Reform, 1896." This document outlines the demands of the People's Party. There are several good ideas, but there are also some ideas that are not as helpful, in my opinion. Under the Finances section, I liked the 1st demand, which calls for a national money that is issued by the General Government. This would call for no intervention from banks and people would be more protected from debt and unequal distribution. Number 7 actually made me think, the people WANT a graduated income tax! I found it interesting that the People's Party wanted the federal government to own the railroads because it would be in the best interest of the people. If the government owned the railroads there would be less potential for monopolies, and therefore, prices would be competitive (which is a good thing). The people demanded a direct election of the President, Vice-President, and U.S. Senators. This would get rid of the electoral college and make voting a more direct thing: people vote for the person, not for a different person in the electoral college who will hopefully vote how they said they would. I do not really agree with the direct legislation through the initiative and referendum idea. Laws already take a long time to be passed and if people have to vote on them, it could just lengthen the process. This document is very forward-looking though and many of the ideas were later adopted by other political parties.
Document #5 is a court case that ruled that women can only work 10 hours a day. The courts found this constitutional because women are not as strong as men. During discussion we were supposed to take a feminist stance and debate whether we felt this ruling was fair or not. I think this ruling is unfair. The men who created this law said that they were trying to protect women because they are fragile and also cannot work too much at a job because they have lives outside of work. Even though this could have been true for a majority of women, it is not the case for everyone. If I was working back during this time I would be angry. Single women who do not have a family to take care of and only need to take care of themselves should be able to work as long as they can (meaning more than 10 hours). I understand that the men wanted to protect the women because they are "fragile" and will be the mothers of the future leaders of the country, but it is still discrimination. In my opinion, I believe that a strong-willed woman who can work just as hard and just as long as a man can would, in turn, produce strong babies. So, using this way of thinking, the men are only jeopardizing the future of the country by not letting the women work!
The essay "Gender, Law, and Labor in the Progressive Era" was a very interesting article. The author describes that Muller's attorneys argued that women did not need protection, and that by giving them more protection just widens the gap of equality between men and women. This essay shows how psychological evidence was used in court for the first time. In the end, the courts used this to justify sex discrimination in the workplace, saying that women were, indeed, weaker than men. This is especially true in jobs such as police, firefighting, military, and more physically demanding jobs. This is very interesting to me because I knew several women in the military and they try twice as hard to prove that they are just as good as the men are, but men still look at them as half of what they are. For instance, my boyfriend is in the Army and there was a woman in his class. One day they had to go out on a ruck march and the woman's heal of her foot got cut open because of her boot. It was a several mile march, but she refused to stop because she knew that she had to prove herself. Today, everyone in the group knows that the girl is super tough and no one messes with her and sees her as a great soldier. It really sucks that woman have to work twice as hard just be seen by men as half their equal!!!
Today's Butters' Topic was Morality in History. The main question was, "should you include your sense of morality when you write about history?" At first, I thought that you should include your own thoughts and beliefs because you know what you are writing about and who your intended audience is, so it your audience would most likely belief the same things that you do. I learned that history should be done through amoral stand point - one should not impose any morality. As historians, we pick subjects that not only interest us, but also show who were are. So by picking subjects that show who we are, we are initially showing our own morality. For example, if I wrote about how great a person Adolf Hitler was, people would be able to sense my morality through my writings. Morality is where the argument of any topic comes from, such as good and evil. Doris Kearns Goodwin explains what makes a good leader through writing about what we consider great and controversial presidents, like Lincoln and Lydon Johnson. Edmund Burke thought that in order to understand the present, you have to look at institutions and morality of the past. For example, historical experiences help us to distinguish what is considered good and evil: we believe that Hitler is evil, but the U.S. was good in trying to stop the spread of communism throughout the world. This type of value-centered history can be difficult to understand and master, but it makes for better writers and readers once you learn the pros and cons. The downfalls of using morality in history include presentism and ethnocentrism. When used correctly, a person can illustrate their ideas and beliefs and get others to join them, but this needs to be done by using concrete examples and experiences in history.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Reconstruction and the Fourteenth Amendment
Wednesday February 29, 2012
Today in class we discussed chapter 7 out of our "Major Problems in American Constitutional History" textbooks. Most of the discussion questions today dealt with the 13, 14, of 15th Amendment. We mainly talked about the 14th Amendment, which deals with citizenship. We talked about women's suffrage, or women's right to vote. Woman were fighting for the right since the 1850s, but did not get the right until 1920. One question we talked about was, "Why did the Constitution only allow men the right to hold political offices?" A court case called Minor v. Happersett (1875) deals with women's rights. Minor was a women who fought for women's suffrage in Missouri. The Supreme Court said that she does NOT have the right to vote under the 14th Amendment, but she is technically a citizen. The court made their decision on what they thought the founding fathers would have done. This court case was never overturned, but it was amended with the 19th Amendment which gave women the right to vote. This is quite strange to me, because at the time women were considered citizens, but were not allowed to vote because they were seen as property of their husband, fathers, or brothers. So they are citizens and property at the same time, but cannot vote. Typical sexist men in government! When covering this topic in other classes I learned that women were very angry that the U.S. federal government gave African American men the right to vote decades before women got the right. The voting rights sort of resembles the presidency: first only white men, then an African American, and maybe in the future we will have a female president.
"Why was the first ten amendments called the "Bill of Rights?" The Bill of Rights was actually added to the Constitution in order to appease the anti-federalists. Prior to the Civil War, most judges believed that the federal government would/should not take away individual rights, but states could. Most court cases before the Civil War dealt with basic freedoms and those after the war dealt mostly with inequality. The creators of the Bill of Rights wanted to make sure that people knew their basic rights and that they had some protection from the federal government.
Back in the days of the Civil War era being a woman was considered to be a form of disability when it came to doing any job (a job that a man could do). I believe that this was the common belief because women were mainly expected to stay at home, look after the household, and raise children. People did not really believe that a woman could have a successful career. Women who did try to have a career were often looked down upon because their male co-workers believed that they were radical women who did not follow tradition. Throughout history men were thought to be better, more productive workers. Many of the beliefs came about because women who have children were considered a liability in the workplace. Women would want/need to take more days off work to care for their children, have to put kids in a daycare, and that they would be preoccupied with business at home than at work. A good example of this is the Triangle Shirtwaist Company. The company hired women to make clothing, but found that some women were leaving work during their lunch hours and breaks to run home and check on their children. The supervisors did not like this idea and began chaining women to their machines, monitoring their breaks, and putting other strict requirements on them. Well, one day there was a fire and women could not get out of the building because they were either chained to their machines or the doors were locking them inside. Several women died and some tried to jump out of a window, but they died too. This was a tremendous event that changed several work codes/ethics. Its strange because I work in a factory and the women are WAY more productive than the men. It always seems like men have to stop working in order to have a conversation (can't handle more than one thing at a time). The women all work very hard and can easily out-do the men when it comes to productivity. Today, women are seen as more productive, but yet, are still paid less than men for the same exact job. Even though the country has come a long way since the Civil War era, there is still ramped discrimination against women and minority culture groups.
There was no "Butters' Topic" for today's class session. Class will not meet again until after spring break, on March 12, 2012.
Today in class we discussed chapter 7 out of our "Major Problems in American Constitutional History" textbooks. Most of the discussion questions today dealt with the 13, 14, of 15th Amendment. We mainly talked about the 14th Amendment, which deals with citizenship. We talked about women's suffrage, or women's right to vote. Woman were fighting for the right since the 1850s, but did not get the right until 1920. One question we talked about was, "Why did the Constitution only allow men the right to hold political offices?" A court case called Minor v. Happersett (1875) deals with women's rights. Minor was a women who fought for women's suffrage in Missouri. The Supreme Court said that she does NOT have the right to vote under the 14th Amendment, but she is technically a citizen. The court made their decision on what they thought the founding fathers would have done. This court case was never overturned, but it was amended with the 19th Amendment which gave women the right to vote. This is quite strange to me, because at the time women were considered citizens, but were not allowed to vote because they were seen as property of their husband, fathers, or brothers. So they are citizens and property at the same time, but cannot vote. Typical sexist men in government! When covering this topic in other classes I learned that women were very angry that the U.S. federal government gave African American men the right to vote decades before women got the right. The voting rights sort of resembles the presidency: first only white men, then an African American, and maybe in the future we will have a female president.
"Why was the first ten amendments called the "Bill of Rights?" The Bill of Rights was actually added to the Constitution in order to appease the anti-federalists. Prior to the Civil War, most judges believed that the federal government would/should not take away individual rights, but states could. Most court cases before the Civil War dealt with basic freedoms and those after the war dealt mostly with inequality. The creators of the Bill of Rights wanted to make sure that people knew their basic rights and that they had some protection from the federal government.
Back in the days of the Civil War era being a woman was considered to be a form of disability when it came to doing any job (a job that a man could do). I believe that this was the common belief because women were mainly expected to stay at home, look after the household, and raise children. People did not really believe that a woman could have a successful career. Women who did try to have a career were often looked down upon because their male co-workers believed that they were radical women who did not follow tradition. Throughout history men were thought to be better, more productive workers. Many of the beliefs came about because women who have children were considered a liability in the workplace. Women would want/need to take more days off work to care for their children, have to put kids in a daycare, and that they would be preoccupied with business at home than at work. A good example of this is the Triangle Shirtwaist Company. The company hired women to make clothing, but found that some women were leaving work during their lunch hours and breaks to run home and check on their children. The supervisors did not like this idea and began chaining women to their machines, monitoring their breaks, and putting other strict requirements on them. Well, one day there was a fire and women could not get out of the building because they were either chained to their machines or the doors were locking them inside. Several women died and some tried to jump out of a window, but they died too. This was a tremendous event that changed several work codes/ethics. Its strange because I work in a factory and the women are WAY more productive than the men. It always seems like men have to stop working in order to have a conversation (can't handle more than one thing at a time). The women all work very hard and can easily out-do the men when it comes to productivity. Today, women are seen as more productive, but yet, are still paid less than men for the same exact job. Even though the country has come a long way since the Civil War era, there is still ramped discrimination against women and minority culture groups.
There was no "Butters' Topic" for today's class session. Class will not meet again until after spring break, on March 12, 2012.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Andrew Jackson, Nullification, and Indian Removal
Monday February 27, 2012
Today we discussed Chapter 5 of our textbook. Though I found the topics of Andrew Jackson and Nullification to be interesting, I especially liked the parts about Indian Removal. When Andrew Jackson brought the Indian Removal Act up to Congress, there were many questions. One question in particular was: Do Indian nations have the right to establish an independent government within a state?" According to Jackson, this would undermine the federal and state governments because Indians would be following their own laws, and not the laws of the country. Jackson had an immense hatred on Native Americans, but he was sure to back up his arguments with reasonable facts, like how he used to fight Native Americans on the frontier in his early years. Jackson said that Indians should assimilate into "normal" culture. Though this is a good idea, it would have never worked because no matter how a Native American acted, what job they had, or what they believed in, they would always be looked down upon by society. During the times before the Indian Removal Act, however, many Native Americans married whites and tried to blend in to the culture. In the south, Indians learned about slavery and plantation work, whereas in the north they learned more about industrial work. I have often come upon the question "in history, which group of people had a harder time, Native Americans or African Americans?" This question is mind-boggling to me because there is so much information that needs to be taken into account. The Native Americans were killed by the thousands from diseases, forced off their land, and basically put into exile. The African Americans were taken from their homes, forced to work for no wages, and then after they gained freedom with the 13th amendment, still had to face racial discrimination! So it would come down to the lesser of two evils: be killed off, or face decades of racial injustice? This is a question that I honestly cannot answer and my opinion is always that both groups of people suffered and were looked down upon for no good reason and they really could not do anything to change their situation because the wealthy, land owning white people had all the power. (ahh.....got a little side-tracked there!)
Document 4 in our textbook further deals with the autonomy of the Indian nations. Good ol' John Marshall decreed that the Federal government could make treaties with Indians, but individual states could not. He used countries such as Great Britain and France to back up his argument. He said the Indians were technically a foreign power and only the federal government had the authority to deal with foreign governments. A dicta was created that would explain the situation and position of Native Americans and their relationship with the U.S. (meaning the government wanted to "lay down the law" and establish a Constitutional position on what to do and how to deal with Native Americans). According to the text, this was not really about the Indian Removal Act, but was about establishing a formal procedure. A famous court case dealing with the Indian Removal Act was Cherokee Nation versus Georgia. This VIDEO briefly discusses the court case, along with the relationship between John Marshal and Andrew Jackson.
Though Illinois was a free state, there were still racial discrimination. A clip from Youtube.com talks about Illinois position on Native Americans during the era before and after the Civil War.
I was once told that Jackson's treatment of Indians during the Trail of Tears created a "curse" on the presidents of the United States. The story went something like: Indians were so upset that they put a curse on the presidency. From Andrew Jackson on to the next couple of presidents, all presidents were either killed in office, died of illness in office, or were severely injured while in office. When looking on Youtube.com for a clip on it, I came across a different interesting CLIP. According to this video, almost all of the presidents are related! Plus, they are related back to King John Lackland (the King of England who signed the Magna Carta). It was a very interesting video....
The other topic which we covered in class was the idea of modernity. Modernity is a post-traditional, post-medieval, concept. This is a movement away from feudalism and toward capitalism, industrialization, secularization, rationalization, and the nation-state. According to historians, 1500 to the 1970s is ttechnically referred to as the "modern" era. This movement is often referred to as the end of the "isms" and grand theories. Concepts like Marxism and existentialism are not accepted anymore. Modernity is the creation of new things, such as art. As we discussed in class, modernity is the end of originality. Mankind has come a very long way since the 1500s and have accomplished many things. We have put a man on the moon, discovered sunken ships, harnessed electricity, built massive towers, and more. It seems like humans have discovered all they can and the only thing left to do is make things better. We can make improvements on already existing things, but people are skeptical of creating new things. Today we live in a world where "normal" and "safe" are considered good things. No one is willing to take risks anymore because it could mean failure and loss of money, resources, and respect. So instead of creating new things, we improve existing things. For example, we have went from vinyl albums, to 8-tracks, to cassettes, to cds, and now we are digital. We are not creating new ways of music, but making them more efficient and smaller in size. Another example is space. For thousands of years people have wondered about outer space and the weather patterns. Today, we have explored the majority of outer space (as far as technology can reach), and have a pretty good grasp on weather patterns and weather forecasting. People feel as if there is not much else to accomplish, so they try to make money by making improvements. Personally, I slightly believe this concept of modernity. Since I was born in the early 1990s not much has changed (clothes, music, cars, buildings, etc). I have seen things improve, but there hasn't really been any new amazing inventions. I mainly believe this is happening because it is the safe route. People have seen depressions and economic hardships, so they are not as willing to put themselves out and try something new. I really hope that this idea of simply making improvements is over soon because I am sure that there are inventions out there that are not yet created that can change the world. Oh, and by the way, its 2012 and I was promised LONG ago that by now we would have flying cars, robots and computers to do everything, and people would be inhabiting other planets! I doubt I will see any of these things in my lifetime....
Today we discussed Chapter 5 of our textbook. Though I found the topics of Andrew Jackson and Nullification to be interesting, I especially liked the parts about Indian Removal. When Andrew Jackson brought the Indian Removal Act up to Congress, there were many questions. One question in particular was: Do Indian nations have the right to establish an independent government within a state?" According to Jackson, this would undermine the federal and state governments because Indians would be following their own laws, and not the laws of the country. Jackson had an immense hatred on Native Americans, but he was sure to back up his arguments with reasonable facts, like how he used to fight Native Americans on the frontier in his early years. Jackson said that Indians should assimilate into "normal" culture. Though this is a good idea, it would have never worked because no matter how a Native American acted, what job they had, or what they believed in, they would always be looked down upon by society. During the times before the Indian Removal Act, however, many Native Americans married whites and tried to blend in to the culture. In the south, Indians learned about slavery and plantation work, whereas in the north they learned more about industrial work. I have often come upon the question "in history, which group of people had a harder time, Native Americans or African Americans?" This question is mind-boggling to me because there is so much information that needs to be taken into account. The Native Americans were killed by the thousands from diseases, forced off their land, and basically put into exile. The African Americans were taken from their homes, forced to work for no wages, and then after they gained freedom with the 13th amendment, still had to face racial discrimination! So it would come down to the lesser of two evils: be killed off, or face decades of racial injustice? This is a question that I honestly cannot answer and my opinion is always that both groups of people suffered and were looked down upon for no good reason and they really could not do anything to change their situation because the wealthy, land owning white people had all the power. (ahh.....got a little side-tracked there!)
Document 4 in our textbook further deals with the autonomy of the Indian nations. Good ol' John Marshall decreed that the Federal government could make treaties with Indians, but individual states could not. He used countries such as Great Britain and France to back up his argument. He said the Indians were technically a foreign power and only the federal government had the authority to deal with foreign governments. A dicta was created that would explain the situation and position of Native Americans and their relationship with the U.S. (meaning the government wanted to "lay down the law" and establish a Constitutional position on what to do and how to deal with Native Americans). According to the text, this was not really about the Indian Removal Act, but was about establishing a formal procedure. A famous court case dealing with the Indian Removal Act was Cherokee Nation versus Georgia. This VIDEO briefly discusses the court case, along with the relationship between John Marshal and Andrew Jackson.
Though Illinois was a free state, there were still racial discrimination. A clip from Youtube.com talks about Illinois position on Native Americans during the era before and after the Civil War.
I was once told that Jackson's treatment of Indians during the Trail of Tears created a "curse" on the presidents of the United States. The story went something like: Indians were so upset that they put a curse on the presidency. From Andrew Jackson on to the next couple of presidents, all presidents were either killed in office, died of illness in office, or were severely injured while in office. When looking on Youtube.com for a clip on it, I came across a different interesting CLIP. According to this video, almost all of the presidents are related! Plus, they are related back to King John Lackland (the King of England who signed the Magna Carta). It was a very interesting video....
The other topic which we covered in class was the idea of modernity. Modernity is a post-traditional, post-medieval, concept. This is a movement away from feudalism and toward capitalism, industrialization, secularization, rationalization, and the nation-state. According to historians, 1500 to the 1970s is ttechnically referred to as the "modern" era. This movement is often referred to as the end of the "isms" and grand theories. Concepts like Marxism and existentialism are not accepted anymore. Modernity is the creation of new things, such as art. As we discussed in class, modernity is the end of originality. Mankind has come a very long way since the 1500s and have accomplished many things. We have put a man on the moon, discovered sunken ships, harnessed electricity, built massive towers, and more. It seems like humans have discovered all they can and the only thing left to do is make things better. We can make improvements on already existing things, but people are skeptical of creating new things. Today we live in a world where "normal" and "safe" are considered good things. No one is willing to take risks anymore because it could mean failure and loss of money, resources, and respect. So instead of creating new things, we improve existing things. For example, we have went from vinyl albums, to 8-tracks, to cassettes, to cds, and now we are digital. We are not creating new ways of music, but making them more efficient and smaller in size. Another example is space. For thousands of years people have wondered about outer space and the weather patterns. Today, we have explored the majority of outer space (as far as technology can reach), and have a pretty good grasp on weather patterns and weather forecasting. People feel as if there is not much else to accomplish, so they try to make money by making improvements. Personally, I slightly believe this concept of modernity. Since I was born in the early 1990s not much has changed (clothes, music, cars, buildings, etc). I have seen things improve, but there hasn't really been any new amazing inventions. I mainly believe this is happening because it is the safe route. People have seen depressions and economic hardships, so they are not as willing to put themselves out and try something new. I really hope that this idea of simply making improvements is over soon because I am sure that there are inventions out there that are not yet created that can change the world. Oh, and by the way, its 2012 and I was promised LONG ago that by now we would have flying cars, robots and computers to do everything, and people would be inhabiting other planets! I doubt I will see any of these things in my lifetime....
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)