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.