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.
No comments:
Post a Comment