In 1924 the first gay rights foundation is founded by Henry Gerber, the Society for Human Rights. The society publishes the first writing for homosexuals, Friendship and Freedom, but soon after political pressures force the society to disband. In 1948, Alfred Kinsey, developer of the Kinsey scale, reveals the his findings show that 37% of males have enjoyed homosexual activities at least once. This information shocked many conservative officials, and contributed to the awareness of the gay community. A setback occurred in 1950, when a Senate report called homosexuals “sex perverts” and declared homosexuality a mental illness. over 4,000 gay men were discharged from the military for their sexuality. 3 years later, president Eisenhower signs Executive Order 10450, banning homosexuals from working for the federal government or any of its private contractors. Landmark Supreme Court Case One Inc. vs Olsen was the first recorded case of the Supreme Court siding with LGBT rights. Illinois became the first state to decriminalize homosexuality in 1962, which is much too recently, when it repealed its sodomy laws. A riot at the Stonewall In breaks out, when police officers raid the bar trying to rid the town of "sexual deviants". The first Gay Pride Parade occurs in New York City in 1970, an event that would continue year after year and in expand to numerous cities and states. Three years later, the American Psychiatry Board finally takes homosexuality off of its list of mental disorders. Kathy Kozachenko makes history by becoming the first openly gay elected American official in Ann Arbor Michigan in 1974. In 1980, the Democrats become the first American political party to endorse gay rights. In 1987, hundreds of thousands of Americans demand that president Ronald Reagan address the AIDS epidemic. President Clinton signs the Defense of Marriage Act, declaring that marriage is between one man and one woman, setting back the gay rights movement. In 2003, Lawrence v Texas rules sodomy laws are unconstituonal. In 2010, the Senate officially repeals the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military. Finally, most recently the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that states can not ban same-sex marriage, that it is unconstitutional. While America still has a ways to go for social and political equality for the LGBT community, in the past 50 years we have made great progress towards and better and more equal America.
Friday, May 13, 2016
Wrongful American Involvement In Vietnam
The United States removed its troops out of Vietnam knowing that they had made a huge mistake. Thousands of American troops never came back, with billions of dollars down the drain. Their ultimate goal of anti-communism was a failure, as a year later the north engulfed the South and created a unified communist nation of Vietnam. With every goal of the US in the war ending in failure, we must look back and see why and how Vietnam became such a failure.
The entire war in Vietnam was poorly planned, fought, and executed. For starters, we had no concrete goal in the war. US soldiers were sent to Vietnam on the vague goal of "stopping communism". Soldiers were sent to patrol the country side, defending South Vietnam from communists. No cities were to be captured, no visible enemy to destroy. With the United States unable to invade the communist north without Soviet intervention, there was no way to win the war. The United States had no way of victory. With their goal of the elimination of communists, United States marines and soldiers were sent into the jungle to kill an unseen enemy. A communist and farmer look exactly the same, and US soldiers many times were unable to kill an enemy until they shot first. As new Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara came into office, he asked questions about the Vietnam war. He asked what our goal was in Vietnam and he received an answer of "we don't know". When he asked how many more troops had to die before we left he received the same answer. When even the highest level of US military leadership doesn't know the goal or when the war should end, there is a fundamental problem. Only after huge public opinion became against the war, did the United States begin to pull out of Vietnam.
Source: http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/resources//mcnamara/
The entire war in Vietnam was poorly planned, fought, and executed. For starters, we had no concrete goal in the war. US soldiers were sent to Vietnam on the vague goal of "stopping communism". Soldiers were sent to patrol the country side, defending South Vietnam from communists. No cities were to be captured, no visible enemy to destroy. With the United States unable to invade the communist north without Soviet intervention, there was no way to win the war. The United States had no way of victory. With their goal of the elimination of communists, United States marines and soldiers were sent into the jungle to kill an unseen enemy. A communist and farmer look exactly the same, and US soldiers many times were unable to kill an enemy until they shot first. As new Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara came into office, he asked questions about the Vietnam war. He asked what our goal was in Vietnam and he received an answer of "we don't know". When he asked how many more troops had to die before we left he received the same answer. When even the highest level of US military leadership doesn't know the goal or when the war should end, there is a fundamental problem. Only after huge public opinion became against the war, did the United States begin to pull out of Vietnam.
Source: http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/resources//mcnamara/
Political Families in the US
In this election, there have been growing feelings of dislike towards the “establishment” and career politicians, especially those from wealthy, politically involved families. Despite the seemingly recent appearance of this, political families are not a new thing in American politics. They date back to the founding fathers; John Adams, second president of the US, was father to the sixth, John Quincy Adams. Other notable families include the Harrisons (William Henry and Benjamin were both president, although WHH died extremely early on in his term), the Roosevelts, and of course the Kennedys.
,_2nd_president_of_the_United_States,_by_Asher_B._Durand_(1767-1845)-crop.jpg) |
| John Adams |
,_c._1850_after_1844_original_-_DSC03235.JPG) |
| John Quincy Adams |
Back in the modern day, politicians like Hillary Clinton and Jeb! Bush are both considered to be part of political “dynasties” and that may hurt their chances at getting elected. Being related to other politicians may make it harder for a candidate to distinguish themselves from their predecessors, as Jeb struggled to do when asked about how he was different from his brother, especially about Iraq. In January, while Jeb was still in the race, he and Clinton had higher unfavorability ratings than Kasich, Cruz and Sanders, although lower than Trump.
However, being part of a political family may actually be a benefit for candidates. It gives them name recognition, which is important in elections. Growing up in a family involved in politics also may help candidates gain connections, resources, and funding. This can help them, making it easier for candidates from political families to get elected.
Sources
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating and the other candiates from the same poll aggregate
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-dynasties-idUSN0332238720070304
Images:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/US_Navy_031029-N-6236G-001_A_painting_of_President_John_Adams_(1735-1826),_2nd_president_of_the_United_States,_by_Asher_B._Durand_(1767-1845)-crop.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/John_Quincy_Adams_by_George_Caleb_Bingham_(detail),_c._1850_after_1844_original_-_DSC03235.JPG
The Freedom Riders
The Freedom Riders were a group of Civil Rights Activists who traveled in a series of bus trips throughout the South during the 1960's. The CORE, or the Congress of Racial Equality, established in 1942, who fought for the rights of minorities, worked with the Freedom Riders in an attempt to desegregate the south. The Freedom Riders defied segregation by using bathrooms and restaurant counters, that were labeled white only. The freedom riders received an incredible amount of violence from whites while traveling southern. Although they faced little suppression in Virginia, with some violence and arrests from South Carolina, which later culminated in violence in Birmingham Alabama. A group of Ku Kulx Klan members attacked a Freedom Rider bus, slashing its tires and firebombing it. They held the door closed, trying to burn the riders inside, and beat them after they were able to escape. Despite warnings from Rob Kennedy, who opposed the riders from continuing, after hearing of the violence, the riders continued to Alabama, where they were met with mobs and many were arrested.
Below: The Freedom Riders in their bus
http://mdah.state.ms.us/freedom/
Below: The Freedom Riders in their bus
http://mdah.state.ms.us/freedom/
Sharp Dressed Men: A Summary of Presidential Fashion
You know what they say: clothes make the man. This could not be more true in the case of our presidents, whose occupations demand a well-put-together look. Just as the fashion scene is continually changing, the trends in clothing changed, as well. In fact, the sartorial choices of political figures often has a sizable effect on our perception of them. Let's look at some of the most well-dressed presidents and reflect on the values they displayed in their clothing.
George Washington
Always conscious of his appearance and what it signified, president Washington set the tone for excellence. In the portrait seen here, Washington is seen wearing a somewhat plain, black garment, which reflects the idea that he was a leader elected by the people, not a king. He avoided wearing brightly colored, fine clothing that could have evoked a sense of royalty. In his public appearances, Washington wore clothes that suited his position and sense of duty to the American people.
Portrait of Washington made during his second term as president
Abraham Lincoln
A simple dresser like Washington and most of his predecessors, Lincoln had one key item that separated him from the rest: his stovepipe hat, which only added height to his six foot four inch frame. This hat became synonymous with Lincoln, although the top hat had been in style for a relatively long time already. It helped him to stand out amongst his political competitors, but it came at a cost: he was exceedingly easy to spot in a crowd. Lincoln survived an assassination attempt in 1864 when a bullet pierced through his hat, narrowly missing his head.
An illustration of Lincoln and his trademark hat
John F. Kennedy
John F. Kennedy was young, charismatic, and handsome, and he certainly dressed the part. Educated at Harvard, Kennedy wore a sharp, classic, Ivy League style that continued throughout his presidency. Known for his expertly tailored Brooks Brothers suits and cool sunglasses, Kennedy's image certainly was of help to him during his campaign. Although he kept it refined, his effortless stylishness sent a message to later presidents: step it up.
Conclusion
Although the popular styles of clothing have changed, the responsibility of the president to dress himself well has not. These leaders are constantly being watched and analyzed, so it is crucial for them to do everything they can to present a good image to the public.
The recent election raises a new question: whose style will we see in the White House in the coming months? Will Donald Trump proudly wear his Donald Trump Collection™ suits? Or will Hillary Clinton become the first female president and introduce another wrinkle into the history of presidential attire? We don't know for sure yet, but the country will be anxiously waiting.
Sources:
http://georgewashington.si.edu/portrait/dress.html
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/abraham-lincolns-top-hat-the-inside-story-3764960/?no-ist
http://www.gentlemansgazette.com/president-john-f-kennedy/
Lincoln Douglas Debate
A popular form of high school and college debate is LD, or Lincoln Douglas Debate. The format consists of one on one argumentation, and all of the topics are ones where what is being debated is the morality of certain situations. For example, a recent topic was "The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East". All of the arguments usually revolve around the responsibility of an entity to do one thing or another. From an American history perspective, this form of debate stems from actual presidential debates between Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln and Democratic candidate Stephen Douglas. Nicknamed the "Great Debates of 1858", Lincoln and Douglas debated a total of seven times, with the main issue in all of them being slavery. When they agreed to do the debates, Lincoln and Douglas decided to hold one debate in each of the nine congressional districts in Illinois, a free state. The debates themselves were long for a one on one debate, one candidate would speak for an hour, and then the other candidate spoke for 90 minutes, and then the first candidate would be allowed a 30 minute "rejoinder", or rebuttal. As the incumbent, Douglas had the advantage of speaking first in the majority of the debates.
As far as the content of the debates, Douglas believed in popular sovereignty rather than the banning of slavery across the nation. He argued that both the Whigs and the Democrats wanted popular sovereignty, pointing at the Compromise of 1850 as an example of that. Similarly, evidence is also vital in LD debate in competitions in order to prove your moral arguments. Lincoln fired back that what the states wanted is the illegality of slavery, and that popular sovereignty and the Dred Scott decision were departures from the polices of the past that would nationalize slavery.
While the format is now very different (no more 90 minute speeches), both Lincoln and Douglas's dynamic debates are still remembered and emulated today in the realm of high school Speech and Debate.
Sources: speechanddebate.org
https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/debates.htm
As far as the content of the debates, Douglas believed in popular sovereignty rather than the banning of slavery across the nation. He argued that both the Whigs and the Democrats wanted popular sovereignty, pointing at the Compromise of 1850 as an example of that. Similarly, evidence is also vital in LD debate in competitions in order to prove your moral arguments. Lincoln fired back that what the states wanted is the illegality of slavery, and that popular sovereignty and the Dred Scott decision were departures from the polices of the past that would nationalize slavery.
While the format is now very different (no more 90 minute speeches), both Lincoln and Douglas's dynamic debates are still remembered and emulated today in the realm of high school Speech and Debate.
Sources: speechanddebate.org
https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/debates.htm
Military Success During the First Gulf War
The United States involvement in the Second Gulf war led to a great victory against dictatorship and a surge of freedom for the people of Kuwait. The military action of the United States allowed for the defeat of Saddam in Kuwait and the restoration of the government in Kuwait. The United States military had a great victory thanks to great strategy and execution.
The United States Air Force aerial bombardment was the most influential factor in the war. Newly developed smart bombs and missiles allowed for incredible precision. Key military positions in Kuwait city were bombed with minor civilian casualties. Precise airstrikes took out communication centers and military barracks, limiting the effectiveness of Saddam's Republican Guard. On the border of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, hundreds of thousands of UN troops and tank divisions lay in wait. Operation Desert storm started with the aerial bombardment. Hundreds of thousands of bombs were dropped on Saddam's forces. Entire armor columns were destroyed and troop divisons decimated. Certain roads were cluttered with bodies and destruction for miles and miles. The Kuwaiti Highway 80 was nicknamed the highway of death. Retreating iraqui armor columns were destroyed by American air power, with car bodies and destroyed tanks littering the road. The American air forces softened up the Iraqi army to the point of breaking. As the infantry and armored advance began across the desert little resistance was left. Iraqi soldiers gave up, abandoned their positions and tanks, and surrendered. The efficiency and precision of the United States air force led to the quick defeat of Saddam in the First Gulf War.
Sources: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2006/R4269.4.pdf
The United States Air Force aerial bombardment was the most influential factor in the war. Newly developed smart bombs and missiles allowed for incredible precision. Key military positions in Kuwait city were bombed with minor civilian casualties. Precise airstrikes took out communication centers and military barracks, limiting the effectiveness of Saddam's Republican Guard. On the border of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, hundreds of thousands of UN troops and tank divisions lay in wait. Operation Desert storm started with the aerial bombardment. Hundreds of thousands of bombs were dropped on Saddam's forces. Entire armor columns were destroyed and troop divisons decimated. Certain roads were cluttered with bodies and destruction for miles and miles. The Kuwaiti Highway 80 was nicknamed the highway of death. Retreating iraqui armor columns were destroyed by American air power, with car bodies and destroyed tanks littering the road. The American air forces softened up the Iraqi army to the point of breaking. As the infantry and armored advance began across the desert little resistance was left. Iraqi soldiers gave up, abandoned their positions and tanks, and surrendered. The efficiency and precision of the United States air force led to the quick defeat of Saddam in the First Gulf War.
Sources: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2006/R4269.4.pdf
The Second Gulf War
The Second Gulf War was a war against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. The invasion of Iraq by US forces was seen as wrong and having no precedent by many people and foreign nations. President Bush declared in 2003 that the nation of Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Fearing the use of chemical warfare and dirty bombs by the Iraqis, the United States prepared for war. United States military forces began the invasion of Iraq. Extensive airstrikes paved the way for tank advances through the desert. American troops closed the noose on Saddam and the capital of Baghdad. Eventually, American forces took Baghdad, but Saddam was nowhere to be found. An extensive search of the country led to no weapons of mass destruction.
The entire basis of the war was proved to be false. Looking back in investigation, reports by the CIA that the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction were deemed to be false reports. Foreign nations accused the United States of war mongering on the basis of needing more oil and resources. The US invasion of Iraq led to vacuum of power. This vacuum led to the creation of Islamic militant groups that received great support. Civilians who were bombed and shot at by US forces were sympathetic with causes of these militant groups.
All in all, the Second Gulf War was a great mistake by the Bush Administration. Hundreds of thousands of lives were lost for no reason. Billions of dollars wasted and a country thrown into chaos for seemingly nothing. The single objective of the war was failed. No weapons of mass destruction led many to question why the United States invaded Iraq. The greediness of US policy makers to achieve resources in Iraq led to the deaths of thousands and the destruction of a country, creating long lasting problems we have to face today.
Sources: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/dont-start-second-gulf-war
The entire basis of the war was proved to be false. Looking back in investigation, reports by the CIA that the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction were deemed to be false reports. Foreign nations accused the United States of war mongering on the basis of needing more oil and resources. The US invasion of Iraq led to vacuum of power. This vacuum led to the creation of Islamic militant groups that received great support. Civilians who were bombed and shot at by US forces were sympathetic with causes of these militant groups.
All in all, the Second Gulf War was a great mistake by the Bush Administration. Hundreds of thousands of lives were lost for no reason. Billions of dollars wasted and a country thrown into chaos for seemingly nothing. The single objective of the war was failed. No weapons of mass destruction led many to question why the United States invaded Iraq. The greediness of US policy makers to achieve resources in Iraq led to the deaths of thousands and the destruction of a country, creating long lasting problems we have to face today.
Sources: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/dont-start-second-gulf-war
History of American Currency
Recently the U.S Treasury Department announced that they would be taking Andrew Jackson off of the front of the $20 dollar bill, and replacing him with Harriet Tubman. Tubman will be making history as the first women on American paper currency, with Sacagawea being on the the $1 coin.
Paper currency in the United States was born in 1690, in the form of colonial notes. They were first issued int he Massachusetts Bay Colony to fund British military expeditions. In 1775, the Continental Congress issued paper currency that, much like the Continental Congress, was highly ineffective. The phrase "not worth a continental", was coined since the Continental currency quickly lost value due to a lack of solid backing and a rise in counterfeiting. In 1776, the same year as the Battle of Yorktown, the first $2 note was issued, a note that would eventually have Thomas Jefferson on it. The first $10 notes were issues in 1861, featuring President Lincoln's portrait. In 1865, the United States Secret Service is created to actually combat counterfeiters, not fighting spies and protecting the president as many of us know them for today. Four years later, the centralization of printing of federal notes happens, and our currency is no longer produced by private companies and instead by the federal government. In 1889, the names that can be seen right under the portraits of historical figures were added, and a decade later the Jackson is put on the firth federal $10 bill. In 1957, the phrase "In God We Trust" was added to all of our currency. The early 21st century was the age of redesigned American currency, with the addition of Jackson onto the $20 bill, Hamilton on the $10 bill, and Lincoln on the $5 dollar bill. And now, in the next couple of years Tubman will be among the elite group of history makers that are allowed to grace the foundation of our professional lives.
Sources: https://uscurrency.gov/history-american-currency
Japanese Refusal to Surrender
Japanese troops during World War 2 were told to never surrender. The military effect on the war was disastrous for the United States. With Japanese soldiers fighting to the death, thousands of more troops, supplies, and weapons were needed to be spent in order to take islands. Small Japanese holdouts in caves and in the jungles created many problems for US soldiers. These soldiers refused to surrender and instead tried to inflict as much damage as possible. The use of suicide fighters became increasingly prevalent throughout the war. Japanese "kamikaze" aircraft became incredibly successful, creating huge damage on naval ships. The suicide planes were able to save fuel, bombs, and pilot lives. Facing a pilot deficit, the Japanese air force started to stage suicide attacks. One successful pilot could take out a single ship. There was no need for highly trained pilots now that the pilots were suiciding. Fuel was only needed for a one way trip and the planes didn't have to gear up with bombs and bullets. During the battle of Iwo Jima, Japanese troops suicide d on American tanks, hoping to blow them up with themselves. Japanese forces held up in reinforced caves trying to inflict as much damage as possible on the American forces. The Japanese when facing no chance of winning, decided to commit suicide rather than be captured. The Japanese leadership claimed the US mistreated Japanese prisoners to the point of death. They claimed suicide was the only honorable way to die.
This wave of suicidal troops and refusal to surrender can be seen as a social way of life in Japan. Japanese soldiers were motivated to do what they did in order to honor their family and country. Before going on suicide missions, kamikaze pilots were honored by their generals and given a ceremonial send off as heroes of their country. The refusal to surrender is a Japanese social trend seen throughout the war. To surrender is to bring shame to your family, and many Japanese soldiers would rather end their lives than bring shame. Japanese "fight to the last man" strategy was devastating against the United States, creating hundreds of thousands more casualties and prolonging the war in the Pacific.
This wave of suicidal troops and refusal to surrender can be seen as a social way of life in Japan. Japanese soldiers were motivated to do what they did in order to honor their family and country. Before going on suicide missions, kamikaze pilots were honored by their generals and given a ceremonial send off as heroes of their country. The refusal to surrender is a Japanese social trend seen throughout the war. To surrender is to bring shame to your family, and many Japanese soldiers would rather end their lives than bring shame. Japanese "fight to the last man" strategy was devastating against the United States, creating hundreds of thousands more casualties and prolonging the war in the Pacific.
The Silent Spring
In the midst of the of the 1950's and the 1960's the amount of pesticides used increased incredibly. The use of pesticides was popularized after World War Two because of of their ability to kill insects such as lice, that caused malaria, and typhus. The pesticide that was popularized was called DDT, which saved the lives of thousands of soldiers during World War Two. Later the pesticide was used to treat crops as well as yards and neighborhoods. The government endorsed the product, claiming that it was completely safe, and exaggerating the problems of insects, in order to increase the use of pesticides that were forty times more poisonous that DDT. Despite the dangers, people continued to use the pesticides because they believed that large corporations would not try to harm them. However, despite this, the use of pesticides caused severe environmental damage, killing off wildlife, causing fish to explode, and the death of children after playing with the pesticides. Rachel Carson, a marine biologist noticed these changes. She had already written best selling books such as, Under the Sea Wind, The Sea Around Us, which wrote about the interconnections of all living creatures. In her book The Silent Spring, she wrote about the consequences of the government deciding to live in "a world without insects". She stated that the amount of Parathion, a pesticide, on the planet could destroy the world 5 to 10 times over She believed that people had the right to live in non toxic environments and criticized men for forgetting the true meaning of the planet. She received a lot of criticism, with many people stating that a marine biologist was not capable of speaking intelligently on pesticides, some even stated that Carson was a Communist or a "hysterical" women, another way of saying that because of her sex, she was not knowledgeable scientist.
Below: Rachel Carson
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/story-silent-spring
Below: Rachel Carson
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/story-silent-spring
Star Wars
Ronald Reagan's surge of new conservatism led to an increased focus in the US military and a growth of the defense budget. Reagan wanted to eliminate the threat of a nuclear attack through a high tech space based defense system. This ambitious plan was dubbed Star Wars. Reagan's star wars called for an array of defense satellites in space capable of tracking nuclear weapons in flight and intercepting them, eliminating their payload and rendering the missile useless. This controversial plan only elevated tensions in and outside the United States. Star Wars called for a huge budget, and many scientists weren't certain that this kind of defense system was even possible. Even in today's world, many people are sure that Star Wars is technologically impossible to build. Besides being hard to build, Star Wars would cost the United States billions of dollars.
The USSR became wary of Star Wars and the possibility of upsetting decades of Mutually Assured Destruction. This fragile balance of nuclear annihilation had so far led the United States and USSR to not launch missiles at each other. The USSR feared that with no threat of nuclear retaliation, Ronald Reagan would launch missiles and destroy the USSR. This possible upsetting of MAD proved to be a large mistake for Reagan. USSR and US tensions grew to new levels with the conservative Reagan heading the US government. With no threat of mutually assured destruction, the fragile balance of nuclear power in the world was disturbed.
The USSR became wary of Star Wars and the possibility of upsetting decades of Mutually Assured Destruction. This fragile balance of nuclear annihilation had so far led the United States and USSR to not launch missiles at each other. The USSR feared that with no threat of nuclear retaliation, Ronald Reagan would launch missiles and destroy the USSR. This possible upsetting of MAD proved to be a large mistake for Reagan. USSR and US tensions grew to new levels with the conservative Reagan heading the US government. With no threat of mutually assured destruction, the fragile balance of nuclear power in the world was disturbed.
Zoot Suit Riot
1940's Zoot Suits were high-waisted wool trousers and baggy suit coats that were worn born out of jazz culture and worn by many of Los Angeles' youth. More than just fashion, the zoot suits were seen as an act of defiance and breaking traditional norms of clothing. This form of clothing was popular amongst Mexican American youth known as pachuchos. It also created a reputation of these youth as thugs and juvenile delinquents.
Before the riot, racial tensions were already beginning to rise. As the war begun, many white men in Los angeles left to fight in segregated units. Immigrants and refugees from the Mexican Revolution often replaced white men in the workforce. There were also over 50,000 servicemen in L.A. at the time because the west coast was seen as vulnerable to attack by the Japanese following Pearl Harbor.
The Riots were not necessarily about fashion choices, but rather due to fragile state of race relations. Full- scale riots took place in 1943 and were often very violent. After conflict between Zoot-suiters and white soldiers, the soldiers attacked anyone clad in a Zoot suit and stripped them of their suits. The mob grew as civilians and more servicemen joined, targeting Latinos in public spaces. Animosity was not just reserved for Latinos either. Blacks and Filipinos, even those not wearing Zoot suits were targeted. Local media portrayed this event as a militant and criminal response of immigrant groups. Furthermore, the Los Angeles City Council issued a ban on Zoot suits on June 9th. Similar incidents of racial riots took place across the nation, including cities such as Philadelphia, Chicago, and Detroit. The Zoot Suit riot mirrored racial tensions that arose throughout the 40s as a result of immigrant and minority migrations
Sources:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/zoot/eng_peopleevents/e_riots.html
Before the riot, racial tensions were already beginning to rise. As the war begun, many white men in Los angeles left to fight in segregated units. Immigrants and refugees from the Mexican Revolution often replaced white men in the workforce. There were also over 50,000 servicemen in L.A. at the time because the west coast was seen as vulnerable to attack by the Japanese following Pearl Harbor.
The Riots were not necessarily about fashion choices, but rather due to fragile state of race relations. Full- scale riots took place in 1943 and were often very violent. After conflict between Zoot-suiters and white soldiers, the soldiers attacked anyone clad in a Zoot suit and stripped them of their suits. The mob grew as civilians and more servicemen joined, targeting Latinos in public spaces. Animosity was not just reserved for Latinos either. Blacks and Filipinos, even those not wearing Zoot suits were targeted. Local media portrayed this event as a militant and criminal response of immigrant groups. Furthermore, the Los Angeles City Council issued a ban on Zoot suits on June 9th. Similar incidents of racial riots took place across the nation, including cities such as Philadelphia, Chicago, and Detroit. The Zoot Suit riot mirrored racial tensions that arose throughout the 40s as a result of immigrant and minority migrations
Sources:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/zoot/eng_peopleevents/e_riots.html
Battle of the Bulge
The Battle of the Bulge was the last effort of an almost defeated German military. Running low on supplies, troops, and gasoline, the Wehrmacht had to make a final push. As the Americans and British advanced from France and the Russian onslaught continued from the East, the Germans found themselves being squeezed farther and farther into Germany. As US and British forces entered Belgium and the border of Germany, they encountered some of the heaviest fighting in the war. Desperate German divisions pushed back with unseen ferocity. Panzers and German infantry columns pushed hard into the Ardegne forest, pushing through the Belgium border. The German panzers had little fuel left. The Panzers needed fuel in order to run, and they had to reach crucial Belgium cities to capture fuel and refuel the war machine. This all out push was almost successful. In the Ardegne forest US paratroopers defended the town of Bastion from advancing German tank divisions. The Americans lines fluctuated but never broke. The Germans advanced under fog cover hoping to reach their destination as quickly as possible. The American line held long enough for cloud cover to burn off. As the skies cleared in came the American bomber and tank hunting planes. The superior American air force ended the offensive, rendering German tanks unusable. With the German army losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers and German tanks running out of gas, the Germans were forced to retreat back to the Siegfried line. This incredibly blooding close quarters fighting in dense forest in Belgium was the bloodiest battle fought by the United States in the entire war. This one last ditch effort by Hitler eventually led to the defeat of the struggling German Army.
Historical Accuracy of Hamilton the Musical
Broadway hit musical Hamilton was recently nominated for 16 Tony awards, breaking a record for the most Tony nominations for one musical. Lin Manuel Miranda, the playwright and creator of Hamilton, launched a program called EduHam, where low income New York high school students are invited to a performance of the show for $10. Quite a discount, since resale tickets are being listed on the internet for over $3000. The purpose of the program is to instigate a love for learning and history in a creative way. With that being said, how historically accurate is the musical that's soon being converted into material inside U. S. History classrooms. Mirada puts enormous detail into his lyrics, including a shoutout to Sally Hennigs, Thomas Jefferson's slave that he has a relationship with, in the R&B jam that introduces the character in the musical.
One of the details that Miranda is most proud of including is the reference to Washington's slave owning. After the Battle of Yorktown, many soldiers wondered if the end of the war and the surrender of the British finally meant freedom. For the white soldiers, freedom from taxations without representation, and for the black soldiers freedom from slavery. Hamilton wonders this during the play, and Christopher Jackson, the man who plays the general from Mt. Vernon, responds "not yet". Later on after Hamilton's death, his wife Eliza Schuyler sings about his legacy and her efforts to preserve it, "I raise money in D.C for the Washington Monument". Washington appears to sing "she tells my story", but as Eliza moves on to her efforts to end slavery, he steps back into the shadow.
While minute, details like this truly enhance the educational value of the play.
The play is detailed, but Miranda did take artistic liberty in areas where the historical records were simply not adequate, or what really happened didn't serve the purpose of the story. After the opening number, Miranda creates a completely fictional encounter between Hamilton and future enemy, Aaron Burr to provide context. In the song "Right Hand Man", Washington in the play begs Hamilton to serve in the war, offering him his own post to be in charge of. Historically, Hamilton and his friends actually badgered Washington for months to give him his own post, afraid that the war would end without him having a chance to serve. There are a few other places where battles are rearranged so characters could attend events, but the blatant interpretation of history happens after Hamilton publishes The Reynold Pamphlet, his own writing that revealed his affair with married Maria Reynolds. Eliza burned almost all of the letter he wrote to her after this, literally erasing records of her reaction. Miranda creates a solo for actress Philippa Soo here, a song about her erasing herself from the narrative. Eliza may have well as sat in front of a lantern burning letters and singing, there's no way to know.
Miranda successfully crafts a musical that blends impressive historical accuracy and entertainment value, it's no wonder why it's such a hit.
One of the details that Miranda is most proud of including is the reference to Washington's slave owning. After the Battle of Yorktown, many soldiers wondered if the end of the war and the surrender of the British finally meant freedom. For the white soldiers, freedom from taxations without representation, and for the black soldiers freedom from slavery. Hamilton wonders this during the play, and Christopher Jackson, the man who plays the general from Mt. Vernon, responds "not yet". Later on after Hamilton's death, his wife Eliza Schuyler sings about his legacy and her efforts to preserve it, "I raise money in D.C for the Washington Monument". Washington appears to sing "she tells my story", but as Eliza moves on to her efforts to end slavery, he steps back into the shadow.
While minute, details like this truly enhance the educational value of the play.
The play is detailed, but Miranda did take artistic liberty in areas where the historical records were simply not adequate, or what really happened didn't serve the purpose of the story. After the opening number, Miranda creates a completely fictional encounter between Hamilton and future enemy, Aaron Burr to provide context. In the song "Right Hand Man", Washington in the play begs Hamilton to serve in the war, offering him his own post to be in charge of. Historically, Hamilton and his friends actually badgered Washington for months to give him his own post, afraid that the war would end without him having a chance to serve. There are a few other places where battles are rearranged so characters could attend events, but the blatant interpretation of history happens after Hamilton publishes The Reynold Pamphlet, his own writing that revealed his affair with married Maria Reynolds. Eliza burned almost all of the letter he wrote to her after this, literally erasing records of her reaction. Miranda creates a solo for actress Philippa Soo here, a song about her erasing herself from the narrative. Eliza may have well as sat in front of a lantern burning letters and singing, there's no way to know.
Miranda successfully crafts a musical that blends impressive historical accuracy and entertainment value, it's no wonder why it's such a hit.
To Bomb or Not to Bomb?
The use of nuclear weapons in Japan have been heavily debated throughout our history. Two sides exist, both believing that their view is correct. Many people believe the dropping of atomic bombs was justifiable, stating that without the bombs the war would not have ended and that the bombs saved millions of lives. On the other hand, many people believe the dropping of Atomic bombs should be considered war crimes and that the United States just wanted to see the effects of Atomic bombs and scare the Soviet Union, having no need to drop bombs and kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians.
The Japanese had a mentality of no surrender. Japanese soldiers were told to fight to the death or commit suicide rather than be captured by US forces. The Japanese leadership claimed being captured was the greatest disgrace to the family and one should never give up. Suicide planes and bombs became a large part of Japanese military strategy late in the war. This surge of policy of no surrender led the United States to believe that nothing beside an invasion of mainland Japan would end the war. These facts led the leadership of the United States to consider using the atomic bomb to end the conflict. By bombing the Japanese mainland with atomic weapopns the US would be able to avoid huge casualties of an amphibeous invasion of the Japanese mainland.
Although this explanation is sound in principle, in reality the use of nuclear weapons was inexcusable. The Japanese were just about ready to surrender, and the use of the second atomic weapon should be a war crime. After dropping the first bomb on Hiroshima, the United States prepared to drop a second one on Nagasaki only three days later. The United States did not wait for a response from the confused Japanese government, instead simply going for an immediate secondary nuclear strike. The day the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, a Japanese leadership counsel decided to submit a formal surrender. This action occured before the second bomb hit, showing that the Japanese were ready to surrender and that more civilian deaths were not necessary. The horrors of nuclear war should never become a reality again, and the use of nuclear weapons should never be justified.
Sources: http://nationalinterest.org/feature/no-other-choice-why-truman-dropped-the-atomic-bomb-japan-13504
http://qz.com/472146/its-clear-the-us-should-not-have-bombed-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/
The Japanese had a mentality of no surrender. Japanese soldiers were told to fight to the death or commit suicide rather than be captured by US forces. The Japanese leadership claimed being captured was the greatest disgrace to the family and one should never give up. Suicide planes and bombs became a large part of Japanese military strategy late in the war. This surge of policy of no surrender led the United States to believe that nothing beside an invasion of mainland Japan would end the war. These facts led the leadership of the United States to consider using the atomic bomb to end the conflict. By bombing the Japanese mainland with atomic weapopns the US would be able to avoid huge casualties of an amphibeous invasion of the Japanese mainland.
Although this explanation is sound in principle, in reality the use of nuclear weapons was inexcusable. The Japanese were just about ready to surrender, and the use of the second atomic weapon should be a war crime. After dropping the first bomb on Hiroshima, the United States prepared to drop a second one on Nagasaki only three days later. The United States did not wait for a response from the confused Japanese government, instead simply going for an immediate secondary nuclear strike. The day the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, a Japanese leadership counsel decided to submit a formal surrender. This action occured before the second bomb hit, showing that the Japanese were ready to surrender and that more civilian deaths were not necessary. The horrors of nuclear war should never become a reality again, and the use of nuclear weapons should never be justified.
Sources: http://nationalinterest.org/feature/no-other-choice-why-truman-dropped-the-atomic-bomb-japan-13504
http://qz.com/472146/its-clear-the-us-should-not-have-bombed-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/
The Kitchen Debate
In the height of the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union decided to hold cultural exhibits in each country, with the United States having an exhibit in Moscow, and the Soviets having an exhibit in New York City. President Eisenhower influenced the making of these exhibits, advocating for the two countries to learn more about each other in order to work for peace together. The Lacy-Zaroubin Agreement (1958) made this possible, allowing for both countries to agree in the exchange of cultural, educational, and technological knowledge. Although both sides wanted to share knowledge, they also hoped to impress one another with their prowess in technology and living standards, as well as the opportunity for undercover KGB and CIA operatives to infiltrate opposite groups. The Kitchen Debate occurred at the American exhibit in Moscow. It began when Nixon showed Khrushchev through the exhibit and demonstrated color television sets. The debates also occurred over the conditions of American kitchens and houses. Khrushchev argued that the capitalist means of these inventions, was made to support consumerism and were not made to last, as well as trap housewives in their roles, things that did not occur under communism. Nixon argued that it was important that it is important that these good conditions and innovation be available to everybody. They also argued over the Soviet production of missiles, and Khrushchev claimed that the Soviet Union, although young would advance to the level of United States technology. They also argued over the ideologies of communism and capitalism, with Nixon claiming that there must be a free exchange in ideas and that "You must not be afraid of ideas".
Below: Khrushchev and Nixon debating
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitchen_Debate
Below: Khrushchev and Nixon debating
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitchen_Debate
Ronald Reagan's New Conservatism
Ronald Reagan became our 40th president of the United States, riding a wave of new conservatism support. The ineffectiveness and stagnation of the economy during the Carter presidency led many to be ready for change. Average Americans were fed up with the government and believed that change was needed. Discontented groups such as the "Moral Majority", a group of Christian evangelists, believed the country was racing toward a modern era which scared them. Many wished to return back to the country's roots and to maintain traditional values.
Out of power Republicans capitalized on this discontentment and voted Ronald Reagan as the presidential nomination. Ronald Reagan had a relatively easily election, becoming the president in 1881. After becoming president, Ronald Reagan began to quickly enact changers in economy, foreign policy, and military policy. Reagan lowered taxes for the rich and installed his controversial supply side economic policy. By lowering taxes and lowering government regulation, Reagan hoped to stimulate business. The more profitability of business was hoped to "trickle down" to the rest of the nation. The new profit was supposed to create more jobs and provide cheaper goods and services for all. This controversial new economic policy was mostly a failure, with big businesses failing to re distribute wealth to the lower class. The lower taxes were a way for the rich to stay richer.
Ronald Reagan promised a hard line on communism taking the country back to its post world war 2 roots. Reagan claimed the Soviet Union to be an "evil empire", taking the US back to the attitude of anti-communism seen during the height of the cold war. This resurgence of anti-communism is seen in Reagan and was part of his plan to get re-elected.
Reagan wanted to revamp the country's military, feeding on fears that the United States was falling behind the Soviet Union. Reagan wanted to build a new space based missile defense system nicknamed Star Wars. Star Wars was supposed to disable Nuclear missiles from space using a complicated tracking and interception system utilizing space based interceptors. His insistence on Star Wars hardened tensions between the US and USSR. Star Wars threatened the balance of Mutually Assured Destruction.
Ronald Reagan surge of new conservatism was an embodiment of the American people for change. They believed that the modern US was going to a place they did not want, and believed Reagan could take them back to traditional values. Reagan's election led to less taxes, more military, and a harsher relationship with the USSR.
Source: http://countrystudies.us/united-states/history-136.htm
Out of power Republicans capitalized on this discontentment and voted Ronald Reagan as the presidential nomination. Ronald Reagan had a relatively easily election, becoming the president in 1881. After becoming president, Ronald Reagan began to quickly enact changers in economy, foreign policy, and military policy. Reagan lowered taxes for the rich and installed his controversial supply side economic policy. By lowering taxes and lowering government regulation, Reagan hoped to stimulate business. The more profitability of business was hoped to "trickle down" to the rest of the nation. The new profit was supposed to create more jobs and provide cheaper goods and services for all. This controversial new economic policy was mostly a failure, with big businesses failing to re distribute wealth to the lower class. The lower taxes were a way for the rich to stay richer.
Ronald Reagan promised a hard line on communism taking the country back to its post world war 2 roots. Reagan claimed the Soviet Union to be an "evil empire", taking the US back to the attitude of anti-communism seen during the height of the cold war. This resurgence of anti-communism is seen in Reagan and was part of his plan to get re-elected.
Reagan wanted to revamp the country's military, feeding on fears that the United States was falling behind the Soviet Union. Reagan wanted to build a new space based missile defense system nicknamed Star Wars. Star Wars was supposed to disable Nuclear missiles from space using a complicated tracking and interception system utilizing space based interceptors. His insistence on Star Wars hardened tensions between the US and USSR. Star Wars threatened the balance of Mutually Assured Destruction.
Ronald Reagan surge of new conservatism was an embodiment of the American people for change. They believed that the modern US was going to a place they did not want, and believed Reagan could take them back to traditional values. Reagan's election led to less taxes, more military, and a harsher relationship with the USSR.
Source: http://countrystudies.us/united-states/history-136.htm
The History of National Parks
Yellowstone was the first designated national park in 1872, in both the America and the world. Several other national parks were designated in following years, most of them in Western territories. These parks were administered by the Department of Interior, while other monuments were established by the War Department and Forest Service of the American Department of Agriculture. There was no single agency that managed these federal parklands. That is, until 1916 when President Wilson signed an act creating the National Parks Service, responsible for protecting 35 distinct national parks. In this "Organic Act" the purpose of the NPS was stated to conserve natural and historical and wildlife within the parks.
An Executive order in 1933, designated more responsibility to the NPS with 56 national monuments and military sites. The executive order is one of the defining moments for the NPS, as it incorporated areas that had not only scenic importance, but also scientific and historical value. The General Authority Act of 1970 reinforced this purpose.
Today, the National Park System comprises more than 400 areas covering more than 54 million acres of land in all 50 states and DC, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, Saipan, and the Virgin Islands.
Sources:
https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/history.htm
https://www.loc.gov/collection/national-parks-maps/articles-and-essays/brief-history-of-the-national-parks/
Barry Goldwater
Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona in 1909. His family owned a department store, which he dropped out of college to work at.
Goldwater began his political career when he was elected to the city council of Phoenix in 1949. In 1952, Goldwater ran for a position in the Senate, which he won and occupied for two terms. Goldwater gained much of his popularity as a conservative republican. As he believed in limited government, personal freedoms, and limiting welfare programs, Goldwater got many votes from the anti-communists in Arizona. One example of how he appealed to anti-communist voters was that he charged democrats with creating a quasi-socialist state by instituting welfare programs.
In 1964, Goldwater decided to run for president against the incumbent Lindon B Johnson. As a conservative, Goldwater pushed his platform as the more "American" alternative to Johnson's "great society" insinuating that Johnson was soft on communism.
As one Saturday Evening Post article points out, Goldwater "has consistently taken positions nicely calculated to alienate all the major voting blocs in the country". Obviously there are skeptics in every election cycle, but in this case the skeptics turned out to be correct. Goldwater only won six states for a total of 52 electoral votes. Clearly Goldwater was successful at alienating voters, because in the election, Johnson won 61% of the popular vote, the biggest landslide since 1820 (Monroe's re-election).
Despite his loss, Goldwater represented an important shift in the Republican platform. Before, republicans had been moderates, but Goldwater reframed the party to be more conservative. Goldwater ran on a platform of reducing the size and role of the federal government while expanding state and local responsibilities. In addition, Goldwater called for a re-centering of unions, which he believed had become too powerful, and a referendum on Johnson's Great Society. In this capacity, Goldwater was important in determining the future of the republican party's platform.
Sources:
4president.org
britannica.com
saturdayeveningpost.com
Goldwater began his political career when he was elected to the city council of Phoenix in 1949. In 1952, Goldwater ran for a position in the Senate, which he won and occupied for two terms. Goldwater gained much of his popularity as a conservative republican. As he believed in limited government, personal freedoms, and limiting welfare programs, Goldwater got many votes from the anti-communists in Arizona. One example of how he appealed to anti-communist voters was that he charged democrats with creating a quasi-socialist state by instituting welfare programs.
In 1964, Goldwater decided to run for president against the incumbent Lindon B Johnson. As a conservative, Goldwater pushed his platform as the more "American" alternative to Johnson's "great society" insinuating that Johnson was soft on communism.
As one Saturday Evening Post article points out, Goldwater "has consistently taken positions nicely calculated to alienate all the major voting blocs in the country". Obviously there are skeptics in every election cycle, but in this case the skeptics turned out to be correct. Goldwater only won six states for a total of 52 electoral votes. Clearly Goldwater was successful at alienating voters, because in the election, Johnson won 61% of the popular vote, the biggest landslide since 1820 (Monroe's re-election).
Despite his loss, Goldwater represented an important shift in the Republican platform. Before, republicans had been moderates, but Goldwater reframed the party to be more conservative. Goldwater ran on a platform of reducing the size and role of the federal government while expanding state and local responsibilities. In addition, Goldwater called for a re-centering of unions, which he believed had become too powerful, and a referendum on Johnson's Great Society. In this capacity, Goldwater was important in determining the future of the republican party's platform.
Sources:
4president.org
britannica.com
saturdayeveningpost.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)