Final Week!

The snow covered paths, crowded library, and trash cans filled with coffee cups all add up to one thing: the end of the semester! Sure the hectic, last minute stress can be very overwhelming at this time, I think it is important that no one over look or underestimate our achievements up until this point. 

At the beginning of this semester, I admit, I had the 'ugh-I-wish-it-was-still-summer' attitude and basically just going through the motions to get back into the game. However, once we had a few classes and discussions my feelings definitely changed. I found myself in a positive atmosphere with a professor who interacted with students as equals and classmates that stimulated my mind.

Because everyone comes from such diverse backgrounds, and had different knowledge of some of the topics we covered- nearly everyone donated thoughts, questions, or comments, fueling very intriguing, mature class discussions. 

The material we covered, both in the text and the selected readings, really gave me a great understanding of American history and the role it played in the larger, world context. I enjoyed that it wasn't a history class of memorizing specific dates and battles, it was about seeing the larger picture- including the role of common Americans (which I really liked).

I'd like to thank all of you for playing a part in this class, I learned much from each of you. 

Congrats on the end of the semester!!!

Decisions, decisions

After reading the selected works for this week, it is very easy to see how both Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon were very well received by the American public.In a time of desperate need for understanding and hope it is undeniable that people would gravitate towards either one of these historic figures as an outlet for relief, for hope. 

When he was signed into office, Richard Nixon had literally inherited the Vietnam War. When he announced the withdrawal of U.S troops from Vietnam in November, 1969, Nixon eased a significant amount of tension between the angered American population and their government. However, shortly thereafter, President Nixon publically announced that he was ordering U.S. troops into Cambodia, continuing the countries involvement in the war...not many were pleased. After years of being a torn country with opposing views, opinions, and hope- Americans were finally given momentary relief only to literally have it thrown back in their faces. How could anyone have faith in a president who started a term off by practically lying? Even more unsettling is that Nixon stated, "...the more divided we are at home, the less likely the enemy is to negotiate..."

Personally, I would have never been able to get on board with someone who could repetitively lie to the public from the beginning of his term...and then only to end it with Watergate...

On the other hand, when President Ronald Reagan was sworn into office in 1980, he turned America into a society of ideas. His very heavy Catholic and Protestant views influenced a conservative image and plan of action which proved to be very popular with the public. He literally got the ball rolling immediately after his inauguration- he vowed to cut taxes, lower inflation, and set up the Economic Recovery Tax Act that reduced income tax paid by most American's by 23%. Needless to say, he basically became a miracle worker to citizens.

What struck me the most from this weeks material was Reagan's quote, "in this present crisis, the government isn't the problem, government is the problem." To me, this is the quote of a dignified, loyal, trustworthy person- one who addresses issues/problems from the eyes of the public, and who can not only identify a problem, but can own up to it, also. 

In an attempt to rebuild the government and strength of America, Reagan must have looked like the epitome of a good president, especially when he was saving such large amounts of peoples hard earned dollars; however, considering that there was such tension from the American people towards the government, in addition to the lengthy, unpopular involvement in Vietnam, and then to have President Richard Nixon spit on the American people by formulating and  lying about Watergate, i have no idea how anybody could have had faith at all. Obviously people's stnces (involvement in the war, condition of living, etc) had much influence on their decisions, but it's still hard to even attempt to place myself in the shoes of a 22 year old in 1980 (good for my hairstyle at least) trying to sort through the mixed motions of the times. 

It's truly hard to believe how torn people can become when nobody can begin to bring them together.

Flowers are better than bullets

Being born in Cleveland, the history of Vietnam, especially regarding the May 4th shootings at Kent State are widely known. As a child I was never able to grasp the concept of why it was such a significant event- to Ohio, to Kent, to Vietnam- but now being a student at Kent State, walking where someone was shot down while trying to bring peace, my view has definitely changed.

When watching the film The Day the War Came Home, I had a knot in my stomach the whole time. These were people trying to voice their opinion over the US invasion of Cambodia- innocent students, some younger than I am, who were treated " [they're] worse than Communists." Throughout the film I felt so connected to the beautiful people who were a part of the protests here on campus. Seeing downtown Kent, buildings I have class in, and the hill I walk up everyday turned into a complete battle ground, was almost too hard for me to watch. 

One student said, " [the national guard] invaded our campus like Nixon invaded Cambodia," which is very hard to imagine especially after the Governor claimed that students would be stopped by whatever means necessary.

The footage and interviews of former KSU students was so ordinary in the respect of who they are and what they were there for. Simple people, trying to make a difference- that's all.

To me, the most profound part of the film was something I will carry with me through my entire life, and it was the two National Guardsmen who fired shots at students. One went on to say, "I couldn't imagine why anyone would tell us to do that...these kids weren't doing anything wrong...they were so innocent." I got very choked up hearing that, and it was a very intense feeling to see images of people scattered in every direction looking for safety (from the national guard....they're the ones who are supposed to PROTECT US, not massacre innocent people) unsure whether their friends were alive, hurt, or dead.

Although the heartbreak that happened on this very campus, only a few hundred yards away from our classroom, didn't lead to an immediate demobilization of US troops from Cambodia or Vietnam, it definitely affected nearly every person in this country- in 1970 and still in 2010. The strength, compassion, and respect I have for every single person who was here on that terrible day will forever remain a hero. It is very commendable knowing that their incomparable legacy will live on here in Kent and that they will be remembered as martyrs of peace, morality, and humanity.

Peace and Love

250,000 Rally Against Vietnam in Washington

       So far, this week's out of class/ discussion assignment has been my favorite so far. It gave us a chance to be a little more creative, sort through what we found interesting, and I feel it made more of an impact regarding our overall understanding of Vietnam. We weren’t reading to try to find a certain statistic or piece information, we were reading what we wanted- and not necessarily because we were physically able to choose a source, but because we interpreted our sources individually and allowing the meaning we found to be what we read.

A mass of demonstrators fill the streets of Washington, D.C

The article from the New York Times I found was titled "250,000 War Protesters Stage Peaceful Rally in Washington," describes just that. An enormous group of nearly a quarter of a million people gathered in the nation's capital demanding the withdrawal of US troops from Vietnam. Composed largely of students and young activists, the group also included liberals, the young and old- nearly every group had a presence at the rally. This particular rally represents a different side of American demonstrations against the war in Vietnam because it was very peaceful, calm, and dignified.

     What really makes this article so interesting, to me, is the involvement of the police force present at the rally. According to the source, the police and Army and Marine Corps were station throughout the streets of Washington; however, most of them were “reduced to directing the scattered traffic or simply standing and shivering in the cold.” As a student at Kent State where we are surrounded with the stories and memories of May 4, 1970 – especially the controversial actions of the National Guard to shoot and kill 4 students- it is very hard to imagine a crowd significantly larger than Kent’s, and in our nation’s capital that no rioting or severe action needed to be taken. I was literally taken back by that. Also, the story reported that only one arrest was made from the duration of the rally, and it was disorderly conduct charge against a 20 year old boy who was caught painting a peace sign on the Washington Monument- which is nothing when you consider the huge scale of this event.

     Another part of the article that, to me, reassured the idea that everyone is human, was that there were even US Senators in attendance; McCarthy, and McGovern- South Dakota and Charles Goodell- New York. Senator Goodell even gave a speech to a very welcoming crowd, and was quoted saying, “We are not here to break a President or even a Vice President…we are here to break the war and begin the peace.” How moving it must have been to the thousands who boldly and whole-heartedly devoted to the movement against Vietnam to hear someone of political power to hear exactly what needed to be heard (and probably what was being felt in the air by everyone in the United States).

     I really enjoyed this article because it was a different viewpoint of the Vietnam War that I had really never been exposed to before. I knew about the crazy radicals who were beaten by police, or the stoned hippies making circles around trees, or even the guy next door who was just ticked off at the government- but this article reveled a more harmonious, humble side of 2 opposing forces. It’s like when you’re English teacher has you write a persuasion or debate paper, and you’re immediately turned off to it because it’s required to examine the other side of the argument you’re on (which you instinctively give a “that’s dumb” in your head). This is that. Exactly. The government stepped backed, said “let them do their thing as long as nobody’s getting hurt,” the people expressed their feelings, and the government responded [at the event]… positively.

     Personally, this is the reason I enjoyed this assignment. It gave me the opportunity to experience an unfamiliar aspect of the Vietnam War history that I might not have been otherwise.

  

Peace, Hope, and Love

During the mid 1960s America was a giant mixture of varying emotions, feelings, and beliefs. The height of the Civil Rights movement had barely just passes, with Vietnam right on its heels. At this time, Americans began putting a voice to their thoughts; the peace and love of the counterculture, the activists who stood up against the government and war, and liberals trying to keep equality among one another. Although these radically different groups of people shared different opinions of America's future, their own prosperity, and overall well being, they each shared one very important aspect: hope.
Hope for a brighter future, hope fore the freedom and safety of all Americans, hope for change and prosperity.
This sense of hope that was instilled in the American people was largely due to president John F. Kennedy. As a president, he used hope and charisma to drive Americans to be the positive change they wanted to see in the world. This attitude he heroically demonstrated lead to the creation of the Peace Corps, aid to foreign nations, and the space program.
Personally, I feel like his charm and right to-the-point attitude is what allowed people to want to make a change or a difference in the world. Much unlike today's society where everyone wants to do well or change something, but they just expect it to happen overnight, as if they rather click their heels together than put in effort or time or resources to achieve goals- instead of really earning them. I mean, people purchase pills and drinks that ruin their bodies when trying to lose weight instead of diet and exercise, or spend hundreds of dollars on "going green" with eco- friendly housing materials, water bottles, and miscellaneous products, but still drive their Hummers around. It is as if people only think about what they want, not about getting there.
The same holds true on a more personal level. As a college student I find myself pulling all nighters, consuming more coffee than a truck driver, and sometimes having to put my social life on hold to eventually reach my ultimate goals. For me, the struggle to find a balance between everything in life and then accomplishing important goals means so much more to me than if someone were to just hand me a diploma and give me a job. I like the work, the effort, the challenge- and I feel that even though it wasn't explicit, this was JFK's message. That everyone should have faith and courage in themselves, believe they are capable of working towards something, and knowing they've earned the rewards and are beyond deserving of that- and to never lose the hope of knowing anything really is possible.

Civil Rights...Civil People?

Although the technical "start" of the Civil Rights movement is branded in 1954 following the infamous court case: Brown versus the Board of Education, the "movement" does not necessarily have a starting or ending point. Rooted in early American history, the Civil Rights movement has always had couragous and powerful characters writing it's book. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries resistant slaves, African Americans who fought for the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, and those who practiced nonviolence- all these individuals began turning the wheels towards a post-racial world far before 1954. Personally, I still feel like the movement is still an active part of American life that we are around every day.

During the 1950s many people were opposed to integration. These people, many middle to upper class white citizens, felt that integrating African Americans into an "equal" society would cut job opprotunities, lower property values, and would be going against what they'd been taught and told their whole lives. Now while I dont feel this profound movement had a particular starting point, I definitely feel like this time in history is when all the tension gave voice to strong African Americans who had finally had enough of being put down.

Truly inspiring leaders like Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, Ella Baker, and Rosa Parks became predominant figures for African Americans who needed a guiding light during such a tumultous time. These powerful leaders encouraged peaceful sit-ins (like in Greensboro, North Carolina), Freedom Rides (mainly in Alabama), the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (lead by MLK), and boycotts we're all peaceful actions African Americans used to show the world 'we're not doing anything wrong and we're not going anywhere." Basically, it was a way to show the white men, and those opposed to integration, that it was life, liberty, the ability to eat at a simple lunch counter- was just as much a colored man's right as it 

was a white's.

Now, in 2010, we're supposed to be in this equal, fair society. Run under the hand of the first black President- times have 'changed.' Or at least were supposed to have by now. 

Surely I m not trying to take away from the incredibly amazing, couragous, and prosperous actions, committiees, and level of equality that has been achieved thus far- but for the desperate people of the 1950's, 2010 should seem like a comletely different world- but I dont think it necessarily is.

Just because Americans like to "think" they've changed, it doesnt mean everyone is on board, or even cares to be, to try and live in a peaceful, eqaul country.

I do believe America has come a long way since the 1950's , however, I would not describe it as
post racial" by any means- but I do hope to see more change and prosperity in the future- every single person deserves that. Black, white, purple, green, and red.

Cold Doesn't Mean Freezing

At the close of World War 2 and the years following it, one would think that the world would be 'war-ed out.' The two most powerful and influential nations at the end of the war were the US and USSR, they were the First World Countries. 

Slowly, tension between the Democratic United States and the Communist USSR began to grow. The tension steamed from contrasting ideologies, geographical locations, and national history, yet the tension never escalated into a physical, "hot" war.

There could be very many reasons the two power nations never duked it out, including the fact that they both had new technology to literally blow each other into smithereens. As these two countries continued to differ on nearly every account, the small coal was beginning to burn as both America and the Soviet Union attempted to spread their political ideologies. Nearly every other nation in the world had to choose whether they would adopt Communist or Democratic ideologies themselves.

I find it hard to believe that with the power, technology, and support that the US and USSR never actually fought. But at the same time, the mass tension and drawn out conflict caused by the Cold War had nearly the same effects as if they had actually gone to war. Countries were divided, ideas were practically being forced down, one as trying to outdo or be better than the other, people were victimized- every one of these aspects would hold true to countries at war, so at what point can a cold war be better than a hot war?  Sure there is less physical loss and damage, and I’m not saying hot war is necessarily better but that the pettiness and un-authoritative route of a cold war isn’t a better solution.

It’s like when two of your friends are fighting, and instead of talking about the situation, they sit in silence while you play middle man and try to see the real problem. Never fun for anybody.

 

Force? Choice? Equality?

While studying for our midterm exam this week, something struck me that wasn't covered in yellow highlighter or underlined and circled ten times. 

Some of the main topics we covered: reconstruction, black rights, Native American discrimination, women's suffrage- all seem unrelated, individually, but when looking at them together its very easy to see a common theme: force, not choice. All these topics represent people forcefully being put down or discriminated by others that believe it's right or beneficial. For the most part these judgmental decisions were not based on any meaningful reason or precedent- they just were. 

In the case of the Native Americans, the U.S. forced them into Reservation schools and took the land they lived on so that they could be "productive people" (aka: American farmers). However, never was any such idea what the Natives wanted nor did they ask for it...or have a choice in it.

To the women who were constantly denied the right to vote, I don't think it was the physical act of voting that was so unsettling, but rather the fact that others had the choice to vote or not vote while women were simply told "no."

The same holds true today. Not everyone wants to go to the moon, or become a CEO, or a YouTube celebrity- but if one person is allowed to choose, how can another person be denied that right? 

I make choices every day: do I sleep in or go to class? Spend money or save money? Captain crunch or Fruit Loops (which is always a hard one) At the time I didn't think these choices matter or were important, but I also was not told (or legally prohibited) from making a choice.

I can not imagine how these groups were constantly put down, discriminated against, and told they could not something. We all know what happened when mom told us to not go into the cookie jar...

Infamy or Admiration

I am a rather curious person - I like to learn why things are the way they are, how they work, what something means, and I was always fascinated with the fact that there are some things you just know, even without explicitly learning something. I mean everyone (at least the majority) knows the Titanic sunk, or knows who Frank Sinatra is, or that in "1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue." For me, the attack on Pearl Harbor the lead to the U.S. involvement of WWII has been one of those things I just knew. Obviously not to the extent and/or context of what I know now, but I always knew of its significance.
After discussing the topic in some depth, it is very easy to picture young American men pumped up to protect their fellow countrymen and fight to the death to defend their honor. However, in reading the letters sent from American soldiers  to their families, that perspective shifted a little bit.
Had America been blindly attacked? Yes. Were the soldiers proud to help defend our country? Surely, but without ever being in battle, on the lines,etc, nobody can put just exactly what war is really like better than those who fought.

 Arlington Cemetery for American Soldiers

David Mark Olds letter to his family (the last in the readings) exemplifies how life in battle actually is, he didn't paint a pretty picture for anybody. His statement, "...leave it to the next fellow or politicians to worry about the world. I want to go home and get some small measure of happiness out of life. We [soldiers] feel that not much good will be done with these noble efforts." To me, these are the words of a soldier. He continued "it's too hard to talk about concentration camps...there are kids outside playing, people going about their lives, and a death camps within walking distance from them." The horror and terror that was resounding during WWII, especially to American soldiers, like Olds who were in Germany,
must have made it nearly impossible to imagine that "good" even existed.
I can not fathom how soldiers could put their lives on the line daily, but were fighting/ surrounded by people- civilians, politicians, soldiers- who were so unaffected by such treacherous acts.
I'm in no place to judge any man or woman who bravely stands up to defend my life, my country, and my freedom (nor am I trying to); however, I don't feel those involved in WWII can be compared to any other group of heroes- they had to go and see above and beyond what could ever be expected of someone. I so admire the bravery, courage, and valiant efforts and feel they should remain in a heroic light always.

Week Six

America was and still remains to be a torn country. At less than 300 years young we have super hardcore Republicans, but also democrats. Extremists and liberals. A and B. One of our nations biggest flaws is its indecision, and un-unified peace perspectives. We want money, but we don't want taxes, We want jobs, but only desirable ones, etc. Such is the case with our country's involvement with the Holocaust.
At first, we shot down that Hitler's disgusting power and control even existed; then we proposed moving Jews and other prisoners out, but wouldn't take them into our own country; we considered bombing large concentration camps to eliminate the problem- really? To me, that almost makes America out to look/sound like Hitler. We wanted to be the war hero and get a purple heart without doing any work.
No matter what side of American politics one falls on, this should have been a unified relief front. No questions. Had Hitler been terrorizing Americans, we'd surely hope someone would intervene, not just come up with ideas and strategies to "float around and the next meeting."

In no way am I trying to downplay the United States' efforts in liberating prisoners, I just feel like they were trying to talk the talk- to look like the heros.

Week 5

When learning about the Great Depression, or any economic downfall in history, in elementary school I was always so confused as to how an entire nation could nose dive into a recession so quickly, especially when not too long before there was an overabundance of wealth and people showing it off. However, with the current financial crisis the United States, the similar circumstances are very parallel.
Not too long ago, our country was in a considerably good place financially and economically, and the talk of a recession seemed somewhat like a scare tactic. And if even a small fraction of our population is even half as stubborn as I am, the concerns and worries of the government were just brushed off. Fast forward half a decade, and here we are: one of the worlds most looked upon countries, now facing national crisis.
The same holds true for our country during the 1930s. Where people who had previously adorned their houses with flashy, ostentatious displays of wealth were sleeping under newspaper blankets and eating "salt pork" (which is really just salt, with a side of pork). Americans were unable to get jobs, food, or any form of necessities, let alone luxuries.
The citizens took a positive stand, however,creating beneficial agencies like Civil Works administration, Agricultural Adjustment, and the Works Progress Administration to name a few, in the hopes of reorganizing and restructuring  American people, money, and resources. These people literally had to go days on end with no nourishment, clean clothes, or hope.
While the recession we're facing is certainly not good (can it actually be good?) we're under very different circumstances today. Even though we've definitely had to make cutbacks, here I am: in college, on a laptop, in my own rented house. These luxuries would have never even crossed someones mind in the 30s- its basically a real life example that things could always be worse.
This emotionally and economically pressing time in America would have made it hard for me, as I'm sure it was for the people living through it, to believe "the only thing to fear was fear itself."

Week Four

This weeks lecture and the AlabamaNorth reading reflect such an interesting time in history, the Great Migration during the Progressive Era in the early 20th century. This migration of people established a new economy, ideas, and large population increases in major cities. This should have been an amazing time for the people, with unlimited dreams and aspirations for the future; however, for the African American migrants who were coming from the south faced a much different reality. For them, this time was one of limited opportunity, inequality, and discrimination. 

The two major players we discussed, Booker Washington and W.E.B DuBois, were two of the many voices to speak out for the black citizens. I was very shocked to find out that their views and ideas of how to move out of inequality were so drastically different. Washington, and accommodationist, did just that- he held a "if you can't change the whites, don't, but work and be successful" attitude. He was very dedicated to developing a working middle class and promoting black economic progress. The passion that fueled his ideas were very different than DuBois's who voted not to accommodate, but to integrate - to not give up. 

Though both ultimately wanted the very best possible outcome for every black citizen, it must have been hard to believe and support radical changes when different leaders hold such strong opinions and ideas. Had I been an African American during this time, faced with such a need for change I could only imagine how difficult it would have been to choose which direction would best help me establish a new life in a new time.

week three

The material and discussions this past week reminded me, if not everybody, of one place they all hate to be: stuck between a rock and a hard place. In this case, America is the stuck one, imperialist expansion, the rock, and anti-imperialist seclusion the hard place.
By the turn of the century America was in an unsettled place: a surplus of money with no circulation, an overabundance of workers with no jobs, and a plethora of worldwide expansion with little followers. To the people of the time there was no gray. It was white or black. Expand or do not expand. As a secondary opinion/viewer, looking in, obviously the best choice is to do what will benefit mother America more. Be idle? Take action? Expand? Don't?
For today's people, the lines of cost can sometime blur over the lines of benefit and vis versa. On the one hand, America would at first be encroaching into foreign lands, populated by alien people, denying them of their motherland and connection to her and their fellow natives. On the other, incredible growth, employment, and monetary opportunities laid out on a golden path before them. Is one right and the other not? After all, the U.S. was known for a reputation of no holds bar intrusion, occupying any land to gain what they wanted- which isn't necessarily bad nor good. In this case however, the Filipino islands were a blank slate to Americans. Intrude to gain, or intrude to control? While neither option may be what was Americas intention, it was the ultimate choice.
Personally, I feel, that even though moving into new lands would cause a flood of people seeking job opportunities and channels which new found markets would stimulate, taking over already settled lands is the parallel of modern day America deciding to take over Tokyo  on Monday, and wanting everything settled by Tuesday. While it seems like a happy ending, there is no thought to the other characters of the story. At no point, except to anti-imperialists, did the thought of expansion project anything except  prosperity.
Was it right? Was it wrong? Was it beneficial? Was it detrimental? To each their own, I just find it somewhat ironic that nearly a century later Americans still haven't learned that actions require consequences. After all, history does repeat itself.

Week Two

   With fall semester now fully underway, I am beginning to realize which courses need more attention devoted to them, which I know I need to read the books for insanely closely, and in good cases, finding out which classes are stimulating. Although rare, it is nice (ad also extremely beneficial) to be in a class where you can learn and grow from the others in the class. After four classes I feel that this will be one of those rare experiences.

    After today’s discussion about Andrew Carnegie, the wheels in my head were turning. I was questioning not only how over a century ago, one man became a business guru, setting mold that still today is hard to penetrate. I find it very fascinating that Carnegie had impeccable tactics and business ethics that allowed him to become an untouchable mogul, without any example to follow – just one to be set.

    After bouncing thoughts around we ended class today with a stimulating question: did Carnegie invest his money into libraries and halls as a slap in the face, or was it to prevent another labor uprising? In my opinion it was a little of both. While I don't necessarily think it was meant as a slap in the face, per se, but rather a way of getting people motivated to get on their feet and learn from experiences, building natural skills, and, most importantly, other people. After all life is about survival of the fittest. I think the same hold true in all of our lives- yes, education is irreplaceable and a great way for us to grow, but more importantly we are gaining untouched life skills- learning how to manage our own time and schedules, performing on no sleep, and living off minimal amount of money. In essence, college is our perseverance test. We are learning how to learn, how to function and grow into productive members of society.

    Although times have changed and we’re living in a different society than the one we’re learning about, the experiences are not all that unfamiliar. I am eager to continue our lessons from the book and from each other, to learn from history and not repeat it.

    

Week One

As another summer quickly ended, and all lovely last minute running around and organizing before school approaches, everyone, I find, is somewhat apprehensive about another glorious fifteen weeks of classes. I too found myself dreading all the statistics and economic classes I'd be starting, but this class was not one of them. I am very interested in history because it is something that affects everyone in our class. Its not just formulas that you save into your calculator of the $20 you offered somebody to do your math homework, its the events and precedents that shape the world, or at least the United States, that we are now all apart of. Reading through the syllabus I was instantly drawn towards our lectures and discussions of Vietnam, Civil Rights, and counter culture because they're all areas many of us are familiar with. We all love the music (or should!), freedom, and the extraordinary leaders of the time, and have all probably heard the "well when I was your age" talks from our parents. Through the presentation of new material and discussions I hope to discover the significance of the time following reconstruction and how it not only affects our society now, but also how it will help lay building blocks for the future.