1. Senator McCarthy used fear tactics to frighten his listeners into thinking that although it may have been the case that communists outnumbered non-communists by a startling amount, it wasn't as extreme as he made it out to be.
McCarthy might have been considered a populist because he claimed to support "the people" over the elite.
2. Eisenhower said that even though military is costly to maintain, it is absolutely necessary to keep it built up. He warned against letting the high costs be discouraging. These costs were a result of the Cold War because it became important to keep the army ready to be used if the time came.
3. The Supreme Court said that "separate but equal" was not equal because the feeling of inferiority felt by black students who were separated from their white peers gave them no motivation to work.
4. The author was blaming the conformity on generations of inheriting wealth, and since the cycle wasn't being broken and the wealthy stayed wealthy, nothing changed.
5. The document which subject most correlates with the effects of the Cold War is the first document about Senator McCarthy. The "red scare" prompted a nationwide fear and hatred of communists and everything they stood for. McCarthy's fear tactics in his speeches were widely criticized for the notions they put in people's heads. Now, Senator McCarthy was not the only one who was fueling the tension between the capitalist West and the communist East, but he didn't ease it either.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Ch. 26 DBQ's
1. The "Long Telegram" helped contribute to the Cold War because it fueled further anxiety that the West had about the future of the communist East. By reflecting the views of the Russian rulers, their insecurity, and their fear, the telegram made the tensions that were already there, public. Kennan was very clear that the Russian people were going to employ any means necessary to keep the outside from interfering.
2. The Truman speech confirmed that the US would fully support the free people of other nations who were having totalitarian regimes assume control of their government.
3. The idea that the US wanted to further split Europe for their own interests was, in retrospect, propaganda, but worry that the continued interference of the US would result from direct economic aid was a legitimate concern.
4. As far as militaristic reasons, Lippmann doesn't believe that a stationary, defensive strategy will be effective considering America's greatest strength lies in being mobile. Politically, Lippmann doesn't think that the Soviets will be able to "yield on...a diplomatic front."
2. The Truman speech confirmed that the US would fully support the free people of other nations who were having totalitarian regimes assume control of their government.
3. The idea that the US wanted to further split Europe for their own interests was, in retrospect, propaganda, but worry that the continued interference of the US would result from direct economic aid was a legitimate concern.
4. As far as militaristic reasons, Lippmann doesn't believe that a stationary, defensive strategy will be effective considering America's greatest strength lies in being mobile. Politically, Lippmann doesn't think that the Soviets will be able to "yield on...a diplomatic front."
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Review book vs. Textbook
Western Expansion
Since the assignment was to find both positive and negative aspects of the westward expansion of the country, that became the main criteria of the book criticism.
It seemed that both books had a negative swing, focusing mostly on the displacement of the Indians onto reservations, the depletion of the buffalo population, and the environmental damage (i.e., soil erosion, deforestation, etc). When reading both chapters, I found myself having to search for positive effects whereas the unfortunate things were talked about for pages.
The decision of which book was better (which, in my opinion, was the review book) was an easy one because the review book was significantly shorter. Any book that can condense several decades of information into a few pages while still covering all the bases is well worth the read. I found almost all of the information I was looking for in the assignment before I even opened the textbook.
Why, oh why, did the textbook have to go on for thirty pages? Also, if it’s necessary to go on for thirty pages, at least throw a few pictures in there. The chapter in the review book took me about twenty minutes to read, but the textbook pages took me a couple study halls plus a while at home, too. Obviously, whether the textbook was really long isn’t the reason the review book happened to discuss the topic better. The textbook seemed way too hung up on details than just focusing on the main ideas. In history, the main ideas are the most important things. The details, for the most part, just get in the way of the most important things. The “who, what, when, where, and why” of the assigned topic is what I was looking for, and interested in, when it came to the reading. I wasn’t so concerned with, for example, how each Indian tribe went about dealing with the frontiersmen.
By no means am I trying to say that details aren’t important. If this critique had been about which book had more information, then the textbook would totally win. The critique, if I’m not mistaken, was about which chapter had a better grasp on the topic at hand. In this case, if I can read for either twenty minutes or three hours and get the same information, I’m going to read for twenty minutes.
Since the assignment was to find both positive and negative aspects of the westward expansion of the country, that became the main criteria of the book criticism.
It seemed that both books had a negative swing, focusing mostly on the displacement of the Indians onto reservations, the depletion of the buffalo population, and the environmental damage (i.e., soil erosion, deforestation, etc). When reading both chapters, I found myself having to search for positive effects whereas the unfortunate things were talked about for pages.
The decision of which book was better (which, in my opinion, was the review book) was an easy one because the review book was significantly shorter. Any book that can condense several decades of information into a few pages while still covering all the bases is well worth the read. I found almost all of the information I was looking for in the assignment before I even opened the textbook.
Why, oh why, did the textbook have to go on for thirty pages? Also, if it’s necessary to go on for thirty pages, at least throw a few pictures in there. The chapter in the review book took me about twenty minutes to read, but the textbook pages took me a couple study halls plus a while at home, too. Obviously, whether the textbook was really long isn’t the reason the review book happened to discuss the topic better. The textbook seemed way too hung up on details than just focusing on the main ideas. In history, the main ideas are the most important things. The details, for the most part, just get in the way of the most important things. The “who, what, when, where, and why” of the assigned topic is what I was looking for, and interested in, when it came to the reading. I wasn’t so concerned with, for example, how each Indian tribe went about dealing with the frontiersmen.
By no means am I trying to say that details aren’t important. If this critique had been about which book had more information, then the textbook would totally win. The critique, if I’m not mistaken, was about which chapter had a better grasp on the topic at hand. In this case, if I can read for either twenty minutes or three hours and get the same information, I’m going to read for twenty minutes.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Federalist #10
The general population is concerned that decisions are being made by a majority of people whose interest is not necessarily in maintaining the public welfare of the people. A “factious spirit” has entered into the government system causing a rise in unstable actions and policies.
The problem amounts to this: if we remove the causes of faction, liberty and diversity, the general structure of the nation breaks down. Everything accomplished by the nation up until this point will mean nothing if the concepts of liberty and diversity are removed from the government formula. The thing to do now is to control the effects of faction.
It is in the nature of man to split off into sects of different interests, religions, and political ideals and, in turn, display hostility toward another group that may not uphold the same values. That being said, no one person or group is individually blameworthy for factious behaviors in politics.
In government, the most populated faction is usually the one that comes out on top in a general vote on the issues. There has to be a certain balance between the different governing bodies; a system that upholds not just one faction’s ideals, but all the others also. The system of majority rules may work to secure the feeling of unification and public good, but it cannot always maintain private rights within a population. What, then, happens to the minority’s opinion if majority wins in regular election? The system is broken if the opinions of the average citizen are simply ignored in favor of a more powerful opposing force.
There is a problem with representative government in that elected officials, if the mood strikes them, may choose to betray the trust of the people who voted for them in the first place and implement certain plans of action that may only serve for individual benefit and public detriment. In order to prevent that, it must be ensured that the number of representatives from a given area must be increased. That way, the issues of the people are brought to the forefront, but individual selfishness is no longer prominent. The Constitution provides the notion that delegates on a national level but also on a local level should be appointed. There must be a local voice on a federal stage to ensure that public good is being maintained while not ignoring the point of view from an individual citizen.
The problem amounts to this: if we remove the causes of faction, liberty and diversity, the general structure of the nation breaks down. Everything accomplished by the nation up until this point will mean nothing if the concepts of liberty and diversity are removed from the government formula. The thing to do now is to control the effects of faction.
It is in the nature of man to split off into sects of different interests, religions, and political ideals and, in turn, display hostility toward another group that may not uphold the same values. That being said, no one person or group is individually blameworthy for factious behaviors in politics.
In government, the most populated faction is usually the one that comes out on top in a general vote on the issues. There has to be a certain balance between the different governing bodies; a system that upholds not just one faction’s ideals, but all the others also. The system of majority rules may work to secure the feeling of unification and public good, but it cannot always maintain private rights within a population. What, then, happens to the minority’s opinion if majority wins in regular election? The system is broken if the opinions of the average citizen are simply ignored in favor of a more powerful opposing force.
There is a problem with representative government in that elected officials, if the mood strikes them, may choose to betray the trust of the people who voted for them in the first place and implement certain plans of action that may only serve for individual benefit and public detriment. In order to prevent that, it must be ensured that the number of representatives from a given area must be increased. That way, the issues of the people are brought to the forefront, but individual selfishness is no longer prominent. The Constitution provides the notion that delegates on a national level but also on a local level should be appointed. There must be a local voice on a federal stage to ensure that public good is being maintained while not ignoring the point of view from an individual citizen.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Ch 5 and 6 summary (Founding Brothers)
Ch. 5 The Collaborators
In 1796, it was quite clear that in this election, a concept brand new to the country, the choice was between Adams or Jefferson. Both men were complete polar opposites but also were great friends and colleagues with great respect for one another.
When Washington was first chosen as president, Adams became victim to what he is quoted as saying as "the most insignificant office in man's creation": the Vice Presidency. The friendship between Adams and Jefferson was strained throughout his term as VP with many controversial debates in the Senate over choices made by Adams. As the figurative gap between Republicans and Federalists widened, so did the relationship between Adams and Jefferson.
The possible conflict with the currently unstable France was the deciding factor that pushed the two men to opposite sides. Even as Adams' eventual Vice President, Jefferson decided to split from him and implement the Republican party with Madison as his collaborator. The two launched a series of anti-Adams propaganda which all but extinguished the Federalist party. By the 1800 election, Jefferson's new party had established a name for itself in politics, allowing him to clinch the presidency. Before Adams left office, though, he signed a treaty with France that would end hostilities. He could leave his post knowing he put the country on a good course.
Ch6. The Frienship
Adams developed a disdain for his once good friend, Jefferson, further feuled by a feeling of betrayal because of the anti-Adams slander of the last term. This was clearly not on the mind of Jefferson who was busy doubling the size of the states with the Lousiana Purchase. His second term was not as successful and some failed economic policies ended in disaster. The once friendship between Jefferson and Adams took a backseat to the two's desperate want to be immortalized in their writings.
Eventually their correspondence became something of a debate between two separate ideals. After a while, approximately 1820, they were both probably of advanced age and the arguing eventually stopped. They new death was inevitable and both gave into feelings of nostalgia with their last letters to one another.
Thomas Jefferson died on July 4th, 1820, 50 years after the signing of the Declaration. On that same day, Adams fell unconcious then awoke saying, "Thomas Jefferson survives." He, too, passed away then.
In 1796, it was quite clear that in this election, a concept brand new to the country, the choice was between Adams or Jefferson. Both men were complete polar opposites but also were great friends and colleagues with great respect for one another.
When Washington was first chosen as president, Adams became victim to what he is quoted as saying as "the most insignificant office in man's creation": the Vice Presidency. The friendship between Adams and Jefferson was strained throughout his term as VP with many controversial debates in the Senate over choices made by Adams. As the figurative gap between Republicans and Federalists widened, so did the relationship between Adams and Jefferson.
The possible conflict with the currently unstable France was the deciding factor that pushed the two men to opposite sides. Even as Adams' eventual Vice President, Jefferson decided to split from him and implement the Republican party with Madison as his collaborator. The two launched a series of anti-Adams propaganda which all but extinguished the Federalist party. By the 1800 election, Jefferson's new party had established a name for itself in politics, allowing him to clinch the presidency. Before Adams left office, though, he signed a treaty with France that would end hostilities. He could leave his post knowing he put the country on a good course.
Ch6. The Frienship
Adams developed a disdain for his once good friend, Jefferson, further feuled by a feeling of betrayal because of the anti-Adams slander of the last term. This was clearly not on the mind of Jefferson who was busy doubling the size of the states with the Lousiana Purchase. His second term was not as successful and some failed economic policies ended in disaster. The once friendship between Jefferson and Adams took a backseat to the two's desperate want to be immortalized in their writings.
Eventually their correspondence became something of a debate between two separate ideals. After a while, approximately 1820, they were both probably of advanced age and the arguing eventually stopped. They new death was inevitable and both gave into feelings of nostalgia with their last letters to one another.
Thomas Jefferson died on July 4th, 1820, 50 years after the signing of the Declaration. On that same day, Adams fell unconcious then awoke saying, "Thomas Jefferson survives." He, too, passed away then.
Ch 3 and 4 Summary (Founding Brothers)
Ch3. The Silence
This chapter deals mostly with the decision of whether or not to end the slave trade. A discussion of ethics vs. economics arose when the time came to decide what the effects of an end to the slave trade might mean.
Despite any economic reasons to continue slave trafficking, the petition to Congress pointed out that the slave trade was in contradiction with the ideals stated in the Declaration and that Congress did have the power to abolish it considering it affected the general well-being of the people. There was a debate among Congressmen about whether God or the Constitution permitted slavery and also there had to be a consensus about which states depended on slave labor and which did not (this issue would obviously lead to future conflicts).
Basically, most of Congress agreed that a gradual abolition to slavery might be possible, but considering the country was in a vulnerable state, that in order to preserve unity, this issue might be revisited at a later time when people are more equipped to handle the situation. It is said that Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Hamilton were all against the institution of slavery, but that it was not an appropriate time to address the issue.
Ch4. The Farewell
On Sept. 19, 1796, George Washington published a letter in a Philadelphia newspaper that it was time for a new president to be chosen. His choice in retiring was mostly due to old age and the fact that the media was highly critical of his second term in office. It created a stir among the people and questions arose such as how to preserve unity and also, who would be the next leader?
Washington sent Chief Justice John Jay to Britain in order to negotiate a post war treaty, possibly to avoid any future conflicts with the English who proved to be superior in military aspects. The treaty accepted by both parties stated, among other things, that British troops had to be removed from all ports and that America was required to pay back pre-revolutionary debt.
The treaty proved to be extremely unpopular.
When the time came for Washington to deliver his farewell address, he wrote a draft which Hamilton edited and revised. Some ideas did not quite make the cut, like an idea for a national university Washington had, and also, the conclusion of the speech was shortened quite a bit (possibly to avoid a feeling of unwanted nostalgia and increased forward thinking about the future). Some issues were brought to the forefront with his address. The Indian negotiations were still prominent and Washington also stated that trade with the British was helping the economy. Despite minor opposition, the population was generally regretful that such a political giant was leaving office.
Washington officially left in 1797 and died in 1799.
This chapter deals mostly with the decision of whether or not to end the slave trade. A discussion of ethics vs. economics arose when the time came to decide what the effects of an end to the slave trade might mean.
Despite any economic reasons to continue slave trafficking, the petition to Congress pointed out that the slave trade was in contradiction with the ideals stated in the Declaration and that Congress did have the power to abolish it considering it affected the general well-being of the people. There was a debate among Congressmen about whether God or the Constitution permitted slavery and also there had to be a consensus about which states depended on slave labor and which did not (this issue would obviously lead to future conflicts).
Basically, most of Congress agreed that a gradual abolition to slavery might be possible, but considering the country was in a vulnerable state, that in order to preserve unity, this issue might be revisited at a later time when people are more equipped to handle the situation. It is said that Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Hamilton were all against the institution of slavery, but that it was not an appropriate time to address the issue.
Ch4. The Farewell
On Sept. 19, 1796, George Washington published a letter in a Philadelphia newspaper that it was time for a new president to be chosen. His choice in retiring was mostly due to old age and the fact that the media was highly critical of his second term in office. It created a stir among the people and questions arose such as how to preserve unity and also, who would be the next leader?
Washington sent Chief Justice John Jay to Britain in order to negotiate a post war treaty, possibly to avoid any future conflicts with the English who proved to be superior in military aspects. The treaty accepted by both parties stated, among other things, that British troops had to be removed from all ports and that America was required to pay back pre-revolutionary debt.
The treaty proved to be extremely unpopular.
When the time came for Washington to deliver his farewell address, he wrote a draft which Hamilton edited and revised. Some ideas did not quite make the cut, like an idea for a national university Washington had, and also, the conclusion of the speech was shortened quite a bit (possibly to avoid a feeling of unwanted nostalgia and increased forward thinking about the future). Some issues were brought to the forefront with his address. The Indian negotiations were still prominent and Washington also stated that trade with the British was helping the economy. Despite minor opposition, the population was generally regretful that such a political giant was leaving office.
Washington officially left in 1797 and died in 1799.
Monday, November 17, 2008
*Founding Brothers* (Preface and Ch1+2)
Preface
The focus on the term "brothers" rather than "fathers" when referring to the men who played major roles in founding a new nation. The fact that Ellis uses this term is the foundation upon how he will narrate the rest of the book.
He places emphasis on the human qualities of the men who formed this country. Since their personalities were so diverse and they all knew each other personally, they were able to address a wide variety of issues that required different points of view. In a family (hence "brothers") there will always be conflicts of interest because of different personalities, but the important thing is that they have to remain united or else nothing gets accomplished.
The preface sets into motion the story of what kind of mutual respect and cooperation was required amongst these individuals in order to stay true to their responsibilities.
Ch. 1-The Duel
"The duel" being described in the chapter's title is the historic duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. One afternoon, these two men met in Weehawken and after proper dueling etiquette was acknowledged, pistols were fired. Hamilton, who was not planning on firing his gun, was struck in the side by Burr's bullet. He later died because of his injury. After the duel took place, it was discovered that Hamilton's pistol was fired, although Burr remained unharmed. Burr was hence ostracized for being believed to have killed Alexander Hamilton.
Ch. 2-The Dinner
"The Dinner" discusses in great detail the amount of talk involved in where the location of the next capital would be. The actual dinner itself was held at Thomas Jefferson's house and there were several different viewpoints about where the capital should be. Eventually, George Washington decided that the capital should be at the mouth of the Potomac River. This place would eventually be called Washington DC.
The focus on the term "brothers" rather than "fathers" when referring to the men who played major roles in founding a new nation. The fact that Ellis uses this term is the foundation upon how he will narrate the rest of the book.
He places emphasis on the human qualities of the men who formed this country. Since their personalities were so diverse and they all knew each other personally, they were able to address a wide variety of issues that required different points of view. In a family (hence "brothers") there will always be conflicts of interest because of different personalities, but the important thing is that they have to remain united or else nothing gets accomplished.
The preface sets into motion the story of what kind of mutual respect and cooperation was required amongst these individuals in order to stay true to their responsibilities.
Ch. 1-The Duel
"The duel" being described in the chapter's title is the historic duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. One afternoon, these two men met in Weehawken and after proper dueling etiquette was acknowledged, pistols were fired. Hamilton, who was not planning on firing his gun, was struck in the side by Burr's bullet. He later died because of his injury. After the duel took place, it was discovered that Hamilton's pistol was fired, although Burr remained unharmed. Burr was hence ostracized for being believed to have killed Alexander Hamilton.
Ch. 2-The Dinner
"The Dinner" discusses in great detail the amount of talk involved in where the location of the next capital would be. The actual dinner itself was held at Thomas Jefferson's house and there were several different viewpoints about where the capital should be. Eventually, George Washington decided that the capital should be at the mouth of the Potomac River. This place would eventually be called Washington DC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
