Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Book portfolio
The Good War is sort of about one guy that is trying to say how the war actually is. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor even though peoples lives were at risk the people that lived they will never be able to get rid of that horrible day. It will stick with them until the day they die especially the children they lost friends and they even lost family.
I read the book "The Good War" by Studs Terkel. He tells the stories of people who lived through World War II and some of who even participated in it. Some of the people he interviewed were just children when the Pearl Harbor Attack happened but they can tell you exactly what they were doing or where they were when it happened. If something like that happened again it would be very hard to forget about it. There are also many different opinions that could be taken on the theme of this book. One is that this book shows that in a time of crisis people of all different kinds come together for the same cause, to serve and protect their country. Another few would be that there should be no war of any kind, no matter what you are fighting for and some of the stories in this book relate to that theme. But what jumped out at me was that no matter what these people went through or who they lost in the process; be it friends, fathers, or brothers they were proud of what they accomplished and were proud to serve their country the way that they did.
One of the stories that made me stop and think that World War II was a serious thing that was changing the youth of that time was from a Marine who fought in the war. He recalls a time when a Japanese fighter had the top of his head blown off. ''He was just sitting upright in front of the machine gun. . . . His eyes were wide open. It had rained all night and the rain had collected inside of his skull. This was just a mild-mannered kid who was now a twentieth century savage.'' This passage stuck out in my mind for one reason. We as Americans can sit and judge and say what we would do about the war or how we would do it but do we really know until we are truly put in that position? I cannot even imagine throwing coral into a dead man's skull and not even be a bit affected by that fact that this man was dead and had been sitting there. This quote kind of shows how people came together. As soon as Pearl Harbor occurred most people of any age or race wanted to "suit up", grab a gun and go defend their country. But this paragraph also shows how war is not taken as seriously as it should be. If we today saw a dead person on the street with eyes wide open and the top of his head blown off, we would scream and run. So in times like these when soldiers are going through this and just normal people are seeing things like this, it is human nature to turn for someone for help and this is what these people did.
The event that sticks out in my mind when people banded together like this in the past few years was September 11, 2001. That is a day that we all will remember. Like the people who lived during Pearl Harbor, if you asked most people today where they were when the planes struck the Twin Towers they will be able to tell you. I know I was in the 4th grade and we had just come back from lunch when our teachers had a "meeting" and then told us what had happened. I also remember that our librarian had a son that worked somewhere near the towers and she had to leave to see if he was OK. Another example of when people came together in time of trouble would be Flight 93. This was the flight that was took over by terrorists on 9/11 and 40 people most of whom didn't know each other came together and took down the plane so that no more innocent people would be killed. 40 people died on that plane when it crashed in Pennsylvania. These people are true heroes because they sacrificed their lives to try to save other people. they banded together in a time of trouble just like in this book.
All in all I would definitely recommend this book to anyone who wants to learn more about World War II and the experiences but doesn't want to read a boring book that has just straight facts. This book will help you learn first hand what it was like to live that time and help you learn more what people went through and how they dealt with it.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Friday, May 8, 2009
The Descision to Use Atomic Weaponsfrom
The Descision to Use Atomic Weaponsfrom
A People's War?Howard Zinn
Still, the vast bulk of the American population was mobilized, in the army, and in civilian life, to fight the war, and the atmosphere of war enveloped more and more Americans. Public opinion polls show large majorities of soldiers favoring the draft for the postwar period. Hatred against the enemy, against the Japanese particularly, became widespread. Racism was clearly at work. Time magazine, reporting the battle of Iwo Jima, said: "The ordinary unreasoning Jap is ignorant. Perhaps he is human. Nothing .. . indicates it." .... The bombing of Japanese cities continued the strategy of saturation bombing to destroy civilian morale; one nighttime fire-bombing of Tokyo took 80,000 lives. And then, on August 6, 1945, came the lone American plane in the sky over Hiroshima, dropping the first atomic bomb, leaving perhaps 100,000 Japanese dead, and tens of thousands more slowly dying from radiation poisoning. Twelve U.S. navy fliers in the Hiroshima city jail were killed in the bombing, a fact that the U.S. government has never officially acknowledged, according to historian Martin Sherwin (A World Destroyed). Three days later, a second atomic bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki, with perhaps 50,000 killed. The justification for these atrocities was that this would end the war quickly, making unnecessary an invasion of Japan. Such an invasion would cost a huge number of lives, the government said-a million, according to Secretary of State Byrnes; half a million, Truman claimed was the figure given him by General George Marshall. (When the papers of the Manhattan Project-the project to build the atom bomb- were released years later, they showed that Marshall urged a warning to the Japanese about the bomb, so people could be removed and only military targets hit.) These estimates of invasion losses were not realistic, and seem to have been pulled out of the air to justify bombings which, as their effects became known, horrified more and more people. Japan, by August 1945, was in desperate shape and ready to surrender. New York Times military analyst Hanson Baldwin wrote, shortly after the war:
The enemy, in a military sense, was in a hopeless strategic position by the time the Potsdam demand for unconditional surrender was made on July 26. Such then, was the situation when we wiped out Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Need we have done it? No one can, of course, be positive, but the answer is almost certainly negative. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, set up by the War Department in 1944 to study the results of aerial attacks in the war, interviewed hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, and reported just after the war:
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. But could American leaders have known this in August 1945? The answer is, clearly, yes. The Japanese code had been broken, and Japan's messages were being intercepted. It was known the Japanese had instructed their ambassador in Moscow to work on peace negotiations with the Allies. Japanese leaders had begun talking of surrender a year before this, and the Emperor himself had begun to suggest, in June 1945, that alternatives to fighting to the end be considered. On July 13, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo wired his ambassador in Moscow: "Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace.. .." Martin Sherwin, after an exhaustive study of the relevant historical documents, concludes: "Having broken the Japanese code before the war, American Intelligence was able to-and did-relay this message to the President, but it had no effect whatever on efforts to bring the war to a conclusion." If only the Americans had not insisted on unconditional surrender- that is, if they were willing to accept one condition to the surrender, that the Emperor, a holy figure to the Japanese, remain in place-the Japanese would have agreed to stop the war. Why did the United States not take that small step to save both American and Japanese lives? Was it because too much money and effort had been invested in the atomic bomb not to drop it? General Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, described Truman as a man on a toboggan, the momentum too great to stop it. Or was it, as British scientist P. M. S. Blackett suggested (Fear, War, and the Bomb), that the United States was anxious to drop the bomb before the Russians entered the war against Japan? The Russians had secretly agreed (they were officially not at war with Japan) they would come into the war ninety days after the end of the European war. That turned out to be May 8, and so, on August 8, the Russians were due to declare war on Japan, But by then the big bomb had been dropped, and the next day a second one would be dropped on Nagasaki; the Japanese would surrender to the United States, not the Russians, and the United States would be the occupier of postwar Japan. In other words, Blackett says, the dropping of the bomb was "the first major operation of the cold diplomatic war with Russia.. .." Blackett is supported by American historian Gar Alperovitz (Atomic Diplomacy), who notes a diary entry for July 28, 1945, by Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, describing Secretary of State James F. Byrnes as "most anxious to get the Japanese affair over with before the Russians got in." Truman had said, "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians." It was a preposterous statement. Those 100,000 killed in Hiroshima were almost all civilians. The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey said in its official report: "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population." The dropping of the second bomb on Nagasaki seems to have been scheduled in advance, and no one has ever been able to explain why it was dropped. Was it because this was a plutonium bomb whereas the Hiroshima bomb was a uranium bomb? Were the dead and irradiated of Nagasaki victims of a scientific experiment? Martin Shenvin says that among the Nagasaki dead were probably American prisoners of war. He notes a message of July 31 from Headquarters, U.S. Army Strategic Air Forces, Guam, to the War Department:
Reports prisoner of war sources, not verified by photos, give location of Allied prisoner of war camp one mile north of center of city of Nagasaki. Does this influence the choice of this target for initial Centerboard operation? Request immediate reply. The reply: "Targets previously assigned for Centerboard remain unchanged." True, the war then ended quickly. Italy had been defeated a year earlier. Germany had recently surrendered, crushed primarily by the armies of the Soviet Union on the Eastern Front, aided by the Allied armies on the West. Now Japan surrendered.
A People's War?Howard Zinn
Still, the vast bulk of the American population was mobilized, in the army, and in civilian life, to fight the war, and the atmosphere of war enveloped more and more Americans. Public opinion polls show large majorities of soldiers favoring the draft for the postwar period. Hatred against the enemy, against the Japanese particularly, became widespread. Racism was clearly at work. Time magazine, reporting the battle of Iwo Jima, said: "The ordinary unreasoning Jap is ignorant. Perhaps he is human. Nothing .. . indicates it." .... The bombing of Japanese cities continued the strategy of saturation bombing to destroy civilian morale; one nighttime fire-bombing of Tokyo took 80,000 lives. And then, on August 6, 1945, came the lone American plane in the sky over Hiroshima, dropping the first atomic bomb, leaving perhaps 100,000 Japanese dead, and tens of thousands more slowly dying from radiation poisoning. Twelve U.S. navy fliers in the Hiroshima city jail were killed in the bombing, a fact that the U.S. government has never officially acknowledged, according to historian Martin Sherwin (A World Destroyed). Three days later, a second atomic bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki, with perhaps 50,000 killed. The justification for these atrocities was that this would end the war quickly, making unnecessary an invasion of Japan. Such an invasion would cost a huge number of lives, the government said-a million, according to Secretary of State Byrnes; half a million, Truman claimed was the figure given him by General George Marshall. (When the papers of the Manhattan Project-the project to build the atom bomb- were released years later, they showed that Marshall urged a warning to the Japanese about the bomb, so people could be removed and only military targets hit.) These estimates of invasion losses were not realistic, and seem to have been pulled out of the air to justify bombings which, as their effects became known, horrified more and more people. Japan, by August 1945, was in desperate shape and ready to surrender. New York Times military analyst Hanson Baldwin wrote, shortly after the war:
The enemy, in a military sense, was in a hopeless strategic position by the time the Potsdam demand for unconditional surrender was made on July 26. Such then, was the situation when we wiped out Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Need we have done it? No one can, of course, be positive, but the answer is almost certainly negative. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, set up by the War Department in 1944 to study the results of aerial attacks in the war, interviewed hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, and reported just after the war:
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. But could American leaders have known this in August 1945? The answer is, clearly, yes. The Japanese code had been broken, and Japan's messages were being intercepted. It was known the Japanese had instructed their ambassador in Moscow to work on peace negotiations with the Allies. Japanese leaders had begun talking of surrender a year before this, and the Emperor himself had begun to suggest, in June 1945, that alternatives to fighting to the end be considered. On July 13, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo wired his ambassador in Moscow: "Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace.. .." Martin Sherwin, after an exhaustive study of the relevant historical documents, concludes: "Having broken the Japanese code before the war, American Intelligence was able to-and did-relay this message to the President, but it had no effect whatever on efforts to bring the war to a conclusion." If only the Americans had not insisted on unconditional surrender- that is, if they were willing to accept one condition to the surrender, that the Emperor, a holy figure to the Japanese, remain in place-the Japanese would have agreed to stop the war. Why did the United States not take that small step to save both American and Japanese lives? Was it because too much money and effort had been invested in the atomic bomb not to drop it? General Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, described Truman as a man on a toboggan, the momentum too great to stop it. Or was it, as British scientist P. M. S. Blackett suggested (Fear, War, and the Bomb), that the United States was anxious to drop the bomb before the Russians entered the war against Japan? The Russians had secretly agreed (they were officially not at war with Japan) they would come into the war ninety days after the end of the European war. That turned out to be May 8, and so, on August 8, the Russians were due to declare war on Japan, But by then the big bomb had been dropped, and the next day a second one would be dropped on Nagasaki; the Japanese would surrender to the United States, not the Russians, and the United States would be the occupier of postwar Japan. In other words, Blackett says, the dropping of the bomb was "the first major operation of the cold diplomatic war with Russia.. .." Blackett is supported by American historian Gar Alperovitz (Atomic Diplomacy), who notes a diary entry for July 28, 1945, by Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, describing Secretary of State James F. Byrnes as "most anxious to get the Japanese affair over with before the Russians got in." Truman had said, "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians." It was a preposterous statement. Those 100,000 killed in Hiroshima were almost all civilians. The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey said in its official report: "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population." The dropping of the second bomb on Nagasaki seems to have been scheduled in advance, and no one has ever been able to explain why it was dropped. Was it because this was a plutonium bomb whereas the Hiroshima bomb was a uranium bomb? Were the dead and irradiated of Nagasaki victims of a scientific experiment? Martin Shenvin says that among the Nagasaki dead were probably American prisoners of war. He notes a message of July 31 from Headquarters, U.S. Army Strategic Air Forces, Guam, to the War Department:
Reports prisoner of war sources, not verified by photos, give location of Allied prisoner of war camp one mile north of center of city of Nagasaki. Does this influence the choice of this target for initial Centerboard operation? Request immediate reply. The reply: "Targets previously assigned for Centerboard remain unchanged." True, the war then ended quickly. Italy had been defeated a year earlier. Germany had recently surrendered, crushed primarily by the armies of the Soviet Union on the Eastern Front, aided by the Allied armies on the West. Now Japan surrendered.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
American empire
KatrinaTAmerican Empire
Theodore Roosevelt wrote to a friend in the year 1897: "In strict confidence . . . I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one."....
There was heated argument in the United States about whether or not to take the Philippines. As one story has it, President McKinley told a group of ministers visiting the White House how he came to his decision:
Before you go I would like to say just a word about the Philippine business. . . . The truth is I didn't want the Philippines, and when they came to us as a gift from the gods, I did not know what to do with them. . . . I sought counsel from all sides -- Democrats as well as Republicans -- but got little help. I thought first we would only take Manila; then Luzon, then other islands, perhaps, also. I walked the floor of the White House night after night until midnight; and I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night. And one night late it came to me this way -- I don't know how it was, but it came: 1) That we could not give them back to Spain -- that would be cowardly and dishonorable. 2) That we could not turn them over to France or Germany, our commercial rivals in the Orient -- that would be bad business and discreditable. 3) That we could not leave them to themselves -- they were unfit for self-government -- and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain's was; and 4) That there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow men for whom Christ also died. And then I went to bed and went to sleep and slept soundly. The Filipinos did not get the same message from God. In February 1899, they rose in revolt against American rule, as they had rebelled several times against the Spanish. Emilio Aguinaldo, a Filipino leader, who had earlier been brought back from China by U.S. warships to lead soldiers against Spain, now became leader of the insurrectos fighting the United States. He proposed Filipino independence within a U.S. protectorate, but this was rejected. It took the United States three years to crush the rebellion, using seventy thousand troops -- four times as many as were landed in Cuba -- and thousands of battle casui can'altiies, many times more than in Cuba. It was a harsh war. For the Filipinos the death rate was enormous from battle casualties and from disease. I can't believe that it took them four times and that many troops it is just unbelievable-Katrina Tarr 4/14/09 9:37 AM The taste of empire was on the lips of politicians and business interests throughout the country now. Racism, paternalism, and talk of money mingled with talk of destiny and civilization. In the Senate, Albert Beveridge spoke, January 9, 1900, for the dominant economic and political interests of the country:
Mr. President, the times call for candor. The Philippines are ours forever. . . . And just beyond the Philippines are China's illimitable markets. We will not retreat from either. . . . We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trustee, under God, of the civilization of the world. . . . The Pacific is our ocean. . . . Where shall we turn for consumers of our surplus? Geography answers the question. China is our natural customer. . . . The Philippines give us a base at the door of all the East. . . . No land in America surpasses in fertility the plains and valleys of Luzon. Rice and coffee, sugar and cocoanuts, hemp and tobacco. . . . The wood of the Philippines can supply the furniture of the world for a century to come. At Cebu the best informed man on the island told me that 40 miles of Cebu's mountain chain are practically mountains of coal. . . . I have a nugget of pure gold picked up in its present form on the banks of a Philippine creek. . . . My own belief is that there are not 100 men among them who comprehend what Anglo-Saxon self-government even means, and there are over 5,000,000 people to be governed. It has been charged that our conduct of the war has been cruel. Senators, it has been the reverse. . . . Senators must remember that we are not dealing with Americans or Europeans. We are dealing with Orientals. The fighting with the rebels began, McKinley said, when the insurgents attacked American forces. But later, American soldiers testified that the United States had fired the first shot. After the war, an army officer speaking in Boston's Faneuil Hall said his colonel had given him orders to provoke a conflict with the insurgents. In February 1899, a banquet took place in Boston to celebrate the Senate's ratification of the peace treaty with Spain. President McKinley himself had been invited by the wealthy textile manufacturer W. B. Plunkett to speak. It was the biggest banquet in the nation's history: two thousand diners, four hundred waiters. McKinley said that "no imperial designs lurk in the American mind," and at the same banquet, to the same diners, his Postmaster General, Charles Emory Smith, said that "what we want is a market for our surplus." William James, the Harvard philosopher, wrote a letter to the Boston Transcript about "the cold pot grease of McKinley's cant at the recent Boston banquet" and said the Philippine operation "reeked of the infernal adroitness of the great department store, which has reached perfect expertness in the art of killing silently, and with no public squalling or commotion, the neighboring small concerns." James was part of a movement of prominent American businessmen, politicians, and intellectuals who formed the Anti-Imperialist League in 1898 and carried on a long campaign to educate the American public about the horrors of the Philippine war and the evils of imperialism. It was an odd group (Andrew Carnegie belonged), including antilabor aristocrats and scholars, united in a common moral outrage at what was being done to the Filipinos in the name of freedom. Whatever their differences on other matters, they would all agree with William James's angry statement: "God damn the U.S. for its vile conduct in the Philippine Isles." The Anti-Imperialist League published the letters of soldiers doing duty in the Philippines. A captain from Kansas wrote: "Caloocan was supposed to contain 17,000 inhabitants. The Twentieth Kansas swept through it, and now Caloocan contains not one living native." A private from the same outfit said he had "with my own hand set fire to over fifty houses of Filipinos after the victory at Caloocan. Women and children were wounded by our fire." Is that what really happened if so I am having trouble following it.-Katrina Tarr 4/14/09 9:40 AM A volunteer from the state of Washington wrote: "Our fighting blood was up, and we all wanted to kill 'niggers.' . . . This shooting human beings beats rabbit hunting all to pieces." It was a time of intense racism in the United States. In the years between 1889 and 1903, on the average, every week, two Negroes were lynched by mobs -- hanged, burned, mutilated. The Filipinos were brown-skinned, physically identifiable, strange-speaking and strange-looking to Americans. To the usual indiscriminate brutality of war was thus added the factor of racial hostility. WHAT why would they do that I hate racism and when people use the N word I get upset and really mad at them. Because they don't deserve it no matter what they look like.-Katrina Tarr 4/14/09 9:42 AM In November 1901, the Manila correspondent of the Philadelphia Ledger reported:
The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog. . . . Our soldiers have pumped salt water into men to make them talk, and have taken prisoners people who held up their hands and peacefully surrendered, and an hour later, without an atom of evidence to show that they were even insurrectos, stood them on a bridge and shot them down one by one, to drop into the water below and float down, as examples to those who found their bullet-loaded corpses. Early in 1901 an American general returning to the United States from southern Luzon, said:
One-sixth of the natives of Luzon have either been killed or have died of the dengue fever in the last few years. The loss of life by killing alone has been very great, but I think not one man has been slain except where his death has served the legitimate purposes of war. It has been necessary to adopt what in other countries would probably be thought harsh measures. Secretary of War Elihu Root responded to the charges of brutality: "The war in the Philippines has been conducted by the American army with scrupulous regard for the rules of civilized warfare. . . . with self-restraint and with humanity never surpassed." In Manila, a Marine named Littletown Waller, a major, was accused of shooting eleven defenseless Filipinos, without trial, on the island of Samar. Other marine officers described his testimony:
The major said that General Smith instructed him to kill and burn, and said that the more he killed and burned the better pleased he would be; that it was no time to take prisoners, and that he was to make Samar a howling wilderness. Major Waller asked General Smith to define the age limit for killing, and he replied "Everything over ten." In the province of Batangas, the secretary of the province estimated that of the population of 300,000, one-third had been killed by combat, famine, or disease. Mark Twain commented on the Philippine war:
We have pacified some thousands of the islanders and buried them; destroyed their fields; burned their villages, and turned their widows and orphans out-of-doors; furnished heartbreak by exile to some dozens of disagreeable patriots; subjugated the remaining ten millions by Benevolent Assimilation, which is the pious new name of the musket; we have acquired property in the three hundred concubines and other slaves of our business partner, the Sultan of Sulu, and hoisted our protecting flag over that swag. And so, by these Providences of God -- and the phrase is the government's, not mine -- we are a World Power. American firepower was overwhelmingly superior to anything the Filipino rebels could put together. In the very first battle, Admiral Dewey steamed up the Pasig River and fired 500-pound shells into the Filipino trenches. Dead Filipinos were piled so high that the Americans used their bodies for breastworks. A British witness said: "This is not war; it is simply massacre and murderous butchery." He was wrong; it was war. For the rebels to hold out against such odds for years meant that they had the support of the population. General Arthur MacArthur, commander of the Filipino war, said: " . . . I believed that Aguinaldo's troops represented only a faction. I did not like to believe that the whole population of Luzon -- the native population, that is -- was opposed to us." But he said he was "reluctantly compelled" to believe this because the guerrilla tactics of the Filipino army "depended upon almost complete unity of action of the entire native population."
Theodore Roosevelt wrote to a friend in the year 1897: "In strict confidence . . . I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one."....
There was heated argument in the United States about whether or not to take the Philippines. As one story has it, President McKinley told a group of ministers visiting the White House how he came to his decision:
Before you go I would like to say just a word about the Philippine business. . . . The truth is I didn't want the Philippines, and when they came to us as a gift from the gods, I did not know what to do with them. . . . I sought counsel from all sides -- Democrats as well as Republicans -- but got little help. I thought first we would only take Manila; then Luzon, then other islands, perhaps, also. I walked the floor of the White House night after night until midnight; and I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night. And one night late it came to me this way -- I don't know how it was, but it came: 1) That we could not give them back to Spain -- that would be cowardly and dishonorable. 2) That we could not turn them over to France or Germany, our commercial rivals in the Orient -- that would be bad business and discreditable. 3) That we could not leave them to themselves -- they were unfit for self-government -- and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain's was; and 4) That there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow men for whom Christ also died. And then I went to bed and went to sleep and slept soundly. The Filipinos did not get the same message from God. In February 1899, they rose in revolt against American rule, as they had rebelled several times against the Spanish. Emilio Aguinaldo, a Filipino leader, who had earlier been brought back from China by U.S. warships to lead soldiers against Spain, now became leader of the insurrectos fighting the United States. He proposed Filipino independence within a U.S. protectorate, but this was rejected. It took the United States three years to crush the rebellion, using seventy thousand troops -- four times as many as were landed in Cuba -- and thousands of battle casui can'altiies, many times more than in Cuba. It was a harsh war. For the Filipinos the death rate was enormous from battle casualties and from disease. I can't believe that it took them four times and that many troops it is just unbelievable-Katrina Tarr 4/14/09 9:37 AM The taste of empire was on the lips of politicians and business interests throughout the country now. Racism, paternalism, and talk of money mingled with talk of destiny and civilization. In the Senate, Albert Beveridge spoke, January 9, 1900, for the dominant economic and political interests of the country:
Mr. President, the times call for candor. The Philippines are ours forever. . . . And just beyond the Philippines are China's illimitable markets. We will not retreat from either. . . . We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trustee, under God, of the civilization of the world. . . . The Pacific is our ocean. . . . Where shall we turn for consumers of our surplus? Geography answers the question. China is our natural customer. . . . The Philippines give us a base at the door of all the East. . . . No land in America surpasses in fertility the plains and valleys of Luzon. Rice and coffee, sugar and cocoanuts, hemp and tobacco. . . . The wood of the Philippines can supply the furniture of the world for a century to come. At Cebu the best informed man on the island told me that 40 miles of Cebu's mountain chain are practically mountains of coal. . . . I have a nugget of pure gold picked up in its present form on the banks of a Philippine creek. . . . My own belief is that there are not 100 men among them who comprehend what Anglo-Saxon self-government even means, and there are over 5,000,000 people to be governed. It has been charged that our conduct of the war has been cruel. Senators, it has been the reverse. . . . Senators must remember that we are not dealing with Americans or Europeans. We are dealing with Orientals. The fighting with the rebels began, McKinley said, when the insurgents attacked American forces. But later, American soldiers testified that the United States had fired the first shot. After the war, an army officer speaking in Boston's Faneuil Hall said his colonel had given him orders to provoke a conflict with the insurgents. In February 1899, a banquet took place in Boston to celebrate the Senate's ratification of the peace treaty with Spain. President McKinley himself had been invited by the wealthy textile manufacturer W. B. Plunkett to speak. It was the biggest banquet in the nation's history: two thousand diners, four hundred waiters. McKinley said that "no imperial designs lurk in the American mind," and at the same banquet, to the same diners, his Postmaster General, Charles Emory Smith, said that "what we want is a market for our surplus." William James, the Harvard philosopher, wrote a letter to the Boston Transcript about "the cold pot grease of McKinley's cant at the recent Boston banquet" and said the Philippine operation "reeked of the infernal adroitness of the great department store, which has reached perfect expertness in the art of killing silently, and with no public squalling or commotion, the neighboring small concerns." James was part of a movement of prominent American businessmen, politicians, and intellectuals who formed the Anti-Imperialist League in 1898 and carried on a long campaign to educate the American public about the horrors of the Philippine war and the evils of imperialism. It was an odd group (Andrew Carnegie belonged), including antilabor aristocrats and scholars, united in a common moral outrage at what was being done to the Filipinos in the name of freedom. Whatever their differences on other matters, they would all agree with William James's angry statement: "God damn the U.S. for its vile conduct in the Philippine Isles." The Anti-Imperialist League published the letters of soldiers doing duty in the Philippines. A captain from Kansas wrote: "Caloocan was supposed to contain 17,000 inhabitants. The Twentieth Kansas swept through it, and now Caloocan contains not one living native." A private from the same outfit said he had "with my own hand set fire to over fifty houses of Filipinos after the victory at Caloocan. Women and children were wounded by our fire." Is that what really happened if so I am having trouble following it.-Katrina Tarr 4/14/09 9:40 AM A volunteer from the state of Washington wrote: "Our fighting blood was up, and we all wanted to kill 'niggers.' . . . This shooting human beings beats rabbit hunting all to pieces." It was a time of intense racism in the United States. In the years between 1889 and 1903, on the average, every week, two Negroes were lynched by mobs -- hanged, burned, mutilated. The Filipinos were brown-skinned, physically identifiable, strange-speaking and strange-looking to Americans. To the usual indiscriminate brutality of war was thus added the factor of racial hostility. WHAT why would they do that I hate racism and when people use the N word I get upset and really mad at them. Because they don't deserve it no matter what they look like.-Katrina Tarr 4/14/09 9:42 AM In November 1901, the Manila correspondent of the Philadelphia Ledger reported:
The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog. . . . Our soldiers have pumped salt water into men to make them talk, and have taken prisoners people who held up their hands and peacefully surrendered, and an hour later, without an atom of evidence to show that they were even insurrectos, stood them on a bridge and shot them down one by one, to drop into the water below and float down, as examples to those who found their bullet-loaded corpses. Early in 1901 an American general returning to the United States from southern Luzon, said:
One-sixth of the natives of Luzon have either been killed or have died of the dengue fever in the last few years. The loss of life by killing alone has been very great, but I think not one man has been slain except where his death has served the legitimate purposes of war. It has been necessary to adopt what in other countries would probably be thought harsh measures. Secretary of War Elihu Root responded to the charges of brutality: "The war in the Philippines has been conducted by the American army with scrupulous regard for the rules of civilized warfare. . . . with self-restraint and with humanity never surpassed." In Manila, a Marine named Littletown Waller, a major, was accused of shooting eleven defenseless Filipinos, without trial, on the island of Samar. Other marine officers described his testimony:
The major said that General Smith instructed him to kill and burn, and said that the more he killed and burned the better pleased he would be; that it was no time to take prisoners, and that he was to make Samar a howling wilderness. Major Waller asked General Smith to define the age limit for killing, and he replied "Everything over ten." In the province of Batangas, the secretary of the province estimated that of the population of 300,000, one-third had been killed by combat, famine, or disease. Mark Twain commented on the Philippine war:
We have pacified some thousands of the islanders and buried them; destroyed their fields; burned their villages, and turned their widows and orphans out-of-doors; furnished heartbreak by exile to some dozens of disagreeable patriots; subjugated the remaining ten millions by Benevolent Assimilation, which is the pious new name of the musket; we have acquired property in the three hundred concubines and other slaves of our business partner, the Sultan of Sulu, and hoisted our protecting flag over that swag. And so, by these Providences of God -- and the phrase is the government's, not mine -- we are a World Power. American firepower was overwhelmingly superior to anything the Filipino rebels could put together. In the very first battle, Admiral Dewey steamed up the Pasig River and fired 500-pound shells into the Filipino trenches. Dead Filipinos were piled so high that the Americans used their bodies for breastworks. A British witness said: "This is not war; it is simply massacre and murderous butchery." He was wrong; it was war. For the rebels to hold out against such odds for years meant that they had the support of the population. General Arthur MacArthur, commander of the Filipino war, said: " . . . I believed that Aguinaldo's troops represented only a faction. I did not like to believe that the whole population of Luzon -- the native population, that is -- was opposed to us." But he said he was "reluctantly compelled" to believe this because the guerrilla tactics of the Filipino army "depended upon almost complete unity of action of the entire native population."
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
The Marines on Guadalcanal
JAMES SMITH, 1st Raider BattalionConverted for the Web from "Into The Rising Sun: In Their Own Words, World War II's Pacific Veterans Reveal the Heart of Combat" by Patrick K. O'Donnell
Jump to: The Marines on Guadalcanal John Sweeney, 1st Raider BattalionRobert Youngdeer of E-Company John Sweeney commands B-CompanyDave Taber at Bloody Ridge Ira Gilliand throwing grenadesJohn Mielke defends Henderson Field Tom Lyons, 1st Parachute Battalion"Horse Collar" James Smith Frank Guidone and the mortar squadDean Winters, 2nd Raider Battalion Ray Bauml on the Long Patrol
On September 27, the 1st Raider Battalion would help launch an attack near the mouth of the Matanikau River. Poor intelligence greatly underestimated the strength of the Japanese defenses facing them, turning the operation into a disaster. The Japanese halted the Raiders and 5th Marines' advance at the mouth of the river and nearly wiped out the amphibious landings by another Marine battalion at Point Cruz. Jim "Horse Collar" Smith recalls the battle.
We were on this narrow trail along the east side of the Matanikau River, a steep cliff on the other side. As we snaked up the side of the trail, a guy named Ed Mertz had a kidney stone. And here we are plastered alongside the trail with Japs on the other side of the river and this guy Mertz goes down screaming, clutching his gut. I remember thinking, "Oh, God, we are going to get it." It was just a little farther along there that C Company was just a little ahead of us. Ken Bailey [the battalion executive officer and Medal of Honor recipient for his actions on Bloody Ridge], with his runner right behind him, was dashing across a log footbridge, caught a Nambu [machine gun] between the eyes and went down.
A little later in the day -- I guess we were still heading south -- Sam Griffith got shot in the shoulder at about 300 meters. That left us with a bunch of young 1st lieutenants (who had just made 1st lieutenant), and there was actually a discussion at the CP as to who was the senior officer. Edson was in a state of shock after Bailey was killed. It affected [Bailey's runner] more than anything else. He had been Major Bob Brown's runner until the ridge, and Brown was killed coming off the ridge. Someone said to him, "You must be a jinx, because this was the second major you lost." The poor kid became unglued. It was a terrible thing to say.
I remember when we pulled Bailey into the aid station in a poncho. Aid station [sigh] -- a couple of guys sitting on logs and doctors treating them. There was a kid by the name of Dobson who had been shot right in the groin. His face was absolutely dead white, you couldn't believe it. He just sat there and held his stomach. Everybody knew he was going to die, and he knew he was going to die. Not a murmur out of him; talk about stoicism. He died shortly after that. He just slid off the log and was dead. A man next to him had a flesh wound and was crying like a baby. Talk about a contrast.
Eventually they pulled us out of there because the Japs were well entrenched on the other side of the footbridge.
This is so terrible I don't know what I would do if I were in this situation with people that I knew. -Brooke Snide
JAMES SMITH, 1st Raider BattalionConverted for the Web from "Into The Rising Sun: In Their Own Words, World War II's Pacific Veterans Reveal the Heart of Combat" by Patrick K. O'Donnell
Jump to: The Marines on Guadalcanal John Sweeney, 1st Raider BattalionRobert Youngdeer of E-Company John Sweeney commands B-CompanyDave Taber at Bloody Ridge Ira Gilliand throwing grenadesJohn Mielke defends Henderson Field Tom Lyons, 1st Parachute Battalion"Horse Collar" James Smith Frank Guidone and the mortar squadDean Winters, 2nd Raider Battalion Ray Bauml on the Long Patrol
On September 27, the 1st Raider Battalion would help launch an attack near the mouth of the Matanikau River. Poor intelligence greatly underestimated the strength of the Japanese defenses facing them, turning the operation into a disaster. The Japanese halted the Raiders and 5th Marines' advance at the mouth of the river and nearly wiped out the amphibious landings by another Marine battalion at Point Cruz. Jim "Horse Collar" Smith recalls the battle.
We were on this narrow trail along the east side of the Matanikau River, a steep cliff on the other side. As we snaked up the side of the trail, a guy named Ed Mertz had a kidney stone. And here we are plastered alongside the trail with Japs on the other side of the river and this guy Mertz goes down screaming, clutching his gut. I remember thinking, "Oh, God, we are going to get it." It was just a little farther along there that C Company was just a little ahead of us. Ken Bailey [the battalion executive officer and Medal of Honor recipient for his actions on Bloody Ridge], with his runner right behind him, was dashing across a log footbridge, caught a Nambu [machine gun] between the eyes and went down.
A little later in the day -- I guess we were still heading south -- Sam Griffith got shot in the shoulder at about 300 meters. That left us with a bunch of young 1st lieutenants (who had just made 1st lieutenant), and there was actually a discussion at the CP as to who was the senior officer. Edson was in a state of shock after Bailey was killed. It affected [Bailey's runner] more than anything else. He had been Major Bob Brown's runner until the ridge, and Brown was killed coming off the ridge. Someone said to him, "You must be a jinx, because this was the second major you lost." The poor kid became unglued. It was a terrible thing to say.
I remember when we pulled Bailey into the aid station in a poncho. Aid station [sigh] -- a couple of guys sitting on logs and doctors treating them. There was a kid by the name of Dobson who had been shot right in the groin. His face was absolutely dead white, you couldn't believe it. He just sat there and held his stomach. Everybody knew he was going to die, and he knew he was going to die. Not a murmur out of him; talk about stoicism. He died shortly after that. He just slid off the log and was dead. A man next to him had a flesh wound and was crying like a baby. Talk about a contrast.
Eventually they pulled us out of there because the Japs were well entrenched on the other side of the footbridge.
This is so terrible I don't know what I would do if I were in this situation with people that I knew. -Brooke Snide
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Weekly Reflection #2
We had a timeline that we went over. I think that the timeline actually came in handy if I don't understand something I can go back and read over it to understand it better. So this is why I like the timelines.
Weekely Reflection #1
Last week we talked about D-Day and we watched a lot of violent movies. I did not really like them. i thought that they were to graphic. I have never really liked those kind of movies where my brother is over in and especially now Afghanistan. Going over the D- Day I probably would not mind it so much if there were some movie clips thta were not so graphic.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Made in China
I read the book "Made in China" and it is by Sara Bongiorni. The theme of this book would have to be if you want to do something and others are making fun of you about it you should not listen and you should just go for it. I think that this is a good theme because it shows how one family went so long without using things that were made in China. Which is actually a lot of things. The theme in history would be that if one family can go so long without using things that were made in China I'm sure that pretty much anyone would be able to. The role of perspective would be that I am sure that it was personal because there were a lot of things that they had to give up to do this.
The theme of this book would have to be if you want to do something and others are making fun of you about it you should not listen and you should just go for it. Like when they decided not to buy anything that was made in China for one whole year. When they took everything from there house that was made in China. When they lived off just a few things because almost everything is made in China. The significance of the theme would be that if this one family can try something that is pretty out there I am sure that there are other family's out there that could try to do something like this.
The theme in history would be that if one family can go so long without using things that were made in China I'm sure that pretty much anyone would be able to. Liek a family could not buy any thing that was made in Japan or something like that. Maybe even someone can go without buying anything new for a year. They would only have to buy food. Something else would be that some family could decide not to go out for dinner for a year. The significance theme would be that I think therare probably other family's that there are other family's that decided not to use things that were made in China.
The relationship thta I have to the theme would be that I could never go without using things from China. Everything that I use is made in China so I don't know how this family was able to do it. I have clothes that are made in China and pretty much anything that I use is made in China. There are cars that are made in China. I'm sure that there are many other thing in this world that are made in China that most people could not go without. The significance of the perspective would be that I would not be able to do it I would give up within the first month.
The theme of this book would be if you want to do something bad enough you shouls just do it. You should always try what you say you cannot do and what others say you cannot do. Prove them and yourself wrong. I would not be able to do it not for all the money in the world. The importance of the event is that there was a family that did go a year with things made in China.
The theme of this book would have to be if you want to do something and others are making fun of you about it you should not listen and you should just go for it. Like when they decided not to buy anything that was made in China for one whole year. When they took everything from there house that was made in China. When they lived off just a few things because almost everything is made in China. The significance of the theme would be that if this one family can try something that is pretty out there I am sure that there are other family's out there that could try to do something like this.
The theme in history would be that if one family can go so long without using things that were made in China I'm sure that pretty much anyone would be able to. Liek a family could not buy any thing that was made in Japan or something like that. Maybe even someone can go without buying anything new for a year. They would only have to buy food. Something else would be that some family could decide not to go out for dinner for a year. The significance theme would be that I think therare probably other family's that there are other family's that decided not to use things that were made in China.
The relationship thta I have to the theme would be that I could never go without using things from China. Everything that I use is made in China so I don't know how this family was able to do it. I have clothes that are made in China and pretty much anything that I use is made in China. There are cars that are made in China. I'm sure that there are many other thing in this world that are made in China that most people could not go without. The significance of the perspective would be that I would not be able to do it I would give up within the first month.
The theme of this book would be if you want to do something bad enough you shouls just do it. You should always try what you say you cannot do and what others say you cannot do. Prove them and yourself wrong. I would not be able to do it not for all the money in the world. The importance of the event is that there was a family that did go a year with things made in China.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Quarter 3 exam#3
1. It was significant because there would be to much going on right now and with the country already in debt it would just put all of us in debt even more. I also think that it would have been harder for any other president to end it because they would not have all of the knowledge in trying to end it. Ronald Reagan stopping it when he did was a good thing because he knew what to do he was around when the war began and knew the other sides weakness so it was easier for him to stop it then any one else.
He ended the war and all was good things went back to normal well as normal as it could be with the war just ending. He basically got to them and attacked he hit them good and he hit them all at once. Basically it took all of what they had but they got through it and ended up winning it in the end.
I think that this description is accurate because he tried all he could to get the war to end sooner. He was a hard worker trying to get everyone home and tried not to get any one else injured or even worse have someone die.
2. One of the scandals was the hostage scandal. This scandal was when there 52 Americans were taken and held in Iran for 444 days. These Americans were men, women and children. They were blind folded at all times and did not get much food or water. They were important because there were 52 of them taken and America wanted them back and where they were not hurt in was amazing.
They were taken because of money they wanted money and lots of it. They were being held at ransom for like 8 billion dollars. The Americans that were taken were trying to get free but hey couldn't. The people in America were trying to figure out how to get them back without giving them the money. They wanted to get over there and do a sneak attack but hey had to figure out a way to get over there and not be heard so no one will get hurt.
Like they could never mind the hostages and let them die. They could just give they the money, but if they do that they could be called chickens for not fighting. They also could just go over in a sneak attack but they would have to be very quite because one wrong move could get someone killed.
3. The Hostage crisis, Watergate scandal, Cold war. These were hard to understand because why did they happen. Why would someone want to kidnap people? Why would people want to break in the white house? Why did the cold war happen? The only reason those people were taken was because of money. Did they want money that bad they would seriously try to kid nap people? The hostage crisis was very serious but now there are people that say what was the hostage crisis because they have never heard about it before.
The Watergate scandal was when five individuals broke into the Watergate Hotel in Washington. They were convicted as well. There was seven but the other two were convicted for the conspiracy. The break in was actually good because it found otu the dirty tricks that were going on there.
The cold war was closed by Ronald Reagan. Nixon did help lead it though they both were a good asset to the war.
He ended the war and all was good things went back to normal well as normal as it could be with the war just ending. He basically got to them and attacked he hit them good and he hit them all at once. Basically it took all of what they had but they got through it and ended up winning it in the end.
I think that this description is accurate because he tried all he could to get the war to end sooner. He was a hard worker trying to get everyone home and tried not to get any one else injured or even worse have someone die.
2. One of the scandals was the hostage scandal. This scandal was when there 52 Americans were taken and held in Iran for 444 days. These Americans were men, women and children. They were blind folded at all times and did not get much food or water. They were important because there were 52 of them taken and America wanted them back and where they were not hurt in was amazing.
They were taken because of money they wanted money and lots of it. They were being held at ransom for like 8 billion dollars. The Americans that were taken were trying to get free but hey couldn't. The people in America were trying to figure out how to get them back without giving them the money. They wanted to get over there and do a sneak attack but hey had to figure out a way to get over there and not be heard so no one will get hurt.
Like they could never mind the hostages and let them die. They could just give they the money, but if they do that they could be called chickens for not fighting. They also could just go over in a sneak attack but they would have to be very quite because one wrong move could get someone killed.
3. The Hostage crisis, Watergate scandal, Cold war. These were hard to understand because why did they happen. Why would someone want to kidnap people? Why would people want to break in the white house? Why did the cold war happen? The only reason those people were taken was because of money. Did they want money that bad they would seriously try to kid nap people? The hostage crisis was very serious but now there are people that say what was the hostage crisis because they have never heard about it before.
The Watergate scandal was when five individuals broke into the Watergate Hotel in Washington. They were convicted as well. There was seven but the other two were convicted for the conspiracy. The break in was actually good because it found otu the dirty tricks that were going on there.
The cold war was closed by Ronald Reagan. Nixon did help lead it though they both were a good asset to the war.
Friday, February 6, 2009
questions
1.What are the problems America faces? Tax system that keeps productivity. He says that the people need to act today not tomorrow to get the problems to go away. Government is not the solution to the problem government is the problem. The solutions need to be equiable not one group of people should be singled out everyone should help.
2.What are Reagan's solutions? He wants to put all americans back to work. All americans can be strong and back at peace with the world.
3. What makes Regan effective here? He uses humor and he does not anwser a question.
4. What does this reveal about Regan? (Consider the saying: "Wit has truth in it.") That he was saying that he was a aemocrat and while he said it he was laughing which made everyone else laugh.
5. What policy decisions might Reagan make according to this? He wants everyone to be in peace World Peace he wants conifidence. Hope, confidence and facts are what he wants. Strength is what he needs and what he needs.
6. How did this event effect Reagan's role with the American public? It showed that some people don't really like the president. It also showed that there could be another attempt to kill him.
7. Who is the audience for this speech? The audience is parents of young children that are religous and also religous people without kids.
8. What is the argument Reagan makes here? The argument is that he is trying to say that he is a religous man and I know the people and what they want.
9. What do you think Reagan's agenda is in this speech? I think that the agenda is that he was trying to get people to actually say that they don't want something. Like he does not want war and he does not like war but he also knows that there are people out there that are ust like him and don't like it and don't want it either.
10. What is the message here? It says as Reagan as president life would be better.
11. How does the ad use Carter? He is used in the ad by telling the people that they can't live without him in there lives.
12. What does the ad suggest about the character/morals of the country? It suggest that things could actually get done with him as president. People might be happy with him as president.
13. What is the criticism of Communism being offered here? That he wants to stop the war and the people want it to. He understands the fear of war andhow everyone is feeling with it. The soviets left then with Regan they came back to the table.
14. Do you think this was an effective speech? I think that this was an effective speech. He was really out here and he told the people what they wanted to hear.
15. Who is the audience for this broadcast? The age for this broadcast would probably be about adults wanting to know about he president.
16. What do you think the American people thought of this action and Reagan's explanation of it? They didnt really like it because of the people missing and the people that are dead. That they got what they needed and telling how there are still people misising.
17. What was the foreign response, do you think? that america we need to get them back.
2.What are Reagan's solutions? He wants to put all americans back to work. All americans can be strong and back at peace with the world.
3. What makes Regan effective here? He uses humor and he does not anwser a question.
4. What does this reveal about Regan? (Consider the saying: "Wit has truth in it.") That he was saying that he was a aemocrat and while he said it he was laughing which made everyone else laugh.
5. What policy decisions might Reagan make according to this? He wants everyone to be in peace World Peace he wants conifidence. Hope, confidence and facts are what he wants. Strength is what he needs and what he needs.
6. How did this event effect Reagan's role with the American public? It showed that some people don't really like the president. It also showed that there could be another attempt to kill him.
7. Who is the audience for this speech? The audience is parents of young children that are religous and also religous people without kids.
8. What is the argument Reagan makes here? The argument is that he is trying to say that he is a religous man and I know the people and what they want.
9. What do you think Reagan's agenda is in this speech? I think that the agenda is that he was trying to get people to actually say that they don't want something. Like he does not want war and he does not like war but he also knows that there are people out there that are ust like him and don't like it and don't want it either.
10. What is the message here? It says as Reagan as president life would be better.
11. How does the ad use Carter? He is used in the ad by telling the people that they can't live without him in there lives.
12. What does the ad suggest about the character/morals of the country? It suggest that things could actually get done with him as president. People might be happy with him as president.
13. What is the criticism of Communism being offered here? That he wants to stop the war and the people want it to. He understands the fear of war andhow everyone is feeling with it. The soviets left then with Regan they came back to the table.
14. Do you think this was an effective speech? I think that this was an effective speech. He was really out here and he told the people what they wanted to hear.
15. Who is the audience for this broadcast? The age for this broadcast would probably be about adults wanting to know about he president.
16. What do you think the American people thought of this action and Reagan's explanation of it? They didnt really like it because of the people missing and the people that are dead. That they got what they needed and telling how there are still people misising.
17. What was the foreign response, do you think? that america we need to get them back.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Carl Bernstein
Carl Bernstein
He was the break of the watergate break in. He helped brin out the resignation of president Nixon. For the role he played he got many rewards for the break in scandle. Carl Bernstein was the first person to even think that the president had played a part in the Watergate scandle. He was a journalist. He played a really big part to get him to resign. He wrote front page stories about the watergate scandle even before it got out on who was even behind the whole thing. But once that whole thing got out he had yet again another front page story. When people read about it they were shocked toknow who was behind it the President they all loved was now the person they hated.
He was the break of the watergate break in. He helped brin out the resignation of president Nixon. For the role he played he got many rewards for the break in scandle. Carl Bernstein was the first person to even think that the president had played a part in the Watergate scandle. He was a journalist. He played a really big part to get him to resign. He wrote front page stories about the watergate scandle even before it got out on who was even behind the whole thing. But once that whole thing got out he had yet again another front page story. When people read about it they were shocked toknow who was behind it the President they all loved was now the person they hated.
"Malaise" and the American way of life
Consider the sections in Yellow and create a response on your blog as to what the real threat to America is, according to Carter, and is that threat still with us today?
The real threat that is still to America today is the gasoline and the energy shortages these are what that keeps on going deeper and deeper. These are even going deeper then the inflation in recession. The big problem is the energy people are using forty percent more energy then what they produce. This is still a threat today because people are still using more energy then what they can afford. The energy affects everyone everywhere and everyday it is because of the economy. With the economy the way it is everyone will have problems with the energy. The problems that we have now will not be fixed over night they will take time.
Consider the sections in Red and create a response on your blog summarizing what Carter is saying about American society, and analyzing America today against his critique.
He is saying that there are strong families sticking together these families also have strong faith in God. The identity of one is now known as for what one does and not how they react. Youe identity is yours and only yours no one else can be you. He is saying that the society will be worse in five years then it has been in the past five years. There are people today that still don't vote I even know people that don't vote adn they don't vote because they don't want to it is either that they don't like who is running for president or the man or woman that they are with tells them how to vote and they don't want to be told to vote for smoeone.
Consider the sections in Green and create a response on your blog comparing his plan to confront an energy crisis with President Obama's plan. How do the plans differ, and how are they alike? How do their plans reveal what they think the problem really is?
The carter plan is saying how the energy crisis is real. These plans are different because Carter wanted to focus on the foreign oil threats whil Obama wants to try to fix our energy problems like for the elderely and the people that are crippled. They are alike because they both did and are trying to fix oil and the energy problem. They reveal ow one is like Carter he told how much oil is imported a day and how much they use. Its like he is trying to say how people use and how much they use. People should have cut down on the amount of oil that they use. Obama has an energy plan telling how much it will cost and how long it will take to get everything that way he wants it.
The real threat that is still to America today is the gasoline and the energy shortages these are what that keeps on going deeper and deeper. These are even going deeper then the inflation in recession. The big problem is the energy people are using forty percent more energy then what they produce. This is still a threat today because people are still using more energy then what they can afford. The energy affects everyone everywhere and everyday it is because of the economy. With the economy the way it is everyone will have problems with the energy. The problems that we have now will not be fixed over night they will take time.
Consider the sections in Red and create a response on your blog summarizing what Carter is saying about American society, and analyzing America today against his critique.
He is saying that there are strong families sticking together these families also have strong faith in God. The identity of one is now known as for what one does and not how they react. Youe identity is yours and only yours no one else can be you. He is saying that the society will be worse in five years then it has been in the past five years. There are people today that still don't vote I even know people that don't vote adn they don't vote because they don't want to it is either that they don't like who is running for president or the man or woman that they are with tells them how to vote and they don't want to be told to vote for smoeone.
Consider the sections in Green and create a response on your blog comparing his plan to confront an energy crisis with President Obama's plan. How do the plans differ, and how are they alike? How do their plans reveal what they think the problem really is?
The carter plan is saying how the energy crisis is real. These plans are different because Carter wanted to focus on the foreign oil threats whil Obama wants to try to fix our energy problems like for the elderely and the people that are crippled. They are alike because they both did and are trying to fix oil and the energy problem. They reveal ow one is like Carter he told how much oil is imported a day and how much they use. Its like he is trying to say how people use and how much they use. People should have cut down on the amount of oil that they use. Obama has an energy plan telling how much it will cost and how long it will take to get everything that way he wants it.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Brady Bunch post
This video is form the Brady Bunch and the song that they sing is keep on movin. This is suppose to say that no matter what comes as a road block you should always keep on movin. I think that this means that you should always just keep on movin no matter what you come into contact with. Your road block that you come in if you come into one you should just keep on movin.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Book Portfolio 2
I read The Art of the Lathe and the poems are by B.H. Fairchild. The theme of this book would be that just because you are different don't let that get in the way with who you really are. If you are different and there are people out that have fun making fun of you than they are the ugly person not you. The theme in history would be that with being different it probably came in handy because with being different and some people don't expect things from you so you can be who ever you want to be.
The theme of this book is that just because you are different don't let that get in the way of who you really are. This is because there are always people getting made fun of because of the way they dress or the way there hair is there is no reason for it. Second thing is that there is one person in this book that the author is always talking about that is in some kind of trouble or has been. The third thing is that these people went through tough times but they seemed to make it through it.
The theme in history would be that maybe being different way back came to be a good thing because they could have had a secret talent of some sort that no one knew about and it helped out in the long run. The first reason would be that if they got addicted to some thingg it would always help out as long as they had someone there next to them helping them along the way. If you have friends you can go through anything and probably make it there.
The matter of perspectives is that this guy who wrote the book went through alot in his life but as long as he had his friends he made it through. That is really the only thing that matters friends and family you can never have to much of tehm especially if you are going through a tough time you always know when you fall back there will always be someone there to catch you.
So in conclusion if you are different you should not be upset about it just turn around saying yeah i'm different and I am my own person there isn't anyone like me i can be who ever i won't to be. My motto is that if you don't like me for me and you keep on trying to change me then I don't need you for a friend.
The theme of this book is that just because you are different don't let that get in the way of who you really are. This is because there are always people getting made fun of because of the way they dress or the way there hair is there is no reason for it. Second thing is that there is one person in this book that the author is always talking about that is in some kind of trouble or has been. The third thing is that these people went through tough times but they seemed to make it through it.
The theme in history would be that maybe being different way back came to be a good thing because they could have had a secret talent of some sort that no one knew about and it helped out in the long run. The first reason would be that if they got addicted to some thingg it would always help out as long as they had someone there next to them helping them along the way. If you have friends you can go through anything and probably make it there.
The matter of perspectives is that this guy who wrote the book went through alot in his life but as long as he had his friends he made it through. That is really the only thing that matters friends and family you can never have to much of tehm especially if you are going through a tough time you always know when you fall back there will always be someone there to catch you.
So in conclusion if you are different you should not be upset about it just turn around saying yeah i'm different and I am my own person there isn't anyone like me i can be who ever i won't to be. My motto is that if you don't like me for me and you keep on trying to change me then I don't need you for a friend.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
L.B.J Letter
Voting Rights Acts is that they did not African Amerricans in the United States to vote tis all happened in 1965. The fifth amendment came to play in this area this act prohibited any other states from imposing any voting qualications. THe law was intended to have the voters pass a literacy test before they were able to vote. The act establishes that the federal oversightof the elections administration.
I think that this would come is not the best thing in the world because i dont htink that someone should have to pass a test to be able to vote. They should be able to vote just because they are living in america. So everyone should be able to vote no matter how your intelligence is or what your race is.
I think that this would come is not the best thing in the world because i dont htink that someone should have to pass a test to be able to vote. They should be able to vote just because they are living in america. So everyone should be able to vote no matter how your intelligence is or what your race is.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Essays
Essay 1- The change of technology helped us and then it made things alot more difficult. By increasing and changing the technology it just put the country in debt. Maybe if they did not do all the changes we woulldd not be in debt right now.
It helped us because the technology we have has saved thousands of lives. Without it those people that it helpedwould probably not have lived. This technology may be expensive but without it would play a critical part in this nation.
The technology played a crucial part when there was someone who had a bullet somewhere in there stomack the doctors were able to take pictures of there stomach to see where the bullet was and then they could go in and take it out. It helps find cancer in the brain and in other parts of the body.
Essay 2-Martin Luther King had non- violent methods even when someone did somethign violent to him he had a non violent response to it. Huey Newton Found the Black Panther Party. Unlike Martin Luther King Huey Newton had some violent methods. Malcom X had non-violent methods and wanted to solve the race issues.
Essay 3- The soviet union and the united states did not get along they were argueing over every little thing. The missile attack was a big confrontational moment.
It helped us because the technology we have has saved thousands of lives. Without it those people that it helpedwould probably not have lived. This technology may be expensive but without it would play a critical part in this nation.
The technology played a crucial part when there was someone who had a bullet somewhere in there stomack the doctors were able to take pictures of there stomach to see where the bullet was and then they could go in and take it out. It helps find cancer in the brain and in other parts of the body.
Essay 2-Martin Luther King had non- violent methods even when someone did somethign violent to him he had a non violent response to it. Huey Newton Found the Black Panther Party. Unlike Martin Luther King Huey Newton had some violent methods. Malcom X had non-violent methods and wanted to solve the race issues.
Essay 3- The soviet union and the united states did not get along they were argueing over every little thing. The missile attack was a big confrontational moment.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)