Thursday, October 22, 2009
20th century project
I have been looking for ideas for the project and i'm stumped between the media shift and flappers. I think flappers are interesting because of the change in entertainment and the way people now viewed women's behavior. I also like the change in media becuae there are a lot of parallels to current events today.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Sacco and Vanzetti- Innocent AFTER Proven Guilty...and killed
"Since the defense had weakend the ballistics evidnce, Katzmann based his case promarily on 'consciousness of guilt.'"
I like this quote in the sense of how great of an example the court systems form the 1920's operated. The whole idea of innocent until proven guilty, took on an entirely different meaning. Today, all people, are supposedly treated fairly through the justice system and there are restrictions set by the Constituion and Bill of Rights to ensure this. In the 1920's, even though most, not all, but most laws were in affect then, the laws were seen as merely guidelines, to help guide the courts to their decisions. Innocent until proven guilty was only the the WASP- white anglo-saxon protestant memebers of society who controlled the industries and were born in america. If immigrants were on trial, such as Sacco and Vanzetti were, their trail was strictly conducted to end with the defendants either dead or in jail. Sacco and Vanzetti were victimes of racial and ethnical profiling by the governemnt and the towns people of Dedham. I found it ironic though, that townspeople of Dedham and American born citizens only started to recognize the injustice towards the end of the trial, and by that point, nothing could be done. I found it embarassing that we, as a country, were hypocritcal towards immigrants. In times of economic boom, we welcomed them through the "gates of America", persuading them to come and make a new life for themselves (as long as the American people could benefit from it). But when times got hard, just as they did after World War I, people, like Thayer and Katzmann were eager to get rid of the "suspects of criminal activity", also known as immigrants. People who were once welcomed into the country were now watched over carefully by the goverment in fear that these immigrants might retaliate against the country that welcomed them and then stripped away their rights day by day.
When Katzmann's evidence fell through, he had only one other route to take. The ethnical/political route, in which he would show, to all members of the jury, that Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty of something: being different. Katzmann used the fact that they were anarchists against them and he used his ties with the judge to help put the two into jail. This showed how badly immigrants were treated during the 1920's.
"...historical methods to understand that history affords foar more latitude in weighing and collecting evidence that does the legal system. The law attempts to limit the flow of evidence in a trial to what can reasonably be constructed as fact".
I liked this quote because I think that it is the thesis. Historians can go back and look at past court cases that were considered to be controversial and historians can make assumptions based off of evidence. Historians differ from lawyers and other people who work in the legal system because they can make assumptions based off of evidence. In the legal system, the quote stand "innocent until proven guilty". I believe that after reading Sacco and Vanzetti, that they were not guilty of murdering Berardelli. I do believe that they deserved jail time because they avoided the draft and if they did assemble the bombs, than they deserve time for that. I think that this article was a good example of how desperate the government was to crack down on immigrants and make an example of Sacco and Vanzetti. The example that if you step out of line, the government might not be able to prove how you did, but they can get you on something and even though this isn't legitimately legal, it doesn't matter.
I liked this article becuase the historians didn't just agree with Thayer and Katzmann on the fact that Sacco and Vanzetti were automatically guilty because they were different. I liked how they examined everything from the mens' history to society and the people who influenced the outcome of the case. I would argue that this is one of the better written articles by Davidson and Lytle.
I like this quote in the sense of how great of an example the court systems form the 1920's operated. The whole idea of innocent until proven guilty, took on an entirely different meaning. Today, all people, are supposedly treated fairly through the justice system and there are restrictions set by the Constituion and Bill of Rights to ensure this. In the 1920's, even though most, not all, but most laws were in affect then, the laws were seen as merely guidelines, to help guide the courts to their decisions. Innocent until proven guilty was only the the WASP- white anglo-saxon protestant memebers of society who controlled the industries and were born in america. If immigrants were on trial, such as Sacco and Vanzetti were, their trail was strictly conducted to end with the defendants either dead or in jail. Sacco and Vanzetti were victimes of racial and ethnical profiling by the governemnt and the towns people of Dedham. I found it ironic though, that townspeople of Dedham and American born citizens only started to recognize the injustice towards the end of the trial, and by that point, nothing could be done. I found it embarassing that we, as a country, were hypocritcal towards immigrants. In times of economic boom, we welcomed them through the "gates of America", persuading them to come and make a new life for themselves (as long as the American people could benefit from it). But when times got hard, just as they did after World War I, people, like Thayer and Katzmann were eager to get rid of the "suspects of criminal activity", also known as immigrants. People who were once welcomed into the country were now watched over carefully by the goverment in fear that these immigrants might retaliate against the country that welcomed them and then stripped away their rights day by day.
When Katzmann's evidence fell through, he had only one other route to take. The ethnical/political route, in which he would show, to all members of the jury, that Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty of something: being different. Katzmann used the fact that they were anarchists against them and he used his ties with the judge to help put the two into jail. This showed how badly immigrants were treated during the 1920's.
"...historical methods to understand that history affords foar more latitude in weighing and collecting evidence that does the legal system. The law attempts to limit the flow of evidence in a trial to what can reasonably be constructed as fact".
I liked this quote because I think that it is the thesis. Historians can go back and look at past court cases that were considered to be controversial and historians can make assumptions based off of evidence. Historians differ from lawyers and other people who work in the legal system because they can make assumptions based off of evidence. In the legal system, the quote stand "innocent until proven guilty". I believe that after reading Sacco and Vanzetti, that they were not guilty of murdering Berardelli. I do believe that they deserved jail time because they avoided the draft and if they did assemble the bombs, than they deserve time for that. I think that this article was a good example of how desperate the government was to crack down on immigrants and make an example of Sacco and Vanzetti. The example that if you step out of line, the government might not be able to prove how you did, but they can get you on something and even though this isn't legitimately legal, it doesn't matter.
I liked this article becuase the historians didn't just agree with Thayer and Katzmann on the fact that Sacco and Vanzetti were automatically guilty because they were different. I liked how they examined everything from the mens' history to society and the people who influenced the outcome of the case. I would argue that this is one of the better written articles by Davidson and Lytle.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Roger Cohen's "America's Limits"
Write a thoughtful response to the editorial-aim for a solid paragraph--and post it on your blog. Do you agree or disagree with Mr. Cohen? How does this piece inform your understanding of the changing context of the 21st century and the challenges facing the US as we move into the second decade of this century?
I definitely agree with Roger Cohen. I think that America is very nervous, as a nation, to really take the big finanical risks that we took in the past. I think America can still maintain it's identity as the nation that takes the big risks and leads the herd into the new ideas, etc., but America is going to have to set some limits on how fast it goes and how much money it spends on the process. I liked the fact that Obama said that it's not just America's job to save the world. America doen't take up the whole globe, so why should we have to. I believe that it should be a cooperative effort, but then again, this is the real world- meaning: there are countries who would rather end the world, than work with us.
This piece informs my understanding by showing that America isn't necessarily considered the top dog. It shows me that there might not be a "top dog" if we dont start working together with other countries to change our ideas on the economy and how it should be run and how to handle the environment. It also, not that this is anything new to me, but the article reinforces the idea that centrally run companies by big C.E.O's aren't necessarily the way a major corporation should be run. The economic downfall showed me that we should be cautious and very judicious about our money and what we do with it, etc.
This article has made me think a lot about my future. It makes me wonder if spending 45,000 dollars a year to go to undergraduate school and then med school is even worth it, becuase when I get out of med school, will there be a competitive medical field, and if not, how I will pay off the near 300,000 dollar student loan debt that I will inevitably have to pay, job or no job. It also makes me think about foreign relations policies a lot. Should we invade other countries just because we think that we can spread democracy to them, therefore making their countries just as good as ours. Who is to say that our country is the best and that eveyrone should be like us? Granted, I do think our country is better than most, but I think that the U.S. needs to focus a little more on passing this health care reform and other major pieces of legislature sitting on the desks in Washington, just collecting dust- so that I can see how my future is going to look and what major college decisions I need to make. Now, I will most likely get criticism for saying that I only care about myself, but look at the major chiefs of Wall Street a year ago. Does anyone honestly think that they were watching out for the "little/ common people" below, when they were purchasing their 200,000 dollar vehicles and their multiple 3 million dollar mansions in Aspen, the Hamptons, and Connecticut? Of course not. The only time they paid attention to the people around them was either when they were looking for the friends in a crowd at a fancy dinner, or making sure that while occasionaly walking down 5th Avenue (because they felt guilty for their private car emissions), that their brand new loafers didn't get trodded on by the towns people walking next to them.
Back to the foreign relations...
I feel that if someone is going hit the U.S. with a nuclear weapon, they might as well take themselves out also. Since all of the prodcuts consumed by everyone go through most parts of the world before they end up in your home or on your table, so bombing part of the world would be a really ill-thought out idea.
As far as moving into the second decade of the 21st century, I welcome the future. It will definitely be interesting to see how the future plays out!
I definitely agree with Roger Cohen. I think that America is very nervous, as a nation, to really take the big finanical risks that we took in the past. I think America can still maintain it's identity as the nation that takes the big risks and leads the herd into the new ideas, etc., but America is going to have to set some limits on how fast it goes and how much money it spends on the process. I liked the fact that Obama said that it's not just America's job to save the world. America doen't take up the whole globe, so why should we have to. I believe that it should be a cooperative effort, but then again, this is the real world- meaning: there are countries who would rather end the world, than work with us.
This piece informs my understanding by showing that America isn't necessarily considered the top dog. It shows me that there might not be a "top dog" if we dont start working together with other countries to change our ideas on the economy and how it should be run and how to handle the environment. It also, not that this is anything new to me, but the article reinforces the idea that centrally run companies by big C.E.O's aren't necessarily the way a major corporation should be run. The economic downfall showed me that we should be cautious and very judicious about our money and what we do with it, etc.
This article has made me think a lot about my future. It makes me wonder if spending 45,000 dollars a year to go to undergraduate school and then med school is even worth it, becuase when I get out of med school, will there be a competitive medical field, and if not, how I will pay off the near 300,000 dollar student loan debt that I will inevitably have to pay, job or no job. It also makes me think about foreign relations policies a lot. Should we invade other countries just because we think that we can spread democracy to them, therefore making their countries just as good as ours. Who is to say that our country is the best and that eveyrone should be like us? Granted, I do think our country is better than most, but I think that the U.S. needs to focus a little more on passing this health care reform and other major pieces of legislature sitting on the desks in Washington, just collecting dust- so that I can see how my future is going to look and what major college decisions I need to make. Now, I will most likely get criticism for saying that I only care about myself, but look at the major chiefs of Wall Street a year ago. Does anyone honestly think that they were watching out for the "little/ common people" below, when they were purchasing their 200,000 dollar vehicles and their multiple 3 million dollar mansions in Aspen, the Hamptons, and Connecticut? Of course not. The only time they paid attention to the people around them was either when they were looking for the friends in a crowd at a fancy dinner, or making sure that while occasionaly walking down 5th Avenue (because they felt guilty for their private car emissions), that their brand new loafers didn't get trodded on by the towns people walking next to them.
Back to the foreign relations...
I feel that if someone is going hit the U.S. with a nuclear weapon, they might as well take themselves out also. Since all of the prodcuts consumed by everyone go through most parts of the world before they end up in your home or on your table, so bombing part of the world would be a really ill-thought out idea.
As far as moving into the second decade of the 21st century, I welcome the future. It will definitely be interesting to see how the future plays out!
Essay Outline
Thesis:
Wilson uses moral values as a facade to cover up his true reason for going to war: to protect his economic interests.
2nd paragraphy:
- say what the moral values were
- recall Washington's Farewell Addres
- mention Monroe Doctorine
3rd paragraph
- economic interets that U.S. had around the world
- show why U.S. would benefit from going to war- in an economic sense.
4th paragraph
- give quotes from Wilson to show reader that Wilson might have said stuff to public to encourage their support behind him
- BUT with the economic benefits sitting right in front of him- any person would go for them
Conlusion:
- conclude with question asking reader what would they have done in his situation
(said that country would risk lives of its people to raise money) or (cover up, just as Wilson did, his TRUE reason for going to war)
Wilson uses moral values as a facade to cover up his true reason for going to war: to protect his economic interests.
2nd paragraphy:
- say what the moral values were
- recall Washington's Farewell Addres
- mention Monroe Doctorine
3rd paragraph
- economic interets that U.S. had around the world
- show why U.S. would benefit from going to war- in an economic sense.
4th paragraph
- give quotes from Wilson to show reader that Wilson might have said stuff to public to encourage their support behind him
- BUT with the economic benefits sitting right in front of him- any person would go for them
Conlusion:
- conclude with question asking reader what would they have done in his situation
(said that country would risk lives of its people to raise money) or (cover up, just as Wilson did, his TRUE reason for going to war)
Friday, October 2, 2009
Changes In War
War has definitely changed since with early 1900's. Now, most people don't even realize that there is a war going on in Afghanistan. This is because the government doesn't ask us to buy liberty bonds or to not eat certain foods. The way people fight war is now more technologically advanced than World War 1 times. People fight with million and trillion dollar machine equipment so I think that taxing the people for this now would seem that it wouldn't really get the american people anywhere but into debt. Since war is more expensive nowadays, the people have had to come up with new, more efficient ways to get more money from the people without damaging the economy more than it is now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)