Book Portfolio - Qtr. 4

    The Art of the Lathe by B.H. Fairchild portrays American lifestyles in the style of poems.  It shows how Americans deal with difficulties in their lives.  The theme that I saw in this was that of American people accepting who they are when they are dealt with these hard times in their lives and in the country.  The historical theme shows how we have developed and how we have changed our values.  The author, Fairchild, shows his personal feelings and his own perspective through the book.  He says why he believes people are wrong in the way that they see the 'ideal' American and how he sees that in his life and in the country as well.

 

The theme in Art of the Lathe, that I saw, was that of people living out their lives and learning that they had to deal with living as the steryotypical 'American'.  Every American, and human in general, has their own special way of accepting that they are a part of something that is way bigger than themselves.  Being a sports fan, for example, is like this.  When a big Red Sox fan, for example, loves everything about their team, lives and dies with their team, when seemingly everything may revolve around their team - it could be annoying to some people.  But this, this is just one person - with a love of a certain sport - who in involved in something bigger than themselves.  They are one in a group of a thousand who are rooting for the same thing and love the same thing.  All Americans are the same like this, they all want to feel like they are an indefinite part of something that they cannot control, but that they have to simple believe in because that is the only way and it is meant to be that way.  People like to feel that there is something that will bring them together with other people in the same boat as them; to feel a part of something good.  These people will - if they are true fans - stick with their team through thick and thin and always love them, even when they feel like they should hate them so much.

 

In American history, we see that when the British left England to become free we developed such family values, work ethic and education that we have now and is common to Americans.  When these people left their home and came to America, they had to make a new start and build up from the ground, which took much dedication and tons of work - as well as the will to keep going and achieve success.  As well, the British wanted excellent education and a strong religious foundation.  When white Americans owned slaves, they did not teach them to read and write.  The owners wanted to be able to control their slaves and didn't want any faith or education to change that at all.  The slaves wantes the freedom, though, they wanted the freedom to learn what they were able to and the freedom to change their lives and get a good education.  America is known for their great education, all of their freedom, their family values, and their work ethic and dedication.

 

When you look at the 'role of perspective' you can see that is relates to the theme for the book because Fairchild was a normal, regular American.  There was one poem in the book that showed normal people doing regular things and having normal jobs.  What fairchild adds is that he makes the job seem extremely wonderful and puts it in a new light, but then he says that it's not true and not realistic.

 

The theme that is throughout this book is the ways in which people accept who they are and try to live their life to the absolute fullest that they possibly can with who they are and what makes them happy, in reality.  The many, many historical events which lead up to today in America continue to give all Americans something to strive for and a level that they constantly try to achieve by making the best of the life that they have and all they are given being in America.  The author, Fairchild, makes a connection with what he has gone through and seen and makes his point and perspective clear through the whole book as to what he thinks Amercans strive for and how they do as well as how they should see the world.  Seeing America as well as the world in this way shows that we as Americans can change who we are and who we want to be - as a country - in the future.  All it takes is realizing who we were and who we are now and what we are capable of doing in our own lives.

American Empire

American 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."....  It seems incredible that someone would say that a country - let alone America - needs a war.  Especially, as Roosevelt says, that he would welcome any war, because the country needs one.  I don't understand why a country would ever need a war.  It just doesn't make sense to me much.  Maybe it will be explained further in the article. -Alexandra Butler 5/21/09 12:44 PM

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 casualties, many times more than in Cuba.  It seems shocking to me that it took the United States that long to defeat the Philippines.  It shocks me even more that there were seventy-thousand troops used, though I would guess that you would have to use a lot when you fight a battle for three years.  It is also extrememly sad that there were thousands of battle casualties, though maybe it could have been worse. - Alexandra Butler 5/21/09 12:48 PMIt was a harsh war. For the Filipinos the death rate was enormous from battle casualties and from disease.
       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 seems that it would be hard to govern a people in which so very little of them actually understand the government and what it is supposed to do to help the people of this country. -Alexandra Butler 5/21/09 12:52 PM
       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."  Is this because of American troops?  This seems very, very extreme to me. - lexandra Butler 5/21/09 12:57 PMA 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."
       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.
       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 This sounds so brutal to me, but maybe this was needed during this time and was the type of action that needed to be taken and the kind of thought process that needed to be in peoples minds. -Alexandra Butler 5/26/09 10:05 AM; 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."

 

 

The Bomb

~The Bomb~

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. I think that he is offering his opinion here.  Other people could probably have a different opinion here and not think that it is racism.  If he said 'I strongly believe that racism is at work' that would be more acceptable because when he says 'clearly' - that is a definitive statement, not good for stating opinion -Alexandra Butler 5/7/09 10:56 AM 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. Again, this is an opinion.  I think he is trying to persuade the reader to thinking what he wants themn to think the Americans could have done.  He is dealing with absolutes when trying to put his own opinion in. -Alexandra Butler 5/7/09 11:05 AMThe 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.  How does he know that the Japanese would have agreed to stop the war?  I think he is making assumptions here and it trying to make it seem like he knows this for a fact. -Alexandra Butler 5/15/09 10:46 AM
       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?

 

It seems like he is asking innocent enough questions here, but I think he is trying to persuade you to subconsiously see his side by making you think about what he is saying. -Alexandra Butler 5/15/09 10:49 AM
       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. Even though the statement may seem to be false, I don't know if he should come right out and say that it is 'preposterous'.  It seems like it is somewhat of an opinion to me. -Alexandra Butler 5/21/09 12:31 PMThose 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.

Teddy Roosevelt Quotes

Article Comments - DAVE TABER

The Marines on Guadalcanal
DAVE TABER, 1st Raider Battalion
Dave Taber was one of "Horse Collar" Smith's communicators who fought bravely among Sweeney's men. Six of the seven men were casualties that night.

We were on top of the ridge near the command post. Major Bailey came up and made an eloquent speech. He said something like this: "All you fellows have buddies and friends that have been wounded and killed, and it will all be in vain if we lose the airfield. Now let's get out, hold the line, and save the airfield. If we lose the airfield, we're going to lose the island." That was about the gist of it. It was quite dramatic and got everybody moving. I thought to myself it was almost like something out of a movie. I like this a lot, if it had been myself out there and people that I had been in combat with and had grown to know and like a lot I would feel very inspired to go out and do what had to be done in order to avenge those people and make what they did for their country worth while. I also like how this man said that this was like a quote from a movie; exactly what I was thinking when I was reading it, is, this would make a great line in a war movie. -Alexandra Butler 3/30/09 10:52 AM
I was with a close friend of mine, Ike Arnold. (Ike's name was really Herman Arnold, but I called him Ike.) We each had five or six grenades. We went out. I'm not sure what happened, but somehow we got separated from some of the other guys. I probably would have been freaking out had I been separated from the rest of my men with limited communication, as well. -Alexandra Butler 3/30/09 10:55 AMIn fact we were a little too extended, I guess. When the Japs attacked, we were throwing grenades. There was a lot of shooting going on, a lot of action: rifle fire, grenades moving so fast. It has to be extremely hard when things are happening very rapidly, especially when you have been separated from the rest of your men, I think I would have been throwing grenades left and right (probably like they were) to make sure that I was safe. -Alexandra Butler 3/30/09 10:57 AMAnyway, we were throwing grenades down the ridge, and then all the sudden Ike talked to me. [Choking up, Taber said, "I'd rather not go through this," but then continued.] He called me Tabe. He said very calmly, "Tabe, I've been hit." I turned to him. He was off to my side a little, and I said, "Where?" He said, "In the throat." He no more than said that, and he was dead. This has to be so terrible, I don't know if it would make me weak and want to stop, or if it would make me stronger and want to go out and avenge what happened to my friend. I think it may all depend upon a persons age; in my opinion, the younger people would get extremely angry first and not even think about what to do next. While, on the other hand, older people would feel sad, and a little angry as well, but would think logically and not let their emotions control them. -Alexandra Butler 3/30/09 10:59 AMHe must have been hit in the jugular vein or an artery. Blood just gushed out. I had my arm underneath him, across his back, and I lowered him down to the ground. [crying] There's nothing you could do. He was a very good friend of mine. I looked around, and I was all by myself. This has to be such a horrid moment. One second you are slightly comforted by your friend so at least you aren't completely alone, and the next second you are alone and your friend and fellow American is lying dead beside you on the ground. -Alexandra Butler 3/30/09 11:03 AM
I thought to myself that I better get back and make contact with the others. I didn't know whether to crawl back or walk back because there was danger both ways. We'd been told what to do in these cases. I acted without even thinking. I would think that 'acting without thinking' would be a very common thing; soldiers are in complete shock and just do what their gut instincts says, instead of thinking about it. However, they don't have much time anyway, to think a lot, so that may be a good thing. -Alexandra Butler 3/30/09 11:05 AMI decided to stay on my feet. It was pitch dark. I was walking a little bit, and all the sudden I heard something behind me and along comes a grenade right through the air and the fuse is burning! Before I knew what I was doing, I fell on my face away from it. Very gut instinct, as well as what soldiers are trained to do. I would most likely just drop because I would be so scared already. -Alexandra Butler 3/30/09 11:07 AMAs I was going down, I turned to see where the grenade was falling; it fell in between my feet. I had sharpnel between my feet and legs. I was a little stunned but got up. I was in shock, and nothing was bothering me. I'm walking along slowly and heard a Japanese voice behind me and he was talking to me. He must have thought I was a Jap going up in front of him. I had a .03 rifle and I swung around and shot, and he dropped as I kept on going. You have to be calm (as calm as you can be) and think quickly, as well as not feel emotion towards anything at the time. You need to view it as simply your job, as well as your life of theirs. -Alexandra Butler 3/30/09 11:09 AMI finally got back [to the CP], and one of the first people I ran into was Horse Collar Smith, who was wounded.

Book Portfolio - Quarter 3

Life was never regular again. We were changed from the day we put our feet in that sand.

-Private Tex Stanton, Second Platoon, Easy Company

The book that I read for Quarter three book portfolio is Flags of Our Fathers by James Bradley. The basic premise of the book is to display the incredible (if not seemingly normal like any other) lives of the men who are responsible for the flag raising at the Battle of Iwo Jima on February 23, 1945. The photo is one of the most prominent in American U.S. history, but the stories and lives of the men in the photo are not known. The bravery that these men had to be the ones to display the American flag at that battle is not widely known, either, but this book helps to dive into the historical as well as personal tributes to these people. This book and these stories show how this battle, this day, changed these mens lives and how they looked at and dealt with their family there afterwards.

While there are indeed many learnings of what happened at the Battle of Iwo Jima as well as an incredible amount of historical facts, there is also an emotional and sentimental side to that period for six incredibly brave men who served their country to their fullest on that day in February 1945. Focusing more on the emotional and life changing aspect of that day, for the most part only for these men (and later on their families), to truly enjoy and absorb. In some instances, though, these men did not want to be recognized for what they did for the most part; not even to talk about what they did and what happened with their own children. John Bradley, as being stated in the book, was one of these men. He did not want to share his stories with his family in the slightest; they finally found out what did happen after he died while going through his things. Though he seemingly had nothing to hide because in a letter written to his parents during that time he says "You know all about our battle out here. I was with the victorious [Company E], who reached the top of Mt. Suribachi first. I had a little to do with raising the American flag and it was the happiest moment of my life." This book serves as a platform to let these men have their stories told by the people who knew them best in their lives; their families.

The obvious historical context of this book is about the Battle on the island of Iwo Jima and, mostly, the raising of the American flag by the six men who made it to the top of the island's highest peak to do so. Historical events need to have stories told about them by the people who live through them, it's just how the world works, and this book shows new themes in historical context for these men and their legacy. Even if they don't think that they want to share what happened, the world wants to know; the world always wants to know. Sometimes, men who have been in battle and gone through combat don't want to share their stories because of the number of deaths they have seen or the shock and stress of possibly re-living it for the rest of their lives it too much to handle. These men of Iwo Jima have a unique story to tell and still want to seemingly keep the details to themselves. Maybe because they believe that they will not be able to explain it fully and it would lack the immense importance that it should have? Or maybe because they thought they would leave something important out, or possibly, they would add something in that didn't happen, but that they made up in their minds? But the truth remains, history needs to be told, and the people who lived it are the best resource.

Many different people have different perspectives on what happened, or what should have happened, in historical instances. Just as well, people who lived through such historical things have their own different perspectives on what happened. Depending upon what stage in life they were in at the time, or what things were going on that would influence their views of the world as a whole, people would have different opinions on many things.

This book, Flags of Our Fathers, is a good book for the 21st century generation to read. It puts into perspective what happened during that time and why it was such a historical event, and why it was such a life changing event for these six men who made the journey that did ultimately (even if they did not want to admit it) did change their lives. As well, I would expect, it changed their views on the world around them and other historical events they may, and very well did, live through as well and apply it to their own situation. Such historical importance put onto one moment in time, one flag representing one country, and the six men who were able to make it possible to think broader and think more of yourself, in the end.

Weekly Response

This past week or so in American Studies have been fairly interesting to talk and think about. I really did like talking about the Great Depression of 1930 and learning why exactly it was such a hard time in United States history. I have never completely learned why the Great Depression happened before, so it was refreshing to really delve into what happened and try to understand that better. Also, it was interesting and kind of scary to look at and compare the Depression with the economic times of today. It does seem like we could very well be heading toward another Depression if we don't figure out how to get ourselves out of this mess now. The debate didn't go over very well in our class, especially the side against thinking we are heading to another Depression. In my opinion, the people who have not been a debator yet need to have a turn. No one really wants to be one but there are people who have done it twice now, and the people who have been researchers for both debates don't even help the people half the time and are rude when their group members are debating.

Other than that though, I have liked learning about the Great Depression and the economic times then and what happened with the stock markets. Also thinking about the people whose lives were ruined because of this crisis.

Reagan Questions

1. What are the problems America faces?

Unemployment and recession

2. What are Reagan's solutions?

Stopping inflation, Putting Americans back to work

3. What makes Reagan effective here?

Humor always wins people over and makes them remember what you said.

4. What does this reveal about Reagan?

That he can think quickly and make it work well and be effective. I revels that he doesn't always take himself extremely seriously.

5. What policy decisions might Reagan make according to this?

He would make peace and negotiate policys until America wins over.

6. How did this event effect Reagan's role with the American public?

I think that America most likely started to view Reagan as a real person who really could be hurt. Also, they probably thought that it was crazy that someone tried to kill a President yet again, and that we could all be in danger.

7. Who is the audience for this speech?

The audience is religious people, the Americans that would agree with him. Especially when he said "I would rather my daughters die now than grow up in a world not believing in God". This would hit very religious people the most, obviously.

8. What is the argument Reagan makes here?

He says that Americans are not going to be proud enough.

9. What do you think Reagan's agenda is in this speech?

He wants to show that communism is definitely not okay, especially not for the children of the United States. Like the example he used of his daughters and not wanting them to grow up in a communist world not believing in God.

10. What is the message here?

The message is that America has grown and progressed since Reagan came into office.

11. How does the Ad use Carter?

Reagan has created more jobs than President Carter did.

12. What does the Ad suggest about the character/morals of the country?

It suggests that America is progressing to try and be the best that it can be. As well as saying that Americans have different morals and standards than it used to, because all of the people's views are different of have changed.

13. What is the critisism of communism being offered here?

The critisism is that communism doesn't work and that it is bad for children to be raised around it because they will not "believe in God" anymore. He says that America should stay away from it, as well as the rest of the world.

14. Do you think this was an effective speech?

Yes, Reagan appealed to a fairly good and wide range of people and made it personal, like with his daughters, so that people really would listen to what he was saying and take it to heart.

15. Who is the audience for this broadcast?

For the most part, the audience is the American people, as well as anyone standing behind the United States and allied.

16. What do you think the American people thought of this action and Reagan's explanation of it?

I think that both Americans and Reagan thought what he was doing was right, and liked the way that he went about it as well. It somewhat showed America that Reagan knows what he is doing and does have plans for the future.

Jimmy Carter Speech

Yellow - What is the real threat to America, and is that threat still with us today?



The real threat to America is that we do not have the confidence that we, as a Nation, used to have. Our lack of confidence is going to destroy America. We are confronted with a "moral and spiritual crisis". We are losing confidence in the future as well as starting to "close the door" on our confidence in the past. Another crisis include inflation and our continually growing dependence upon oil. We have a problem still today that we are very dependant upon oil still; foreign oil especially. We do not, as I see it, have too much of a confidence problem. Especially with our newly elected President, people have new hope and are confident that we are now moving in a new direction without discrimination.



Red - What is Carter saying about American society? Analyze America today against his critique.



Carter is saying that American society is is too self-indulged and too involved in consumption. He also said that humanity is not defined any longer by what someone does, but by what one owns. Carter also said that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives with no purpose. In the speech he also says that most people believed that the next five years were going to be worse than the last four years as well as two-thirds of the people not even voting. American working productivity started to slow down and willingness of Americans has dropped. President Carter also said that there was a growing disrespect for government, churches and schools, and the news media. Today, I think that America and the people are still very self-involved and I think that people are still no longer defined by what they do, but by what they have. Although, I think that we are getting towards a place in out country that we can look at people in a different way.



Green - Compare Carter's plan to confront an energy crisis with President Obama's plan. How do they differ and how are they alike? How do their plans reveal what they think the real problem is?



Carter proposed to not used more foreign oil than America did in 1977 - ever. He said that every single demand for energy will be met from our own production and conservation. The long growth in the dependence upon foreign oil will be stopped and then reversed through the 1980's.

Nixon Watergate Scandal

-A series of political scandals during Nixon's presidency involving many of his closest advisers
-Possibly was ultimately the reason for his resigning on August 9,1974

- To start, five men were arrested for breaking and entering into the Democratic National Committee headquarters (at Watergate Office Complex in Washington, D.C.) on June 17, 1972
-The FBI, Senate Watergate Committee, House Judiciary Committee (as well as the press) revealed that this was part of many, many illegal activities carried out by President Nixon's staff

-It was also revealed that the other crimes included: campaign fraud, political espionage and sabotage, illegal break-ins, improper tax audits, illegal wiretapping, and a secret fund in Mexico to pay those who carried out these operations

-After two years of continually growing evidence against President Nixon and his staff (the process including former staff members testifying against them in a Senate investigation), there was a revealing of a tape recording system that Nixon had in his offices that he had used to record many conversations
-The recordings from these tapes revealed that he had indeed obstructed justice and had also attempted to cover up the break-in
-The recorded conversation became later known as the Smoking Gun

-Battles in court eventually came to the conclusion of the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruling in United States v. Nixon, that the President would be made to give up the tapes; which he complied to

-With the very real possibility of impeachment in the House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate, President Nixon resigned just ten days later
-He became the only US President to have resigned from office

-Gerald Ford became Nixon's successor after the resignation

Book Portfolio - Quarter 2

Throughout the book of poems What Work Is by Philip Levine, the reader gets a definite understanding of what work is to many people. How hard life can be for some and how undeserved, in some cases, these people are. It shows that so many people are needed to keep the economy going and for other to be able to live. Really, all a person does is work for their life; and to what end, to what accomplishment other than to keep themselves alive and well? It shows how manufacturing and labor affect the economy and the environment. How it affects the workers lives who do this only for a semblance of a life. We only ask; how much waiting do we have to do anymore? The need to find out what work really is and what it is worth; how we cannot live without it at all.
In all forms, work is waiting. Waiting for a job, waiting for a response, waiting for progression, waiting for acknowledgement, waiting for significance, waiting for something to pay off and, finally, waiting for when it all works out. In the poem titled "What Work Is", there is significance to waiting. "You know what work is-if you're old enough to read this you know what work is, although you may not do it. Forget you. This is about waiting, shifting from one foot to another. Feeling the light rain falling like mist into your hair...to the hours wasted waiting, to the knowledge that somewhere ahead a man is waiting who will say 'No, we're not hiring today' for any reason he wants" (pg. 18). This is the earliest and first form of waiting on work. You have to go and get it, and golden opportunity will never only fall into your lap; you have to work mighty hard to earn it in the first place.
History is full of working people. It shows that hard work and dedication will get you the result that you want; whether it be in work only, or in life in general. A specific example of this would be with Martin Luther King. He dedicated his life to trying to find a way to end racism and slavery in the United States. His work in life as well as in a historical role show how significant work is in any one persons life. In his life's work, Martin Luther did not in any way see an immediate change. Instead, he had to wait; and while waiting he worked as hard as he could. Not being stalled by not having any immediate results to his fulfilling his dream. The dream he once had is achieved; African-Americans do indeed have rights the same as any other Americans. They are not treated as though they do not have equal rights and opportunities; or as though they are different in any way at all. Work is now the same thing to African-Americans as it is to anyone; not slavery or mills.
Looking at and thinking about general 'work' does not give an indication of the waiting that it involves. Many would think that if you work and do something, you immediately get something in return. You may get money and benefits; but the real satisfaction and understanding takes time to build. It takes time to get credibility for hard work, and some people may not like waiting for their satisfaction; many want instant gratification, which is hard to come by most times. The people who work hard for a long time without expecting immediate results will be the most satisfied when all is said and done. The hard part is, in fact, the longest part as well; waiting.
In conclusion, the most general term here is waiting. It is what every good worker must do at some point during their career as well as their lives. The term 'work' does not have the best reputation with many people; those people being workers. This may be in part because of the key word here, 'waiting'. So many people are impatient and want to get by and do things the way that they want to and at the speed and time that they want to. It is important to know and remember that work is much more than only trying to get a paycheck. It is the foundation on which a person is able to build their life; and what is life worth at all other than the effects of hard work finally paying off? Nothing, you should know, almost positively nothing.

LBJ - Law Review

The National Voting Act of 1965 was a law that outlawed any discrimination during voting practices. This Act prohibited all states from having any "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure" that could deny the rights of any citizen to vote on account of color or race. Basically, Congress made the Act intending to stop the practice of making qualified voters pass literacy tests in order to register to vote. The Act made it so that there was federal oversight of elections administrations in each state which made it so that states states with a history of discriminatory voting practices could not make any change that would affect voting without getting approval from the Department of Justice. Congress has made ammendments to and extended the Act many times since it first passed; the most recent being the twenty-five year extension signed by George W. Bush on July 26, 2006.

At the time, I think that this Act was a very good idea. Many states, especially those with a large number of African-Americans, would make registration and the actual voting process different so that it would discriminate against African-Americans and possibly women. The way that some processes would be disriminatory is by making "random" voters take literacy tests. During this time, when African-Americans would not have been taught well and gone to school, they would not be able to pass the literacy tests. Some did not even know how to read or write so they could not even read the test they were supposed to pass in order to be allowed to vote. Also, at this time, women would have been taught while in school about how to take care of the house. They would not have been expected to have gone out and gotten a job; they were taught only about home-making.
This law, in my opinion, is just a bit out-dated because some states that this Act was put in effect because of now would not discriminate so. In that, I mostly think that the Act is still a good idea because, as much as many people want to believe, our whole country is not all non discriminatory. Since George W. Bush signed a twenty-five year extention, I think that it should be very out-dated then and the legislation can deal with it then. But, as for now, I think that it should still be in affect because even though times are different and the country is very different everyone has a right and it would be a shame to have those taken away.