During the Cold War, policymakers began to fear that the reason why an American triumph over the Soviet Union wasn't being achieved was that students weren't being adequately prepared in high school and college. The fact that the USSR had caught up to the United States in terms of developing atomic weapons and in space exploration contributed to the growing unrest and uneasiness about the next generation of American scientists. In response to this fear, the Ford Foundation created the Fund for the Advancement of Education (FAE) in 1951 to help boost American school programs in science, technology, engineering, and math.
An early FAE investigation found that some students were taking first-year classes at colleges which basically repeated what they had already learned in high school, and it suggested that advanced students should be taking "advanced placement" classes instead. Another FAE project worked on developing introductory college-level classes at high schools. The two merged to form a pilot program that introduced "advanced placement" classes in high schools, cumulating in an exam that could promote students to higher level classes in college. The first ten AP exams offered in 1952 included physics, chemistry, literature, and several others regarding languages and science.
The program was initially named In its early days, all exams were no longer than three hours and students could pay a $10 fee to take as many exams as they wanted. The scoring system was still the same, with the highest being a 5 and the lowest being a 1. In 1955, the College Board took over the program's administration, renaming it the College Board Advanced Placement Program.
As schools began focusing more on training teachers and maintaining the consistency of the AP program, the number of students taking exams has skyrocketed. At least one in eight, or about 12%, of all high school students in the United States, took at least one AP exam last year. Changes have also been made to the process of ordering tests. Today, each exam is individually purchased and the pricing of exams has gone up to around $94 per test.
The original purpose of the AP program in the 1950s was to bridge the gap between secondary and higher education while training young Americans in the fields of STEM. Now, the tests are seen as a way to test our knowledge in advanced high school curriculum while also allowing us to demonstrate our interests in certain fields.
Sources: http://mentalfloss.com/article/56692/brief-history-advanced-placement-exams
https://blog.prepscholar.com/history-of-ap-classes-exams
Showing posts with label Julia Yin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Julia Yin. Show all posts
Saturday, May 12, 2018
Thursday, May 3, 2018
The WWII Conferences (Tehran, Yalta, Potsdam)
The Tehran Conference
Tehran, Iran; November 28–December 1, 1943
The leaders of the Big Three (FDR, Churchill, Stalin) met to discuss the opening of a "second front" in western Europe. Stalin wanted the opening of a second front in Europe in order to lessen his burdens to fight and maintain the eastern front against Germany. However, both Roosevelt and Churchill were hesitant about committing their ground troops to fight as they feared the same consequences and losses faced during the First World War.
Discussion was also focused on the matter of dividing the territories in Europe. Stalin wanted to keep Eastern Europe as a Soviet sphere of influence, which was agreed upon. Stalin was given a part of Eastern Poland, and Poland was granted a part of Germany in exchange. The Poles weren’t informed or had any say in the decision as they weren't present at the conference. The three leaders were uncertain about how to deal with Germany, Poland, and possibly the creation of a postwar international organization.
The Yalta Conference
Yalta, Crimea; February 1945
This was the second conference between the three leaders: Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin. They met as the war was winding down, and the Allies seemed to be in position for victory. It was here that they agreed upon demanding unconditional surrender from Germany as well as the four zones of occupation within the country. It was decided that the four zones of Germany would be controlled by the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and France.
During this conference, Stalin also agreed to hold free elections in Eastern Europe to allow each country to decide whether or not they wanted a communist leadership. However, this promise would later be broken during the early stages of the Cold War. He also agreed to enter the Pacific war to support the United States against Japan. A meeting was scheduled for April in San Francisco to create the United Nations.
The Potsdam Conference
Potsdam, Germany; July 17–August 2, 1945
This was the last conference between the Big Three. The leaders present were Stalin, newly elected President Truman, and Churchill (who was later replaced by Clement Attlee). Here, an "unconditional surrender" declaration was drafted for Germany and Japan. Most of the discussion focused around the conditions of postwar Europe, such as the German economy and industry, Soviet expansion of borders, and others. Reparations for Germany were also figured out, and it was agreed that the Western zone of Germany would exchange for raw materials from the East as payment.
Truman went into this conference with knowledge of the first successful atomic bomb test, so even though he continued to solicit Stalin's help in the War in the Pacific, he knew that regardless of whether or not Stalin agreed to help, the bomb would give American unprecedented power in defeated Japan and also controlling the Pacific sphere.
Sources:
https://www.britannica.com/event/Tehran-Conference
https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/potsdam-conference
http://schoolshistory.org.uk/topics/world-history/cold-war-1945-1972/tehran-yalta-and-potsdam-conferences/
Tehran, Iran; November 28–December 1, 1943
The leaders of the Big Three (FDR, Churchill, Stalin) met to discuss the opening of a "second front" in western Europe. Stalin wanted the opening of a second front in Europe in order to lessen his burdens to fight and maintain the eastern front against Germany. However, both Roosevelt and Churchill were hesitant about committing their ground troops to fight as they feared the same consequences and losses faced during the First World War.
Discussion was also focused on the matter of dividing the territories in Europe. Stalin wanted to keep Eastern Europe as a Soviet sphere of influence, which was agreed upon. Stalin was given a part of Eastern Poland, and Poland was granted a part of Germany in exchange. The Poles weren’t informed or had any say in the decision as they weren't present at the conference. The three leaders were uncertain about how to deal with Germany, Poland, and possibly the creation of a postwar international organization.
The Yalta Conference
Yalta, Crimea; February 1945
This was the second conference between the three leaders: Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin. They met as the war was winding down, and the Allies seemed to be in position for victory. It was here that they agreed upon demanding unconditional surrender from Germany as well as the four zones of occupation within the country. It was decided that the four zones of Germany would be controlled by the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and France.
During this conference, Stalin also agreed to hold free elections in Eastern Europe to allow each country to decide whether or not they wanted a communist leadership. However, this promise would later be broken during the early stages of the Cold War. He also agreed to enter the Pacific war to support the United States against Japan. A meeting was scheduled for April in San Francisco to create the United Nations.
The Potsdam Conference
Potsdam, Germany; July 17–August 2, 1945
This was the last conference between the Big Three. The leaders present were Stalin, newly elected President Truman, and Churchill (who was later replaced by Clement Attlee). Here, an "unconditional surrender" declaration was drafted for Germany and Japan. Most of the discussion focused around the conditions of postwar Europe, such as the German economy and industry, Soviet expansion of borders, and others. Reparations for Germany were also figured out, and it was agreed that the Western zone of Germany would exchange for raw materials from the East as payment.
Truman went into this conference with knowledge of the first successful atomic bomb test, so even though he continued to solicit Stalin's help in the War in the Pacific, he knew that regardless of whether or not Stalin agreed to help, the bomb would give American unprecedented power in defeated Japan and also controlling the Pacific sphere.
Sources:
https://www.britannica.com/event/Tehran-Conference
https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/potsdam-conference
http://schoolshistory.org.uk/topics/world-history/cold-war-1945-1972/tehran-yalta-and-potsdam-conferences/
Sunday, April 29, 2018
The Reagan Revolution
Taking office directly after Nixon's impeachment and Carter's questionably effective presidency, Ronald Reagan was immediately faced with a mounting economic crisis, stagflation, and growing instability in the Middle East. Before winning the presidency, he had been a well-known actor and a spokesperson against the McCarthyism era during the 1950s. He held the belief that the government was the creator of the people’s problems, not that the government held the solution to solving social issues.
A New Conservatism
Many of his supporters were a part of the "New Right," a wave of conservatism that spread due to the emergence of evangelical Christians and neoconservatives during the 1960s. They were conservative in that they were against the legalization of abortion, sex education in schools, and tax hikes. Not only did they bring a Republican back into the White House, they helped Republicans claim the majority of the seats in the Senate as well.
This trend of conservatism began with the ideas of Barry Goldwater in the 1960s, that the government was growing too big and had too much power. Prior to and during Reagan's presidency, the Republican party (which had previously been a mix of liberals and conservatives) was leaning increasingly to the right. It began with the programs of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal policies in which the government took action against dropping unemployment rates and poverty. They believed that the government was doing too much and thus caused deficits, unemployment, and inflation.
With the wave of social movements and reforms during these few decades, these conservatives felt that America was turning away from its original values and goals. They saw the "new conservatism" as a way to restore the country to what they believed was its original form.
Reaganomics
Reagan's solution to the rising inflation and stagnant economy was to cut government bills and spending on programs. He decided to cut back on taxes for the top 30%, which many felt was counterproductive. His belief was that if the rich had to pay fewer taxes, they would invest more in companies and contribute more money into the economy. Then, this money would "trickle-down" into the lower classes, creating more jobs and a growing economy. This was based on a theory called "supply-side economics," where the economy would improve if the government stopped interfering and regulating industries.
While the plan seemed like a good idea in theory, data actually showed less investment, slower growth, and a decline in wages for the lower classes. While he was able to lessen the rate of inflation, he pushed the country into further economic recession and decreased investment as a whole. While unemployment dropped, our national debt rose to new heights.
Foreign Policy and the Iran-Contra Scandal
As a president during the Cold War era, Reagan was involved in fighting communism. One particular radical group in Nicaragua, the Contras, were actively trying to overthrow the communist dictatorship in their country and needed Reagan's help. He also had the goal maintain peaceful relations with the Middle East, as America had relied on that region for oil.
In 1985, the war between Iran and Iraq had escalated, with the United States being forced to get involved. A terrorist group in Lebanon had taken some Americans hostage, and demanded weapons in exchange for the release of the prisoners, as they were funded by the Iranian government. However, due to an embargo with Iran, President Reagan knew that he couldn't legally sell them the weaponry. In the end, he decided to sell weapons to Iran in exchange for the hostages.
When the events first appeared int he press, he denied contact with Iran and that there had been any exchange of sorts. However, word got out about the shipments of weapons to Iran, and he admitted that there was a sale but that it wasn't part of an arms-for-hostages deal. The scandal quickly escalated when it was found that only $12 million of the $30 million in sales had actually reached the federal government, and that the remaining $18 million had gone towards funding the Contras in Nicaragua.
The investigation on the Iran-Contra was conducted for the next eight years, with fourteen people charged with "cover-up" crimes. In the end, because Reagan couldn't be tied directly to the scandal, his image suffered but he was able to rebound.
Sources:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-ushistory2os2xmaster/chapter/the-reagan-revolution/
https://magoosh.com/hs/apush/2017/new-conservatism-apush-topics/
A New Conservatism
Many of his supporters were a part of the "New Right," a wave of conservatism that spread due to the emergence of evangelical Christians and neoconservatives during the 1960s. They were conservative in that they were against the legalization of abortion, sex education in schools, and tax hikes. Not only did they bring a Republican back into the White House, they helped Republicans claim the majority of the seats in the Senate as well.
This trend of conservatism began with the ideas of Barry Goldwater in the 1960s, that the government was growing too big and had too much power. Prior to and during Reagan's presidency, the Republican party (which had previously been a mix of liberals and conservatives) was leaning increasingly to the right. It began with the programs of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal policies in which the government took action against dropping unemployment rates and poverty. They believed that the government was doing too much and thus caused deficits, unemployment, and inflation.
With the wave of social movements and reforms during these few decades, these conservatives felt that America was turning away from its original values and goals. They saw the "new conservatism" as a way to restore the country to what they believed was its original form.
Reaganomics
Reagan's solution to the rising inflation and stagnant economy was to cut government bills and spending on programs. He decided to cut back on taxes for the top 30%, which many felt was counterproductive. His belief was that if the rich had to pay fewer taxes, they would invest more in companies and contribute more money into the economy. Then, this money would "trickle-down" into the lower classes, creating more jobs and a growing economy. This was based on a theory called "supply-side economics," where the economy would improve if the government stopped interfering and regulating industries.
While the plan seemed like a good idea in theory, data actually showed less investment, slower growth, and a decline in wages for the lower classes. While he was able to lessen the rate of inflation, he pushed the country into further economic recession and decreased investment as a whole. While unemployment dropped, our national debt rose to new heights.
Foreign Policy and the Iran-Contra Scandal
As a president during the Cold War era, Reagan was involved in fighting communism. One particular radical group in Nicaragua, the Contras, were actively trying to overthrow the communist dictatorship in their country and needed Reagan's help. He also had the goal maintain peaceful relations with the Middle East, as America had relied on that region for oil.
In 1985, the war between Iran and Iraq had escalated, with the United States being forced to get involved. A terrorist group in Lebanon had taken some Americans hostage, and demanded weapons in exchange for the release of the prisoners, as they were funded by the Iranian government. However, due to an embargo with Iran, President Reagan knew that he couldn't legally sell them the weaponry. In the end, he decided to sell weapons to Iran in exchange for the hostages.
When the events first appeared int he press, he denied contact with Iran and that there had been any exchange of sorts. However, word got out about the shipments of weapons to Iran, and he admitted that there was a sale but that it wasn't part of an arms-for-hostages deal. The scandal quickly escalated when it was found that only $12 million of the $30 million in sales had actually reached the federal government, and that the remaining $18 million had gone towards funding the Contras in Nicaragua.
The investigation on the Iran-Contra was conducted for the next eight years, with fourteen people charged with "cover-up" crimes. In the end, because Reagan couldn't be tied directly to the scandal, his image suffered but he was able to rebound.
Sources:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-ushistory2os2xmaster/chapter/the-reagan-revolution/
https://magoosh.com/hs/apush/2017/new-conservatism-apush-topics/
Tuesday, April 17, 2018
The Rise and Fall of Arcade Culture
Technology in the 1970s-1980s was complex and not easily accessible by the general public. That is, until Nolan Bushnell and Ted Dabney pioneered the first coin-operated, computer-based arcade game. Their game, named Computer Space, was revolutionary as it was the first of its kind: a game housed in a cabinet using custom-designed hardware for the game. While the game wasn't the outright success that they expected, they were able to sell over 1,000 cabinets and make enough to support the creation of a new game. Bushnell and Dabney's partnership, Syzygy Engineering, later became Atari and released the successful Pong that became a classic among early arcade games.
In the late 1970s through early 1980s, the video game industry boomed as dozens of more arcade games such as Space Invaders, Donkey Kong, and Pac-Man were released to the public. Arcades were popping up in shopping malls, grocery stores, and even doctor's offices. In fact, most popular machines were pulling almost $400 a week in quarters as the games became a cemented tradition for many teenagers. One particular game, Pac-Man, was the most successful of them all. It was popular because it appealed to not just male gamers, who were the target audience for many other games, but everyone. The game allowed the most advanced of players and the newcomer to both have fun while playing, and even up till today, Pac-Man is still a household name.
The video game industry also saw a spike in professional gaming. A show that matched players together to compete in the newest games on television, Starcade, was the first to introduce gaming as not just a hobby but as a sport. In 1983, the first US National Video Game Team was founded, made up of six of the best gamers in the country. Professional gaming still occurs today, with more modern games such as Overwatch, League of Legends, and Counter-Strike.
However, the golden age of arcade games was bound to end. The problem with the industry was that it was hard to appeal to the seasoned gamer and the amateur, as games that were challenging enough for hardcore gamers were too challenging for the common player. Vice versa, games that were geared towards less-seasoned players were too easy for those with more experience. Changes in the content of the games also contributed to their decline. Early games were age-friendly and basic to grasp. However, companies quickly found that the more violent the game, the better it would sell. Thus, games became more centered around including as much direct violence as possible, appealing to certain audiences but isolating the rest. Sales began to decline and arcades weren't as profitable anymore, leading to the closure of many which had popped up only a decade ago.
Arcade games have been replaced by home gaming consoles and now, internet games. But while the dim, noisy arcades of the past no longer exist for the most part, gaming culture still thrives in the present day, just in another medium.
Sources:
https://www.theverge.com/2013/1/16/3740422/the-life-and-death-of-the-american-arcade-for-amusement-only
https://www.lifewire.com/the-industry-crash-and-rebirth-729749
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--G-5-f8zJ--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/xs1sdog0n1t5nrtyn8ny.jpg
https://assets.sbnation.com/assets/2035907/arcade-timeline3.jpg
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
The Challenger Disaster
On January 28, 1986, the NASA space shuttle Challenger was preparing for its tenth trip to space. Onboard were six NASA astronauts and most significantly, a schoolteacher from New Hampshire. Christa McAuliffe was a teacher who had been selected by the "Teacher in Space" program, a program that sought to make space travel more accessible and viable for the average American civilian.
73 seconds after liftoff, millions across the nation watched on as the seemingly indestructive space shuttle caught fire and exploded in midair, killing all seven passengers aboard. Among those watching were the family and friends on the ground next to the launch pad, watching in disbelief as they saw the spacecraft explode before their own eyes. The disaster of the launched threw NASA into turmoil, and it would be another two years until they sent more people into space.
The mission's launch had actually been delayed for several days due to weather and technical problems. Even on the day before the actual launch, engineers were worried that the weather conditions on the 28th were too harsh to guarantee a successful launch. The morning of the launch was unusually cold, but despite warnings, the space shuttle lifted off regardless. Later, investigations found that the explosion of the shuttle was due to the rubber O-rings failing at low temperatures.
Shortly after, President Reagan appointed a special committee to investigate what caused the Challenger to explode. They found that the rings that had sealed the shuttle's rocket boosters were frozen and thus didn't expand properly, allowing leaks to form between the boosters and the fuel tank. Due to the failure of the rubber O-ring, flames burst out of the rocket boosters and damaged the fuel tank, causing the fire grow and damage the rest of the spacecraft. This caused the shuttle to explode and disintegrate, killing all seven members aboard.
This incident showed the dangerous consequences of groupthink. During this time, the novelty of space missions and sending people to space was wearing off. The Challenger launch was the tenth of NASA's space shuttle trips, trips that were receiving less and less public attention. However, this mission was special because of the "Teacher in Space" program; it would be the first where a regular American civilian would be sent to space. The mission was to receive much public attention; schools across America tuned in to the launch, the President was set to make a statement during his State of the Union Address later that evening, and McAuliffe was to broadcast a live lesson from the spacecraft on the fourth day.
However, those plans failed to materialize when the launch went spectacularly wrong. A lack of communication caused the rocket to be launched despite the risks of failure. Many higher-ups within NASA knew that the rocket boosters were suspect to damage in cold weather and that the O-rings malfunctioned when frozen. However, due to miscommunication, the people who controlled the launch were not informed of this information and thus made the decision to go ahead blindly. Another factor in this disaster was that the 28th, a Tuesday, was the ideal day to launch. President Reagan was to make his address that night, so the launch had to happen during the day or NASA would miss out on the publicity. McAuliffe was to broadcast a lesson on the fourth day, and launching on Tuesday would mean a lesson on Friday, when most children could be in school. Delaying the launch would mean a broadcast on Saturday, when children weren't in school.
The disaster left a lasting impression in the minds of engineers and regular citizens alike: technology and innovation could do more harm than good. Another disaster in 2003 (space shuttle Columbia) reaffirmed the prevalence of miscommunication and the danger of new technology. But now, space travel is seeming to be growing closer to the horizon. Companies like SpaceX and Virgin Galactic are working towards making space travel more accessible to the general public. Maybe in a few years, we might be able to orbit the Earth.
Sources: https://www.history.com/topics/challenger-disaster
https://www.history.com/news/how-the-challenger-disaster-changed-nasa
73 seconds after liftoff, millions across the nation watched on as the seemingly indestructive space shuttle caught fire and exploded in midair, killing all seven passengers aboard. Among those watching were the family and friends on the ground next to the launch pad, watching in disbelief as they saw the spacecraft explode before their own eyes. The disaster of the launched threw NASA into turmoil, and it would be another two years until they sent more people into space.
The mission's launch had actually been delayed for several days due to weather and technical problems. Even on the day before the actual launch, engineers were worried that the weather conditions on the 28th were too harsh to guarantee a successful launch. The morning of the launch was unusually cold, but despite warnings, the space shuttle lifted off regardless. Later, investigations found that the explosion of the shuttle was due to the rubber O-rings failing at low temperatures.
Shortly after, President Reagan appointed a special committee to investigate what caused the Challenger to explode. They found that the rings that had sealed the shuttle's rocket boosters were frozen and thus didn't expand properly, allowing leaks to form between the boosters and the fuel tank. Due to the failure of the rubber O-ring, flames burst out of the rocket boosters and damaged the fuel tank, causing the fire grow and damage the rest of the spacecraft. This caused the shuttle to explode and disintegrate, killing all seven members aboard.
This incident showed the dangerous consequences of groupthink. During this time, the novelty of space missions and sending people to space was wearing off. The Challenger launch was the tenth of NASA's space shuttle trips, trips that were receiving less and less public attention. However, this mission was special because of the "Teacher in Space" program; it would be the first where a regular American civilian would be sent to space. The mission was to receive much public attention; schools across America tuned in to the launch, the President was set to make a statement during his State of the Union Address later that evening, and McAuliffe was to broadcast a live lesson from the spacecraft on the fourth day.
However, those plans failed to materialize when the launch went spectacularly wrong. A lack of communication caused the rocket to be launched despite the risks of failure. Many higher-ups within NASA knew that the rocket boosters were suspect to damage in cold weather and that the O-rings malfunctioned when frozen. However, due to miscommunication, the people who controlled the launch were not informed of this information and thus made the decision to go ahead blindly. Another factor in this disaster was that the 28th, a Tuesday, was the ideal day to launch. President Reagan was to make his address that night, so the launch had to happen during the day or NASA would miss out on the publicity. McAuliffe was to broadcast a lesson on the fourth day, and launching on Tuesday would mean a lesson on Friday, when most children could be in school. Delaying the launch would mean a broadcast on Saturday, when children weren't in school.
The disaster left a lasting impression in the minds of engineers and regular citizens alike: technology and innovation could do more harm than good. Another disaster in 2003 (space shuttle Columbia) reaffirmed the prevalence of miscommunication and the danger of new technology. But now, space travel is seeming to be growing closer to the horizon. Companies like SpaceX and Virgin Galactic are working towards making space travel more accessible to the general public. Maybe in a few years, we might be able to orbit the Earth.
Sources: https://www.history.com/topics/challenger-disaster
https://www.history.com/news/how-the-challenger-disaster-changed-nasa
Tuesday, March 6, 2018
The Iran-Contra Scandal
President Ronald Reagan sought to eradicate Communism around the world. During his administration, he aided the Contras, a revolutionary group in Nicaragua, to overthrow the quasi-Communist regime in the country. Halfway across the globe, military troops in Lebanon had been taken hostage by a Muslim terrorist group. How the two situations would join together and form the Iran-Contra affair (or scandal) would shock the American public as the secrecy within the White House became exposed.
Iran and Iraq had been at war and in 1985, Iran secretly requested to buy weapons from the United States. Coincidentally, the terrorist group which was holding the Americans hostage was funded by Iran. National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane was interested in making an exchange of sorts with Iran: weapons for the release of the prisoners. However, due to an embargo with Iran, the sale of weapons to that country would go against that. President Reagan believed that it was his duty as the president and leader of the US to "bring those Americans home", and so he was growing desperate with the situation. In the end, he decided to sell weapons to Iran in exchange for the hostages.
Reagan had been seen as an honest, trustworthy president up till that point. He denied contact with Iran when the events first appeared in the press. However, once word got out about the shipments of weapons to Iran, Reagan insisted that the sales had not been part of an arms-for-hostages. The fact that he sent weapons to Iran, which was considered an enemy to the US, violated his policy of not negotiating with terrorists. Polls showed that only 14% of Americans believed Reagan when he stated that the weapons were not in exchange for the release of the hostages.
Furthermore, when Attorney General Edwin Meese was investigating this case, he found that only $12 million of the $30 million in sales had actually reached the federal government. The rest of the money was found to have gone towards funding the Contras in Nicaragua, as confessed by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North. In his testimony, North admitted that the funds had been redirected with full knowledge by National Security Adviser Admiral John Poindexter, who was forced to resign. What was uncertain was whether or not the president knew about the events, which was the source of further probing.
The investigation was conducted for the next eight years, with fourteen people charged with "cover-up" crimes. In the end, Reagan's image suffered but not enough to rebound. He left office in 1989 with the highest approval rating of any president since FDR and later, President Bush issued pardons for those involved with the affair.
Sources: http://articles.latimes.com/1989-08-02/news/mn-571_1_hostage-crisis
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/reagan-iran/
Iran and Iraq had been at war and in 1985, Iran secretly requested to buy weapons from the United States. Coincidentally, the terrorist group which was holding the Americans hostage was funded by Iran. National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane was interested in making an exchange of sorts with Iran: weapons for the release of the prisoners. However, due to an embargo with Iran, the sale of weapons to that country would go against that. President Reagan believed that it was his duty as the president and leader of the US to "bring those Americans home", and so he was growing desperate with the situation. In the end, he decided to sell weapons to Iran in exchange for the hostages.
Reagan had been seen as an honest, trustworthy president up till that point. He denied contact with Iran when the events first appeared in the press. However, once word got out about the shipments of weapons to Iran, Reagan insisted that the sales had not been part of an arms-for-hostages. The fact that he sent weapons to Iran, which was considered an enemy to the US, violated his policy of not negotiating with terrorists. Polls showed that only 14% of Americans believed Reagan when he stated that the weapons were not in exchange for the release of the hostages.
Furthermore, when Attorney General Edwin Meese was investigating this case, he found that only $12 million of the $30 million in sales had actually reached the federal government. The rest of the money was found to have gone towards funding the Contras in Nicaragua, as confessed by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North. In his testimony, North admitted that the funds had been redirected with full knowledge by National Security Adviser Admiral John Poindexter, who was forced to resign. What was uncertain was whether or not the president knew about the events, which was the source of further probing.
The investigation was conducted for the next eight years, with fourteen people charged with "cover-up" crimes. In the end, Reagan's image suffered but not enough to rebound. He left office in 1989 with the highest approval rating of any president since FDR and later, President Bush issued pardons for those involved with the affair.
Sources: http://articles.latimes.com/1989-08-02/news/mn-571_1_hostage-crisis
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/reagan-iran/
Sunday, February 25, 2018
Agent Orange
Operation Ranch Hand was a herbicidal warfare program launched by the United States during the Vietnam War to defoliate large sections of forests that the Vietcong had used for cover. The herbicide, Agent Orange, destroyed thousands of square miles of land but also affected millions of people, both American and Vietnamese.
Herbicides are generally used in small amounts in clearing land for agriculture or removing weeds, but in Vietnam, over 20 million gallons of it was used to destroy plants that the enemy used for concealment. Helicopters were used to spray the chemical over 4.5 million acres of land.
Herbicides are known to cause severe defects in those who are exposed, and this was no exception. Agent Orange was the most potent of the many used in Vietnam, as its active ingredients caused trees to lose their leaves. It also contained a toxic byproduct, TCDD, a type of dioxin and carcinogen. TCDD is a persistent chemical compound that can last for years in the environment, accumulating in the fatty tissue of fish, birds, and other animals. Millions were exposed to this chemical via foods such as fish, poultry, and others.
As veterans returned home from Vietnam, their families and others in the US started reporting skin irritations, birth defects in children, and various different cancers in higher rates. It was found that these afflictions were connected to the exposure of Agent Orange in Vietnam since the chemical was known to cause defects in those exposed. Lawsuits were filed on behalf of the millions of veterans affected until the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to pay $240 million in compensation. However, this didn't prevent over 400,000 from being killed due to the herbicide and millions suffering from illnesses derived from Agent Orange. The Vietnamese also filed lawsuits for compensation, but the US has yet to compensate them since doing so would mean admitting the war crimes done in Vietnam.
Source: http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/agent-orange
https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/herbicide.htm
Herbicides are generally used in small amounts in clearing land for agriculture or removing weeds, but in Vietnam, over 20 million gallons of it was used to destroy plants that the enemy used for concealment. Helicopters were used to spray the chemical over 4.5 million acres of land.
Herbicides are known to cause severe defects in those who are exposed, and this was no exception. Agent Orange was the most potent of the many used in Vietnam, as its active ingredients caused trees to lose their leaves. It also contained a toxic byproduct, TCDD, a type of dioxin and carcinogen. TCDD is a persistent chemical compound that can last for years in the environment, accumulating in the fatty tissue of fish, birds, and other animals. Millions were exposed to this chemical via foods such as fish, poultry, and others.
As veterans returned home from Vietnam, their families and others in the US started reporting skin irritations, birth defects in children, and various different cancers in higher rates. It was found that these afflictions were connected to the exposure of Agent Orange in Vietnam since the chemical was known to cause defects in those exposed. Lawsuits were filed on behalf of the millions of veterans affected until the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to pay $240 million in compensation. However, this didn't prevent over 400,000 from being killed due to the herbicide and millions suffering from illnesses derived from Agent Orange. The Vietnamese also filed lawsuits for compensation, but the US has yet to compensate them since doing so would mean admitting the war crimes done in Vietnam.
Source: http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/agent-orange
https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/herbicide.htm
Music of the Anti-War Movement
"All we are saying is give peace a chance"
This lyric, repeated eight times throughout John Lennon's hit song, "Give Peace a Chance," made clear the desires of the America anti-war movement during the 1970s. The song reached 14th on the Billboard Hot 100, demonstrating its reach and influence throughout the US. (add more context here)
"Give Peace a Chance," Lennon's first hit solo song after leaving the Beatles, was one of many hit songs that criticized the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam War. The era saw a number of songs released by prominent music artists including John Lennon, Bob Dylan, and Bruce Springsteen, among others. Songs like "Imagine," "Blowing in the Wind," and "Born in the USA" all shared one message: the war in Vietnam wasn't worth fighting for. Anti-war concerts were held across the nation, most notably in Carnegie Hall. Artists entertained crowds of thousands by performing hit protest songs and declaring that the "war is over."
While the music was all in support of ending the war, they differed in terms of content. "Imagine" by John Lennon placed an emphasis not only on ending the war but also on maintaining world peace. He emphasized world peace by urging his audience to "imagine" a world without religion, countries, or other possessions. "Blowin in the Wind" by Bob Dylan was actually written not as a protest song (Dylan himself stated that he didn't write protest songs) but later became one of the most famous anti-war songs of the era. "Bring 'em Home" by Pete Seeger had a clear message: to bring the American soldiers home.
These songs went on to rank highly on national and global charts, including the Billboard Hot 100, Rolling Stone Magazine’s 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, the Songs of the Century, and numerous global charts. They offer a unique perspective into the sentiment surrounding the 1960s: through a musician's perspective.
Sources:
http://vietnamfulldisclosure.org/index.php/10-top-anti-warprotest-songs-about-the-vietnam-war/
http://peacehistory-usfp.org/protest-music-vietnam-war/
https://www.cfr.org/blog/twenty-best-vietnam-protest-songs
This lyric, repeated eight times throughout John Lennon's hit song, "Give Peace a Chance," made clear the desires of the America anti-war movement during the 1970s. The song reached 14th on the Billboard Hot 100, demonstrating its reach and influence throughout the US. (add more context here)
"Give Peace a Chance," Lennon's first hit solo song after leaving the Beatles, was one of many hit songs that criticized the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam War. The era saw a number of songs released by prominent music artists including John Lennon, Bob Dylan, and Bruce Springsteen, among others. Songs like "Imagine," "Blowing in the Wind," and "Born in the USA" all shared one message: the war in Vietnam wasn't worth fighting for. Anti-war concerts were held across the nation, most notably in Carnegie Hall. Artists entertained crowds of thousands by performing hit protest songs and declaring that the "war is over."
While the music was all in support of ending the war, they differed in terms of content. "Imagine" by John Lennon placed an emphasis not only on ending the war but also on maintaining world peace. He emphasized world peace by urging his audience to "imagine" a world without religion, countries, or other possessions. "Blowin in the Wind" by Bob Dylan was actually written not as a protest song (Dylan himself stated that he didn't write protest songs) but later became one of the most famous anti-war songs of the era. "Bring 'em Home" by Pete Seeger had a clear message: to bring the American soldiers home.
These songs went on to rank highly on national and global charts, including the Billboard Hot 100, Rolling Stone Magazine’s 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, the Songs of the Century, and numerous global charts. They offer a unique perspective into the sentiment surrounding the 1960s: through a musician's perspective.
Sources:
http://vietnamfulldisclosure.org/index.php/10-top-anti-warprotest-songs-about-the-vietnam-war/
http://peacehistory-usfp.org/protest-music-vietnam-war/
https://www.cfr.org/blog/twenty-best-vietnam-protest-songs
Thursday, December 7, 2017
Coca-Cola: A Refreshing Break from War
Coca-Cola could be considered the drink that saved the war; it was shipped to soldiers around the world to raise and maintain morale while simultaneously providing energy to fight.
In 1943, General Dwight Eisenhower ordered 3 million bottled Cokes to be shipped to North Africa, where he was serving as Supreme Commander, twice a month. This allowed Coca-Cola to be treated as a wartime necessity, with bottling plants near the front receiving allotments of considerably larger sugar compared to regular civilian plants. Employees of the Coca-Cola company were also sent overseas to oversee the installation and management of the bottling plants. These 148 employees received officer status and US Army uniforms despite having no military duties to speak for.
The presence of Coca-Cola, what many considered to be the national drink of America, was successful in boosting soldier morale. In a letter written home from a soldier during WWII, "the excitement caused by a case of Cokes... was quite that strong!" Soldiers were able to buy bottles for only 5 cents, no matter the cost of production or shipping of the bottle. The Coca-Cola company further attempted to make their drink more accessible to men in uniform, developing a portable dispensing unit known as a "jungle fountain," which could be easily transported by truck to any location.
Interestingly enough, despite Coca-Cola being the self-proclaimed national drink of America, it was also Hitler's drink of choice. By the time Adolf Hitler had taken office, sales of Coca-Cola in Germany were around 100,000 cases a year. He was reported to have enjoyed Coca-Cola, and he was pictured drinking a bottle on the covers of magazines and advertisements. This slightly damaged the reputation of Coca-Cola as being an all-American company, as it was being associated with the Nazi Party in Germany.
Coca-Cola advertisements addressed the conflict by representing itself as a drink which could bring people and nations together. One ad portrayed GIs intermingling and laughing over Cokes with British, Polish, Soviet and other allies with a caption along the lines of: "Have a 'Coke'—a way of saying we're with you." The idea behind the ads was that if workers and soldiers were given a moment to pause and refresh themselves with a Coke, they would work more efficiently. They took the opportunity during the war to lay the groundwork for becoming an international company and a symbol of refreshment and solidarity. The introduction and continuance of overseas factories created an enormous consumer base throughout the world that wouldn't have been possible if not for American troops stationed around the world.
Sources: http://www.nww2m.com/2011/08/coca-cola-the-pause-that-refreshed-2/
http://neatdesigns.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/271.jpg
http://www.coca-colacompany.com/stories/coke-and-the-us
In 1943, General Dwight Eisenhower ordered 3 million bottled Cokes to be shipped to North Africa, where he was serving as Supreme Commander, twice a month. This allowed Coca-Cola to be treated as a wartime necessity, with bottling plants near the front receiving allotments of considerably larger sugar compared to regular civilian plants. Employees of the Coca-Cola company were also sent overseas to oversee the installation and management of the bottling plants. These 148 employees received officer status and US Army uniforms despite having no military duties to speak for.
The presence of Coca-Cola, what many considered to be the national drink of America, was successful in boosting soldier morale. In a letter written home from a soldier during WWII, "the excitement caused by a case of Cokes... was quite that strong!" Soldiers were able to buy bottles for only 5 cents, no matter the cost of production or shipping of the bottle. The Coca-Cola company further attempted to make their drink more accessible to men in uniform, developing a portable dispensing unit known as a "jungle fountain," which could be easily transported by truck to any location.
Interestingly enough, despite Coca-Cola being the self-proclaimed national drink of America, it was also Hitler's drink of choice. By the time Adolf Hitler had taken office, sales of Coca-Cola in Germany were around 100,000 cases a year. He was reported to have enjoyed Coca-Cola, and he was pictured drinking a bottle on the covers of magazines and advertisements. This slightly damaged the reputation of Coca-Cola as being an all-American company, as it was being associated with the Nazi Party in Germany.
Coca-Cola advertisements addressed the conflict by representing itself as a drink which could bring people and nations together. One ad portrayed GIs intermingling and laughing over Cokes with British, Polish, Soviet and other allies with a caption along the lines of: "Have a 'Coke'—a way of saying we're with you." The idea behind the ads was that if workers and soldiers were given a moment to pause and refresh themselves with a Coke, they would work more efficiently. They took the opportunity during the war to lay the groundwork for becoming an international company and a symbol of refreshment and solidarity. The introduction and continuance of overseas factories created an enormous consumer base throughout the world that wouldn't have been possible if not for American troops stationed around the world.
Sources: http://www.nww2m.com/2011/08/coca-cola-the-pause-that-refreshed-2/
http://neatdesigns.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/271.jpg
http://www.coca-colacompany.com/stories/coke-and-the-us
Tuesday, December 5, 2017
American GIs: Gangsters and Heroes?
American soldiers abroad referred to themselves as "GIs," or in some cases, "GI Joes." The name actually came from the G.I. stamp on military materials, which stood for galvanized iron but later came to represent members of the armed forces. In fact, some servicemen used it sarcastically to represent their belief that they were "just mass-produced products of the government."
The first American GIs arrived in Britain in 1942, bringing along with them candy, Coca-Cola, cigarettes, gum, and an affinity for lavish spending. The majority of them were there for a good time: a GI veteran Lester Gaiter recalled that they would "crash their parties, drink their beer, [and] flirt with their women." GIs were paid more than five times that of a British soldier, which allowed them to appear wealthy and rich to the British public.
WWII was the first time for the majority of British citizens to see Americans in person. Before the war, most British people only knew Americans as the gangsters and heroes from movie screens, people who existed thousands of miles away in the other hemisphere. As Kenneth Pullen, a citizen of London, put it, "it came as a shock" because nobody knew "what an American looked like face to face." In fact, the Times newspaper had to explain to its readers that GIs were "friendly and simple," not "Hollywood stars or two-gun Texans with five-gallon hats." Many Brits just didn't know what to expect, that since America was so remote, they had no opinions or even prejudices against Americans.
The few wartime years changed all these preconceptions about Americans, where over three million Americans passed through Britain. Despite speaking a common language, British people and Americans had a number of differences. For example, women reported that GIs had odd eating habits, flaunted their money, and described them as boisterous and brash. They would leave their money on pub counters rather than hide their money, injecting so much money into the British economy that it brought them "some relief from the misery of the time." They hosted parties and spent time with British girls, and these girls were reported to have seen the US as a "magic country" where people were prone to "spoil[ing] their girls." This brought GIs some resentment, as people looked down on their tendencies to "throw their money around indiscriminately."
With their arrival came the spread of musical influences, popularizing the music genres of R&B, blues, and jazz. This music had been seen as "edgy" and wasn't too popular on British radio, but with the number of parties, dances, and other such social events, those genres started to become appreciated by the general public.
The presence of GIs in Britain, and Europe as a whole, influenced their views on Americans and humanized the citizens of a country which had seemed oceans away to Europeans. They were no longer mythical creatures akin to dragons and unicorns, but real human beings who were, in more than one way, similar to them. The war may have torn countries and even continents apart, but it brought the Allies together and allowed them to form strong relationships that last even till the present day.
Sources: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20160819
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/three-american-gis-stationed-in-germany-observe-the-ban-on-news-photo/2669930?esource=SEO_GIS_CDN_Redirect
The first American GIs arrived in Britain in 1942, bringing along with them candy, Coca-Cola, cigarettes, gum, and an affinity for lavish spending. The majority of them were there for a good time: a GI veteran Lester Gaiter recalled that they would "crash their parties, drink their beer, [and] flirt with their women." GIs were paid more than five times that of a British soldier, which allowed them to appear wealthy and rich to the British public.
WWII was the first time for the majority of British citizens to see Americans in person. Before the war, most British people only knew Americans as the gangsters and heroes from movie screens, people who existed thousands of miles away in the other hemisphere. As Kenneth Pullen, a citizen of London, put it, "it came as a shock" because nobody knew "what an American looked like face to face." In fact, the Times newspaper had to explain to its readers that GIs were "friendly and simple," not "Hollywood stars or two-gun Texans with five-gallon hats." Many Brits just didn't know what to expect, that since America was so remote, they had no opinions or even prejudices against Americans.
The few wartime years changed all these preconceptions about Americans, where over three million Americans passed through Britain. Despite speaking a common language, British people and Americans had a number of differences. For example, women reported that GIs had odd eating habits, flaunted their money, and described them as boisterous and brash. They would leave their money on pub counters rather than hide their money, injecting so much money into the British economy that it brought them "some relief from the misery of the time." They hosted parties and spent time with British girls, and these girls were reported to have seen the US as a "magic country" where people were prone to "spoil[ing] their girls." This brought GIs some resentment, as people looked down on their tendencies to "throw their money around indiscriminately."
With their arrival came the spread of musical influences, popularizing the music genres of R&B, blues, and jazz. This music had been seen as "edgy" and wasn't too popular on British radio, but with the number of parties, dances, and other such social events, those genres started to become appreciated by the general public.
The presence of GIs in Britain, and Europe as a whole, influenced their views on Americans and humanized the citizens of a country which had seemed oceans away to Europeans. They were no longer mythical creatures akin to dragons and unicorns, but real human beings who were, in more than one way, similar to them. The war may have torn countries and even continents apart, but it brought the Allies together and allowed them to form strong relationships that last even till the present day.
Sources: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20160819
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/three-american-gis-stationed-in-germany-observe-the-ban-on-news-photo/2669930?esource=SEO_GIS_CDN_Redirect
Sunday, December 3, 2017
Korematsu v. United States
The Executive Order 9066 was passed by President Roosevelt in 1942, creating designated military areas which were "legally" off limits to residents of Japanese descent. This order required the relocation of more than 120,000 Japanese people to one of 26 detention/internment camps usually located in remote locations. This essentially allowed the "legalization of racism," which many believed was in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
One Japanese-American citizen, Fred Korematsu, believed that his forced relocation was unconstitutional, so he planned to stay behind and to pretend to be of Spanish-Hawaiian descent by getting plastic surgery to alter his appearance. He was arrested by the FBI after failing to report to a relocation center, and he decided to make his case "a test case to challenge the constitutionality of the government's order." He was convicted of violating military orders issued under Executive Order 9066 in a federal court in San Francisco, but he decided to appeal the decision to the US Court of Appeals. On December 18, 1944, he pleaded his case in the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States but walked away with a 6-3 decision that the detention was a "military necessity" rather than an act of racial discrimination. This was due to a piece of evidence, the Final Report, which was a paper that accused many people of Japanese descent of aiding the Japanese against the US. It was found to be composed mainly of fictional statistics, but a last-minute change to the case allowed it to be used as evidence against Korematsu.
Nearly 40 years after the decision, the case was reopened with new evidence on the basis of government misconduct. They had evidence proving that the government's legal team had "intentionally suppressed or destroyed evidence" reporting that Japanese Americans had posed no military threat to the US. On November 10, 1983, Korematsu's conviction was overturned. However, the Supreme Court decision still stands today, as they believed that there was sufficient danger and a sufficient relationship between the forced relocation of Japanese citizens and the prevention of the danger they posed to American society.
That's not to say that there weren't any dissenting opinions against the decision, especially in the Supreme Court itself. Justice Owen J. Roberts wrote that "it is the case of convicting a citizen as a punishment for not submitting to imprisonment in a concentration camp, based on his ancestry, and solely because of his ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition towards the United States." Justice Frank Murphy continued, "Racial discrimination in any form and in any degree has no justifiable part whatever in our democratic way of life... it is utterly revolting among a free people who have embraced the principles set forth in the Constitution of the United States."
The case brought up a specific, yet divisive question: When is it absolutely necessary to value the safety of our country over the people's constitutional rights? The Court reasoned that in times of war, the government should prioritize the safety of its people over protecting their rights, that it's necessary to pass unconstitutional laws for the sake of preserving the security of the majority. As Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote, "If Congress in peace-time legislation should enact such a criminal law, I should suppose this Court would refuse to enforce it."
Sources:
http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-korematsu-v-us
http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/power-fiery-dissents-korematsu-v-us
One Japanese-American citizen, Fred Korematsu, believed that his forced relocation was unconstitutional, so he planned to stay behind and to pretend to be of Spanish-Hawaiian descent by getting plastic surgery to alter his appearance. He was arrested by the FBI after failing to report to a relocation center, and he decided to make his case "a test case to challenge the constitutionality of the government's order." He was convicted of violating military orders issued under Executive Order 9066 in a federal court in San Francisco, but he decided to appeal the decision to the US Court of Appeals. On December 18, 1944, he pleaded his case in the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States but walked away with a 6-3 decision that the detention was a "military necessity" rather than an act of racial discrimination. This was due to a piece of evidence, the Final Report, which was a paper that accused many people of Japanese descent of aiding the Japanese against the US. It was found to be composed mainly of fictional statistics, but a last-minute change to the case allowed it to be used as evidence against Korematsu.
Nearly 40 years after the decision, the case was reopened with new evidence on the basis of government misconduct. They had evidence proving that the government's legal team had "intentionally suppressed or destroyed evidence" reporting that Japanese Americans had posed no military threat to the US. On November 10, 1983, Korematsu's conviction was overturned. However, the Supreme Court decision still stands today, as they believed that there was sufficient danger and a sufficient relationship between the forced relocation of Japanese citizens and the prevention of the danger they posed to American society.
That's not to say that there weren't any dissenting opinions against the decision, especially in the Supreme Court itself. Justice Owen J. Roberts wrote that "it is the case of convicting a citizen as a punishment for not submitting to imprisonment in a concentration camp, based on his ancestry, and solely because of his ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition towards the United States." Justice Frank Murphy continued, "Racial discrimination in any form and in any degree has no justifiable part whatever in our democratic way of life... it is utterly revolting among a free people who have embraced the principles set forth in the Constitution of the United States."
The case brought up a specific, yet divisive question: When is it absolutely necessary to value the safety of our country over the people's constitutional rights? The Court reasoned that in times of war, the government should prioritize the safety of its people over protecting their rights, that it's necessary to pass unconstitutional laws for the sake of preserving the security of the majority. As Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote, "If Congress in peace-time legislation should enact such a criminal law, I should suppose this Court would refuse to enforce it."
Sources:
http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-korematsu-v-us
http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/power-fiery-dissents-korematsu-v-us
Monday, November 13, 2017
The Federal Emergency Relief Administration
The Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) was inaugurated in 1933 under the Roosevelt administration, the chief architect being Harry Hopkins. At that time, the Great Depressions was in its depths, with 15 million unemployed Americans dependent upon relief money from the government to survive, With many banks and businesses closed, little aid or direction had been given to state governments and their people.
The FERA had three main objectives: establish the adequacy of relief measures, provide work for employable people on relief rolls, and to diversify relief programs. It accepted all needy persons and their dependents to receive relief and to maintain a minimum standard of living. It was estimated at that time that about three-fourths of the heads of families on relief were employable, and thus FERA set it as a goal to create work opportunities to give these workers employment and to allow them to work in order to earn their pay.
The purpose of FERA was to work with state governments in providing federal grants for relief purposes. States were required to provide information on the amounts necessary to meet relief needs in the state as well as to provide information on provisions made to assure adequate administrative supervisions of the funds. However, the most pressing problem for FERA was to first build up adequate local relief organizations, as many state organizations had only been in existence for less than 8 months prior to the creation of FERA. Most states had little experience with running work relief programs and providing appropriate work for white-collar workers. Thus, states and localities weren't quick enough to cooperate by accepting federal projects.
During the two years that the FERA was in existence, the transient relief bureaus created provided food and shelter to those in need, and in certain cases, a job. The transient were people who had lived less than twelve months in a state in which they were applying for aid. While FERA was disproportional in giving out aid to those who really needed it, the program was a contributor in providing more jobs and aid to families hit hard by the Depression and showed that the government was willing to help the people during times of crises.
Source:
http://content.lib.washington.edu/feraweb/essay.html
The FERA had three main objectives: establish the adequacy of relief measures, provide work for employable people on relief rolls, and to diversify relief programs. It accepted all needy persons and their dependents to receive relief and to maintain a minimum standard of living. It was estimated at that time that about three-fourths of the heads of families on relief were employable, and thus FERA set it as a goal to create work opportunities to give these workers employment and to allow them to work in order to earn their pay.
The purpose of FERA was to work with state governments in providing federal grants for relief purposes. States were required to provide information on the amounts necessary to meet relief needs in the state as well as to provide information on provisions made to assure adequate administrative supervisions of the funds. However, the most pressing problem for FERA was to first build up adequate local relief organizations, as many state organizations had only been in existence for less than 8 months prior to the creation of FERA. Most states had little experience with running work relief programs and providing appropriate work for white-collar workers. Thus, states and localities weren't quick enough to cooperate by accepting federal projects.
During the two years that the FERA was in existence, the transient relief bureaus created provided food and shelter to those in need, and in certain cases, a job. The transient were people who had lived less than twelve months in a state in which they were applying for aid. While FERA was disproportional in giving out aid to those who really needed it, the program was a contributor in providing more jobs and aid to families hit hard by the Depression and showed that the government was willing to help the people during times of crises.
Source:
http://content.lib.washington.edu/feraweb/essay.html
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
John D. Rockefeller: A History
An embodiment of the philosophy "rags-to-riches," John D. Rockefeller was not born into a life of luxury and wealth. Rather, he was the son of a con man, making money by raising turkeys and selling candy throughout his childhood. Born on July 8, 1839, he grew up in the lower middle class, living similar to the other factory workers he would go on to preside above.
He and his family moved to Cleveland, Ohio from Richard, New York, in 1853, where he attended high school. His first job was as an office clerk at a Cleveland commission firm that bought, sold, and shipped grain, coal, and other goods. Finding this job not profitable enough, he decided to invest in the oil industry along with several other partners in 1863. They invested in a Cleveland refinery, predicting a boom in this new industry in the coming few years.
In 1865, Rockefeller bought out many of his partners using a loan to take control of the refinery, which had then become the largest oil refinery in all of Cleveland. After assuming control, he continued to expand his power and business interests by acquiring new partners and eventually forming the Standard Oil Company of Ohio. The oil industry had just started taking off, as a derivative of petroleum, kerosene, was becoming an economic staple and used widely in lamps. John Rockefeller placed himself as the president and largest shareholder of this new oil company.
Standard Oil quickly made a name for itself by using a unique strategy developed by Rockefeller himself: buying out rival companies to eliminate competition. By doing so, he made sure the majority of resources and profits went to himself and his company, not others. He also began developing companies solely for distributing and marketing its products, which were consolidated in to the Standard Oil Trust. The trust, a system where companies would trade stocks for shares in the Standard Oil Trust gave Rockefeller huge power over a number of different companies, which allowed him to earn millions in profit for himself. By standardizing the refining process and controlling it beginning to end, he was able to cut costs by not having to employ other businesses in the process.
Rockefeller was able to make millions, eventually making himself the richest man in the world. However, this enormous wealth made him a target of politicians, journalists ,and others who saw him as a monopolist rather than innovator. He was accused of stooping to unpopular tactics to fight his way up to the top, such as bribing men to spy on competing companies, making secret agreements to coerce rivals to join the Standard Trust, and threatening to force companies out of business. His trust was widely unpopular as it was viewed as a "dirty" way to make a fortune through an illegal monopoly of the oil business.
In 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust act, effectively dissolving the Standard Oil Trust. The businesses were dismantled and over 30 individual companies emerged. By this point, Rockefeller had retired from business operations of Standard Oil, instead focusing on giving away his money which he had amassed from the oil industry. He took inspiration from Andrew Carnegie, choosing to project the image of himself as a philanthropist and funding various educational, religious, and scientific causes. He founded the University of Chicago and Rockefeller University, building numerous buildings and libraries as well.
http://www.history.com/topics/john-d-rockefeller
He and his family moved to Cleveland, Ohio from Richard, New York, in 1853, where he attended high school. His first job was as an office clerk at a Cleveland commission firm that bought, sold, and shipped grain, coal, and other goods. Finding this job not profitable enough, he decided to invest in the oil industry along with several other partners in 1863. They invested in a Cleveland refinery, predicting a boom in this new industry in the coming few years.
In 1865, Rockefeller bought out many of his partners using a loan to take control of the refinery, which had then become the largest oil refinery in all of Cleveland. After assuming control, he continued to expand his power and business interests by acquiring new partners and eventually forming the Standard Oil Company of Ohio. The oil industry had just started taking off, as a derivative of petroleum, kerosene, was becoming an economic staple and used widely in lamps. John Rockefeller placed himself as the president and largest shareholder of this new oil company.
Standard Oil quickly made a name for itself by using a unique strategy developed by Rockefeller himself: buying out rival companies to eliminate competition. By doing so, he made sure the majority of resources and profits went to himself and his company, not others. He also began developing companies solely for distributing and marketing its products, which were consolidated in to the Standard Oil Trust. The trust, a system where companies would trade stocks for shares in the Standard Oil Trust gave Rockefeller huge power over a number of different companies, which allowed him to earn millions in profit for himself. By standardizing the refining process and controlling it beginning to end, he was able to cut costs by not having to employ other businesses in the process.
Rockefeller was able to make millions, eventually making himself the richest man in the world. However, this enormous wealth made him a target of politicians, journalists ,and others who saw him as a monopolist rather than innovator. He was accused of stooping to unpopular tactics to fight his way up to the top, such as bribing men to spy on competing companies, making secret agreements to coerce rivals to join the Standard Trust, and threatening to force companies out of business. His trust was widely unpopular as it was viewed as a "dirty" way to make a fortune through an illegal monopoly of the oil business.
In 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust act, effectively dissolving the Standard Oil Trust. The businesses were dismantled and over 30 individual companies emerged. By this point, Rockefeller had retired from business operations of Standard Oil, instead focusing on giving away his money which he had amassed from the oil industry. He took inspiration from Andrew Carnegie, choosing to project the image of himself as a philanthropist and funding various educational, religious, and scientific causes. He founded the University of Chicago and Rockefeller University, building numerous buildings and libraries as well.
http://www.history.com/topics/john-d-rockefeller
Friday, September 29, 2017
KKK: The Origins
First founded as a non-violent, white supremacy group by six Confederate veterans, their plans for the Ku Klux Klan were not malicious but rather just to remain as a secret fraternity group. However, as their influence and power grew along with the size of their members, the Klan became a terrorist organization, inciting fear within those they excluded.
The growth of the Klan can almost be attributed to one factor: the recruitment former Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest's. He was the one whose troops, at Fort Pillow, murdered hundreds of surrendering black troops during the Civil War. The KKK spread beyond it's founding birthplace of Tennessee to almost every Southern state and attracted people from all backgrounds, including governors, planters, and even criminals. They were identified by a trademark white robe and tall, pointed white hats which covered their faces and their identity. And they all shared one common belief, that the South ought to be restored to its former "glory" during the antebellum period, with blacks in their "rightful" place under the control of their white masters.
The sought to ratify this belief through a series of lynchings, murders, and outright acts of terror in order to send a message to the black populations, stating that they were entitled to nothing, not even a sense of safety in their own homes. Klansmen burned down churches and schools, publicly executed blacks, drove them off their own land, and whipped those who refused to work for whites. Freedmen lived in constant fear of these acts of violence, knowing that the smallest thing could incite them, like having a book in their homes or for not stepping off the sidewalk to allow whites to pass. All of this was conducted under the "blind" eye of the governments, as state and federal governments in the South had members of the Klan along them.
However, not all states turned a blind eye against the blatant racist actions of the KKK. In Tennessee and Arkansas, Klansmen were arrested and executed for their crimes if proven guilty. In Texas, Governor Edmund Davis created a police force consisting of both whites and blacks, and they made over 6,000 arrests of Klan members. In North and South Carolina, armed groups fought or threatened Klansmen, stopping them from committing more violence. Finally, the federal government passed the Enforcement Acts of 1870 and 1871, effectively ending Klan activity by 1872 until it was brought back in 1915.
https://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_events_kkk.html
The growth of the Klan can almost be attributed to one factor: the recruitment former Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest's. He was the one whose troops, at Fort Pillow, murdered hundreds of surrendering black troops during the Civil War. The KKK spread beyond it's founding birthplace of Tennessee to almost every Southern state and attracted people from all backgrounds, including governors, planters, and even criminals. They were identified by a trademark white robe and tall, pointed white hats which covered their faces and their identity. And they all shared one common belief, that the South ought to be restored to its former "glory" during the antebellum period, with blacks in their "rightful" place under the control of their white masters.
The sought to ratify this belief through a series of lynchings, murders, and outright acts of terror in order to send a message to the black populations, stating that they were entitled to nothing, not even a sense of safety in their own homes. Klansmen burned down churches and schools, publicly executed blacks, drove them off their own land, and whipped those who refused to work for whites. Freedmen lived in constant fear of these acts of violence, knowing that the smallest thing could incite them, like having a book in their homes or for not stepping off the sidewalk to allow whites to pass. All of this was conducted under the "blind" eye of the governments, as state and federal governments in the South had members of the Klan along them.
However, not all states turned a blind eye against the blatant racist actions of the KKK. In Tennessee and Arkansas, Klansmen were arrested and executed for their crimes if proven guilty. In Texas, Governor Edmund Davis created a police force consisting of both whites and blacks, and they made over 6,000 arrests of Klan members. In North and South Carolina, armed groups fought or threatened Klansmen, stopping them from committing more violence. Finally, the federal government passed the Enforcement Acts of 1870 and 1871, effectively ending Klan activity by 1872 until it was brought back in 1915.
https://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_events_kkk.html
The Social Origins of Eugenics
The period after the Civil War saw everyday people struggling to deal with the immense losses in both human lives and the economy the strife had cost. A series of depressions beginning in 1873 and a fluctuating economy left starving people desperately trying to find jobs just to buy basic necessities, like food and shelter. The social hierarchy left a majority of the wealth collected within the top social class, with a vast majority of the American people living in poverty while a rich few benefitted from investing in the stock exchange. With many struggling to even get through with their lives, Americans needed someone to blame for their hardships. And their answer? They blamed the "feebleminded," "degenerates" and the "mentally diseased," or those who they felt didn't belong in society.
This dangerous viewpoint eventually lead to the "science" of eugenics, its central ideals surrounding their beliefs that certain undesirable traits, such as mental illnesses like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, were linked to one certain gene. The findings of gene scientist Gregor Mendel certainly helped fuel this theory, even though he had only worked with pea plants, organisms far less complicated than human beings. Those who supported eugenics believed that since all these traits were linked to a certain gene, by tracking family lineages of those who possessed this gene, they could breed these genes out of their bloodlines and eventually eliminate it altogether.
The methods they took to eliminate genes were often to sterilize others who possessed the genes, making it impossible for them to breed and pass on their traits. This "science" was actually widely accepted and believed by the general public, who sought and found something (or someone) to blame for the economic and social hardships they had been put through. They blamed the "feebleminded" and "mentally diseased" for staining society with their undesirable traits, and by removing them from society, they believed that life would improve for the rest of society.
This belief carried on for over three decades, until Hitler and Nazi Germany used eugenics to justify their actions involving genocide of the Jews. However, as a "science" that was based mainly in assumptions and not the scientific process, it's widely discredited now. Instead of using gene research or other gene tracking software, they relied mostly on physical observations, using skull measurements, poor hygiene, and laziness as markers for "defective" people. However, during such a time of loss and economic instability, it's clear that the actual truth behind this "science" was secondary to the urge to find someone to blame for their hardships.
http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring02/Holland/Social.htm
http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring02/Holland/Science.htm
This dangerous viewpoint eventually lead to the "science" of eugenics, its central ideals surrounding their beliefs that certain undesirable traits, such as mental illnesses like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, were linked to one certain gene. The findings of gene scientist Gregor Mendel certainly helped fuel this theory, even though he had only worked with pea plants, organisms far less complicated than human beings. Those who supported eugenics believed that since all these traits were linked to a certain gene, by tracking family lineages of those who possessed this gene, they could breed these genes out of their bloodlines and eventually eliminate it altogether.
The methods they took to eliminate genes were often to sterilize others who possessed the genes, making it impossible for them to breed and pass on their traits. This "science" was actually widely accepted and believed by the general public, who sought and found something (or someone) to blame for the economic and social hardships they had been put through. They blamed the "feebleminded" and "mentally diseased" for staining society with their undesirable traits, and by removing them from society, they believed that life would improve for the rest of society.
This belief carried on for over three decades, until Hitler and Nazi Germany used eugenics to justify their actions involving genocide of the Jews. However, as a "science" that was based mainly in assumptions and not the scientific process, it's widely discredited now. Instead of using gene research or other gene tracking software, they relied mostly on physical observations, using skull measurements, poor hygiene, and laziness as markers for "defective" people. However, during such a time of loss and economic instability, it's clear that the actual truth behind this "science" was secondary to the urge to find someone to blame for their hardships.
http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring02/Holland/Social.htm
http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring02/Holland/Science.htm
Sunday, August 27, 2017
Why does the American form of government work?
Federalist Paper No. 10:
“In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.”
In this passage, Madison explains that in order for a republic to be ideal, the number of representatives elected by the general public must fit within a certain threshold: raised but limited. If the number is too small, then the ideas and opinions of the few certainly won’t represent the diversity of the views expressed by the public (“guard against the cabals of a few”). If the number is too large, then there will be nothing to “guard against the confusion of a multitude.” Thus, our government currently works simply because the proportion of representatives to the general people fits between the upper and lower boundaries of an ideal number.
“The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.”
Madison elaborates that a republican government is much more likely to succeed with a larger society rather than a smaller one, since having a small population of people would more frequently produce a majority party within the government. With more people, you find a larger variety of parties and opinions, which would greatly reduce the chances of having a common majority in government and allow more voices to speak out and be heard. A republic is defined by it’s ability to allow multiple opinions be expressed, and this definitely won’t work if there aren’t enough opinions to express. The United States of America is large, both population and territory wise, and thus a republic has a high chance of succeeding here.
Federalist Paper No. 51:
“These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State. But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconvenience is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified.”
It seems as if the author took influence from the writings of Montesquieu, who argued that a divided, branched government would set a balance of power that would be harder to break in favor of a tyrannical government. In this passage, the division of government is the “remedy” for potential “dangerous encroachment” and it gives more security for the function of each branch. Our government works because power is split between the three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. This helps keep our government in place through the system of checks and balances.
“It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself.”
A government cannot function if one section doesn’t agree to follow or honor the agreed upon “popular form of government.” The author gives the theoretical example of if Rhode Island leaves the Confederacy, there’s no doubt that the government will fail. Our government now is held together simply because all states are obligated to follow the laws and orders of the national government.
“In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.”
In this passage, Madison explains that in order for a republic to be ideal, the number of representatives elected by the general public must fit within a certain threshold: raised but limited. If the number is too small, then the ideas and opinions of the few certainly won’t represent the diversity of the views expressed by the public (“guard against the cabals of a few”). If the number is too large, then there will be nothing to “guard against the confusion of a multitude.” Thus, our government currently works simply because the proportion of representatives to the general people fits between the upper and lower boundaries of an ideal number.
“The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.”
Madison elaborates that a republican government is much more likely to succeed with a larger society rather than a smaller one, since having a small population of people would more frequently produce a majority party within the government. With more people, you find a larger variety of parties and opinions, which would greatly reduce the chances of having a common majority in government and allow more voices to speak out and be heard. A republic is defined by it’s ability to allow multiple opinions be expressed, and this definitely won’t work if there aren’t enough opinions to express. The United States of America is large, both population and territory wise, and thus a republic has a high chance of succeeding here.
Federalist Paper No. 51:
“These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State. But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconvenience is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified.”
It seems as if the author took influence from the writings of Montesquieu, who argued that a divided, branched government would set a balance of power that would be harder to break in favor of a tyrannical government. In this passage, the division of government is the “remedy” for potential “dangerous encroachment” and it gives more security for the function of each branch. Our government works because power is split between the three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. This helps keep our government in place through the system of checks and balances.
“It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself.”
A government cannot function if one section doesn’t agree to follow or honor the agreed upon “popular form of government.” The author gives the theoretical example of if Rhode Island leaves the Confederacy, there’s no doubt that the government will fail. Our government now is held together simply because all states are obligated to follow the laws and orders of the national government.
Friday, August 25, 2017
Religious Interpretations of the 2017 Eclipse
Is the solar eclipse a message from God? For many, the eclipse is, especially to those living within the path of totality. For most people, this eclipse is a once-in-a-lifetime experience, a demonstration of what happens when the sun and moon align. Certain groups within the US have differing opinions on what the eclipse exactly means, believing that this celestial experience is, in fact, caused by something not of this world.
The belief that solar eclipses and other galactic phenomenons are the works of otherworldly beings dates back many centuries into the past. The sudden darkening of the sun and the sky was poorly understood for many millennia. Research on eclipses has been conducted the past few centuries; however, this information was retained by the intellectually and societal elite up until just a few decades ago. The reason why eclipses have an almost mythical connotation is because they are perceived as rare, since it is rare for an eclipse to happen in the same spot more than once. However, according to research, they are quite common; eclipses occur on Earth at least every one-and-a-half years. Still, its not unusual for eclipses to illicit emotional responses, as many perceive eclipses as an omen or portent of unfavorable events to come.
One such theory predicts that the eclipse will be a message from God, stating that aliens are real. A member of The Society for the New Message from God, Marshall Vian Summers believes that God has been communicating with him for years, and the eclipse is no such exception. His society is rooted in the belief that eclipses are forms of celestial communication tying Earth and the otherworldly together. Summers claims to be a messenger from God, one designated to receive and interpret messages for others to hear. These messages come in the form of spoken and auditory communication, which he has recorded and transcribed into a plethora of written works and podcasts. He plans on using the widespread anticipation and captivation of the eclipse as a method of spreading his message and popularizing his works, describing his plans to attend an eclipse viewing party in his hometown of Boulder, Colorado.
Due to religious freedoms being spread and enforced for the past few centuries, it's possible for people with such theories to speak out and spread their beliefs among people. He describes personal encounters with God, something that could be considered heretical and against the main religion of Christianity in the past. Nevertheless, his interpretation of the eclipse may be accurate. It's certain that, for years to come, eclipses around the world will continue to illicit these overwhelming, emotional sentiments, and others will continue to theorize possible explanations for these celestial phenomenons. Is the solar eclipse a message from God? Time can only tell.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/solar-eclipse-as-religious-experience/536823/
http://www.westword.com/news/solar-eclipse-bringing-message-from-god-about-aliens-9394141
The belief that solar eclipses and other galactic phenomenons are the works of otherworldly beings dates back many centuries into the past. The sudden darkening of the sun and the sky was poorly understood for many millennia. Research on eclipses has been conducted the past few centuries; however, this information was retained by the intellectually and societal elite up until just a few decades ago. The reason why eclipses have an almost mythical connotation is because they are perceived as rare, since it is rare for an eclipse to happen in the same spot more than once. However, according to research, they are quite common; eclipses occur on Earth at least every one-and-a-half years. Still, its not unusual for eclipses to illicit emotional responses, as many perceive eclipses as an omen or portent of unfavorable events to come.
One such theory predicts that the eclipse will be a message from God, stating that aliens are real. A member of The Society for the New Message from God, Marshall Vian Summers believes that God has been communicating with him for years, and the eclipse is no such exception. His society is rooted in the belief that eclipses are forms of celestial communication tying Earth and the otherworldly together. Summers claims to be a messenger from God, one designated to receive and interpret messages for others to hear. These messages come in the form of spoken and auditory communication, which he has recorded and transcribed into a plethora of written works and podcasts. He plans on using the widespread anticipation and captivation of the eclipse as a method of spreading his message and popularizing his works, describing his plans to attend an eclipse viewing party in his hometown of Boulder, Colorado.
Due to religious freedoms being spread and enforced for the past few centuries, it's possible for people with such theories to speak out and spread their beliefs among people. He describes personal encounters with God, something that could be considered heretical and against the main religion of Christianity in the past. Nevertheless, his interpretation of the eclipse may be accurate. It's certain that, for years to come, eclipses around the world will continue to illicit these overwhelming, emotional sentiments, and others will continue to theorize possible explanations for these celestial phenomenons. Is the solar eclipse a message from God? Time can only tell.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/solar-eclipse-as-religious-experience/536823/
http://www.westword.com/news/solar-eclipse-bringing-message-from-god-about-aliens-9394141
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)