Reaction 10

What evidence does LBJ offer as proof of the widening economic gap between black and white Americans? How does he explain this gap? How are the sentiments he expressed represented in this cartoon?

LBJ realized when he became President that he had a large gap to bridge between black and white Americans. Beginning with his election in 1964, Lyndon Johnson knew there was alot to get done as far as making America economically stable, as well as equally fair. LBJ set forth many acts and policies to aid African Americans and other minorities in correcting this economic gap. LBJ explained this widening gap as instability in the African American family due to centuries of discrimination and economic oppression at the hands of white Americans. He also thought white people were the ones to blame for the years of discrimination and oppression.

The first act set in place signed by LBJ was the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It prohibited the literacy test in voting, and was a response to activism and violence. His idea in this was to give African Americans the opportunity to get more involved in politics, and therefore, involved in economics. Johnson viewed the election as a mandate for his "War on Poverty," and set out to form "The Great Society." He was influenced by Michael Harrington's The Other America, which focuses on the invisible poor in America.  Johnson's idea of the Great Society included abundance and liberty to everyone, the chance for every child to get an education, the battle for full equality as well as against poverty, and to serve the needs of the people within the community.  This Great Society would have enduring peace between the races, and offer each the same opportunities. He also extended Medicare and Medicaid to the elderly and poor, which would be considered the  African Americans in this case.  In addition, LBJ tried to offer adequate shelter for everyone in the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Food Stamp Act of 1964 also offered economic aid to those who were in need financially, especially the unemployed among African Americans. To offer the chance at cleaner and more comfortable conditions on behalf of all those in the inner-cities, usually minorities, Johnson added the Water Quality Act. Job Corps also gave young men the chance to learn skills to have a higher chance at being hired for jobs.  The last bit of Johnson's platform in the Great Society was based more on eduation, like the Elementary and Secondary Eduaction Act, as well as the Higher Education Act, which offered pell grants and student loans to those in need.

In the first frames of the illustration, the weights represent the oppression African Americans received from whites because of slavery brought upon them the few hundreds years before that.  The chains are symbolic of the complete oppression African Americans received before the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were passed after the Civil War. After the chains are removed, one may observe it is symbolic of Africans being freed from slavery. However, the black man is still suffering as the white man progresses, yet leaves the black man behind to progress by himself. The point being made here is that even thought the black man was freed from slavery, he still had no true rights as an American. In the fifth picture, the black man stands up to fight for his rights, symbolic of the Civil Rights movements that took place in the 1950s. Toward the end of the sketch, the white man apologizes to the black man for putting him through such hard times and difficulty, but however, the white man is still unwilling to offer any help to the black man. The ledge represents the complete American Dream, and prosperity. The reason the white man offers no help in the black man achieving the American Dream was because whites thought they had no reason to aid African Americans because they considered it reverse racism. This idea popped up from the Civil Rights movements of the 1950s through 1970s. White people thought helping African Americans could be considered reverse racism because the idea of Civl Rights was to offer each man the same chances and opportunities, and offering African Americans a hand up on the situation wouldn't make it fair for white people.

Reaction 9

According to C. Wright Mills, Americans during the 1950s were Cheerful Robots. Using his excerpt, what you've read in the text, and heard in class, why is that description fitting (don't just repeat or rephrase what's in the Mills article)?

The 1950's were a time of change and conformity. While the economy got back on its feet, returning Veterans from WWII were beginning to receive federal aid, allowing for increasingly prosperous lives among them and their families. Help from FHA and the G.I. Bill gave soldiers the opportunity to move into Suburban areas, buy new vehicles, extend their families and afford household appliances to assist the wives in their daily chores. 

In Levittowns, thousands upon thousands of homes were built, all the same model and looking exactly the same. Veterans could put as little as $1.00 for a down-payment one of these cookie cutter homes. Auto production tripled, as the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways built highways to make travel between Suburbia and work easier. The Baby Boom increased the average number of children per family from 2.4 to 3.2. This put an emphasis on importance on the Nuclear Family, pressuring women to stay home and play the role of mother and housewife as a career. Women began to marry at younger ages. Having more children younger, and not being allowed out of the house very often led women into depression, as many of their dreams of keeping war jobs were taken from them. They were heavily isolated, and consumed tranquilizers like Miltown and Valium at enormous rates. Worst of all, they took these drugs while also pregnant, always leaving them in a smiling submissive state. Yet nonetheless, these women were expected to fully accept their new lifestyles and were forced to conform to this robot way of life.

C. Wright Mills referred to these new and improved families as "Cheerful Robots" because that is essentially what they became. In the 1950s, when Veterans began expanding their sense of materialism, they also let their freedom of individuality cease. It was all about the nuclear family, the ideal family of the 1950s. And this new family was all about materialism and buying anything that made life easier and more pleasurable. And all this change was supposed to please American families, despite the fact that every family was the same in that they all had the same exact house, car and appliances. They were robots in the idea that they were all the same and had the same things. They were "cheerful" about it because they were so willing to conform to the lifestyles of the 1950s. Those who weren't cheerful were seen as abnormal and crazy. Mills fear was that men and women were becoming increasingly manipulated by contemporary social structures. He is afraid that these robots are happy about being robots- cheerful and willing robots. 

Reaction 8

Read the excerpt from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The U.S. did not immediately ratify the Declaration. What policies and practices within the U.S. conflicted with many of the principles of the Declaration? (10 pts)

In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, drafted by a committee chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt. The goals of the declarations were generally to provide  rights that could be enjoyed by all members of the human family. Some of these rights included freedom of speech, religious toleration, and protection against arbitrary government, along with social and economic entitlements such as the right to an adequate standard of living and access to housing, education, and medical care. So basically, it's main priority was to ensure that a nation's treatment of its own citizens should be subject to outside evaluation.

Although this Declaration of Human rights would seem acceptable in today's society, it caused so much debate and turmoil in the late 1940s that its first covenant wasn't ratified by Congress until 1992. To add to that, the second covenant has still not been passed!

The reasons as to why the Declaration of Rights could not be passed until 1992 was because the United States had to go under massive changes before it could adopt such a new way of life. Most of the principles within the Declaration contradicted policies and practices of the time period within the United States. Segregation played a large role in society after WWII.  It was a way of life, a lifestyle, for both white and black people, as well as other minority groups.  Even women had a difficult time after WWII, as they were expected to go back to being fragile housewives under the control of their superior husbands. The thought of assimilating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights into their society would be nearly impossible to adjust to. Almost every article of the Declaration contradicted society in the late 1940s.

Article I, for example, states "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."  Now apply this rule to a white man and a colored man. Of course, the statement would apply to the white man, but ask the white man if the rule includes a colored man in its bank of all who deserve rights, and I can guarantee you the white man would deny this liberty to him. I am trying to support the idea that the white man in the time period after WWII still feels he is superior to, and therefore, far more deserving of life and liberties than any man other than his same skin color. At this time, the idea of "brotherhood" between all men (including minorities) was not acceptable.

Staying on the subject of minorities and how discrimination towards them explains the long awaited ratification of the Declaration, many other articles may be examined.  In fact, Articles 1-19 all directly affect how people of color are treated in society. Article 2 explains how "Everyone" is included in the Declaration, no matter their "race, colour, sex, language..." This Article is aimed toward the white supremacists who always try to find a way to exclude minorities from their rights in Declarations and other documents of the law. Article 4, I'd say, is especially for African Americans who were forced into servitude before. A major hypocritical move on behalf of the US government in regards to this Declaration were the Japanese internment camps of WWII. Had the Universal Declaration of Human Rights been in order then, the US would have been in violation of Articles 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12! To remove an entire ethnic race of people into camps on suspicion of them having something to do with the bombing at Pearl Harbor and other terrorist activities is unlawful. Because of this circumstance, Articles 5-12 apply directly towards minorities because it is clear that they received the harshest punishments before, during and after WWII. In a criminal case, they were the first suspects, and tended to be convicted without proper evidence of their being guilty.  The Declaration would also have been beneficial to the Latin Americans of the late 1940s into the 1950s. Discrimination against Zoot-suiters and workers in the Bracero Program were treated unfairly and add more support in how hypocritical it would have been to ratify the Declaration in 1948.

Women, too were discriminated against in society in the late 1940s after the war. During the war, women took over many of the jobs that once belonged to the men that were at war. They gained a great deal of independence while their counterparts were away. However, as the war ended, so did the independence of the women along with their war-time jobs. Many went back to jobs that paid less then men's jobs, and had no unemployment insurance when they were laid off. For this reason, Articles 23-29 may directly apply to women.  Article 23 especially would have aided women in keeping some sense of accomplishment. However, this wouldn't follow through anytime soon because of male superiority over the woman and the need to save money for the companies that let the women workers go. 

My overall theory about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is that it all comes down to how much a nation is willing to sacrifice in order to have a moral community. It would take a nation a great deal of time (decades), and money to renovate a reputation which was once completely hypocritical. This is why it took so long for the United States Congress to ratify the Declaration of Human Rights. They wanted to confirm that the country had gone through enough civil, political, economic, social and cultural change before it could confirm these rights in a Declaration.

Reaction 7

Why were the Korean Comfort Women “silent” so long? To answer this question, one thing you will need to think about is how much women’s “worth” is tied to their status as virgins or “sexually pure” and how women who are not “pure” are shamed in societies. You also need to reflect on how rape has been characterized as simply an “unfortunate consequence” of war—this is not true, of course; rape does not “just happen.”
Why could the words and actions of Japanese officials and government be interpreted as attempts to further silence them?

During World War II, 80,000 to 200,000 Korean women were tricked into leaving their homes for what the Japanese government told them would be factories in which to work. Most of these Korean girls were in their teenage years, yet some were as young as twelve. They were chosen from their families to go work for the Japanese government in what they thought would be factories. Little did they know, but soon each girl would succumb to rape, abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, drug addictions, unbearable miscarriages, and death. These girls would later become known as Comfort Women, who were chosen as sex slaves to Japanese soldiers fighting in the war. Girls would be raped up to thirty times a day, satisfying one soldier right after the other. They were beaten and slapped until nearly dead by soldiers and officers who took pleasure in raping them. Those who did not commit suicide barely survived and/or were brutally murdered by soldiers. As this occurrence was wide-spread and well known throughout all of Asia, surprisingly, no Comfort Women chose to tell of their grievances or stand up to the Japanese government for doing this to the women of Korea. It was not until the late 1980's in which these traumatic stories started to be told.

Korean Comfort Women were silent for so many years because they were frowned upon in society as "unpure" if they had admitted to being a sex slave, or having sex with hundreds upon hundreds of soldiers. Another contributing factor could also be because it is not a woman's place in society to stand up and become verbal in any situation. A woman's role is to stand behind her husband, and never to question his authority. Past Comfort Women most likely chose not to expose their experiences simply because it was too painful emotionally to recollect and tell of their horrific experiences. 

In Asian cultures, a woman's worth may be based on her purity sexually. Women who are not virgins are looked down on in society, no matter the circumstance as to how they became "impure." At these camps, the girls who were virgins had the highest status, until after about five months, in which their status just dwindled after that. They were made to look like prostitutes. Even today, the Japanese government tries to portray the idea that the Korean girls became Comfort Women because they needed the money. So why would a woman want to put herself in the position of being shamed in society? That is why they stayed silent. The girls were stripped of the purity in which their culture so greatly valued. And to make matters worse, the past Comfort Women who tried to become normal members of the society once again after WWII could not assimilate comfortably despite their efforts. This is because many couldn't even have children, since the Japanese made conceiving nearly impossible. 

What appalls me the most is that the cases of the Comfort Women of WWII don't seem to be of any concern to the Japanese government whatsoever. They have been caught red handed and still are denying all accusations. They have used the excuse that they did not all know what was happening, or that these Korean women were not forced into prostitution, but more or less, they volunteered for the job. The pride of the Japanese government is over their heads and justice needs to be served to the Korean Comfort Women. The Japanese government has made it seem as if the rapes were just an "unfortunate consequence of the war," but nothing about this passive statement is moral. It is most definitely an understatement, by all means. I believe the Japanese refuse to admit their ties to Comfort Women because they initially lost the war. I feel they are sympathetic to themselves, and no one else. They could care less about the women who were scarred physically and emotionally for life. To be put into easier terms, the Japanese soldiers felt that everyone lost the war, so everyone was effected negatively somehow. And unfortunately, the Korean Comfort Women were caught under this umbrella of most traumatic experiences. I feel that still even today, the Japanese government attempts to silence the Korean Comfort Women because it would hurt the reputation of the country as a whole. They cannot risk admitting their mistakes in WWII, and therefore, must continue to deny all accusations made.Of course the Japanese government has given some compensation to the Comfort Women and their families, but all efforts were made towards individuals, and not to the Korean Comfort Women as a whole. They have yet to receive a public apology from the Japanese government, and being paid individually just further supports ideas in these women actually being prostitutes. 

Justice must be served to the Korean Comfort Women of WWII, as well as to all other girls who were tricked into sex slavery by the Japanese government. And most of all, these women deserve  a full acceptance back into society, as they were forced to have sex and should not be blamed for it. Their "impurity" is at the fault of the Japanese government, and they do not deserve to be excluded from society.

Freedom from Want & Freedom from Fear

Of FDR's four freedoms, the goal of freedom from want and freedom from fear especially reflect American and European experiences during the 1930s and 1940s. Briefly explain what FDR meant by "freedom from want" and "freedom from fear" and explain how the desire for these freedoms was the result of American and European experiences during the 1930s and 1940s.

On January 6, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered his State of the Union Address to the United States Congress. In this speech, also known as the Four Freedoms speech, he proposed four points as fundamental freedoms humans "everywhere in the world" ought to enjoy. His inclusion of the latter two freedoms, Freedom from Want and Freedom from Fear, went beyond the traditional American Constitutional values protected  by the First Amendment, and endorsed a right to economic security as well as an internationalist view of foreign policy that have come to be central tenets of American liberalism today. They also anticipated what would become known decades later as the "human security" paradigm in social science and economic development.

Freedom from want, straight from Roosevelt's mouth, means "economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants--everywhere in the world." I believe that FDR is trying to say that there should not be any international trade barriers. FDR is trying to protect the future standard of living for the American worker and farmer by hoping to prevent another Depression after war. He wants to eliminate Americans feelings of need they experience during times of economic instability. For example, during the Great Depression, more and more people tended to go the movies and take part in more leisure activities because, although it was only causing them to become more in debt, they could escape the harsh reality of Depression through these films and other forms of entertainment. Roosevelt wanted to stop the foolish spending of money on unnecessary activities for American families. If Americans could share this freedom from Want, they could pull out of Depression, somewhat at least, and stop Americans desire for things they do not need. Internationally, this means that countries shouldn't trust each other whole-heartedly because at any given time, a country's considered ally may turn on it.

"Freedom from fear--which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor--anywhere in the world." The main goal behind this fourth freedom was to decrease the amount of arms so that nations may not go against each other. If two neighboring countries strongly disliked one another, what better way to take the other out than to use weapons? But if the weapons have been removed, there is no way to be aggressive against the enemy, therefore, removing all possibilities of war. FDR used this as a goal to benefit "the future days, which we seek to make secure." Ultimately, freedom from fear was strongly desired, as Americans didn't want to live in fear of being attacked or of loved ones at war being killed.

During the 1930s and 1940s, the Great Depression caused banks to collapse, industries to go bankrupt, and many people to lose their jobs in America. In Europe, another Depression took place which was far more devastating than in America, as countries were in debt and still recovering from WWI and agricultural land was destroyed, causing many to starve. As Pearl Harbor was bombed on December 7, 1941, fear was instilled in all Americans. FDR wanted nothing more than to destroy all feelings of fear and of need in America, as his job was to not only physically protect all American citizens, but also to keep a country in which all Americans should feel safe and secure. He further promoted this idea for Europe, and desired for international stability. It was war that cause the desire for freedom from want, and freedom from fear, for freedom from want would stop the American people from distracting themselves of the war and freedom from fear would help all nations to feel secure once again.

Alain Locke's book of essays, entitled "The New Negro," is a literary work in which came to symbolize the Harlem Renaissance. During the Harlem Renaissance, not only was African art, jazz, blues, dancing, and poetry flourishing, but so were the people who created it. In an excerpt, Locke describes many of the ways in which the "New Negro" has formed and is taking a new stand in society. For African Americans, it was a time of "rising racial self-consciousness, growing awareness of the interconnections between black Americans and persons of African descent elsewhere in the world, and of a vibrant black cultural community that established links with New York's artistic mainstream." Blacks were on their way to re-establishing stereotypes and were discovering ways in which they could take pride in their heritage. Locke describes the younger generation of the "New Negro" as being "vibrant with a new psychology." African Americans truly had their own Progressive Era as a race. They were working towards a newer, more contemporary, lifestyle. The reason as to why Locke refers to "The day(s) of 'aunties,''uncles,'and 'mammies'" as being "equally gone" was because of the numerous changes being made within the African community during the Harlem Renaissance. I believe Locke was, more or less, trying to support the idea of "out with the old, and in with the new." This makes sense because Locke writes about all the changed attitudes and lifestyles of the "New Negro," which would imply that some traditional habits would cease to exist. One of these old habits would be the title of family members. As opposed to the traditional, "auntie," "uncle," and "mammie," the "New Negro" may begin to use other, more proper, names such as "aunt" or "mother." Locke writes, "The popular melodrama has about played itself out, and it is time to scrap the fictions, garret the bogeys and settle down to a realistic facing of facts." Locke goes on to discuss that while many changes have been made in creating the "New Negro," some traditions have remained. Yet "the traditional lines of opinion drawn have rendered these quite obsolete." Furthermore, Locke states key points in describing the "New Negro" and does so successfully. His excerpt was factual and to the point. His support in "rehabilitating the (African) race in world esteem from that loss of prestige for which the fate and conditions of slavery have so largely been responsible" was noble and justified.

World War I Soldier's Diary Entry

April 30, 1915

My name is Anthony R. Howard and I am an Englishman. I fight on the side of the Allies. I've have been in this treacherous war since early 1915. My Regiment currently resides in Ypres, which is in Belgium. I am a member of the 9th London Regiment, also known as Queen Victoria's Rifles. 

A few days ago, I fought one of the toughest battles I'd hoped to never encounter. On April 17th, we mounted an attack against the Germans on Hill 60.  We were doing the best we could at keeping the line on the Western Front. Prior to the attack, the hill had been undermined for days with five galleries being driven under the Hillock. The plan was to detonate large mines under the Hill to destroy the enemy and their positions, then we, the 13th Infantry Brigade, would occupy the area. 

The plan was thorough and well-organized. Yet we could only hope everything would go according to plan.  Once we captured the Hill, I was ordered to the Front Line in preparation for the Germans to make their counter attack. We became animals in cages at our trenches as we were bombarded with hand grenades. The man to my left was dead; the man to my right moaning in agony as he was shot in the left side of the head. The sounds of the shelling was overwhelming. The sounds of the men who were suffering in "no man's land" was unbearable. We as soldiers were helpless. To retrieve a comrade would be suicide. The decision between bravery and death or cowardice and life is a difficult one. Two corpses from me, there was a younger lad, about the age of sixteen. He huddled in the corner of the trench, death-grip on a picture in his hands and tears running down his face. He had just seen his best friend die in agony.  For thirty-six hours we lay there, fighting off the Germans. At dawn, we began to smell the rotting corpses of our previous comrades. I reflected on one soldier who had died telling me of his children back at home including a pregnant wife. Oh, the many sad letters I have delivered for fallen soldiers to families. 

The life of the soldier consists of death and misery. I sympathize for all the men who have fallen. Many of my comrades have I seen die brutally. Some died from bullets; some from bombs or hand grenades. Occasionally, one was hit straight between the eyes by a sniper. Machine guns could take out an entire Regiment in minutes. I've heard that not too many miles away, a Regiment was even hit with poison gas by the Germans. Our Allies hit not too far from us had no gas masks, and therefore many were killed by it, or blinded. But worst of all was that these weren't the only causes of death. I've seen many soldiers fall to Malaria, Trench Foot and other diseases spread throughout the unlivable trenches. Yet, those of us who have survived haven't done so easily. 

In trenches, we must avoid mud when it rains and attempt to stay warm when it snows. We have to fight off the rats when eating what little food we have, which is already of poor quality. If I get the chance for some shut-eye, I keep my helmet on to prevent the rats from crawling on my head and eating the grease in my hair. And this helmet I wear is nothing but mere decoration. It does nothing to protect a soldier's head, as I can prove in witnessing a bullet go through a helmet straight through a man's head. I have witnessed this on numerous accounts. 

The life of a soldier is emotionally disturbing. Some soldiers have gone insane with Shell-Shock battle fatigue because of what they have seen and heard. I have experienced so many people die instantaneously feet away from me, splattering their blood over my face. Their last facial expressions will forever be imprinted in my memory. I will have nightmares years to come of these brutal battles. I say years to come because I have not had a solid night's sleep since this dreadful war began. The thing I have hated most about fighting in this war is leaving my comrades behind. We must abandon them in retreat, running away from them as they waste their last breaths begging for help. I will forever hate myself for leaving those soldiers behind.

I pray every chance I get between firing my gun that this war will soon be over. We have been told though, that soon we will be heading to France, where there should be more troops to fight along our side. That day will be a glorious day.

After a hard-earned victory,

Anthony R. Howard

Americanization for Mexican Americans

It’s 1920 and you, Alonzo Vasquez, are a Mexican immigrant to the United States. While you love your new country, it is very important to you that your family remember and honor your culture and traditions, many of which are tied to your homeland. You are increasingly worried that your children, in the process of becoming “American,” are ignoring the importance of their heritage. Why is it so important to you that your family retain some cultural connection to Mexico and your Mexican heritage? What evidence is there that your children are being wholly “Americanized?” What conflicts has this created between you and your children?

My name is Alonzo Vasquez and I came to America five years ago in search of the American dream. I wanted a better life for my family, a life in which I could earn a higher pay than back in Mexico so that I may provide much more for my wife, Maria, and two children, Antonio and Esmeralda. I also knew that in America, not only was anything possible, but everything was safer and more economically stable. I knew that if we were to move here, we wouldn't have to worry about my children being taken from us to be put into some rebel forces turning against the unstable government. The Mexican Revolution had already existed five years and wasn't going to be ending anytime soon. And that was when I decided we deserved something better. We deserved life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We settled into an urban city so that I could work at one of the factories. Our shelter was one large room which we shared with another Mexican family. They had already been in America for close to two years and I could tell from the moment we moved in that they had already become somewhat "Americanized." I was offended at this, since the Mexicans are a people that stick close to their roots, now matter how hard other cultures push for something otherwise. Our one-room apartment was in the the worst part of the city, with rats and insects having their homes in our walls, and wide-spread sickness and disease. But no matter how bad it seemed, I, along with my family, remained optimistic because it was still better than back in our homeland. It was safer and I earned more than I could ever have hoped of earning in Mexico. One of the things I love most about America is the Bill of Rights, which protects the people and their individual rights. There was never anything like that back in Mexico. I can actually say if I dislike or disapprove of something in public here. In Mexico, I would have been shot. But unfortunately, these were only my first thoughts. Although I make far much more money here in America, it's still barely enough to put food on the table every night. And although I do have rights that can't be taken from me technically, I am still discriminated against and don't have the same rights as a white person born in the United States.

When my family moved to America, we intended on keeping everything we lived with the same, meaning our religion, language, culture and tradition. Just because we moved to America doesn't mean we can't maintain what we were born with and taught to hold forever in our hearts. Part of our culture as Mexicans is to remember our heritage and where we come from. Because without that, we are nothing. We are a humble people, satisfied with what we have and never striving for more than what's possible. We are Catholics, putting God as our first priority in life, and with family as a close second. Esmeralda and Antonio must remember their roots, or else my grandchildren and great-grandchildren will miss out on all our history as a family. But in coming here, we have been told time and time again that we must change our ways. We must forget our language, heritage and culture to become fully American. If we don't Americanize Esmeralda and Antonio, they will be taken from Maria and I. This has been our only motivation in becoming American. It isn't fair in any way.  We actually have a social worker stop by our house once a week asking Maria questions as to how she has been teaching Esmeralda and Antonio the American ways.  We are forced to send them to school, whereas in Mexico, they would have aided me in tending our farm. I don't understand these American ways. Why must my children have a "traditional education?" So that they can graduate and get paid more in working for the white man? It is unjust to take a parent's rights away in parenting.  Worst of all, Antonio and Maria, who are both reaching adulthood now are going along with the American lifestyle. Antonio, 18, is wasting time going out at night, staying up until the early morning hours. He feels that going to the theatre with numerous girls and going drinking with his guy friends is a necessity. In America, leisure is a priority. Even worse, Esmeralda, 16, is interested in working. She is escorted by men other than myself or my son. In Mexico, this would be inexcusable. I already picked a suitor for Esmeralda who is patiently waiting his trip to America so that they may be married. Yet she feels she can disagree with me and chose her own suitor. This too, would be inexcusable in my homeland. What has happened to my Mexican-American children? They have forgotten their parents, their traditions, their language, and their God. They now worship Materialism. Esmeralda and Antonio no longer talk to me in Spanish. Instead they speak to me in English and pressure me to speak it too. I do not care if I am "old fashioned" as they call me. I would rather die knowing my Mexican roots than to fully succumb to American ways. Communication was once very present in my family. But five years ago, that began to perish. Now, it is non-existent.

Maria, too, has changed. We are on the brink of separation. Yet I will not allow a divorce, as it is against my religion. If I must force her to stay with me, I will do so to follow my culture. Because of her recent aspirations in becoming more independent as a woman, she has taken a job at a textile mill. I will not allow it much longer. I blame her for my addiction to alcohol. Because I am frustrated with being forced to be something I was not born to be and never will be, I drink every night at a bar with other Mexican men who agree with me and my frustrations. You see , they too have all had the same problem with America, Americanization and loss of the important role in their once Mexican life-styles.

Reaction #2

It’s 1892 and you, Esther Klein, are a 17-year-old textile mill worker in the American northeast. You are new to the country and to industrial work, having worked previously on your parents’ farm in the old country. As much as you longed to come to America, your life as a poor Jewish industrial worker in the United States makes you have second thoughts. And life at the mill—why you and some of the other girls dream of organizing and standing up to the mill owners, but what you’ve seen of other labor organizing worries you! So tell me, Esther, what are the sources of your dissatisfaction as a poor woman, a worker, and a Jewish immigrant? Why have your dreams, of what life in America would be, changed?

My name is Esther Klein. I came to America in search for the "American Dream." All my life, I dreamed of making it to this wonderful land of opportunity. I had grown up listening to my elders speaking of the "Land of Dreams," where anyone and everyone had the opportunity to become successful and wealthy. I came here hoping to find all the things I was told I would find in America. I left my family and homeland in search of a happier and more prosperous life, in which I could help provide for them through my successful job in America. I even had high hopes of making enough money to move my entire family to America. Unfortunately, I was very wrong.

Little did I know I would end up in a textile mill, slaving day after day to make some wealthy man richer, while I struggled financially. It is unfair to me and my co-workers to work twelve hours or more a day at minimum wage. I rarely have a break, and if I happen to make a mistake, I will lose my job immediately. I'm stuck though, you see, because I have no choice either way. As a woman, and a poor immigrant woman at that, I have absolutely no rights. I am unable to vote, making it impossible for my voice to be heard legally. I couldn't make a difference even if I tried. My co-workers and I sometimes discuss joining a union or going on a strike to protest our poor wages and working conditions. But if we did go through with any of this, we'd most certainly lose our jobs. And then where would we go? A company is not going to hire any workers that were just fired because of striking. And due to the fact that we are women, it's going to be far more difficult to get a job than any man. We wouldn't have enough money to go back to our homeland. And we'd risk the chance of going to jail. And if we are treated poorly as foreigners already, imagine how we would be treated in jail! So as you can see, the point I'm trying to get across is that coming to America has only led me to debt, unhappiness and poverty. And the one thing I expected the most in America, that being opportunity, is what I've found the least of so far. I don't even have the opportunity to get out of this state of poverty.

In coming to America, I was unable to find a job in what I grew up doing and something I did very well farming. So I settled into the industrial life, having to live in the city. The city is a horrible, filthy place. The living quarters are crowded and unlivable. It is never quiet; the city never sleeps. There is sickness and death all around. If someone were to get sick and die, chances are everyone living with them would follow suite, just because everyone is so close they can't even breathe fresh air. The diseases are abundant and rats are a common house-pet, always somehow getting into our food sources. The place where I live should be condemned and bulldozed. We shouldn't have to live like this as immigrants.

I understand the graciousness that America bestowed upon us as Jewish immigrants. Believe me, I do have much appreciation for those who allowed me into this country. But for Heaven's sake, just because I am an immigrant does not give any American the right to use me and my other immigrant friends as a stepping stool to their success while we are left ground into the mud. We have just as much right to success as anyone else. We are truly being abused and our rights have been taken away from us.

America is no longer the “Land of Dreams” to me. I will never support that phrase again. America has done nothing but misuse desperate people that must go through desperate measures to stay alive. The government especially, has done absolutely nothing to slow down the increasing gap between the poor immigrant classes versus the rich white class. America is the now the “Land of Pain and Suffering” in all newly arrived immigrant’s eyes. And to all those misused by America, it will always keep this name.

 

Ashley's Reaction to Social Darwinism

What is Social Darwinism? How was it used to explain a variety of circumstances (e.g. economic and racial/ethnic) in the late 19th century? Do you hear any of the same sentiments echoed today? Evaluate the theory. Do you find it valid? Why or why not?

Social Darwinism refers to Charles Darwin's Theory that in nature, it is the fittest who survive. In other words, the species best suited in a given environment will take the place of, or overpower, the species that was less able to adapt. In the late 19th Century, Social Darwinism referred most to the idea of "to each man his own." 

In the late 19th Century, the idea of Social Darwinism appealed most to the upper class citizens, who always strove to become wealthier than their poor counterparts. I feel the reason as to why Social Darwinism explained many unfortunate circumstances in the late 19th Century all comes down to one little word with deep rooted meaning- liberty. It was accepted due to the fact that liberty allowed a man in America to strive for whatever he wanted. It was an employer's "liberty" to decide what he felt was an agreeable pay. If a man wasn't satisfied with the pay his employer offered, then it was his "liberty" to find a higher paying job somewhere else. Although this does seem unjustly beneficial to the employers and their monopolies, I can understand the angle at which they interpreted Social Darwinism. To give money to the poor out of the pockets of the wealthy would seem unfair, to a certain extent. I believe William Graham Sumner made a valid point in saying the government shouldn't become involved in individual's finances, because that would be taking away their liberty. And so as Sumner put it, "Society faced two and only two alternatives: 'liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest; not-liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest.'" 

Personally, I don't feel  Social Darwinism is accepted at all in today's government. At least, not publicly. Yet, I'm sure it still exists to some extent in the labor force and other places, as far as women earning a smaller amount of income as men do who work the same job. Take for instance, the Glass Ceiling Theory, the idea that women in the corporate world will eventually hit an invisible barrier that will make them less likely than men to achieve higher executive positions. It seems to me as if the government has become far more involved in aiding those who have fallen behind economically (i.e. welfare and legislation against monopolies). With the economic crisis our country is faced with today, the government must step in if they want to keep America afloat. Bailing out Bear Stearns, Freddie Mac, A.I.G., the Auto Industry, Citigroup, and Wall Street all within the past year surely prove to me that the theory of Social Darwinism is no longer as relevant as it once was.

Not trying to seem rude or uncompassionate, I'd have to say I do agree with Social Darwinism on a very small scale. This is my only reason- although I agree with welfare for those who have become unfortunate due to circumstance they were unable to control personally, I disagree with those who have depended on welfare for generations. We should feel obligated to help the less-fortunate people around us get back on their feet, but for families to depend on welfare as their sole income is unjust. And in order to keep the economy in good standing, not everyone should be allowed welfare for unlimited periods of time. It would throw the nations economy under in no time. However, I do strongly disagree with one of the views in Social Darwinism. To believe that the poor are "essentially responsible for their own fate" seems highly controversial to me. How is one to be held accountable for getting laid-off at work, or in losing their job due to the loss of a loved one? Overall, I'd have to conclude the theory of Social Darwinism as invalid. I grew up with the phrase, "A group will only be as strong as their weakest link." Therefore, Americans need to do what they can in their power to keep themselves afloat, while still offering help and community service to others. A nation facing success as a whole in due time is worth far more to me than a nation with large separation in social and economic classes.