-During the Depression, the rising unemployment rate badly affected Americans of all races and both genders
-Farmers, who were already in economic troubles before the Depression, were hit especially hard by the Depression
-Financial troubles caused psychological stress for many people, and made it hard for families to stick together
Basically, this section describes the detrimental effects that the Great Depression had on American Citizens.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
HA/Zinn/Schweikart rewrite
History Alive shows that Nativists are banding together and attacking people of non-Anglo-Saxon heritage, and Zinn generally agrees. History Alive states that the “rising tide of immigrants triggered a resurgence of nativism along with calls for immigration restriction”, and Zinn writes that "Ku Klux Klan was revived in the 1920s, and it spread into the North. By 1924 it had 4M million members.” However, Schweikart significantly downplays the effect that these nativist groups had on immigrants. He writes that the KKK "had plummeted in membership since the 1920s", showing us that the KKK were not as worrisome as they appeared to be.
History Alive, Zinn, and Schweikart all agree that Liberals organized and took action to counter the nativist groups and defend non-white groups. HA mentions the formation of the ACLU, who “specialized in the defense of unpopular individuals and groups, including Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti.” However, Zinn believes that the Liberal groups formed during this time were not very effective. He writes that liberal organizations like the NAACP "seemed helpless in the face of mob violence and race hatred everywhere." Schweikart's view differs as well; he believes Liberals took actions, but questions their inner motives and integrity. He writes that "those northern white elites would enthusiastically and aggressively support the fight for civil rights in the South while carefully segregating their own children at all-white private schools.
Both History Alive and Zinn show us that the US government took the side of the nativists by passing laws that significantly reduced the number of immigrants allowed into the United States. HA tells us that “Congress responded to anti-immigrant pressure by passing the Emergency Immigration Act of 1921,” and “three years later… the Immigration Act of 1924”, which both restricted the total amount of immigrants allowed in the US per year. Zinn writes, “Congress, in the twenties, put an end to the dangerous, turbulent flood of immigrants… by passing laws setting immigration quotas.” However, Schweikart stays silent on the issue of government support of the nativists.
History Alive, Zinn, and Schweikart all agree that Liberals organized and took action to counter the nativist groups and defend non-white groups. HA mentions the formation of the ACLU, who “specialized in the defense of unpopular individuals and groups, including Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti.” However, Zinn believes that the Liberal groups formed during this time were not very effective. He writes that liberal organizations like the NAACP "seemed helpless in the face of mob violence and race hatred everywhere." Schweikart's view differs as well; he believes Liberals took actions, but questions their inner motives and integrity. He writes that "those northern white elites would enthusiastically and aggressively support the fight for civil rights in the South while carefully segregating their own children at all-white private schools.
Both History Alive and Zinn show us that the US government took the side of the nativists by passing laws that significantly reduced the number of immigrants allowed into the United States. HA tells us that “Congress responded to anti-immigrant pressure by passing the Emergency Immigration Act of 1921,” and “three years later… the Immigration Act of 1924”, which both restricted the total amount of immigrants allowed in the US per year. Zinn writes, “Congress, in the twenties, put an end to the dangerous, turbulent flood of immigrants… by passing laws setting immigration quotas.” However, Schweikart stays silent on the issue of government support of the nativists.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
HA/Zinn/Schweikart
History Alive shows that Nativists are banding together and attacking people of non-Anglo-Saxon heritage, and Zinn generally agrees. History Alive states that the “rising tide of immigrants triggered a resurgence of nativism along with calls for immigration restriction”, and Zinn writes about the revival of the KKK in the 1920s, and how “The NAACP seemed helpless in the face of mob violence and race hatred everywhere.” However, Schweikart significantly downplays the effect that these nativist groups had on immigrants. He writes that the KKK "had plummeted in membership since the 1920s", showing us that the KKK were not as worrisome as they appeared to be.
History Alive, Zinn, and Schweikart all agree that Liberals organized and took action to counter the nativist groups and defend non-white groups. HA mentions the formation of the ACLU, who “specialized in the defense of unpopular individuals and groups, including Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti.” However, Zinn believes that the Liberal groups formed during this time were not very effective. He talks about the nationalist movement led by Marcus Garvey which “preached black pride, racial separation…” but ultimately, “could not make much headway against the powerful white supremacy currents of the postwar decade.” Schweikart view differs as well; he believes Liberals took actions, but questions their inner motives and integrity. He writes that "those northern white elites would enthusiastically and aggressively support the fight for civil rights in the South while carefully segregating their own children at all-white private schools.
Both History Alive and Zinn show us that the US government took the side of the nativists by passing laws that significantly reduced the number of immigrants allowed into the United States. HA tells us that “Congress responded to anti-immigrant pressure by passing the Emergency Immigration Act of 1921,” and “three years later… the Immigration Act of 1924”, which both restricted the total amount of immigrants allowed in the US per year. Zinn writes, “Congress, in the twenties, put an end to the dangerous, turbulent flood of immigrants… by passing laws setting immigration quotas.” However, Schweikart stays silent on the issue of government support of the nativists.
History Alive, Zinn, and Schweikart all agree that Liberals organized and took action to counter the nativist groups and defend non-white groups. HA mentions the formation of the ACLU, who “specialized in the defense of unpopular individuals and groups, including Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti.” However, Zinn believes that the Liberal groups formed during this time were not very effective. He talks about the nationalist movement led by Marcus Garvey which “preached black pride, racial separation…” but ultimately, “could not make much headway against the powerful white supremacy currents of the postwar decade.” Schweikart view differs as well; he believes Liberals took actions, but questions their inner motives and integrity. He writes that "those northern white elites would enthusiastically and aggressively support the fight for civil rights in the South while carefully segregating their own children at all-white private schools.
Both History Alive and Zinn show us that the US government took the side of the nativists by passing laws that significantly reduced the number of immigrants allowed into the United States. HA tells us that “Congress responded to anti-immigrant pressure by passing the Emergency Immigration Act of 1921,” and “three years later… the Immigration Act of 1924”, which both restricted the total amount of immigrants allowed in the US per year. Zinn writes, “Congress, in the twenties, put an end to the dangerous, turbulent flood of immigrants… by passing laws setting immigration quotas.” However, Schweikart stays silent on the issue of government support of the nativists.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
P1, Q2 Rewrite
Both Von Spiegel's account and the Zimmerman Telegram show that in regards to U-boat warfare, the Germans wanted to inflict the least amount of damage possible, and only engaged in it because they had no choice. When seeing an enemy ship, Von Spiegel expressed regret about having to blow it up, saying, "What a pity... but it cannot be helped, war is war.” The Zimmerman Telegram expressed a similar sentiment, stating "the ruthless employment of our submarines now offers the prospect of compelling England in a few months to make peace."
The Zimmerman Telegram and Von Spiegel’s account differ in that the content in the Zimmerman Telegram focuses directly on how submarine warfare affected the US, while Von Spiegel’s account does not mention the US at all, but instead talks about the British. Germany needed to utilize submarine warfare to prevent supplies from reaching British troops. The telegram stated that "We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States of America neutral" and continued with a proposal to Mexico that would be detrimental to the US if they were to join the war. However, Von Spiegel's account focuses entirely on Germany’s submarine warfare against the British, saying that “…every horse the fewer on the Western Front is a reduction of England’s fighting power.”
Von Spiegel's account is very detailed and personal; he writes about his own opinions and observations, such as his view about the horses on board the enemy ship; "Oh heavens, horses! What a pity, those lovely beasts!" He also describes the actual battle that takes place, writing about the explosion as well as the enemy crew members he could see that "rushed, ran, screamed for boats..." The Zimmerman Telegram however, is written in a formal, detached way. It speaks plainly about "reconquer(ing) the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona" with the Mexicans, which is something that if carried out, would have inevitably caused a lot of conflict and bloodshed. Compared to Von Spiegel's account, the Zimmerman Telegram comes off as cold and calculating.
The Zimmerman Telegram and Von Spiegel’s account differ in that the content in the Zimmerman Telegram focuses directly on how submarine warfare affected the US, while Von Spiegel’s account does not mention the US at all, but instead talks about the British. Germany needed to utilize submarine warfare to prevent supplies from reaching British troops. The telegram stated that "We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States of America neutral" and continued with a proposal to Mexico that would be detrimental to the US if they were to join the war. However, Von Spiegel's account focuses entirely on Germany’s submarine warfare against the British, saying that “…every horse the fewer on the Western Front is a reduction of England’s fighting power.”
Von Spiegel's account is very detailed and personal; he writes about his own opinions and observations, such as his view about the horses on board the enemy ship; "Oh heavens, horses! What a pity, those lovely beasts!" He also describes the actual battle that takes place, writing about the explosion as well as the enemy crew members he could see that "rushed, ran, screamed for boats..." The Zimmerman Telegram however, is written in a formal, detached way. It speaks plainly about "reconquer(ing) the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona" with the Mexicans, which is something that if carried out, would have inevitably caused a lot of conflict and bloodshed. Compared to Von Spiegel's account, the Zimmerman Telegram comes off as cold and calculating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)