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:







Cartoon by Barry Deutsch



In 1965 Lyndon B. Johnson gave a speech at Howard University, an all black collage, which stressed the need for achieving true freedom in the black community. In his commencement address Johnson remarked that the definition of poverty differed in relation to black Americans and white Americans; he directly stated that, “Negro poverty is not white poverty”. To demonstrate this Johnson presented some troubling statistics of the decline in income and increase in unemployment of Negroes as compared to white Americans. One of the most upsetting pieces of information he presented was the fact that thirty-five years ago the rate of unemployment for Negroes and whites was about the same but in 1965 the Negro rate was twice as high. Johnson referred to the black community as “another nation” and said that “despite the court orders and laws, despite the legislative victories and the speeches, for them the walls are rising and the gulf is widening”.

LBJ credited the cause of Negro poverty to many sources, including the long years of slavery, past injustices, and the continuing struggle with discrimination and hate. He stressed that the past brutalities served as a constant reminder of oppression for Negroes and for whites they were a constant reminder of guilt. However, Johnson also expressed his hope and belief that the problems they were facing could be dealt with and were possible to overcome. And with the civil rights movement and Johnson’s Great Society, things started getting better for the black community. The gaps in education, income, and access to skilled employment narrowed and although there were areas yet to be confronted, there were considerable gains.

The Barry Deutsch cartoon depicting the white child climbing up and stomping all over the black child to achieve a higher platform represents the black man’s struggle beneath the white man. From the days of slavery blacks were used for the advancement of whites. Even as blacks attained their freedom they were still trodden over and left ‘looking up’ to the white class. And even when some level of equality and recognition was reached, the whites still would not help the lesser blacks. In response to the black child’s request for help the white child remarks, “if I got up here myself, why can’t you?” This apparently ironic statement symbolizes white ignorance- or more so their unfair expectations and ‘forgetful tendencies’ of how they had achieved their elevated statuses in the first place. In comparison to LBJ’s declaration that the gap was ever widening, the cartoon first depicts the two children at the same level. Throughout the scenes the white child is using the black child (who at first had restraints) to rise up. At the end the white child is looking down and sort of mocking the black child for not working hard enough to achieve the same goals. This relates directly to society and what Johnson was saying about the constant reminders of oppression still lingering and the ever widening gap. How can the black child make gains without being given a chance? With no assistance he is forced to remain at the bottom, not much better off than he was from the beginning.

Reaction #9:

Cheerful Robots

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).


Americans during this time were achieving their dreams of home ownership with the shift from cities to suburbs and enjoying the affordability and availability of home appliances, cars, and televisions. People began moving into identical suburban homes and stocked them with all sorts of new amenities. The new Nuclear family portrayed wives as happy homemakers, expected to stay home and take care of the house and children, while husbands were the breadwinners. The title Cheerful Robot was a fitting description for this new concept of the ideal American family and their prized American freedoms. Mills searched for a new definition of freedom, one where it was not mass conformity but a renewed independence and sense of self. He believed in a freedom that was not the ability to do as you pleased but to formulate your own options and make decisions for yourself. He depicted these Nuclear families as robots going through motions programmed into them with no thoughts or ideas of their own. They were not choosing to improve their lives with this new found “freedom”, they were being brainwashed by companies telling them they needed this or that to fit into the truly American standard.
There were already problems existing with this picture perfect American family. Wives were often depressed and sought professional help for their discomfort. Also women who had been working during the war wanted to continue working and earning fair wages. They had tasted independence and didn’t want to give it up so hastily. Women who voiced these desires or spoke of their unhappiness at home doing menial tasks were seen as silly or “faulty”. So these ideal American families weren’t all perfect or content. I think that women especially had a hard time conforming to the housewife mold because of their thirst to venture out into the business world and have a life outside the home. So there were already malfunctions within the Cheerful Robots and to Mills this was probably a positive thing. He encouraged thinking outside the box and coming to your own conclusions.

Reaction #8:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

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?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted by a committee chaired by former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt in 1948. This document intended to set forth a broad range of freedoms that were to be enjoyed by everyone everywhere. To make the document easier for member states to adopt, the United Nations decided to divide it into two sections- Civil and Political Rights, and Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. The United States did not ratify the document until 1992 and they only adopted the first covenant. The Soviet Union didn’t accept both parts of the document either. Even with all the issues concerning the Declaration and its ratification, it had no enforcement mechanisms so it could not even be implemented.

Many of the U.S.’s practices conflicted with the principles of the Declaration which is why it took so long to ratify it and why only part of it was ratified. Some of these issues included Article 2 where it was stated that “everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status”. Now the U.S. during this time prided itself in defending peoples of other countries who sought freedom from oppression and all of that, but the U.S. still had issues in its own country with oppressing people. During World War II the U.S. had sent Japanese persons to internment camps because they were possible spies or close to military operations or whatever other excuses they came up with. Minorities across the country faced discrimination everywhere and it was obvious that they did not share in equal freedoms and rights that Anglo Americans enjoyed.

Other conflicting principles in the Declaration included Articles 17, 19, 22, and 23. Article 17 stated that “no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property” which the Japanese recently had been due to their internment during WWII. Article 19 stated that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression” which had been severely limited during times of war and was almost exterminated completely during the anticommunist crusades and McCarthyism in the U.S. Article 22 said that “everyone… has the right to social security” which received mixed reactions since some Americans felt that it was a right to be enjoyed by those they saw fit. Article 23 mentioned that “everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work” which immediately makes me think of women in the workplace who constantly received less than their male counterparts for the same work. These were not the only reasons for disapproval of the Declaration but they show how the principles outlined in the document could make things tricky for a country that boasted freedom but struggled greatly with it. The U.S. has made great strides in living up to the standards set out in the Declaration but it’s still not perfect.

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?

I think the main reason the women were silent so long was because they were so ashamed about what had happened to them. Maybe they thought it would be better not to speak of it, that it would help erase the memory. Some women felt differently and were not embarrassed or shy about telling their story, but it was a select few. Another reason was that Japan denied it ever happened. I guess that the former comfort women did not think anyone would believe they were forced into doing something so terrible. Maybe they thought people would blame them for their own misfortune, label them as prostitutes and they would become outcasts. Perhaps they were afraid that if they told of their experiences people would see it less as an act committed against the women and more as their own wrongdoing.

As far as the history of the comfort stations, I cannot believe they were seen as a “solution to the 223 reported rapes by Japanese troops”. So if the rapes were simply characterized as unfortunate consequences, imagine how the Japanese viewed the women at the comfort stations. And the way the women were recruited for the stations is even more disturbing. Dragged from their homes or deceived into believing they were going to work in factories. The women were herded into the stations and treated more like cattle than people. I wouldn’t be surprised if they remained silent merely out of fear. The Japanese government denied having forced women to work at comfort stations and even denied involvement in operating comfort stations. That is, until 1992 when a college professor found wartime documents in the Library of the National Institute for Defense Studies that confirmed Japanese Forces had indeed operated the stations. Only then did they admit involvement but still have not provided satisfactory reparations to the former comfort women or made a public apology.

Their refusal to address the issue and their obvious omission of it from their history books and educational courses only shows that the Japanese government intended to move on and forget it ever happened. If not for the bravery of the former comfort women in speaking out and telling their stories, demanding recognition of and an apology for what happened, these events just may have disappeared completely. Speaking out against the Japanese government at that time must have seemed truly intimidating. I think that is another reason it took the women so long. They were later encouraged by people taking interest in the comfort woman issue to speak up about what had happened. Imaging how the women must have felt returning home: unclean, soiled, worthless women who had been abused by more than 20 men each day, returning home to try and make something of themselves. Who could they turn to? How could they confront the mighty Japanese government about what had happened to them? Wouldn’t it seem like a better option to just remain quiet about it and be thankful you escaped?

Reaction #6:

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.



In terms of freedom from want, Roosevelt was initially referring to eliminating barriers on international trade. He did not want trade restrictions to further cripple our economy. Roosevelt later expanded this idea to include and appeal to Americans’ personal financial troubles brought on by the Great Depression. He reassured Americans that they would have a freedom from want by “guaranteeing that that the Depression would not resume after the war” (Foner, 751). The depression devastated not only Americans but also left its toll on Europe. Roosevelt wanted to lift up hopes that the American standard of living and way of life would once again be possible. That the war was not a temporary fix, but it was a kick start to pull us out of our economic slump. Freedom from want meant not fearing the loss of your job; the pressure to provide with no means. It meant not living below reasonable conditions and worrying about where the next meal would come from. It meant not only security in jobs and homes but also security in your country. He wanted to redeem Americans’ faith in the nation: that they could once again, and surely would succeed in America.

Freedom from fear during this time most closely related to the war. Americans should feel a great sense of security at home and not be in constant fear of attack, as in the case of Pearl Harbor. Freedom from fear included the means of protection so that we could rapidly and forcefully defend ourselves. It also meant the desire for world peace so that we would not have to take such drastic measures at all. These ideas meant that whether there was a threat or not, Americans could feel safe. I also think that the freedom from fear included the fear of communism spreading throughout the world. With Hitler as dictator in Germany and Mussolini as the father of fascism in Italy, the threat of totalitarianism was ever present. Americans always felt it was their responsibility to enlighten the world and impose their democratic ways onto others. Socialism was never really well received and the Red Scare was hard to extinguish. Freedom of fear meant that we could live freely and peacefully without any threats to our way of life.

Earth Hour 2009-- Mar 28, 8:30-9:30pm

VOTE EARTH..................YOUR LIGHT SWITCH IS YOUR VOTE

This year, Earth Hour has been transformed into the world’s first global election, between Earth and global warming.

For the first time in history, people of all ages, nationalities, race and background have the opportunity to use their light switch as their vote – Switching off your lights is a vote for Earth, or leaving them on is a vote for global warming. WWF are urging the world to VOTE EARTH and reach the target of 1 billion votes, which will be presented to world leaders at the Global Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen 2009.

This meeting will determine official government policies to take action against global warming, which will replace the Kyoto Protocol. It is the chance for the people of the world to make their voice heard.Earth Hour began in Sydney in 2007, when 2.2 million homes and businesses switched off their lights for one hour. In 2008 the message had grown into a global sustainability movement, with 50 million people switching off their lights. Global landmarks such as the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, Rome’s Colosseum, the Sydney Opera House and the Coca Cola billboard in Times Square all stood in darkness.In 2009, Earth Hour is being taken to the next level, with the goal of 1 billion people switching off their lights as part of a global vote. Unlike any election in history, it is not about what country you’re from, but instead, what planet you’re from.

VOTE EARTH is a global call to action for every individual, every business, and every community. A call to stand up and take control over the future of our planet. Over 74 countries and territories have pledged their support to VOTE EARTH during Earth Hour 2009, and this number is growing everyday.We all have a vote, and every single vote counts. Together we can take control of the future of our planet, for future generations.

VOTE EARTH by simply switching off your lights for one hour, and join the world for Earth Hour. Saturday, March 28, 8:30-9:30pm.

http://www.earthhour.org/

Reaction #5:

What does Alain Locke Mean when he says, "The day of 'aunties.' 'uncles,' and 'mammies' is equally gone."? Why does he say this?


Alain Locke makes this statement to emphasize his ideas regarding the New Negro. He says that the days of blacks being quiet and submissive are gone and a new era has begun. No longer will the African Americans allow themselves to be trodden over and belittled, they are uniting and demanding respect. This was about the time of the Harlem Renaissance and the creation of the NAACP. Blacks were doing more to defend themselves, to improve their lives (moving North), and to promote their heritage. Marcus Garvey encouraged blacks to embrace their roots and have pride in their heritage. “Up you mighty race,” were his words and he did a great deal to distinguish the ideals of light skinned blacks being superior to darks skinned blacks. African Americans began to come together once again and break out of the crushing clutch that whites had on them. No more were the days of the poor, obedient Negro; here were the days of the resistant, the confident and proud African Americans. Locke used ‘mammies’ and such as a metaphor to explain the transformation of blacks from the old ways to the new.