Due Wednesday, November 8 at 10 p.m.
After we’d watched the American Experience video on the Chicago Convention in 1968 on Friday, it struck me how much that the clash encapsulated many of the tensions in the 1960s. The clash between students and police on the outside of the convention, and the clash between the Peace platform candidate, McGovern, vs. pro-war candidate, Vice President, Humphrey, both appeared to be like a symbol of how divided the nation was in 1968. See this link for a day-by-day calendar of the tumultuous events of 1968. For instance:
– The class differences between Chicago’s working class police officers and the “spoiled brats” as U.S. Attorney Thomas Moran called the college students who had gathered in Chicago to protest the war that could directly affect any of these young men with the draft on either side of the riot line (though truthfully, the police officers were most likely to get drafted and not be able to a deferment from a doctor or university);
– the rise of violence, disorder and chaos in daily life that impacted the political process like the deaths of John Kennedy (1963), Malcolm X (1965), and Dr. King and Robert Kennedy (1968). There had been riots in Watts, Los Angeles, Detroit and Newark, N.J., and across the country after Dr. King’s death in April 1968.
– The rights to free speech and freedom to peaceably assemble were directly challenged at this convention by the Chicago Police Dept. and the Illinois National Guard. Furthermore, the indirect censorship of the TV coverage by not allowing more than one live feed from the city (infringement of freedom of the press) so that the TV news couldn’t cover both the convention and the protests at the same time;
– The differing tactics of the anti- war protesters as symbolized by David Dellinger and Rennie Davis (non-violence) vs. Tom Hayden (“by any means necessary”) and the outcome of the marches and even legal protests at Grant Park.
1. Do you think the police used “reasonable force” when dispersing the protestors during the week of the convention? When? Why or why not?
2. Do you think the protesters crossed the line by fighting with the police? Why or why not?
3. Do you think that the peace delegates / McCarthy’s followers would have been satisfied if President Johnson had allowed VP Humphrey to make some concessions over the Vietnam War? Why or why not?
4. How do you think that the images from this convention influenced the outcome of the 1968 election w/ Nixon, Humphrey, and Wallace? Why?
Blog due Monday, November 6. 300 words minimum for the total blog.
“I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. No other person has been more eloquent and passionate in getting this idea across than Henry David Thoreau. As a result of his writings and personal witness, we are the heirs of a legacy of creative protest.” – Martin Luther King, Jr, Autobiography
* emphasis is mine.
Initially going back to the 5th Century, St. Augustine stated that “an unjust law is no law at all” giving some theological weight / heft to earthly laws. Henry David Thoreau suggested that we obey our conscience when we decide to obey or disobey a law. He went to jail during the Mexican War and wrote his famous essay on civil disobedience. Gandhi used Thoreau as inspiration, and King used Gandhi as an inspiration. Gandhi and King used religion to inspire and their followers. Here’s a quote from Dr. King from a sermon in the early days of the Montgomery Bus Boycott:
… I want it to be known that we’re going to work with grim and bold determination to gain justice on the buses in this city. And we are not wrong; we are not wrong in what we are doing.
If we are wrong, the Supreme Court of this nation is wrong.
If we are wrong, the Constitution of the United States is wrong.
If we are wrong, God Almighty is wrong.
If we are wrong, Jesus of Nazareth was merely a utopian dreamer that never came down to Earth.
If we are wrong, justice is a lie, love has no meaning.
My friends, we are determined … to work and fight until justice runs down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream.
But we can’t necessarily have people going around disobeying laws that they don’t like. There has to be some standards. Right? According to Dr. King, he stated that the difference is:
“A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.“
He further elaborates on this and states that: “Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.”
Assumption: Since we cannot argue and fight with every law that we think goes against “the harmony of moral law” or disobey laws at whim (for instance, I might think that one day, the speed limit downgrades my personality, therefore I am going to take a principled stand against it by not obeying it), we have to assume that most laws need to be obeyed.
But what are unjust laws today??
1. Abortion? Or restrictions on abortion?
2. Wars or other military actions?
3. Immigration laws like the one in Arizona or the Muslim Ban?
4. LGBTQ rights? Or restrictions on those rights?
5. Economic stuff like taxes? Or lack thereof on companies, individuals, etc.?
6. Military draft (don’t worry, we don’t have one)?
7. Environmental damage? Or lack of environmental laws?
8. Jobs or a lack of jobs?
9. Software and music / movie downloading -piracy?
10. Behavior / actions of an American company (sweatshops, illegally drilling, dumping, etc.)?
11. Police brutality or other injustices directed at people of color?
12. Women’s pay equality and other issues concerning women?
Questions to answer:
a. Would you be willing to go to jail to protest unjust laws like the Civil Rights workers had done many times during the 1950s and 60s? (Consider the ramifications of a felony or misdemeanor on your record, and its impact on your possible future career).
b. After consulting the list above, which laws would you be willing to fight against? Why? (feel free to add to the list if you see any missing).
c. Do you agree with Dr. King’s reasoning w/ what makes a law just or unjust? Why or why not?
This video is one that we will watch on Friday. Please do Questions / Facts / Hashtags.
This fun movie focused on the real tennis battle between aging men’s tennis champion, Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell), and #1 women’s tennis star, Billie Jean King (Emma Stone) in Houston, TX in 1973. It was a huge extravaganza, with corporate sponsorships and huge prize money ($100,000 if King won, over 1/2 million in today’s money), possibly 90 million people watching at home and over 30,000 in attendance at the Houston Astrodome. Their battle was a reflection of what was going on at the time period:
In a New York Times review of the movie, the opening line of the review was this: “Every so often an exceptionally capable woman has to prove her worth by competing against a clown.” Maybe I’m a little biased, but this made me think of the 2016 Election. Hillary Clinton was a very talented and experienced candidate for the presidency, but unlike Billie Jean, Clinton would not triumph over the clown. Here’s a NYT article that finds parallels in the film. It’s a wonder if the filmmakers made it this way intentionally.
The film also really focused on the gender wage gap – using one tournament in particular, the men’s prize money was 8x that of the women’s prize money. The reasons that Jack Kramer (pictured above) and his cohort gave were pretty lame and were easily shot down by Billie Jean and Gladys Heldman (played by Sarah Silverman), and Kramer finally settled on the weak reasoning that the men’s game is more exciting.
There was also the love stories in the film – that’s the one thing that surprised me the most about the film – was that there were three love stories going on: one between Billie Jean and Marilyn, another with Bobby and his wife Priscilla, and the third between Billie Jean and her husband. Each has their own resolution with only Bobby and Priscilla ending up staying together.
One of the things that made me wonder was how accurate was the portrayal of Bobby Riggs. Steve Carell does a great job of making him seem like a real human being w/ faults and flaws. I also wondered how much of this challenge to women’s tennis players was real sexism, a gimmick, a chance to get back into the limelight, a way to feed his gambling hobby, or a combination of all of them.
Your job: Pick three of the questions below and answer them w/ specific examples from the movie.
Fact vs. Fiction in the movie – http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/09/25/fact_vs_fiction_in_the_movie_battle_of_the_sexes.html
Wikipedia page on ERA – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment
Comparison of Battle and 2016 Election – http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/09/21/battle_of_the_sexes_reminders_of_the_2016_election.html
As part of his State of the Union address on January 11, 1944, President Roosevelt presented the nation with a 2nd Bill of Rights – economic rights that the government would have to guarantee for all Americans once the laws were passed. Take a look at the following video:
He listed 8 things that would bring economic security to our nation and hopefully, by extension, to the rest of the world. At the point that he gave this address in history, America was NOT planning on a Cold War with the Soviet Union or stockpiling tens of thousands of nuclear missiles or spending billions on a military budget every year. None of the 46 years of futility vs. the Soviet Union was set in stone, nor the explosion and entrenchment of the military-industrial complex in our national economy like it is today.
However, America was coming out of the war w/ its biggest national debt in its history (having borrowed $200 billion from the American people in war bonds – $170 billion held by U.S. taxpayers – and from American banks + $100 billion in income taxes). Congressmen were wary of spending huge amounts of money on peace time programs, especially for FDR, because his New Deal programs had had such a mixed track record of success and failure.
The reason I bring this issue up is b/c I think that the country has spent the next 73 years (and may continue) to try to achieve his goals. As we progress through the school year, we’ll return to these eight core principles and examine how we have failed and / or succeeded.
Your questions to answer:
1. Out of the 8 new rights listed above, which of them do you believe have been addressed in some way or another since 1944? Try to pick at least 2 and explain our country has tried to address them (if you choose #6, please try to do some research and not repeat misinformation that you might have heard on talk shows, i.e., it’s going to save billions, death panels, it forces everyone to buy insurance, etc.)
2. Which of these 8 rights should be the one that is immediately addressed or fixed by our Congress and President? Why?
3. Which one of these seems the least likely to be enforceable / possible to make an economic right (please don’t pick the farming right – it doesn’t affect too many people)? Why?
350 words minimum total for all three answers. Due Monday, October 16th by class.
Here’s Glenn Beck’s take on FDR’s 2nd Bill of Rights. Here.
To read a book review entitled: “FDR’s 2nd Bill of Rights: A New New Deal” click here.
A response to this book from Forbes magazine who say that only one Bill of Rights is quite enough. click here.
Here’s an analysis of how the 2nd Bill is going so far: Click here.
An article about how the 2nd BoR violates the Constitution, click here.
The Fear and the Dream – The Fifties – do questions, facts, hashtags – Part 1 of the film.
Part 2 of the film –
So, we talked about the use of the atomic bombs on Japan to end the war. In the notes on Okinawa’s influence on the decision to use the bomb taken from the book, Ripples of Battle by Victor David Hanson, he listed several reasons why he thought the bombs should have been used. One of the most persuasive points that he stated was the “Manchurian bloodbath” that could have been expected between the 1.6 million Soviet troops vs. 1 million Japanese troops if Japan did not surrender.
However, a lot of second guessing has gone into America’s use of atomic bombs on Japan in August 1945, even starting with former general and future president Dwight Eisenhower in 1948 who did not want America to be the first to use nuclear weapons.
According to the article in Portrait of America, “The Biggest Decision: Why We Had to Drop the Atomic Bomb” by Robert J. Maddox, the author worked on dispelling some of the myths that have popped up since 1945. The generals may have overestimated the Allied casualties, but the June 8 meeting with Truman stated that General George Marshall estimated that only 31,000 casualties would be inflicted during the invasion of Kyushu (Operation Olympic). What intelligence sources had discovered in the days before Hiroshima, the Japanese Imperial Command had correctly guessed what the Allies were planning and had reinforced Kyushu with over 500,000 (actually over 900,000 but the Allies didn’t know that at the time).
So, logic follows that Truman made the decision to drop the bomb in order to spare more lives, mainly American lives, from a costly invasion.
But did Truman drop the bombs to intimidate the Soviets? The war in Europe was over, and critics have claimed that the U.S. was trying to get the Soviets to either withdraw from Eastern Europe or at least be more open to agreeing with U.S. demands. However, Stalin was given the info about the success of the Trinity test (from spies) and therefore knew about the atomic bomb while at the Potsdam Conference in July 1945. Whether or not he felt intimidated was not recorded, therefore is not known.
Another sticking point was whether Japan was ready to surrender. According to the Maddox article, Japan had sent peace feelers out through the Soviets but some members of the Japanese government (those with the power) wanted to continue fighting to protect Emperor Hirohito from prosecution of war crimes (because German leaders were going to be tried for the Holocaust). What role Hirohito played has been (and still is) debated, but the military could see the writing on the wall with the prosecutions beginning in Germany after the discovery of the concentration camps. Would the emperor be retained as part of the Allies sticking to unconditional surrender terms? Or, as Truman had mentioned, would they soften on this one sticking point in order to end the war earlier to save hundreds of thousands of lives? The problem with interpreting the signals sent by the Japanese government at this time is that it sent mixed signals depending upon who was being asked. If it was a military officer, he was willing to fight to the end. If it was a politician, some kind of compromise was possible by the summer of 1945.
Furthermore, what would have happened to the Allied prisoners of war captured by the Japanese scattered throughout Asia if the Allies had invaded Japan in November 1945? Chances are, they might have been killed or tortured so they wouldn’t be of any use to an invading Allied army.
Is it possible to judge an historical era from 70 yrs later, especially one so fraught with controversy since the 1994 Smithsonian exhibit? See links below:
Your job: examine at least 2 of the issues discussed in the blog (things Truman probably had on his mind when weighing the decision to drop the bomb), and use/reference at least two of the documents (the notes on Okinawa, “The Final Act” article, and the Portrait).
What would you have advised President Truman do under these circumstances especially if you didn’t know what the outcome would be? Why? (You can pretend you don’t know the results of the bombing or not – I leave it up to you).
Due Thursday night, Sept. 28, by 10pm.