Blog #12 – 1st Rotation – APUSH students take over the blog!
This is a fake picture, but I still thought it was pretty cool.
Please choose one of the following questions to answer for your blog. These questions come from your colleagues, so enjoy.
1. Do you feel that Theodore Roosevelt’s plan of consumer protection is American or anti-American? Teddy passed various laws such as the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act. The government took on a new role, becoming more involved in people’s lives. But does more government ‘interference’, as some would call it (others have called it socialism!), represent American values? Would you have done anything differently? – Fred A.
2. Muckrakers played in big role in politics when they began to write in the early 1900s. Today, journalists also find sources of corruption and abuse to publicize – 60 Minutes, Dateline, regular newspapers and magazines + bloggers. Identify sources of muckraking today and compare reactions and effects of the writing with the previous generation of muckrakers.
– Also, TR did not like the muckrakers because he felt that they just talked trash and didn’t make any suggestions or try to help fix things and were just critical and negative. Do you believe that today’s muckrakers are just a negative source like TR did or do they do a good job of exposing corruption and abuses? – Eleanor C.
3. Nike is like Standard Oil in how they monopolize the shoe and clothing industry. But Nike is also like any other type of monopolistic business in the Progressive Era. Nike pays young kids in Asia to do very hard labor for very low wages
. It is much like how things used to be here. Do you belive it is ethical what Nike is doing to young kids in Asia? Why or why not? – Declan G.
4. Do you think that the reasons America began imperializing overseas in the 1890s (new markets, manifest destiny, naval power, and Anglo-Saxon superiority) are legitimate reasons to expand? Why or why not? If not, why do you think more people weren’t protesting America’s imperialist policies? – Claire F.
5. If you were going to cast a movie about the late 1800s business tycoons like Rockefeller, Carnegie and Morgan, who would you cast and why? – Patrice B.
6. Compare our federal government today to the federal government during the progressive era. Do you feel the (federal) government should be more or less involved in social issues such as the Headstart Plan* and environmental regulations**? If more, what else do you suggest the government do? If less, what do you suggest the government not do? – Lucy B.
*A simple summary of the Headstart Plan can be found by clicking the link.
**There have been environmental regulations proposed such as the US federal government forcing every citizen to have only fluorescent lightbulbs in their homes in two years (fluorescent lightbulbs, the ones with mercury in them, conserve energy, but are a health and environmental risk)
7. Teddy Roosevelt had a strong sense of conserving the environment for future generations before he became president and enacted laws during his tenure. Today, when we talk about saving the environment, people mention global warming and debate whether or not it’s a hoax. It seems to me that this debate just distracts from the overall point that we could be doing more, like TR, to help conserve natural resources since as Americans, we consume more energy and stuff, per capita, than other people in the world. What can we do to help make the planet a better place to live in? – Elizabeth B.
8. James Cameron’s Avatar was a tremendous hit last year, but it also had amazing plot similarities to the 1990 Western, Dances With Wolves. Both are sagas about Americans imperializing another land and shoving people off of it, regardless of the consequences to the native (Navi) people. If you’ve seen either movie, can you view either one as a critique of American imperialism? Why or why not? – David B.
9. If you could go back in time and decide whether America would go to war against the Spanish in 1898, would you? Why or why not? Please explain. – Raven G.
10. Imperialism is a form of government that Americans shunned. We have stood and fought against it in World Wars 1 and 2, yet we are imperialists ourselves and are dependent on other countries for our personal comfort and economy. Would you be true to America’s democratic roots and fight imperialism? Or would you be an imperialist that conquers and controls other countries? Why do you believe so? – Braxton A.
11. After the Spanish American War, America liberated the Philippines from Spain, but didn’t grant them independence. If you had to decide back then, would you rather see America as a laid-back nation that watched over the world, or would it be better to become an active world power, helping other nations (which sometimes came under the banner of imperialism)? Why? – Larry G.
12. What do you think the implications of the US foreign policy are now that Egypt’s old president, Hosni Mubarek, is out of office? Remember that Egypt has control of 5% of the flow of oil through the Suez Canal and because we are allies w/ Egypt. – Kaylee B. 
13. What business/society problems are around today that muckrakers would or should attack? How would they attack them- would it be through articles still? What results might these exposes bring? Explain. – Lizzie D.
14. In the last half century, the US has entered many countries under the mission of “spreading democracy”. Do you think this is a form of imperialism and is it fair for us to force our values on other countries? Why or why not? – Cameron
15. In 1960 during the height of the Cold War, the United States placed a partial embargo on newly-communist Cuba. Then, after the Cuban Missile Crisis in the fall of 1962, President Kennedy enacted a travel ban to Cuba for US citizens. The ban, currently the world’s longest-standing embargo, still allows us to export goods to Cuba, but we can’t get bring anything back. Since the Cold War is over and Castro is almost dead, should the US lift the embargo with Cuba? Why or why not? – Evan D.
16. The Women’s Suffrage movement took a long time to impact national laws to get women the right to vote. Do you think if this would have taken place in current times that the suffrage amendment would have been easier or harder to pass? Would current events overpower the suffrage movement or would the Women’s Suffrage movement be at the top of the list? Why? – Stephanie D.
17. How do you think American life would be different if President McKinley hadn’t been shot in 1901? Would Teddy Roosevelt ever have become president? Would we still have national parks? Explain. – Katie D.
18. What are some of the problems of our progressive income tax (where the rich pay a higher tax rate than the middle class or poor)? Do they outweigh the benefits? Why or why not? – Ben C.
19. There were three main candidates during the election of 1912: Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and William H. Taft. Each president had many views and approaches to the United States problems. Some were different from one another, and some were shared by two or all three. If you lived back in 1912 and were eligible to vote, which candidate would you have chosen and why? – Erick D.
20. Why would U.S. companies outsource jobs back in the early 1900s and now if so many people here need jobs here? – Alex C.
21. If Teddy Roosevelt was magically transported to the present day, what do you think his opinions would be of today’s politics, policies, and the wars in Iraq and Afganistan? Why? – Rachel G.
Question 21 of my peer’s blog:
I think that if Teddy Roosevelt were transported to America in our time, he would not be very happy with what he saw. Sure he would be happy with the wars going on right now in the Middle East but the social issues would cause him great distress. The wars in the Middle East are exactly like the Spanish American wars that Teddy started himself, besides the duration of each. The wars were started based upon unclear assumptions of whether or not Spain did attack America, or if Iraq had WMD’s. Obviously Teddy is just a man looking for a fight and would make wars start if he could. But Teddy was also known as a racist and a free spirit. He loved to hunt and roam in the West, which is now very hard to do. With all the hunting laws in place, the thing that Teddy might be most famous for is illegal, (killing of endangered animals such as the buffalo). Since he was known as a racist, it would be hard for him and many people of his time to be thrust into an era of equal civil rights when he grew up in slavery. Since he was also known as a trustbuster, I think all of the corruption on Wall Street might throw him off with people such as Bernie Madolf. Since he was a manly man, he would not like the school systems very much with all the changes they made for the safety of the students. Especially the removal of REAL dodge ball from being played. I think that Teddy was just put into his time for a reason and he could not handle most of the changes that we have made today for the better.
19.
If I had been alive and eligible to vote in 1912 I would have cast my ballot for Theodore Roosevelt. Although his policies of reform are highly comparable to those of Woodrow Wilson, his had already succeeded by 1912. My opinion would have been: “why test philosophies for similar goals when we have some that have worked already?”
In addition to having good philosophies, TR was a proven leader. His brave commanding of the Rough Riders in the Spanish-American war exemplified the courage he hoped to see in all Americans. His take on the purpose of the president and constitution would probably have been scrutinized if he had not used it so effectively.
Wilson would have been a close second choice to TR. I may have seen TR’s overwhelming individual power at the time and thought it had been taken to far and that he had planned on only two terms for a reason. Additionally, if I had known at the time that Wilson would deal with World War One so handily I may have reconsidered.
Given this scenario I would not have considered voting for William Taft. In my view he had made a feeble attempt to carry on Roosevelt’s ideas and plans at that time; I don’t see any reason why the puppeteer himself shouldn’t be put it the Whitehouse. Taft was comparable to Pinocchio in two ways. First of all, he went against his campaign promises, as Pinocchio lied extensively. Second of all, he was like a puppet to Roosevelt in coming on the stage and getting into trouble by straying off the path. Taft was not a desirable choice.
My overall opinion is that there were two considerable candidates in the election of 1912. My vote would have gone to Roosevelt for his leadership qualities and his time-tested strategies.
1. First of all, government interference, such as the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act, does not necessarily constitute socialism. Socialism in the government sense is based on having welfare programs like Social Security and Health Insurance paid for the fed (we discussed this in philosophy today). Therefore, it depends deeply on the type of “interference” as to whether or not the policies go against America’s values. Many of the reforms of Teddy Roosevelt’s era were not over inhibiting on the rights of the people. The two examples given in the question do not violate American values of individual freedom. In fact, since they protect health of the individual person by establishing a very minor control over specific companies, the government is enhancing the people’s right to life, as well as preventing indirect murder through unsafe products.
On the other hand, American values were overlooked in the establishing of policies such as the progressive income tax as well as his work with the ICC. Progressive income tax, one of Roosevelt’s brainchildren, punishes the rich for earning more money than the poor. While the poor contribute just 5% of the total tax burden, the highest class pays roughly 50% of the tax burden. This destroys the freedom of the people by forcing the burden upon those who have had more success in their lives, and this problem is still evident today. The Interstate Commerce Commission, though built to destroy trusts, interfered with laissez-faire economics, one of the more important economic policies of the time. It stopped companies from attempting to prosper. I am not saying this is wrong, it simply does not follow what are considered to be staples in America’s social ideology.
In terms of what I would have done differently, I would simply have pressed charges against big trusts so they can be dismantled, rather than helping increase the power of a trade commission that is no longer limited to just dealing with monopolies. Additionally, on the issue of taxes, one flat tax that is around the media rate of all tax brackets or slightly lower would be more fair to all people than it is to have a progressive rate that is higher depending on what your earn.
5. “Finally!” I exclaim. “The Social Darwinism of the 1890’s has come to Hollywood!” I love epic, historical movies that perfectly portray the events that changed the world. There is no doubt about it that the tycoons changed the world. They ushered in the American Industrial Revolution and helped the US assume its empire. At the fore front of this awesome display of ingenuity were J.P. Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, and John D. Rockefeller. For all intent and purpose, their stories perfectly resemble a rag-to-riches story, albeit J.P. Morgan grew up middle class. The daunting task I’ve been presented with is assembling a cast to portray these robust entrepreneurs.
With a little more facial hair, I believe James McAvoy would perfectly fit the role of a young Andrew Carnegie. Add in that both men are Scottish, and the role is a synch! As for an older, wiser Carnegie, I’d have to go with Dustin Hoffman. I know, I know, the guy from ‘Kramer vs. Kramer’?! But hear me out! Hoffman is known for playing a variety of roles and this is no difference. Throw in an accent, white hair, and facial hair and you have Andrew Carnegie reborn.
The actor I would cast to play J.P. Morgan is good ol’ reliable Michael Caine. Although I’ve never heard the man talk without his strong cockney accent, I bet he gives a great American accent. If another actor is needed to play the role of a younger John Pierpont, I would cast Christian Bale. No, I’m not trying to reunite the cast of ‘Dark Knight’; I merely think that Bale would play a good J.P.
Finally, we have John D. Rockefeller. As he aged, he became a shrill old man with very finite features. Though it’s tough one I’ll have to cast Stanley Tucci as Rockefeller—both young and old. The Tuc, as I call him, is a bit of a legend. He can take assume the presence of countless roles and do it with ease. He is placed perfectly here simply because Rockefeller was a man who never gave up, neither does Stanley.
4. I think for the most part, the US had legitimate reasons to imperialize overseas during the 1890s. Although we may think the US was harsh in how they imperialized back then, we can’t judge their decisions and their motives by our current standards, because the standards have changed. In the 1890s, the Anglo- Saxons felt a strong sense of superiority towards other nationalities, and felt it was necessary to “help out” the “lower people.” Generally speaking, Americans today don’t have the same sense of superiority; however, we have to remember that during that time, there were other empires that weren’t Anglo- Saxon that also felt superior to their neighboring countries. Japan felt this way about China, Taiwan, and Korea. It was natural for Americans to feel better than other countries, so it was not frowned upon to impose imperialistic ideas on who they considered “less civilized.” The US drastically changed economically, socially, technologically, and politically after the end of the Civil War. When imperialistic ideas were introduced, they were not inconsistent with the growth of America. There was also a naval race between the major empires, including Britain and Spain, for who would have the best navy. According to American author Mahan, the key to world dominance was control of the seas. Americans didn’t want to be left out, and since they already felt superior, they felt obligated to join the naval race. Also, the US was suffering from an economic depression because manufactured and agricultural products were over produced and under consumed. The farmers’ and factory owners’ solution was to sell their products overseas to new markets. New markets are usually beneficial, and would today be viewed as global trade expansion. Overall, America’s reasons for imperialism are legitimate and understandable, even if we wouldn’t do the same thing for the same reasons today.
Question 3. I believe that it is not only unethical but also immoral to have child laborers. What the company Nike (regrettably it is not the only company doing these things) is doing not only prevents children to receive an education (which everyone deserves) but also takes away jobs from Americans. This is extremely unjust due to the fact that children need to go to school in order to succeed in life. Despite all the “success” stories of people who become famous after they drop out of college (I’m talking to YOU, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Clinton) the vast majority of people need to be educated in order to prosper in this cutthroat world, this is the only we can advance on this planet. I also think “pays” is an understatement. Most families in China make less then one American dollar a day, even back when wages were lower in America they are still higher then what they were today. That is just sad and pathetic. The world has advanced in so many fields. We should be able to have equal rights for the laborers inside and outside unions. I also would like to point out how unfair it is to send work to China where labor unions are not allowed. To me this seems like a sneaky, underhand way to get around the anti-trust acts that America developed. By doing this only the companies seem to prosper even though without the consumer those greedy companies would definitely not exist.
19. Who would i choose in the election of 1912? That is a very hard question to answer. I would obviously not pick Taft, due to the fact that he is an idiot. He also has no political motivation, and he is honestly to easily controlled by his party. But the choice between Taft and Wilson is hard. What do you choose? New Nationalism or New Federalism. I believe both were and are very good candidates. Wilson and his fight against banks, taxes, and trusts, or Roosevelt and his fight for the environment. I believe that they were both fighting for good causes and they had good intentions, but whose fight was better? I personally believe that Roosevelt would have been the right choice. Although it is weird to have someone have 3 terms, i think he would be right. For one reason i truly love the environment, and he was the first person to make great strides at preservation, and conservation. Also i think he was president for the people. He helped destroy trusts. Also as we later learned that he helps make america as strong as it is today. Not only our navy but everything else, including the country as a whole. I also believe that Roosevelt as a president was very independent, and this is good. He did what he thought was right and wrong and in the sense he was right. Although i believe that Wilson still would, and did do a great job as the president as the united states of america.
question 13:
Molly Sovran
1. The business/society problems that the muckrakers should attack are the economy, the new driving law and student loans. They should attack these because to me, these are major issues that affect me. The muckrakers would fight these events everywhere, just like people fight it everywhere today. They would fight it through their twitter group, or face book group, TV. News, computer websites, newspapers etc. The economy, actually affects everyone. People have to make huge cut backs. A good amount of people lose their job, and companies are either in so much debt, or are going out of business. For the driving law, mostly young muckrakers would fight for this. It is going to be a new law that 16 year old drivers are not allowed to drive past 10. This is ridiculous and i know personally, I would fight to get this bill vetoed! Many kids are having a hard time staying in college. In some instances, it isn’t just flunking. It’s about not being able to pay your way through, and forced to fail. I know personally, I would never want this to happen to me because if having a college degree means being successful, then why do they make it difficult for people to stay in school. I know mostly college kids would fight this, because they want an education, and want to stay in school. Hopefully, the results could end in the law being gone, kids being able to stay in college, and in a perfect world, the economy to be good again.
Jacob Seid
In answer to Lizzie’s question (#13), I think that muckrakers today would attack the inside businesses practice when hidden from the public eye. What goes on behind closed doors involving the government as well is also an important issue for modern day muckrakers to look into. Instead of writing journals about this stuff, I think if it were to be a TV show, it would be much more entertaining. I think in the case of a TV show it would expose what actually happens on tape which makes the corruption more visual, more believable. By bringing the issues of all sizes of companies and of the government into the light, it can create controversy and many people will have the same opposing view toward the company and/or government. By doing so, it will in a way, inspire the company or government to realize that what they are doing, yes may be wrong, but is having an even worse affect on their sales or the happiness of their people because of their actions. No company or government wants this unless they are bad ones. I think a great place to start with for muckrakers currently would be about the cutting of $400 from public school with the new Governor, possibly the bailouts, or a show could be made like Undercover Boss which goes behind the closed doors to find if people for a company are stealing equipment, working other jobs, unhappy with their pay/ treatment. Just a few ideas about the modern day muckrakers.
6) I think that the federal government today should be a little less involved in social issues. Government help is great to some extent, but when they try to take over everything it doesn’t work because it’s simply too much to do. Take health care for example. While it’s great that the government is enforcing insurance companies to make sure they don’t turn down people for prior conditions, But the downside is that it’ll be more expensive and not as efficient as it is now. While the government does well while involved in some things, there’s certain areas where they should just stay away from.
6) I think that the federal government today should be a little less involved in social issues. Government help is great to some extent, but when they try to take over everything it doesn’t work because it’s simply too much to do. Take health care for example. While it’s great that the government is enforcing insurance companies to make sure they don’t turn down people for prior conditions, But the downside is that it’ll be more expensive and not as efficient as it is now. While the government does well while involved in some things, there’s certain areas where they should just stay away from. Another example would be distribution of income. In a perfect world, this plan would work, taking money from the rich to give to the poor. Unfortunately, as it is now, the money taken from businesses and others who make above a certain amount go not only to helping people down on their luck and out of a job like it’s supposed to, but also to people who won’t try to get a job at all and will milk unemployment for as long as possible. This doesn’t help anyone and it hinders our economy, as does borrowing money from other nations. This doesn’t mean that the government should stay entirely away from helping the people. I think they should do more to help out public schools if they can, because education is important and I think that the federal government can help to improve it from where it is now. Government involvement in social issues is a double bladed sword. As stated in the question, the Headstart Plan of giving every child life insurance is a very good idea, but the forcing of every household to use fluorescent light bulbs just to conserve a little bit more energy at the cost of health risks is a ridiculous idea.
8. I have seen both Avatar and Dances With Wolves and personally love Dances With Wolves. The two movies basically have the same plot and message but just take place in different time periods. These two movies are very strong examples of American Imperialism. Americans went after land and resources and didn’t think twice about the people that already inhabited the land and have lived there for generations. In Avatar, the Americans were after a rare mineral/element that was extremely valuable and only found on Pandora which was already inhabited by many natives and in Dances With Wolves, Americans were after the land out west during westward expansion. In both stories the main character goes against his own race and joins the native people, going against his country and initial prejudice. Both movies do a really good job of making you side with the native people because you get to see what the native people experience when American forces try to take over. I know I sympathized with and supported the natives in both movies and had a hard time supporting the Americans. Americans don’t necessarily see that our country was building an empire but back during Westward expansion and even during the Spanish-American War, that’s exactly what we were doing. Avatar shows this sense of American domination even in the future. I understand that as a country we have to establish ourselves as a power which involves land possession and basically taking land from other people but that greatly affects the lives of many people. The violence and take over by the Americans shown in both movies was eye opening and makes one think twice about the empire we have established for ourselves.
Question 16:
Women’s suffrage back then was, for some reason, extremely difficult to pass. Most people had the “women belong in the kitchen” mentality. I mean, really, that’s just bogus. Women are people too, and I’m sure there are and was plenty of women who could kick any man’s butt at a lot of things. So why the silly idea that women are made to sit around, cook, and raise the kids while the men had all the fun? I think it all has to do with the “men started this country and we’re stronger than you” thing, but I do have to say things are pretty much resolved, though at times there are some slip ups.
I think that if women never had the opportunity to vote and we just got sick of it now and tried to fight for it, I think it might be granted easier, if all circumstances stood except for voting. I mean we’ve had a few women try to run for an higher office and there are women governors, senators and representatives. Plus, especially with this economy, most women aren’t stay at home moms anymore. There are an extremely high number of women who have very successful jobs. My mom is a lawyer and there are a lot of women doctors, scientists, police officers, athletes, etc. So yes, with all the advancements of women in society I think it would be achieved much easier, even though some stubborn “That’s not how it was done in the olden days, men are better than women, make me a sandwich” type of men would fight it at first.
Question 1:
I believe TR did the right thing when the Meat Inspection Act and Pure Food and Drug Act was passed. These two acts were upholding the interests of the American people. The act was very American because TR pushed for the acts with the intention of helping the American people. Interference, as some may call it, is way better than the hands off policy during the Gilded Age. When the government didn’t do anything, the buisness were able to control everything and there was also a lot of corruption. The governement needs to have some sort of control over the people to make sure that this doesn’t ever happen again. TR was simply reforming the system and placing controls to protect the American people.
7. To help make the planet a better place to live in, we must conserve natural resources for future generations. To conserve water, we could wash our own car with a bucket of soapy water, instead of going to the car wash. This way, we won’t use as much water, and we’ll have the satisfaction of knowing that we are able to wash our own cars. Another way to save water is to turn the faucet off while we brush our teeth. The water shouldn’t be left on if we are not using it. It is a waste and unnecessary. To conserve oil we can use hybrid vehicles because they don’t use as much fuel, but they also don’t emit as much pollution to the atmosphere; or, to conserve oil even more, we can walk, ride a bike, and carpool for those longer distanced places. Another way to conserve oil in the home is to turn down the thermostat whenever possible. Turning down the thermostat by even one degree can result in conserving 1-3% of heating oil. To conserve energy, we can use solar power in our homes, because it gets its energy from the sun. Also in our homes we can unplug electronics such as stereos, televisions, computers, and kitchen appliances when we aren’t using them. Doing this won’t consume as much electricity. We can also use alternate sources of energy instead of using fossil fuels, (which will eventually run out), such as wind, solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric. Above all these suggestions, remember the three E’s: reduce, reuse, and recycle! Practicing the three E’s will save plastic, glass, paper, and more. A recycling program should be installed in all schools and business, as well as in our homes.
2. In today’s society it is common for people to point out the flaws this country has much like they did when muckraking became popular. Common topics for muckrakers today are the environment issues, wars, and businesses. Those are very similar to the things muckrakers used to talk about in the early days of muckraking. Readers react the same way they did back then too by doing something about the issues or just getting angry and arguing about them. The modern day muckrakers don’t seem to be doing much either. Their goal seems to just be getting the words out about issues, which is great, but it would be nice if they helped solve the problems they helped bring up. Today muckraking is much easier with help from television and the internet, but that’s really all people seem to be doing is getting the word out. Awareness is great, but muckrakers today should be able to help out with the issues as well. All they seem to do is sit on their big, comfy couches in front of the camera and interview their guests and discuss topics or issues of that day. What’s the point of bringing things up if they aren’t going to do anything about it? Really there is none then. Muckrakers of today should know better than the muckrakers of the past and get up and do something. Donating money and talking about issues isn’t going to fix the world’s or country’s problems. If they want to talk the talk they should be able to walk the walk as well.
9. If I could go back in time and decide whether or not America would go to war against the Spanish rule, I would definitely choose to not go to war. When it comes down to it, The U.S. didn’t have any legit reasons that justified this rash choice to declare war against the Spanish. First, I feel like the Cuban peoples’ well-being and decisions they made for their country were really just their business. The U.S. was trying to assert its power unnecessarily where it didn’t even belong. I feel like their main goal was really only to gain control of Cuba, not help the Cuban people. The war in the Philippines was even more hasty and pointless. The Filipino people had clearly advertised the fact that they wanted to govern themselves without any other countries having control over them. America’s reasons for wanting to take over the Philippines weren’t even very logical. They obviously didn’t need to be governing a country that was on the other side of the world basically for them. They honestly didn’t even need naval bases all over the world; it was clear that America had become the biggest most powerful nation so there was no need for them to make all of these efforts to prove it to the other countries. All of this attack on the Spanish in Cuba and the Philippines only made countries lose trust in them as time went on. Since other countries saw how untrustworthy America was and how selfish its goals truly were, some still didn’t trust the U.S. to this day.
#13
I think that in todays society the muckrakers would attack social issues such as sweatshops, gangs, and abortion. In america popular brands use sweatshops in order to produce the maximum outcome of their product. Sweatshops are wrong because of the conditions that the people who work at them have to live under and also the pay that is issued to the workers is way under the appropriate amount. Also in america there is a huge gang population in today’s schools and on the streets. Gangs are seen on almost every corner of neighborhoods and are intimated younger kids across the nation. Gangs promote the sell and use of illegal drugs and violence against everyday people and against other gangs. Abortion is another issue that I think the muckrakers would go after. Some people are pro abortion and some are against abortion. I think that the muckrakers would be able to give the world a pure unedited raw look at abortion and give society a chance to see if it truly wrong or not.
I think that in todays society the muckrakers would be able to have an even larger impact on the world. The muckrakers could use all types of sources in todays society. They would be able to reach the older population through the newspaper or even a little show on the news like the Hall of Shame. If the muckrakers wanted to reach the younger generations and appeal to teenagers they would be able to use sources such as facebook and twitter. I believe that with all this social networking the muckrakers would be able to reach all the people in America through one way or another causing greater success.
13.
I think there are a lot of problems muckrakers would attack today, but one of the issues they would attack first would be the use of sweatshops overseas to make cheap clothing and other products. I also think they would work on exposing corruption and scandal in the government. I think they would still use articles to some extent to make these exposes public, but I think they would have also updated their methods to include blogging, programs like CNN’s I-report, and facebook groups. Depending of the levels they would be willing to go to, I think some muckrakers would also use slightly-less-legal means of exposing scandals, like hacking databases and the like. Unless the muckrakers were able to gain a lot of notoriety though, I don’t think their exposes of sweatshops would make a very large impact, however I think uncovering government scandals would generate a lot of attention. People have always loved to learn about the scandals of people in the public eye. In many ways, we have a lot of muckrakers today. Wikileaks is a good example of muckraking. Like the muckrakers of the early 20th century, people question the leaders of Wikileaks ethics and they’ve generated a lot of buzz in the mainstream press. Like in the early 20th century, I think a lot of the published muckraker stories would be sensationalized and probably a lot would be published in magazines like People, significantly reducing their credibility. To have really popular stories though, I think the muckrakers would have to make their stories exceptionally scandalous to rise above the noise of the mainstream media.
7. I agree with the points that the debate just distracts from the overall point that we, as a country, could be doing more and we consume more energy and stuff, per capita, than other people in the world. I think we could do a lot to help make the world a better place. TR helped a lot by preserving forests and creating national parks but a big problem now is preservation of water, the Colorado river is dangerously low and not many people know about it. Science is working on devices that could recycle the water people use everyday but there is not enough awareness. If you ask someone about Global Warming they can tell you their stance, what it is and how they want to fix it but if you ask someone about another problem like water preservation, where all of our trash goes and if recycling really does anything they don’t always know. I think the real way to help the world with conservation is awareness and letting the country know what is happening. Another way to help with conservation is to reform the laws we have now and make new laws like carbon emission caps and taxes on gas. Also adding more alternative energy resources like windmill like things and solar panels and improving and perfecting the electric car. Other little things that america could do and be made aware of is using reusable bags when shopping, recycling cans and bottles, buting this in bulk and getting rid of excess packaging and taking the subway, riding a bike or walking instead of taking the car.
U.S. Companies outsource jobs even though people need jobs here because they do what best suits their needs. Outsourcing jobs is cheaper, letting companies cut back on production costs. U.S. Companies don’t think how doing this affects jobless Americans they only think of the business part. They would rather save money by sending work overseas than have Americans do the work because it is cheaper overseas. In the early 1900s companies first started outsourcing jobs and over the years they never stopped. IN the 1900s companies started to outsource jobs to save money o product production. The companies are now too involved with other countries to completely leave, but they can reduce the number of jobs that they send overseas. Now companies are losing money all over the place and cutting back every where they can. Even if having jobs in the U.S. is important to them, most companies don’t have a choice if they want to continue existing. Outsourcing jobs started out as a way to save money but has turned into the only way for a company to survive. When companies first started to outsource jobs they were just being selfish not caring who didn’t have a job as long as they were making money. This is still the case for some companies but more often than not a company relies on the cheap foreign labor to survive. Since U.S. companies did not get out of outsourcing many are stuck to continue outsourcing jobs even though they realize jobs are need at home in the U.S. of A.
3. In old America, children had to work in factories and plants to make a living and help support their families. In modern America, Nike is using children in Asia to make the shoes for children in America. It isn’t fair for the people in Asia that were exploiting them in such a manor. Not only is it awful to put children in bad working conditions; it is also giving America a bad image in other countries. If we keep up this system of having kids in other countries do the work, that could be done by Americans, which would provide more jobs, then we will revert back to the old ways. Very likely children will have to go back to work and child labor laws will go out the window and kids will end up working in factories and plants like they did 100 some years ago. If the kids in these Nike factories had good working conditions and better pay, then this would be an entirely different conversation but the reality is the kids don’t get paid well at all and the conditions are terrible. They have to work long hours and they’re around sewing machines and pointy needles. People complain about not being able to see their kids because they have to work such long hours and their job sucks, but what if it was opposite? What if people complained because they couldn’t see their kids because the KIDS have such long hours and crappy jobs? If we can stop the work in Asia then not only would many kids have better lives, but many people in America would be able to be employed by Nike, making new jobs.
#16
The Women’s Suffrage movement did take a long time to impact the national laws to get women the right to vote. This would have been harder to pass in current times. If we didn’t pass them back in the day we would have been used to the idea that women do not get the right to vote, and it would be difficult. The more women lived with the law the law would have stuck around and probably never would have change. Current events would overpower the suffrage movement because like I said before it would be too hard to change the idea and the women would have been okay with it. I’m Not saying that I wouldn’t liked the law to be changed if it wasn’t but the way it seemed before how women could barely do anything in the beginning and how we gradually gained independence. I’m glad that we have gained independence and the Women’s Suffrage movement did take action because with it women wouldn’t be able to do anything without it. Like going to school and getting an education, going to work and supporting for their family, and being able to vote women have the right like any other man. There shouldn’t be a difference in between the two. If I were born in that time I would be very upset that the fact that it took a long time to take action. I would have made a movement not just for women for African Americans as well. We are all human and there shouldn’t be a difference in gender or color. If blacks, women and men live in America, then they all should have a choice in what goes on in America.
17. If President McKinley had never been shot, I do still think that Teddy Roosevelt would have become president because of how publicly liked he was. But at the same time, people began to like him after he became the president. If McKinley hadn’t been killed, who’s to say that the public would like Teddy if he ran?
Another question is: would he have run after McKinley? Seeing as though he never really wanted to be president until he was forced into it after McKinley’s death, I don’t think he ever would have willingly run because of his love for war. I think that after the end f the term, he would have gone right back to the army to fight in the war. His love of war was too great. I believe that if he hadn’t been forced into becoming president, that serving his country through battle would have definitely been his next move.
If he ran then yes, I do think that our country’s national parks would still exist. On the contrary, if he hadn’t run, I don’t think the parks would exist because they were almost completely because of TR. I think that maybe later on in his life TR would have pushed for the national parks, but I really think that being president is one of the main reasons the parks were actually created. I don’t think that any of the other presidents would have found preservation as important as TR did, and I don’t think any of them would have pushed for the parks like Teddy.
13. I think a social issue the muckrakers would attack is the local road commission for doing a poor job of maintaining our roads. Poor road conditions affect everyone. It is extremely dangerous to drive on roads that have not been properly maintained. Several times this year there have been snowfalls of more than 3 inches. Each time snow has remained on the roads for days after. The muckrakers would attack the road commission by exposing the fact that the roads are not getting properly plowed and the workers have been seen taking excessive numbers of breaks. They would attack them through the Internet, newspaper articles, undercover investigations on TV, and on blogs. By exposing these issues, the road commission may respond by providing more supervision over its snowplow drivers to make sure they have put in an honest amount of work for their pay. Many people use the Internet and they will become more aware of our local problems. Also, through the television people will want to respond to these problems because of the entertainment through private investigations. If the road commission’s drivers are not exposed, there will be further problems with the roads in the spring. After the winter, potholes line the streets. If the drivers continue their inefficient ways, the potholes will not be taken care of in a timely manner. This is a serious issue. Potholes cause accidents as drivers hit their breaks and swerve to avoid them. Potholes also cause car damage. The muckrakers would expose how the snowplow drivers and repair crews are taking advantage of the tax paying public by failing to give them an honest days work.
Blog #12
Braxton Allred
2/23/11
Wickersham 3rd hr
To answer Declan’s question, I believe that the wages and conditions set forth by Nike to children in Vietnam and nature is unethical and unfair for them and represent poorly for what America stands for. I really like Nike products for their quality and comfort they give me in an athletic area, but every time I hear about this crap I get really mad and upset that a modern company would do something so damaging to a people, and anyway it’s kind of weird to think that a 10 year old made my shoe.. For one thing, the poor wages and conditions given to the children are very anti-American and go against many ethical and social believes. This includes child labor, unfair wages and poor working conditions. Even if Nike and other such companies are helping the kids earn money for themselves and their families, it’s not necessarily a good thing because it’s giving these children the temptation of working for some extra cash. This makes the children leave their schooling which not only affects the level and quality of jobs available to them, it even causes a trend of children leaving school to start working early. These affects go against the American moral of giving a child good education and preventing further growth and development of themselves, their future families and the economy of their country and the world. I mean, imagine if a popular and powerful company started hiring children in our own country to work in factories once again. Kids would drop out of school so they could avoid the drag of it and hope to earn some “good” money while not being in school. The uproar and against such an atrocity would be so immense that the company would be sued and shut down in a heartbeat. I think that if Nike and other such companies were to stop hiring these children, they would be more widely accepted by people who avoid their products for such reasons because of their “heroic sacrifice” to spread the American way, when truly they are only doing what is ethically right to any decent human being.
17. I think life in America would be very different if McKinley was never shot. If you think about the early 1900s many things would have changed. McKinley wasn’t alive long enough as president to know how good, or how bad a job he would’ve done. Before Teddy Roosevelt trusts and monopolies ruled America that any political figure could. Teddy was the first person to start tearing them down. No one can tell for sure what the world would be without Teddy Roosevelt becoming president but there are several possibilities. One of these possibilities is that being the vice president, which he openly admitted that he didn’t want any part of, would stifle his political drive. Another possible outcome is that he would go out west again and hunt more buffalo or continue becoming “as much a westerner as an easterner”. A third option would be going back to the military. As a decorated general he would definitely be welcomed back with open arms and maybe he would get his cavalry back. Also considering that the nation’s first national park was started because of his political drive. I also think that life today would be different because without President Teddy Roosevelt, Taft wouldn’t have been elected and without these two men no one knows how much longer the trusts would’ve lasted, possibly all the way up to today.
7. There are many things that could be done to help make the planet a better place. As Elizabeth said, there are people out in the world discussing whether global warming is real or not, when instead they could be doing something about global warming, or in the people who believe it isn’t real’s case, making the world a better place. One thing that people could do is use the three “R’s”: reduce, reuse, and recycle. To reduce, you could reduce waste by choosing reusable products instead of disposables. Another way to reduce, is by limiting how long you use energy. You could reduce the amount of water you use to brush your teeth, or wash your face. Also you could reduce the about of energy you use by turning off the lights when you don’t need them on. To reuse, you could use some things more than once. Some examples of things that you could reuse is blankets and clothes by donating them to a Salvation Army, or a Goodwill. You could also reuse plastic bags, paper bags, or your leftovers could be fed to animals outside. Finally to recycle you can put all papers, plastics, and metals that you are done with in a recycling bin instead of in the garbage. This takes all of your old items and turns them into new products, and some of them are manufactured locally. Other things that the world could do to make it a better place is not to litter. By littering we’re making the world messy, and most of the stuff that is thrown not in garbage cans, could’ve been recycled. Another thing you could do is to only drive if it is necessary. There are many pollutants going into the ozone layer and by not driving as much this could lower this number. These are only some of the ways that the world could become a better place, just as Teddy Roosevelt would have wanted it.
7. The question says “make the planet a better place to live in,” and I personally think the planet is a pretty good place to live in at the moment. We could all plant trees and make the planet more green, making it a nicer looking place to live in. But I’m guessing the question means what can we do to be more eco-friendly. The debate regarding global warming has been raging throughout the 21st century, and looking back the 21st century was really full of politicians and corporations pointing fingers at others, shouting how the other is polluting our earth and how they have new ideas for conserving our resources. Now that we are in a new decade, we need to stop thinking of ways to conserve and start actually conserving. The economy needs new jobs and sustainable energy could provide that. Clean, eco-friendly wind turbines can power a small city without needing tons of coal and oil. If every person recycles their paper they are decreasing the size of landfills that pollute the earth with their decomposing occupants. Unplugging appliances when not in use can save Americans money and cut down the amount of electricity that is wasted every night by millions. Turning off all lights when you leave the house or turning off the lights when you are doing something during the daytime can reduce the amount of electricity needed to be generated by the already harmful power plants across America. People now adays think that driving a hybrid makes the world a cleaner place, but you are still using gas. Carpooling can cut car emissions drastically if we all actually try and incorporate carpooling in our everyday lives.
4) I think that some of the reasons are legitimate and some of them are not. New Market, and naval power are legitimate, and manifest destiny and Anglo-Saxon superiority are not. I think new market is reasonable because if America annexed land in other places then it allows people to sell and buy in more places. Naval power would have been greatly increased with more land available for American uses. It would have allowed the navy to create bases in places all around the world. The benefit of that would be that America could get places much faster. In the event of a disaster, or war the navy would be able to respond more quickly. Another reason is that the navy could refuel the ships while out at sea, eliminating the need for ships having to carry extra fuel. Manifest destiny was the belief that America would ultimately extend across North America, and there was nothing that could be done to stop it. I don’t think that this was a good reason to expand because people I don’t think that expanding a country should be based upon fate. There should be a more concrete reason for expansion rather than a feeling. Anglo-Saxon superiority is the idea that white people are supposedly better because they come from a stronger, smarter population. I think that this ides should not have been a reason for American to expand because Americans should not be able to take over other people just because they aren’t white and Americans are. I think that the last two reasons weren’t protested because they were accepted ideas of the time. People now are different than people back then, so what seems ridiculous now was all people knew then.
Question #1
While this is a complicated issue, I think Theodore Roosevelt’s plan of consumer protection is predominantly American. For example, as graphically portrayed by The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, the meat and drug industry had no regulation. The products they produced were wildly unsafe for the consumers often causing sickness or even death. Therefore the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act were both constitutional because they were designed to protect the most basic of the inalienable rights, the right to life. It is understandable that people would be opposed to government interference with the free market. But I think it is the lesser of two evils when compared to unregulated monopolies ruling our economy. Government regulation in our economy is an interesting case of compromising some American values (the idea of a free market), to protect other American values (the right to life, pursuit of happiness, etc..). If I was in Theodore Roosevelt’s position, I would not do anything differently.
Also, I would not call that Government regulation Socialism because it was merely trying to keep the free market free. There were no welfare programs or any such things. Now the Government interference in the economy could be perceived as Socialism if it was to discourage competition (like in Soviet Russia), but that was not the case at all. The government interference was to increase competition.
#18
Some of the problems with the progressive income tax is that it takes away proportionally more money from hardworking and successful Americans and essentially gives it to less successful Americans. I do not find this redistribution of wealth to be just in any way. Apart from being morally wrong it also is bad in a practical sense. When people are essentially being punished for being more successful and earning more money then it makes for less incentive to try and work hard. If you know that you will be able to keep a higher proportion of your earnings if you work less hard, then you are more likely not to try as hard to get the point where you will be earning more but keeping less because it wont be worth the extra effort. While these are all bad things there are some benefits of the progressive income tax. The main benefit is that by taxing the rich more, less of the country needs to be taxed as much. It makes it much easier to get the money needed to fund government operations. I do not, however, think that these benefits outweigh the problems. I think that a flat tax would be a better alternative to a progressive income tax. This type of tax system will put less pressure on employers which will allow them to hire more workers and thus create new jobs which will support the economy. It might make for a higher tax burden on the people with lower incomes, but it will enable employers to raise wages or lower the cost of goods which will overall increase the standard of living for most Americans. A flat tax also seems more fair to me because it doesnt punish success.
7. Making the world a better place to live in is and immense task, but America needs to step up to the plate and do its part to be more eco-friendly. Whether global warming is real or not isn’t the main point that we should be fighting about. Our world is polluted, is covered in trash, and does need help. The question isn’t “Is there a problem?” the question is “What are we going to do about it?”. First off, we’ve got to find new sources of energy, preferably renewable energy that we can keep using and won’t run out. Fossil fuels are running out, many are saying that we’ve already hit our production peak when it comes to oil. Wind and solar energy are a good place to start. They won’t be enough to sustain us considering how much energy we currently use, but they could start the ball rolling on the path to green energy alternatives. Wind turbines and solar panels have already been proven effective, we just have to utilize them and make the most of the energy they can give us. Electric vehicles are being developed, produced, and improved upon as we speak. If they catch on, this will decrease our dependence on oil a great deal which might also help our economy since we spend billions of dollars on imported oil every year. And of course, people need to continue to do those small things that make a bit of a difference. Recycling to keep trash out of our landfills is always a good idea. Conserving electricity and water in the home by turning it off when not in use doesn’t hurt anything either. People need to be more aware that this problem does exist. If everyone thinks that the deterioration of our Earth is a hoax, then how in the world (no pun intended) are we ever going to fix it?
Question #3
It is not very ethical of Nike to use cheap child labor in Asia to manufacture their shoes and other products. You could argue that the kids in Asia need the money they get from Nike to help support their families and that by not employing them Nike is hurting them and being unethical. Nike could still employ them but they should do so under different circumstances. Nike could make their labor easier and pay them more. Really, companies shouldn’t be able to employ young kids at all. Kids aren’t meant to work hard and dangerous jobs their meant to grow and have fun and learn. If their stuck in factories all day they can’t do that. However if companies do employ children then they need to at least make their jobs easy or at least not terribly dangerous and difficult. They also need to pay them a fair wage for their work. It shouldn’t matter that their kids they should still be paid as much as adults for their work. If Nike want’s to keep making it’s products in Asia then they should be employing adults, not children. If they employed adults then they at least are making the decision. Kids who work in the factories are doing it because their parents told them they have to. Families who need a child’s income should have the kid’s work but not in dangerous factory jobs. They should be in more child safe and friendly environments. Nike isn’t an ethical company, good companies don’t employ kids for dangerous and hard jobs.
16. I think that if the Woman’s Suffrage movement had taken place in modern times, the Susan B. Anthony Amendment would have been easier to pass. With social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, protests and rallies could have been organized faster and more efficiently. If arrested suffragettes were abused in prison like they were in the 1920s, news of it would quickly travel across the world with the help of Twitter, causing international outrage. The federal government would not only be receiving pressure to pass the Suffrage Amendment from citizens of the Unites States, but from several world powers as well. If women still held chairs in the Congress and Senate in this alternate universe, the amendment would be passed as soon as it was introduced. For women in Congress, Women’s Suffrage would not be a Democratic vs. Republican issue. It would be a personal one.
I think that the Woman’s Suffrage movement would be a huge issue, not easily overshadowed by other current events. It would be just as, if not more, widely discussed and argued over as healthcare. Almost all of the world’s superpowers have universal suffrage, and by denying women the right to vote, America would be a hypocrite. How could we be fighting for democracy in the Middle East when we don’t even have real democracy in our own country? Yes, if women didn’t have the right to vote, the United States would really be a democracy. Half its population would be victims of taxation without representation.
14.
I think that our spreading of “democracy” is America’s way of justifying our imperialism. If you look at the countries that we have entered including; Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, and Somalia. In all of these countries death, destruction and atrocities occurred. But democracy? Definitely not. In fact in most countries American presence has made it worse. The most notable is Iraq. The U.S. has been occupying it for 10 years now and we are just beginning to see improvement. The death rate has been incredible, especially regarding Iraqis. It is estimated more than 1.4 million natives have been killed due to the invasion. This is not spreading democracy at all. I would consider it spreading terror. I would agree that this is more like imperialism. The present “government” in Iraq is run by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. He was approved by the U.S. If this isn’t imperialism then I don’t understand the term. Anyone going in and out of the presidents “green/safe zone” is vigorously searched by American troops. He is basically an American puppet, protected and watched by our military. Though the Obama administration is working on withdrawing troops, we still have to keep a large enough force there to maintain control. I don’t think this is fair at all. If we wanted other countries to be democracies there are plenty of other methods that are better than complete military domination. For example we could just have sent a black ops team into the capital and assassinated Sadam Hussien. (joke)We need to get our heads straight and realize that if they don’t want our help, that means they don’t want it, and we should let the government figure itself out.
14) I believe that the United States’ efforts to spread democracy is a form of imperialism, however, I think that it is fair for us to force our values on other countries. Many of the countries that the U.S. has intervened with had numerous problems such as corruption, political instability, rebellions, poverty, and war. If fixing these problems requires overthrowing the government and setting up the only kind of government the U.S. knows, then I think that the U.S. has every right to do so. Take the Middle East for example. Countries such as Iran and Afghanistan were ruled by militaries who established unfair laws and practices during their reign. The new government discriminated against women, promoted ways of life that are illegal and unethical in different countries such as terrorism, and changed the course of agriculture and the economy layout to affect it negatively. Many riots were formed and society would complain and often revolt unsuccessfully though, as the military would just stop them. In cases like these, it should be the duty for other countries to intervene and return peace within the countries. Without it, these unstable countries would remain in chaos and disorder. Another example is Korea. It was right for the U.S. to intervene in the Korean War to stop the fight between the North and the South. The South was turned into a democracy, which helped it become a stable prosperous country; however, the North remains isolated, and is still dangerous, containing nuclear weapons which could be used at any time. The spread of democracy here helped restore peace in one country, yet it still has to travel to the North to prevent it from doing something disastrous.
20.
In the early 1900’s revolutionists fought for great changes in America including minimum wage, no child labor, 8 hour workdays, and the preservation of unions. Once these luxuries were given to Americans the monopolies lost huge amounts of money and had to raise prices, but instead of this being a bad thing, shrewd companies could simply move out of the country and undercut their rivals prices by using cheap foreign labor. In short outsourcing only happens due to the reformist movement, we traded quantity of jobs for quality of life.
The major companies such as Standard Oil and Wall-mart don’t care about the employees of the company so long as they gain money, thats why companies outsource even though americans will be losing jobs.
18. The only minor problems with the progressive income tax that I can see are that it leans us more towards socialism and corruption, as well as it chips away at the incentive to work hard and get a higher paying job. Besides this the benefits are that the huge margin between rich and poor is narrowed slightly, also the poor will now have more money to pay off their debts and begin to get nonessential items. I definitely think that this is a good thing because, in my opinion, the rich shouldn’t have everything they desired, and pay the same tax as the people that are scraping together money for food and other necessities. I have no idea how somebody could think that this tax is a bad thing.
17. If President McKinley wasn’t assassinated in 1901, America would be in a rather different position than it is today. William McKinley was a cautious president who looked at all sides of an issue before acting on a painless solution. His reluctance to make seemingly controversial decisions gave his critics reason to call him out as a weakling. Had McKinley lived out his term as president, Teddy Roosevelt would have stayed vice president, and his advisors wouldn’t have let him run for president, given that they didn’t trust him to run the country. This means that Roosevelt wouldn’t have handed the torch to future president William Taft, setting them both up for failure during the election of 1912. Since these two dimwits might not have become presidents in the first place, they wouldn’t have torn the Republican directly down the middle during this crucial election, and Woodrow Wilson wouldn’t have been given his presidency on a silver platter. I honestly don’t think that TR would have been president; sure, the public loved him, but his associates closest to him would have found the idea puke-inducing. Some people believed that he was a bit too radical and that his ideals were preposterous to be modest. As it was, Roosevelt did love himself quite a bit, always demanding the presence of photographers at his public appearances. One of his better proposals, however, was the installment of national parks; if it weren’t for TR, we may not have these today. He had some intense opinions about how Americans were treating the environment – and he had good reason, since people were evidently eager enough to drain the earth’s natural resources without delay. No one cared about nature like Roosevelt, especially not the CEOs of booming businesses that needed the sure-to-be-dwindling sources in order to hold on to capital. Any other president would have let the destruction of our ecological supplies continue, and we as a country would try to perform a one-eighty as we assessed the damage, which it would be too late to fix.
16. I think the suffrage amendment would have been easier to pass had it taken place in current times. Since technology is advancing exponentially, there would have been a lot more opportunities for women to get involved with the ever expanding world of technology. There would also be more single mothers that would be forced to go to work to earn money for their families, and with more women in the business, there would have been more women united to push for equal rights as women. Another reason it would have been easier is that this generation of women would be more determined to earn equal rights because of their “I can do anything” mindset. They would be so fed up with not having equal rights; they would be more adamant then their ancestors about the Women’s Suffrage movement. I don’t however think Women’s Suffrage would be on the top of the government’s to do list. There would be much more troubling things to deal with like the war with Iraq or the health care issues. Anyway it would seem as if women were so much a part of the world already, that all it would need was legalizing. Sure there would still probably be some people who would believe that a woman’s only place is in the house cooking and cleaning for her family (some still think that today regardless of the vast achievements we have accomplished over the decades), but that wouldn’t stop the determined women of today.
17. Here is my idea of what could have happened if President McKinley hadn’t been shot in 1901.
As McKinley was preparing to finish his term in 1904, he handed the Republican Nomination to Senator Mark Hanna, choosing not to exceed George Washington’s standard of two terms. Hanna had helped McKinley win the election of 1896 against William Jennings Bryan, who was again the Democratic nominee. McKinley, still riding a wave of popularity, chose to return the favor by endorsing a candidate as a popular president. McKinley’s vice president, Teddy Roosevelt was snubbed and did not receive many votes at the Republican convention when he attempted to launch a bid for president. Instead of the progressive Roosevelt, the Republican Party took a more conservative approach by nominating Hanna, notoriously involved with big businesses. After he used $16 million to finance McKinley’s election, Hanna spent a record $30 million to triumph over Bryan, who was the Democratic nominee for the third straight election. Instead of returning to New York, where he had been governor, Roosevelt decided to return to the west, which he had loved when he was younger. He fell in the love with the west, and began to realize the atrocities being committed against nature, including the horrific exploitation of natural resources. When he tried to take action by being elected to a public post, he found himself shunned by the Republican Party. However, he managed to get elected to the House of Representatives as a member of the newly formed Progressive Party. Once there, he vigorously campaigned for the environment, but had little success. Congress was dominated by members with ties to big businesses, including those that prospered out west, such as companies in the logging industry. Meanwhile, Americans continued to abuse the environment in the west. National parks were never created, although Roosevelt proposed setting aside land. Bison and many other species went extinct.
Think, all this could have happened if an anarchist hadn’t assassinated President McKinley.
Last year I saw Avatar, and it is most definitely a critique of American Imperialism. Dances with Wolves had the same plotline, except it was based in a more past tense and realistic story. Both of the stories were about the few native sympathizers and how they defended the natives. In truth, many times the sympathizers were just there in words for the Indians, and not in action. Avatar demonstrates how America was pushed to imperialize not just because it was strong, but because of the greed of big corporations and military officials. In Avatar the big corporation is pushing out of its territorial confines to search for more precious Unobtanium, but they are halted by the native tribes. Just like in the 18th-19th century, the company’s head directors have no problem killing the natives, but public opinion (the scientists) calls for correct treatment of the “Natives”. The big corporations though, have no interest except for their money, so they do the same that was done to the Indians: they force them out. Although success was non-existent in real life with the Indian tribes, in Avatar the Na’vi take back their homes through the help of wildlife. Avatar represents a century old desire of wealthy men, especially politicians and military officials, to make themselves richer, no matter the cost to others. In the same way today America continues greedy imperialism by forcefully planting themselves in other countries lives, dictating governments for control of the oil, gold, and other bountiful natural resources. Avatar showed how greed and corruption can seriously harm others while possibly making one person out of hundreds or millions happier.
I think that Teddy Roosevelt’s plan to protect consumers was very American, for a number of reasons. The first reason I think T.R.’s plan was true to American values is inherent in the goal of Teddy’s plan; the plan was created to protect Americans, and America is a country that was founded in protection of its people, not to protect big business. The second reason is that the plan is based on government inspection of products, and this is important for not only America, but in every country, because a country that doesn’t protect its consumers is a very sad country indeed. The third reason is that without the enactment of these acts and the implementation of this plan, America’s companies would be free to sell whatever they would like to sell, and although America is a free market, I don’t think this should mean that big businesses should have more power over the country than it’s government.
3. I think it’s really unethical to have young children work for low wages in Asia. The poor kids haven’t even had time to be a child yet and they are already working which isn’t fair. If their families absolutely need the money i guess that’s one thing but if that’s the case i think that they should get more than a small amount of money. It’s not really fair that we make people from other countries work super hard for us but we don’t give them a fair price for their labor. Plus, if children are working they’re not getting a proper education. Without a proper education these kids will always have low paying, difficult job instead of something more rewarding and technically American companies such as Nike is to blame. If we want the whole word to have some success we have to stop this and ban child labor all together and give fair pay with hours of work. I also think it’s really wrong that American companies are slipping back into our old ways that we spent years trying to fix. And once we finally got it mostly under control we go and do exactly the same thing to other countries who we’re taking advantage of because they can’t say no to this work. This isn’t fair especially to the young kids who are giving up education and their childhood for hard work and low pay.
8.
Avatar can definitely be seen as a critique of American imperialism. Though I have not seen Dances With Wolves, from what I know it can be seen that way as well. In Avatar, the Americans are trying to take over a foreign land to gain access to the resources. They go about doing this by attacking the land and blowing it up. The Americans don’t even consider where these people will go, they just want them off the valuable land. The Americans send in people disguised as one of the “blue people” to try and gain their trust, only to destroy their home. Avatar did a great job of showing how awful this was for the native people of the land and made the viewers of the movie all on the side of the natives, rather than the Americans. While watching it, I hated the Americans and felt that what they were doing was completely unfair. Thinking of it in relation to imperialism, there are many past events in US History that the movie relates to. Mainly, it was similar to westward expansion, when the Native Americans were pushed off their land against their will. I’m sure not many Americans during that time really felt bad for the Natives, just like the Americans in the movie didn’t feel bad. Although, if there were people watching this event like they watched the movie, most would of sided with the Native Americans and helped them out. If people could really see what they were doing and what effects it had, they may not do it. Avatar was a fun, entertaining way of showing American imperialism and the awful effects it had.
In response to #15
Yes I believe it is time for the United States for the realize that its no longer the 1970’s and those dirty soviets aren’t a threat anymore, Castro is living on barrowed time and that the embargo is ineffective and counter productive. First of all it restricts Americans ability to travel, its actually easier for an American to get into North Korea then it is to go to Cuba, and why? Cuba could become a huge source of revenue if we were able to use it for tourism. Also by doing away with the embargo we are taking away Castro’s claims that the poor condition of his nation is due to the capitalist American Pigs, we will no longer be the scapegoat for the turmoil of Cuba. Also there is a double standard here, Americans can at any time fly to China. China, a country in a similar to cuba in the way that there is much civil unrest, low standard of living, and oppressive government. Well why can we go to China and not Cuba? In the time of the Cold War it would make sense but now, with the end of the war it just really makes us look bad, because we have to keep trade open with China so we can stock our store shelves with cheap toys coated in lead paint, toys that are produced by children in sweat shops. People all over the world are constantly complaining about American and our foreign policies, weather justified or not, why give them one more thing to complain about, why not ease up on making sure nothing some into the U.S from Cuba. It like the U.S thinks that it will show the world how assertive we are and how we don’t work with commies but seriously it not worth it for us to keep up, its time to lift the embargo.
3. The Malaysian Nike sweatshops are the epitome of “unethical”. Saying that the aren’t is like saying Jersey Shore is a good show. and while people are busy spreading their message of these sweatshops, i can guarantee at least one of the people who responded to this, if not the author himself, will show up tomorrow wearing the Nikes whose price could have fed the child who made them for a year. I find it completely absurd that Nike can charge hundreds for a pair of shoes that cost no more than a few bucks to make, and even more so that anyone would shell out that kind of money for shoes that are going to wind up being worn once or twice before being forgotten. What really gets me is when people use the shoes that were made by discount orphan laborers as a symbol of social status. Nothing makes me lose more faith in humanity than when I see people argue about whose shoes cost more. I mean really, if you do that, words can’t describe how shallow and hollow-minded you are. Also, for how much people spread “awareness”, I’ve yet to see anyone do anything about ending child Labor in Malaysia or China. A surefire way to end all of this would be to stop exporter’s Governments from artificially devaluing their currency. for how enormous the economies of some of those countries are, it is virtually impossible for currencies such as the Yuan to be so low in value. having a stronger currency would end up making foreign labor a less viable option, bringing manufacturing back to places with more stringent human rights, or at least giving laborers a more valuable paycheck at the end of the day.
13/
Muckrakers were reporters who investigated and published reports on the social unfairness during the progressive era. If Muckrakers were around today I think they would probably attack the child labor happening in the world. In some areas of China they make the children work intensely, they make up 10 – 20 % of the work force in a company. The payment is unfair and they maneuver the small machine. Children have long hours and our often payed less then a dollar a day. Many of these children are from poor families that seek out to help the family which sometimes leads to prostitution. But it isn’t simply found in China, 30 % of child labor in the world is found in Latin America. Sadly 250 million children are affected by child labor. I think the muckrakers would create groups today like on Facebook and Twitter because so much people are on it. They would probably appear on multiple television shows like CNN and maybe the Oprah show. Because reading books isn’t as big as it was in the 1930s during the progressive era, they wouldn’t write as many books about it. Exposing the child labor in some companies around the world would make people think before buying things. Companies like Nike that make asian kids work hard would suffer a great deal by losing costumers. Also maybe the government would be able to do something to change the conditions and unfairness happening.
5. If i were going to cast a movie about the late 1800s business tycoons like Rockefeller, Carnegie and Morgan, i would probably have a hard time of it. In today’s society and with the current economy, there isn’t anyone quite like those three Barons of Business. Actors who show promise to play these three powerful people are Michael Douglas, Alec Baldwin, and Robert Euglund.
Michael Douglas would probably be a good Carnegie. In one of his recent movies he plays a man who went to prison for screwing around with Wall Street. When he gets out he excellently portrays Carnegies controlling and keen business mind. Most importantly would be that Carnegie wanted to help out in the last years of his life and Michael Douglas has also played relaxed roles so he would be able to switch from business man to kind gentleman in a second.
Alec Baldwin i would put as Rockefeller, because he plays pretty intimidating roles by always being the one who holds all the cards, just like Rockefeller with Standard Oil.
Finally i would cast Robert Euglund as Morgan. Morgan was a scary looking guy, but very powerful. Euglund is best known for playing the fictional serial killer Freddy Krueger. He would be perfect for playing Morgan because he can be really scary, and that’s what Morgan basically did, scare people.
If i just misunderstood the whole point of this question, and it’s really asking who today has the same power and status as Morgan, Rockefeller, and Carnegie, I would have to say no one. There is no one today that has the same status as these three barons, no one who has achieved monopolies like they did. Plus it was more fun casting people to play them
Question 5:
– I agree with Fred, a film about the four business tycoons would be a fantastic piece of art. The main challenge to making a film like this would without question be the casting of the four major roles. Without top notch actors, a film like this would not be able to carry itself.
As JP Morgan, I would have to cast John C. Reilly, because Reilly is able to convey that authoritative attitude that I feel like JP Morgan would have. Also, Reilly looks good with facial hair, which is a crucial part of Morgan’s image.
Andrew Carnegie would require a much older Russell Crowe. Crowe is able to play many different roles, and he’s always struck me as a clear-headed, decisive person, which is exactly what Carnegie requires.
I’d like to see R. Lee Ermey as John D. Rockefeller. Rockefeller has always struck me as a quick thinking, hot-headed, almost militaristic character, which is what Ermey is know for portraying.