Friday, May 28, 2010
Research Project
For my research project I am going to watch different news shows and find out about how long they talk about different things, such as serious news, celebrity news, domestic and international news.
Local History
I am going to record my sister, Cindi and her husband, Jarrod, talking about why they want to move away from the city and back to the small town.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Shelby Foote
Shelby Foote
I think that Shelby Foote's opinion of the Civil War is that after it was all over and done with it ended up bringing the country together. He said that before the war, when people talked about the United States, they would say the United states are, and after the war they said the United States is. One of the stories that Shelby Foote told about the war was of a boy on guard duty. The boy heard an owl say who and that boy got very scared just because of an owl. He even replied back to it and told it who he was. That shows how scary being in the Civil War must have been. If I was to ask Shelby Foote a question about the Civil War I would probably ask him what he meant when he said that the Civil War defined our country because he said it opened us to being what we became, good and bad. I would like to know what good and bad things that the Civil War opened us up to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBghmvRMluY&feature=player_embedded
I think that Shelby Foote's opinion of the Civil War is that after it was all over and done with it ended up bringing the country together. He said that before the war, when people talked about the United States, they would say the United states are, and after the war they said the United States is. One of the stories that Shelby Foote told about the war was of a boy on guard duty. The boy heard an owl say who and that boy got very scared just because of an owl. He even replied back to it and told it who he was. That shows how scary being in the Civil War must have been. If I was to ask Shelby Foote a question about the Civil War I would probably ask him what he meant when he said that the Civil War defined our country because he said it opened us to being what we became, good and bad. I would like to know what good and bad things that the Civil War opened us up to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBghmvRMluY&feature=player_embedded
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Civil War Questions
1. Were Southern politicians more or less likely to own slaves than other white Southerners?
Southern politicians were more likely to own slaves.
2. Were higher level politicians more likely to own slaves than other politicians?
Higher politicians were more likely to own slaves than other politicians. 53 percent of county government officials owned slaves, 68 percent of state legislators did and 83 percent of Delegates to secession conventions. The higher up the politicians, the more slaves they owned.
3. What do these facts suggest to you about the nature of the Southern political system?
That people supported the ownership of slaves. People didn't mind that the people who represented them had slaves.
4. How uniform were the proportion of slaves in the population and the proportion of whites owning slave across the South?
There were more white families that owned slaves and the percent of slaves in population was higher in the southern states.
5. Was there a relationship between the number of slaves in a state's population and whether and when it seceded from the Union?
The states that had more slavery were the states to secede first.
6. What material advantages did the North possess on the eve of the Civil War?
The north had more railroads, farm acreage, manufacturing workers and output, factories, and railroad mileage.
7. Do you think material advantages are decisive in the outcome of wars? Why or why not?
I think that material advantages were helpful in war because war is easier for the people with more resources. The north was able to make more of what they needed because they had more factories and workers. They also had more railroads which must have been helpful for traveling.
8. Why did troop strength peak in 1863?
There is not enough information in the table to answer this question.
9. Do you think that the differences in troop strength were responsible for the war's outcome?
The differences in troop strength probably did influence the outcome of the war. The union had many more troops which would have made them stronger.
10. How does the cost of the Civil War--in casualties and expense--compare to the cost of other American wars?
There were 1,556,678 people from the Union who died and 1,082,119 people from the Confederacy. It had a much higher amount of deaths than other wars that the United States was involved in. The Civil War was expensive but there were still other wars that cost more.
11. Why do you think that the Civil War was so lethal?
It was lethal because it was fought in our own country. The sides that were fighting against each other were very close and alot of the country was involved.
12. What was the radical Republican program for reconstructing the Union?
It was to take the land of rebels who had estates worth $10,000 or that had over 2 hundred acres. There land would help pay national debt. The rebel states will also be divided into military districts and controlled by commanding officers.
13. What were the goals of the radical Republican program?
They wanted punishment for the rebel belligerents and weaken them so that they can't be a threat to the Union. They wanted to make all of their institutions republican.
14. Why was the program unacceptable to President Andrew Johnson?
President Andrew Johnson was against this program because it would put the commanding officer in complete control which would be degrading to the people. He said that the power that the one person in control would have would be an absolute monarch and that isn't what he wanted in our country.
15. Why do you think the North failed to follow through with policies that would have secured the rights and economic status of the freedmen?
They didn't follow through with their polices because it would have given some people too much power over the people and that would have caused more problems. Doing things like taking land from the rebels would have made them more angry andcould cause more war.
16. What were the major political and social achievements of Reconstruction?
Slavery in the United States was prohibited, the defined national citizenship, denied confederates to hold office and prohibited denying people to vote based on things such as color or race.
Southern politicians were more likely to own slaves.
2. Were higher level politicians more likely to own slaves than other politicians?
Higher politicians were more likely to own slaves than other politicians. 53 percent of county government officials owned slaves, 68 percent of state legislators did and 83 percent of Delegates to secession conventions. The higher up the politicians, the more slaves they owned.
3. What do these facts suggest to you about the nature of the Southern political system?
That people supported the ownership of slaves. People didn't mind that the people who represented them had slaves.
4. How uniform were the proportion of slaves in the population and the proportion of whites owning slave across the South?
There were more white families that owned slaves and the percent of slaves in population was higher in the southern states.
5. Was there a relationship between the number of slaves in a state's population and whether and when it seceded from the Union?
The states that had more slavery were the states to secede first.
6. What material advantages did the North possess on the eve of the Civil War?
The north had more railroads, farm acreage, manufacturing workers and output, factories, and railroad mileage.
7. Do you think material advantages are decisive in the outcome of wars? Why or why not?
I think that material advantages were helpful in war because war is easier for the people with more resources. The north was able to make more of what they needed because they had more factories and workers. They also had more railroads which must have been helpful for traveling.
8. Why did troop strength peak in 1863?
There is not enough information in the table to answer this question.
9. Do you think that the differences in troop strength were responsible for the war's outcome?
The differences in troop strength probably did influence the outcome of the war. The union had many more troops which would have made them stronger.
10. How does the cost of the Civil War--in casualties and expense--compare to the cost of other American wars?
There were 1,556,678 people from the Union who died and 1,082,119 people from the Confederacy. It had a much higher amount of deaths than other wars that the United States was involved in. The Civil War was expensive but there were still other wars that cost more.
11. Why do you think that the Civil War was so lethal?
It was lethal because it was fought in our own country. The sides that were fighting against each other were very close and alot of the country was involved.
12. What was the radical Republican program for reconstructing the Union?
It was to take the land of rebels who had estates worth $10,000 or that had over 2 hundred acres. There land would help pay national debt. The rebel states will also be divided into military districts and controlled by commanding officers.
13. What were the goals of the radical Republican program?
They wanted punishment for the rebel belligerents and weaken them so that they can't be a threat to the Union. They wanted to make all of their institutions republican.
14. Why was the program unacceptable to President Andrew Johnson?
President Andrew Johnson was against this program because it would put the commanding officer in complete control which would be degrading to the people. He said that the power that the one person in control would have would be an absolute monarch and that isn't what he wanted in our country.
15. Why do you think the North failed to follow through with policies that would have secured the rights and economic status of the freedmen?
They didn't follow through with their polices because it would have given some people too much power over the people and that would have caused more problems. Doing things like taking land from the rebels would have made them more angry andcould cause more war.
16. What were the major political and social achievements of Reconstruction?
Slavery in the United States was prohibited, the defined national citizenship, denied confederates to hold office and prohibited denying people to vote based on things such as color or race.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Imperialism Essay
Imperialism Essay
Jamie Thody
When the United States of America went to the Philippines, they went there as imperialists. Some people saw the acts of America as being humanitarianism but that was not the case. America did not go to the Philippines to help the Filipinos, America went to help themselves. The United States of America was violent, racist and interested in getting money. The actions of the United States of America in the Philippines were imperialistic.
The United States of America was extremely violent when it went to the Philippines. An enormous amount of Filipinos were killed. America had no regard for the lives of the people in the Philippines. They were willing to kill almost anyone, including women and children. An American private said "with my own hand set fire to over fifty houses of Filipinos after the victory at Caloocan. Women and children were wounded by our fire." America was clearly not there to help. When an American general was asked what the age limit for who they killed was, he answered, "Everything over ten."
America was not only violent, it was racist. The people of the Philippines looked different than the people of America, which is something that the Americans didn’t like. Albert Beveridge said, “Senators must remember that we are not dealing with Americans or Europeans. We are dealing with Orientals.” American’s didn’t see the Filipinos as people, but instead as animals. American’s weren’t only racist in the Philippines; they were racist in their own country. Between the years 1889 and 1903, two colored people were killed on average every week.
Some people thought that when America went to the Philippines, they went to help. These people were wrong. America’s motives were much less selfless. The United States of America wanted to gain money by going to the Philippines. Albert Beveridge said “China is our natural customer. . . . The Philippines give us a base at the door of all the East. . .” This shows that American people wanted to have the Philippines so that America would have an easier place to make money from. Albert Beveridge also said, “No land in America surpasses in fertility the plains and valleys of Luzon. Rice and coffee, sugar and cocoanuts, hemp and tobacco. . . . The wood of the Philippines can supply the furniture of the world for a century to come. At Cebu the best informed man on the island told me that 40 miles of Cebu's mountain chain are practically mountains of coal. . .” This quote shows how the American government saw the Philippines. They didn’t see it as a place that needed help, but a place that they could gain from.
The views that America had on the Philippines and the Filipinos are proof that America is an imperialistic country. The fact that Americans were so violent and racist towards the Filipinos shows that America didn’t have the motives of humanitarians. If Americans wanted to help them, they would have treated them like people instead of animals. America also wouldn’t have been so interested in the ways that they could gain financially. The United States of America showed traits of an empire while they were dealing with the Philippines.
Jamie Thody
When the United States of America went to the Philippines, they went there as imperialists. Some people saw the acts of America as being humanitarianism but that was not the case. America did not go to the Philippines to help the Filipinos, America went to help themselves. The United States of America was violent, racist and interested in getting money. The actions of the United States of America in the Philippines were imperialistic.
The United States of America was extremely violent when it went to the Philippines. An enormous amount of Filipinos were killed. America had no regard for the lives of the people in the Philippines. They were willing to kill almost anyone, including women and children. An American private said "with my own hand set fire to over fifty houses of Filipinos after the victory at Caloocan. Women and children were wounded by our fire." America was clearly not there to help. When an American general was asked what the age limit for who they killed was, he answered, "Everything over ten."
America was not only violent, it was racist. The people of the Philippines looked different than the people of America, which is something that the Americans didn’t like. Albert Beveridge said, “Senators must remember that we are not dealing with Americans or Europeans. We are dealing with Orientals.” American’s didn’t see the Filipinos as people, but instead as animals. American’s weren’t only racist in the Philippines; they were racist in their own country. Between the years 1889 and 1903, two colored people were killed on average every week.
Some people thought that when America went to the Philippines, they went to help. These people were wrong. America’s motives were much less selfless. The United States of America wanted to gain money by going to the Philippines. Albert Beveridge said “China is our natural customer. . . . The Philippines give us a base at the door of all the East. . .” This shows that American people wanted to have the Philippines so that America would have an easier place to make money from. Albert Beveridge also said, “No land in America surpasses in fertility the plains and valleys of Luzon. Rice and coffee, sugar and cocoanuts, hemp and tobacco. . . . The wood of the Philippines can supply the furniture of the world for a century to come. At Cebu the best informed man on the island told me that 40 miles of Cebu's mountain chain are practically mountains of coal. . .” This quote shows how the American government saw the Philippines. They didn’t see it as a place that needed help, but a place that they could gain from.
The views that America had on the Philippines and the Filipinos are proof that America is an imperialistic country. The fact that Americans were so violent and racist towards the Filipinos shows that America didn’t have the motives of humanitarians. If Americans wanted to help them, they would have treated them like people instead of animals. America also wouldn’t have been so interested in the ways that they could gain financially. The United States of America showed traits of an empire while they were dealing with the Philippines.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Native American Questions
1. Use evidence to describe the economic impact of casino ownership and gambling on Native American tribes.
The Mashantucket Pequots own Foxwoods casino in Connecticut. Owning the casino has made their tribe rich but less than 1/4 of America's indian tribes own casino's. There are only 48 tribes out of 557 make more than 10 million dollars a year from casinos.
2. What is the most significant problem of trying to understand the condition of the modern Native American population?
There are 2 million Native Americans that belong to many different tribes. Not all of the tribes are in the same conditions. Some may be very well off while others are very poor. It is hard to generalize the condition of Nathive Americans because they are not all the same.
3. In what ways are Native Americans a unique minority group in the United States? Do these reasons seem justified today, or should Native Americans be considered as a "regular" minority group (like African Americans, Asian Americans, women, etc.)?
Native Americans are different than any other minority group because they are the only ones who have signed a peace treaty with the government and they are the only minority group with a government agency. I think their reasons are still justified today.
4. Please find 4 specific examples of the sorts of events generalized in this paragraph. For each specific example, include a hyperlink to a website explaining the specific event, and a summary of that event.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation
American government relocated Native Americans to reservations. They are pieces of land that Native American tribes live on. Not every tribe has a reservation.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16516865
Native American children were taken from their families and forced to go to boarding schools. They went there are had their Native American culture taken away from them.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/chr1791.asp
The government made treaties with many tribes. This article is about the treaty with the Cherokee in 1791.
http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0600/frameset_reset.html?http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0600/stories/0601_0102.html
The American government made treaties with the Ponca tribe that they never kept. Such as promising things like money and educational institutions but never following through on theiProxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0
promises.
5. What is meant by the phrase 'diseases of the poor'? What is the relationship between economics and health implied by that phrase?
Native Americans are more likely to die of alchoholism, tuberculosis, and diabetes. They are things that are more likely to happen in places of poverty. Since the Native Americans have less money than average Americans, they have less money for medical attention and are more likely to die of diseases.
6. Is John McCain correct in his assessment of the treatment of Native Americans? Why?
Yes, because the American government had taken Native American land from them and forced them to live in smaller reservations. They had made treaties with them and the broken them and even taken their children to boarding schools.
7. Please define each of the following terms in the context of Native American policy:
* removal- The government take Native Americans from their land and relocate them.
* allotment- Allotment was when Native American reservations were split up into individually owned pieces of land.
* termination- Termination was when the government thought that Native Americans would be better off if they were like the average American and didn't have a different relationship with the government.
* relocation- Native Americans were moved to reservations.
* assimilation- American government tried to make the Native Americans more like the average people of America and get rid of their Native American culture.
* self determination- Native Americans need to be more responsible for governing themselves.
8. Finally, give a paragraph summary on what self determination means, and why it either is, or is not, the appropriate policy for Native American people with respect to the Federal government.
Self determination is what the American government as well as tribe leaders think that Native Americans need more of. Self determination of Native American tribes would mean that they govern themselves and become less dependent on the American government. If they had more self determination they would work harder to make the lives of their tribes better. There might be less poverty in the Native American tribes. It is a good policy for the Native Americans because it is something that the Native Americans and the government both want and the tribes would be better off.
The Mashantucket Pequots own Foxwoods casino in Connecticut. Owning the casino has made their tribe rich but less than 1/4 of America's indian tribes own casino's. There are only 48 tribes out of 557 make more than 10 million dollars a year from casinos.
2. What is the most significant problem of trying to understand the condition of the modern Native American population?
There are 2 million Native Americans that belong to many different tribes. Not all of the tribes are in the same conditions. Some may be very well off while others are very poor. It is hard to generalize the condition of Nathive Americans because they are not all the same.
3. In what ways are Native Americans a unique minority group in the United States? Do these reasons seem justified today, or should Native Americans be considered as a "regular" minority group (like African Americans, Asian Americans, women, etc.)?
Native Americans are different than any other minority group because they are the only ones who have signed a peace treaty with the government and they are the only minority group with a government agency. I think their reasons are still justified today.
4. Please find 4 specific examples of the sorts of events generalized in this paragraph. For each specific example, include a hyperlink to a website explaining the specific event, and a summary of that event.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation
American government relocated Native Americans to reservations. They are pieces of land that Native American tribes live on. Not every tribe has a reservation.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16516865
Native American children were taken from their families and forced to go to boarding schools. They went there are had their Native American culture taken away from them.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/chr1791.asp
The government made treaties with many tribes. This article is about the treaty with the Cherokee in 1791.
http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0600/frameset_reset.html?http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0600/stories/0601_0102.html
The American government made treaties with the Ponca tribe that they never kept. Such as promising things like money and educational institutions but never following through on theiProxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0
promises.
5. What is meant by the phrase 'diseases of the poor'? What is the relationship between economics and health implied by that phrase?
Native Americans are more likely to die of alchoholism, tuberculosis, and diabetes. They are things that are more likely to happen in places of poverty. Since the Native Americans have less money than average Americans, they have less money for medical attention and are more likely to die of diseases.
6. Is John McCain correct in his assessment of the treatment of Native Americans? Why?
Yes, because the American government had taken Native American land from them and forced them to live in smaller reservations. They had made treaties with them and the broken them and even taken their children to boarding schools.
7. Please define each of the following terms in the context of Native American policy:
* removal- The government take Native Americans from their land and relocate them.
* allotment- Allotment was when Native American reservations were split up into individually owned pieces of land.
* termination- Termination was when the government thought that Native Americans would be better off if they were like the average American and didn't have a different relationship with the government.
* relocation- Native Americans were moved to reservations.
* assimilation- American government tried to make the Native Americans more like the average people of America and get rid of their Native American culture.
* self determination- Native Americans need to be more responsible for governing themselves.
8. Finally, give a paragraph summary on what self determination means, and why it either is, or is not, the appropriate policy for Native American people with respect to the Federal government.
Self determination is what the American government as well as tribe leaders think that Native Americans need more of. Self determination of Native American tribes would mean that they govern themselves and become less dependent on the American government. If they had more self determination they would work harder to make the lives of their tribes better. There might be less poverty in the Native American tribes. It is a good policy for the Native Americans because it is something that the Native Americans and the government both want and the tribes would be better off.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)