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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Venn Diagram

Untitled

The Descision to Use Atomic Weapons

A People's War?
Howard Zinn

         Still, the vast bulk of the American population was mobilized, in the army, and in civilian life, to fight the war, and the atmosphere of war enveloped more and more Americans. Public opinion polls show large majorities of soldiers favoring the draft for the postwar period. Hatred against the enemy, against the Japanese particularly, became widespread He is showing his oppinion about the Japanese here.  -Jamie Thody 3/4/10 9:24 PM  Racism was clearly at work. Time magazine, reporting the battle of Iwo Jima, said: "The ordinary unreasoning Jap is ignorant. Perhaps he is human. Nothing .. . indicates it." ....      
        The bombing of Japanese cities continued the strategy of saturation bombing to destroy civilian morale; one nighttime fire-bombing of Tokyo took 80,000 lives. And then, on August 6, 1945, came the lone American plane in the sky over Hiroshima, dropping the first atomic bomb, leaving perhaps 100,000 Japanese dead, and tens of thousands more slowly dying from radiation poisoning. Twelve U.S. navy fliers in the Hiroshima city jail were killed in the bombing, a fact that the U.S. government has never officially acknowledged, according to historian Martin Sherwin (A World Destroyed). Three days later, a second atomic bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki, with perhaps 50,000 killed.
       The justification for these atrocities was that this would end the war quickly, making unnecessary an invasion of Japan. Such an invasion would cost a huge number of lives, the government said-a million, according to Secretary of State Byrnes; half a million, Truman claimed was the figure given him by General George Marshall. (When the papers of the Manhattan Project-the project to build the atom bomb- were released years later, they showed that Marshall urged a warning to the Japanese about the bomb, so people could be removed and only military targets hit.) These estimates of invasion losses were not realistic, and seem to have been pulled out of the air to justify bombings I think this is his oppinion because he can't be sure if those numbers were incorrect or not. -Jamie Thody 3/4/10 9:29 PM which, as their effects became known, horrified more and more people. Japan, by August 1945, was in desperate shape and ready to surrender. New York Times military analyst Hanson Baldwin wrote, shortly after the war:

The enemy, in a military sense, was in a hopeless strategic position by the time the Potsdam demand for unconditional surrender was made on July 26.
       Such then, was the situation when we wiped out Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
       Need we have done it? No one can, of course, be positive, but the answer is almost certainly negative.

       The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, set up by the War Department in 1944 to study the results of aerial attacks in the war, interviewed hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, and reported just after the war:

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

       But could American leaders have known this in August 1945? The answer is, clearly, yes. The Japanese code had been broken, and Japan's messages were being intercepted. It was known the Japanese had instructed their ambassador in Moscow to work on peace negotiations with the Allies. Japanese leaders had begun talking of surrender a year before this, and the Emperor himself had begun to suggest, in June 1945, that alternatives to fighting to the end be considered. On July 13, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo wired his ambassador in Moscow: "Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace.. .." Martin Sherwin, after an exhaustive study of the relevant historical documents, concludes: "Having broken the Japanese code before the war, American Intelligence was able to-and did-relay this message to the President, but it had no effect whatever on efforts to bring the war to a conclusion."
       If only the Americans had not insisted on unconditional surrenderHe is trying to persuade you to think that America shouldn't have insisted on unconditional surrender. -Jamie Thody 3/4/10 9:33 PM - that is, if they were willing to accept one condition to the surrender, that the Emperor, a holy figure to the Japanese, remain in place-the Japanese would have agreed to stop the war.
       Why did the United States not take that small step to save both American and Japanese lives? Was it because too much money and effort had been invested in the atomic bomb not to drop it? General Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, described Truman as a man on a toboggan, the momentum too great to stop it. Or was it, as British scientist P. M. S. Blackett suggested (Fear, War, and the Bomb), that the United States was anxious to drop the bomb before the Russians entered the war against Japan? In this paragraph he shows that he thinks America shouldn't have dropped an atomic bomb and that it could have been stopped it we really didn't want to use it. -Jamie Thody 3/4/10 9:35 PM 
       The Russians had secretly agreed (they were officially not at war with Japan) they would come into the war ninety days after the end of the European war. That turned out to be May 8, and so, on August 8, the Russians were due to declare war on Japan, But by then the big bomb had been dropped, and the next day a second one would be dropped on Nagasaki; the Japanese would surrender to the United States, not the Russians, and the United States would be the occupier of postwar Japan. In other words, Blackett says, the dropping of the bomb was "the first major operation of the cold diplomatic war with Russia.. .." Blackett is supported by American historian Gar Alperovitz (Atomic Diplomacy), who notes a diary entry for July 28, 1945, by Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, describing Secretary of State James F. Byrnes as "most anxious to get the Japanese affair over with before the Russians got in."
       Truman had said, "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians." It was a preposterous statement. Those 100,000 killed in Hiroshima were almost all civilians. The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey said in its official report: "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population."He is saying that they chose those locations knowing that it would kill more peple, including civilians which he thinks was the wrong thing to do. -Jamie Thody 3/4/10 9:38 PM  
       The dropping of the second bomb on Nagasaki seems to have been scheduled in advance, and no one has ever been able to explain why it was dropped. Was it because this was a plutonium bomb whereas the Hiroshima bomb was a uranium bomb? Were the dead and irradiated of Nagasaki victims of a scientific experiment? Martin Shenvin says that among the Nagasaki dead were probably American prisoners of war. He notes a message of July 31 from Headquarters, U.S. Army Strategic Air Forces, Guam, to the War Department:

Reports prisoner of war sources, not verified by photos, give location of Allied prisoner of war camp one mile north of center of city of Nagasaki. Does this influence the choice of this target for initial Centerboard operation? Request immediate reply.

The reply: "Targets previously assigned for Centerboard remain unchanged."
       True, the war then ended quickly. Italy had been defeated a year earlier. Germany had recently surrendered, crushed primarily by the armies of the Soviet Union on the Eastern Front, aided by the Allied armies on the West. Now Japan surrendered.

The Descision to Use Atomic Weapons

A People's War?
Howard Zinn

         Still, the vast bulk of the American population was mobilized, in the army, and in civilian life, to fight the war, and the atmosphere of war enveloped more and more Americans. Public opinion polls show large majorities of soldiers favoring the draft for the postwar period. Hatred against the enemy, against the Japanese particularly, became widespread He is showing his oppinion about the Japanese here.  -Jamie Thody 3/4/10 9:24 PM  Racism was clearly at work. Time magazine, reporting the battle of Iwo Jima, said: "The ordinary unreasoning Jap is ignorant. Perhaps he is human. Nothing .. . indicates it." ....      
        The bombing of Japanese cities continued the strategy of saturation bombing to destroy civilian morale; one nighttime fire-bombing of Tokyo took 80,000 lives. And then, on August 6, 1945, came the lone American plane in the sky over Hiroshima, dropping the first atomic bomb, leaving perhaps 100,000 Japanese dead, and tens of thousands more slowly dying from radiation poisoning. Twelve U.S. navy fliers in the Hiroshima city jail were killed in the bombing, a fact that the U.S. government has never officially acknowledged, according to historian Martin Sherwin (A World Destroyed). Three days later, a second atomic bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki, with perhaps 50,000 killed.
       The justification for these atrocities was that this would end the war quickly, making unnecessary an invasion of Japan. Such an invasion would cost a huge number of lives, the government said-a million, according to Secretary of State Byrnes; half a million, Truman claimed was the figure given him by General George Marshall. (When the papers of the Manhattan Project-the project to build the atom bomb- were released years later, they showed that Marshall urged a warning to the Japanese about the bomb, so people could be removed and only military targets hit.) These estimates of invasion losses were not realistic, and seem to have been pulled out of the air to justify bombings I think this is his oppinion because he can't be sure if those numbers were incorrect or not. -Jamie Thody 3/4/10 9:29 PM which, as their effects became known, horrified more and more people. Japan, by August 1945, was in desperate shape and ready to surrender. New York Times military analyst Hanson Baldwin wrote, shortly after the war:

The enemy, in a military sense, was in a hopeless strategic position by the time the Potsdam demand for unconditional surrender was made on July 26.
       Such then, was the situation when we wiped out Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
       Need we have done it? No one can, of course, be positive, but the answer is almost certainly negative.

       The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, set up by the War Department in 1944 to study the results of aerial attacks in the war, interviewed hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, and reported just after the war:

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

       But could American leaders have known this in August 1945? The answer is, clearly, yes. The Japanese code had been broken, and Japan's messages were being intercepted. It was known the Japanese had instructed their ambassador in Moscow to work on peace negotiations with the Allies. Japanese leaders had begun talking of surrender a year before this, and the Emperor himself had begun to suggest, in June 1945, that alternatives to fighting to the end be considered. On July 13, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo wired his ambassador in Moscow: "Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace.. .." Martin Sherwin, after an exhaustive study of the relevant historical documents, concludes: "Having broken the Japanese code before the war, American Intelligence was able to-and did-relay this message to the President, but it had no effect whatever on efforts to bring the war to a conclusion."
       If only the Americans had not insisted on unconditional surrenderHe is trying to persuade you to think that America shouldn't have insisted on unconditional surrender. -Jamie Thody 3/4/10 9:33 PM - that is, if they were willing to accept one condition to the surrender, that the Emperor, a holy figure to the Japanese, remain in place-the Japanese would have agreed to stop the war.
       Why did the United States not take that small step to save both American and Japanese lives? Was it because too much money and effort had been invested in the atomic bomb not to drop it? General Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, described Truman as a man on a toboggan, the momentum too great to stop it. Or was it, as British scientist P. M. S. Blackett suggested (Fear, War, and the Bomb), that the United States was anxious to drop the bomb before the Russians entered the war against Japan? In this paragraph he shows that he thinks America shouldn't have dropped an atomic bomb and that it could have been stopped it we really didn't want to use it. -Jamie Thody 3/4/10 9:35 PM 
       The Russians had secretly agreed (they were officially not at war with Japan) they would come into the war ninety days after the end of the European war. That turned out to be May 8, and so, on August 8, the Russians were due to declare war on Japan, But by then the big bomb had been dropped, and the next day a second one would be dropped on Nagasaki; the Japanese would surrender to the United States, not the Russians, and the United States would be the occupier of postwar Japan. In other words, Blackett says, the dropping of the bomb was "the first major operation of the cold diplomatic war with Russia.. .." Blackett is supported by American historian Gar Alperovitz (Atomic Diplomacy), who notes a diary entry for July 28, 1945, by Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, describing Secretary of State James F. Byrnes as "most anxious to get the Japanese affair over with before the Russians got in."
       Truman had said, "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians." It was a preposterous statement. Those 100,000 killed in Hiroshima were almost all civilians. The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey said in its official report: "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population."He is saying that they chose those locations knowing that it would kill more peple, including civilians which he thinks was the wrong thing to do. -Jamie Thody 3/4/10 9:38 PM  
       The dropping of the second bomb on Nagasaki seems to have been scheduled in advance, and no one has ever been able to explain why it was dropped. Was it because this was a plutonium bomb whereas the Hiroshima bomb was a uranium bomb? Were the dead and irradiated of Nagasaki victims of a scientific experiment? Martin Shenvin says that among the Nagasaki dead were probably American prisoners of war. He notes a message of July 31 from Headquarters, U.S. Army Strategic Air Forces, Guam, to the War Department:

Reports prisoner of war sources, not verified by photos, give location of Allied prisoner of war camp one mile north of center of city of Nagasaki. Does this influence the choice of this target for initial Centerboard operation? Request immediate reply.

The reply: "Targets previously assigned for Centerboard remain unchanged."
       True, the war then ended quickly. Italy had been defeated a year earlier. Germany had recently surrendered, crushed primarily by the armies of the Soviet Union on the Eastern Front, aided by the Allied armies on the West. Now Japan surrendered.

Howard Zinn

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AR0Lawe9ezDRZGhudHNwcWNfNTNja2Nid3RkZg&hl=en

World War II Slideshow

My Comments on Allie's

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AdDZL_HIBESOZGZueDM1NWNfMTMzY2JkbnF6Y3c&hl=en

Robert Youngdeer of E-Company

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AR0Lawe9ezDRZGhudHNwcWNfNTJmd3RicDdkbQ&hl=en

Leader Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIQ_sscsdDo

Leaders

What do citizens need from their leaders in government during a crisis?

I think that during a crisis, a government needs a leader who is calm, logical and honest. They need to be able to do what is best for the entire country. During the Cuban Missile Crisis John F. Kennedy was a good leader because he was calm in his speeches and he discussed all of the options that our country had and tried to choose the option that would work out the best for us. He eventually came to an agreement that the Soviet Union would dismantle their missiles and America could not invade Cuba. After September 11th America needed a strong leader. We needed someone who would take control to keep our country safe which is exactly what was done by starting the War on Terror. Like I said before, in a time of crisis a country needs a leader who will do what is best for the country.

JFK Murder

Dear grampa,
For my history class i have to ask you a couple questions about the murder of John F. Kennedy. First, i'll tell you what i know about it. Kennedy was murdered in 1963 by Lee Harvey Oswald. He was shot in the head and neck. One of the bullets hit Governor John Connelly. Oswald shot Kennedy from a building where he worked that looked down on where the president was riding in a convertible car. Oswald was arrested and killed two days later by Jack Ruby. There are several people who think that JFK's murder was a conspiracy while other think it was only Oswald who was involved. What is you opinion? How would you describe the impact that John F. Kennedy's death had on the country?

Response: There is no way that John F. Kennedy's murder was a conspiracy. It was one guy, Lee Harvey Oswald, he's the only one who did it. The only way it could have been a conspiracy is if someone else in politics had hired Oswald to kill the president. Everyone was shocked and people were sad. America loved Kennedy as a president. There was a famous picture of his son saluting Kennedy's casket after he was murdered.

bomb

There was a lot of fear in the United States at the beginning of the Cold War. People were afraid because they didn't know for sure what would happen. When the Soviet Union created their own atomic bombs that made people in America scared because the Soviet Union could attack us at any moment. Tsar Bomba destroyed homes and buildings hundreds of kilometers away. Witnesses of the ground where the bomb was said that everything had been smoothed out like an ice rink. People in America were scared because if a bomb like that went off in our country it could destroy people and homes and cities. It caused people to be scared for their lives and the lives of their families.

Local History

Me and Allie are going to interview her grandmother about the civil war letters and put text from the letters online if we can.

Research Project

Me and Allie are going to plan a wedding.

Speech- Malcom X

People in this country speak of rights and freedoms that are made for Americans. We do not get theese rights, therefore we are not truley Americans. We need to stand up for ourselves and prove that we are all worthy of these rights. We'll do whatever it takes to become equals. We will learn to fight if we have to. We will not take this anymore. We were not meant to be Americans. We were brought here against our will and we will not continue to be treated badly in a place we were never intended to be in the first place. There is no time to sit and wait for change. We will make change. Nationalsim is the best way we can do that. It has worked for other places and it can work for us. We will take action and prove to all these white people who are so against us that we won't stand for it any longer. We will prove that we deserve to be real American citizens!

Emmit Till

There was individual violence as well as institutional violence in the murder of Emmit Till. The individual violence is when the murderers take Emmit Till from his home, torture him and kill him. The institutional violence is shown in the trial. The jury, police and judge all showed racism toward black people. The verdict was that the murderers were innocent even though all of the evidence proved that they had killed Emmit Till. Emmit Till's mother was asked by several people, including the president of the United States to keep the casket closed at her son's funeral but she refused. She wanted to keep it open and have it photographed so that everyone could see what had been done to her son. It would start to make people angry with the racism in the country and more people would work to stop it. When she said "I don't have a minute to hate..." she meant that she can't waste her time hating the people who killed her son. She can spend her life trying to show the world the terrible things that are happening to black people and help do something about it.