Responding to the Oppression

Oppression is something that has been prevalent throughout our classes. After all, things such as racism are deeply rooted within many societies and America is no different. The topic for discussion here, however, is the thought of a violent response to oppression. Should oppression be met with a violent response.

I personally feel that violence is not a solution to the problems that are faced. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, after all. Unfortunately in situations of racism, oppressing in everyday interactions including schools, violence is occasionally an end that is reached. Peaceful protests can be met with police brutality or protests can turn violent in serious cases.

To answer the question; no. Oppression should not be met with a violent response. Rather, protests and cases should be used. While deeply rooted opinions are hard or seemingly impossible to change, changes are made all the time. The important thing to remember is that violence is not the only way to bring a change.

A Romanticized View On Prohibition

Going in to Prohibition on alcohol there were many good intentions and I feel this is the driving factor for why Prohibition is and has been romanticized. On the side of the women it was an opportunity for more safety in the home. If the production and selling of alcohol was illegal than it would be harder for the menfolk to come home drunk and be violent towards the women and children who lived in the home. When thinking of the World War, the ingredients that would have been used on alcohol would instead be used for making rations for soldiers. Since many breweries were run by German Americans it was a way to make things harder on those people, especially since so many of the breweries had to close.

Looking at all of this possibilities it certainly seems like this is something that the entire nation should experience. This is the romanticized view of Prohibition; a road to hell paved with good intentions. There were many downsides to Prohibition and people went on selling alcohol illegally. This event is romanticized because of all the possibilities it held and what it could have done. Sadly the event is romanticized for a reason and it did not live up to expectations. Looking at the positives and negatives, does anyone feel that the romanticized view is justified and reasonable?

What did America have to offer?

Why did people come to America from their original countries? What could it possibly have to offer those people? These are common questions that both come up and led both of our American classes. It was an important time for America, the time Gilded age of America. The time of potential for Americans and possibly new Americans.

Problems were coming up across the world. Religious prosecution and wars were just a couple of the things that people fled to America to get away from. America seemed to be a safer place that offered security (if you could get in) and an escape from poverty-stricken lives. America also offered job opportunities which we learned ended up becoming slim just like the living conditions.

My question for you all is; why do you think people were turned away from becoming first generation American citizens? Was it because of the opportunities (or lack of opportunities) or was it because the immigrants were different? Non-Americans.

Indians and Living Free

  Why is it that the Americans were so threatened by the lifestyle of the Indians? I see this as the worry of not having control. Americans had built themselves up as being the big men on campus, sitting on their pedestal while "lesser" people do the work or do whatever they say. The Americans also had structure, on that they fought for, and they live within societies that are "civilized". The Indians didn't have that and when they weren't controlled they could have been what broke apart society.

Far back, ie with black slaves, Americans have had control over another group of people and so by pushing Indians onto increasingly small reservations they can be kept in check. It's all a game for power.

Telling Tales Through "Art"

Through a few class periods we were shown three different but similar images, all surrounding slavery.  Of course we all have our opinions (however similar they may be) but when we put those aside we can actually get a full story and a look into how some of the population of that time thought.

There have been those who have said that books are art, and I believe that can be true in reverse. Both invoke feelings in a viewer and can even change opinions. In the case of the pictures we saw most were political. There was one that was on a political issue (The Freedman's Bureau) and another showing what was happening in New York.

It is important to have relics like this from the past and they can really give a new perspective on something you thought you knew so much about. I have a question though. Does anyone think that art is often looked over in comparison to literary works when researching?

The Civil War: Was It Worth It?

Many if not all of us know about the Civil War and the events leading up to it. The South and the North were having some issues and they couldn't be resolved in a more civil manner (no pun intended). Now in class an interesting question was brought up and it led to many other questions for me. Did the North or South have more to lose and was it worth it? It was hard for me to think of who had more to lose since both obviously had a lot to lose. However, I could make a decision for myself that the war was worth it even with the huge loss of life.

Think about it. There was bloodshed, yes. However without this war many smaller or even larger conflicts could have arisen and the country (with or without the formation of the confederate states) would have been in a state of turmoil. Many political issues would have arisen and the conflict of slavery could have continued for many more years and even gotten worse or much more harsh.

To bring this entry to a conclusion I do believe that the Civil War was worth it because things could have become much worse in America without it.

The Road Slaves Paved

In class we watched a video titled Slavery and the Making of America. In it we were allowed to see the views on slavery from the point of view of black people as well as how they acted upon these views. One very important man was David Walker and his preaching. He sympathized with his fellow men and women after hearing about what they had to live with and helped greatly even though he was born a free man.

There were many great people shown in the video and all of their stories were tied into one larger story. Something that struck me though was the responses of the people, both white and black. for Walker the south wanted him to be brought down so that they could deal with him. For Maria, an important woman who picked up the torch when Walker was killed, her harsh messages were met with harsh responses. All of these events gave way to events like revolts and worse. What I want to know is, do you think the revolt and the new version of the fugitive slave act would have been as harsh if there hadn't been people like Walker and Maria to stand up against slavery?