Thursday, November 29, 2007

Chapter 22 Section 3 Critical Thinking #3

3) How did Hoover's belief in "rugged individualism" shape his policies during the Great Depression?
-what his belief implies about his view of people
-how that translates into the role of government
-Hoover's policies

Hoover's political philosophy was that the government should play a limited role in helping to solve problems. People needed to cooperate in order to pull through hard times, and the government was to encourage cooperation, but not to force it. This and his belief in "rugged individualism", the belief that people should succeed through their own efforts lead him to not take immediate action. Due to this, Hoover wasn't supportive of welfare programs, or relief programs, thinking that it would weaken people's moral fiber. Although people wanted the government to help them, Hoover's first action was to say that people and local charities should help out the needy. After the crash of the stock market, Hoover had a meeting with business leaders and asked them not to lay employees off or cut wages, and asked labor leaders not to strike or ask for higher wages. Hoover also started a charity to collect money for the poor, but none of these actions had much of an effect, and a year later the economy was growing smaller. Shantytowns, soup kitchens and unemployment were becoming much more common (page 685). Although his view of people was that they could cooperate to make things better with minimal help from the government, clearly it was beyond them to fix the economy. Though Hoover did not take drastic action, he authorized the building of the Hoover Dam, which helped the agricultural economy of California because it provided irrigation and jobs. But by 1930, the country was still in the depression, and people started to call shantytown "Hoovervilles", and newpapers for blankets "Hooverblankets", etc. Hoover still refused to support welfare or direct relief programs, and went for the whole "cooperation with a little help from the government will make everything just dandy" approach. He supported the creation of the federal farm Board, which raised crop prices, and established the National Credit Corporation, which loaned money to small banks to help them avoid going bankrupt. When it became clear that these weren't turning the economy around and with the next presidential election approaching, Hoover tried in earnest to pass legislation that would help the country and boost his popularity, supporting the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (lowered mortgages), and supported the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which gave $2 billion in emergency financing for large businesses, banks, and insurance companies. Altogether, Hoover's belief that people could pull through without help from the gov't. doomed the nation to even more years of severe economic depression, and they shaped his policies so that the goverment gave minimal help to suffering Americans.

Chapter 22 Section 2 Critical Thinking #3

3) How was what happened to men during the Great Depression different from what happened to women and children?
-each group's role in their families
- the changes each group had to make
what help was available to them

Men had traditionally been the person who supported the family and worked, and many men had a hard time adjusting to the common unemployment of the 30s. Many men were very discouraged by wandering the streets begging for a job, and some abandoned their families after they weren't able to provide in any way. Many also became hobos, and would travel from city to city and go to homeless shelters, begging and waiting in food lines. Some city charities did have direct relief programs, but none were enough to support a family; the highest was $2.39 for each family, in New York City (page 681).
Women had to become more involved with tasks such as sewing clothes, canning food and managing household budgets. These weren't hugely different from women's traditional roles in the households, but in the prosperity of the '20s, tasks such as sewing and canning and worrying about budgets probably weren't a very big issue. Although women had started to work outside of the home in the late 1800s, many more had to start working and were payed less than men, and as the years of economic depression, many people began to resent women with jobs, particularly married women. People were angry that women would have jobs while men were wandering the streets unemployed, and some places would not hire married women. But in contrast to the men who were begging and going to shelters, many women were too embarrassed to admit that they were starving or homeless (pages 681-682).
Children during the depression suffered from malnutrition when families could not afford decent food. At the same time as many children were seeking help for malnutrition and rickets, cities cut their child-welfare programs in order to cut their budgets. Many schools were closed or the years shortened by school boards because of the lack of money, and about 2,600 schools were closed by 1933, and about 300,000 students were out of school. Many children had to get jobs to support their families instead of going to school, and would work in sweatshops. Teenagers would travel the country in freight trains, looking for employment and an escape from the depressing environment of cities (page 682).


Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Chapter 22 Section 1 Critical thinking #4

4) Judging from the events of the late 1920s and early 1930s, how important do you think public confidence is to the health of the stock market?
-What happened when overconfidence in the stock market led people to speculate and buy on margin
-how confidence affects consumer borrowing

I think that the public confidence in the stock market is very important in its success and good for it, but not good for the nation always. In the 1920s, the phenomenon of buying on credit made it seem that people were much wealthier than they really were, and the economy was booming after World War I. People who had the money started investing in stocks; stock prices had been rising steadily, and many Americans hurried to invest in stocks and bonds as the Dow Jones Industrial Average was 300 points higher than it had been 5 years ago (it was at 318 points, a record), and it seemed that it would be a good idea to invest. Although some economists in 1929 warned that there were weaknesses in the stock market, many Americans continued to do this due to their huge confidence in the economic health of the U.S. However, since people were so confident in this, they started speculating and buying on margin (when people would invest in stocks and bonds in the hope of getting rich quick while ignoring the risks, and paying a small percentage of a stock's price and loaning the rest). Investors could easily get money, so uninhibited buying and selling caused the market to grow more and more successful. This confidence was obviously great for the market, but bad for the nation: in 1929, stock prices fell, and many investors sold their stocks as quickly as possible, their confidence in the market shaken. In October, though, the prices fell much more, which resulted in panic (pages 672-673). On Black Tuesday, October 29th, the bottom fell out of the market, and investors and shareholders desparately tried to sell their stocks before prices were lowered further, and 16.4 million shares were dumped. People who had bought stocks on credit were now in huge debts and had no way of repaying their loans, and many people lost their savings (page 674). When people freaked out after the stock market crashed, they flocked to banks to withdraw their savings. However, the banks had much of the money invested in the stock market, and when everybody came in at once to get their money out, the banks couldn't repay many of them. Because the government didn't insure of protect accounts, millions lost their savings. By 1933, 11,000 of the U.S.'s banks had closed out of 25,000 (page 675). If people hadn't had such great confidence in the market, it wouldn't have done so well as it did before the crash, but after the crash, people's confidence in the nation's economic health hurt it. If people hadn't been so sure that everything would go well, they wouldn't have taken out loans to buy stocks and bonds, or engaged in speculation and buying on margin. Altogether, the nation was hurt by the people's lack of reservation and obstinate belief that nothing would go wrong.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Current Events Summary

North Africa News:

In Sudan they have recently dismissed the head of UN humanitarian operations, Wael al-Haj Ibrahim, and are now standing by their decision, despite the fact that it puts millions of people in danger of not being able to get help, which the UN obviously does not favor. The Justice Minister Mohamed Ali al-Mardi has said that the government had no choice, since Ibrahim was discouraging displaced villagers from Darfur not to return to their villages, and telling people who returned to their villages that they should go back to the camps set up for them, despite the fact that the government was saying the exact opposite thing and he was warned not to tell the villagers that.
"State authorities were left with no other alternative but to take that decision so as to preserve the independence of Sudan," said al-Mardi. This is another thing adding to the tension between humanitarian groups and Darfur authorities. Ibramhim as well as other humanitarian groups have objected to the way that refugees have been dealt with: for example, last month UN officials saw troops and police rounding up about 1,000 refugees at gunpoint. They were reportedly dumped on the outskirts of a city and went to live with relatives and friends. The forced relocation does not sit well with many groups, but the Sudanese government insists that they are not forcing anyone to relocate, and that camps have become too crowded and dangerous. (BBCnews.com)
Sudan blamed countries such as Chad that allow Darfur rebels to work in their territory for not persuading the groups to attend peace talks last month. "We really think that the countries that are hosting these insurgents are not playing their required role to the full to push them to attend the conference," Sudanese Defence Minister Abdel Rahim Hussein told a news conference in Dubai. (worldnews.com)
In Chad there was a recent violent Anti-French protest among several thousand students. Cars belonging to white diplomats were attacked, and the crowd was dispersed with tear gas. The demonstrators were demanding that 6 French aid workers who were charged with the kidnapping of children be tried in Chad. it was originally supposed to be a peaceful protest, but it got out of hand, and ended in the protesters overtaking the capital city, N'Djamena, rioting in the streets and converging at the French embassy. The workers said that they thought they were rescuing Darfur war orphans, but the parents of the 103 children flown to France have said that they did not give permission for the children to be flown out of the country and were promised that the children would be locally educated. However, a Chadian judge refused a request by defense lawyers asking for the release pending the trial of the six French and three Chadians still held, and if the workers are found guilty they could face several years of hard labor in a Chadian prison. (bbcnews.com)
Separatist rebels in Ethiopia have supposedly bombed villages in Ogaden, resulting in many casualties. Helicopter gunships have been used to attack remote villiages, and about 1,500 refugees from Ogaden have crossed the border into Kenya to escape from the attacks.In
April, rebels attacked a Chinese oil exploration unit killing 74 people, and ever since then the region has been under attack. International aid groups have been expelled from the region, so outside affirmation of the attacks will be hard to get, but there is some information: More than 500 families "reached different parts of Kenya's massive Dadaab camps in October and many gave similar accounts of a sustained campaign of rape and brutality, with men hanged from trees". Ethipia has dismissed this as rebel propaganda. (bbcnews.com)
The president of Egypt has unveiled plans for the building of many nuclear power stations in order to generate electricity. Hosni Mubarak, the president has decided to go with the plan because he believes that it is crucial to Egypt's development. The U.S. has offered its cooperation with the program, saying that
there were "no comparison between peaceful use of nuclear technology by Egypt and Iran's controversial nuclear program". (bbcnews.com)
Four people in Gaza have been killed by an Israeli attack on a police station in Hamas-run in the city Khan-Younis. The Israeli government issued a statement saying that it had targeted a rocket crew position in the southern regions of Gaza, andsaid that it attacked "
in response to rocket and mortar attacks... on localities in southern Israel". This came after the Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned a "broad operation" was going to happen in Gaza: "Every passing day brings us closer to a broad operation in Gaza... We are not looking forward to it, we would be happy if circumstances prevented it". Earlier an Israeli missile had hit a house in northern Gaza, injuring two children, although the government said that it had misfired and and was intended to hit a Gaza rocked squad. Many of these strikes have been in retaliation to rocket attacks by Palestinian militants, and is now considering curbing power supplies it sends to Gaza, and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has called the plans "unacceptable and punitive". (bbcnews.com)
Nigeria has announced that it won't host the U.S.'s military command, which "takes Africa's most-populous nation and a top source of American oil imports out of contention". Nigeria has criticized the U.S.'s Africa-wide military command. Nigeria is also against the U.S. basing its headquarters in West Africa. Several countries have expressed concern over the idea of the U.S. exapnding its influence on the continent, although the U.S. claims that it "aims to better protect America's strategic interest in Africa and assist African countries with military training and conflict prevention". (msnbc.com)


Friday, November 16, 2007

Chapter 20 Critical Thinking #3

I do believe that the U.S.'s fear of radicals was justified, but some of it was simply overreaction, with harmful results for the country. The Bolsheviks were a very small number of people in a very large country, but somehow they managed to overthrow the government of Russia and establish communism as Russia's (or the Soviet Union's) system of government. The leaders of the Soviet Union wanted to spread communist revolution to the world and to abolish capitalism, the U.S.'s system of government. Soon afterwards, the U.S. communist party was established with 70,000 members, and people feared that these people, though relatively small, would overthrow the U.S.governemnt like what happened in Russia. Bombs were mailed to U.S. government officials, fueling the panic. These are all legitimate reasons for concern, but some reactions were harmful to the country and over-the-top. The popularity of the KKK surged, with 4.5 million members in the mid-twenties, and anti-immigrants sentiment went way up, as seen with the passing of the Emergency Quota Act of 1920, which limited the number of immigrants coming in from Europe hugely. The Palmer Raids, another result of the the fear of communism, trampled people's civil rights. There was cause for fear, but the overreactions of the country were damaging to its reputation with European countries from which immigrants were discriminated against.

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Chapter 19-4 Critical Thinking #3 & 5

3)

The Treaty of Versailles didn't lay the foundation for a lasting peace because of its poor treatment of other countries involved in the war. Germany was humiliated by the terms of the treaty, and was unlikely to be able to meet them: they weren't allowed to maintain an army, made to return the region of Alsace-Lorraine to France, and had to pay $33 billion in reparations to the Allies. The war-guilt clause forced Germany to admit sole responsibility for the war. In addition to this, Germany lost its Pacific colonial possessions, which would have helped them to pay the high reparations bill. The Treaty also made an enemy of Russia. Russia had fought with the Allies for 3 years and suffered higher casualty rates than any party involved in the war, but it was excluded from the talks. As a result, it lost even more land than Germany and, once it became the Soviet Union, was determined to regain the territory. The treaty also ignored the pleas of colonies in the Pacific that wanted to be self-governing.


5)

I think that Germany's reaction to the Treaty of Versailles would be outrage and rebellion. Germany was humiliated by the treaty, and although Germany's militarism played a large role in the escalation of the war, it certainly wasn't the only country responsible. Having all the blame dumped on them would make the Germans angrier at the Allies, even more so than before. Furthermore, the huge reparations fee of $33 billion was impossible for Germany to pay after an exhausting 4 year war and after their Pacific colonies had been taken away. They had really no way to get the money, and the country would probably be destitute if it tried to pay the reparation fee. Many of the citizens would be without money if the German government organized a tax, and the government was probably too much of a mess to be able to do that anyways. Many Germans were also now under the rule of Poland, whereas before the war many Poles were under the rule of Germany, something that they likely didn't enjoy. Germany also had to return hard-won territory to France that many soldiers had died to get. All of these factors together would, I think, result in anger at the Allies that Germany would do nearly anything to vent, and could not be healed by time, but only war. The treatment of Germany cleared the way to World War II, with the writings of Hitler so in agreement with the country's mindset at the time. These mistakes in the making of the Treaty would lead to the second World War when Germany would finally get its revenge.

Monday, November 5, 2007

Chapter 19 Section 3 Critical Thinking # 3 & 5

3) How did the war affect government power?
-how much control the president gained over the economy
-the Espionage and Sedition Acts

The war greatly expanded the powers of the government. A good example of this is the passing of the Espionage and Sedition Acts. These acts declared that a person could be fined up to $10,000 and given 20 years in prison for interfering with the war effort or saying anything disloyal to the government or the war effort. These acts pretty much negated the first Amendment, and their passage lead to over 2,000 prosecutions, half of which became convictions. Free speech was severely limited: Anti-war newspapers and magazines lost their mailing privileges, and Victor Berger was not allowed in the House of representatives for his anti-war views. Many other things like this occurred that would not have been legal in a regular time.
The president's influence over the economy was more proof that the govt.'s powers were greatly expanded in wartime.Congress gave President Wilson direct control over most of the economy. He was able to regulate war related industries and fix prices. President Hoover set a high price on wheat and other important food items to encourage conservation. The ridiculous amount of power given to the president during this time shows that there was far too much power given to the government in wartime. Under regular circumstances, it would be considered unconstitutional for the president to have so much power over the economy.

5) Do you think that the war had a positive or negative effect on American society?
-how the propaganda campaign influenced people's behavior
-the new job opportunities for African Americans and women
-how the government controlled industry

I think that some aspects of the war had a negative influence on American society while others had a positive effect.
The new job opportunities for women and African Americans were a positive result; many doors were opened. African Americans were given job opportunities in steel mills, stockyards and munitions plants, and women were allowed to move into jobs that had once been only men. Women started working as bricklayers, dockworkers, cooks , and railroad workers, and many more started working in traditional women's jobs, such as being schoolteachers, nurses and clerks. The help from women during the war increased public support for woman suffrage, and in 1919 the 19th Amendment was passed by Congress, giving women the right to vote. However, even these improvements had negative consequences. The migration of African Americans from the South to Northern cities caused overcrowding and racial tension.
The public reaction to the propaganda campaign was definitely negative. although it increased patriotism, it created hatred and discrimination by Americans of those who were of German descent and had emigrated from Germany and Austria-Hungary (mainly). People with German names lost their jobs, and orchestras refused to play works by composers such as Mozart and Bach, as well as other composers from the Germany/Austria-Hungary area. Schools stopped teaching German, libraries removed books from their shelves that were authored by Germans, and towns with German names changed them. There was even violence, such as the tar-and-feathering of Germans, flogging and even lynching. Foods and other things with the word "German" in them were changed to say "liberty" in the place of "German" (example: "German measles" became "liberty measles", which I find rather funny).
The governemnt control of the economu, though a violation to the Bill of Rights, did not have bad consequences. Movements from the gvoernemnt, such as President Hoover raising the price of wheat and other food staples, caused farmers to put an extra 40 million acres of land to use, resulting in an increase in their income of about 30%.





Chapter 19 Section 2 Critical Thinking #3

3. In what ways did WWI represent a frightening new kind of warfare?
-the casualty figures
-new military technology
-shell shock

WWI represented a frightening new kind of warfare because of how different it was from any other war that had ever been fought. In the history of warfare, there had never been a war with consequences so disastrous. Before WWI, war was considered honorable. But the introduction of new weapons killed soldiers by the thousands, whereas in previous wars, the deadliest weapon was probably the cannon. Machine guns, tanks, and chemical warfare killed soldiers at an unprecedented rate. "Shell shock" was a problem as well, which was a complete mental collapse which many did not recover from. It was the first war that soldiers had suffered both mentally and physically on a large scale. The death toll was also something totally new; even the bloodiest wars in history didn't come anywhere close. 22 million people died, about half of them civilians, 20 million people wounded, and 10 million lost their homes and became refugees.

Chapter 19-1 Critical Thinking # 4 & 5

4) Why were America's ties with the Allies stronger than its ties with the Central Powers?

For one, the Allies got the Americans' pity when Germany went through Belgium, attacking citizens, destroying villages, hospitals, libraries and Cathedrals. More importantly, though, were America's economic ties to the Allies, which were much stronger than America's economic ties with the Triple Alliance. America's trade with Britain and France was more than double its trade with Germany before the war, and this became even more true when the war started and the Allies came to America to buy supplies. The U.S. shipped millions of dollars of dynamite, cannon powder, copper wire, tubing, and armored cars to the Allies, and more requests continued to come until it it caused a labor shortage in 1915. In addition to this, many Americans felt closer to Britain due to common ancestry and language, as well as similar systems of government and legal systems.


5) Why do you think Germany escalated its U-Boat attacks in 1917?
-Germany's military buildup
-the effects of the British blockade
-Germany's reason for using submarine warfare

I think that Germany escalated its U-Boat attacks because the country was suffering in the war and it was the most effective and easy way for them to retaliate. Britain's blockade, for example, kept weapons, military supplies, and most importantly, food from getting into Germany, as well as blocking neutral ports and the entire North Sea. This made it very difficult for Germany to import food and crop fertilizers, and as a result there was famine by 1917 and about 750,000 Germans died of starvation. Germany was desperate for a way to retaliate against Britain, and U-Boat attacks were one of the few ways it could make an impression upon the country, and actually hurt the British.
I think that Germany used submarine warfare because soldiers had become rather useless with trench warfare, fighting for yards of land and with thousands dying just to gain a few miles of land. Submarines were difficult to detect, and made it easy for Germany penetrate into Britain's waters in order to fire upon any British of Allied ship. The threat against non-military ships also had the potential to keep merchant ships from trading with Britain, as they did not want to be fired upon just for being in British waters, as well as making it difficult for Britain to export.
Germany's military buildup was also a factor in their use of U-Boat attacks. For 3 years, Germany was locked in trench warfare with Allied soldiers, in which all that could be done was for soldiers to make a charge at enemy lines every now and then only to be mowed down by machine guns, in hopes of gaining a few yards of land. Soldiers on land were not accomplishing much; in 5 months of trench warfare, 1.2 million men were killed and only about 7 miles of ground changed hands. It appears that Britain and the Allies did not have a good way to combat the submarine warfare, and it was also a good way to fight navy ships.