9/11 Muslims Terrorists?

This week in class, we discussed views that America had on people before and after the events of 9/11. In this blog, I plan to discuss specifically who the people were and why the were stereotyped as such. In this day and age, there are many stereotypes about many people. Things like Indians only study all day, to all Mexicans are illegal immigrants. Obviously that cannot be true, because it would cause every person of the same race to be exactly the same. So why is it that there was a stereotype formed after 9/11 that highlighted Muslims as terrorists? That cannot be true at all... The Islamic way of life does not condone violence against other people. I think that it is ignorance. Not when s causes an entire religion to be ostracized based on the act of a single outlive, an outlive that is not common. One of the root of the word Islam is Salam, which means peace or well being. Is it really possible for people of a religion that means peace, to be made of terrorists? After 9/11 fears of terrorism rocketed, and fear became irrational. The irrational fears of Americans right after 9/11 caused disputes, riots, and etc. So there is a large problem in America, one that this generation can fix.

Plan

This week we started to talk about the cold war. During this war specifically, anticommunism was a big topic. The U.S even created a containment policy to help combat it. A plan they created was called the Marshall plan. It was made to help aid European countries that had not fallen under communism. The Marshall Plan provided a promise of economic and financial stability and the U, S spent approximately 13 billion dollars financing this plan.  By providing the monetary provisions for Europe, the U.S was also brining money back to itself. When money went to Europe, then they bought American goods and used American workers which help build up the U.S. economy as well. The Marshall plan also allocated the idea that the U.S would protect these countries with the army and would not hesitate to use force on any communist like actions. The main points of the Marshall plan were created to help support the containment policy and help combat communism. 

American Colonies?

This week, we focused on trade and International business. What do you suppose that Americans thought about the idea of making colonies in the Philippines? Do you think that any were against the idea due to being British colonies before the Revolutionary war? I feel that many people would have been against the idea of colonizing the Philippines because of that event. We read about the argument that Mr. Beveridge shared with the President. He mostly claimed that the Philippines could not govern themselves and I quote, "They are not capable of self-government" (2) in the section, The Filipinos Are Children. I think that he was being very racist in this comment to get the President to agree with him. I believe that most of his argument was geared towards things that would benefit him the most. Although he did include many things that would benefit the country as a whole. He used things like trading and military bases to convince the President that he should choose to colonize the Philippines. I think that after helping free the Philippines it was very odd to try to control them. I personally think that an alliance by choice would have been better. Just literally ask to form a treaty, and perhaps they would have agreed considering that America helped them. Although I do suppose that since their was a chance that they could have disagreed, they went for total control.

Prohibition

In our time working with events of the 1920’s we have been able to connect Prohibition to several factors of the era; two examples being Women’s Suffrage and Civil Rights. Based on what we have learned in class, I have come to the conclusion that Prohibition was supposed to be a “fix all” solution during the Progressive Era. People like to blame things that go wrong on other people and possessions, and during this time the chosen victim was alcohol. The idea was that alcohol brought all trouble into society, like violence and misconduct, and if alcohol were to disappear the negativity would follow.  The problem is, alcohol is not the root of all evil. Thus, abolishing its use didn't make all problems disappear. Not to say that excessive alcohol consumption didn't cause some major problems that Prohibition could have fixed. Public misconduct induced by alcohol most likely decreased, and there is possibility that drunken violence was also minimized. However, while the possibility stands that Prohibition did some good, it also majorly established other illegal acts, like bootlegging alcohol. Therefore, not only was there more illegal activity occurring in result of Prohibition, but alcohol was still available to those who wanted it. Ultimately, the “fix all” solution to the problems in society was not a solution at all, and while we wish we could blame all wrong doings on one thing, it's unrealistic for things to be so easy.

They say that on the off chance that you trust in something so emphatically, than you ought to battle for it. We see incalculable individuals in history who did simply that; Martin Luther King Jr., slaves, Gandhi, and JFK. It's fascinating to perceive how the energy somebody has towards a particular point, thing, individual, or thought can push them to past the limits of good and bad. On the off chance that battling for what you put stock in means hurting the lives of others, if so then why do let you know to battle for what you trust in? Why is there no particular? The Ku Klux Klan was framed in December of 1865. The pith of the Ku Klux Klan was to guarantee the awkwardness in the middle of Blacks and Whites. They abhorred Blacks and thoughtful Whites. In 1871, The Ku Klux Klan executed a republican judge for having sensitivity on three Black men. Directly after an uprising resulted, the Ku Klux Klan murdered 50 men who had effectively surrendered to the Klan. Not long after the Klan scattered and afterward refinishes and got to be known as red shirts. As indicated by the quote prior examined the activities of the Klan were advocated. Much after the common war the Ku Klux Klan still battled for bondage. The Klan's activities in spite of the fact that appear to be sort of advocated the way their activities weren't right. In this way, I accept that everything relies on upon how the battle is taken out, on the off chance that it doesn't place anybody in hurt's direction then its fine. Then again, in the event that it does, in the same way as the Ku Klux Klan, than it without a doubt isn't alright.

Reconstruction Era

This week in class, we finished discussing the Civil War, and moved on to the Reconstruction Era of the United States of America. The 4 million or so newly freed slaves did not many places to turn, and new law made it even more difficult to decide. In my opinion, the end of the Civil War was not a turning point, it just made the Southern politicians want to fight back even harder. There were new laws created, such as the "Black Codes." These codes restricted how the newly freed slaves could act in the society. Now, this lead to the construction of the Freedman's Bureau, which tried to conform the South. This plan didn't work out very well, and continuous harsh treatment of blacks were unstoppable. Some blacks were smart enough to find places to work, but many were unlucky, and were stuck jobless. This leads me to the question, "How would the slave owners act if their former slaves came back and ask for work?" Hopefully, the slave owners would treat them better.

Gettysburg

Last week, we talked about the Civil war. To go more in depth, the Battle of Gettysburg and the Battle of Cold harbor. Today I will write about the battle of Gettysburg. We talked about how Gettysburg was probably one of the most decisive battles in the Civil War. I was wondering, why they would continue the war for months after? Wouldn't it only deplete supplies until the South would be left with nothing? The most decisive battles took place on little and big round top, and Culp's, and Cemetery Hill. The battle between little and big round top, took place in the area between, the Devil's Dens, also the valley of death. This battle, protected the Union army, from being destroyed by the sides. The leader of the Union army part, was Colonel Joshua Chamberlain. Wouldn't he get more recognition than that which was given? It seemed like his part in the battle was a bit underestimated. The battle on Culp's Hill took place on the last day. The tactics were important, to make sure that the Union Army won. I was wondering, why would General Lee keep trying to send troops through an open field even when his forces were depleted? Wouldn't it be better to recognize the failure and change the strategy to match the situation?