QUESTIONS:
1. After reading the article, why do you think specialty groups, including the women's movement to such an active roll in the development oof American societ?
2. What historical factors, drove the Progressive movement?
After 1900, Americans became fixated on reforming everything that could be reformed. This common strive for a better society was deemed progressivism and became popular with people of all different agendas.
Progressivism was characterized by interest in intellectual pursuits and efficiency. In the end, this broad effort was responsible for empowering women, reforming the government, renewing the fight for black rights, and producing presidents who reformed corporate business and social services.
Progressivism commonly used scientific investigation to gather information about things that required reform. This methodical approach was also applied to the workplace through scientific management. Even the media picked up on the popularity of progressivism with the new type of journalism: mudraking. Mudraking publications exposed problems and injustices in America.
Another important group of people to join in the progressive movement were American women. Seeing an opportunity to increase their value to society, they began heading charitable programs like settlement houses. Empowered by the impact they made, women began gravitating towards feminism, a movement focused on equal rights and freedoms for women.
Meanwhile, politicians like Robert M. La Follette started realizing how corrupt the government had become and began the struggle to reform the government and political machines. Progressive politicians wanted a more democratic government and, therefore, put importance on initiatives and recalls. However, progressives made little progress with municipal reforms.
Working-class Americans also began to take up the progressive cause. Workers tried to unionize and solve problems without government aid, but could not make much progress. Courts rarely favored unions and did not hesitate to put court orders in place to prevent workers from striking or boycotting. Furthermore, workers could not make much progress in accident liability or other types of compensationUnfortunately, black Americans felt the pain of social injustices as much as the working-class. As they began migrating to cities, racism between the white residents and the new black residents erupted once again. The
struggle for social rights was also renewed in the form of the Niagra Movement. This organization focused its efforts on encouraging black pride and achieving political and social equality.
The first progressive president in America was Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt was a devout Christian and an avid outdoorsman. More importantly, though, was that he consistently tried to control the power of corporate businesses. In his first attack, he established the Bureau of Corporations, a department of the Justice Department responsible for investigating business practices. This helped Roosevelt's cause, but the Supreme Court eventually pushed him back a step by deciding that any restraint on trade or monopolization of an industry would automatically violate the Sherman Act. Roosevelt persisted and began a program called the Square Deal. Through this program, the government started asserting power over corporate businesses for the first time since the Civil War.
Meanwhile, congress was occupied with the railroads. Congress passed the Hepburn Railway Act and gave power to the Interstate Commerce Commission power to set maximum shipping rates and reform bookkeeping practices. Congress also passed both the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act in order to improve the grotesque conditions in meatpacking plants and other food processing plants.
The next president of the United States was William Howard Taft, but the next president to benefit the progressive movement was really Woodrow Wilson, a democrat. The election was mostly between Roosevelt, who advocated a reform program called New Nationalism, and Wilson, who called his program New Freedom. Both aimed to limit the power of corporate businesses, but Wilson's plan was centered around reviving competition while Roosevelt's plan was all about government regulation.
Once he was actually in the White House, Wilson helped initiate the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. This act helped prevent the banking industry from collapsing under the pressure of financial panic by organizing twelve banks to act as reserves. Furthermore, the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 loosened the set definition of what qualified as illegal.
In the end, the Progressive Era made clear impacts on many aspects of American life. This may be because members of this movement came from all different agendas and backgrounds. Whatever the cause of progressive
success, its influence reached women in the form of feminism, the working-class through urban liberalism, blacks through the Niagara movement, and corporate businesses through progressive presidents-namely President Roosevelt. Without the progressive movement, America would never have overcome the problems brought by industrialization.
Diner, Steven J. A "Very Different Age: Americans of the Progressive Era" Kennedy, David M. ed., Progressivism: The Critical Issues Buenker, John D. Urban Liberalism and Progressive Reform
Monday, September 27, 2010
Monday, September 6, 2010
September 5: 1972 Olympics Israeli Athletes Killed - Point of interest
NO COMMENTS REQUIRED
September 5:
1972 : Israeli athletes killed at Munich Olympics
www.history.com
On this day in 1972, at the Summer Olympics in Munich, Germany, a group of Palestinian terrorists storms the Olympic Village apartment of the Israeli athletes, killing two and taking nine others hostage. The terrorists, known as Black September, demanded that Israel release over 230 Arab prisoners being held in Israeli jails and two German terrorists. In an ensuing shootout at the Munich airport, the nine Israeli hostages were killed along with five terrorists and one West German policeman. Olympic competition was suspended for 24 hours to hold memorial services for the slain athletes.
After being founded in 776 B.C. in ancient Greece, the first modern Olympics were held in Athens in 1896, with 13 countries and 311 athletes competing. The games were meant to foster peace and bring people together. Germany had hoped that the 1972 Olympics would be a celebration of peace, as it was the first time it had hosted the games since 1936, when Adolf Hitler, who used the games to promote his Aryan master race theory, was in power.
The Munich Olympics opened on August 26, 1972, with 195 events and 7,173 athletes representing 121 countries. On the morning of September 5, Palestinian terrorists in ski masks ambushed the Israeli team. After negotiations to free the nine Israelis broke down, the terrorists took the hostages to the Munich airport. Once there, German police opened fire from rooftops and killed three of the terrorists. A gun battle erupted and left the hostages, two more Palestinians and a policeman dead.
After a memorial service was held for the athletes at the main Olympic stadium, International Olympic Committee President Avery Brundage ordered that the games continue, to show that the terrorists hadn't won. Although the tragedy deeply marred the games, there were numerous moments of spectacular athletic achievement, including American swimmer Mark Spitz's seven gold medals and teenage Russian gymnast Olga Korbut's two dramatic gold-medal victories.
In the aftermath of the murders at the '72 Olympics, the Israeli government, headed by Golda Meir, hired a group of Mossad agents to track down and kill the Black September assassins. In 2005, Steven Spielberg made a movie, Munich, about these events.
September 5:
1972 : Israeli athletes killed at Munich Olympics
www.history.com
On this day in 1972, at the Summer Olympics in Munich, Germany, a group of Palestinian terrorists storms the Olympic Village apartment of the Israeli athletes, killing two and taking nine others hostage. The terrorists, known as Black September, demanded that Israel release over 230 Arab prisoners being held in Israeli jails and two German terrorists. In an ensuing shootout at the Munich airport, the nine Israeli hostages were killed along with five terrorists and one West German policeman. Olympic competition was suspended for 24 hours to hold memorial services for the slain athletes.
After being founded in 776 B.C. in ancient Greece, the first modern Olympics were held in Athens in 1896, with 13 countries and 311 athletes competing. The games were meant to foster peace and bring people together. Germany had hoped that the 1972 Olympics would be a celebration of peace, as it was the first time it had hosted the games since 1936, when Adolf Hitler, who used the games to promote his Aryan master race theory, was in power.
The Munich Olympics opened on August 26, 1972, with 195 events and 7,173 athletes representing 121 countries. On the morning of September 5, Palestinian terrorists in ski masks ambushed the Israeli team. After negotiations to free the nine Israelis broke down, the terrorists took the hostages to the Munich airport. Once there, German police opened fire from rooftops and killed three of the terrorists. A gun battle erupted and left the hostages, two more Palestinians and a policeman dead.
After a memorial service was held for the athletes at the main Olympic stadium, International Olympic Committee President Avery Brundage ordered that the games continue, to show that the terrorists hadn't won. Although the tragedy deeply marred the games, there were numerous moments of spectacular athletic achievement, including American swimmer Mark Spitz's seven gold medals and teenage Russian gymnast Olga Korbut's two dramatic gold-medal victories.
In the aftermath of the murders at the '72 Olympics, the Israeli government, headed by Golda Meir, hired a group of Mossad agents to track down and kill the Black September assassins. In 2005, Steven Spielberg made a movie, Munich, about these events.
Vietnam - Lessons Learned
After reading the below article, answer the following questions:
1. Do you concur with the lessons learned?
2. What role did domestic politics play in current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Remember to comment on 2 other students blogs.
"The Vietnam War in Hindsight"
Defense, Southeast Asia, National Security, Foreign Policy
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2000/0427southeastasia_haass.aspx?p=1
Richard N. Haass, Vice President and Director
April 27, 2000 —
Twenty-five years after the ignominious American withdrawal from what was then South Vietnam, this much is clear: the United States lost the war, but won the peace. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how things could have turned out much better if we had won the war. The United States remains the dominant power in the Asia-Pacific region. U.S. alliances with such critical states as Japan, South Korea and Australia are robust; U.S. relations with China are extensive if not always warm. Even U.S. relations with Vietnam are now proper and improving. The region is mostly democratic, wealthy and at peace. And despite gloomy predictions to the contrary, "dominos" did not fall to Communism after we lost in Vietnam.
Also worth noting is that some 15 years after the flag came down over the American Embassy in Saigon and the helicopters flew away from its roof, the Cold War ended. In this case, though, the United States and the West won the war. This outcome resulted not just from Soviet shortcomings—exacerbated by the Soviet "Vietnam" in Afghanistan—but from American perseverance. The U.S. failure in Vietnam did not trigger the wholesale retreat from responsibility into isolationism that many feared would result.
Still, the wrong war
None of this changes the reality that the Vietnam War was the wrong war—an unnecessary war. This in no way cheapens or in any way detracts from the sacrifice by so many Americans. Rather, the judgment is a strategic one: The American commitment to Vietnam exaggerated its importance. What happened on the ground in that country could not alter the basic shape of the strategic competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. It was a distraction, one that wasted resources of every kind. The notion that the war fundamentally affected U.S. interests everywhere proved mistaken.
Moreover, the United States misread the threat. Washington was slow to see the growing divide between Moscow and Peking. Communism was not monolithic. Nationalism counted for more. This was true as well in Vietnam, where the Communists in both the North and the South were more nationalists than instruments of the Soviet Union or anyone else.
Why did we get so involved then? More than anything else, it was domestic politics, and the concern of John F. Kennedy—and to an even greater extent Lyndon Johnson—that the American people would not forgive the politicians or the party that "lost" Vietnam. Both remembered the price paid by Democrats charged by Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-WI) and others with "losing" China.
The irony, of course, is that Johnson paid an enormous price for prosecuting the war as he did. His attempt to build the Great Society went unfinished. He himself did not stand for re-election. And Richard Nixon was elected, ushering in more than two decades of Republican domination of the White House interrupted only by the fallout of Watergate.
Learning lessons
The lessons from that war are still applicable today: not permitting domestic politics to determine foreign policy; asking hard questions about history and culture before the United States commits its prestige and its men and women in uniform; not underestimating the power of local forces in global politics.
The Vietnam War was not simply the wrong war; it was also fought in the wrong way. Military force should only be used decisively, not gradually. Civilian officials should set basic policy but allow the professional military to run wars without micromanagement. Quantitative measures—how many bombs are dropped, how many enemy troops killed—may be irrelevant to the course of the battle and should not be taken as proof of progress. Airpower alone wins few campaigns. High technology is no panacea and cannot in and of itself defeat a committed adversary. What is worrisome about this cataloguing of lessons is how many of them have been violated in such faraway places as Somalia and Kosovo.
The good news, though, is that the American people seem ahead of their leaders in not forgetting Vietnam's lessons or repeating its mistakes. It remains possible for the United States to commit itself and to fight high-cost military interventions so long as American people believe the stakes justify them. It is also possible to sustain commitments where the stakes are low so long as the costs of intervening are kept modest. What the American people will not stand for, however, are interventions where U.S. interests are modest, but the costs in human and financial terms are high. This principle, as much as anything else, is what Vietnam has to teach us—and what we would only forget at great peril to ourselves.
1. Do you concur with the lessons learned?
2. What role did domestic politics play in current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Remember to comment on 2 other students blogs.
"The Vietnam War in Hindsight"
Defense, Southeast Asia, National Security, Foreign Policy
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2000/0427southeastasia_haass.aspx?p=1
Richard N. Haass, Vice President and Director
April 27, 2000 —
Twenty-five years after the ignominious American withdrawal from what was then South Vietnam, this much is clear: the United States lost the war, but won the peace. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how things could have turned out much better if we had won the war. The United States remains the dominant power in the Asia-Pacific region. U.S. alliances with such critical states as Japan, South Korea and Australia are robust; U.S. relations with China are extensive if not always warm. Even U.S. relations with Vietnam are now proper and improving. The region is mostly democratic, wealthy and at peace. And despite gloomy predictions to the contrary, "dominos" did not fall to Communism after we lost in Vietnam.
Also worth noting is that some 15 years after the flag came down over the American Embassy in Saigon and the helicopters flew away from its roof, the Cold War ended. In this case, though, the United States and the West won the war. This outcome resulted not just from Soviet shortcomings—exacerbated by the Soviet "Vietnam" in Afghanistan—but from American perseverance. The U.S. failure in Vietnam did not trigger the wholesale retreat from responsibility into isolationism that many feared would result.
Still, the wrong war
None of this changes the reality that the Vietnam War was the wrong war—an unnecessary war. This in no way cheapens or in any way detracts from the sacrifice by so many Americans. Rather, the judgment is a strategic one: The American commitment to Vietnam exaggerated its importance. What happened on the ground in that country could not alter the basic shape of the strategic competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. It was a distraction, one that wasted resources of every kind. The notion that the war fundamentally affected U.S. interests everywhere proved mistaken.
Moreover, the United States misread the threat. Washington was slow to see the growing divide between Moscow and Peking. Communism was not monolithic. Nationalism counted for more. This was true as well in Vietnam, where the Communists in both the North and the South were more nationalists than instruments of the Soviet Union or anyone else.
Why did we get so involved then? More than anything else, it was domestic politics, and the concern of John F. Kennedy—and to an even greater extent Lyndon Johnson—that the American people would not forgive the politicians or the party that "lost" Vietnam. Both remembered the price paid by Democrats charged by Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-WI) and others with "losing" China.
The irony, of course, is that Johnson paid an enormous price for prosecuting the war as he did. His attempt to build the Great Society went unfinished. He himself did not stand for re-election. And Richard Nixon was elected, ushering in more than two decades of Republican domination of the White House interrupted only by the fallout of Watergate.
Learning lessons
The lessons from that war are still applicable today: not permitting domestic politics to determine foreign policy; asking hard questions about history and culture before the United States commits its prestige and its men and women in uniform; not underestimating the power of local forces in global politics.
The Vietnam War was not simply the wrong war; it was also fought in the wrong way. Military force should only be used decisively, not gradually. Civilian officials should set basic policy but allow the professional military to run wars without micromanagement. Quantitative measures—how many bombs are dropped, how many enemy troops killed—may be irrelevant to the course of the battle and should not be taken as proof of progress. Airpower alone wins few campaigns. High technology is no panacea and cannot in and of itself defeat a committed adversary. What is worrisome about this cataloguing of lessons is how many of them have been violated in such faraway places as Somalia and Kosovo.
The good news, though, is that the American people seem ahead of their leaders in not forgetting Vietnam's lessons or repeating its mistakes. It remains possible for the United States to commit itself and to fight high-cost military interventions so long as American people believe the stakes justify them. It is also possible to sustain commitments where the stakes are low so long as the costs of intervening are kept modest. What the American people will not stand for, however, are interventions where U.S. interests are modest, but the costs in human and financial terms are high. This principle, as much as anything else, is what Vietnam has to teach us—and what we would only forget at great peril to ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)