Book Portfoio #4 The Earth shall Weep

The earth shall weep


Is there a certain culture for you? Is it a certain belief that has been passed down in your family? Or is there a tradition that not many people perform? Have you ever thought that maybe your way of life or culture has changed drastically over many years? Does the death of a community justify the means for that culture to change? In the Earth Shall Weep by James Wilson, one of the many themes is "Things change."

In the chapters I read for this book, it discussed of the very first encounters between the Spaniards and the Native Americans, which were reported to be very harsh and especially not a warm welcome. The Natives believed that guests should be welcomed, because they were a sign from their eternal resting place. Their culture, of being respectful would ultimately end badly. The Spaniards took advantage of the Natives and killed a mass majority of them. Thus changing the way Natives reacted towards these strangers.

The next chapter describes the mass 'suicide' of the Natives, their reasoning for this action was that they would rather be dead then to be killed or captured by the Spaniards. In the commandments of the Native peoples it states "look after the well being of mind and body." If the Spaniards hadn't had killed that mass population, do you think that would have happened? That encounter ultimately changed the outlook on the relationship between the Natives and Americans for many years after that. That what if we never had contact, would there be more Native Americans around and rights and amendments would be different or changed. What if we came and welcomed them and became friends with them, how that would have done to change everything.

Look back to about the 1800’s. Do women still wear dresses wherever they go? No they don’t. You walk into a local store and you'll find most of them wearing jeans and a regular shirt, or even dressed like men. How about men? Do they still wear top hats and walk with a cane. Nope, men now were jeans or and a normal T-Shirt, and some even dress like girls. Some things are the same though. Religion is still here. There is still an Independence Day, and holidays that have been celebrated every year. Family’s have their traditions and parties. Americans and Native American cultures have made tweaks and adjustments to the modern world. Every culture makes adjustment to knew and different time periods and also to other culture merging with theirs. This is how the earth revolves and survives, by making the necessary adjustments to live and prosper.

Things are changing everyday like technology, people, and customs. There is Death and Births, tragedies and miracles and the constant shifting of many cultures around the world. How do you think that women got women’s rights, or the homosexual peoples are now able to be legally married here in Maine? Every time an age dawns upon us things are changing for us. Habitats change, the life we live change. You change and your friends change. We all change.

Native American Comparison

http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dhnq9bfs_78d8rhcjg3



again google said i could not embed this show, so this is the link to view it

Manifest Destiny Exam Slide Show

http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=ddw6rpwh_36g8jx83dm

I tried to embed the slidshow but google said it was an illegal request so this is the link to view the slideshow

American Imperialism

American Empire
Theodore Roosevelt wrote to a friend in the year 1897: "In strict confidence . . . I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one.".... Why would someone want to have a war, war is a horrible and is costly, we should try to not have a war.-Blaine Goodrich 4/14/09 9:31 AM
There was heated argument in the United States about whether or not to take the Philippines. As one story has it, President McKinley told a group of ministers visiting the White House how he came to his decision:
Before you go I would like to say just a word about the Philippine business. . . . The truth is I didn't want the Philippines, and when they came to us as a gift from the gods, I did not know what to do with them. . . . I sought counsel from all sides -- Democrats as well as Republicans -- but got little help. I thought first we would only take Manila; then Luzon, then other islands, perhaps, also. I walked the floor of the White House night after night until midnight; and I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night. And one night late it came to me this way -- I don't know how it was, but it came: I cant believe he would pray to god to make a decision on what country he wanted to take. that is rediculous -Blaine Goodrich 4/14/09 9:34 AM 1) That we could not give them back to Spain -- that would be cowardly and dishonorable. 2) That we could not turn them over to France or Germany, our commercial rivals in the Orient -- that would be bad business and discreditable. 3) That we could not leave them to themselves -- they were unfit for self-government -- and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain's was; and 4) That there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow men for whom Christ also died. And then I went to bed and went to sleep and slept soundly. The Filipinos did not get the same message from God. In February 1899, they rose in revolt against American rule, as they had rebelled several times against the Spanish. Emilio Aguinaldo, a Filipino leader, who had earlier been brought back from China by U.S. warships to lead soldiers against Spain, now became leader of the insurrectos fighting the United States. He proposed Filipino independence within a U.S. protectorate, but this was rejected. It took the United States three years to crush the rebellion, using seventy thousand troops -- four times as many as were landed in Cuba -- and thousands of battle casualties, many times more than in Cuba. It was a harsh war. For the Filipinos the death rate was enormous from battle casualties and from disease. The taste of empire was on the lips of politicians and business interests throughout the country now. Racism, paternalism, and talk of money mingled with talk of destiny and civilization. In the Senate, Albert Beveridge spoke, January 9, 1900, for the dominant economic and political interests of the country:
Mr. President, the times call for candor. The Philippines are ours forever. . . . And just beyond the Philippines are China's illimitable markets. We will not retreat from either. . . . We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trustee, under God, of the civilization of the world. . . . we sound like we were trying to conqour the world, and that we are being imperialist-Blaine Goodrich 4/14/09 9:37 AM The Pacific is our ocean. . . . Where shall we turn for consumers of our surplus? Geography answers the question. China is our natural customer. . . . The Philippines give us a base at the door of all the East. . . . 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. . . . I have a nugget of pure gold picked up in its present form on the banks of a Philippine creek. . . . My own belief is that there are not 100 men among them who comprehend what Anglo-Saxon self-government even means, and there are over 5,000,000 people to be governed. It has been charged that our conduct of the war has been cruel. Senators, it has been the reverse. . . . Senators must remember that we are not dealing with Americans or Europeans. We are dealing with Orientals. The fighting with the rebels began, McKinley said, when the insurgents attacked American forces. But later, American soldiers testified that the United States had fired the first shot. After the war, an army officer speaking in Boston's Faneuil Hall said his colonel had given him orders to provoke a conflict with the insurgents. In February 1899, a banquet took place in Boston to celebrate the Senate's ratification of the peace treaty with Spain. President McKinley himself had been invited by the wealthy textile manufacturer W. B. Plunkett to speak. It was the biggest banquet in the nation's history: two thousand diners, four hundred waiters. McKinley said that "no imperial designs lurk in the American mind," and at the same banquet, to the same diners, his Postmaster General, Charles Emory Smith, said that "what we want is a market for our surplus." William James, the Harvard philosopher, wrote a letter to the Boston Transcript about "the cold pot grease of McKinley's cant at the recent Boston banquet" and said the Philippine operation "reeked of the infernal adroitness of the great department store, which has reached perfect expertness in the art of killing silently, and with no public squalling or commotion, the neighboring small concerns." James was part of a movement of prominent American businessmen, politicians, and intellectuals who formed the Anti-Imperialist League in 1898 and carried on a long campaign to educate the American public about the horrors of the Philippine war and the evils of imperialism. It was an odd group (Andrew Carnegie belonged), including antilabor aristocrats and scholars, united in a common moral outrage at what was being done to the Filipinos in the name of freedom. Whatever their differences on other matters, they would all agree with William James's angry statement: "God damn the U.S. for its vile conduct in the Philippine Isles." The Anti-Imperialist League published the letters of soldiers doing duty in the Philippines. A captain from Kansas wrote: "Caloocan was supposed to contain 17,000 inhabitants. The Twentieth Kansas swept through it, and now Caloocan contains not one living native." A private from the same outfit said he had "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." A volunteer from the state of Washington wrote: "Our fighting blood was up, and we all wanted to kill 'niggers.' . . . This shooting human beings beats rabbit hunting all to pieces." Horrible just horrible -Blaine Goodrich 4/14/09 9:45 AM It was a time of intense racism in the United States. In the years between 1889 and 1903, on the average, every week, two Negroes were lynched by mobs -- hanged, burned, mutilated. The Filipinos were brown-skinned, physically identifiable, strange-speaking and strange-looking to Americans. To the usual indiscriminate brutality of war was thus added the factor of racial hostility. In November 1901, the Manila correspondent of the Philadelphia Ledger reported:
The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog. . . . Our soldiers have pumped salt water into men to make them talk, and have taken prisoners people who held up their hands and peacefully surrendered, and an hour later, without an atom of evidence to show that they were even insurrectos, stood them on a bridge and shot them down one by one, to drop into the water below and float down, as examples to those who found their bullet-loaded corpses. Early in 1901 an American general returning to the United States from southern Luzon, said:
One-sixth of the natives of Luzon have either been killed or have died of the dengue fever in the last few years. The loss of life by killing alone has been very great, but I think not one man has been slain except where his death has served the legitimate purposes of war. It has been necessary to adopt what in other countries would probably be thought harsh measures. Secretary of War Elihu Root responded to the charges of brutality: "The war in the Philippines has been conducted by the American army with scrupulous regard for the rules of civilized warfare. . . . with self-restraint and with humanity never surpassed." In Manila, a Marine named Littletown Waller, a major, was accused of shooting eleven defenseless Filipinos, without trial, on the island of Samar. Other marine officers described his testimony:
The major said that General Smith instructed him to kill and burn, and said that the more he killed and burned the better pleased he would be; that it was no time to take prisoners, and that he was to make Samar a howling wilderness. Major Waller asked General Smith to define the age limit for killing, and he replied "Everything over ten." In the province of Batangas, the secretary of the province estimated that of the population of 300,000, one-third had been killed by combat, famine, or disease. Mark Twain commented on the Philippine war:
We have pacified some thousands of the islanders and buried them; destroyed their fields; burned their villages, and turned their widows and orphans out-of-doors; furnished heartbreak by exile to some dozens of disagreeable patriots; subjugated the remaining ten millions by Benevolent Assimilation, which is the pious new name of the musket; we have acquired property in the three hundred concubines and other slaves of our business partner, the Sultan of Sulu, and hoisted our protecting flag over that swag. And so, by these Providences of God -- and the phrase is the government's, not mine -- we are a World Power. American firepower was overwhelmingly superior to anything the Filipino rebels could put together. In the very first battle, Admiral Dewey steamed up the Pasig River and fired 500-pound shells into the Filipino trenches. Dead Filipinos were piled so high that the Americans used their bodies for breastworks. A British witness said: "This is not war; it is simply massacre and murderous butchery." He was wrong; it was war. For the rebels to hold out against such odds for years meant that they had the support of the population. General Arthur MacArthur, commander of the Filipino war, said: " . . . I believed that Aguinaldo's troops represented only a faction. I did not like to believe that the whole population of Luzon -- the native population, that is -- was opposed to us." But he said he was "reluctantly compelled" to believe this because the guerrilla tactics of the Filipino army "depended upon almost complete unity of action of the entire native population."
Edit this page (if you have permission)
Google Docs -- Web word processing, presentations and spreadsheets.

Atomic Weapons

The Descision to Use Atomic Weaponsfrom
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. 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. I believe he is persuading me that the bomb was a bad idea by giving that facts of deaths of the innocent and our own troops and know i believe they deserve what they got,i mean look what they did to us. we was not even prepared. -Blaine Goodrich 4/6/09 10:10 AM 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 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 Surveys 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. Another way of trying to say it was bad/ opinion- no i disagree with this attempt we don't know weather they would have surrendered or not. -Blaine Goodrich 4/6/09 10:15 AM 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." Another persuasion. No for them to attack us and then say oh wait now that we have killed many of your people we surrender, i don't care if we got that message i would still have bombed them.-Blaine Goodrich 4/6/09 10:19 AM If only the Americans had not insisted on unconditional surrender- 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. Another persuasion of saying we were wrong in the attack, there should be no conditions the bombing was just. -Blaine Goodrich 4/6/09 10:23 AM 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? persuasion. don't agree, the killed us, we kill them, eye for eye, tooth for tooth -Blaine Goodrich 4/6/09 10:26 AM 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." 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: Although most of this was persuasion towards the bomb was wrong you can tell his opinion in all of the text, that it was wrong. -Blaine Goodrich 4/6/09 10:31 AM
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.
Edit this page (if you have permission)
Google Docs -- Web word processing, presentations and spreadsheets.

weekly reflection #1

today in class i was very interested in how Hitlers perspective of what he was doing was right and was for the service of his people. Also when Stalin aloud the death of FDR to be on the front page of the Russian paper was interesting and also showed that they did have some respect for the U.S. president. the class was good all in all, very shocking things ive learned about WWII how the U.S. and Russia delt with it.

"The Good War" by Studs Terkel is a book of interviews from the people who experienced WWII for themselves. The theme of this book would be that everyone, not just the soldiers who fought in the war was effected by the outcome and by the war itself. The theme of the book pertains to history because the interviews were based on people that fought in the war. In the book there were many different perspectives of the war. There were certain people that had a historical approach on their view of the war, and there were some people that had a cultural views due to their religion.

The thematic statement in the book is "This is a memory book, rather than one of hard fact and precise statistic." This book is specifically based on the experiences of those who experienced the war and their memories during the war. For example Yuriko Hohri, "My three sisters, my mother and myself were at home doing chores. I was twelve. A black car came right into the driveway. One man went into the kitchen. As I watched, he looked under the sink and he looked into the oven. Then he went into the parlor and opened the glass cases where our most treasured things were."

War affects every one in and out of the battle field. This theme relates to history in many different ways. First, the Japanese people that were living in the U.S were discriminated and most of the Japanese that were under suspicion were sent to camps. Secondly, when most of the men were drafted into the war, women were forced to work with unfair pay and hours of labor. Lastly, the men that were drafted into the war suffered from physiological and emotional defects after the war.

The perspectives were both historical and cultural. Being a book based on interviews there were many different views on the war. The order that the author lists the interviews is critical. The questions that the author asks and the order in which he chooses to do so, shows that the title of the book contradicts what the message the author is trying to show. WWII wasn't a "good war", in fact it impacted the way the U.S would function. One of the perspectives is cultural. It is cultural because of the Japanese people that he chose to interview, most of them did not like the war because they were being discriminated against. The other perspective is historical. The soldiers that he interviewed told about everything that the U.S probably didn't know. Also they were historical correct.

War affects everyone including us then and now. The signifigance of this theme in history is, war causes devistation and affects everyone. The theme's role in perspective is both historical and cultural. People should consider the theme more because war brings devistation, loss and regret. Shouldn't we as a country consider this theme in the midst of the war against terror?

Essay #2- Quater Three exam #1

The two significant scandals were the Watergate Scandal and the Iran Contra Scandal. The Watergate scandal was when president Nixon hired five men to break in two the Watergate Hotel to steal confidential records of illegal activities the he was committing during his presidency. The Iran Contra Scandal was were Reagan was trading guns to the Iran contras for the hostages. Reagan had a shipment of guns he would ship to a group of Iranians; the U.S. would receive the Israeli payment. The Iranian promised to do everything in their power to achieve the release of six U.S. hostages, who were being held by the Lebanese Shea Islamic group Hezbollah. The plan eventually deteriorated into an arms-for-hostages scheme, in which members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of the American hostages. Large modifications to the plan were conjured, in which a portion of the proceeds from the weapon sales was diverted to fund anti-Sandinista and anti-communist rebels, or Contras, in Nicaragua.
The reason why this is important to u.s. history is because these are major events that even though our presidents should be the one main person to respect the laws, they don't. for u.s. history it tells us that no matter who you are you will get caught for doing illegal acts. To know history is to not repeat it, but do better and have more progress than before. This sets examples for us and the next president not to make the same mistakes and actually be a decent person and a respectable and good president.
in my perspective the reason why they ended so differently is because the dealing of arms was a desperate measure to save the six men of ours who was captured, this was not just a scandal that was just to profit from, but to save lives. The Watergate scandal was to save Nixon's own butt, to protect his image because of the illegal acts he has committed.

Essay #1- Quater Three Exam #1

The cold was a very long war with threats at every corner, and the American citizens where tired of being scared of when the bombs were going to fall. For a president to end this war would certainly boost his popularity with the American citizens. And it would give Americans and the president the dignity of beating a world power. It would be a great win for the U.S.

Instead of trying to negotiate, Regan did what haven't don't in a long time. The U.S. became the aggressive state. We went and did what we had to do to win the cold war, we took out the last Soviet Union general mikhail Gorbachev, and then told him to tear down that wall.

I believe this is accurate, Regan was the main person to put forth efforts to end the war, but the wall fell during George H.W. Bush presidency. Regan did most of the work, bush was just there when it all ended.

Untitled

The Silent Majority

 

The Silent Majority is a unspecified group of people in a country that does not express their opinions publicly. Richard was not the first to use this word, but he did popularize it in his speech on November 3, 1969. This term is referred to the people who did not join the in the large demonstrations against the Vietnam War, and who did not enthusiastically participate in public discourse or the media. Nixon along with many others saw this group as being overshadowed by the more vocal minority.

This majority referred mainly to the older generation World War II veterans in all parts of the United States but it also described many young people in the Midwest, West and in the South, many of whom did eventually serve in Vietnam. The Silent Majority was mostly populated with the blue collar people who allegedly didn't have the ability or the time to take an active part in politics other than to vote.

Reagen Question

Ronald Reagan


1. What are the problems America faces?

The problems that America faces are problems with money, such as taxes and jobs. Public spending is also listed as a problem because people spend way to much and buy things that we don't really need.

2. What are Reagan's solutions?

Reagan's solutions are putting in a new tax reform, and save the natural resources, Focus on the people that serve America without discrimination. He wanted to free people of their past debts and he thinks that, that is what will fix the inflammation and the problem America faces

3. What makes Regan effective here?

Reagan is effective here because he uses his humor and not answer questions that could get him into trouble

4. what does this reveal about Regan? (Consider the saying: "Wit has truth in it.")

This reveals that Reagan is a funny guy and has a seance of humor, even with a difficult job he can still be calm and funny. This also shows that he is a quick thinker and he can make up an answer quickly.

5. What policy decisions might Reagan make according to this?

Reagan might make America stronger as a whole and talk to other countries to try and get us out of war that way we can all regroup and become stronger so that we can stand longer as a country.

6. How did this event effect Reagan's role with the American public?

The attempted assassination played a roll in the way Reagan enter acted with the public because he took more precautions when he went out on the street and he had to be more careful.

7. Who is the audience for this speech?

The audience that this speech was meant for was the more religious people and the parents of America, also America as a hole.

8. What is the argument Reagan makes here?

The argument that Reagan makes is that we had to speak out against the people that talked bad about America or any part of our nation, because if we don't then we will be talked down.

9. What do you think Reagan's agenda is in this speech?

Reagan's agenda for this speech is to connect with the American people by pulling them in by talking about children and about religion. Then he put his message into the speech. Then he brought it back to talking about Americans with his message.

10. What is the message here?

The message was that Reagan has brought down our inflation rates and things are better now because people have more money.

11. How does the ad use Carter?

The ad uses Carter by having the voice over compare now to the past four years and saying how bad before was and how good now is.

12. What does the ad suggest about the character/morals of the country?

The ad suggests that when times are bad we save and hold back so we don't hit rock bottom. And when times are good we pull together to get the things we want.

13. What is the criticism of Communism being offered here?

The criticism of Communism being offered is that they don't seek peace for themselves.


14. Do you think this was an effective speech?

I think that this speech was effective because he used the words that people wanted to hear and he knew that so he said exactly what everyone wanted.

15. Who is the audience for this broadcast?

The audience for this broadcast was the American people and the other countries.

16. What do you think the American people thought of this action and Reagan's explanation of it?

The Americans thoughts on the actions were that it was a good thing to have taken action and done something rater then just setting back and watching them loose. Americans were very happy that this was done.

17. What was the foreign response, do you think?

The foreign response was that people understood that we weren't messing around and American wasn't going to stand for Americans getting killed over seas.

Hostages Q's

1). It's hard to say, it was the latest event to happen. I don't think it was all of his fault but he had part in it, especially because once he lost the election the hostages were released. he could have just giving shah and the money to them but i think it was right to show that America is not that easily threatened

2). yes, after months of trying he still could not win Iran back so in terms he did lose Iran and its people.

3). No, i believe he should have stopped negotiating after many failures and threatened to attack and free them, if they did not comply stick to his word and attack and free the hostages

4). that they really hated Carter and would not release the,m until a new president was inaugurated. they were not planning to kill the hostages but put carter in a state of panic to release them before he left office.

President Carter speech

The threat to America is that not just fuel but our confidence. America is losing its confidence and the unity of people is crumbling, our nation is losing its purpose. That the erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America.

Book Portfolio #2 -A Year Without Made In China

The book I read was A Year without Made in China by Sara Bongiorni. Her and her family’s new year’s resolution was to band china goods from their house for a whole year to see if they could handle it and live and buy other goods from other countries.
Every country depends on one another whether they like it or not, because it’s a necessity to survive. We needed the French during the battle of Yorktown to win, without them we would have failed. I don’t like the fact that China is taking over our companies and goods, but without them we wouldn’t be able to buy the stuff we enjoy most.

Our country depends on china as all countries depend on others, for its goods and services to one another. When Sara’s DVD player broke the DVD and parts were all made from china and their resolution band them from buying any Chinese product. Christmas and all the fun holidays that bring toys, costumes and decoration proved to be a hassle for the Bongiorni family because every decoration, costumes and toy are made from china. Even the most simple of things that are a necessity is made from china like shoes, and cloths and almost all things that you go to Wal-Mart for is made from china. This family survived without China for the most part but realized that America needs China to prosper and survive because they deliver what we need at a low price, even though the Chinese are putting Americans out of a job we still buy there products,

Every war and horrible event that happens throughout history a country needs another’s help to win and survive the after math’s of the effect. Either by money, goods and supplies or troops, we always need another’s help. During WWII we knew that we were going to need some help, and that’s what we got, we allied our self’s with the British Empire and the Soviet Union to help us defeat Adolph Hitler and free the Jews. Without their support and troops we may not have won that war. Without the Indians during the battle against the British during the French an Indian war we would lost that war, with the Indians help in the way they fought we would have sourly lost going head to head with the Britain’s. The war we are in now are we are in need of help, financially and troop wise. We do have little help from the Iraq police force and the British but we could use some more help. Without other nations to supports us and have our backs we would be a different nation, difficult battles would be lost and the world could be a different place if it weren’t for the few allies we had to help us make it through the tuff times.

I may not like the fact I buy Chinese goods but I do because I need or want too, just like other countries need too. We are running out of resources for fuel and right now we are relying on other places to help surplus us with more. We may not want to deal with China or Russia but sometimes we need to because that’s the only thing that we can do. We rely one someone to help or support us; it’s the same way with nations they look to each other for help, even If they aren’t the best of friends. Every one must realize the someday they are going to rely on someone that they may not know or like but its there only option and they are gong to haft to do it because it the way of life, to survive and flourish.

Every country depends on one another whether they like it or not, because it’s a necessity to survive. Every war and horrible event that happens throughout history a country needs another’s help to win and survive the after math’s of the effect. Either by money, goods and supplies or troops, we always need another’s help. Every one relies on someone, even me and the whole country at times. Someday you may look to someone for help they you don’t know or like and they may look to you for help. Every one and everything needs help someday, countries, people, animals and you.