History 120

Post #13: September 11, 2001

    September 11, 2001 began like any other school day. My first class was Pre-Calculus, and the only unusual event was a fire drill which, considering the beautiful autumn day, was rather pleasant. Like my fellow classmates, I had assumed that the fire drill was likely to be the only excitement to be had for the remainder of the day. I was soon disabused of that notion as I arrived at my second class - United States History.
    It has always seemed to me that my "9-11 moment" was somewhat ironic. Our previous class assignment had been to come up with a list of the most pressing issues in the country. The chalkboard was, therefore, filled with our concerns about abortion, stem-cell research, gun control, and many others. Foreign policy may have been on the board - I don't remember - but terrorism was not.
    I had walked into the classroom to find that the television had been turned to the news. This, by itself, was not uncommon for our class. After a minute or two, however, my classmates and I settled down and we came to realize that our teacher had not yet turned off the news. It took a few moments to realize what we were seeing. We watched in shock as footage of the burning tower filled the screen. Thoughts like "horrible accident" were echoed by the on-site reporter. Just as we had begun to process this event, a second plane appeared on the screen. This was a live feed, so there was no warning. It's been five years, and still, I cannot forget the desperate hope-against-hope that it was the camera angle, a trick of light, that this plane seemed to fly so determinedly towards the second, still intact, tower.

...

    It's now 2006 and I'm sure that if my old History teacher were to again write the current most pressing issues on his chalkboard, terrorism and the war would undoubtedly be at the top of the list. That list is not the only thing that has changed. We, as a nation, have also changed much in the past five years.
    In the weeks that followed, despite the weary regurgitations of the same video footage, and the countless theories and analyses spewed by the "leading experts", the spirit of the American people seemed strengthened. Yes, we had been through a horrific tragedy. But we would stand, as one nation, arms stretched to embrace each other, and hands lent to support those most affected. No longer were we, as Americans, complacent about our nation, or indifferent about our freedoms. It was, in a way, America at her ideal. But, like many changes wrought by strong emotions, this was not to last.
    Five years later, and we, as Americans, are more dispirited than we have been in decades. If we were indifferent before 9-11, we are now disillusioned. The war in Iraq, which so many of us rallied for, demanded even, has lasted too long. Two decades of relative peace bred a generation of young men and women unexposed to war. To join the armed forces was, for many, not a commitment to serve and possibly die in battle, but an opportunity to earn a free college education.
    Whatever bond we shared in the weeks following the attacks has been traded for a deep rift between the political left and right. Above all, the resounding patriotism that roared though the nation five years ago has dwindled to a nagging whimper. Osama bin Laden could not have claimed victory on September 11, 2001. But in light of the growing disillusionment with not only our government, but our country as well, I wonder if bin Laden ought to feel somewhat successful.
    The cost of 9-11 cannot be quantified by the number of lives taken both on that day and in the subsequent war. It continues to grow as America becomes increasingly divided. 9-11 has been dubbed America's "wake-up call", but I wonder if we have not fallen back asleep and are now tossing and turning in this discontented dream. I expect that within the next several years the towers will be rebuilt. How many more years it will take to rebuild America, I can't say for sure. 

Post #12: Wall Street

         The 1980s marked an era of unprecedented self-indulgence. The baby boomers had grown into a status-driven population and the Forbes’ List of the wealthiest people in the world became wildly popular. As the dot.com businesses took a prominent spotlight, the stock market at Wall Street soared bringing with it the American penchant for speculative buying and the entrepreneur’s equally profound temptations towards corruption. The Oliver Stone movie, “Wall Street” captures the predatory games of the 1980s businessman as well as the people who fell victim on the way.

    As phrases such as “You can have it all!” and “Shop ‘til you drop” were coined, inflation rose exponentially, and consumers bought on credit with relentless zeal. This, many business-owners promoted, was the way to once again bolster the American economy. This sentiment was, perhaps, best expressed by Gordon Gekko (played by Michael Douglas) who, in response to the criticisms of Oliver Cromwell, delivered a rebuttal with this final remark:

The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that greed – for lack of a better word – is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of evolutionary spirit. Greed in all of its forms – greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge – has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed – you mark my words – will not only save Teldar Paper but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. [1]

    The 1980s was a time of great opportunities and profits – for the wealthy. “The top one percent commanded a greater share of the nation’s wealth (thirty-seven percent) than at any time since 1929.” [2] This meant, however, that gap between the wealthy and the working class was larger than it had been in decades. Gekko starts his response with Cromwell with a not-so-subtle reminder that he is the largest shareholder of Teldar Paper. Though he initially seems to be pleading his case to the assembly, it becomes quickly evident that he is in control. This demonstrates the incredible leverage the 1980s business tycoon had to manipulate corporations to suit their benefits. 

    Meanwhile, young professionals everywhere were trying desperately to grasp some of that wealth. “What counterculture hippies were to the 1960s, high-salaried “yuppies” (young, upwardly mobile professionals)were to the 1980s.”[2] Bud Fox’s goal was to “bag the elephant” – in this case, Gekko. Though he has some initial ethical concerns, the dreams of money and success draws him to Gekko’s side and he soon finds himself thinking only of the next big paycheck. Thus, was a younger generation of money-driven corruption bred.

    It is notable that not only was “Wall Street” a movie set in the 1980s but that it was also produced in the 1980s. It is an unsentimental portrait of a corrupt corporate America and both its justifications and consequences. “Greed is good. Greed is right. Greed works.” Said enough times, it eventually sounds true.

[1] Wall Street. Dir. Oliver Stone. Perfs. Michael Douglas, Charlie Sheen, Daryl Hannah, Martin Sheen. DVD. Prod Oliver Stone; Twentieth Century Fox, 1987.

[2] Davidson, Heyrman, Lytle, Stoff, and Gienapp. Nation of Nations. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2006. pg 950.

      

Group Post #11: The Top Movies and Songs of 1970

       

1970 was fraught with widespread discontent from the American people with the government and its authorization of the Vietnam War. It was 1970 that uncovered the atrocious events at My Lai and furthered lowered the Americans’ faith in their troops. This disillusionment with war was coupled with a growing trend in environmental awareness and protection. It is therefore unsurprising that the top movies and songs of 1970 featured a combination of earth-centered, anti-war, and pro-pacifist themes.

The top ten movies of 1970 were, in descending order: “Love Story” (grossing 106.4 million dollars), “Airport!” ($100.5 million), “M.A.S.H.” ($81.6 million), “Patton” ($62.5 million), “The Aristocats” ($55.7 million), “Woodstock” ($34.5 million), “Little Big Man” ($31.6 million), “Ryan’s Daughter” ($30.8 million), “Tora! Tora! Tora!” ($29.5 million), and “Erinnerungen an die Zukenft (Chariot of the Gods)” ($25.9 million) [1]. “Airport!” featured a former World War II demolition expert as the major threat to the passengerers, “M.A.S.H.” heavily parodied a military outfit in the Korean War, “Patton” portrayed an elitist and ruthless leader, “Little Big Man” painted General Custer as a bloodthirsty egomaniac, “Ryan’s Daughter” examined the effects of post-war trauma on former soldiers, and “Tora! Tora! Tora!” speculated on the mistakes and incompetency surrounding the Pearl Harbor bombing. These movies were to some degree anti-war propoganda. Even “Love Story” promoted the idea that love was enough and that “love means never having to say you’re sorry” – resonant of the pacifism that was gripping the nation. “Woodstock” highlighted the drug problem that plagued Americans who desperately sought to escape the troubles of 1970. In addition “Aristocats” and “Erinnerungen an die Zukenft,” fantastical in nature, could also be indications of escapism during 1970.

It is evident that the same audience who flocked to the theatre tuned into the radio. The top ten songs of 1970, in descending order, were: “Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head,” “I Want You Back,” “Venus,” “Thank You,” “Bridge Over Troubled Waters,” “Let it Be,” “ABC,” American Woman,” “Everything is Beautiful,” and “The Long and Winding Road"[2]. Through similes and metaphors, the basic device for most songs, an undercurrent of harmony with nature and its beauty ran throughout. Amid the normal love songs, lyrics like “because I’m free, nothing’s worrying me,” and “speaking words of wisdom, let it be, let it be” reflected the growing pacifist sentiment. “ABC” stands out from this list as having virtually no discernible theme, though the lack of a theme is itself a statement about America’s search for an escape.

That heavily represented anti-war movies ran concurrent with the unusually low draft numberers is not a coincidence. Young men all over the country were finding ways to avoid Vietnam. A prospect would rely on a “doctor’s affidavit certifying a weak knee, flat feet, or bad eyes” or a college graduate on his “critical occupation” such as teaching or engineering to stay home from war [3]. Cowardice? Maybe in some cases. In the majority of the cases, however, this unheard of unpatriotism stemmed from the deep aversions of the atrocities committed in this unwinnable and – in many citizens’ opinions – unjustified war.

While by themselves, these movies and songs might not have done as well (“Love Story” is notorious for its combination of over – and under – acting, snooze-worthy montages, and occasionally absurd script-writing), the 1970 battle-weary-tree-hugging America paved their way to success.

[1] “The Numbers – Movies Released in 1970.” The Numbers; Box Office Data, Movie Stars, Idle Speculation. 2006. Nash Information Services. 20 Nov. 2006 .

[2] Petrik, Paula P. Classroom Discussion. Nov. 2006.

[3] Davidson, Heyrman, Lytle, Stoff, and Gienapp. Nation of Nations. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2006. pg 892-893

Group Post #10: The 1950s

The Photo Essay

#9: The World is a Stage - Act II

It might be a stage, but it's still peopled with critics.

I commented on Group #3's last three posts:

Barrow's Plantation
Matthew Brady Photo Essay
We The Jury

Bon Apetit!

Group Post #8: We the Jury

Modern-day Jury:

      After reviewing the many collaborating testimonies of the witnesses, for the murder of Clara Rehberg, we the jury find the defendant Edward Rehberg not guilty due to their failure to eliminate reasonable doubt. The following is a review of each testimony.

      Emma Rehberg was the first to testify, and stated that the defendant was “working at the haystack”[1] throughout the Sunday in question. According to Ms. Rehberg’s testimony, the defendant had not had an opportunity to spend any significant length of time with the victim until that evening, when the said victim complained of feeling unwell, upon which the defendant brought his daughter into town to seek the help of a physician.

      The testimony of Bertha Rehberg followed, and concurred with Emma Rehberg in stating that the defendant had spent the entire day by the haystacks. Furthermore, we quote her testimony as stating, “I would have known it if my father had beaten the child Sunday forenoon.”[1] Whether or not this exonerates the defendant from any previous beatings of his daughter, according to Bertha Rehberg, such a beating did not occur on the Sunday in question. In addition, her testimony placed Clara Rehberg, the victim, in the kitchen helping Louisa, her stepmother, with chores throughout the day. This supports the defendant’s alibi and separates him and his daughter for much of that Sunday.

      The following witnesses were four doctors, Dr. Holzschuher, Dr. Brown, Dr. Steele, and Dr. Hunter, who attested to the condition in which they found the victim. Each of the four agreed on the extent of her bruises and wounds, as well as the presence of a high-grade fever. However, the testimonies of these doctors, especially Dr. Hunter, are questionable. Dr. Hunter claimed that the child had been “so beaten and bruised as to superinduce a condition of piemia or septicemia.” However, septicemia, or sepsis, is an “inflammatory state resulting from systemic bacterial infection.”[2] A beating which only induced bruising, though certainly painful, could not have caused the “systemic bacterial infection” which Dr. Hunter claims to have caused Clara’s death. This leads to some doubt of the validity of these “expert” witnesses, as well as their motives.

      The defendant, predictably, denied his involvement in his daughter’s death. He also reiterated his alibi, which the following witness, Joe Tiebow, confirmed. He had worked for Mr. Rehberg and testified that the two of them had worked together all day at the haystack.

      Finally, Mr. E.D. Weed gave testimony of Clara’s dying declaration. He made very clear that although Clara did not seem to have a strong religious upbringing or a understanding of rewards and punishments in the afterlife, “she knew it was her duty to tell the truth and that her statement was made under the sense of that duty.”[1] The child was witnessed as denying any accusation against her father, repeatedly saying that he did not do it. Furthermore, she refused to see her stepmother, Louisa, unless accompanied by her father. Having been asked multiple times who beat her, she finally replies, “I told you my step-mother did it. My father didn’t hurt me at all.”[1]

      Although we can not make any presumptions pertaining to the guilt of the defendant’s wife, after reviewing the collaborative testimonies of Emma Rehberg, Bertha Rehberg, Joe Tiebow, and Edward Rehberg, as well as the questionable testimonies of Dr. Holzschuher, Dr. Steele, Dr. Brown, and Dr. Hunter, we cannot find, in our good conscience, Edward Rehberg guilty of the murder of his daughter, Clara Rehberg.

Would a 19^th Century Jury rule differently?

      The modern-day verdict relies heavily on the testimonies of Emma and Bertha Rehberg, as well as the dying declaration of Clara Rehberg. Furthermore, it takes into account the gross misdiagnosis of Dr. Hunter, which significantly damages the credibility of all four of the doctors. However, it is probable that in a 19^th century court, these factors would have played very different roles.

      The striking difference would be in the credibility of the women witnesses. The 19^th century woman, although seen as the moral guardians of the nation”[3], were not taken very seriously in the court of law. The 19^th century woman was “They were kept out of most jobs, denied political rights, and given only limited access to education beyond the elementary grades.”[4] Therefore, although women may have been seen to be morally superior to men, they were viewed as uneducated and impressionable; they might not have lied willingly, but could be easily misled to believe a falsehood. This would only count doubly in Clara’s case.

      In fact, Clara’s testimony is severely damaged with the revelation that “She did not display any great moral or religious training.” [1] and would “swear” often. Moreover, the witness had stated that he was uncertain as to whether “she would not tell the truth.”[1] These would be enough to dismiss the child’s testimony that her father was innocent.

      Thus, though unfortunate, it is very likely that a 19^th century jury would have found Edward Rehberg guilty of the murder of his daughter, Clara Rehberg.

[1] "State vs. Rehberg (1885)" Reader: History 120 Fall 2006 (1885): 17-32. 1 Nov. 2006
[2]"Sepsis and Septic Shock." The Merck Manuals. Nov. 2005. Merck Medical. 1 Nov. 2006
[3]Davidson, Heyrman, Lytle, Stoff, and Gienapp. Nation of Nations. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2006. pg 320
[4]Davidson, Heyrman, Lytle, Stoff, and Gienapp. Nation of Nations. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2006. pg 333

Modern-day Jury:

      After reviewing the many collaborating testimonies of the witnesses, for the murder of Clara Rehberg, we the jury find the defendant Edward Rehberg not guilty due to their failure to eliminate reasonable doubt. The following is a review of each testimony.

      Emma Rehberg was the first to testify, and stated that the defendant was “working at the haystack”[1] throughout the Sunday in question. According to Ms. Rehberg’s testimony, the defendant had not had an opportunity to spend any significant length of time with the victim until that evening, when the said victim complained of feeling unwell, upon which the defendant brought his daughter into town to seek the help of a physician.

      The testimony of Bertha Rehberg followed, and concurred with Emma Rehberg in stating that the defendant had spent the entire day by the haystacks. Furthermore, we quote her testimony as stating, “I would have known it if my father had beaten the child Sunday forenoon.”[1] Whether or not this exonerates the defendant from any previous beatings of his daughter, according to Bertha Rehberg, such a beating did not occur on the Sunday in question. In addition, her testimony placed Clara Rehberg, the victim, in the kitchen helping Louisa, her stepmother, with chores throughout the day. This supports the defendant’s alibi and separates him and his daughter for much of that Sunday.

      The following witnesses were four doctors, Dr. Holzschuher, Dr. Brown, Dr. Steele, and Dr. Hunter, who attested to the condition in which they found the victim. Each of the four agreed on the extent of her bruises and wounds, as well as the presence of a high-grade fever. However, the testimonies of these doctors, especially Dr. Hunter, are questionable. Dr. Hunter claimed that the child had been “so beaten and bruised as to superinduce a condition of piemia or septicemia.” However, septicemia, or sepsis, is an “inflammatory state resulting from systemic bacterial infection.”[2] A beating which only induced bruising, though certainly painful, could not have caused the “systemic bacterial infection” which Dr. Hunter claims to have caused Clara’s death. This leads to some doubt of the validity of these “expert” witnesses, as well as their motives.

      The defendant, predictably, denied his involvement in his daughter’s death. He also reiterated his alibi, which the following witness, Joe Tiebow, confirmed. He had worked for Mr. Rehberg and testified that the two of them had worked together all day at the haystack.

      Finally, Mr. E.D. Weed gave testimony of Clara’s dying declaration. He made very clear that although Clara did not seem to have a strong religious upbringing or a understanding of rewards and punishments in the afterlife, “she knew it was her duty to tell the truth and that her statement was made under the sense of that duty.”[1] The child was witnessed as denying any accusation against her father, repeatedly saying that he did not do it. Furthermore, she refused to see her stepmother, Louisa, unless accompanied by her father. Having been asked multiple times who beat her, she finally replies, “I told you my step-mother did it. My father didn’t hurt me at all.”[1]

      Although we can not make any presumptions pertaining to the guilt of the defendant’s wife, after reviewing the collaborative testimonies of Emma Rehberg, Bertha Rehberg, Joe Tiebow, and Edward Rehberg, as well as the questionable testimonies of Dr. Holzschuher, Dr. Steele, Dr. Brown, and Dr. Hunter, we cannot find, in our good conscience, Edward Rehberg guilty of the murder of his daughter, Clara Rehberg.

Would a 19^th Century Jury rule differently?

      The modern-day verdict relies heavily on the testimonies of Emma and Bertha Rehberg, as well as the dying declaration of Clara Rehberg. Furthermore, it takes into account the gross misdiagnosis of Dr. Hunter, which significantly damages the credibility of all four of the doctors. However, it is probable that in a 19^th century court, these factors would have played very different roles.

      The striking difference would be in the credibility of the women witnesses. The 19^th century woman, although seen as the moral guardians of the nation”[3], were not taken very seriously in the court of law. The 19^th century woman was “They were kept out of most jobs, denied political rights, and given only limited access to education beyond the elementary grades.”[4] Therefore, although women may have been seen to be morally superior to men, they were viewed as uneducated and impressionable; they might not have lied willingly, but could be easily misled to believe a falsehood. This would only count doubly in Clara’s case.

      In fact, Clara’s testimony is severely damaged with the revelation that “She did not display any great moral or religious training.” [1] and would “swear” often. Moreover, the witness had stated that he was uncertain as to whether “she would not tell the truth.”[1] These would be enough to dismiss the child’s testimony that her father was innocent.

      Thus, though unfortunate, it is very likely that a 19^th century jury would have found Edward Rehberg guilty of the murder of his daughter, Clara Rehberg.

[1] "State vs. Rehberg (1885)" Reader: History 120 Fall 2006 (1885): 17-32. 1 Nov. 2006
[2]"Sepsis and Septic Shock." The Merck Manuals. Nov. 2005. Merck Medical. 1 Nov. 2006
[3]Davidson, Heyrman, Lytle, Stoff, and Gienapp. Nation of Nations. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2006. pg 320
[4]Davidson, Heyrman, Lytle, Stoff, and Gienapp. Nation of Nations. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2006. pg 333

Group Post 5&6: Barrow's Plantation

Barrow's Plantation

Group Post #7: Photo Essay

Manassas Battlefield

#3 All the World is a Stage

...and all the people are critics.

I commented on Nosheem Gheisari's #1: The Passage of Time
I commented on Eric Danct's #1: And Then There was Light!
I commented on Scott Morehouse's #2: Women of Edenton

I probably sound overly harsh or critical, and so I apologize. My comments are nothing personal and I promise that I'm just as hard on myself!

Post #2: Women of Edenton

       

₁

As the colonists pressed for more independence, even women became involved, inciting British scorn. The picture “Women of Edenton, North Carolina” (1774), published after a group of women in North Carolina “renounced imported tea”₂, portrays the British perception of the Patriots’ activism as disorganized, immoral and irresponsible.

It is evident that the British did not take their colonies’ patriotism very seriously. The meeting depicted in “Women of Edenton, North Carolina” is far more reminiscent of a raucous party than a formal meeting of any importance. Only two out of the fourteen adults are actually involved in the meeting; one woman writing up the article (bent over so that her posterior is seen in an unflattering light), and another (of extreme unsightliness) unsuccessfully trying to bring order to the meeting. The rest of the attendants are preoccupied with drinking, flirting, or other frivolous distractions. It could hardly be more clear that the British thought of the patriotic movement as little more than a joke and that the women – and the men (for allowing them to participate in such matters) – “inspired the scorn of some partisans of British authority.”₂

Moreover, the scene implies that the patriots were not only disorganized, but immoral as well. One of the most noticeable details of the picture is that the party is made up of several groups that, at that time, were thought to be exclusive: men and women, blacks and whites. The average eighteenth century person would have labeled such a group as promiscuous. In addition, the women are excessively consuming alcoholic drinks which range from punch to what would appear to gin or rum. Perhaps the most telling, however, is the action of the single man in the group. Rather than behaving in a courtly, gentleman-like behavior, he is indulging himself by groping the woman next to him, a behavior meant to be strictly private. This speaks volumes about the character of both sexes – the men for their advances, and the women for attracting, accepting, and encouraging those advances.

The cartoon also brings attention to the baby (or very young child) seated in the middle of the floor and the dog licking it. At once, this begs the question, where is its mother? Only the most irresponsible and untrustworthy mother would abandon her offspring to so disgraceful a situation. Furthermore, the child has spilled a plate full of food. Does this not point to the wanton waste of resources that patriotism was guilty of? This seems to be the strongest attack on American patriotism. How could the colonists complain of taxation without representation when they so carelessly threw away food that they labored for? More to the point, how could such a irresponsible people be adequate to handle any form of independence from the orderly, time-tested Crown?

The cartoon was inspired by the newly-formed female activism, but it is likely that it ridiculed the men just as much, or more. This underestimation of the American patriots would dearly cost the British in a few short years when the patriots would, with blood and fire, re-educate their certainty that American patriotism was nothing more than a foolish game

₁Dawes, Philip. “A Society of Patriotic Ladies, at Edenton in North Carolina.”
     25 March 1775. Online image. Carleton College. 19 September 2006. http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/hist/classes/HIST212/S01/00009936.jpg.

₂Davidson, J. W. (2006). “The Imperial Crisis.” Nation of Nations. E. Barrosse.
     Boston, McGraw Hill: 139.