History 120

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