Mr. Sakellarion's Weblog

Following up on previous topics regarding students’ civil liberties in a school “environment”, take a look at this case poised to come before SCOTUS, and let me know your thoughts

I agree with the ruling of the supreme court, ruling in favor of the student. The justices’ argued that the First Amendment imposes broad limits on public schools’ ability to regulate off-campus speech delivered via social media, with a majority vote of 8-1.

Writing for the court’s majority decision was Justice Stephen Breyer, who said that the Mahanoy Area School District went too far in trying to punish the student for the post. He added that “Courts must be more skeptical of a school’s efforts to regulate off-campus speech, for doing so may mean the student cannot engage in that kind of speech at all. When it comes to political or religious speech that occurs outside school or a school program or activity, the school will have a heavy burden to justify intervention”.

The sole discenter, Justice Clarence Thomas, arguing that “the Court’s foundation is untethered from anything stable, and courts (and schools) will almost certainly be at a loss as to what exactly the Court’s opinion today means”. He argues that Breyer’s opinion ignored previosuly-set precedents, and seems to vague to provide guidance for similar cases in the future.

Again, I agree with the ruling of the court, and I believe that the post, as crude as it was, posed no immediate harm to members of the team or the school as a whole. On the other hand, I can somewhat see arguments against the court’s ruling, being that it may open the door for the intimidation of students from racial minorities or other groups.

Your thoughts on these “misconceptions of the 1980’s”?

• The misconceptions of the 1980’s are interesting, but some of them I hadn’t even realized were “stereotypes” or conceptions in the first place. One that did stand out to me, however, was the misconception about “stranger danger” and kidnapping. I’ve associated a lot of kidnappings with the 1980’s mostly because of movies. For instance, The Black Phone, a 2022 horror film about a kidnapping, was one of many took place in 1978 and the years surrounding it. Overall a lot of movies with kidnappings seem to have taken place around the 1980s, leading me to associate that time with a kidnapping “epidemic.” However, according to the article this was not true. The reason that the 1980’s is associated with more kidnappings and abduction risks is not becuase there was a higher risk, but instead because there was more coverage. I think that this is really interesting but also troublesome. It suggests that by covering crimes in the news, there will be more unrest and people will begin to worry more about the state of their town, state, or even country. This is dangerous as it encourages more powerful members of our society to stop covering concerning issues and news stories that would make people uneasy. As seen throughout history, the United States’ “image” has continously been a priority. Anything that would make the country look bad, dangerous, or in “the wrong” is often either hidden from the public or heavily sugarcoatted. Even though the 80’s are falsely considered a “dangerous” and high risk time for children and abductions, it is better for there to be more coverage that leads people to be overly cautious than an utter avoidance of the issues at hand.

What happened to the Soviet Union? what factors lead to one of the most powerful countries in the world collapsing? How did this affect the rest of the world?  

While it’s impossible to find one singular reason that lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union, several factors are seen to lead to the overall collapse of one of the largest powers in the world at the time.

To start, with the naming of Mikhail Gorbachev as general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) on March 11, 1985, he instituted the policies of glasnost, or openness, and perestroika, or restructuring. The primary goal of glasnost was to reinvigorate a discussion and thoughts around pro-communist ideals. However, what it instead did was give more opportunities for critics of the Soviet Union and communism as a whole to voice their stance. The Soviet government lost control of the media and public sphere, leading to a rise in pro-democratic movements throughout the country.

Not only did the state lose power over the media with the institution of glasnost, but it also tanked the economy with perestroika. Perestroika mixed the worst parts of both capitalism and communism. While price controls were lifted in some markets, different communist structures were still in place that allowed those in power to push back against policies that didn’t personally benefit themselves. This reform hindered an already-crumbling Soviet economy, which saw detrimental shortages and hoarding on the rise. Adding on to this was rapid inflation, caused by over-printing Soviet currency, as well as a dip in the prices of the top exports of the Soviet Union, oil and natural gas. Overall, the Soviet economy by the 80’s and 90’s was rapidly crumbling, with factors including inflation and corruption adding to an economic recession.

Along with decreased public support and a failing economy, the Soviet Union faced further problems with Gorbachev’s foreign policy, including his abandonment of the Brezhnev Doctrine, which called on the Soviet Union to intervene, often militarily, in countries where socialist rule was under threat. By the end of 1989, the border fence between Hungary and Austria had fallen, and Solidarity, a Polish trade union that demanded free elections in Soviet-Bloc countries, grew more popular in Poland, eventually dominating the government. On top of this, the Baltic states were taking steps towards independence, and the Iron Curtain had fallen.

World-wide, the collapse of the Soviet Union had a massive effect on the rest of the world. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States’ influence as a world power in the economic space was increased. More proximal to the Soviet Union, the Baltic states quickly turned to the west, adopting western ideals and political leanings. Additionally, countries such as Armenia and Tajikistan struggled to grow after the collapse of the Societ Union, with many citizens living in poverty.

A rapidly growing issue sine the New Deal / WW2 era and ever since – and discussed a lot in this unit – what are your impressions on our national debt; watch the linked vid and share your thoughts on why its such a problem, and what you think should be done to address it.

Managing the national debt requires careful budgeting and finding ways to increase government income without harming the economy. This means cutting back on unnecessary spending and making government operations more efficient. We also need to ensure that everyone pays their fair share of taxes by closing loopholes. At the same time, we should invest in things like infrastructure and education to create jobs and boost economic growth. By balancing spending cuts with revenue increases and smart investments, we can work towards reducing the national debt while keeping the economy strong.

I believe that dealing with the national debt means we have to be smart about money while also helping the economy grow. We should start by cutting back on things we don’t really need and making government work better so we can spend less. But we also need to make sure everyone pays their fair share of taxes by changing the tax system to be more fair. It’s also important to put money into things like roads, schools, and new technology because that helps create jobs and makes the economy stronger in the long run. If we do all of these things together, we can make progress on reducing the national debt while still keeping the economy healthy and growing.

Your thoughts on the enduring memory and nostalgia of Woodstock?

 It was great to see that people came together who wanted to share the same thoughts and feelings about things. Many people who had been there share similar thoughts and feelings of how it had impacted their lives and even though they didn’t really see it at the time, looking back at it they see this as an event of liberation, a symbol of freedom. It’s pretty legendary having these people meeting and sharing all of these changing ideas. At first it looks like something that was just thrown together but after looking at the whole point and resolution it doesn’t really look like that. The website or article said that some people thought that there was too much smell, too much going on and not organized. I think I would have enjoyed it because I like being around people and I like when there is a get-together to discuss problems and try to find a resolution. 

Your thoughts on the enduring memory and nostalgia of Woodstock?

I mean I think its super cool, the fact that all these people came together who all shared the same thoughts and feelings about things. Many people who had been there share this same feeling of how it had impacted their lives, and though they didn’t see it at the time, looking back at Woodstock they see this as an event of liberation, a symbol of freedom. I just find the whole event pretty iconic, like I had said having all these people with these changing ideas come together to create this scene, like it seems messy but it does seem like something pretty iconic. The article mentioned that some people didn’t find this so though, some felt it was just to much, that there was to much smell, to much going on etc. Personally I think because of this event it created much nostalgia for those who were in attendance. I know wouldn’t have enjoyed it because of the amount going on, but I think it did have this impact because of the much hecticness of the whole festival of peace.

PYOT from a peer: Take a look at this link – Do you think a piece of clothing should cost this much? If an opportunity like this came up for a tv show or movie you really like, how much money would you spend to get that piece?

1.) Honestly Im not sure how to feel about it, I think 260k for a piece of clothing is a bit absurd to be honest especially considering that there’s not anything on the clothing such as diamonds or a rare material in order to make it this price, but I guess in the sense that it is from an iconic movie and was worn by a famous actor it could be worth it. I think its really up to the buyer, if it means this much to someone, like I would pay a good amount for some pieces of clothing especially that of a high retail designer, but I think 260k is definitely way overpriced. I mean you can buy a house for that price, a nice car, go on a bunch of vacations, but ur putting it all towards a suit that will be kept in a glass case ur whole life…not really my ideal.

2.) If an opportunity like this came up for me it would really depend on the item if I would spend this much. In all honesty I most likely would not be spending this much on a piece unless I was a billionaire and could drop 260k without it affecting me. If I were to buy something from a set though it would probably be either from one of the Star Wars prequel movies, like Anakins lightsabor per say or a pretty jewelry piece from a movie such as the rose necklace from Titanic. I dont think I would put to to much money towards either item, like said if I had that type of money I would be using it on travel, buy myself a yacht or something, nice sports car. I think on that necklace tho (if it were a real diamond) I would drop a good 5-10 mill. Honestly I cant think of much I would want from a movie set right now but there’s definitely some things I would want, the clothing from Bridgerton would be a nice collection, definitely drop a good amount to have some of those pieces. So I do change my mind a bit, I would probably spend that much on an item if I wanted to and could.

Check out this article on child “safety” (or lack thereof???) in the 60’s – what stands out to you as interesting a/o most surprising? How might it be awesome, or horrible, being a little kid in 60’s America?

Looking through this list of things that kids on the 60’s did that would horrify us now, I believe that some of the changes made were for the better, while others for sure were not. Some that changed for the better advanced our modern day society were things like the car safety. Multiple of the photos listed there showed little kids in the front seat with or without a seatbelt, unsafe baby car seats (also in the front seat), kids riding in the trunk, and so on. These changes made for better and more advanced car seats, seat belts, air bags, and more have for sure been beneficial to the safety of americans and their cars and driving. The things isted I disagree that they were for the better would be the things like coming home to an empty house, drinking from a garden hose, Playing at the Beach On Your Own, Playing Outside Unsupervised All Day, Going to a Friend’s House Unescorted and others have been changed to a level of unneccesary ranks. When depriving kids of things like this from their childhood can take away some necessary skills needed to survive later on your own. Most of these things are understandable occasionally, but i think that for the most part things like coming home to an empty house is not that bad. In fact, I think it is beneficial. It teaches children to learn how to survive on their own for a little while. It teaches them to be less dependent on their parents. It could increase their skills in cooking when they want a snack, they dont need their parents to make one because that was their only option when left home alone for an hour or so. Still I do understand that under certain situations all of the things listed could be hqarmful nowadays due to location and the child.

How did the space race influence and impact American Society? Along with that, how did it build a sort of competition between the Soviet Union and United States?

The space race impacted the american society Because when We realized that the soviets were already going to space some people dropped everything and said “what you can do i can do better” and started to use it as a competition. As a result they started to teach more stem subjects in school and started to educate the young and the teens so that way they might have more interest in going into that particular field to give the Americans a boost. This competition between the Americans and the Soviets kept building to the point where one had to see or pick a winner. Both sides paid for so many resources into this space race and felt obligated to outdo the other. 

What was the “hippie” lifestyle, and how did it impact fashion, lifestyle, and values in the 1960s? Was it only the youth who were turning to “hippies” or was it people other than them? 

The “hippie” lifestyle was a lifestyle of easy going and not worrying about a thing in the world, people would listen to music specifically rock , and do drugs. They did not believe in a lot of what was going on at the time like the war and more, so they decided to be hippies which is almost like a form of rebellion. they wanted to not be in the middle class lifestyle and wanted to build a utopia. A utopia was a society that was some would say closer to nature, and full of love, tolerance, and compassion. They chose to live in things like cars and vans, when people hear the word hippies now everyone just thinks of people dressing weird. However, hippies then and now are very different, people who dress like them nowadays don’t really have the same ideas or understand what they were about in the 60s. All kinds of people were becoming hippies in the 60s however it was mostly youth to middle age people at this time. This kind of makes sense to me because the youth didn’t really fully know what was going on at the time and were pretty confused. Kids tend to get ideas from people around them and when they see that others are becoming hippies around them they might have felt obligated to do the same. 

How did the space race influence and impact American Society? Along with that, how did it build a sort of competition between the Soviet Union and United States?

One of the most significant impacts of the space race was the rapid advancement of technology. In order to outdo each other, both the Soviet Union and the United States poured massive resources into developing cutting-edge technology for space exploration. This led to significant breakthroughs in areas such as rocketry, satellites, and communication systems. The space race also spurred the development of new materials and methods for space travel, which eventually had applications in everyday life, such as in the development of lightweight materials for aircraft and modern electronics. The competition between the Soviet Union and the United States in the space race also had political implications. The United States saw space exploration as a way to demonstrate its superiority over the Soviet Union and gain an advantage in the Cold War. This led to intense political pressure to achieve significant milestones, such as the first human landing on the moon. The success of the Apollo 11 mission in 1969 was a major victory for the United States, as it showed that they were capable of accomplishing what was once thought to be impossible.

What was the “hippie” lifestyle, and how did it impact fashion, lifestyle, and values in the 1960s? Was it only the youth who were turning to “hippies” or was it people other from them? 

The hippie lifestyle emerged in the 1960s as a countercultural movement that rejected mainstream societal norms and values. It was characterized by a rejection of materialism, a focus on peace and love, and a celebration of individualism. The hippie lifestyle greatly impacted fashion, as it was a means of expressing one’s nonconformity and personal beliefs. Hippie fashion was characterized by flowing, colorful clothing, natural fabrics, and a disregard for traditional gender roles. This style was in direct contrast to the conservative, structured fashion of the previous decade. The hippie movement also had a significant impact on values in the 1960s. It challenged the traditional notions of authority, government, and social hierarchies, promoting ideals such as communal living, environmentalism, and nonviolent protest. While the hippie lifestyle was primarily associated with young people, it also attracted people of all ages who were disillusioned with mainstream society. The hippie movement’s influence extended beyond fashion and values, influencing music, art, and literature.

The “Great Society” was a set of social and economic policies initiated by President Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s. It aimed to eliminate poverty and racial injustice, improve education and healthcare, and promote economic growth and opportunity for all Americans. While there is ongoing debate about the success of the Great Society, there is no doubt that it had a significant impact on American society. One of the key achievements of the Great Society was the passage of major civil rights legislation, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These laws helped to end segregation and discrimination and promote equal rights for all citizens. The Great Society also introduced social welfare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, which provided healthcare for the elderly and low-income individuals. Additionally, the Great Society invested in education, with initiatives such as Head Start and the Higher Education Act, which aimed to improve access to education and increase opportunities for disadvantaged students. However, the Great Society also faced criticism for its high cost and perceived expansion of government power. Some argue that it did not effectively address the root causes of poverty and inequality, and that its programs were not sustainable in the long term. 

Was the “Great Society” a success? review the link, and content / conversations from the course, and share your thoughts:

The Great Society aimed to not to confine government efforts but to form a society “where the city of man serves not only the needs of the body and the demands of commerce but the desire for beauty and the hunger for community.” Over 60 programs where made through the great society including medicare and medicaid.  The programs reflected new deal ideals by entitling categories of Americans to benefit. The great society also strongly supported education, the elementary and secondary education act of 1965 granted millions of dollars to public and private schools. Project Head Start also helped education for preschoolers and gave them money. Johnson urged congress to look into urban housing issues as well. There was a new cabinet agency created called The department of housing and Urban development in 1965. The first African american served in this cabinet. A program called “model cities” authorized federal subsidies to improve transportation, housing, health care, and policing to many cities. There was also the immigration act of 1965 which ended the system established in the 1920s that gave preference to northern European immigrants and opened the door to the US wider to immigrants from all around Europe, Asia, and Africa. I think that the great society was in some ways a success, but also in some ways a failure.

Prompt:

Check out the history, fight over ratification, reasons why the Equal Rights Amendment doesn’t pass by the early 1980’s, and why that’s not the end of the story – your thoughts

Firstly, I am glad that many states are saying now is the time to correct the ongoing wrongs around pushing for Women’s rights. I feel as though this Amendment has hit obstacle after obstacle, whether it is not having enough states to agree, or reaching a deadline. Also, some states may not want to support this Amendment after decades of changes in their local government. In addition to this, Congress was mostly made up of men, therefore it makes sense why they would not want women to have more rights back then. Fortunately, now there are enough states supporting this movement to be able to move forward with passing it. But, many are questioning how Congress can waive a deadline to be able to pass this Amendment, and if states can revoke their support before this Amendment is ratified. Many questions are unanswered, but there isn’t much precedent for something like this. But, with social movements like the #MeToo movement, women’s rights, advocacy, and support has increased greatly. In this time period, there aren’t as many biases around same-sex marriage, gender-neutral bathrooms, and and women in the military, which were many conservatives fears about the Amendment being passed. Now that we have already expanded rights and changed the social norms in our country, I think it is time to solidify this movement and guarantee women’s rights to protect women from discrimination in the future.

What was the “hippie” lifestyle, and how did it impact fashion, lifestyle, and values in the 1960s? Was it only the youth who were turning to “hippies” or was it people other from them? 

The “hippie” lifestyle was a lifestyle of dressing flamboyantly, listening to rock, doing drugs like marijuana and psychedelics, and communal living. Hippies wanted to reject the middle class lifestyle and wanted to build a utopia. A utopia was a society that was freerer, closer to nature, and full of love, tolerance, and compassion. They wanted to leave their homes and live together on communes, which were group living arrangements in which members shared everything and worked together. Comparing hippies then to now is pretty different, because I feel like the term “hippie” now just kind of hints towards a style of clothing. I feel like “hippies” now just dress like them but do not have all the same actions and wants as hippies in the 60s, and do not want to live on communes, or build a utopia. I feel like the term “hippie” now is just used to describe someone who smokes marijuana and dresses in colorful clothes that are baggy or flowy.

Compare Martin Luther King’s approach to civil rights to Malcolm X’s approach to civil rights. How do they compare and contrast? What do you think?

Martin Luther King and Malcolm X had different approaches to civil rights. Martin Luther King believed in nonviolent resistance and peaceful protest to achieve civil rights. He aimed for equality through love and unity advocating for integration. In contrast, Malcolm X promoted self-defense and fighting against oppression. He emphasized black pride, self-reliance and separatism as a means to empower the black community.   Their contrasting approaches contributed to the diversity of strategies within the movement. Each leader brought a unique viewpoint and tactics to the table, showcasing the complexity and diversity within the fight for civil rights.

What are the “lessons” from the Vietnam War for America? Was it a lost cause form the start? Was it a lost opportunity to bring positive change? Why are so many Americans still divided over the war’s meaning? Check out these  links, (take a look at comments at bottom of page for 2nd link too) and/or do your own research and thinking on this, and respond with your thoughts.

Learning about the Vietnam War along with the issues at home, I never strongly correlated the two. Obviously there are definite ties, but I didn’t really think about the actual impact on the people. The war grew to be very unpopular with Americans since LBJ didn’t accurately report the war and what was going on, which caused a huge distrust of the government and a growing hate for the war. Television shows just how awful America was acting whilst in Vietnam, and how brutal they were. Many decisions made by higher ranking officials and the President at the time were seen in an ugly light, and often judged and disapproved of. This all had a huge impact on the returning soldiers. Initially, many people signed up to fight against communism or help America and serve their country. Many people signed up in the late fifties and throughout the sixties, and many of them were Baby Boomers. These enlisters were eager to make their country proud, and were promised a quick war. The Vietnam War officially started in 1955, and would drag on until 20 years later, in 1975 where it would end. This long war was also very unappealing to the public. They believed resources were being used up, and that the US wasn’t necessarily in the right with all the things they were doing over in Vietnam. All of this, along with television, made the war hugely unpopular among Americans. When Vietnam veterans returned home, they were not thanked for their service or even respected. In fact, many people looked down on those who served in the war, which is a huge disrespect for all those who served and those who died serving. People did not appreciate the effort the veterans put in, and instead blamed them for the war dragging on. It didn’t matter if a soldier was decorated or had a Purple Heart, people would never thank them or appreciate them for their hard work and service. I read a lot of the comments under the second link, and people seem to take a stand on two different sides. One being very appreciative of the efforts being made to honor and commemorate the Vietnam veterans, and the other side being very sarcastic and mocking towards the National Vietnam War Veterans Day. Personally, I can see both sides. People who contributed to the war effort should’ve been recognized from the start, rather than many years after the fact. Even if the war wasn’t popular, they still served their country. I can understand the people who are angry and sarcastic because they are being appreciated now, but when they first returned they were disrespected and mistreated. I can also understand the other side that wants to have a day dedicated to the Vietnam Veterans in order to commend all those who served. Many Americans are still so divided over the war because there are very different views depending on your experiences and where you were at the time of the war. There isn’t necessarily a right or wrong way to think about the war, but no matter what people should be thanked and honored for their service. 

Some civil rights icons from our current unit, discussing issues regarding the teaching of African-American studies today – your thoughts on their thoughts?

I personally believe that there are many things that are glossed over in school, whether they are just not taught or are not allowed to be taught I’m not sure. This is especially true when it comes to learning about American history. In middle school, we are all taught about how great the “founding” and colonization of the Americas was. What they failed to teach us was how the pilgrims forced Native Americnas out of their homes and sacred lands, and stole their resources and ideas. We are taught that the Trail of Tears was just them relocating to a new home. We are not taught that it is considered a cultural genocide, and we aren’t taught that even in high school. There are so many events that are either not talked about or just brushed over because they aren’t “significant” enough. When we learn about the Holocaust and the horrible genocide that it was, we aren’t taught about any other genocide – only the one that happened in Europe. We are not taught about the Rwandan Genocide that took place in Africa, nor the Armenian Genocide that took place in the Middle East, nor the Cambodian Genocide that took place in SE Asia, and nor the Nanjing Massacre that took place in China during WWII. Is it because these things are not considered relevant to America and are therefore unimportant? I never learned or even heard about these things in World History. And obviously one class cannot possibly cover everything important, but these were genocides where millions of people were killed. Our curriculum mainly teaches about US history and history that relates to the US. I learned about the American Revolution four times since the fifth grade, and it didn’t change much each time. That’s why reading the article didn’t really surprise me. It is so disappointing that schools are now dropping the AP African American Studies won’t count as an advanced course, and this just follows the path that’s been set down. Schools not teaching things like this, and the “Don’t Say Gay” bill in Florida just shows how much our education and schools limit us. We are only taught the things the government and states say we should be taught. I think it’s very sad and disappointing, as well as angering, that many important historical events are not taught or are diminished when they are. 

Also, I wanted to add on about what we are taught about vs. what we are not taught. I recently read a book called “The Devil of Nanking” that talked about the Nanjing Massacre (often called the Rape of Nanjing), and I ended up learning a lot about a Japanese experimentation unit called Unit 731. Often when talking about WWII we talk about the horrific experiments performed by the Nazis on humans, however we never talk about the experiments the Japanese performed, which had much higher death rates and happened in the same time period. The way the US responds to these different experiments is also drastically different. Here are two different articles detailing the US involvement in Nazi experiments and in Japanese experiments:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4487829/ 

https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/history/unit-731/ 

What was the “hippie” lifestyle, and how did it impact fashion, lifestyle, and values in the 1960s? Was it only the youth who were turning to “hippies” or was it people other from them? 

Hippies were known for promoting peace throughout the country and world, in support of independence, and encouraging reform. 

These were often youths who would criticize and reject traditional values, changing the ideal of the “American Dream” and the goal of achieving it. Differing from the past, hippies didn’t follow gender norms, believing that men and women should have equal roles in and outside of the house, sharing the responsibility of their children. 

While there were many different nicknames and “types” of hippies that were categorized, the majority of them shared commonalities among their beliefs and actions regarding what they partake in. Many would join in protest and could be seen as radical leftists. Many hippies also participated in the use of drugs like cannabis and LSD as a way to pursue their freedoms through spiritual connections.

How did the space race influence and impact American Society? Along with that, how did it build a sort of competition between the Soviet Union and United States?

The space race had a great influence and impact on American society and the ways the US functioned in general across the many years of its growth. One way that the space race affected American society was the fact that it greatly sped up technological advancements which lead to the inventions of new materials, products, and processes. This then allowed for even greater applications and exploration of other areas aside from space as well. It also helped advance things like computer systems and telecommunications which helped the US advance in many different ways. 

As a result of the USSR launching Sputnik, the United States greatly increased and emphasized education focusing on science programs, engineering, and technology. Advancing the program of STEM was also another influence from the space race in the US. This would change the amount of federal funding that these programs would receive in the future and during the time of the space race in general. 

The space race would also have an influence on the unity of the country as achievements from NASA would bring citizens together and unify their national pride as they were proud of the achievements their country was making. This allowed for greater success of the US during the war, as it motivated citizens to fight for their country and have hope for their future.

Another way the space race changed American society was its advancements within environmental awareness. This would take place as new images of Earth from the outer view were able to be captured and understood, giving the US a greater grasp on the effects they were causing back on land. In turn, leading to environmental movements and contributions to solve the rising problems that were happening.

It also led to great developments of US military defense as the gain of knowledge of technology helped within the military as well. It allowed for advancements in things like missile defense systems and overall global communications. 

As for the competition that was ignited from the space race, it essentially originated from the USSR’s launch of the Sputnik. This was the world’s first ever satellite. It shocked the US as it implied that the Soviets were ahead of America’s technology. 

The US understood that the same technology that was used to put satellites into orbit, were also capable of delivering nuclear weapons across continents, giving the US worries about the possibility of the USSR processing those powers. 

So overall the space race had many positive impacts on American Society as a whole, allowing the country to advance in many different ways.

Some civil rights icons from our current unit, discussing issues regarding the teaching of African-American studies today – your thoughts on their thoughts?

This debate started when The Arkansas Department of education stated that AP African-American studies will no longer count as an AP credit course. This will likely influence students not to take the class as they won’t receive the AP credit that they originally would’ve. Also expressing to students that the class might not be as important or highly educational as other classes offered at the school. This causes the course to be offered by less schools as it becomes less popular, losing the need for it. 

As a student myself, I definitely look at the level of the class before really considering taking it, as that is something that I know colleges and other programs also look at. So when the school board decided to drop the level of this class, they were challenging the level of material being taught within the class, ultimately skewing students’ beliefs on the general importance of class. 

Many members of the Little Rock Nine say this is just one of the many ways Republicans are trying to erase American history and the mistakes and horror that minorities had to endure. 

These members believe that there should be no restrictions to what students are allowed to learn due to someone else’s political beliefs, essentially depriving them of their own judgment and education. At the bare minimum students should have the opportunity to choose to take a class like this if it fits their interest.

what is surprising about these facts? how did things listed here help or hurt the evolution of MLK and his civil rights fight?

When reading I learned that King achieved a high level of education, and that he was even able to skip grades due to his performance in high school allowing him to advance much quicker. This surprised me as I believe it would also shock others due to the fact that many would first think or assume that he is like many other African-Americans, in the way he lacks education due to the deprivation of opportunity for education for African-Americans in during the Cold War and throughout the civil rights movement. However many other government officials credit him for his smarts and tactics when analyzing his protests. 

Another thing that I found interesting was that King was imprisoned almost 30 times. This is hard to think that he was imprisoned for his movements. When looking back on these movements and protests that he organized, we honor him for what he did and how long he stuck with his plan even when it was lacking hope at times. So reading that he was put in jail so many times for these brave actions, is hard to understand. 

Lastly, I read that he was the victim to not one, but two assassination attempts. There was one around 10 years prior to his assassination that ultimately killed him. This occured when he was stabbed by a woman who had told him that she had been looking for him for 5 years. But even after getting stabbed by someone who disagreed with him, he said later when speaking about it that he held no hard feelings against the mentally ill women who stabbed him. It shows his composure and belief in himself and what he was doing. That even through all of these hard times he was put through, he didn’t want to give up on his hopes and dreams that he had for his people, and his country in general.

Check out this article on child “safety” (or lack thereof???) in the 60’s – what stands out to you as interesting a/o most surprising?  How might it be awesome, or horrible, being a little kid in 60’s America?

I’m not surprised by a lot of the points on this list, as they were things that I either expected or heard about from my grandparents. However, there are definitely a couple of things that stood out to me regarding how life would be better as a kid in the 60’s but also why it would be unsafe. One thing that I did find interesting was that a lot of people, especially teens, didn’t use sunscreen. I’m less surprised by the fact that they didn’t use sunscreen but more intrigued as to why. Since sunscreen existed I would have assumed that it was because people knew about the potential harms of sun damage. I definitely think that health wise, living in the 60’s was not ideal. It is interesting how drastically health practices have changed within the past 60 years, especially within pregnancies. However, a big thing that I liked about the kids in the 60’s was how much freedom there was. Kids could play at the beach by themselves, outside all day without supervision, on the streets, at a friends house without an escort, and walk to and from school alone. Though I still have some of these freedoms, I definietly didn’t when I was younger. I have conflicting views as to why this could be. On one hand, all of the progress we have made in technology and other aspects of life have been detrimental to overall safety. This is not true in all places, but in the 60’s I feel that there was less to worry about than there is today. There were still cars and other dangers to children, but their independence was so normalized to the point where it didn’t stand out. This also leads me to believe that our new perspective and new methods of parenting have taught children to be “babied” to the point where they are incapable of doing a lot of things themselves. In a way they have been “programmed” to think like this when, in reality, we are not different than we were 60 years ago. I think that we could really benefit from returning to some of the practices of the 1960s in moderation. Encouraging more outside time and independence would be highly effective, and would likely reverse a lot of the damage done by social media and other modern “advancements” that have had their fair share of of consequences.

Take a look into who George Wallace was and his campaign styles. What do you think?

George Wallace was the 3rd candidate for the 1968 election. Wallace originally wanted to run as a republican, but Nixon had beat him in that field so he ended up running as a independent. Wallace tried to appeal to the people who were against the civil rights movement, and against the social changes of the 60s. He tried to appeal to the “silent majority” and “middle america.” The “silent majority” was people who thought they were getting left behind by the social changes, specifically white Americans who thought they were getting left behind. “Middle America” can have multiple different meanings or interpretations. One is the moderates of the country, who are in the middle of the political spectrum, and another could be middle-class citizens. Wallace was also an outspoken segregationist. Despite his efforts, Wallace only won about 13% of the election. I do not think that Wallace had a great campaign style based off the small amount of the election that he won.

Check out info on the “reverse Freedom Rides” – not a highpoint for America…  your thoughts on this? In any way similar to this??

I am shocked that the reverse Freedom Rides ever existed and surprised at the “success” that it had. The reverse Freedom Rides happened when 200 southern African Americans were promised opportunities as a ploy to get them to move north, only to humiliate them and bash their high hopes when they arrived. Prosecutors had hoped that the northerners would not have had space for the newly arrived African Americans and would not want them, which would evidently expose their hypocrisy. Luckily, the event reflected much heavier on the south than the north and this did not end up being the case. This event was definitely a low point in American history. The South could not accept desegregation of public schools and segregation and thought that the integration was all about humiliating them. The reverse Freedom Rides were their “solution” or retaliation against the Freedom Rides by using the same busses and targeting vulnerable people. I am honestly appalled by the event as a whole. The idea itself is an unproportional “solution” to a peaceful protest, but the fact that it was actually executed is beyond me. I am also surprised that it succeeded. Even though they wanted thousands and only were able to fool a couple hundred people, I am still shocked that they managed to trick as many people as they did. At the same time, I am also glad. In the long run, the plan backfired on them. Victims of the event received much more support and aid from the North than anticipated, and families that moved there were able to start new lives. Though it was a terrible thing to do, I am happy that it worked out in a lot of people’s favor. This can be compared to many other aspects of history. The article mentioned Nazis deporting Jews and Trump wanting to put undocumented immigrants on buses to drop them in “sanctuary cities.” These are both reasonable connections, but the most accurate one is the recent flight of 50 Venezuelan migrants from Texas to the same base as the reverse Freedom Riders. Both events were driven by racist motives and humbugged people of color in order to evict them from the South to the North. It is embarrassing how after 60 years, some people still can’t adapt and accept everyone for who they are. It is even more troublesome that most of these people are not just ordinary people; they are powerful, influential figures.

Why was Greenwich Village such a popular place during the 20th century?

Because in the 20th century, Greenwich Village was a meeting point of American bohemian culture, it attracted many artists, flappers and hippies who did not fit into mainstream society, Greenwhich Village was a safe place for people who challenged the norms social. It was a place where people with very unconventional ideas could connect and feel accepted.

There were many impactful decisions made by the Warren Court – which one do you think was the most important?  Which was the one you’d most agree with? Which was the one you’d most disagree with? Explain your thoughts regarding any and all of the previous Qs

I think that the Mapp vs. Ohio decision by the Warren Court was a a big one. It made the Fourth Amendment stronger, protecting people from unfair searches and seizures. This ruling has had a big impact, not just in law enforcement, but also in schools. Look at the TLO vs. New Jersey case, for example. It showed that the Fourth Amendment applies in schools too, not just with cops. This is important because it keeps our privacy safe. Even though we don’t necessarily want illegal things like drugs in schools, everyone deserves privacy and fairness. If we didn’t have these protections, law enforcement can abuse their power, causing a lot of problems in society.

What did the youth generation during the 60s think of JFK? Did he help with the civil rights movement at all, or did his death impact it?

In the 1960s, young people had mixed feelings about John F. Kennedy. Many saw him as a symbol of hope and change because of his charisma and vision for a “New Frontier.” However, some were unsure about his approach to civil rights. While Kennedy appointed African Americans to important positions and supported desegregation, he was cautious about pushing for civil rights laws. His close election and concerns about angering Southern lawmakers limited his actions. Despite this, his personal involvement in cases like Martin Luther King Jr.’s arrest showed he cared about racial justice. When Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, it shocked and saddened many young people. Although his death prevented him from doing more for civil rights, it inspired continued activism. The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under President Lyndon B. Johnson was seen as a big step forward. Overall, young people in the 1960s admired Kennedy’s efforts but recognized the challenges he faced, pushing for change even after his death.

A deeper dive on the “Freedom Riders” – check out several links at the bottom as well – what stands out to you?

The “Freedom Riders” were a group of civil rights activists who stood out against racial segregation during the 60’s. They protested on trains and buses. They protested in train and bus stations. 

To me, their bravery and determination is what stands out the most. They knew what they were going up against and that they were the minority speaking out against the majority. The “Freedom Riders” faced attacks and arrests. Sometimes they even faced bombings. Even through all this, they continued their nonviolent protests to bring awareness to racial issues in the United States. These actions sparked attention to the Civil Rights Movement. In the long run, the “Freedom Riders” efforts eventually led to the desegregation of transportation on buses and trains. 

https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/freedom-rides 

I read this article to get a better understanding of the “Freedom Riders”. I learned that they weren’t just black people standing out against racial inequality. There were men, women, and even kids participating in these nonviolent protests. There were people of all different races, including white people, participating in these protests. That just goes without saying how serious the matter at hand was. Even the white people, who are being treated with all the respect they can get, realize how unfair the African Americans are being treated. I respect this a lot. Even though what was going on at the time didn’t affect them directly, they didn’t agree. I think they probably thought of it in the perspective of they would never want to be treated that way, so why are they getting treated this poorly. Something like this takes a lot of guts. I think the story of the “Freedom Riders” should be taught more, it would inspire so many people today.

How did radical groups like the Black Panthers affect the civil rights movement? What do you think of their approach to civil rights?

The Black Panthers were a large-scale group of civil rights activists that had a whole different way of approaching it. They were a radical group so they wanted extreme changes in the landscape of the United States. To the Black Panthers, civil rights were a revolution. They were more willing to be publicly proud to be black. Additionally, they were not for the non-violent ways of MLK. Instead, they believed in self-defense and were known to be armed.  One of the most important things that they did was organizing community service programs. These programs helped with food, clothes, and transportation for those who needed it. They went all around the nation helping those in need in any way they could. It was a great demonstration of the good they could do together.  All in all, they had a different and arguably revolutionary way of fighting for civil rights that challenged the way that MLK put into precedent. 

Why was Greenwich Village such a popular place throughout the 1900’s?

In the 1900s, Greenwich Village was a hotspot for American Bohemian culture. It attracted artists, flappers, and hippies who didn’t fit into mainstream society. It was a safe space for people that were challenging societal norms. Flappers in the 1920s found solace there while defying traditional expectations for women. Later, the Beat Movement and hippies also found a home in Greenwich Village, embracing nonconformity. It was a place where people with unconventional ideas could connect and feel accepted. While Greenwich Village has changed, it’s important to remember its history and the influential figures it inspired, like Bob Dylan and Allen Ginsberg.

President Biden presented the Medal of Honor to retired Army Special Forces Col. Paris Davis on Friday for his exceptional bravery in repeatedly risking his life to rescue his comrades during a fierce ambush in Vietnam nearly six decades ago.

Biden hailed the occasion as one of the most significant of his presidency, recognizing Davis as an extraordinary individual. Despite facing discouragement from serving due to his race, Davis, one of the first Black Special Forces officers, defied obstacles and made invaluable contributions to the nation’s history.

In a statement issued earlier this month, Davis reflected on the call he received from President Biden, which evoked memories of his comrades and the challenges they endured in Vietnam. The Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest military decoration for valor, is bestowed upon individuals who demonstrate exceptional gallantry and bravery beyond the call of duty.

Biden highlighted the bureaucratic hurdles Davis faced after returning from Vietnam, emphasizing that paperwork for his Medal of Honor had been overlooked twice amid the backdrop of racial discrimination in America. However, Davis remained steadfast in his belief in the country’s support.

The ceremony recounted Davis’s remarkable actions during the ambush in June 1965, where he and his men faced relentless enemy fire. Despite sustaining injuries, Davis exhibited unparalleled courage, utilizing various means, including artillery support, to defend his team and ensure the evacuation of the wounded.

Davis’s unwavering commitment to his fellow soldiers earned him the Silver Star and Purple Heart. Although his comrades had nominated him for the Medal of Honor immediately following the incident, bureaucratic obstacles, influenced by racial biases, delayed the recognition.

Following his military service, Davis embarked on a successful career, eventually founding a newspaper in Virginia. In recognition of his exceptional service, Davis was posthumously inducted into the Ranger Hall of Fame in 2019, cementing his legacy as a hero and an inspiration

Compare Martin Luther King’s approach to civil rights to Malcolm X’s approach to civil rights. How do they compare and contrast? What do you think?

When it comes to the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X were two influential people who made huge marks in history. While they both fought for racial equality, their approaches and ideas on the issue were very different. Martin Luther King Jr. was known for his nonviolent protests, while Malcolm X advocated for self-defense leading to violent protests. These contrasting approaches caused different opinions within the movement. Now, I will take a closer look at each of their approaches and then compare and contrast their approaches to see how much they are different.

Malcolm X, who first started as a big supporter of the Nation of Islam later became a big voice in the civil rights movement. His main beliefs were of black empowerment and their right to self-defense against racial oppression. Malcolm X focused greatly on the need for black pride, self-reliance, and the establishment of a separate black community. He was not a fan of the nonviolent approach of MLK, saying that it promoted white supremacy and allowed for oppression to continue. Malcolm X’s aggressive speeches and advocacy for self-determination stuck with many who felt lost with the slow progress of the civil rights movement.

MLK, on the other hand, was a Baptist minister and also a popular and very strong leader in the civil rights movement. Unlike Malcolm X, he was a big advocate for nonviolent protests, which were inspired by Mahatma Gandhi’s principles of peaceful protest. King believed in the power of love, compassion, and speech to bring stronger actions about social change rather than violence. He highlighted the importance of integration and equality for all races. King’s speeches, such as his famous “I Have a Dream” speech, which called for unity and justice, caught the hearts and minds of millions across the nation.

While both Malcolm X and MLK fought for the civil rights movement, as talked about, their approaches and ideas were greatly different from each other but also had some similarities. Malcolm X believed in self-defense and separatism, while Martin Luther King Jr. advocated for nonviolent protests and integration. Malcolm X’s message had a lot more of a confrontational tone and focused more on black empowerment, while King’s approach focused on love, peace, and the use of speech. These two contrasting approaches to the movement sparked debates, with some leaning towards Malcolm X’s more aggressive stance and others preferring MLKs nonviolent approach.

In conclusion, MLK and Malcolm X had two different approaches to the civil rights movement. While Malcolm X advocated for self-defense when it came to protests, MLK had more of a nonviolent idea. Their differing ideas caused conversations and debates within the movement, which showed the struggle for racial equality that the U.S. had. Ultimately, both MLK and Malcolm X made significant contributions to the fight for civil rights, leaving big impacts on American history that are still remembered and talked about to this day.

What did the youth generation during the 60s think of JFK? Did he help with the civil rights movement at all, or did his death impact it?

During the 1960s, the youth generation had a range of opinions about JFK. Some young people liked him for his charming personality and his vision for a better future. However, some criticized his policies and decisions. I am going to dive into these two questions about JFK’s involvement in the civil rights movement and how his death impacted it. I am going to talk about how he approached civil rights and how the youth viewed that, how some people thought that JFK was not the real deal, and finally how his assassination had a really big impact on the civil rights movement.

I think it is an understatement to say that JFK’s stance on civil rights was a little bit wonky. At first, he was pretty cautious about going straight into the issue. But as time went on he began to join more and more in the movement. In 1963, he gave a speech that had a lot of information. Here is where he expressed his support for equal rights and discrimination. He felt so strongly that he proposed a law called the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which had a goal to protect African Americans from discrimination. Despite his great idea, this never became a law until after he was killed, but thanks to his strong leadership in the civil rights movement, he can be remembered as a person who helped make America a more equal place.

Now, as introduced before, not everyone who was involved in the civil rights movement was fully convinced that JFK wanted equality. Certain activists thought that his support for the civil rights movement was more about politics rather than his genuine beliefs. In other words, they thought that the only reason he was supporting the movement was to gain more voters which would help him gain popularity. They thought that he was jumping on the trend for the only reason that the civil rights movement was gaining people like Martin Luther King. So while JFK was taking steps for the movement, people questioned his true commitment to the issue.

Finally, I want to talk about JFKs assassination and how much it impacted the civil rights movement. Sadly his death did have a big impact, and I think changed the outcome of the movement. At the time of JFKs death, there was a huge pause in the United States with a sense of loss and uncertainty. People did not know what to do and were concerned for the future of the country. With JFK gone, the focus shifted to other big leaders at the time who stepped in to carry his legacy. MLK became an even larger person in the civil rights movement getting even more people together to support the civil rights movement. His popular speeches, before and after the death of JFK, played a big role in pushing for the cause. So even though the death of JFK put a big pause on the country, and was a sad time for many, it ultimately led to what I think was a greater success in the civil rights movement.

In conclusion, the youth generation of the 60s had many different opinions about JFK. Some admired him for his charm and vision, while others had doubts about his commitment to civil rights. His assassination had a profound impact on the success of the movement. While it was a sad time for many, it ultimately led to smaller leaders gaining popularity and caused greater success for the civil rights movement. In the end, I have to say despite what critics said about JFKs commitment to the movements, I think that he did want to make the U.S. a better and more equal place and that he wasn’t just doing it for the popularity.

What was the “hippie” lifestyle, and how did it impact fashion, lifestyle, and values in the 1960s? Was it only the youth who were turning to “hippies” or was it people other from them? 

The hippie lifestyle was a countercultural movement that had a large impact on fashion, lifestyle, and values during the 1960s time period. It wasn’t just the youth who were drawn to the hippie movement, as people from various backgrounds and ages were also becoming hippies and following its unique lifestyle. In this WordPress response, I will be diving a little bit deeper into these two questions and also explain what it meant to be a hippie in the 1960s.

This unique lifestyle first started as a response to social and political status in the 1960s. With the Vietnam War, civil rights movements, and frustration with traditional societal norms, people sought a different way of life. The hippie movement promoted a few different things that took a different look at life. They promoted peace, love, and freedom as their main values. Despite these new things that they promoted there were multiple things that hippies did not like. This group rejected things such as materialism, consumerism, and conformity.

Fashion played a big role in the hippie lifestyle. Tie-dye shirts, bell-bottom pants, and flowing, clothing became iconic symbols of the movement. The rejection of the regular fashion norms allowed people the freedom to be able to express their unique personalities and take in a more natural and relaxed style. Something that I found interesting is how these clothing norms for hippies are still a thing today. If you ask someone what they think of when you say the word hippie, most people will most likely describe a person who wears tie-dye clothing or large oversized clothes that are unique and show a person’s personality.

Despite this, there was still a lot more to the hippie movement beyond fashion. It also influenced different lifestyle choices, allowing people to question societal norms and try different practices. Communal living, which was where groups of people shared resources and lived together, became a popular choice for hippies. They did this to try and attempt to develop a sense of community, mutual trust, and friendship. Overall, hippies ultimately aimed to create inclusive communities, that showed the cooperation and shared responsibilities that hippies had.

In conclusion, the hippie lifestyle of the 1960s had a huge impact on fashion, lifestyle, and values. It wasn’t only the youth who were interested and a part of this group, but people from all walks of life were drawn to the movement’s ideas of peace, love, and freedom. The fashion choices of the era reflected a rejection of usual clothing and social norms which can still be seen today. The lifestyle choices of hippies also promoted communal living which tried to create a different sense of community, mutual trust, and friendship. In the end, the hippie movement left a lasting impact on our society, inspiring future generations to embrace individuality, question and change societal norms, and work towards a more connected world.

How did the space race influence and impact American Society? Along with that, how did it build a sort of competition between the Soviet Union and United States?

The space race between the United States and the Soviet Union had a profound influence on American society. It ignited a new era of scientific exploration and new technology, leaving a lasting impact on many parts of American life. This response will talk about how the space race influenced American society and created a competitive spirit between the two superpowers.

The space race had a large impact on American society, starting a wave of national pride and unity. The successful launch of the first American satellite, Explorer 1, in 1958, and subsequent manned missions like Project Mercury and Apollo, captured the imagination of the American people. People gathered around their televisions to witness historic moments like Neil Armstrong’s first steps on the moon. These achievements put a sense of awe and wonder into people, as well as a belief that the United States was in the lead of scientific and technological progress. Despite this, the launch of Sputnik had an opposing effect on their feelings because they feared that the USSR was catching up to the U.S. or even in some parts ahead. Overall the space race became a symbol of American determination, uniting the nation in support of its space program.

Additionally, the space race led to a significant increase in funding for education and research. The United States recognized the need to have a highly skilled workforce to compete with the Soviet Union. As a result, there was a renewed emphasis on STEM education. NASA collaborated with educational institutions to develop programs that would inspire and educate the next generation of scientists and engineers. This investment in education not only pushed the space program forward but also had a big impact on society. It produced a generation of scientists, engineers, and innovators who would go on to contribute to different fields, causing new technological advancements and economic growth.

Finally, as I briefly talked about before, the space race started some competition between the Soviet Union and the United States. Both nations felt the need to outdo each other in space exploration, seeing each milestone as a massive victory. This intense competition pushed both countries to push the boundaries of scientific knowledge and technological capabilities. The United States, in response to the Soviet Union’s early successes, established big goals like landing a man on the moon. This encouraged innovation and sped up advancements in areas such as the creation of rockets, satellite technology, and computer science. The space race not only pushed the development of new technologies but also affected various industries, leading to many new advancements.

In conclusion, the space race had a huge influence on American society. It created a sense of national pride, increased investment in education and research, and fueled competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. The space race not only advanced our understanding of space but also had a lasting impact on technological advancements and inspired generations of scientists and engineers.

How was the “baby boom” generation different from previous generations? What did they stand for and enjoy compared to past generations/their parents and grandparents?

The “baby boom” generation, people born between 1946 and 1964, was a unique and influential group that was different from previous generations in several ways. Growing up in the post-war era, they experienced a change in social norms and had access to more opportunities and resources than their parents and grandparents. 

One thing that set the baby boomers apart was their idealism and desire for change. They were known for their active participation in many social and political movements, such as the civil rights movement, women’s rights movement, and peace movements. They fought for equality and social justice, advocating for the rights of marginalized groups and challenging the status quo. Their generation played a big role in pushing for progressive changes and leaving a lasting impact on society.

The baby boomers enjoyed different and controversial things compared to their parents and grandparents. They loved listening to rock ‘n’ roll music, which became a defining aspect of their generation. The different and new spirit of rock ‘n’ roll resonated with them, and they embraced the music as a form of self-expression. On top of the music, the baby boomers also experienced the invention of the television, which provided them with new forms of entertainment and cultural expression. Television shows and movies became a shared experience, shaping their collective memories and influencing their worldview. It also opened a new portal for people to watch and hear news a lot quicker and from their living rooms. 

The people born during the baby boom also experienced rapid advancements in technology and witnessed the beginning of the space race. They found the space race between the United States and the Soviet Union extremely interesting, following the developments and milestones. Although this is outside the period that is listed on this prompt, one of the largest parts of their interest came with the moon landing in 1969, when Neil Armstrong took the first steps on the moon. The moon landing symbolized human achievement and exploration and captured the baby boomers’ imagination. This era of scientific progress and inventions shaped their worldview and created new curiosity about the possibilities of the future.

In conclusion, the baby boom generation was a lot different in comparison to the older generations. They took on new social norms, standing for change, social justice, and equality. They actively participated in social and political movements, fighting for the rights of marginalized groups. They took on the cultural influences of rock ‘n’ roll music and television, finding new forms of self-expression and entertainment. Additionally, they were able to witness the advancements in technology and were attracted by the space race and the moon landing. The baby boomers’ impact on society and their unique experiences make them a unique generation that will always be remembered.

The annual “World Happiness” report is out… America lost ground – but one group of Americans expressed greater levels of satisfaction than others; why do you think this was the case?  What contrasts the “happiest” nations from the US and why might most Americans be getting less “happy”? Share your thoughts on any of these Qs

As usual, America was ranked one of the least happiest countries in the world. The group that expressed the greatest level of satisfaction, in the US despite overall declines in happiness are older adults/ elders. I think this is because of a few different factors. The first factor is that these types of people are living much more stable lives, already having established careers, families, and social connections over the years. With much fewer financial worries compared to younger generations who may have student loans, mortgages, and the pressures of finding and starting a career. On top of this, older adults often have more freedom to be able to focus on their well-being and pursue activities that bring them joy and happiness. In the end, younger people with less financial stability and more life worries are more likely to say that they are less happy and not living the way they want to.

Now to move on to contrasting America to the happiest nations to see really why we are ranked so bad. From my research, I learned that the happiest nations often prioritize social support, healthcare accessibility, income equality, and work-life balance. All of the things I just listed can contribute to higher levels of well-being among their citizens. Countries like Finland, Denmark, and Switzerland consistently are ranked among the happiest nations because of their strong social safety nets, high levels of trust in institutions, and emphasis on work balanced life.

Many Americans might be experiencing declining happiness due to a few different reasons. Rising income inequality in the U.S. has led to economic insecurity for many, with a large portion of the population struggling to make ends meet, living paycheck to paycheck. Additionally, challenges like job insecurity, lack of affordable healthcare, and high cost of living in many urban areas contribute to feelings of dissatisfaction among a lot of Americans. The pressure to be successful in an extremely competitive society can take a large toll on a person’s mental health.

Overall, while older adults in the U.S. are more likely to find more ways to be satisfied with their lives, large social issues and challenges continue to impact the happiness and well-being of many Americans, which highlights the need for a change in our system and greater investment in the social support systems and community resilience.

The annual “World Happiness” report is out… America lost ground – but one group of Americans expressed greater levels of satisfaction than others; why do you think this was the case?  What contrasts the “happiest” nations from the US and why might most Americans be getting less “happy”? Share your thoughts on any of these Qs

Given America’s current state, it’s not surprising that the world’s happiness report reflects it. With the nation more divided, stress and anxiety are likely higher. It’s interesting that young people seem less happy than older people. It could be possibly due to differing values. While both generations share cultural aspects, they differ ideologically. Young Americans prioritize values like social change and equality, while older generations value stability and tradition. These differences can lead to clashes, especially as older people hold more power. Greater age diversity in leadership could alter happiness report results. Countries scoring high in happiness typically have stable citizen-government interactions, lacking in America. While America’s rapid changes are often celebrated, they can also harm its people.

Check out this article on child “safety” (or lack thereof???) in the 60’s – what stands out to you as interesting a/o most surprising?  How might it be awesome, or horrible, being a little kid in 60’s America?

My dad was born in the 60s and he tells me all the time that people back then smoked a lot. He said he started smoking when he was 10 which I think is crazy and shocking to me. My grandma also told me she would smoke when pregnant, and everyone did it. 

I feel like it was safer back then, letting kids walk to school on their own. My dad says kids would bike everywhere, which nowadays depending on where you live you can’t do that. My dad also tells me stories about how he hitchhiked a lot to Florida, and even in other countries like Brazil and Costa Rica. 

The one that stands out to me is the no sunscreen. Sunscreen wasn’t even/barely a thing in the 60s. After reading this article, it makes more sense to me why older people (boomers) have higher rates of skin cancer. Also, climate change probably affects the UV rays, since they are a lot higher and stronger now. 

Basically everything seemed way safer back then. I think it would be really nice if we still had everything we have today like technology, but the outside world would be safe enough for kids to play and have fun. 

How did the space race influence and impact American Society? Along with that, how did it build a sort of competition between the Soviet Union and United States?

The space race represents how competition serves as a motivation for technological innovations. During the space race, the USSR and United States demonstrated their expansive resourcefulness and the power of their governments in a scientific revolution. Tension between these countries increased as both seeked validation as the dominant country, and most powerful in the world. Panic engulfed the U.S. in 1957 when Russia successfully launched the first satellite into space capable of orbiting the Earth, known as Sputnik 1. Rocket technology correlates with missile launching technology, and the citizens of the U.S. began to fear Russia passing them in the arms race. In response, President Kennedy introduced the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, otherwise known as NASA. This government agency replaced the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics to escalate U.S. efforts in space exploration. The USSR also claimed the second milestone in space exploration by having Yuri Gagarin orbit the Earth and return. President Lyndon B. Johnson aimed to improve U.S. education in an effort to improve the productivity and innovations discovered by U.S.. This was done through a variety of educational acts in the “Great Society,” such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Higher Education Act, and Project Head Start. The U.S. finally was triumphant when Apollo 11 successfully landed Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins on the moon. NASA has a minute effect on the taxes of the U.S., as they do not contribute to a high deferral budget. The United States and Soviet Union continue to rival each other on foreign political matters, and during Olympic competitions. 

What did the youth generation during the 60s think of JFK? Did he help with the civil rights movement at all, or did his death impact it?

The youth generation during the 1960s saw JFK as a young, strong president. They saw him on television defending new liberal movements and pictures of him with his children. Initially, President John F. Kennedy was reluctant to display support of the civil rights movement, as he was afraid of losing support from the southern states, but he found it hard to ignore the protests such as the Freedom Riders, Sit-Ins, the March on Washington, and Burmingham demonstrations. President Kennedy mobilized the National Guard many times to protect Civil Rights protesters. He sent the National Guard to protect African Americans integrated into schools and enforce the desegregation of schools, like the University of Mississippi. President Kennedy utilized his federal authority to transfer many troops to an Alabama air base during the Birmingham demonstration. He also federalized the Alabama National Guard in an effort to protect integrated students in the University of Alabama. After the March on Washington, although President Kennedy was initially afraid of the outlook of the gathering, he afterward invited many civil rights leaders for their input in ensuring the civil rights legislation was bi-partisan, and the Kennedy administration finally established the Civil Rights act of 1964. This Civil Rights act was originally denied by Congress, but eventually was passed after President Kennedy’s assassination, portraying some of the impact of his death. The second article further exemplifies his death as it describes the love that the new generation of Americans had for President Kennedy. The article dictates that his death was a time that caused many to lose hope. President Kennedy represented a new America, and being the youngest president he inspired youth America to take initiative, and get things done.

How did the space race influence and impact American Society? Along with that, how did it build a sort of competition between the Soviet Union and United States?

The space race represents how competition serves as a motivation for technological innovations. During the space race, the USSR and United States demonstrated their expansive resourcefulness and the power of their governments in a scientific revolution. Tension between these countries increased as both seeked validation as the dominant country, and most powerful in the world. Panic engulfed the U.S. in 1957 when Russia successfully launched the first satellite into space capable of orbiting the Earth, known as Sputnik 1. Rocket technology correlates with missile launching technology, and the citizens of the U.S. began to fear Russia passing them in the arms race. In response, President Kennedy introduced the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, otherwise known as NASA. This government agency replaced the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics to escalate U.S. efforts in space exploration. The USSR also claimed the second milestone in space exploration by having Yuri Gagarin orbit the Earth and return. President Lyndon B. Johnson aimed to improve U.S. education in an effort to improve the productivity and innovations discovered by U.S.. This was done through a variety of educational acts in the “Great Society,” such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Higher Education Act, and Project Head Start. The U.S. finally was triumphant when Apollo 11 successfully landed Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins on the moon. NASA has a minute effect on the taxes of the U.S., as they do not contribute to a high deferral budget. The United States and Soviet Union continue to rival each other on foreign political matters, and during Olympic competitions. 

What stands out about the timeline of the birth control pill? What was the significance of this discovery long term and short term? What societal norms would be different today if we didn’t have this pill?

The pill provided women with a highly effective method of contraception, giving them control over their reproductive choices. It contributed to the sexual revolution by changing the sexual norms (creating more of a casual sex kind of thing). It also allowed women to delay or avoid pregnancy, which gave them more opportunities to education, careers, and pursue their personal goals. These are all short-term significances of the pill. 

The availability of the pill is a long-term significance. It helps women plan and space pregnancies effectively, improving maternal and infant health. It has also played a big role in advancing women’s rights and gender equality. It’s also influenced societal norms around family planning, sexuality, and reproductive rights. 

If the pill had not been developed, women’s reproductive choices would be more limited. There would be higher rates of unwanted pregnancies, unsafe abortions, and possible maternal mortality. Gender equality and women’s rights may have progressed at a slower pace, and sexual practices/norms would be more conservative. Access to education and economic opportunities for women would be limited, which would have impacted overall societal development and progess. 

Another Little Rock 9 post – this time, a connection to the Beatles, and Beyonce – your thoughts on the article, and why Queen Bey’s entrance into the country genre is controversial for some?

The article discusses Beyoncé’s cover of The Beatles’ “Blackbird” and its connection to Melba Pattillo Beals, a member of the Little Rock Nine. Beyoncé’s rendition holds significance for Beals, who integrated Central High School in 1957, as the original song was inspired by the struggle for civil rights, particularly the experiences of the Little Rock Nine. Beals sees Beyoncé’s cover as empowering and believes it can promote compassion and understanding. The article also touches on Beyoncé’s entrance into the country music genre, which has sparked controversy due to traditional expectations and perceptions. However, her contributions may also foster diversity and inclusivity within the music industry.

Compare the 1973 Roe v. Wade case, which stemmed from the women’s rights movement, to the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson case. What are the similarities and differences? What do you think? 

Both of these court cases played significant roles in shaping women’s rights in the United States. while Roe v Wade decided that there was a constitutional right to abortion, Dobbs V Jackson challenged abortion rights. When Roe v wade was first being introduced, women were fighting for greater autonomy and control over their bodies in general. The case centered around the constitutional right to privacy and a woman’s right to choose whether to have an abortion. In contrast, Dobbs V Jackson came about in a different era, where there are constant ongoing debates surrounding Reproductive Rights and a push for more restrictive abortion laws. These articles were interesting because I didn’t previously know that both of them were essentially questioning whether or not the Constitution, when it refers to rights in the 14th amendment, included abortion. It’s interesting to think about how we would pretty much all consider 2024 to be a time where women rights are thriving compared to 1973. However looking at the timeline of these two court cases, it seems as though we’re going backwards. this topic connects to our discussion of conservatism versus liberalism, and how conservatism is centered around the push to go backwards in time and go back to a more traditional lifestyle, while liberalism is more about progressivism. Roe v Wade has had a profound impact on women’s reproductive rights, ensuring access to safe and legal abortion across the United states. It has provided women with the ability to make decisions about their own bodies and reproductive health. The court overturning Roe v Wade and moving forward with dobbs v jackson, has far reaching consequences. The court cases seem so similar in their framework and goal, simply opposite. And you’d think they’d go in the opposite timeline. Learning about current issues like this one through the lens of the time period we are learning about it in class, makes you think about the completely different climate we live in now. And even though feminism now is leaps and bounds head of feminism then, I think if Betty Friedan or any other activist at the time saw what was happening now, they’d be shocked.

The annual “World Happiness” report is out… America lost ground – but one group of Americans expressed greater levels of satisfaction than others; why do you think this was the case?  What contrasts the “happiest” nations from the US and why might most Americans be getting less “happy”? Share your thoughts on any of these Qs

The social and political climate of America at the moment makes complete sense of the results received from the world’s happiness report. With the country polarized possibly more than it ever has been, I think Americans have more anxiety and stress than in previous years. I find it interesting that adolescents were reportedly less happy than People 60 years or older. connecting to the generation gaps we’ve talked about in class, I think when it comes to materialistic and cultural things, our Generations that interact today are relatively similar. however I think the ideology between the two generations are completely different. American adolescence often have a more Progressive outlook, advocating for social change, inclusivity, and equality, all things that many probably feel they aren’t achieving. I would say they’re often more open-minded and more welcoming of diversity. on the other hand, Americans over the age of 16 May hold more traditional values and beliefs that are shaped by their experiences in the 20th century. I think a priority they have that young people definitely don’t share is stability, traditional family structures, and (sometimes) conservative principles. these differences can definitely lead to generational clashes, and unfair ones. obviously there are more older people in the government than adolescents, and therefore more older people making decisions. while young people definitely have more of a voice than they did years ago, they don’t have the same power. that’s not to say I think that we should put 17-year-olds in office, but I do think that if the people who are making decisions for the country or more diverse in there age groups and other factors, that happiness report might be a little different. a common theme I saw from countries that were the most happy is how stable they are and how stable interaction between the people and the government is. that stability doesn’t exist in America right now. I’m not sure when these polls were taken, but with the upcoming election, I think stable is the complete opposite of America’s climate. America as a country is, I would say, more Dynamic and fluctuating than other countries. and while I think that certainly contributes to the idolization and empowerment of America, I think that it more often than not harms the citizens in it. 

Another Little Rock 9 post – this time, a connection to the Beatles, and Beyonce – your thoughts on the article, and why Queen Bey’s entrance into the country genre is controversial for some?

I found this article really powerful and the bridge between such a unique and complicated experience with an extremely well-known song. The part of the article I found most interesting was when she mentions that a lot of people would ignore the true meaning of the song, which Paul McCartney said was based on the Little Rock Nine. the fact that people wouldn’t want to admit that a song they thought was good and a song that was incredibly popular could be based on black experience and not white experience is certainly telling of the time. when current artists cover old songs there’s always the risk of controversy, and I think in this case with a black woman covering arguably the most famous band of all time, that risk of controversy is heightened. but based off of what the article said, it was something that was impactful and empowering to the black community. I think the meaning resonated with so many people coming from Beyonce because she has lived similar experiences as a black woman. I also found the second article fascinating because I personally hadn’t really heard any opinions on Beyonce’s entrance into the country genre. She says that hopefully one day an artist’s race and the genre they perform music in will have nothing to do with the other. It’s clear based on the comments made after her CMA performance (i.e This is Beyonce music, not country music) we can see the effort to not include African Americans, especially black women in country music. Beyonce’s new cover of blackbird gives it a different meaning, while The Beatles’ is about recognition, hers is about empowerment. Her transition into country music shows, not only her dynamic talent, but the array of things any African-American/African-American woman can do. I see no reason why the topic should be controversial but I understand why some are reluctant of it. Country has been a white-dominated genre forever. It’s americana theme and traditional white values has made it hard for African-Americans to step into it. I think it has been marketed as this domain for white people and when a Black woman becomes successful in said domain, many feel threatened. However, I think this is one of those transitions that needs to happen to force people to understand that we are in a time of change, and the segregation of something as simple as music genres, can no longer exist in a society progressing towards equity.

What are the “lessons” from the Vietnam War for America? Was it a lost cause form the start? Was it a lost opportunity to bring positive change? Why are so many Americans still divided over the war’s meaning? Check out these  links, (take a look at comments at bottom of page for 2nd link too) and/or do your own research and thinking on this, and respond with your thoughts

Many people think the Vietnam War was doomed to fail from the beginning. The US government didn’t understand the Vietnamese people very well. They underestimated how determined the North Vietnamese were to fight for their country. The US made a lot of mistakes in getting involved in the war in the first place. On the other hand, some people think the Vietnam War could have led to positive changes in America. The anti-war movement got a lot of young people to stand up against the government and fight for civil rights, environmental protection, and other vital causes. This “counterculture” had the potential to really change American society, but it was overshadowed by the trauma and divisions caused by the war. Americans are still arguing about what the Vietnam War meant and what lessons we should learn from it. Some see it as a terrible defeat that hurt America’s pride. Others see it as an example of people’s power standing up to an unjust war. These different views make it hard for the country to agree on the war’s legacy.

Compare the 1973 Roe v. Wade case, which stemmed from the women’s rights movement, to the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson case. What are the similarities and differences? What do you think?

Although there are some parallels between the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case and the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case, the differences are much vaster. The most notable of these differences is who is granted the power to determine who can and cannot get an abortion. Roe v. Wade made abortion a federal right and put the decision to the government. However, Dobbs v. Jackson overturned this policy in 2022 and gave the power back to individual states. In a short time, 14 states almost completely banned abortion and penalized it by suing women, sending them to jail, and other punishments. However, one consistent similarity in abortion bans is the exceptions. In both cases, even when abortion is legal there is an exception for rape, incest, and situations in which a woman’s health is endangered. These are all necessary restrictions. Today, even in the states where abortion is legal, there are still manipulative tactics being used to confuse vulnerable women and deter them from doing what they think is best for them. For instance, Crisis Pregnancy Centers spread misinformation about abortions to scare women away by telling them they will become infertile or develop mental health issues. Personally, I believe that it is better to ban abortions than to do this. Most women that get abortions aren’t excited to get them, they do it because they feel that they have to or because it isn’t the right moment in their life to have a baby. Guilt-tripping them for doing what is best for them will likely have even worse physiological effects than simply forcing them to go to another state or find another way to get an abortion. Overall, I still think the Roe v. Wade decision was fair and should not have been overturned. I like that it was separated into different trimesters depending on how developed the baby was, and I appreciate that there were still exceptions that acknowledged extraneous circumstances that women could face. After reading the linked articles, I am hyper-aware of the challenges of these decisions. Abortion is and has consistently been arguably one of the most controversial topics of discussion, especially within the past 50 years. With this in mind, I am confused as to why a 50-year-old Supreme Court decision, a decision that was widely accepted by those it affected, was overturned. Since it is highly controversial, overturning the case only angered a significant portion of the new generation. From my perspective, the Roe v. Wade results were effective preceding the Dobbs v. Jackson decision. With controversial topics, not everyone will be pleased, so the effort should go into comforting and accommodating those who are directly affected. In this case, that would be women. According to a study, 63% of women believe that abortion should be illegal while 58% of men hold the same view (Pew Research Center). Although these numbers are close, they are still noticeably different. On top of this, the decisions made today need to account for the younger generation that will run our nation within the next couple of years. According to another Pew Research Center study, Gen Z is generally much more liberal, with 70% believing that the government should do more to solve problems compared to the Boomer generation’s 49%, Gen X’s 53%, and Millennials’s 64%. In my opinion, bringing this case to court only rekindled a debate that never truly went away, and will set the stage for much more and possibly even worse to come in the future.

PYOT from a peer:  How did one man’s decision to act as he did during the Cuban Missile Crisis affect the outcome of the crisis – and if he had voted differently, what do you think would’ve happened? How would the US have responded? Where might we be today?  Answer any and all Qs as inspired

Vasili Arkhipov’s pivotal decision during the Cuban Missile Crisis had profound implications for the outcome of the crisis and potentially for the course of human history. His refusal to authorize the launch of a nuclear torpedo aboard the Soviet submarine B-59 prevented what could have been a catastrophic escalation of the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union. Had Arkhipov voted differently, and agreed to the launch of the nuclear torpedo as urged by the sub’s captain, Valentin Savitsky, the consequences would have been dire. The destruction of a US aircraft carrier and the loss of thousands of lives would likely have resulted in an immediate and devastating retaliation by the United States. Such an action could have triggered a full-scale nuclear exchange between the two superpowers, leading to unimaginable destruction and loss of life on a global scale. The Cuban Missile Crisis was already a tense standoff between nuclear-armed adversaries, and Arkhipov’s refusal to escalate the situation further provided an opportunity for cooler heads to prevail. His actions bought time for back-channel negotiations to take place between President Kennedy and Premier Khrushchev, ultimately leading to a peaceful resolution of the crisis. If Arkhipov had voted differently, the United States would have been compelled to respond forcefully, likely leading to a prolonged and devastating conflict between the superpowers. The world today could have been vastly different, with the specter of nuclear war casting a long shadow over international relations and the global order. Arkhipov’s courageous decision serves as a reminder of the grave risks posed by nuclear weapons and the importance of individuals who, in moments of crisis, choose peace over destruction. As tensions persist between nuclear-armed states in the present day, Arkhipov’s legacy stands as a testament to the power of human restraint and the imperative of preventing the use of nuclear weapons at all costs.

Some terrible stories coming out of 1968 Vietnam, and some amazing souls trying to make sure such stories don’t stay untold – your thoughts?

The year 1968 is a haunting memory for hundreds of women whose lives were forever altered by the brutalities of war and the atrocities committed against them. One such woman is Tran Thi Ngai, whose harrowing experience of rape during the Vietnam War left her not only without justice or sympathy but also landed her in prison. Tran’s ordeal began in the summer of 1967 while she was working in her parents’ shop in southern Vietnam. A South Korean soldier, armed and intimidating, perpetrated the assault, leaving her traumatized and pregnant. In a society where bearing a child out of wedlock was taboo, Tran faced ostracism and violence from her own family. Despite her attempts to end her own life, she found the will to survive for the sake of her unborn child. For Tran, the nightmare continued as she was coerced into a two-year ordeal with her rapist, forced to bear another child by him before being abandoned. Her struggle for survival was compounded by societal scorn and isolation, leading her and her family to flee their village in search of refuge. Yet, even in their new home, the stigma followed them, further complicating their already shattered lives. Tran’s story is just one of many, as illustrated by the experiences of others like Nguyen Thi Thanh, who survived the massacre of her family by South Korean soldiers in Ha My village. The events of that fateful day in February 1968 marked a turning point in the Vietnam War, revealing the brutality and devastation wrought upon innocent civilians caught in the crossfire of conflict. Despite the passage of time, the wounds of war remain unhealed for survivors like Nguyen and Tran, whose quest for truth and acknowledgment continues. South Korean researcher Ku Su-jeong has dedicated her life to uncovering the untold stories of atrocities committed by South Korean soldiers during the war, facing backlash and threats in her pursuit of justice. The journey towards reconciliation is fraught with challenges, as governments and societies grapple with the legacy of war and the complexities of acknowledging past wrongs. While some, like Tran’s son Tran Van Ty and advocacy groups such as Justice for Lai Dai Han, seek official apologies and reparations, others remain resistant to confronting uncomfortable truths. Yet, amidst the pain and suffering, there are glimmers of hope, such as the meeting between Nguyen and former South Korean soldier Ryu Jin-sung, whose apology offers a moment of closure and healing. The quest for truth and justice continues, fueled by the resilience and determination of survivors and their advocates. As the bronze sculpture “Mother and Child” by artist Rebecca Hawkins symbolizes, the struggle of women like Tran Thi Ngai and Nguyen Thi Thanh is a testament to the enduring strength of the human spirit in the face of adversity. Their stories serve as a reminder of the need to confront the past, acknowledge the pain, and work towards a future of healing and reconciliation.

Was the “Great Society” a success? review the link, and content / conversations from the course, and share your thoughts:

Claim A argues that the Great Society initiatives, spearheaded by President Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s, were largely successful in their efforts to reduce poverty and promote greater equality and opportunity in America. The claim points to significant achievements, such as the decline in the national poverty rate from 19% in 1964 to below 11.2% by the mid-1970s. It attributes this success to the multitude of legislative proposals enacted during the 89th and 90th Congresses, which formed the cornerstone of the Great Society. These initiatives, particularly in education and healthcare, had a lasting impact on the American economic landscape, pushing the country toward greater equality and opportunity for all citizens. Furthermore, Claim A highlights specific legislative achievements, such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, which expanded access to education and improved graduation rates. Additionally, the expansion of healthcare coverage through programs like Medicare and Medicaid significantly improved the quality of life for many Americans, leading to reductions in infant mortality and increases in overall life expectancy. Other social programs, including federal funding for housing, public transportation, and job creation, alleviated burdens faced by the poor and middle classes, further contributing to the success of the Great Society initiatives. On the other hand, Claim B presents a more critical perspective on the Great Society, arguing that these initiatives failed to effectively address poverty and resulted in unintended consequences. The claim contends that the emphasis on government solutions to social problems led to increased dependency and created perverse incentives that perpetuated poverty, such as welfare payments discouraging intact families. Additionally, Claim B highlights the substantial financial cost of these programs, which have amounted to trillions of dollars since the mid-1960s, without significant reductions in the poverty rate. Moreover, Claim B points to the decline of urban communities and the expansion of generational poverty among the urban poor as evidence of the failures of the war on poverty. It criticizes the faith in government solutions and the resulting expansion of social spending, arguing that these approaches have not effectively addressed poverty and have instead exacerbated social problems in many communities. Overall, while Claim A emphasizes the positive outcomes and achievements of the Great Society initiatives, Claim B focuses on the unintended consequences and shortcomings, reflecting broader historical debates about the impact of government interventions on poverty and inequality.

What did the youth generation during the 60s think of JFK? Did he help with the civil rights movement at all, or did his death impact it?**

JFK was highly regarded before and after his death.  His youth and charismatic personality brought hope to many Americans. His era was marked as a great one which inspired many people. People felt as if Kennedy would help to get the country moving forward once again.  As for civil rights he made himself a public supporter of civil rights but didn’t push too hard to avoid losing some southern voters. He wanted to ensure another presidency while still achieving some civil rights legislation.  But over time he was forced to act with pressure from millions of people participating in protests.  He aided in the movement and after further pressure passed some very important legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Overall he made some good progress with pressure but was reluctant to fully commit.  His death shocked the nation. To many, it felt as if the prosperous time that they enjoyed had come to an end. Many living through the period described it as if the country went from optimistic to pessimistic.

PYOT from a peer: How did music like   Helen   Ready’s  song I Am Woman help promote the beginnings of the feminist movement? And how is that influence still relevant today?

Through listening to the lyrics of these songs, I think they are extremely important to the womens rights movement and the progress made to get to where we are now. As we saw through the sixties, music is a heavily prevalent source of media to spread all different kinds of ideas, and make change through the lyrics. Looking at this song, the lyrics jump out as completely redefining the role of women and the importance of women. Helen Ready sings, “If I have to, I can do anythin I am strong (strong) I am invincible (invincible) I am woman” This is redefining what people thought of when they hear woman. It redefines them from weak or unnecessary to strong and incinvicble which is extremely important for people’s understanding. I found another song which is still so important and influential today as it was when it was released in 1967, Respect b Aretha Franklin. The fact that this song is still so popular today and used just as much in the spreading of womens rights, shows just how influential it was when it was released even more so. People hear this song and the powerful message of the lyrics, and it empowers it’s listeners to fight for the respect of women all over the globe. “R-E-S-P-E-C-T Find out what it means to me R-E-S-P-E-C-T Take care, TCB Oh (sock it to me, sock it to me…A little respect (just a little bit) I get tired (just a little bit) Keep on tryin’ (just a little bit) You’re runnin’ out of foolin’ (just a little bit) And I ain’t lyin’ (just a little bit)” These lyrics show that after she puts in all of the work at her house all day, she expects respect when he husband gets home. Although this wasn’t showing the life of women in the workplace, it encouraged everyone to not let women be a doormat for men whether it be in or out of the workplace which is extremely important to the time and made a major impact on womens rights movement.

How did the space race influence and impact American Society? Along with that, how did it build a sort of competition between the Soviet Union and United States?

The Space Race was a competition between the United States and the Soviet Union during the 20th century to dominate spaceflight technologies, spurred by the broader context of the Cold War. It began on August 2, 1955, when the Soviet Union responded to the US announcement of their intent to launch artificial satellites. Lasting until the early 1970s, the Space Race witnessed groundbreaking achievements in science, space exploration, and technology, profoundly impacting the world in various ways. The initial phase of the Space Race saw both nations launching satellites into orbit. The Soviet Union took the lead with the launch of Sputnik 1 in 1957, followed by Sputnik 2 carrying the dog Laika. The US responded with Explorer 1 in 1958. Throughout the 1960s, both nations achieved significant milestones, such as Luna 2 becoming the first spacecraft to reach the Moon’s surface in 1959, Yuri Gagarin’s historic orbit around the Earth in 1961 aboard Vostok 1, and Valentina Tereshkova becoming the first woman in space in 1963. As the Space Race progressed, both the US and the Soviet Union continued to push boundaries. The US landed Mariner 4 on Mars in 1965, providing the first close-up images of the planet. In 1968, Apollo 8 became the first human-crewed spacecraft to reach the Moon’s orbit. This culminated in Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin’s iconic moonwalk during the Apollo 11 mission in 1969. The Space Race had far-reaching effects on the world. It accelerated technological progress, leading to innovations in communication, medicine, and everyday technologies. Satellites developed for space exploration laid the foundation for modern communication networks, weather forecasting, and GPS navigation systems. Space exploration also contributed to medical advancements, including the development of imaging technologies like CAT scans and innovations in shock-absorbent materials used in prosthetics. Achievements in space became symbols of national prestige and technological prowess. The US’s successful Moon landing in 1969 was viewed as a triumph of democracy and capitalism over communism. Additionally, the Space Race captivated the world’s imagination and inspired generations of scientists, engineers, and explorers. It fueled interest in STEM fields and encouraged investment in education and research. Furthermore, the Space Race paved the way for international cooperation in space exploration. While it began as a rivalry between the US and the Soviet Union, it ultimately led to collaboration between former adversaries. Joint missions like Apollo-Soyuz in 1975 symbolized a thawing of tensions and laid the groundwork for future cooperative endeavors in space exploration, as seen in projects like the International Space Station. Overall, the Space Race was a transformative period in history, leaving a lasting impact on science, technology, and society. It showcased humanity’s capacity for exploration and innovation, pushing the boundaries of what was thought possible and inspiring generations to reach for the stars.

Describe the roots and growth of a “New Right” in this time period, and Barry Goldwater’s role in shaping it – your thoughts on its goal and the issues that matter to them?

Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign in 1964 marked a significant turning point in American politics, as he brought the far-right ideology to the center stage within the Republican Party. Despite suffering a landslide defeat to incumbent President Lyndon B. Goldwater’s candidacy ignited the conservative wing of the GOP and shaped its trajectory for decades to come. Goldwater’s unapologetically conservative stance, as reflected in his famous declaration that “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice,” resonated with a segment of the population disenchanted with the perceived expansion of government power and erosion of individual freedoms. He championed small government, individual liberties, and a staunch anti-communist foreign policy, contrasting sharply with Johnson’s big-government policies and expansion of social welfare programs. Although Goldwater’s presidential campaign ended in defeat, his campaign galvanized a grassroots coalition of conservatives, libertarians, and disaffected Republicans who felt sidelined by the party’s moderate establishment. His blunt, plainspoken style and candid rhetoric attracted enthusiastic support from a segment of the population yearning for a return to conservative principles. Goldwater’s influence extended beyond his failed presidential campaign. His book “The Conscience of a Conservative,” published in 1960, became a manifesto for the conservative movement and remains a foundational text for many on the political right. Despite initial skepticism from publishers, the book gained widespread popularity among conservatives and continues to shape political discourse to this day. The legacy of Goldwater’s campaign can be seen in the gradual shift of the Republican Party towards conservatism in the decades following his candidacy. Ronald Reagan, whose political career was just gaining momentum in 1964, embraced Goldwater’s conservative principles and later pursued similar policies as president. The rise of the Tea Party movement in the 21st century further underscored the enduring influence of Goldwater’s libertarian ideology within the GOP. In summary, Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign in 1964 may have ended in defeat, but his unapologetic embrace of far-right conservatism reshaped the Republican Party and laid the groundwork for the ascendance of conservative ideology in American politics.

What did the youth generation during the 60s think of JFK? Did he help with the civil rights movement at all, or did his death impact it?

JFK was seen as a symbol of youth, hope, and the future, and many young people felt a connection with him, as he was the youngest U.S. president elected, and they believed in his vision for the future of America. After his assassination, the optimism he created for the future of the U.S. was shattered. All of America was left questioning the direction of the U.S. and felt a sense of uncertainty for the future.

JFKs involvement in the civil rights movement helped create acts that helped create an equal opportunity for black people. He pushed for more support in the civil rights movement and helped the civil rights movement gain support from the government. The Kennedy administration created the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was not successfully passed until after the death of JFK but with the help of Lyndon Johnson, the act was passed on July 2nd, 1964. The act protected African Americans from voter discrimination, outlawed discrimination in hotels, restaurants, theaters, and any public interstate transport, helped enforce desegregation in public schools, and outlawed discrimination in businesses.

JFK’s assassination created a sense of instability and temporarily shifted the U.S. focus from the civil rights movement to mourning his death, but Lyndon Johnson used his talent in persuasion to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a major milestone in the civil rights movement, which JFK unsuccessfully tried to pass in 1963. Without Lyndon Johnson taking over as President we might not have gotten the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he. So while JFK’s death causes a pause in the movement it ultimately fueled the civil rights movement.

Some civil rights icons from our current unit, discussing issues regarding the teaching of African-American studies today – your thoughts on their thoughts?

The article discusses the ongoing fight for civil rights in Arkansas by the surviving members of the Little Rock Nine, who integrated Little Rock Central High School in 1957. They are now advocating for the inclusion of Advanced Placement African American Studies as a credited course in Arkansas high schools. The Arkansas Department of Education recently announced that this course would not count as an AP credit, potentially discouraging schools from offering it and students from taking it. Elizabeth Eckford, one of the Little Rock Nine, emphasized the importance of teaching students about the struggles faced by marginalized people, stating that historical truth deconstructs damaging myths omitted from popular history. The article also highlights concerns raised by members of the Little Rock Nine regarding the erasure of history and the potential political motivations behind such actions. Terrence Roberts, another member of the Little Rock Nine, stressed the importance of students understanding what they went through and why, asserting that there should be no laws restricting their ability to learn. The Arkansas Department of Education stated that they would review the AP African American Studies course to ensure it does not teach Critical Race Theory (CRT), which was banned in March. However, critics argue that CRT bans have been vague and that it’s unclear how the state will determine whether teaching this course violates the anti-CRT ban.

How did radical groups like the Black Panthers affect the civil rights movement? What do you think of their approach to civil rights?

The Black Panther Party significantly impacted the civil rights movement. The Black Panthers adopted a more confrontational and militant approach compared to the nonviolent civil rights movement led by figures like Martin Luther King Jr. They were willing to use armed self-defense to protect their communities from police brutality. The Black Panthers emphasized black empowerment and self-determination rather than integration.They wanted to transform American society rather than just fundamentally achieve legal equality. The Black Panthers also implemented various community service programs, known as “survival programs,” that provided food, clothing, transportation, and other essential services to the black community. This helped meet the needs of the people and built support for the party. Additionally, the Black Panthers inspired other radical movements, both in the U.S. and globally, that challenged power structures and fought for the rights of different communities. The Black Panthers’ tactics and their willingness to use armed self-defense brought greater national attention to the ongoing struggles and oppression faced by African Americans, even if their methods were controversial.

Some terrible stories coming out of 1968 Vietnam, and some amazing souls trying to make sure such stories don’t stay untold – your thoughts?

This story was incredibly upsetting to me to see the truth of all of the trauma experienced by people part of this war. Aside from the majorly traumatic and upsetting parts of the stories she shared, the first line that stuck out to me as different from modern day, was, “When she noticed her stomach swelling she assumed she was just putting on weight. Then one day she felt a kick and realized she was pregnant. Her parents were horrified that she was expecting a baby out of wedlock – a major taboo.” This was a shock to read. After such a traumatic and horrible experience, her parents were so horrified by her pregnancy being out of wedlock, rather than it being out of rape. This goes to show how incredibly different society was in their views of women were back in the 60’s. It is so vital to see that her life was ruined in the eyes of her community because she was pregnant from something out of her control on top of as she put it, “It felt as if my life was over,” in her own eyes. This also shows the major importance of the pill being introduced. Although this was obviously unplanned, it could have avoided this tension and allowed her family to be able to focus on helping her recover from this experience rather than worrying about the baby being from wedlock. The line that follows is very upsetting in showing not just her family, but likely her whole communities view and priority in this situation. It reads, “My parents called me ‘chửa hoang’ (pregnant out of wedlock) – they beat me up badly.” Her story goes on to explain how she continued to be moved around, assaulted, pregnant two more times, and put through unthinkable experiences, then says, “Her family’s social standing was now irrevocably damaged.” This is what really mattered to people back then. It shows how vital the womens rights movements and things like the pill were to women at this time as I am sure her story is not the only one. 

How did the building of the Berlin Wall affect  the citizens living there? What stands out as surprising?

The building of the Berlin Wall affected the citizens living there in a big way. The wall completely separated the city of Berlin. As a result of this, families and friends were separated from each other. Imagine that, one day you can walk down the street and hangout with your best friend, and the next day there is a massive wall in your way. This made it very hard for people to visit loved ones as well. The wall made many people feel isolated.

To some, the wall was a representation of the Civil War. It was split into East and West, which symbolized the tensions between the Soviet Union and the Western Powers at the time.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/why-berlin-wall-built-fell#:~:text=In%20the%20wee%20hours%20of,sides%20of%20the%20new%20border. 

Something that stood out to me in this article was how fast this wall went up. Overnight, fences and barriers to seal off entry points from Eastern Berlin to Western Berlin were put up. This caught a lot of the people living in Berlin off guard. I could imagine waking up one morning and the route I go every morning is blocked off. People all of a sudden felt separated and isolated from each other.

Something else that interests me is that when this wall finally came down after three decades, it reunited Germany. While the wall affected so many people, and probably was built for a good reason and good intentions, it still made people feel so poorly. It almost seems like the government was being selfish and not thinking about the people that live under that government. If they had thought about the community’s feelings, they would have never split up the city. I wonder if the government regrets building the wall after they saw Germany reunite once it was brought down.

Why was Greenwich Village such a popular place throughout the 1900’s?

Greenwich Village was so popular throughout the 1900s because it held so much change. It began when many flapper women lived there during the roaring 20s. This caused it to become a place where most of its residents advocated for women’s rights. They supported unpopular views on how women were expected to act in society. The area later became a place where many members of the LGBTQ+ community would live. Greenwich Village became a very diverse area where people from many different walks of life would live together in a supportive community. Eventually, it became the home to the Hippies of America, who supported free will and peace for everyone in the US. I believe that Greenwich Village was so popular since it allowed for many firsts over the course of a century. It allowed for so many different people to unify and help each other create change in America.

What was the ERA

The ERA, also called ther  Equal Rights Amendment, was a proposed amendment to the Constitution that aimed to guarantee equal rights under the law regardless of sex. It was first introduced in Congress in 1923. The text of the ERA sats that Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. The ERA was made to address gender discrimination and ensure that women would have the same legal protections and opportunities as men. It would have widespread support from liberal women’s rights, feminists, and civil rights activists. However, it also faced significant hate from conservative groups who argued that it would undermine traditional gender roles and family structures. Even alot of woman opposed the bill. It was fiamlly approved by Congress, yet the ERA failed to be ratified by the necessary number of states before the deadline set by Congress, witch leading to its ultimate failure. Some states took back ther votes and if they didnt the amendment might have been passed. As of my last update in January 2022 there are possible efforts to bring it back and ratify the ERA.

The ERA had several challenges that pomade it from getting thenecessary number of state ratifications to become an amendment. The ERA had a strong opposition from conservative groups, including some religious organizations and traditionalist advocates, who viewed it as a threat to traditional gender roles. They tougtht it would break fmaily morals. They argued that the ERA would lead to women being drafted into the military, and the elimination of legal protections for women. Some opponents of the ERA saw it as an radical agenda that was ment undermine traditional values. Although the ERA was approved by Congress in 1972, it faced challenges in obtaining the necessary ratifications from three-fourths of the states within the seven-year deadline set by Congress. By the time the deadline expired in 1982, the ERA had fallen short of the required number of ratifications. It was largely due to the organized opposition it faced. Despite the initial deadline passing without the required number of ratifications, efforts were made to extend the deadline in hopes of securingmore votes. However, these efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. Over time, the political views shifted on civil rights shifted. This led to the support for the ERA being droped in some states. Issues such as the rise of the conservative movement contributed to the ERA’s failure. Despite its failure to become a amendment, the ERA continues to be a symbol of the ongoing struggle for gender equality and remains a topic of debate. Many people still fight fpr the bill to be passed withc will likely never happen.

Was the “Great Society” a success? review the link, and content / conversations from the course, and share your thoughts:

Based on the arguments presented, I would say that the Great Society had a mix of success and failure. On the positive side, the evidence suggests the Great Society programs did have a meaningful impact in reducing poverty rates, at least in the short term. The poverty rate declined from 19% in 1964 to 11.1% by 1973, indicating the new social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and housing assistance provided crucial support to many low-income Americans. Additionally, investments in education, job training, and community development likely expanded economic opportunity, especially for disadvantaged groups. In that sense, the Great Society made progress towards creating a more equal and just society. However, the arguments also highlight significant limitations and unintended consequences of the Great Society. Despite the trillions spent, poverty remained stubbornly high, only declining modestly over the decade. Many new federal programs also grew into massive, expensive bureaucracies that became difficult to control or reform over time. Additionally, the rapid expansion of social programs contributed to rising deficits and national debt, making the programs unsustainable in the long run. There’s also the argument and critique that  Great Society failed to empower individuals and communities or address the root causes of poverty. So, in my opinion, the Great Society had some significant short-term successes in reducing poverty and expanding opportunity but also had significant limitations in poverty & federal programs created new challenges and dependencies, so it’s a success in some areas but not all.

What stands out about the timeline of the birth control pill? What was the significance of this discovery long term and short term? What societal norms would be different today if we didn’t have this pill?

One thing that stood out from the timeline about the birth control pill is more of the history behind it. Margaret Sanger, who now I know, followed scientific research on birth control and funded some of it. Katharine McCormick, who was Sanger’s collaborator, supported more of this research financially. In 1953, Sanger took McCormick to the Worcester Foundation, where researchers Gregory Pincus and Min Chueh Chang worked on creating a “synthetic progesterone-based oral contraceptive.” And later on, the first test of the pill was done in Puerto Rico. I found all of this very cool because I never knew this information. Moving on, the development of the birth control pill was a significant medical help because it provided women with a safe, effective, and reversible method they could control. Also, the availability of the birth control pill had an impact on women’s lives, empowering them to have greater control over their reproductive choices and allowing them to pursue education and careers more freely. It was a crucial factor in the women’s rights movement and the sexual revolution. Lastly, if we never had the creation of this pill, I feel that it would lead to a lot of unintended pregancies and lack of freedom/decision making for women.

What is surprising about these facts? how did things listed here help or hurt the evolution of MLK and his civil rights fight?

One thing I thought was surprising was MLK’s birth name change from Michael to Martin. The fact that King was originally named Michael and that his father changed both his own name and his young son’s name to honor Martin Luther is quite remarkable. This shows the influence and inspiration the elder King drew from the leader. It shows King had grown up with a strong sense of purpose and mission, as he was named after such an iconic historical figure. Another thing I thought was surprising is the king’s academic abilities, allowing him to skip two grades and enter college at just 15 years old, is truly impressive. This early experience definitely played a significant role in shaping his future as a visionary leader and thinker in the civil rights movement. It also shows from a young age he was intellectually curious and disciplined, already showing how he has strong traits as a leader.

Easter 60 years ago during the civil rights movement – your thoughts?

Easter 60 years ago, during the civil rights movement, was a critical moment in American history. In 1964, Easter Sunday fell on March 29th, a time when the civil rights movement was gaining momentum. However, racial segregation and discrimination were still deeply rooted in American society, despite the ongoing efforts to challenge these injustices. The Civil Rights Act was in the process of being passed, which marked a significant legislative step towards equality, but the fight for civil rights was far from over.Many civil rights activists and leaders, including Martin Luther King Jr., used the occasion of Easter to reflect on the spiritual and moral aspects of their struggle for racial equality. They drew parallels between the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the hope for a new beginning, and the resurrection of the American spirit through the fight against racial injustice.The Equal Justice Initiative’s link underscores the significance of March 29th, 1964, in the context of the civil rights movement, highlighting the ongoing struggle for racial justice and the need to confront the legacy of racial inequality and violence in the United States.Easter during the civil rights movement served as a powerful symbol of hope, resilience, and the ongoing struggle for justice and equality. It was a time when activists and supporters were reminded of the spiritual and moral foundations of their cause and were inspired to continue their fight for a more just and equitable society.

Some terrible stories coming out of 1968 Vietnam, and some amazing souls trying to make sure such stories don’t stay untold – your thoughts?

The year 1968 was a pivotal and very hard year in the Vietnam War, marked by significant military offensives, intense fighting, and devastating consequences for both soldiers and civilians. The stories coming out of Vietnam from that year are indeed harrowing, illustrating the human cost of war and the profound impact it had on individuals, families, and communities.The efforts of individuals and organizations to ensure that these stories are not left untold are commendable and crucial. By documenting and sharing the personal experiences, hardships, and sacrifices of those who lived through the Vietnam War, these storytellers help to preserve the historical record, honor the memories of those who were affected, and provide a more nuanced and humanizing perspective on the conflict.The article highlights the work of several journalists, photographers, and filmmakers who risked their lives to capture the realities of the war and bring them to the attention of the world. Their courage and dedication to telling the truth about the Vietnam War, despite facing censorship, danger, and personal risk, are a testament to the power of journalism and storytelling in exposing the harsh realities of war and holding those in power accountable.

Was the “Great Society” a success? review the link, and content / conversations from the course, and share your thoughts: 

The “Great Society,” introduced by President Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s, was a set of programs with the goal of eliminating poverty, advancing civil rights, and improving the quality of life for all Americans. The success of the “Great Society” remains a topic of debate among historians and policymakers.One of the primary goals of the “Great Society” was to reduce poverty, and while poverty rates did initially decline, they have remained relatively stable since the 1970s. This stability has led some to question the long-term effectiveness of the anti-poverty programs introduced under the initiative.The advancement of civil rights was another significant aspect of the “Great Society.” The Civil Rights Act and other related legislation were instrumental in dismantling institutionalized racism and discrimination in the United States. However, challenges and disparities in civil rights and racial equality persist to this day.Additionally, the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid under the “Great Society” expanded access to healthcare for millions of Americans, particularly the elderly and low-income individuals. Despite this expansion, the rising costs and accessibility issues in the healthcare system continue to be a concern.Lastly, the “Great Society” aimed to improve education through programs like Head Start and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. While these programs have had some positive impacts, educational disparities and challenges remain a significant issue in the United States.In conclusion, the “Great Society” had both successes and shortcomings. It made significant strides in advancing civil rights, expanding access to healthcare, and addressing poverty. However, the long-term effectiveness and sustainability of the programs are subjects of ongoing debate. The “Great Society” laid important groundwork for social and economic reform in the United States, but many of the challenges it aimed to address remain unresolved.

More to MLK’s Chicago campaign of 1966 – could it have turned out otherwise, or was it doomed from the start? Expand on your thoughts regarding King and SCLC taking their movement North, and the reactions that follow:

Martin Luther King Jr.’s Chicago campaign in 1966 was a significant departure from his earlier civil rights efforts in the South. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), under King’s leadership, chose to take their movement to the North, targeting the systemic racism and segregation in urban cities like Chicago. However, the campaign faced several challenges from the start. Racism in the North was more subtle and systemic compared to the overt and violent racism of the South, making it more challenging to mobilize support and identify clear targets for protest. Additionally, the campaign faced resistance from Chicago’s political establishment, including Mayor Richard J. Daley, who was a powerful figure in the Democratic Party and had significant control over the city’s political machine. Moreover, some local civil rights leaders were skeptical of King’s leadership and the SCLC’s approach, having their own strategies and concerns about outsiders coming in and taking over the movement.King and the SCLC believed that by addressing the racial inequalities in the North, they could highlight the national scope of the civil rights struggle. They aimed to expose the hypocrisy of the United States claiming to be a champion of democracy and human rights while allowing racial discrimination and segregation to persist. The campaign’s central focus was housing segregation. King and his supporters organized protests and marches to challenge discriminatory housing practices. These actions drew attention to the issue but did not lead to immediate policy changes. The campaign received extensive media coverage, both nationally and internationally, which helped to raise awareness about the civil rights struggle in the North and put pressure on political leaders to address the issues. While the Chicago campaign did not achieve all of its goals, it did contribute to the broader civil rights movement by highlighting the need to address racial inequality in urban areas and inspiring other activists and organizations to continue the fight. With different strategies, more local collaboration, and broader support from the community, the campaign could potentially have had a greater impact. King’s decision to take the civil rights movement North was a bold and important step in highlighting the national scope of racial inequality and discrimination in the United States.

Some civil rights icons from our current unit, discussing issues regarding the teaching of African-American studies today – your thoughts on their thoughts?

The Little Rock Nine, iconic figures in the civil rights movement for their bravery in integrating Little Rock Central High School in 1957, have voiced criticism about the current state of African-American studies in Arkansas schools. They argue that the curriculum is not comprehensive enough and lacks depth, particularly in its representation of African American history and the civil rights movement. Their firsthand experience with racial segregation and the struggle for civil rights lends significant weight to their concerns. They emphasize the importance of an inclusive education that accurately represents the contributions and experiences of African Americans throughout history. Such an approach is crucial for promoting understanding, respect, and racial equality among students. The quality and depth of African-American studies can profoundly impact students’ understanding of racial issues and their ability to critically engage with and challenge racism in society today. Therefore, the perspectives of the Little Rock Nine highlight the urgent need for improvement in the education system, calling for a more comprehensive and accurate representation of African American history and culture in schools.

What stands out about the timeline of the birth control pill? What was the significance of this discovery long term and short term? What societal norms would be different today if we didn’t have this pill?

The birth control pill has a significant timeline that changed many aspects of society. In 1960, the FDA approved the first oral contraceptive pill, called Enovid. This approval made it easier for women to prevent pregnancy and feel the freedom to make their own choices. By 1965, a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Griswold v. Connecticut, allowed married couples to use birth control. Then, in 1972, the same court ruled in Eisenstadt v. Baird that unmarried people could also use contraceptives.The long-term effects of the birth control pill have been profound. It played a big role in the women’s rights movement by giving women control over their bodies. This allowed women to pursue education and careers more freely. The pill also became linked with the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, which changed societal attitudes about sex and relationships. Additionally, the pill has health benefits and is used to treat conditions like menstrual disorders, endometriosis, and ovary syndrome. It has also led to smaller families and better spacing between children.If the birth control pill didn’t exist, our society would likely be very different. Family planning would be more challenging, leading to larger families and less control over when to have children. Women might not have entered the workforce in such high numbers, affecting gender roles and equality. The sexual norms might not have evolved the same way, impacting attitudes towards premarital and extramarital sex. Lastly, women would have less access to the health benefits provided by birth control, affecting overall health outcomes.

Who are the freedom riders?

The Freedom Riders were civil rights activists who participated in the bus rides through the Southern States in the early 1960s. They aimed to challenge segregation laws that were already placed to see how they held up In the south. They particularly targeted bus rides and facilities. The Freedom Rides were a crucial part of the Civil Rights Movement and played a significant role in raising awareness about the injustices of segregation and pushing for change. 

The Freedom Riders went on a series of bus journeys through the States in 1961 to protest segregation in transportation facilities. Freedom Riders, both black and white activists, boarded buses together, breaking the local segregation laws that mandated separate seating for black and white passengers. They aimed to challenge these laws and practices, which were in violation of federal laws and Supreme Court rulings declaring segregation in travel was unconstitutional. The Freedom Riders deliberately tested segregation policies at bus terminals, restrooms, waiting areas, and restaurants along their routes. They sought to expose the rules and policies of Southern states and draw attention to the injustice and inequality faced by African Americans in the Jim Crow South. The Riders encountered violent protesters from white supremacists, including attacks by mobs, beatings, and firebombings of buses. Many were arrested and jailed for their participation in the rides. Despite the dangers, they remained committed to the cause and many continued their protests. All these mods caused national attention. The actions of the Freedom Riders attracted national and even international media attention, shining a spotlight on the brutality of the lives of African Americans in the South and the resistance to civil rights in the U.S.. Images of the violence endured by the Freedom Riders helped build up public opinion and build support for the civil rights movement. The Freedom Rides led to increased pressure on the federal government to enforce desegregation laws and protect the rights of African Americans. President Kennedy ultimately intervened to ensure the safety of the riders and enforce the desegregation on the buses. The Freedom Riders became symbols of hope in the face of violence and oppression in the South. Their actions inspired others to join the struggle for civil rights and helped the movement for racial equality in the United States. Overall, the Freedom Riders played a crucial role in challenging segregation and helping the cause of civil rights progress. The rides have left a lasting impact on the country’s history for the push for better civil rights.

Easter 60 years ago during the civil rights movement – your thoughts?

After reading this article, it is surprising and upsetting to acknowledge that this was reality only 60 years ago. On Easter day in 1964, three Black men were denied access to white churches in Mississippi, despite one of them being a minister. Not only were they barred from church, but they were harassed and humiliated by a white crowd outside of the church as well. An entirely different group of men was arrested for “trespassing” after being denied access to a separate church as well, two of them being black. On top of their arrest, they were also required to pay a $500 fine. The fact that these two events were only blocks apart suggests that countless more encounters like these ones happened all throughout the country, not only on Easter but every day. Since the Brown v Board of Education Supreme Court decision declared school segregation unconstitutional, it is evident that people’s implementation of segregation and willingness to cooperate with others that aren’t like them is rooted much deeper than people acknowledge. We like to blame centuries of segregation and racial injustice on powers out of our control. It is easy, and reasonable, to target the supreme court, government officials, and other higher up powers for the inequality that still shadows our nation today. However, events such as these highlight the dangers of implicit bias and social influence. I think that now that a lot of the more gruesome aspects of history are in the past, people like to find others to blame. Unfortunately, as seen through the Easter 10 years after the Brown v Board of Education decision, enforcing a law does not guarantee anything. Centuries of racial injustice, abuse, and segregation cannot be erased with a piece of legislation. With this being said, people need to evaluate their implicit biases and “us vs them” method of thinking before making excuses for their part in blatant discrimination. Even after segregation was outlawed, people and businesses still continued to impose it. There is a reason why there is a gap and terms such as de jure and de facto coined for people’s actions and common practices. When segregation was legal, people used it as an excuse to act however they wanted. After segregation was declared unconstitutional, it didn’t disappear. Overall, victims of racism and those denied from church on Easter day 1964 are clearly not to blame. I feel that the timing of this event highlights the true issue at hand, and despite the progress that has been made since then there are always and will likely always be things that can be done to help branch of from this period of history and move on to the ideal world where we are all treated equally and can experience the same privileges with no basis of race, sexuality, or gender.

Photojournalistic coverage of major topics of the 60’s – check out some of Flip Schulke’s work – what stands out to you?  what are some things that the still image communicates that words and even video sometimes misses?

The images suggest a relationship between the Berlin wall and the civil rights movement. The still picture of the wall represents the divide between Berlin and the pictures of civil rights protesters on one side and opposers on the other demonstrate the divide between America.  It is a very interesting comparison that makes all too much sense the more you think about it. The photographer made this connection after hearing Germans behind the wall singing the famous civil rights anthem.  The pictures of the Berlin wall really demonstrate the clash between communism and capitalism. The barbed wire and tall walls show how they want nothing to do with one another. While the pictures of the civil rights movement do a good job of showing the frustration that people had. While others show the happiness when they succeed. Together they show the overall division of the world during the 1960’s. 

(PYOT from a peer: As the study of psychology expanded in the 1960’s  much attention was paid to the case of “Kitty” Genovese, it dives into the “Bystander Effect”; what stands out to you?)

The murder case of Kitty Genovese involved the woman getting raped and killed, yet there were supposedly 37 individuals who saw the murder happen, and did nothing about it. This was incredibly shocking, and to the detectives of the case too, as a study on the Bystander Effect was initiated. What was so surprising was that 37 separate individuals saw, yet none of them assisted, which convinced psychologists that this was something related to the human mind of this generation. The Bystander Effect basically entails that when a person is not being directly asked for help and simply watches from a side, that person will not rush to help because they either are unfamiliar with the circumstances, not wanting to get involved, and/or because there are other people around, and they assume that someone else would get to helping the people. This ties in with the psychology of the human brain, something that needs to be broken to prevent this situation from happening again. Compassion and urgency in these cases are vital to save a life, although it’s worth acknowledging how tough a scenario like this would be; not knowing what the right choice is and whether you would be put into danger and make things worse are some thoughts that people may have. A result of this case was the creation of the line ‘911’, used in emergencies because they realized that bystanders may not know what to do in the meantime. It’s important to know that in a situation such as this, calling for help to a whole group may only cause unease and they may assume another person will call, and end up not doing so altogether. Instead, one should call for help to one single person of the group, as this will single them out and they would be more likely to get help. These types of situations may still happen today, through confrontational manners and emergencies; one main cause of the bystander effect is that if the witness’s life is not being threatened or disturbed, they are at ease. If they were to confront this emergency however, action would be required and decisions would need to be made, they do not know how people will react or how the situation would turn out, and they would be further questioned, thus amplifying their desire to remain ignorant.

What were the roles of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. during the Civil Rights movement? Do you think the movement would have had different results if it was not for them?

Rosa parks is known for her act of defiance on December 1, 1955, when she refused to give up her seat to a white passenger on a Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott.

Martin Luther King Jr. is best known for emerging as a leader of the boycott and became the most visible spokesperson and leader in the civil rights movement. He advocated for nonviolent protest, he also gave his famous “I have a dream” speech.

I don’t think it would have had different results because without them the movement might have lacked some of its most powerful moments and symbols.

Speaking of “blue collar” perspectives, your thoughts on the “Hard Hats” of the early 70’s? any modern-day examples/analogies?

I feel that the Hard Hat riot shouldn’t have happened and that the construction workers shouldn’t be using violence to get what they want. As a result, 70 people would be trampled or injured during this peaceful protest. The construction men could have taken a different method of getting what they wanted instead of resorting to violence. I sense that since this was captured on TV many people would have agreed with the younger University students as they were peacefully protesting also, I’m in the same age range so I resonate with the students more compared to the older patriotic construction men who are supposedly Vietnam war veterans. The flag was halfway down before the riot and in the aftermath of this event, the flag would rise fully to the top again. I guess you could say that the capital siege that happened when many people wanted Trump to win was similar to the Hard Hats event. In both events, people acted on their own will to get what they wanted and one succeeded while the other didn’t.

What were the roles of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. during the Civil Rights movement? Do you think the movement would have had different results if it was not for them?

It is hard to say for sure what would have happened if Rosa Parks or MLK were not in the picture. African Americans wanted someone to root for. They were fed up with being mistreated and they didn’t care who it was. Rosa Parks became a symbol of resilience in the civil rights movement, because she was the first to refuse to move to the back of the bus. This sparked the next 13 months of sit-in protests in the city of Montgomery.  While her role was very important I think there would still have been the same outcome whether or not she did what she did. As I said before, African Americans were already fed up and Rosa Parks was just the spark that started it. There were many other people who also played the role of a “symbol” or figurehead of why they are fighting for justice. Such as Emmit Till, the African American boy who was murdered. On the other hand I think MLK is irreplaceable. There are very few people who would be able to do even a fraction of what he managed to accomplish. He made massive strides by organizing peaceful movements with the goal of getting a reaction. This way he could gain even more public support for what he was trying to do. Television and media was able to spread these ideas around the nation, opening many peoples eyes to what was happening. This pressured legislators into making civil rights bills to try to ease what was happening.  MLK’s role was essential, he worked tirelessly and thoughtfully to achieve his goals. He was an incredible speaker and through it became a figurehead of the entire movement. Without him the movement might not have had nearly as much support and would not have achieved as much as it did.

How did the space race influence and impact American Society? Along with that, how did it build a sort of competition between the Soviet Union and United States?

The space race had a huge impact on American Society and started a big competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. They were both racing to conquer as much space as possible. This included advancements in technology. During this time, space exploration reached a new height. The United States put so much time and effort into the research and development of space exploration, leading to advancements in rocket technology, satellite technology, and computer science. These innovations and advancements not only had benefits on space exploration, but also had impacts on economic growth.

Another effect of the space race was on education and STEM. The space race brought more education and interest to the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math inside the United States. The US government and schools placed more emphasis on these STEM subjects. This led to more support/funding for science education. This affected the American education system and produced a new generation of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians as a result.

The competitiveness of the space race was also tied to the Cold War rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. It acted almost as a playing field to show technology and ideologies. Both also fought for better and faster achievements in space exploration. For example, the first man on the moon. This caused both nations to invest lots of money and resources into space research and programs.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0265964622000492 

This article talks about how the space race brought national pride and identity. Both the United States and the Soviet Union saw the space race as a way to showcase their superiority over one another. National pride was celebrated in different ways. It was celebrated when the first satellite launched in space, Sputnik. Also when the first human made it in space, Yuri Gagarin. They were not only trying to compete with each other, but they both wanted to make their home turf proud.

I just learned from this article that Yuri Gagarin was the first human in space. Before doing further research, I thought that Neil Armstrong was the first human in space. But, it turns out he was just the first one to step on the moon, not actually the first one to be in space.

What were the roles of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. during the Civil Rights movement? Do you think the movement would have had different results if it was not for them?

Both Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. played crucial roles in the civil rights movement. Rosa Parks became an iconic figure in the movement when she refused to give up her seat on the bus to the white man. This sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott. This action helped start the larger civil rights movement for racial equality. Martin Luther King Jr. was a very strong civil rights leader who advocated for safe, nonviolent protests, where he delivered his powerful speeches. This leadership was a huge part in the advancement of the civil rights movement.

I would say that it is very hard to say how the civil rights movement would have played out without these two majorly influential leaders. These two were two of the most influential people to bring attention to the social inequalities that African Americans faced. The contributions by these two brought together a huge support system for this cause and brought significant change. These two were definitely not the only two heavily influential people that led and participated in the civil rights movements, but it would be very hard to say how it would’ve infolded without them. 

With that being said, I don’t think the civil rights movement would have achieved the same level of success without Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. They brought attention to the inequalities that African Americans faced at the time and brought so many people together to support their cause. Like I said before, it definitely took more than just these two, but I do not believe it would have been as successful without them stepping up.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/eyesontheprize-people-civil-rights-movement/ 

This article talks about other leaders and activists during the civil rights movement. A few that stood out to me were Malcolm X (who we talked about in class), Ella Baker, and Fannie Lou Hamer. Malcolm X was very similar to Martin Luther King Jr. They both fought for black power and called out social inequalities. The difference was, Malcolm X preached for self-defense and threatened the white people in power. He didn’t go out and actually threaten them, but in his speeches, the way he worded it, it made it sound like threats. He spoke for more violent protests than Martin Luther King Jr. 

Ella Baker believed in the power of her community coming together. She was one of the founders of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, where she served as the executive director. She believed in young black people taking stronger leadership roles and she encouraged them to join in the fight for equality.

Fannie Lou Hamer was a fighter in voting rights and racial equality, specifically in Mississippi. Growing up, she faced adversity and discrimination. She founded the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, which challenged the all-white Democratic Party in the state. She brought to light the struggles faced by African Americans in her statement at the Democratic National Convention in 1964. This inspired so many people.

There were so many other people involved in the civil rights movement, but these three stood out the most to me. 

Easter 60 years ago during the civil rights movement – your thoughts?

Thinking back to Easter 60 years ago during the civil rights movement brings up a mix of sadness, frustration, and respect for those who stood against racial unfairness. The events in Jackson, Mississippi, and St. Augustine, Florida, show a clear picture of the deep segregation and unfair treatment that existed in many parts of the United States at that time.

The actions of the churches in Jackson, turning away Black worshipers and their supporters, and the resulting arrests and harsh punishments by the legal system highlight the systemic racism deeply embedded in both religious and societal structures. It’s disheartening to see how people trying to express their faith were met with such hostility and violence simply because of the color of their skin.

However, amidst this darkness, there’s also a glimmer of hope in the courage and determination shown by those who resisted segregation and fought for civil rights. The bravery of Bishop Golden, Bishop Matthews, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and many others to challenge the status quo and demand equality is inspiring. Their actions paved the way for significant legislative victories like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, while not completely ending racial discrimination, marked an important step forward in the ongoing fight for justice and equality.

Reflecting on these events reminds us of the importance of being vigilant in protecting and advancing civil liberties for everyone, as well as the ongoing work needed to confront and dismantle systems of oppression. It’s a testament to the resilience and determination of those who have fought for justice throughout history and a call to continue their legacy by working towards a more just and equitable society.

It’s important to recognize the impact of these historic events on current perspectives. As we reflect on Easter 60 years ago during the civil rights movement, it’s evident that while progress has been made, systemic racism and discrimination still exist in various forms today. My view on these events is one of profound sadness for the injustices endured by Black people and their allies, but also one of admiration for their resilience and courage in the face of adversity. It’s a reminder that the struggle for racial equality is ongoing and requires collective action and vigilance from all members of society. These events compel me to reflect on my own role in challenging injustice and advocating for a more equitable and inclusive future.

Was the “Great Sociey” Successful?

The “Great Society”‘s success may be evaluated using a range o viewpoints. President Lyndon B. Johnson launched it in the 1960s with the intention of addressing problems like racial inequality, poverty, and access to healthcare and education. While some question its cause or consequences, others say that it has produced great progress in these areas. Lyndon Johnson wanted to become the best president ever witch is the main cause why he pushed this so hard. The Great Society era saw civil rights legislation, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which aimed to end racial segregation and protect voting rights for African Americans. Even tho they were passed many people tought it wasn’t enough. Although Programs like Medicare, Medicaid were started to combat poverty and improve access to healthcare and education for low-income Americans. These initiatives helped reduce poverty rates and improve health outcomes for many people. Strong economic development in the US during the Great Society helped get millions of people out of poverty and increase the size of the middle class in the country. 

However, there were many criticisms of the Great Society. several believe that unintended effects of several Great Society initiatives, such as welfare legislation, influence some people to no get jobs or work hard to get out of poverty. Also Despite progress on civil rights legislation, racial inequality was still in effect and in some cases worsened during the Great Society era because people were thinking the protesters were coming to radical . Issues such as housing discrimination in inner citys and unequal access to quality education remained significant challenges even after this era. Even with all the achievements The expansion of government programs under the Great Society contributed to increased government spending and deficits, leading to concerns about fiscal sustainability and long-term economic growth of the country. Many people tought it was a waste of money and time to work on poor people. 

Overall, the Great Society had both successes and shortcomings, and opinions on its legacy vary depending on one’s perspective and priorities

The annual “World Happiness” report is out… America lost ground – but one group of Americans expressed greater levels of satisfaction than others; why do you think this was the case? What contrasts the “happiest” nations from the US and why might most Americans be getting less “happy”? Share your thoughts on any of these Qs

The article discusses the 2024 World Happiness Report, which shows that overall happiness in the United States has decreased, with older Americans reporting higher levels of happiness than younger ones. This decline in happiness among younger people might be due to concerns about issues like climate change and politics, which can feel overwhelming. However, it’s encouraging to see that in some places, younger individuals are finding ways to stay positive and work towards a better future. In my opinion, it’s crucial for society to address these concerns and support younger generations in finding happiness and hope amidst challenges.

The annual “World Happiness” report is out… America lost ground – but one group of Americans expressed greater levels of satisfaction than others; why do you think this was the case?  What contrasts the “happiest” nations from the US and why might most Americans be getting less “happy”? Share your thoughts on any of these Qs

The report recorded lower levels of happiness among young adult to middle aged individuals, but an increase of happiness among the older generation creating a graph in the shape of a smile 🙂, minus the eyes. The initial spike is due to the younger generation, because kids are often happy and have nothing to worry about, and best of all, no taxes to pay. In fact The U.S is only ranked 62nd for happiest citizens under 30, but 10th for happiest above 60. Overall though the U.S has fallen from 15th happiest country to 23rd in 2024.

The happiness spike among the elderly is likely due to the increased social support, and retirement. Older people are also, but not always, less involved in the more recent political turmoil, as a lot of politics happen online now, and older people use technology less. Of course the usage of social media probably decreases happiness for more that political reasons i’d assume older folk are more distanced from Twitter drama, and whatever argument is going on around the internet.

The main reason for happiness among the U.S elderly is most likely the Social Security however, as older people are less likely to be financial trouble, and have gotten passed the struggles of building a small, or large “fortune,” before retirement. This is backed up by the polls, which show Scandinavian countries like the #1 happiest country this year, Finland offer extensive healthcare and social security to all citizens, and remain the happiest despite large taxes.

The dip in the graph is likely caused by the lack of such security, and the rising taxes within the U.S despite a lack of, but not absence of affordable healthcare, and social security for the middle aged population. Of course the power is in the hands of the people, which is likely another reason for a decrease in happiness. Rather than all agreeing of one economic system, one that doesn’t even have to be like Finland, The U.S has instead divided itself into two factions, represented by political parties most of the time, that constantly fight about what changes are better rather than just coming together as a nation.

Of course not everyone is going to be happy, but having a division as great as the one in our country, is evidently hurting general happiness even more. I’m not a politician so I don’t know how to solve this issue, but with a growing divide between democrats and republicans, happiness rates may continue to decline, because economic issues are harder to solve when we keep working back and forth. Or maybe we can solve the happiness issue by all acting like children, they seem pretty happy.

A closer to home incident of racial injustice – what stands out to you from this story, and is it as relevant today as some of the folks in the article think? What do you think??

What stands out to me is the fact that many people like Bill Russell deserve to have this honor because of the horrible way he was treated in reading when he was in his prime time. He should get recognized as a great figure for his crazy troubled past. This was supposed to be a good thing and even have a special day along with a big party but it never happened. It kept getting pushed back and he was met with racism. I feel like this story is relevant today as some parties planed for people of color might get pushed back a little bit or the date changed. It might not be as drastic as back then but I feel like it’s still possible today for something like this to happen due to their color. I still can’t believe these people were breaking into their house and writing slurs on their wall. They were also smashing his father’s trophies. Good thing they would eventually leave reading in 1969.

(What were the roles of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. during the Civil Rights movement? Do you think the movement would have had different results if it was not for them?)

These people were advocates of civil rights and protested through nonviolent ways. Rosa Parks began the Montgomery bus boycott, where she refused to giveup her bus seat to a white man, believing it should be first come first served. This one action from one black woman inspired others to challenge segregation too through public transporation and other nonviolent methods such as the Greensboro sit-ins at the bar four years later. Rosa Parks was a well trained civil rights activist who despite being under pressure and arrested several times due to poorly enforced laws, would remain calm to rebel against these authorities. In fact, her arrests seemingly increased the fight for civil rights. Her thought process was to find out what rights she had as a human being and citizen of the United States and find the boundaries of freedom that America advertised. Her mindset and ability to do this without violence was inspirational for others and gained the favor of those who felt uncomfortable with violence, and gained the favor of white Americans who began to sympathize with their movement. Martin Luther King Jr., too, was an advocate for racial equality through pacifism, due to his religious beliefs. Like Rosa Parks, he held boycott, sit-ins, and marches as campaigns. Even though he had been through multiple arrests and life-or-death experiences, such as being stabbed in the chest while attending his book-signing, he bore no ill will and it only affirmed his dedication to nonviolence. To him, it only showed that social changes were required, with peace being the goal. I think that if they were not there as major nonviolent civil right leaders, the movement would be a lot different and may take different approaches, especially if other, more radical leaders took more control, such as Malcolm X, who had constantly belittled MLK for his passive ways. While it is possible for other nonviolent leaders would arise, they may be less motivated if they don’t gain enough support, as the initial mindsets of MLK and Rosa Parks were something not all people had to begin with. The movement may have had more violence or just remained stagnant as it was. Something that really hastened the movement as well was the actual assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., and after his death, riots swept across the country and a national day of mourning was given, showing just how much of an impact that MLK had on the citizens. The world has many followers, but few leaders. If no one is there to inspire the followers, then nothing would happen.

Take a deeper look at the history of the anti-abortion movement  – your thoughts? Connections to today? 

I have a lot of thoughts on this topic but I’m only going to coversome . 

The first one is that I am in full support of this movement. The idea of abortion has become more and more executed as the years have gone on. The worst part about it is people don’t know what they’re really doing. Some believe that the baby is not alive until the woman or mother gives birth, however there is scientific evidence that the baby has a heartbeat and is alive before the woman gives birth. People need to open up their eyes and stop doing things just because it’s accepted by some people. One of the biggest issues and ideas that has taken a toll on what women think and choose to do is the idea of feminism. These feminists are all over social media and other platforms to try to change or alter the way a woman thinks. 

Feminism is the advocacy of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. Now the idea of this is that women can do the same things men can and should have the same rights men can. Now feminism has targeted women at younger ages and has forced women to believe and think a certain way, this causes the idea of abortion to be viewed as ok or the right thing to do by women if you are incapable or not ready yet. Here’s Another example of just how crazy this idea is and how it makes no sense ( if a woman wants the same rights as a man, and wants to have the same responsibilities then what happens when a girl slaps a man? If the woman wants to be seen as equal to the man then he will have no problem slapping back) but here’s the even crazier thing, they still say it’s wrong for a man to hit a woman which makes no sense because they just said they wanted to be seen as equal. I don’t believe a woman or a man could be FULLY satisfied living alone, it’s just not what we were designed for. So therefore I believe women need men just as much as men need women, and both genders have responsibilities. 

 This problem with feminism isn’t the only thing causing women to believe abortion is ok, it’s the social media, the internet, and even some of the things we teach in school. 

There also another way to fix this, if you don’t want to even have to think or consider getting abortion, or you can’t stand the idea of having a baby, maybe your to young or old, or you are not in a good financial situation, then don’t do any activities that may result in that baby being made. 

Overall I am still in full support of this movement and will hopefully look to the day people finally see how cruel and sick this life ending choice is. 

Take a look at these links regarding seminal early 70’s SC cases on the death penalty, abortion, and obscenity issues – your thoughts on those cases’ decisions, and current discussions around these issues?

Before I followed the links to look at these issues and discussions, I already knew that these are some of the heaviest issues we had back then and today. I chose to cover 2 of the 3 topics listed. 

The death penalty has been around for forever, and has changed the criminal justice system for better and for worse. This has brought a new idea of punishment for crimes not just jail time could replace or fix. In my opinion the death penalty is not the right thing to do to someone. I believe everyone deserves a chance at forgiveness. Now don’t get me wrong , I’m not saying let someone out of prison, I’m just saying give them an opportunity to be forgiven. Even if they have a life sentence they can still be forgiven and hopefully learn from their mistakes..

Abortion has been around since roughly 1970. This is a process in which you take a shot or a pill to kill the baby inside of you so you don’t have to give birth. This is something that can be accessed nationwide and has been something people have been doing for a long time. I believe this is one of the bigger issues the nation faces. My thoughts on this are that it is a big problem and not something people should be doing. Many people believe that the baby inside is not alive until the woman gives birth, people have been believing this false idea for the longest time however it has been scientifically proven that that is not the case. While the baby is inside the moms stomach it has a heartbeat and is living. If abortion is made legal/continues to be legal, we will be killing many many babies. I hate to say it but if you don’t want a baby then just don’t engage in any sort of activity that could result in you making that baby.

What were the roles of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. during the Civil Rights movement? Do you think the movement would have had different results if it was not for them?

Rosa Parks would stay on the bus after being told to leave her seat for a white person, she would get arrested but in the process she promoted the idea of resisting authorities for a better cause. Also after she stayed in her seat it spared many others to do the same and start the first protests against the segregation laws. Martin Luther King, a pacifist, and wouldn’t use violence to get what he wants. He would target specific cities to spark them to attack the protests so then the TV’s can capture what’s going on and make people question that they might be on the wrong side. He would create and promote these non-violent peace protests that would hope to achieve their goals. He would try to get all the blacks to not ride the bus which would get 99 percent blacks to not to ride the bus. This would be called the Montgomery Bus Boycott. This would eventually force the Buses to push for desegregation to help with their economic problems. Many of these boy-cotters would walk and ride busses to get to their locations. He also helped Indians to engage in nonviolent protests.

“What was the “hippie” lifestyle, and how did it impact fashion, lifestyle, and values in the 1960s? Was it only the youth who were turning to “hippies” or was it people other from them?” 

The hippie lifestyle movement started during the counterculture movement. Hippie was a derogatory term used to refer to rebellious young people involved in the counterculture in the 1960s and 1970s. However, it is no longer used as an insult and the term refers to more as a style. Many young people during this time were against most of the social and political norms. The main Ideas of hippies were free expression, experimentation, and creating a healthy and welcoming environment for all people. They were also anti-war, and anti-consumerism. Many people in this lifestyle, wore the classic hippie style of clothing and dealt with drug abuse and experimentation of drugs. The hippie movement was mostly full of baby boomers who had just become an adult and started to act rebellious.

How was the “baby boom” generation different from previous generations?

The group born after World War II, between 1946 and 1964, is known as the “baby boom” generation. This generation is different from earlier ones for several reasons. Compared to earlier generations, the population has significantly increased due to the high birth rates experienced by the baby boomers. This is because people were coming back from war. The economic boom that followed the soldiers’ arrival caused expanding families, which were encouraged by government efforts to increase population expansion. This was also before birth control so there were more pregnancies. This was far different from other generations since there were so many more people. A lot of baby boomers were born within a period of economic growth, especially in the US, when the white middle class and the post-war economic growth were unlike the last generation who lived in the great depression. Production was at a rapid pace. This caused the Baby boomers to be involved in the quick advancement of technology, which included the introduction of television and space exploration. These brought the community together. This idea of groupthink caused This generation to experience significant cultural changes, including the civil rights movement, the change of sexual ideals, and the women’s movement. People started seeing sex as more of a choice and for fun rather than just for recreation. Because of this, they witnessed shifts in family structures. This is because more women are entering the workforce and changes in traditional gender roles in families. Also, Advances in healthcare and medicine during the baby boom era contributed to increased life expectancy compared to previous generations. There was more government support and life expectancy was higher. Also, higher education was being supported and colleges were advancing. Overall, the baby boom generation was different by its massive size of population, its influence on culture and society, and its experiences of economic prosperity, social change, and technological innovation. These factors were far different for the generation before and this caused a large generational gap. 

What are some of the underlying causes of America joining the war? Was America joining the war inevitable?

America was already having smaller issues with China and other countries at the time. However the bombing of major naval base Pearl Harbor was evidently the straw that broke the camel’s back, and almost forced the US into war with japan. America didn’t really show to much interest into joining the war before the bombing. The US had an isolationist mood.

Why do you think Native Americans have served in the US armed forces in disproportionate numbers?

I think that the disproportionate numbers are because of two things, the first and main one being the fact that many of them were drafted and forced into the military to fight and help. The second in some felt the need to fight for their homeland and fight for their families who live in the country “This is a deep patriotism, a belief that, despite all that has happened, the United States can be better, and we want to be part of that,” this quote really shows that even though some parts of the united states are forcing them out of their homes, they know and feel like the US can be better and still want to have patriotism and fight for there country. One last reason is that many native americans grew up with their former family members fighting in tribes, so by fighting in the military they view it in a similar way as fighting for their tribe and  will carry on the ways of their family and tribe. 

What lessons can we learn from the events and the aftermath of World War II? How do you think they shape global politics and conflicts today?

PYOT(s) from GE:

America does so much right and wrong to result in learning lessons. However I feel like when it came to the effects and aftermath of world war 2 we learned three main ones. The first being that everything takes time, developing bombs, space craft, training for the military and more. Do to everything needing time, we learned that we only have so much of it and might need to do things rapidly, this leads into are second lesson we learned which is that they wanted to avoid war at all costs, realizing how deadly war has and could become with the new atomic bombs and strategies, they learned to avoid war always. And the third was we learned how important having allies is and was. 

These shape the way we do politics today Because maybe somebody would want a president with more military experience or somebody that will have better strategy and be able to avoid war. And if war started how would they handle it. 

PYOT from a peer (and Mr Sak): Why are more male babies born in the 1st years of the “baby boom”   following WW2?  Check out the links and share your thoughts

According to these articles, more male babies were born in the 1st years of the “baby boom” because there was many tall male soldiers returning from war, and if you were a tall male you were more likely to have a male baby. This is pretty shocking to me, and I wouldn’t expect this to be the reason why there were more male babies born. I would have never thought that being tall would lead to a likelier chance of having a male baby.

What are your thoughts – is the term “blue collar”    outdated? Which arguments from the article seem most  persuasive? 

I believe that the term “blue collar” is outdated, and I agree that people should just say essential workers, or even just say what they do, like a construction worker, or a metalworker. The jobs from the term “blue collar” require skill and practice, and many of them are essential in our country. I feel like when someone hears “blue collar” they do not think the job is important, and think the person working it is not a hard worker or not smart, or things like that, which is just not true. There is also negative media articles and pictures that persuade people to think this way. Along with that, getting a “blue collar” job can be a lot of a better option for people, because it doesn’t require going to college, which some people really don’t want to do. If you go to a trade/tech school, you can get a job right out of high school, and you have a better chance to work up to a high position and make a good living for yourself faster than a lot of people. For some blue collar jobs, the average salary is up to 70k, which is a really good living for people, and if you work up to it you can even make more than that.

Owning a home was a centerpiece of the “American Dream” in the 1950’s – is it no longer? share your thoughts on this growing trend, and what it might mean for the country going forward

I believe that the concept of the “American Dream” has changed dramatically from the early 1900s, to now. Along with that, I feel like now almost everyone has a different idea of the American Dream. In the 1900s, the American Dream to many people was being a middle class family, with typically around 2 kids, and a wife or husband, and owning a white picket fence house in the suburbs. Many people also believed the American Dream was working a white-collar job. Now, to some people the American Dream is still owning a house, and having a “happy” family with good kids, but many people also have a different idea of it. To me, the American Dream wouldn’t be working a 9-5 job, and owning a house, but maybe having a job I actually enjoy, thats remote, and I can travel around the country, doing things I enjoy, and maybe having an apartment, but to me the American Dream would not be to own a house. To many people the American Dream would just to be to have your dream job, or go to your dream school.

There is also the concept that the American Dream doesn’t exist, and never has. Some people think it was just a tactic to get people to move to the US. Many people who were living the American Dream were also not happy with it, because they would work so much and try so much to make money that they didn’t have time or room in their life for anything else.

Check out a/o revisit (from assignment) your thoughts on the “Lavender Scare“, and describe how its both tied to the “Red Scare”, and lasts long beyond it too – include your thoughts regarding this less than stellar aspect of our country’s history:   

The “Lavender Scare” was another scare during the time of the Cold war where many people were laid off of multiple different jobs for being gay, or even just accused of being gay. Joseph McCarthy, who was a big contributor is accusing people of being communists in the red scare, also accused many people of being gay at this time, and claimed that gay people could not hold government secrets well. Being gay was obviously not supported by a majority of the population in the 19I50s, so of course they were the first to blame of not being able to handle secrets well. People who were gay also were not really given a choice to come out or not when being questioned and their job was at stake. They had to answer yes or no, and weren’t allowed a lawyer either. Sometimes security officials even went so far as to threaten their families and blackmail them. Other people had to give up jobs or positions they had been working very hard for because they were worried someone would find out they were part of the LGBT community, and they didn’t want any trouble to come their way. Some people after being outed ended their lives, which is extremely sad, and no one was doing anything about it. There was not one single time that a LGBT person had spied for the communist government or exposed secrets that was documented. This was clearly not an issue of espionage, but an issue of morality and civil rights.

I think that the Lavender Scare connects to the Red Scare because they are both accusations of people spying for communists or sharing government secrets, and surprisingly enough both scares were started or heavily influenced by Joseph McCarthy. With the Red Scare, really anyone could be accused of being a communist, or sharing government secrets, and with the Lavender Scare, many people were accused of being gay, or were gay and outed for it, so they would be fired from their government job because according to McCarthy, gay people were more likely to share government secrets.

I think that the fact that gay people were the first to be accused of espionage is really messed up, and shows something about our society then. I believe that something similar to this is still going on today, obviously not the same thing, but people of the LGBT community are still very discriminated against. Many people out people from the community, which in a way was what the Lavender Scare was doing because people did not have the choice to come out or not. Hundreds of thousands of people still do not support the LGBT community and will not come to their defense when being accused of something, or shamed for something. I believe that although it is not the same as the Lavender Scare today, aspects from it still linger within our society with discrimination around every corner for some people in the community.

Take a look at this article about Stanislav Petrov – the unknown man who saved the world.  What would’ve happened if someone else was on duty? What would the world look like today?

I am almost confident that if anyone other than Stanislav Petrov was on duty, the alarm would have been raised and the Soviet Union would have retaliated. Though it is a good thing that Petrov was on call, it also raises a question: was his decision brave or idiotic? On one hand, he wasn’t 100% that he was only receiving a false alarm, meaning that he made the decision he made believing that the alarm could have been real and avoiding contacting Soviet officials. On the other hand, this clearly could also be classified as idiotic, as he did not follow orders or inform Soviet’s when he had the chance to. To be completely honest, I don’t know which one I would say it was, and classifying it as “brave” seems to be the solution simply because we are biased from knowing the outcome. If the alarm had been real, many more people would probably refer to Petrov’s decision as idiotic. However, being put on such a high demand, an important task makes his decision admirable, no matter how brave or idiotic it was. Most people probably would have alarmed the Soviet Union without any hesitation. However, due to Petrov’s quick and reasonable thinking, he was able to avoid the potential unjustified Soviet retaliation. If they had retaliated to nothing, this could have launched a nuclear war that would have serious detriment on society then and today. Health wise specifically, damages like those seen from uranium blasting near the Navajo Nation would most likely been seen all over, with radiation contaminating and overpowering everyone’s lives. Additionally, tension between the US and USSR would have been taken entirely to the next level. Overall, it is fascinating to think about how one person’s last-minute thinking and quick decision making can change the entire course of history and the future. This leads me to wonder what other historical atrocities, if any, could have been avoided if the right person had been there at the right time, rather than the wrong person at the wrong time.

A deeper dive into what it was like to be  Jackie Robinson – your thoughts? What stands out?

After reading this article, I find Jackie Robinson to be even more admirable than he had been before. In his lifetime, he experienced numerous hardships and setbacks that, for most people, would deter them from striving for success or discourage them from aiming to achieve their goals. However, this was not the case for Robinson, and one thing that stood out to me for why this could be were all of the positive figures in his life. Starting with his childhood, Robinson was raised by a motivated, hardworking, independent single mother of five. However, with only herself (especially as a woman who made around half of what men made) to take care of five children, it is no surprise that his family lived in poverty. This taught him from a young age what it was like to experience racism. Even though his childhood was far from perfect, having a mom like Jackie Robinsons seems as if it would be highly influential and inspirational later on in his life. For college, his strict money interfered with completing his education at UCLA, where he roomed with Tuskegee Airman Roger B. Terry and played 4 sports. Being surrounded by one of the first Black American military aviators of the time would have had its influence as well. Being surrounded by pioneers such as Terry most likely encouraged him on his journey to becoming a pioneer himself. This happened in 1945 when Brooklyn Dodgers manager Branch Rickey handpicked Robinson to break the color barrier in baseball. Rickey, another influential figure in Robinson’s life, granted him the opportunity to become a pioneer. He also became a good friend, which was most likely essential to Robinson in the years after signing his contract. Due to breaking the color barrier, Robinson received a lot of backlash from both the public and opponents. Racism prevailed and many members of society had no shame in letting Robinson and his family know where they stood. For instance, pitchers on the other team would aim the baseball at his head, while the common public would write death threats to his family. Additionally, he was unable to participate in certain team bonding events due to segregation. Overall, while harsh experiences like these were most likely mentally draining and discouraging, Jackie Robinson never showed it. He always powered through and showed us, time after time, that he was dedicated to the Civil Rights Movement and everything else he was ever passionate about. His story is inspiring, and while I am confident that almost all of his success was a result of internal motivation, key figures in his life stood out to me as influences to him as well.

Regarding nuclear weapons – info on the 9 biggest explosions in our planet’s history (excluding things like dinosaur-killing asteroids that is…) – your thoughts?

I already find it insane that there are probably more than 9000 nukes on the planet today. In my whole hearted opinion I don’t really agree with this, as much as it is a strength to threaten with nukes, with so many being around, and with how powerful today if only a few of those were used, the whole planet would be destroyed and that’s just insane, I don’t believe we should be allowed to hold a weapon so powerful that this could happen. I know its important because of the fear of war but being able to destroy the whole human population over a dispute…

A few of the bombs that fascinated me were the Tsar bomb, the castle Yankee, and the Ivy Mike.

Tsar bomb-tested by the soviets this bomb is the most powerful one today, well at least since this article came out, being 3300 more powerful then the Hiroshima bomb. I just find this really really scary Ima be honest, I just don’t understand why countries keep testing bombs more powerful then the rest, it’s not getting anyone anywhere, I believe bombs should not be allowed to pass a certain power, because for a country to be allowed to hold a weapon so powerful is insane….I know in some cases like in the US multiple people need to do something in order for the bombs to set off, not one person can do it because of the power the nukes hold, but we don’t know to much about Russia, we don’t know how many hold the power, one person definitely should not be allowed to hold this sort of power of setting of a weapon so powerful it can destroy the planet.

Castle Yankee, I find this bomb testing so upsetting the fact that the population of people had to be moved in order for it to be tested…and that it still remains a radioactive area so people couldn’t move back, these testings are destroying the planet, we worry so much of global warming yet not to much is said about what the testing of these bombs is doing. I mean look at Chernobyl, people still cant live there decades later because of the radioactivity.

Ivy Mike-The first thermonuclear bomb, so the first hydrogen bomb, though this bomb was created because of the race between the soviets and the US during the Korean war, I still just find it upsetting we started to create Hydrogen weapons, even Oppenheimer warned of this power the hydrogen weapons would hold and that in all honesty its better not to test their power, but of course no one listened and now we have thousands of them. I know war calls for trying to create fear, but its just insane how far these bombs have gotten, I mean the creation of them was one thing and though I could not tell you if it could be excused or not what happened to Japan I believe the war needed to be stopped, I just personally cannot answer for if what the US did was needed or not as it is highly debatable, but I do think the creation of them now is insane, nearly every high up country has a bomb now, so strong and I really just don’t see a point when in the end if a nuclear war were to start the whole planet would like said, be destroyed

PYOT from SK: Take a look at this article about Stanislav Petrov – the unknown man who saved the world.  What would’ve happened if someone else was on duty? What would the world look like today?

If someone else had been on duty they might’ve not made the same call. They would’ve viewed the false report as an American attack on the USSR and reported it to their superiors for them to take action. The USSR would have responded with an attack on the United States, and would’ve made the Cold War not so cold. There definitely would have been a war between the US and the USSR since tensions were already so high between the two. Today, there would be a higher fear of communism and much more hatred towards it. If there had been a war, people in America would be much more afraid of communists and what they could do. Also, there would be a lot more hatred and discrimination towards Russians from Americans, and vice versa. I think there would also be higher tensions between the two countries, and the relationship may not be amicable.

PYOT from a peer (and Mr Sak): Why are more male babies born in the 1st years of the “baby boom”   following WW2?  Check out the links and share your thoughts

More male babies are born in the first years after WWII because the returning soldiers are taller. Being tall is linked to having more male children, which is why there were more male babies born. This increase in height reminded me of the Revolutionary War and how the height decreased. During the revolutionary war, taller people were typically shot and killed more frequently than shorter men because they were an easy target. A taller man had more area to shoot at, and the guns back then were not accurate so a stray bullet was more likely to hit a taller man than a short man. They also used taller men as shields from the onslaught of bullets during a battle.

How did the Involvement of different countries change the course of World War Two? Do you think the war would have ended differently if America never joined it?

I think the war would have ended differently had America never joined it. America joined due to Pearl Harbor being bombed by the Japanese, and ended up declaring war on Japan, and thus on Germany. At this point in the war, the Allies were exhausted and their resources were dropping. However, America was an untouched resource with many willing and able fighters as well as resources available. Also, America was not exhausted from fighting like France and Britain were. The Allies were supplied with a lot more troops and resources. WIthout America, the war would’ve continued on for much longer, and the Axis powers may have even won. Germany was much more advanced than the Allies and had a lot of troops. They were also winning a lot of battles which boosted morale. With the Americans joining the war with their fervor and resources, they could beat the Germans along with the Allies.

What stands out about the similarities and differences in women’s roles compared to the 1950s suburbia lifestyle vs today?

Several things stand out to me, reflecting on the similarities and differences in women’s roles between the 1950s suburbia lifestyle and today.

In the 1950s, women were often expected to fulfill traditional roles as homemakers and caregivers. They were primarily responsible for cooking, cleaning, and raising children, while their husbands worked outside the home. This was reinforced by societal norms and expectations that limited women’s opportunities for education and employment.

Today, while some aspects of women’s roles have evolved, there are still similarities with the past. Women continue to juggle multiple responsibilities, including managing households and caring for children. However, there have been significant changes as well.

One notable difference is the increased participation of women in the workforce. Compared to the 1950s, more women today are pursuing higher education and pursuing careers outside the home. This has led to greater economic independence and opportunities for women to pursue their passions and goals beyond traditional gender roles.

Furthermore, there’s a greater emphasis today on gender equality and challenging traditional gender norms. Women are advocating for equal rights, opportunities, and representation in various sectors of society, including politics, business, and media. There’s also a growing recognition of the value of unpaid labor traditionally performed by women, such as caregiving and domestic work.

Despite these advancements, challenges remain, including gender wage gaps, unequal distribution of household responsibilities, and societal expectations regarding women’s roles and appearance. However, the progress made since the 1950s highlights the resilience and determination of women in shaping their own destinies and challenging outdated norms.

I believe it’s essential to continue promoting gender equality and challenging stereotypes to create a more inclusive and equitable society where everyone, regardless of gender, has the opportunity to thrive and pursue their dreams.

Take a look at the graphs linked here concerning the difference in baby booms after the pandemic as compared to different states. What do you think caused such drastic difference in states?

States that had a fertility decrease were democratic states with most nonwhite residents that practiced more social distancing. While states that had the fertility rate increase was the opposite. They were most republicans compared to republican states with less nonwhite residents and less social distancing. States that leaned to the democratic side saw covid as more of s threat. due to this the democrats had a fertility decrease by taking more precautions. People that were financially unstable after covid also influenced a fertility decrease by the decision of not having children due to not being able to afford it. something that may also be taken into consideration is that a lot of births in the US may be from immigrants who travel here to give birth, and so there may also have been a decrease in births due to those not being able to travel to the US. In the states that there was a fertility decrease the rates went back to normal after covid which shows that what most affected the rates was covid and how it affected economics and social life in democratic and republican states.

Revisit the questions, content, and in class convos regarding slide 3 of the U8 presentation – are “rivalries” good or bad for us?  what’s the line between “rivals” and “enemies”?  respond however you are inspired by those Qs or any others posed in that slide / in class… 

Reflecting on the idea of rivalries, they can be both good and bad for us, depending on how we approach them. On one hand, healthy rivalries can push us to strive for excellence, motivate us to work harder, and bring out the best in us. For example, in sports, having a rival team can make the game more exciting and encourage players to give their all.

However, rivalries can also have negative effects if they become too intense or destructive. When rivalry turns into bitterness or hostility, it can lead to unhealthy competition, aggression, and even harm. This is where the line between rivals and enemies becomes blurred.

I believe the key to distinguishing between rivals and enemies lies in our intentions and actions. Rivals compete with each other in a spirit of respect and sportsmanship, aiming to improve themselves and each other. They may challenge us, but ultimately, they make us better.

On the other hand, enemies harbor ill will towards each other and seek to harm or defeat one another at all costs. Unlike rivals, enemies are driven by animosity and a desire for domination rather than mutual growth or improvement.

A deeper dive into what it was like to be  Jackie   Robinson – your thoughts? What stands out?

As an athlete who is also a racial and religious minority, I’m amazed by Robinson’s bravery and determination in breaking the color barrier in Major League Baseball. Jackie Robinson wasn’t just a great athlete; he was a symbol of hope and change during a time of racial segregation and discrimination in America.

Learning about Robinson’s journey, I’m inspired by how he faced hatred and adversity with resilience. I honestly can sympathize with him a lot; growing up, a lot of my classmates played sports, so I decided to join the bandwagon and try soccer and basketball. However, stigma towards hijabis like me being unathletic and weak often discouraged me from playing. I never received explicit hate, so reading about Robinson pull through his struggles against hate attacks – even threats to his own family – was really amazing.

His success as an athlete not only opened doors for African American athletes but also challenged societal norms and helped pave the way for the Civil Rights Movement. What strikes me most about Jackie Robinson is his character. He didn’t respond to racism with anger or violence but with strength and a commitment to excellence. His ability to persevere in the face of immense pressure serves as a powerful example for me and others facing challenges in our own lives. His story reminds me of the importance of standing up against injustice, even when it’s difficult, and the impact that individuals can have on shaping a better future for everyone.

Why are more male babies born in the 1st years of the “baby boom”   following WW2?  Check out the links and share your thoughts

This is known as the “returning soldier effect.” Some theories suggest that the stress of the war might have had an impact on the sex ratio. Others think it could be due to the selection effect, where healthier, stronger males were more likely to survive the war and come back home to start families.

What do you think accounts for the enduring popularity of Elvis, and what does this article tell us about then, and today?

The Michigan Elvisfest, founded in 1999, is one of the largest Elvis tribute festivals in North America. Unlike most Elvis festivals, it is not a contest and instead focuses on honoring the life and spirit of Elvis through performances. Elvis impersonators have existed since the mid-1950s and later generations have even purchased costumes from Presley’s own designer. The festival was canceled for two years due to COVID-19, making fans eager to see their favorite tribute artists back on stage. Elvis Presley’s enduring popularity can be attributed to a combination of his unique talent, charisma, and impact on popular culture. His fusion of different music genres like rock and roll, country, and gospel created a sound that resonated with a wide audience. Elvis’s energetic performances, distinctive voice, and charismatic stage presence captivated fans around the world. He also challenged societal norms with his style and movements, making him a cultural icon. His influence on music and entertainment continues to be felt today, keeping his legacy alive. Elvis truly was the King of Rock and Roll.

Check out this article on Nikita Khrushchev’s trip to Hollywood – what does it tell us about Cold War American society in the late 50’s, and what do we learn about Khrushchev as well?

In order to end the Berlin Crisis fifty years ago, President Dwight Eisenhower asked Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev to a summit meeting at Camp David. Khrushchev agreed and asked to be taken on a trip around the land. Americans had a range of responses to this offer. Some were against it, while others were excited to invite Khrushchev to their homes or to events in their communities. Before Khrushchev arrived, the Soviet Union successfully shot a spacecraft into the moon, which led to a lot of UFO reports in California. The media worked hard to get people excited about Khrushchev’s visit, and his strange behavior stole the show. Khrushchev went on a tour of a farm, met with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and made a fuss in New York City during his trip. After that, he went to Hollywood and was asked to a luncheon at Twentieth Century Fox’s kitchen. People in Hollywood went crazy over this offer because they wanted to be seen having dinner with the communist dictator. Even though some stars didn’t go, most of Hollywood’s biggest stars did. I find it interesting that people had such a range of reactions when Nikita Khrushchev came to the US during the Cold War. It shows how divided and contentious American society was at that time. Some people spoke out against Khrushchev, while others were interested and even eager to talk to him. The media did a great job of getting people excited about his visit and drawing attention to his strange behavior, which stole the show. We can see from this that people during the Cold War were scared, interested, and wanted peace and understanding. For Khrushchev, his willingness to accept President Eisenhower’s offer and request to tour the country showed that he was open and ready to talk to the people of the United States. But his visit also showed how different the ideals and way of life in Hollywood and America are from those in the communist regime he was a part of.

Revisit the questions, content, and in class convos regarding slide 3 of the U8 presentation – are “rivalries” good or bad for us?  what’s the line between “rivals” and “enemies”?  respond however you are inspired by those Qs or any others posed in that slide / in class… 

I think that rivalries can be good for us, but enemies can be harmful. Rivalries tend to be more competition based, while enemies contain violence and have bad intentions. I think that rivalries are good when they are more light-hearted competition based, b/c having competition makes nations a/o people grow and be the best they can be. But, enemies seem to overwhelm a person’s thoughts and actions all the time, as their main goal is to take down the opponent rather than better themselves. I think that enemies are rivals, but not all rivals are enemies. Some rivals may respect each other, and simply have competition if they share similar goals. But, enemies hold grudges, use violence in some cases, and are very hateful towards their opponent. This is why having enemies can cause tension and lead to problems, while rivalries can lead to improving something and having friendly competition. 

Owning a home was a centerpiece of the “American Dream” in the 1950’s – is it no longer? share your thoughts on this growing trend, and what it might mean for the country going forward

The American obsession with real estate and home ownership is evident in the numerous TV shows, government incentives, and cultural norms surrounding it. However, a recent poll shows that for many Americans, the American dream is more about freedom of choice and meaningful family life rather than owning a home or amassing wealth. This belief is shared across racial and ethnic groups, with some variations based on age and gender. Despite societal pressure to focus on material possessions, the data suggests that social factors and personal relationships are more important to Americans in achieving the American dream. This growing trend suggests that societal values are shifting towards prioritizing personal fulfillment, relationships, and freedom of choice over material possessions. It could lead to a more diverse and inclusive society that values individual happiness and well-being. This adjustment could potentially impact the housing market. People might be more inclined to explore alternative housing options like renting, co-living, or smaller, more affordable homes. This could lead to changes in demand and potentially affect the pricing and availability of certain types of housing.

What stands out about the similarities and differences in women’s roles compared to the 1950s suburbia lifestyle vs today?

The (mostly) differences that stood out to me out of women’s roles in 1950’s society vs today stood out because of repetition, not necessarily because they shocked me. The main difference is the domestic role that women played at home and their involvement in the workforce. In the 1950’s, women would go to college to earn a “M. R. S. degree” which is a “creative” way of saying they went to get married. Women and society expected themselves and other women to marry at a young age, have children right away, and develop large, perfect families, hence the baby boom. Because of these societal expectations, women often married in their early 20s, possibly even late teens. However, this trend is drastically different than what is seen today. As a 16 year old, I can not even fathom being married in the next 3 years. According to the 2022 United States Census Bureau, the average woman marries at 28.6 years old. This is nearly a decade older than women married in the 1950’s. Since women marry later, they also now start families much later as well. In the 50’s, women weren’t expected to work as much as women are expected to work today. They got married young, had more kids, and dedicated all of their time and effort to bringing up their children. The title of “mother” was no different than having an actual occupation. Today, women marry later, have kids later, and have fewer kids. Societal expectations have shifted as well, making females in the workforce significantly more common and normalized than it had been in the past. According to the Department of Labor, in 2021 ¾ of women whose youngest child was over of the age of 6 were in the workforce. This number would have been horrifying in the 50’s, as women who worked for any reason other than financial stability were considered “selfish.” This shift has been emphasized in numerous ways in today’s society. Despite all of these differences, there are still unfortunately a number of similarities. Though women have gained serious respect and are held to “higher standards” now, they are still often seen as inferior to men. There is still sexism, there are still feminist movements, women are still objectified and taken advantage of on a daily basis, and so much more. This raises the question of what life will look like in another 75 years or so. On one hand, there has been so much progress since the 1950’s to arrive where we are with women’s roles in society. On the other hand, however, there is no guarantee that any of this will go away. It would take overcoming centuries of deeply rooted stereotypes and implicit biases for women to be widely accepted and viewed as equal to men. Though we have achieved this in many ways, there are still numerous people with “traditionalist” views who are incapable of keeping up with our constantly advancing society.

What lessons can we learn from the events and the aftermath of World War II? How do you think they shape global politics and conflicts today?

Reading about the events and aftermath of World War II, it was obvious that there were many takeaways that the US could use and learn from in the future. 

One of these takeaways showed us the importance of international cooperation along with alliances to prevent conflicts in the future and provide support to and from other countries around us. The United Nations was geared to promote peace for all countries world wide and allow for a sense of security. 

As for the large amounts of lives lost and devastation caused, showed the need for human rights protections along with the prevention of future acts of genocide.  

As these factors continue to shape global politics today, the Cold War following World War II led to the division of the world into 2 large sections. As the power balance between these groups continued to create struggles and issues internationally, it expressed the need for organizations and settlements like NATO, reflecting the effort put forward to allow the countries to cooperate.

Take a look at this article about Stanislav Petrov – the unknown man who saved the world.  What would’ve happened if someone else was on duty? What would the world look like today?

I read this article about the man who saved the world. I found this article very interesting. I think that if anybody else was on duty that day, the world would look a whole lot different. If someone had reported the missile and thought it was real, and the Soviet Union launched a missile on the US for no reason, there is a very good possibility that another world war would have resulted.

I also immediately thought about how this dude probably felt. He had so much power in the click of a button. He had two options, and he knew that he could have very easily chosen the wrong one. If he chose the wrong one, everyone’s lives could have been affected.

It is also very impressive that he kept this to himself for ten years. I wonder if he would be scared for how people would feel that he got a message about a missile launch but ignored it. They might look at him a different way if he had told them right away.

I read this article to get additional information.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/defying-doomsday-how-stanislav-petrov-saved-world-from-mj-paxton#:~:text=On%20September%2026%2C%201983%2C%20the,States%20and%20the%20Soviet%20Union. 

This article stated that he saved the world from a potential nuclear war. There was a very big possibility that if the Soviet Union had retaliated to the false warnings, many many many nukes would have been launched. So many people could’ve been killed or injured. And, who knows how long this would have gone on for. There would’ve been so much damage as well. This man really saved the world just based on his judgment. I am very impressed.

Owning a home was a centerpiece of the “American Dream” in the 1950’s – is it no longer? share your thoughts on this growing trend, and what it might mean for the country going forward

When looking into the values that come from the younger and upcoming generations in regards to what they prioritize when achieving and considering what makes their American Dream, it is clear that some ideals have changed between generations as time has passed. After reading the article I drew that the younger generation might feel that owning a home is essential within the American Dream, as it creates a sense of financial stability and ownership. However, it is important to note that many of these young adults and teens with this survey most likely have not owned a home yet and are solely basing this off of societal expectations and preconceived notions they have. 

When comparing this to the older generations I found that they may disagree as they have had the experience of owning homes and might feel the burden of paying off a home and having to upkeep the house. These mortgage debts could cause them to feel a lack of wealth, although wealth doesn’t necessarily seem to be a priority to both parties. 

As for the future, it is quite apparent that real estate is a large component to America’s economy, as it reflects the value of living in certain areas. But as we see it become less desirable and a smaller part of many peoples American Dream as a whole, which could cause a fall in the economy. Many surveyed said they thought it is more essential to have a good social life regarding having a family and freedoms that are processed rather than tangible items like a house or having wealth.

Connected to the above, and happening NOW – describe your thoughts on current beefs across the Korean divide (check out links within too)

I read the article about current beef across the Korean divide. I found it interesting that North Korea cares this much. They weren’t involved in these practice tests. It almost feels like they feel the need to butt their heads in every little thing. It feels like they think that they need to be involved in everything and that they are looking for a fight. As I thought about this a little more, I found a little understanding as to why this could affect them. Depending on where the US launches their missiles from, it might be going over North Korea before it lands in South Korea. 

I also found it interesting that the US would do these tests with South Korea out of anywhere. Maybe it is a sort of get back at North Korea for all their previous beef with the US. Hopefully the US doesn’t launch their missiles later in the year, because North Korea is crazy enough to actually declare war.

I found this article.

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2024-03/news/amid-rising-tensions-north-south-korea-exchange-threats 

It stated that North Korea actually feels threatening by these training events. That is why they made these threats if these practice drills kept going on. That makes more sense as to why North Korea would be mad. My personal opinion on this is that it’s a mix of both. I think that North Korea is definitely just looking for a reason to declare war the the US, but I can sort of see this from their perspective because they feel that they could be dangered by these tests.

Take a look at the graphs linked here concerning the difference in baby booms after the pandemic as compared to different states. What do you think caused such drastic difference in states?

Looking at the graphs it is clear that red states, republican states saw more of an increase in birth rates then those of blue states, democratic states. I think the possible reason for this may have been because of political beliefs. During the pandemic it was pretty clear those from republican states often times thought the virus was not as bad, that scientists were making it seem 10x worse then it really was. Having this conservative belief a lot of Republicans didn’t feel the need to wear masks nor isolate and I feel this may be the reason these states saw an increase in birth rates. They saw the lockdown almost as a break, able to have kids now since there really wasn’t anything else to do. Those from a more democratic view took a lot of precaution to COVID, fearing of the virus, liberals often followed the rules or precautions the government and scientists were putting out there, masking up, staying isolated, social distancing. These blue states might have felt unsafe to put a child into the world with the virus going on, fearing that the child may easily get sick, or the parent might get sick and give it to the child. COVID usually hit the elderly, those immune compromised, and baby’s harder then the average person because of their immune system being weakened. Adults from blue states may have felt that though they had the time, it really was not best because of the pandemic.

One of the many unfortunate impacts of the Cold War in the US –  doubly unfortunate for some peeps with too much experience being dissed by the US government… your thoughts on this? what could/should be done?

America created and tested many nuclear bombs during the Cold War period. To get the bombs required for this they had to mine for uranium, which they found mainly in the West near many Native American tribes. In total over 4,000 uranium mines were dug. Even worse was that they employed many Natives to work in the mines. They had no idea of the danger that it imposed. Miners accidentally brought Uranium dust home, uranium rocks were used to make concrete, and the water got irradiated. Everywhere you look people were using it without any idea of how it was killing them. Before long Native American people in these areas, and the miners especially, were starting to see the effects. Respiratory diseases and cancer became common. This issue still persists to this day. While they know now that Uranium is very harmful there are still hundreds of mines. Because of this, it is estimated that 85% of Navajo homes are contaminated with uranium. It is a widespread problem that needs to be addressed. It was said that a few hundred of the mines had been cleaned up, so I believe that the government should clean up the rest. After that, they should all receive some sort of compensation. They should not have to live with a cancer rate twice the amount as the rest of the country or any of the other things that they have to go through.

What were the contributions and various roles of women during World War II? Although they weren’t fighting, they played other major roles, how much do you think they helped?

During the Second World War, women made large contributions and played many different roles that were crucial to the war effort. Although they weren’t on the front lines fighting in combat, their contributions were extremely needed and had a really big impact on how the war came out to be. I will explain a few of these different roles that I came up with and explain just how important they were to the war.

The first major role that women played during World War II was in the workforce. With many men being in the military, women stepped up to fill the gaps in industries and factories. They took on jobs in manufacturing, munitions production, and many other essential industries where the male employees were lacking. Through this time women became welders, mechanics, electricians, and more, contributing to the production of weapons, vehicles, and supplies that were needed for the war. This contribution was helpful during the war because if the women hadn’t filled up these missing spots that were empty because of the men who were at war, then all of these different industries would have been significantly struggling and may have even failed. In addition to this, since they did things like help build weapons for the war if they didn’t do that, there would be no one to build them leaving no weapons to fight with. This could have ultimately led to the United States not being as prepared. This is the first major role that women played during WWII.

The second role that women played during the war was serving as nurses and medical personnel. This provided care and support to wounded soldiers coming out of the war. These women worked tirelessly in field hospitals and military hospitals, often under challenging and pressuring conditions. The dedication these women put into this role not only helped save countless lives but also provided comfort to the people in need.

In addition to the roles that women played in the workforce, and healthcare, women served as pilots. In this job, they would deliver aircraft to the front lines and perform other crucial tasks that were needed on certain aircraft. They did things such as codebreaking deciphering enemy communications, and providing vital intelligence to the Allied forces. They also flew military aircraft, transported supplies, and were even serving as test pilots. These brave women played a big role in keeping the U.S.’s air superiority, supporting ground operations, and making sure of the success of aerial missions. Their skills and courage were extremely essential in the war effort. 

Another way that women played a vital role during WWII was the use of their intelligence. Like I said before women codebreakers played a big role in deciphering enemy codes and providing valuable intelligence to the allied forces. They worked extremely hard to crack complex encryption systems, uncovering enemy plans and strategies. Doing so gave the United States a huge advantage and allowed us to prepare and be ready for what may have been coming. This is how women’s intelligence played a vital role in the Second World War.

The fifth and final role that I am going to talk about is how women played an important role in the home front by supporting the war effort. They did this by taking on various responsibilities like managing households, rationing supplies, and raising money for the war. If you take this into consideration, women were actually the backbone of their communities, providing support to families affected by the war and maintaining morale among the troops. Without these efforts done by women, everything outside of the war would have failed. So even if we did come out victorious there would have been nowhere for the living soldiers to go back to. Without these women there would have been no one to sustain the war effort and ensure the well-being of those involved.

In conclusion, it is very obvious that even though women didn’t directly participate in fighting in the war, they took on important roles that were diverse and largely impactful. Whether it was their work in the workforce, filling in the gaps in the industries, and the factories that the men left behind. Or if it’s their contribution to healthcare, making sure that the wounded soldiers have somewhere to get taken care of. Even their contribution to aviation, flying in supplies and also making sure that aviation tasks were done properly. No matter what it is, it is for sure that their contributions shaped the course of the war. Their dedication, resilience, and strong spirit played a massive role in the ultimate victory of the Allied forces.

PYOT from a peer (and Mr Sak): Why are more male babies born in the 1st years of the “baby boom”   following WW2?  Check out the links and share your thoughts

The links attached to this post had some interesting information on it that was actually surprising to me. After looking at the article done by Psychology Today and then doing some extra research on charts comparing the birth rates during the baby boom dealing with Boys vs Girls I can say that there were a lot more boys being born. The website explains why this is, it said that during the war it was a lot more likely for a taller man to survive the war and come home to his family than a shorter man. I am not exactly sure why this is but some studies prove that taller men are more likely to have a boy as their child rather than a girl. It said that even an inch difference can completely change the probability of what child you could have. So since the fact that taller soldiers are more likely to have sons, to begin with, and are more likely to survive the war and return home, whereas shorter soldiers, who are more likely to have daughters, are less likely to survive the war and return home to have daughters is why there were more boys born than girls during the baby boom. In the end, I think it is a fascinating fact that more males were born during the baby boom than females. I was able to learn that this is due to the fact that more tall men survived the war and were able to come home to their families than shorter men. In addition to this, I was able to learn that the taller you are the more likely you are to have a male as your kid than a female.

A deeper dive into what it was like to be  Jackie   Robinson – your thoughts? What stands out?

Jackie Robinson was a strong and courageous man who had goals set and pushed through all of the different obstacles to achieve his goals. He had to navigate through a huge era of racial segregation. This segregation was not only involved in his everyday life, but it was also largely in sports, for him, it was baseball. He had to endure racial threats and social isolation, but by pushing through he displayed remarkable strength and resilience. His life left a strong impact and broke barriers, contributing to the Civil Rights Movement. After looking over the website posted to this prompt, I found a few things that stood out to me as something surprising to me. 

The first thing that stood out to me was that Jackie Robinson only had a mother figure throughout his childhood. He was born in Cairo, Georgia on January 31, 1919, as the youngest of five children to two sharecroppers. His parents had a very toxic marriage which ended when his father deserted the family for another woman when Robinson was still only a baby. On top of this, growing up there were not many other colored families living in his community so this also resulted in racism in his early years. This surprised me because I would have thought of Jackie as someone with a father figure who would not only push him to follow his dreams but also serve as a role model for him to look up to. Now that he grew up without a father figure, I find his achievements a lot more impressive.

The second thing that I found interesting while looking at this website is how in high school and college he was a four-sport athlete. His older brother influenced how he got into sports. After high school, Jackie attended UCLA, where he became the first athlete to earn a letter in all four sports playing offense, defense, and special teams on the football team. On top of this, he gained the nickname “Lightning” for his speed while leading the team in passing and rushing yards and points earned in 1940. Probably the most interesting thing I learned is that baseball was the sport in college that he was weakest at playing. I find this interesting because knowing his background and how much he struggled growing up, I did not expect him to excel in multiple sports simultaneously in school. Also, him being better at football than he was at baseball in college considering that he went pro in baseball. This is why I found his playing multiple sports surprising to me.

The third and last fact about Jackie Robinson that stood out to me was that he enlisted in the military and fought against discrimination against it. To give a little background information, for the Black soldiers who served in World War II, the irony was not lost on them that they were fighting against an oppressive regime in Germany led by Adolf Hitler while also facing oppression from their government. Despite being segregated into units separate from white soldiers, sailors, and nurses 1 million Black Americans served in World War II. Knowing this, I found it surprising that not only did Jackie push through all of the hatred when playing professional baseball, but he also chose to go into the military, where segregation was also a huge thing. I know it was not easy joining the military during World War II as a colored person so I think that Jackie should deserve a lot more credit than he already has. This is how the fact that Robinson joined the military is surprising to me and something that stood out.

In conclusion, Jackie Robinson’s life, starting from a fatherless child in Georgia to an amazing athlete and civil rights icon shows how truly great he was. Overcoming the two problems of racial discrimination and personal struggles, Robinson excelled as a multi-sport athlete, breaking Major League Baseball’s color barrier, while fighting segregation, even in the military. His huge achievements inspire generations to confront challenges with resilience and strength. Jackie Robinson’s life story is an example of a person’s impact on society, challenging us to pursue justice and equality with determination.

What were the contributions and various roles of women during World War II? Although they weren’t fighting, they played other major roles, how much do you think they helped?

The author of this article highlights the crucial roles played by women during World War II. These roles were instrumental in shaping the country’s future and significantly contributed to the war’s outcome. Women not only managed their households and families but also took up jobs that were left behind by the men who went to war. This was a challenging task as they had to learn new skills without any guidance while trying to maintain stability in their personal lives during the uncertainty and stress of WW2. What’s extremely disappointing is that these women’s contributions were largely ignored and forgotten once the war ended. Instead of being recognized and appreciated for their hard work, they were pushed aside. The article states, “At the war’s end, even though a majority of women surveyed reported wanted to keep their jobs, many were forced out by men returning home and by the downturn in demand for war materials.” Unfortunately, this is not a unique situation as other minorities who fought for the country also faced similar treatment. This issue still persists in today’s world, although it may be more subtle.

(Read these two articles about the now famous hockey game known as the “Miracle on Ice”  – Why is this game known as one of the greatest games of hockey ever played? How did it affect the United States and why is it important historically?)

The Miracle on Ice was a hockey game in February 22nd of 1980 that resulted in the US victory over the USSR, despite the numerous victories from the Soviet Union over the US in the same sport in the past. The team on the USSR side was comparable to those of NHL stars, yet the US team was composed of players right out of college, which contributed to the miracle aspect of this game. They themselves were incredibly skilled, and were deemed with top amateur talent in the country, and their confidence was something that was much needed in this period of the US. America was in a sullen mood, recovering from political scandals and other economic crises, so this hockey game’s victory meant more to them than ever, especially up against the USSR, of which they had a strong rivalry with. The game itself consisted of many rare moments of last-minute shots, impressive goalie play, and sneak shots that surpassed even the well-trained opponents. This unexpected win was exactly what the US needed to boost their morale, and give them the same hope the players had felt in the moment; watching these competitive sports from all over the country, yet cheering for the same people creates a sense of unison that would remain in sports history. 

Lavender scare

The essay describes a period in history when homosexuals faced discrimination. During the “Lavender Scare” of the 1950s, the authorities feared that gay employees might be subjected to blackmail. As a result, several had to resign from their positions. Thousands of government employees were impacted by this. Even after Senator McCarthy’s tenure, the mistreatment persisted for a considerable amount of time.

It wasn’t only about jobs during the Lavender Scare. Many LGBT people believed that in order to be safe, they had to conceal their true identities. They feared being discovered even in the company of friends.

However, some people persisted. Gay rights activists such as Frank Kameny battled for these rights. All people should be treated equally and fairly was their goal. Although their efforts contributed to improvements, the struggle for equality lasted for a long time.

In 1995, the Lavender Scare came to an end. This was a significant advancement for equality. However, we must not overlook what transpired. It serves as a reminder that everyone deserves to be treated equally and that discrimination is wrong.

Read these two articles about the now famous hockey game known as the “Miracle on Ice”  – Why is this game known as one of the greatest games of hockey ever played? How did it affect the United States and why is it important historically?

The miracle on ice was one of the most important games ever played.  The game was played in the midst of the cold war when tensions between The United States and the Soviet Union were still extremely high.  Coming into the 1980 Olympics the Soviets were the clear favorites for ice hockey. They had won the last 4 Olympic games and gone 12-0 against the United States in that time. The team was composed of some of the greatest players to ever touch the game, many of which could’ve played in the NHL.  Meanwhile the American team was composed of a group of young college students who were relatively unknown. Needless to say nobody thought they had a chance against the Soviets. Despite being unknown however the Americans were talented and showed promise from the start of the tournament. They were led by the brilliant coach Herb Brooks who was willing to push his team past the limit in order to win. He would coach like a drill sergeant and punish them if they lost.  He was famously quoted saying “ this team is not talented enough to win on talent alone” so he pushed them for months during exhibition games to reach their highest potential. He was so harsh that many of the players hated him at the time, which is exactly what he wanted so that they would push themselves to prove him wrong. By the time they got to the Olympic games the already talented U.S. players were better than ever before. In their first game against Sweden they drew 2-2 then they won 7-3 against the second favorite to win, Czechoslovakia. They also beat Romania, West Germany and Norway before facing the Soviets. Nobody thought they had a chance to win, the Soviets hadn’t lost a single game in the Olympics since 1968. Despite this, a new record of over 36 million Americans tuned in to watch the game. The Soviets started off the game quickly scoring and making it 1-0. But the Americans responded to tie the game. Shortly after, the Soviets scored again. Then with only a few seconds left in the period when many of the Soviets had already slowed down and were ready to break, a U.S player snagged a deflection from the Soviet goalie and scored. This showed how the Americans were willing to fight down to the last second and put 110% effort into the game. It also prompted the Soviet coach to take out the Soviet goalie, Tretiak, who was widely regarded as the best goalie in the world at the time.  This gave the Americans a newfound confidence that they actually stood a chance. Nobody scored in the second period but the Soviets brought the score to 3-2 in the third but the United States pushed back and scored once again tying the game. Then with ten minutes to go the U.S. team captain, Eruzione, scored a goal. The stands erupted and Brooks even let off a smile, but they still had to last ten minutes. Over the next 10 minutes they prevented an onslaught of shots on net, but none of them went in. By the end of the game the U.S. goalie saved 36 shots on net only letting 3 in. The United States had beaten the Soviet Union despite all odds giving the game the name “The Miracle on Ice”. But it wasn’t completely over however, because of the way the tournament worked they had to win one last game against Finland to win gold. After going 2-1 by the end of the second period Brooks looked at them and said “ if you lose this game, you’ll take it to your f*cking graves”. They had not come this far just to fail. Luckily they turned the game around and won 4-2, winning gold for the United States. The first game in particular had a widespread effect on the United States. Outside of the game itself it caused unity in the U.S. The country needed a win. Confidence and patriotism were low. The last decade was rough but this win over the Soviet Union brought happiness, patriotism and confidence in a way that transcended the game. Although the game was not a political event it gave optimism to the American people and marked the period of time of decline for the Soviet Union. 

What are your thoughts on the “McCarthyism is back.” article? Do you agree or disagree with it’s modern day statement?

I had thought about this when doing that one project we had to do on McCarthyism, but the article connects McCarthyism to “Cancel Culture,” by roughly saying that “It stems from a noble cause, and just like McCarthyism has turned itself into something more sinister,” it’s become a tool to promote a political agenda while drowning out the opposition. Cancel Culture justifies itself by being an unofficial justice system that takes down those who with harmful ideas like racism, and discrimination, just like how McCarthyism was the idea of taking out the harmful ideas of communism. Cancel Culture has also worked it’s way, not very pleasantly, into our political system. Take a look at Donald trump, a very conservative president with a very questionable presidency. Said presidency leaves people believing that his actions make a him “Racist,” despite no definitive evidence. Though the argument is heated the real issue comes when the people of Twitter begin banding against supporters of trump, and calling them racist for supporting his ideas. Now you have a situation that sounds all too familiar.

I don’t believe Cancel Culture isn’t as extreme as McCarthyism, it doesn’t stir up conflict quite as much, and it’s pretty ignorable if you aren’t in or into politics. Politicians aren’t likely to lose their jobs over expressing political belief, but they can face a lot of hate from these accusations, that is unwarranted if there really is no evidence. Rather than being a single person for the most part, Cancel culture is led by millions of internet users who band together to target people or groups. Overall I think Cancel Culture is a bad thing because it places limits on peoples abilities to express their opinion.

I definitely think the article makes a good comparison and I agree with Cancel Culture being comparable. I believe that McCarthyism was worse, but Cancel Culture isn’t something that should continue as it is now. I think people should worry more about their own lives, but I understand if they don’t want certain politicians they don’t like making decisions for the country, that’s just political opinion.

What stands out about the similarities and differences in women’s roles compared to the 1950s suburbia lifestyle vs today?

It seems that overall women have changed a lot, whether that be in portrayal or in actuality. If we talk about actuality, then there is a lot more diversity in that answer, There were some women In the 1950s and 60s that wanted nothing more than equal rights as men, and then their were some who where genuinely happy to be a house wife, and those who were scared to challenge their life as as a housewife. This has changed drastically because in modern day America women are now being pushed outside of these old stereotypes and are being told to go live their life doing any job a man could. Of course these pushes also come with their pulls as some people call for a return to these old times, or still place undesirable stereotypes on women.

When It comes to how the Image of a women has changed overtime, It again, has changed a lot. In the 50s women were shown as the housewife, who would watch the kids, and raise them, while the man was the breadwinner of the family, that deserved any and all attention from the women. Women were also expected to marry early preferably to a well-off man several years older than her, and having two, four, or even more kids with that man. As time went on and public media grew, and changed, the idea of a woman’s roll changed, women were no longer advertised as just housewives but also “sex things,” a label that still hasn’t really faded today. with many shows putting females in this role. of course today in modern media there has been a push for more powerful women rolls, and way more people now respect women as people as opposed to treating them as objects, but of course, as there is with anything, there are exceptions.

I think what really stands out between these comparisons, is how up until recently women had very little influence over how they were perceived, despite there being lots women’s rights action in the 50s, it was men who decided that the protesters were wrong, and that women should be housewives, it wasn’t the women themselves who created the roll. Now with more woman creating their own rolls, the way they are seen has changed, though some people hold on to those old visions regardless.

A deeper dive into what it was like to be Jackie Robinson – your thoughts? What stands out?

Jackie Robinson’s life narrative demonstrates his perseverance in the face of adversity. Despite experiencing poverty as a child and racism at an early age, he was an exceptional athlete. Despite facing discrimination due to his skin tone while serving in the army, he persisted in his goals. Then, as the first Black player, he was selected to play baseball for a major league team, which was an enormous honor. He persisted in the face of numerous cruel remarks made to him and threats that he got. He continued to work toward improving the lives of others after he finished playing, advocating for civil rights and lending a hand to those in need.

What stands out about the similarities and differences in women’s roles compared to the 1950s suburbia lifestyle vs today?

Similarities:

Work Roles: Women worked then as well as now, though primarily in the homemaking department. Although there are still obstacles, more women are working outside the home these days.

household responsibilities: women took care of the home and children in both eras. It used to be mostly their responsibility, but these days it’s more about sharing work.

Differences:

How They’re Shown: Today’s women are portrayed as more autonomous than they were in the past, when they were mainly seen as performing housekeeping.

work Acceptance: More people today believe that women should work if they so choose. Previously, it was expected of them to stop working when they got married or had children.

Independence: These days, women are expected to be able to support themselves, including by working and making their own decisions.

Family roles: Traditionally, women took on the majority of childcare and household duties, these days, there’s greater discussion about both partners helping out.

In summary, women’s experiences haven’t altered significantly over time, yet there are significant disparities in how they are perceived and behave.

What stands out about the similarities and differences in women’s roles compared to the 1950s suburbia lifestyle vs today?

In the 1950s, women’s roles were often confined to traditional domestic duties, like taking care of the household and children, in the suburban lifestyle. However, today, women have more opportunities and can pursue careers, education and various interests outside of the home. This shift has led to greater gender quality and empowerment for women in modern society. While today, there is more diversity and flexibility in how women choose to live their lives. One similarity is the importance of balancing work and family life. While the specific roles and opportunities for women have evolved, many women in both eras have strived to juggle their professional careers with their responsibilities at home.

What was life like in America during the war? Were people living happily, or in fright, waiting for something bad to happen? 

During war in America Women and Colored people had to get into the jobs that were left behind to maintain the society moving. They would work as hard as the men and whites did all the time during the war. They were always waiting for something bad to happen and they relied only on the radio to know what was happening during the war. During the war almost every vehicle  involved rivets into them  and who did the job were women, the name they were given was Rosie the Riveter.

Everything during the war was rationed food, clothing, and gas. Everyone was scared of what would happen during the war.  It was major struggle because of how many men were drafted into war and how many resources the war used up.