Friday, May 17, 2019

Semester II Final

Semester II Final
By Adam Tyler
Part A: 1-8

1. Before doing any research, I predict the three most highly ranked presidents in US history will be Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Ronald Reagan, and the worst might be Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Richard Nixon.

2. On the C-SPAN survey of presidential leadership, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Theodore Roosevelt have been consistently viewed as the top four presidents. Harry S. Truman has gone back and forth in the 5th spot, while Theodore Roosevelt has gone back and forth in the 4th spot.

3. On the C-SPAN survey page, I notice that in the worst 10 presidents, a majority of them have become ranked lower on the list in 2017. This is probably because America's standards have been getting lower as we get worse presidents, so now the presidents are ranked even lower. The top 10 presidents have varied a lot, but mostly in 2009, they're ranked a little bit higher than they were in 2008. I think this is because people begin to look back at them more and realize how truly good presidents they were in that year. I also realize that at the end of the list, there are a lot of forgettable presidents like Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan. They are probably ranked so low down there because people have become more critical of the presidency since then and have decided that they didn't really do anything.

4. The participants in the C-SPAN survey are seemingly all universities or colleges. I think C-SPAN included them in this survey because they think they can get reliable information out of them, since these people went to college, like Purdue University or George Mason. If these names weren't here, I may ask if this is a reliable source or not, but since these names are from college, there's a pretty good chance it is a reliable source. If someone went to Duke College or Harvard Law School, I'd probably trust them to give me accurate information.

5. The 10 qualities presidents were ranked on were crisis leadership, moral authority, wanted equal justice for all, economic management, administrative skills, performance in context of times, making a plan, relationship with the the public, relationship with the Congress, and relationship with other governments.

6. From how the presidents are ranked and what they are ranked on, I think that the categories C-SPAN weights heavily on are crisis leadership, moral authority, and administrative skills, since many of the top ten presidents were still the top ten in these categories.

7. If I was ranking the presidents based on the ten categories, the top three categories that would be the most important would be relationship with the public (because everyone needs to know what the president is doing because he's our trusted leader), vision (because a president must decide what he will do differently that will bring hope to America), and wanted equal justice for all (because if we don't have justice, then America is a big, fat fraud of a country).

8. My predictions of best presidents were mostly accurate while my predictions of worst presidents were greatly flawed. On the list, Abraham Lincoln was first, George Washington was second, and Franklin D. Roosevelt was third. I may have placed Ronald Reagan in third just because I heard a whole lot of good stuff about him from my family. The worst presidents were from worst to less worse, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Franklin Pierce. These presidents weren't even close to the ones I thought of, probably because I forgot all about the presidents and didn't even know there was a guy named Franklin Pierce. I currently think of Richard Nixon with the Watergate Scandal, Bill Clinton with his affair, and George W. Bush just being kinda stupid in office, but I don't really know those worst presidents so I'm assuming they weren't useful and didn't do almost anything good in office.

Part B: 9-10

9. "On March 16 we celebrate the anniversary of James Madison's birthday. Madison, traditionally viewed as the Father of the United States Constitution, is also seen by many as a defender of open government. He once wrote, "[a] popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps, both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."1
 (Links to an external site.) In a similar vein, he asserted that "the advancement and diffusion of knowledge" is "the only Guardian of true liberty." Justice.gov.
"We rejoice the day of birth of James Madison, for it is March 16. He is observed as a protector of the  system we have and the founder of its laws. "A system without having received good resources is the beginning to a fake or bad event or the two of them together. Idiocy will be less than wisdom. Folks who want to be rulers of themselves, beware that they have a big burden to carry of the wisdom they receive. Like this, Madison said "the evolution and enlightenment of wisdom" is "the one thing that will keep justice safe."

10. " . . . [K]nowledge of our own history is essential in the making of Americans. The reasons for this belief may be summed up under four main heads. History makes loyal citizens because memories of common experiences and common aspirations are essential ingredients in patriotism. History makes intelligent voters because sound decisions about present problems must be based on knowledge of the past. History makes good neighbors because it teaches tolerance of individual differences and appreciation of varied abilities and interests. History makes stable, well-rounded individuals because it gives them a start toward understanding the pattern of society and toward enjoying the artistic and intellectual productions of the past. It gives long views, a perspective, a measure of what is permanent in a nation’s life. " American Historical Association.

 The quotes said by James Madison and the American Historical Association are very similar yet also different. Both discuss knowledge and how important it is and that it is power. However, Madison associates knowledge with the government and how being the government requires a whole lot of knowledge, especially if you're your own governor. The American Historical Association associates knowledge with history and how it creates people with knowledge which can lead to understanding of patriotism. Although, both are talking about authority in America, whether you feel needed to be a patriot or a governor.

 I think that these two quotes are definitely true in most perspectives. I do agree that knowledge is power and that to be a big shot in your country, you definitely have to have it. However, I somewhat disagree with James Madison when he says that knowledge will overrule ignorance. That has not always been true in America. People can be so stupid that when they know what they're doing is wrong, they do it anyway, like Richard Nixon when he committed the Watergate Scandal and shoved the thought of it being bad into the back of his mind. However, I do find Madison's overall statement about knowledge needed during times of government true since it might be the only way you'll survive in the government. I also agree with the American Historical Association that knowledge of history will make us Americans, because our past shapes us into what we are now.

Part C: 11-15

11. I would say I have definitely grown as a researcher this year. I have learned to paraphrase paragraphs (just like I did above), I have learned to hyperlink my sources underneath a picture to where I got the information from, and I have learned to use sources with reliable authors (like someone from a university or a historian). I used to not really understand how paraphrasing worked, but now I understand that it is replacing about every word in the paragraph but still meaning the same thing. I learn hyperlinking is copying a source and pasting it under the picture (it's really that simple). Also, from looking at who wrote the article, I should determine if the information matches true information from a reliable author.

12. Looking back at my film project, the five parts I was most proud of was my entire menu, because it took me almost two hours to find everything on the menu and I liked how I used several metaphors to explain the choices; the Watergate tapes, because for some reason I really liked that image of three tapes in cases that had impeached Nixon and it was probably my best artifact in the museum; the invitation, because I've never made an invitation before ever and it looked kinda nice; the interview room, because it was the hardest image to find and I finally put it in the exhibit; and the middle paragraph of my Frost/Nixon essay, because the part where I mentioned that the events of the Watergate Scandal weren't really talked about much in the movie is probably the strongest part of my essay.

13. A blog post I liked from my class was John Calvin's blog post titled 2.9 Mass Incarceration. The essay talked about the issue of mass incarceration and how it is mainly the result of racial bias. Most people today seem to have stopped being racist, but there a plenty who still are. Blacks are treated the most poorly in prison and make up of 40% of the inmates. Even black kids make up for a majority in the juvenile prison. I liked this post mainly because it shows me that the world can still be major jerks about race and that we may not have really changed. Also, another reason I like it is because more and more people get sent to jail every year and that there's really not a whole lot of space left in prisons for them. I think that says a lot about today's society, like how many people have turned to crime or how many officials have become corrupt. JC also really makes a good point when he tells the reader that white people and black people need to work more closely together to solve the problem of mass incarceration. I think that that would actually help stop the problem.

14. "The best way to predict your future is to create it.” Abraham Lincoln. I chose this quote from Abraham Lincoln because I think it is very helpful advice. Lincoln says that instead of worrying about what your future might be like, to just focus on the now and that way you can pave the future you want. I sometimes get worried about what's gonna happen to myself in the future, if I become a success or not, but now I realize that the future can be what you make it if you just stop worrying about it since the present can become your future.

15. 

A picture of Sitting Bull, an Indian chief. He refused to move off his property that the Americans attempted to claim. Many Indians thought he was crazy to go through with it, but at the same time, respected him for it. His face brings hope for the Indians that they one day may be treated right by America. Even though they are gone now, America has attempted to become a better place by treating black people better.
The paper in which Lincoln was announced to be assassinated. This marked the end of the best president ever and an end to the best presidents.
A depiction of George Washington crossing the Delaware River with company. This was a pivotal moment in history as Washington stands proud and triumphant over the river as hope went up that Washington would be a great leader and would win the war, officially becoming the first president of the United States of America, and starting off America's history.





























Friday, April 26, 2019

In-Class Write

Frost/Nixon Essay
Adam Tyler

 For someone wishing to learn about the tv news industry in a fun and exciting way, I would definitely choose Frost/Nixon. In this movie, you can learn various things about the conflict as David Frost interviews Richard Nixon. David Frost interviewing Richard Nixon was one of the most surprising events in the late 70s. From the movie directed by Ron Howard, people can see the explosive interview, but can also see more clearly what led to the interview and what happened after it. In the movie, David Frost starts out as a television show host, but he wants to be more than just being remembered as a tv host and wants some actual recognition, so he attempts to interview Richard Nixon with help from BBC's director general John Birt, reporter Bob Zelnick, and news writer James Reston Jr. However, Nixon wants to re-ignite his reputation after he was confirmed to be in the Watergate Scandal, so he accepts the interview, especially since he'll be receiving a lot of money from it. From this direction, the audience can see that both are after the same thing, fame and fortune, which is what Frost and Nixon wanted in real life.

From this movie, the audience can see Frost and Nixon then preparing for their big interview. They can realize how hard both have been studying to take each other down and feel somewhat sympathetic for them. Soon enough when the final confrontation comes, the audience can see that there was a whole lot of tension on the set of the interview, including Nixon even shouting this when Frost tries to tell him no one is above the law, “When the president does it, that means it’s not illegal!”, which is not really true at all. Then, Frank Langello does a stunning job acting as Richard Nixon when he finally admits to the Watergate Scandal, “I let the American people down.” Right there, people can learn that even the president can do wrong and bad things. Both in the film and in real life, Nixon admitted this and he remained low in his San Clemente house for the rest of his life while Frost finally got the fame he wanted and became a well-respected celebrity. For anyone who was thinking that the president always knows best, you were wrong. This movie shows the real-life events that an underdog reporter brought the president down, and it was a pivotal moment in history.

Although you can learn a lot fromFrost/Nixon, like the riveting interview and its prologue and aftermath, one thing you may not learn about is the whole Watergate Scandal. The film only briefly circles around why Nixon was in the scandal, not what it actually was, so the audience may not get a full explanation of what he did, which is very important for a movie like this. The Watergate Scandal happened on June 17, 1972 when some men were caught breaking in. It was later found out that they had ties to the presidential administration of Nixon. Although Nixon denied any involvement in the trial, he was soon found out to be a big fat liar when it was discovered that he had recorded an important conversation he had with HR Haldeman, the chief of staff at the White House. The tape called “The Smoking Peanut” proved Nixon was guilty, yet people weren’t sure how to convict a president, so Nixon voluntarily left the presidency while his Vice President Gerald Force pardoned him for the crime. Yet, a whole lot of people were infuriated.

Another aspect that the audience won’t learn all the pressure Frost was under from other people besides his interviewing team. The audience doesn’t even hear or see anyone criticizing Frost about interviewing Nixon. A lot of people thought he couldn’t do it, even Frost himself thought he couldn’t, but in the movie it seems as if no one even bothers. In real life, this made the stakes even higher as he would be remembered as a failure and an embarrassment to tv news and he would probably never hear the end of it. In the movie Frost is afraid of losing everything to this interview, but the movie forgets how other people will see him if he loses and that he is now not on tv.

If someone should add in an extra 20 minutes to the movie without worrying about losing the audience’s attention, I recommend adding 20 minutes about the side characters’ lives. Even though the movie is titled Frost/Nixon, Ron Howard spends very little time on the more amusing and interesting John Birt, Bob Zelnick, and James Reston Jr. In the movie, they are shown as somewhat of a comic relief, while they definitely worked hard in real life. The stakes are very high for David Frost and Richard Nixon since they could lose their reputation, their job, or even their wealth. However, the movie doesn’t focus very closely on what was at stake for these three. Only John Birt had a family and he could’ve lost his job if the interview went badly, but we don’t get the same type of drama we see with Frost and Nixon. If 20 minutes were devoted to these side characters in the middle of the movie when they were working on the actual interview and discussing how they could tear down Nixon, it could help the audience care for the characters more since they were important too. 

Annotated Sources

Sources:


ABC CLIO: American History. "Watergate Scandal." Information on the Watergate break-in and Nixon's involvement with it.


Richard Nixon: Presidential Library and Muse. "President Nixon." Biography and legacy of Richard Nixon's life.

National Archives. "Memorandum From Feldbaum and Kreindler to Jarwoski: Watergate Special Prosecution Force." Documents of whether or whether not to have Nixon prosecuted for Watergate Scandal.

Watergate.info. ""Transcript of the "Smoking Gun" Tape: June 23,19." The transcript of Richard Nixon talking to HR Haldeman over control of FBI on Watergate Scandal.

The New York Times. "Transcript of Frost's Television Interview." The transcript of David Frost's interview of Richard Nixon.

Empire. "Frost/Nixon Review." Review of Frost/Nixon.

RogerEbert.com. "Frost/Nixon Review and Film Summary (2008)." Review and critical perspective of Frost/Nixon.

The Guardian. "Frost/Nixon." Critical perspective and review of Frost/Nixon.







Menu

David Frost vs. Richard Nixon
Exhibit Menu

Beverage:
Sweet Tea
This drink tastes sweet, but it definitely has a sour aftertaste, but you can definitely handle it. Richard Nixon was at first winning the interviews with David Frost with ease, but near the end, he lost dearly. However, he found a way to live with it.

Appetizer:
Pigs in a Blanket
An appeasing delicacy that feature, small hot dogs trapped in bread. This is similar to how Richard Nixon had wrapped up David Frost in the interviews, until Frost became the bread and Nixon became the hot dog.

Main Course:

Cheeseburger
A delicious food that Richard Nixon can no longer have. Instead, he has to eat "Hawaiian burgers", that he say don't taste like hamburgers. He really wants them, just like acceptance and respect from the American people, but he can't have it.

Side:
Potato Chips
This side will not let you stop eating, even if it is a little unhealthy. Richard Nixon will not let his secrets be exposed and he's eating up the interview with David Frost. Eventually, he's had enough and can't go on holding in his secrets.

Dessert
Trifle
A bowl of tasty looking cherries on top of several layers. As you go through each layer, you start to know what the flavor is. When David Frost started to go through Richard Nixon, he started to discover his secrets.

Exhibit

David Frost/Richard Nixon
Exhibit

Frost vs. Nixon Interview Picture
A photo of David Frost interviewing ex-President Richard Nixon. A historic scene where Mr. Frost convinced Nixon to admit to being involved with the Watergate Scandal and apologize to all Americans.

Watergate Tapes
Three tapes that recorded and confirmed Nixon's role in the Watergate Scandal, which forced him to resign from presidency. This was pivotal for Frost's win when he asked Nixon why he didn't burn the tapes.
Transcript of Frost/Nixon Interview
The official transcript of Frost's interview with Nixon. One of the most shocking and intense interviews in history, which officially made Frost's career and left Nixon in recluse.

The Western White House
A picture of Richard Nixon's home in San Clemente, California. Also known as the Western White House, this is where David Frost met Richard Nixon and officially agreed to do an interview. It also became Nixon's real home after the interviews were over and he was disgraced.
Frost/Nixon Interviews from TV Guide
A promotion for TV Guide now showing the Frost/Nixon interviews. They were one of the few magazines to have articles about the interviews, alongside Time and Newsweek in 1977.
The Interview Room
The living room of the home in Monarch Bay that Frost interviewed Nixon. The taping of the interviews lasted approximately 28 hours and 45 minutes. Harold and Martha Lee Smith, the owners, were in favor of Nixon.

David Frost's Italian Shoe
The shoes David Frost wore to the interviews. Nixon attempted to play "mind games" with Frost by calling his shoes "effeminate" to make him nervous. Ironically, many Italian shoes are thought to be high in quality.
Frost/Nixon Interview Tapes
The actual tapes of the charismatic and flamboyant David Frost interviewing the gruff and no-nonsense ex-President Richard Nixon. It was officially released on January 1, 1977.


Invitation



GUEST LIST

Ron Howard- director of the 2008 movie Frost/Nixon in which David Frost gets Richard Nixon to apologize. By seeing the exhibit, Howard can see how well the historical accuracy of the movie was, so he'll know he did well with his work.

Michael Sheen- actor who played David Frost in the movie. The exhibit could show him how well he did portraying David Frost in the movie and I think he will be excited to see it.

Frank Langella- actor who played Richard Nixon in the movie. The exhibit could show him how big of a character he played in the movie, even if the movie mostly circled Sheen as Frost. He will be delighted to find an exhibit made from a real event that had its own movie, that he co-starred in.

David Frost- the man himself, the one man who interviewed Nixon and got him to apologize. He will be amazed that this exhibit was based off him interviewing Nixon and remember what a legacy he really had.

Bob Zelnick- an experienced producer who helped produce the makings of Frost's interview with Nixon. Seeing the exhibit will remind him that his producing skills brought down the president for good.

James Reston Jr- a humorous researcher who helped Frost prepare to "interrogate" Nixon by giving him his lines to say. The exhibit will show Frost uttering his words in one part, reminding Reston how good at creating monologue he was.

Michael Kroenwetter- a freelance writer who wrote an article on the Watergate Scandal. This article stood out to me the most because it gave up a lot of information. By inviting him to the exhibit, Kroenwetter could document the exhibit's artifacts and even write an article about the exhibit.

Philip French- a very professional movie critic who wrote a review on Frost/Nixon. Having him see the exhibit could cause him to see the movie differently and portray the movie as having more historical accuracy.

Monday, April 15, 2019

2.10 Thinking Like a Historian

2.10
Thinking Like a Historian
Adam Tyler

Fighting for black power

From the topic civil rights and black power, about 4-6 documents below show the range of perspectives and ideas with the struggle for civil rights in the 1960s. Many peaceful protesters were unfortunately met with police brutality, however some were met with attempted negotiations, however these "negotiations" usually didn't last and many demands still stood.

Tuesday, April 9, 2019

2.9 Incarceration Rates and the War on Drugs


2.9 Incarceration Rates and the War on Drugs
Adam Tyler

 From my notes on incarceration rates and the War on Drugs, I've learned that no matter what, the War on Drugs has not made things much better in America. Unsurprisingly, America has the highest rate of incarceration in the world, even surpassing places like Russia and China. America only has 5% of the world's population and the country has more than 25% of incarceration population. A lot of people tend to blame this on the War on Drugs which was put into action by who I think is America's worst president, Richard Nixon. Many people accused Nixon of just making up the war for an excuse to jail hippies and black people, a lot of whom smoked crack cocaine, which increased mass incarceration as seen in the graph below. However, some people actually think the War on Drugs wasn't actually responsible for mass incarceration. There was a more simple reason than that. It was because prisons held several people in for violent offenses, not people like drug offenders. The real problem for mass incarceration was the higher rates of murder in America, but yet the War on Drugs didn't really help the situation. This is actually still a controversial discussion as to whether it was the War on Drugs or the higher count of violent crimes that caused mass incarceration. I myself am deciding what I think what caused mass incarceration, the War on Drugs or violent crime?
Mass incarceration increasing

I could say The War on Drugs certainly put a lot of drug offenders in jail at the time. Unfortunately, people discovered that black males were being imprisoned almost 8 times higher than white males. This lead to a lot of outrage, believing that this war was just a front to be racist once more. Although Nixon claimed that the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) was heavily aimed at marijuana users, that was said to be more dangerous than heroin, this was a dirty lie and was just an excuse to arrest more hippies. There started to be all sorts of conspiracies that Nixon was just imprisoning non-violent offenders that didn't deserve all the jail time they got. In the 1980s, the Corrections Corporation of America started to imprison humans for profit. This made private prison incarceration rates increase by nearly 20%. Corporations had found huge benefits from private prisons from low-cost labor, so people started to become incarcerated more and more. As prison numbers jumped, black and brown people were in a very disproportionate size with the next being rural white people. John Ehrlichmann, a man at the White House, even said "The Nixon White House had 2 enemies, the antiwar left and black people. By getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities." In 1985, Americans who were against drugs as "the number one problem" was just 2-6%, and then four year later, it became 64%. People wanted mass incarceration to stop since they thought it was racist with all so many black people in prison, and it was tearing peoples' lives apart, so many wanted low level offenders to be set free so the "real bad prisoners" would be the only ones who were in the prison. I was shocked to learn that the War on Drugs could affect people so much.
War on Drugs not working so well
Although I was convinced that the War on Drugs was absolutely responsible for mass incarceration, I started having second thoughts when I found new sources that told me otherwise. Apparently, the War on Drugs isn't actually responsible for mass incarceration, a high rate of violent crimes is. This whole new theory started when Michael Pfaff wrote Locked In: The True Causes of Mass Incarceration add How to Achieve Real Reform, which contradicted the popular book, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, written by Michelle Alexander. Pfaff explains that the War on Drugs didn't make incarceration any better, but the real problem is violent crime, and stopping the War on Drugs wouldn't make things any better. In reality, only about 16% of state prisoners are drug dealers and 5-6% are non violent or at low-level as shown by the chart below.   Also, despite many black people being in prison, most were there for horrendously violent crimes, so putting those people in jail wasn't racism and they definitely weren't there for minor offenses. Pfaff even states that letting people out of prison for drug-related charges won't change anything either and that this just guarantees a higher crime rate since they won't really learn anything from what they've done, especially since drug charges are usually for DEALING DRUGS not just using them. Pfaff says that The New Jim Crowe just absolves criminals of their responsibility for their "poor choices". A good example is one prisoner named Jarvious Cotton killed someone, and even though his ancestors were abused and killed, racism and poverty aren't excuses for his actions and you can't just let him off the hook for it. Pfaff says the real way to stop mass incarceration isn't to let low offenders go, but to assure criminals pay for their choices while also making sure the punishment doesn't cause too much damage, since the punishment also affects the prisoner's family. This whole idea put a serious change of thought into my brain, and I actually started to think the War on Drugs wasn't in fact responsible for mass incarceration.
What the prison system could really looks like
In my final answer, I decided that mass incarceration was more the result of violent crime rather than the War on Drugs. Although I have to agree that Richard Nixon definitely didn't help things with the war and just got more people imprisoned, violent crime just landed a whole lot more people in jail. I think people just thought that the government was being so racist, that they wanted black people out of prison since they "were just low offenders". That isn't true at all and most of them did the awful stuff they were held accountable for. It's not racism, it's just a surprising coincidence, no matter how hard it could be to believe. Also, I definitely agree with Pfaff when he says that letting low-level offenders is a bad idea. How can you assure that criminals are getting punished when they're basically just being given a hall pass? They need to be PUNISHED. However, I'm not entirely sure I agree with Pfaff when he says that the way to achieve real reform is to make sure prisoners suffer the most without their family suffering. Although, the prisoners' families don't need to suffer and they shouldn't, I don't think you need to be so extremely hard on the prisoners, because prison can turn people into monsters. You can start out by being a simple drug user and then turn into a psychopathic murderer when you're let out of prison. What's the real way to stop mass incarceration? I certainly don't know and I'm probably not the one to make the choice, but all I can say is that you need to keep criminals locked up.

In conclusion, mass incarceration is a big problem for America and it's probably one of the hardest problems to solve since it involves nearly everyone related to the offender and it can break the offender if things don't turn out the right way. The mass incarceration discussion still goes on today and I'm not sure if I'm right or wrong but I made my choice, so America can still imprison criminals and not disrupt the system in any way, whether it be drug offenders or violent criminals.

Sources:


Thursday, March 28, 2019

2.8 Montgomery Reflection

2.8 Montgomery Reflection
Adam Tyler

From the trip to Montgomery, Alabama, I just felt bad almost the whole time about being a white person. When we visited our first stop, I couldn't help but feel ashamed of myself because how badly white people mistreated black people. Many of them were incriminated, like cases for murder, abuse, or even just looking threatening. I got pretty mad when I learned that black kids even by the age of 13 could be put into adult prison. I also found it very creepy when I looked at a picture of a white policeman touching a black kid on the shoulder and smiling. I really did not like that picture.

When we visited our final place on the trip, I was getting bored and tired, so it didn't help that there was no place to sit. We had to wait outside forever and the place just wasn't big enough, honestly. Also, I thought I heard some stuff repeated over and over again by the lady that worked there and it just seemed boring. I thought we really didn't need to be there. The only thing that was halfway interesting was the bus fight and how the policemen basically did nothing. This made me feel even worse about being a white kid.

I'm pretty sure this counts as police brutality

Friday, March 8, 2019

2.7 Mid-Semester 2 Reflection


2. 7 Mid-Semester 2 Reflection
By Adam Tyler
America in the 19th Century
1. The most important thing I've learned about immigration in the 19th century is how immigration actually improved industrialization. I say this because as more immigrants moved to the United States and other countries around the world, they sought economic opportunity and jobs, so many of them worked at industrial factories. With their hard work and less wage, more immigrants started to improve industrialization.
2. The most important thing I've learned about immigration from the new days is that many immigrants are still unfairly treated and there are several attempts to keep them out of America. Even though the immigration "racism" has gotten better, it still isn't perfect, as many are separated from their families, forced to get low-paying jobs, and live in places they don't want to live.
3. I think the 2 most challenging aspects of living in 19th century urban settings is finding a good place to live and remaining healthy at the same time. People tended to live in tenements in the 19th century, that were very unsanitary with limited space and it just seemed sad that someone would have to live there. Also, many people got diseases from living in tenements, so it was really important to look out for your health at the time. Mainly, poor people suffered the most from this while the rich mostly avoided bad health and bad living (because they're rich), but since there were a lot of poor people, it was kinda hard. Overall, many people weren't very good at finding a nice place to live or maintaining the best of their health.
4. The evolution of New York's High Line might be an example of Progressivism, since many people started to improve or move forward the High Line and make it evolve into something new and beautiful instead of the once old and moldy thing it was. They did this with plenty of artwork displayed where artists could actually make their own artwork with people watching them, helping the grass and other nature grow to make the scenery more pretty (feels like Spring). On the High Line, people even felt more connected and emotional as many of them were seen holding hands. However, the High Line could also not be considered an example of Progressvism since Progressivism is associated mostly with government and the state improving something (like industrialization), but they didn't really have anything to do with improving the High Line and the people who improved it where mostly just people who liked it from the start and didn't want to see it shut down. They even improved the High Line without major help from the government and turned it into something beautiful, so it really wasn't an example of Progressivism.

Wednesday, March 6, 2019

2.6 Philanthropy in American History and Major Donors Today



2.6 Philanthropy in American History and Major Donors Today
Adam Tyler

The man with a heart full of money (that he gives away)
1. Philanthropy is an act of giving or helping humanitarian support. Activities associated with philanthropy are rebuilding home, deciding what's best for the future, and helping big businesses. The difference between philanthropy and charity is that while philanthropy is more concerned with the world and lasts a while, charity is more concerned with maybe just one person or a few more and lasts just a bit.
2. Andrew Carnegie was known for being perhaps the most well known and influential philanthropist of all time. He built about 2,811 lending libraries around the globe, founded one of the world's great research universities, made one of the nation's most significant grandmasters, and established charitable organizations nearly a century after his death. By his death, he had given about $350 million. All his philanthropy came from how poor he was as a boy, and he decided he wanted others to have better lives than he had by giving them knowledge.
3. Carnegie and his business rival John D. Rockefeller, were actually pretty different people. While both gave up extremely large amounts of money and competed in the economic and industry business, Carnegie was actually doing his work for a noble cause, while Rockefeller just gave his money away to avoid persecution and prosecution from anti-monopolistic trusts after Standard Oil, so Carnegie was selfless while Rockefeller was actually selfish.
4. Carnegie eventually formed the Carnegie Foundation, whose accomplishments included the Flexner Report and the provisions of pensions to college faculty members. There were even other organizations that bared his name from this source (the list is way too long) that have all helped the world with poor families especially benefitting.
5. From a list listed under Resources below this blog, I found out that Bill Gates is a very big philanthropist, alongside his wife, owning the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the world's largest charitable organization (which could still be considered philanthropy). This organization improves global health and saves lives, and is even working with Rotary International to eliminate polio. He has even donated $35. 8 dollars worth of Microsoft stock to the Gates Foundation.
6. If I was a philanthropist, I would be a philanthropist working with animals, helping them achieve better lives in better containment, while their health would increase. I would choose to do this because I've loved animals ever since I was a child.


Resources:


Thursday, January 31, 2019

2.3 Migrants to the US in Historical and Global Context



2.3 Migration to America in a Historical and Global Context
By Adam Tyler


From my research on the topic of migration to America in a historical and global context, I have learned many things about migration that I hadn't learned before. I especially learned that migration centered around America a whole lot more than other countries. There were a whole lot of events that centered around migration in America that shaped the country into what it is now. For example, the US gained so many migrants that 1/5 of America are migrants, at least since 2017, so that'd be about 20% or presumedly 38 million migrants. And with the number of migrants keeping on growing and growing, America has a wide variety of races. Although migrants have definitely changed culture in America, some people aren't very pleased with the migrants. This is mostly because migrants are used to being in a developing country, so when they come to a developed country, they're ready to work really cheap, which can upset some American workers who really don't want to get let go. This causes racism, the use of a scapegoat, and social issues in America about migrants, making people nowadays more determined to keep migrants out of America.

Migration is rising in the newer years
About the earliest example of the large-running migration to America trend is the Irish Potato Famine. This event was caused when the Irish could no longer take care of themselves due to a shortage of potatoes (which were Ireland's main crops). This caused many Irish to pack up their bags and leave to America. There were about 1,000,000 Irish, who were the first poor refugees to ever come to the United States. I was pretty surprised when I found this out online, because my family roots are mainly Irish, so my ancestors could have been on that boat to America. 3,000 Irish Catholics arrived in Boston in 1847 where they took unskilled jobs and were charged about $1.50 a week in a broken down, old apartment room. The small space and poor living conditions unfortunately caused many Irish to get sick and either die or become driven to despair. There ultimately became an increase in crime about 400% (just wow) and about 1500 children roamed the streets causing chaos. Americans eventually became sick and tired of the Irish taking their jobs, so this lead to 'No Irish Needed Apply' signs in windows of stores. So yeah, Boston didn't handle the Irish very well. However, I learned that there was a bright side to the Irish migrating to America through New York. About 52,000 Irish were 372,000 of the population in 1847. Although at first, Irish were immediately conned and nearly lost everything by street smarts, they later started working their way through life by working on docks. Also, the infant mortality rate rose up high, and unfortunately there was a bit of a rise in crime. By 1850, Irish were 43% of the foreign born population. And, after the Civil War, Irish were the main source of labor, which helped America rebuild itself again. Although there were plenty of downsides to the Irish moving to New York, I think it was certainly better than Boston. So, I learned that without the Irish, we probably would have had much more trouble rebuilding America after the Civil War.

 Another big migration was the California Gold Rush. In 1848-1855, there was a colossal discovery of gold at Sutter's Mill, California. Almost immediately, there was a giant migration for people who were seeking vast fortune. About 1/3 of the "49ers" were migrants, especially from Mexico, China, France, Germany, Russia, Ireland, Italy, West Indies, and even Australia. In fact, there were about 30,000 immigrants from France. And in 1852, there were about 20,000 Chinese, 2,000 of which had migrated to San Francisco. Nine out of ten of these 49ers were men. The Chinese especially played a big part in the California Gold Rush as they were definitely more disciplined and dedicated to mining. This was because after The Opium War with Britain, the Chinese were desperate for trade and foreign domination. However, by the time several Chinese got to America, the gold was almost all gone, so they mined on their own. Americans felt threatened by this since many Chinese were taking their mining work. In 1852, there became a foreign miners' tax and 30 years after, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 suspended Chinese migration for 10 years. Despite learning that the Chinese were a pretty big part of the California Gold Rush, I also learned that other migrants were treated unfairly to while trying to hit a gold mine. For example, a group of French miners were forced to leave their stash after putting up a French flag and several Mexicans raided mines after they weren't allowed to mine from America. America just wanted the gold for itself, which is kinda selfish even if it was on American property. But without the California Gold Rush, we probably wouldn't have so many Chinese in America.


People from Tijuana trying to cross border



A recent example of migration in America is the Tijuana Run, which happened on November 25, 2018, pretty close to Thanksgiving. This is probably the best example of migrants in America that I found. Originally, it all started off as a peaceful march from Central American migrants waiting at the Southeastern border, but it quickly got out of control and several tried to get into San Diego. This forced the US to shut down the border while tear gas pushed back the migrants. The border was later reopened on Sunday evening. This event overall caused many people to support President Trump's anti-migration idea. The US Customs and Border Protection Agency may have even got more ammo after this incident. This was also the first real big threat to Mexico president-elect Andres Manuet Lopez Obrador, who was forced to negotiate with Washington to handle the situation. Guests were becoming increasingly desperate to get into America. In the incident, some tried to negotiate, some tried to climb the walls (but got hit by gas), and some just tried to make a run for it. I think I express myself with a Twitter quote from Senator Brian Schatz, "Tear gas across the border against unarmed families is a new low." It certainly is, Brian Schatz. 500 people were in the march, 39 were arrested, and several were injured. And although this problem isn't officially solved yet (Trump wants the migrants to wait in Mexico), the idea of more ammunition on the border guard I think is a pretty good idea, since some migrants even tried to throw projectiles at the guards.
Migration is overall decreasing

In conclusion, I learned the migrant experiences like the Irish Potato Famine, the California Gold Rush, and the Tijuana Run all shaped America, either in good ways or in bad ways. Without these events, we wouldn't have so many Irish, Chinese, or even more border enforcement, but without these events, we might have had a better chance at Americans being a bigger part of America and the economy stabilizing. Even today, migrants are a problem since no one really knows how to deal with them, but I think if we just take precaution and let them in, everything will eventually work out in the end. However, I'm probably not the one to do anything about this, cause my idea could fail too. One way or another though, migrants are definitely shaping America and I'm positive there will be plenty more migrants coming into America, ready to shape it.