Saturday, October 25, 2008

Blog #6 - Free Speech During War Time - Treason or Acceptable?

During the Great War, the United States went to great lengths to stop people from expressing their views on the war and the draft. According to historian Sean Dennis Cashman, Wilson that war "required illiberalism at home to reinforce the men at the front. We couldn't fight Germany and maintain the ideals of Government that all thinking men shared...once led into war, [Americans] will forget there ever was such a thing as tolerance" (505). So, in order to set Europe free from tyranny, we had to restrict America more of its rights.

Historian Howard Zinn has written at length that part of this suppression was done to keep Americans from expressing their anti-war sentiments/feelings:

- Why should we get into a war that we have no interests in? This is only about European colonialists, not U.S. interests;

- Why should I be drafted to go protect France or Belgium? (only 73,000 volunteered in the first 6 weeks after Wilson declared war on Germany in April 1917);

- Why should we spend millions and millions of our tax money to do this?;

- Why should we join a war that current French soldiers are beginning to mutiny against? (in essence, why we should we join a losing fight?);

- Why should we break away from our tradition of isolationism? It's served us well for this long (if it ain't broke, don't fix it);


So Wilson and Congress together got tough on this kind of anti-war talk and anti-draft interference w/ the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918. The Supreme Court affirmed that we do NOT have the right to free speech as long as it creates a "clear and present danger" (much like yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre like Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes so eloquently phrased it in the 1919 court decision, Schenck vs. U.S.).

A speech like this one by Eugene Debs is the kind of thing that got him in trouble and thrown in the big house:

"Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder. ...the working class who fight all the battles, the working class who make the supreme sacrifices, the working class who freely shed their blood and furnish their corpses, have never yet had a voice in either declaring war or making peace. It is the ruling class that invariably does both. They alone declare war and they alone make peace. They are continually talking about their patriotic duty. It is not their but your patriotic duty that they are concerned about. There is a decided difference. Their patriotic duty never takes them to the firing line or chucks them into the trenches." (emphasis added)

*Debs was sentenced to jail for this speech and while in jail ran for President under the Socialist Party for which he received almost one million votes in 1912 and in 1920! Website for Debs: http://www.eugenevdebs.com/

But my question still remains:

  • is questioning your country's conduct during a war o.k.?

  • Should asking questions about how the war is conducted, about the tactics being used (torture, waterboarding, etc.), about how the goals are being met (or if they're being met at all), or is it all worth the sacrifice of all the young men and women's lives??

  • Is this line of questioning during war time o.k. or does it make you unpatriotic? Why?

    Minimum of 200 word response - due Monday, October 27th.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

That's So Gay

Here are a couple of public service announcements that try to get people to think about using the phrase, "that's so gay". The first one includes Hillary Duff.







http://thinkb4youspeak.com/

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Blog #5 - Which debate option do you think is the best?

During our debate, we pretended that we were back in 1898 after having won the Spanish-American War and taken over colonies from Spain like the Philippine Islands. Option 1 argued that America should keep the Philippines and begin the development of an American empire. Option 2 felt that America needed to walk away from the potential empire that we were about to grab ahold of at that time. Option 3 includes the main idea of keeping the important harbor of Manila in the Philippines only, but not the rest of the archipelago. This is more of a business-centered focus as opposed to military (Option 1) or moral (like Option 2).

I want you to look at this from 2 angles:
1. In 1898, which option do you think was best for America? Why?
2. And now, which option do you think would be best for America today if we continue to gain more territory?
(150 words minimum - please make sure you answer both questions). Due Monday 10/20/08
Additional websites/assets:
Reenacted trench battle film from 1899 in the war (it's o.k. to laugh, no one died in this fake battle footage): mailto:NUMBER+@band(sawmp+0849))+@field(COLLID+spanam))

Friday, October 10, 2008

The Next Blog (#4) in a Long Series of Excellent Blogs - Is America an Empire?

There have been dozens of books written lately about how America has become an empire - especially with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

The premise of many of these books is that whether we like it or not, America is an empire. Whether we like acknowledging it or not is whole other thing.


When many people think of empires, we tend to think of the ancient Romans with their gladiators and colisseums, or the British Empire and some guy in a funny-looking pith helmet tromping through the African jungle: "Dr. Livingston, I presume?" With the word "empire" or "imperialism" comes so much negative baggage; plus, those words are so down-right anti-democratic. If we're controlling the destinies of other countries, how are we allowing them to be democratic and free nations?


Being an imperialist nation, apparently, has been something we've been working at for several decades now. A book by Stephen Kinzer called Overthrow outlines over a dozen instances where the United States has taken control of a country b/c our business or political interests were threatened, resources were slipping out of control, or during the Cold War, we felt the creep of socialism/communism get too close.

When comparing the early 20th Century to today we will talk about how widespread today's American military is across the world: 700 military bases in 60 countries; 1.4 million soldiers. There's an upside to all of this - don't get me wrong! Because of these brave men and women, we're so much safer than we would be without them. I am grateful for theirs and their families' sacrifices.

The question to answer: Is America an empire? Why or why not?
Questions to consider but not necessarily answer - is the course we've taken towards building an empire worth the hatred of the world? Our safety doesn't mean much when terrorists want to kill us at home. Morally, are we doing the right thing by keeping other countries from determining their own destiny? Economically, is the tax money we're spending on our military also the right thing to do? Should the other countries of the world shoulder their own defense expense? Why or why not?

Minimum response - 200 words - due Monday- 10.13.08
Find out how we overthrew Iran in 1953: A Folly of Attacking Iran: Lessons from History - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJRcOF7rEfQ

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

Blog #3 - Pick a question

Sorry this is late: DUE FRIDAY 10/3/08

Pick one of the following questions and answer it with a minimum of 150 words:


1. Should the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the country get a chance at citizenship by learning English, paying fines and work towards citizenship? Why or why not?

2. Should America make English its official language? How about English and Spanish? Think about the consequences for the country and compare it to Canada. For either question, why or why not?

3. Is it important that America maintain the wall along its Mexican border? Or do you think the wall is unfair and a symbol of oppression? Think about the issues brought up in the TIME article (crime, health care, national security, etc.) and tell us what you think.

Thanks.