Extra Credit Opportunity

I am offering an opportunity for extra credit.

You can do a movie review of a movie made about a subject that we have studied so far. You will be responsible for giving me the following:
1. A minimum one-page summary of the movie's plot/story including a description of the main characters.
2. Minimum 1/2 page summary of the historical elements in the movie - what historical events, people, or moments in time does this movie portray? Are these characters real, fictional? Describe the clothes, transportation, technology (yes, they do have their own version of technology - it's just Outdoor Plumbing 1.0), historical attitudes and beliefs, etc. Provide at least four specific examples with explanation.
3. Minimum 1/2 page on how this movie has expanded your historical awareness of the topic we have already studied. Make sure you describe in this section how the movie connects with an era that we have studied with specific examples from the movie.
4. Keep It or Ditch It - This is where you rate the movie on a true teenager's interest scale. After watching this movie, would this movie might have been something you would have picked out on your own to watch? Why or why not? For a school-related history movie, on a scale of one to five (one being "Good God, don't ever show that again!" to five being "I'm getting on Amazon to buy the DVD"), give a rating for the movie with an explanation.

The assignment is worth 20 points max. Pick from the movies below.

Sommersby (1993) - Richard Gere and Jodie Foster - Reconstruction romance
Path of Glory (1957) - Kirk Douglas - World War 1
Eight Men Out (1988) - John Cusack, Charlie Sheen - Chicago White Sox Scandal
In Love and War (1996) - Chris O'Donnell and Sandra Bullock - The story of Ernest Hemingway and nurse Agnes von Kurowsky
Iron Jawed Angels
Gettysburg - (1993) - details the story of the battle of Gettysburg over the course of 4 hours
Gods and Generals (2003) - Follows the stories of Generals Lee and Stonewall Jackson between 1861-1863 of the Civil War.
The Molly Maguires (1970) - Irish immigrants and their story of the coal mines in Pennsylvania in 1876
Dances With Wolves (1990) - Kevin Costner. Mary Mcdonell, Graham Greene - Civil War soldier makes friends with Sioux tribe, but then has to choose.
Wyatt Earp (1994) - Kevin Costner, Dennis Quaid, Gene Hackman - cowboys out West and the true story of Wyatt Earp
I Will Fight No More Forever (1971) - Sam Elliot and Ned Romero - Chief Joseph's Nez Perce tribe
Andersonville (1996) - made for TV movie (TNT) about Confederate Civil War prison camp
Inherit the Wind (1960) - The Scopes trial
Far and Away (1992) - Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman - Irish immigrants come to America
Matewan (1987) - Chris Cooper - Profiles the attempt to unionize the coal mines in West Virginia and the violence that followed.


In order to receive credit for this assignment, you must upload your assignment at www.mydropbox.com. When you first get to the website, type in the following info in the light blue boxes at the top of the webpage: Login is 62629 and the password is wickersham (all lower case). Then you will get to a Submit Your Paper page. Click the pull down menu to movie review (if that's what you've done), type in your email, your name, document title (put the movie title in it), and then either cut and paste or upload your paper from a file.

As a warning, this site will cross reference your paper with many websites on the internet and the other kids who have done this assignment in both of my classes. Two suggestions: 1. Do your own work in your own words; and 2. Don't share your work with anyone no matter who it is. You never know who they'll share it with.

Journal #8 - Freedom of the Press vs. Wartime Government

I bring up the dual issues of censorship of ideas and censorship of the press during wartime because it came up during the talk on the Espionage and Sedition Acts during the Great War. Under these acts, a person can be fined up to a max of $10 grand and given a 20 year sentence for interfering with the sale of war bonds or the draft, or saying anything profane, disloyal, or abusive about the government. Obviously, these laws violate the 1st Amendment.

During wartime, there is a feeling that certain ideas may be considered dangerous, traitorous, or even downright unpatriotic. Many have been accused of such things when criticizing their government during times of war, and our history book mentions some of them. Eugene V. Debs, a Socialist Party leader and candidate for the Presidency, was sentenced to ten years in prison and fined $10,000 for "speaking out against the war and the draft" (Danzer, et. al. 392). Anarchist Emma Goldman was convicted and sentenced for creating a No Conscription League and then was deported to Russia after two years in jail.

The legal reasoning backing these cases up was set in cases like Schenck v. U.S. (1919). Eminent justice Oliver Wendell Holmes jr. stated that "the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Justice Holmes went on comparing protecting free speech of the guy who yells "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theatre. Holmes implied that Mr. Schenck's wartime leaflets were that kind of clear and present danger and therefore needed to be censured. Is Justice Holmes correct when he compares the two? Or should there be freedom of expression even during times of war?

Then there's the case of the press. Should the press have access to everything as if there wasn't a war going on? What if the war had secret information? Should they publish or release the info to the public? How much censorship is too much? How much is too little?

You can pick either freedom of the press or freedom of speech, or feel free to tackle both issues. Use a specific example if you'd like. All submissions should be a minimum of 150 words (that's for you, Joe!).

Journal #7 - Can we learn from the lessons of past imperialism?

During our look at the Spanish American War and the Filipino-American War, I tried to draw some obvious parallels between the Persian Gulf War (1990-91) and the Iraq War (2003 - present) . Hasty, short wars like the Spanish American War and the Persian Gulf War were thought to be the wars of the future: short and relatively bloodless using the latest in technology. Then there's the Filipino-American War and the Iraq War: two wars fought to quell insurgencies (though intitially Iraq was about toppling Saddam). Both wars have proven to be brutal, divisive at home, and required our soldiers to do some wicked things in order to win.

Here's a quote from the Philadelphia Ledger in 1901 about the war in the Philippines:
"Our present war is no bloodless, fake...engagement. Our men have been relentless: have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people, from lads of ten on up, an idea prevailing that the Filipino, as such, was little better than a dog, noisome reptile in some instances, whose best disposition was the rubbish heap. Our soldiers have pumped salt water into men to "make them talk," have taken prisoner people who held up their hands and peacefully surrendered, and an hour later, without an atom of evidence that they were even insurrectos, stood them on a bridge and shot them down one by one, to drop into the water below and float down as an example to those who found their bullet-ridden corpses."

Taking into account the stuff we've learned in our imperialism unit and in the imperialism debate, what kinds of lessons can we learn from American imperialism? Any one of these questions could apply for your journal.
- Is it worth the economic security to control the destinies of countries we can barely identify on the map?
- Are we sacrificing our democratic ideals when we take over other countries and pick their rulers for them? Why or why not?
- If we continue to worry about and depend upon oil in the Middle East, how will we ever develop clean energy sources that will get us off of our dependency?
- Is our dependency upon Middle East oil a security threat? Why or why not?
- When we are $8.659 trillion in the hole, how can we afford to be everywhere around the world?


Pick a question or come up with another angle on how we can learn from our past history of over 100 years of imperialism.

Editor's Note: We didn't amass this monstrous $8.659 trillion dollar debt just on Iraq alone. It started in 1969 when we were fighting the War on Poverty and the War in Vietnam at the same time. Then, we started outspending the Soviet Union during the 1980s to win the Cold War. That didn't happen until 1991. After 1991, our government was huge and wasteful, but still provided essential services. President Clinton signed a huge tax package to begin chipping away at the national debt in 1993, and by 1999, taxes along with a booming economy helped the government start to slowly pay down some of the debt. That all changed w/ President G.W. Bush.

Plus, there is security to think about when America acts as we do. Are we acting in our own best interests for vital resources, strategic locations, and the security of the nation?

- G.W., your devil's advocate!

Journal #6 - Evaluation of Teddy Roosevelt's presidency

Teddy Roosevelt was president for almost 8 full years between 1901-1909, and he ran for a 3rd term in 1912. That election ended up with Woodrow Wilson winning with the Republican votes divided between Taft and Roosevelt. This win for Wilson seemed to signal an end to TR's career.

During his presidency, TR felt that muckraking journalists were a danger to democracy b/c they riled up anti-government or anti-American feelings when they exposed government and business corruption. People like himself (educated, informed, those with good intentions) are the ones who should be controlling reform. Reform is better than revolution, TR believed.

These muckrakers were extremely pivotal in bringing about changes in monopolistic businesses (Standard Oil), changes in the meat and medicine industries, and in poverty and local and state government corruption. Yet, TR felt that he was the best of both worlds - reform but not radical reform.

So, my question for you is: who is right, TR or the muckrakers? Should the president lead reform or should it be the journalists? Or, do you think there should be someone else being at the forefront of business and government? Congress? Consumers? Explain your answer (in a minimum of 150 words).

Journal #5 - Eugenics and Social Darwinism

During this unit on immigration and the growth in American cities, we looked a lot and discussed issues concerning the poor in America, both back then and now. Social Darwinism was used as a philosophy to justify the inequality between rich and poor before the 20th Century, and denying charity or help of any kind to the poor was seen as interference w/ natural law.

Eugenics became popular enough so that over 30 states had eugenics / sterilization laws on the books by 1935. According to some of the research out there, 70,000 Americans were involuntarily sterilized by 1970 for reasons like laziness, promiscuity, mental "deficencies", and the like. This way, the poor could not pass on their bad genes to their children thereby making more children. The thinking went, fewer poor people now = fewer poor children in the future.

But who gets to decide who is fit to have children and who isn't fit?

Tell me your reactions to our discussion this week about social Darwinism, eugenics, the poor, and the articles you were given. (Minimum 150 words reply please).

Feel free to discuss or react to other comments posted by students on the blog.

Journal #4 - Should America Build a Wall At the Mexican Border?

In our next unit, we will be studying our immigration history, but specifically, we'll look at the time period of 1880s - 1924 when a huge influx of Eastern and Southern European immigrants arrived on our shores looking for work, land, the American Dream and freedom.

One question that swirls around the current immigration debate is whether or not a 700-mile wall should be built along the 1,952-mile border w/ Mexico. The House approved $2.2 billion for the wall back in December 2005 to "build a double set of steel walls with floodlights, surveillance cameras and motion detectors along one-third of the U.S.-Mexican border." 1 The Senate approved the bill shortly afterwards.

On Thursday, October 26, President Bush signed this bill into law. "Unfortunately the United States has not been in complete control of its borders for decades and therefore illegal immigration has been on the rise," Bush said at a signing ceremony. He called the fence bill "an important step in our nation's efforts to secure our borders." 3 (What's interesting to note about this Yahoo article that I quoted from here is that it can't even figure out how long the southern border of the U.S. is. One part of the article says it's a "nearly 2,000-mile border" while another part of the article refers to the "fence project covering one-third of the 2,100-mile border." Last time I checked, we haven't changed our southern border with Mexico since the Gadsden Purchase in 1853.)

So, what do you think? Does America need this wall? Why or why not? Read the articles on illegal immigration and decide before answering. Check on the links below to read some opinions. Your answer should be 150 words or more. Answer by Sunday night 10/29/06, 11:59 p.m.

1. Article from the San Fransico Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/26/BORDERFENCE.TMP

2. Diagram of wall taken from website: http://www.dakotavoice.com/images/fence.jpg

3. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061026/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_immigration_8

Journal #3 - Modern Day Social Costs of Capitalism

In our unit on late 19th Century industry and unions, we're examining the social costs of unregulated capitalism and the response in unions and labor strife/conflict. In today's world, we see a shrinking manufacturing work force with American jobs going overseas, the increased costs of health care for workers (with millions not covered as well), city slums and poverty (something that hasn't changed since the late 19th Century). Corporations are also downsizing which affect white color jobs and not just manufacturing jobs.

There are several options you can choose from when considering your journal. Pick one of the following questions and answer it fully in a journal of a minimum of 150 words.
1. With jobs going overseas (outsourcing), companies say that they need to do this to compete with other companies. For instance, companies send work overseas to cut costs and see their stock price jump as a result. Critics say that these foreign workers don't pay taxes to the American government like American workers would; also, the unemployed American workers become part of the unemployment pool. They may be overqualified for entry level jobs.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=519224 - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's business article on outsourcing and its benefits.

Is there a limit of jobs that American companies should be allowed to export overseas? Or do American companies need to compete with other companies and shouldn't be held back by government restrictions?

2. Products made in foreign countries by workers (some of whom are under 18) allow American companies to keep prices lower for us, the American consumer. American businesses aren't bound by U.S. child labor laws but bound by the laws of the country. Plus, U.S. companies don't have to pay American minimum wages. This is taken from www.sweatshopwatch.org:
"According to independent labor rights organizations in Hong Kong, a living wage in China would be about $0.87/hour. Minimum wage rates vary as they are set by each provincial government, however, they do not meet this living wage. Shanghai's minimum is $0.21/hour, and Guangzhou's $0.26/hour.
("Behind the Label: Made in China," March 1998, Charles Kernaghan/National Labor Committee.) "

The question is: are you willing to continue buying goods from companies that use labor like this b/c of the price? Or are you willing to buy from companies that don't employ child labor or cheap labor overseas? Why? Explain. See the flyer or see www.sweatshops.org. http://www.sweatshopwatch.org/media/pdf/sweatfree_handout05.pdf

Photo ID to vote: Good idea or bad idea?

In Congress currently is H.R. 4844, a bill that would require voters to present a photo ID at the polls in order to vote. This quote is taken from http://thomas.loc.gov/.
"To amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require any individual who desires to register or re-register to vote in an election for Federal office to provide the appropriate State election official with proof that the individual is a citizen of the United States to prevent fraud in Federal elections, and for other purposes."

Pros and cons:
1. Photo ID helps prevent voter fraud.
2. Photo ID is impractical and costly for the elderly and poor.
3. Many people already have this ID - their driver's license - so it will cost little to implement.
4. There's little evidence to suggest that such voter fraud actually exists.
5. Illegal aliens are prevented from voting by such a law.
6. Judges have recently struck down laws like these (or given injunctions to stop them) in states like Missouri http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/15519955.htm, Georgia, Ohio, Indiana, and Arizona.

Read up on it at http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/09/15/voterid/index_np.html

So tell us what you think: should Americans have a photo ID to vote in federal elections? Why or why not?

Journal #1 - Is Progress that separates the rich and the poor true progress?

Your job is to provide comments on the following quote:

"So long as all the increased wealth which modern progress brings goes but to build up great fortunes, to increase luxury and make sharper the contrast between the House of Have and the House of Want, progress is not real and cannot be permanent."

Henry George, Progress and Poverty. A passage from one of the most widely read American books in the 1880s, the author was highlighting the great puzzle of the era: Why did such great poverty exist at a time of such great progress and wealth? The question has been at the center of much of America's political life ever since.

A couple of questions to get you thinking for your journal response:
- Can America be a great nation w/ 15-20% of its populace living in poverty? Why or why not?
- Why do we still have these same problems of wealth disparity today that they did back in the 1880s?
- Can the solution to wealth disparity be found in the government or in businesses? Neither? Why?
- Why has America prospered so much while some other nations failed so miserably?

Welcome to the U.S. History A Blog

Thanks for visiting the blog. If you're a visitor, please come back after the beginning of next school year in September when this will be active. Otherwise, for interesting stuff to read right now, go to www.excel10.blogspot.com for one of my other classes' blogs.

If you're a student, this will be the place where you'll make your comments and add your journals. If it's your turn to send a post, then email that post, along with any applicable pictures and email links to mrwickersham@gmail.com . Thanks.