Showing posts with label 1920s. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1920s. Show all posts

Monday, November 02, 2009

Blog #25 - Women's Rights - The 1920s

In 1920, America finally approved women's right to vote with the passage of the 19th Amendment. Now, women aged 21 and over could vote in all elections.

The movement began in 1848 at Seneca Falls, NY where women gathered to make a list of grievances "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (1).

In 1869, famous female leaders Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton launched the National Women's Suffrage Assoiciation (NWSA) right around the time that Wyoming granted women suffrage. In addition, Colorado is the first state to adopt an amendment granting women the right to vote (in 1893). Utah and Idaho follow suit in 1896, Washington State in 1910, California in 1911, Oregon, Kansas, and Arizona in 1912, Alaska and Illinois in 1913, Montana and Nevada in 1914, New York in 1917; Michigan, South Dakota, and Oklahoma in 1918 (2). Black women also formed a group called the National Association of Colored Women (NACW) who also had the same goals as the NWSA - universal suffrage.

The National Women's Party, led by Alice Paul and Lucy Burns, began a strong push for the passage of the Anthony Amendment. That push includes protesting in front of the White House and other acts of civil disobedience. check out the trailer for HBO's Iron Jawed Angels:







That's Hilary Swank (2 time Oscar winner) playing Alice Paul. Paul and Burns decided to take their pursuit of suffrage to a whole new level which scandalized old-fashioned suffragists like Carrie Chapman Catt, but in the end, proved more effective than not. For instance, Paul and Burns organized a march for President Wilson's inauguration in 1913 (and violence broke out afterwards).
Lawyer Inez Milholland riding a horse in the 1913 parade (looking like Joan of Arc).




Here's a YouTube link to part 1 of IJA. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df5ePfUW-60

Part 2 of IJA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT76UtxpOoA (Ida Wells appears in this segment pushing for black women to march together w/ white women).
Part 3 of IJA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1ZK1v9O1DI (the 1913 march and violence are at the end).
Part 4 of IJA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYYqtq_uRlM&feature=related (reaction to the violence as the DC police turn away - Wilson declines to push for suffrage).
Part 5 of IJA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T68z-EpoXg (see the split of the more conservative NAWSA and the more radical Congressional Union / National Women's Party).
Some of the reasons why men didn't women to vote (tongue in cheek):

Why We Don't Want Men to Vote (by writer Alice Miller, 1915):

- Because man's place is in the army.
- Because no really manly man wants to settle any question otherwise than by fighting about it.
- Because if men should adopt peaceable methods women will no
longer look up to them.
- Because men will lose their charm if they step out of their natural sphere and interest themselves in other matters than feats of arms, uniforms, and drums.
- Because men are too emotional to vote. Their conduct at baseball games and political conventions shows this, while their innate tendency to appeal to force renders them unfit for government (3).

Finally, after showing that women have earned the right to vote by working in the factories during the Great War, President Wilson finally pushed for the amendment's support. It probably didn't hurt that the NWP asked voting women not to support Wilson in the 1916 election. The House passed it overwhelmingly, but it took the Senate another couple months to finally agree to the amendment.
"Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan were the first states to pass the law; Georgia
and Alabama rushed to pass rejections. The anti-suffrage forces, which included
both men and women, were well-organized, and passage of the amendment was not easy.
When thirty-five of the necessary thirty-six states had ratified the amendment, the
battle came to Nashville, Tennessee. Anti-suffrage and pro-suffrage forces from
around the nation descended on the town. And on August 18, 1920, the final vote
was scheduled.
One young legislator, 24 year old Harry Burn, had voted with the anti-suffrage forces to that time. But his mother had urged that he vote for the amendment and for suffrage. When he saw that the vote was very close, and with his anti-suffrage vote would be tied 48 to 48, he decided to vote as his mother had urged him: for the right of women to vote. And so on August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the 36th and deciding state to ratify" (3).
With all of this info, please answer the following questions:
1. Why do you think the women of the NWP like Lucy Burns and Alice Paul had to resort to more radical methods to highlight their case for women's suffrage?

2. Can you think of current or recent incidents / marches / protests where protestors had used more radical tactics to gain attention to their cause? Which ones? What did they do?

Due Friday, November 6. 150 words minimum.


Sources:
1. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0875901.html The Declaration of Sentiments, Seneca Falls, NY, 1848.
2. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenstimeline1.html Women's Rights Timeline.
3. http://womenshistory.about.com/od/suffrage1900/a/august_26_wed.htm Women's History



Thursday, November 06, 2008

Blog #7 - Why are we still fighting over evolution and creation today?

The Scopes Trial in Dayton, Tennessee was labeled the "Trial of the Century" when it occurred in July 1925. Editors across the country called it thus b/c the case represented so much of what was going on in the 1920s:

1. Old vs. New
2. Rural vs. Urban
3. God vs. Science
4. Faith vs. Reason
5. Traditional values vs. city morals

Celebrity lawyers Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan battled for eleven days with very different intentions: Darrow wanted to put the Butler Act (Tennessee's state law banning the teaching of evolution) on trial while Bryan sought to rid the world of Darwinian thought seeing World War 1 and Social Darwinism as its end result). Scopes was eventually found guilty, fined $100 (which both the ACLU and Bryan offered to pay for him). Unfortunately, five days after the trial, Bryan died in Dayton.

In 1926, Mississippi becomes the 2nd state to outlaw the teaching of evolution. The next year, the Tennessee state Supreme Court affirms the Butler Act but overturns Scopes conviction on a technicality. 1928, Arkansas becomes the 3rd state to ban evolution.

Eventually, Tennessee would repeal the Butler Act in 1967 but pass a law in 1973 that requires science teachers to give equal time to creation as a competing theory to the origin of man. In 1968, 1982, and 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court declares these laws banning evolution (or requiring creation to be taught) as unconstitutional. It seemed that by 1987, the debate was over.

But, it's not. According to the article I handed out, "Monkey See, Monkey Do", Intelligent Design (ID) has taken the place of creation in classrooms and school board meetings around the country. There is even a think tank university dedicated to promoting ID teaching in public schools. President Bush believes that ID should be presented as a competing theory. One of the problems with ID is that there is no scientific basis to support it as a theory.

A school district in Dover, Penn. was prohibited by a judge from teaching ID in its biology classes in 2005, and the three school board members who pushed for its inclusion in the high school curriculum were recently ousted from the board after national embarassment. See the CNN link for this case: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design/index.html

So my question is two fold:
1. Does the teaching of creation / Intelligent Design in public schools cross the line when it comes to separation of church and state (where the government should not endorse or favor one religion -in this case the Judeo-Christian religion - over another) as specified in the 1st Amendment? Why or why not?
2. Should creation / ID be presented as a competing theory for the origin of man along with evolution in public schools? And why in the world hasn't this controversy gone away even 81 years after the Scopes Trial?

Answer both questions in a minimum of 200 words total. Due Friday, 11/7.

Great timeline on the Scopes Trial and Creation / Evolution controversy:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4723956

More Evolution / Scopes Trial websites:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/evolut.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/monkeytrial/
http://www.scopestrial.org/
http://www.scopestrial.org/inhisimage.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/08/2/l_082_01.html

Saturday, November 17, 2007

The Millie Quiz

In case you're having computer issues or can't find the quiz, here's a copy of the Thoroughly Modern Millie quiz especially prepared for you:

THOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE Extra Credit Questionnaire
(Questions hand-selected by: Dayna Campbell , Meghan Concannon, and Mrs. Petrino)
1. What year does the show take place in? (Hint: it’s in the opening song)
2. What is one of the "mysteries of the orient?"
3. What happens to the orphans at the Hotel Pricilla and where do they go?
4. What did Mr. Graydon win his trophy for? What does Millie think he won it for?
5. What is Millie’s profession?
6. What is the song "Gimme Gimme" about?
7. What is the name of the Chinese man who is in love with Miss Dorthy?
8. What kind of woman does Mille want to be? How is this related to the decade in which the show is set?
9. Who pretends to be the new orphan in town?
10. Name one famous historical figure that is referenced in the show (Think about Muzzy’s party).

Have fun at the play. Hope to see you there.

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Journal #9 - The Scopes Trial - One of the Trials of the Century

The Scopes Trial in Dayton, Tennessee was labeled the "Trial of the Century" when it occurred in July 1925. Editors across the country called it thus b/c the case represented so much of what was going on in the 1920s:
1. Old vs. New
2. Rural vs. Urban
3. God vs. Science
4. Faith vs. Reason
5. Traditional values vs. city morals

Celebrity lawyers Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan battled for eleven days with very different intentions: Darrow wanted to put the Butler Act (Tennessee's state law banning the teaching of evolution) on trial while Bryan sought to rid the world of Darwinian thought seeing World War 1 and Social Darwinism as its end result). Scopes was eventually found guilty, fined $100 (which both the ACLU and Bryan offered to pay for him). Unfortunately, five days after the trial, Bryan died in Dayton.


In 1926, Mississippi becomes the 2nd state to outlaw the teaching of evolution. The next year, the Tennessee state Supreme Court affirms the Butler Act but overturns Scopes conviction on a technicality. 1928, Arkansas becomes the 3rd state to ban evolution.

Eventually, Tennessee would repeal the Butler Act in 1967 but pass a law in 1973 that requires science teachers to give equal time to creation as a competing theory to the origin of man. In 1968, 1982, and 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court declares these laws banning evolution (or requiring creation to be taught) as unconstitutional. It seemed that by 1987, the debate was over.

But, it's not. According to the article I handed out, "Monkey See, Monkey Do", Intelligent Design (ID) has taken the place of creation in classrooms and school board meetings around the country. There is even a think tank university dedicated to promoting ID teaching in public schools. President Bush thinks ID should be presented as a competing theory. The only problem with ID is that there is no scientific basis for it.

A school district in Dover, Penn. was recently prohibited by a judge from teaching ID in its biology classes, and the three school board members who pushed for its inclusion in the high school curriculum were recently ousted from the board after national embarassment. See the CNN link for this case: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design/index.html

So my question is two fold:
1. Does the teaching of creation / Intelligent Design in public schools cross the line when it comes to separation of church and state (where the government should not endorse or favor one religion -in this case the Judeo-Christian religion - over another) as specified in the 1st Amendment? Why or why not?
2. Should creation / ID be presented as a competing theory for the origin of man along with evolution in public schools? And why in the world hasn't this controversy gone away even 81 years after the Scopes Trial?

Great timeline on the Scopes Trial and Creation / Evolution controversy: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4723956