The Socratic Method: "Bowling for Columbine"

After watching "Bowling for Columbine," I noticed strong connections between the documentary and Socrates' Socratic method. In "Bowling for Columbine," Michael Moore adopts the Socratic method in analyzing the gun problem in America, especially in interviewing different people who could be held responsible (Charleton Heston, workers at Kmart Corp., etc.). Whereas most people keep the interviews they conduct on a respectful and nonconfrontational level, Moore asked questions-that others would never dream of asking-simply because he wanted to hold others accountable for their actions, and he wanted to know the truth. After asking one confrontational question, and then hearing the answer, Michael Moore asked follow-up questions that challenged them further. Sometimes he even asked the questions in a completely different way so as to trap them into feeling guilty for the wrongful "crimes" they had committed and for all of the ways they contributed to the gun problem in America. At times, questions were not needed at all; Moore's actions did all the talking. For example, Moore brought two victims from the Columbine shooting to Kmart headquarters and confronted the "big guys" directly, making sure that they knew that Kmart bullets did the damage. The next day, to prove an even bigger point, he and the boys went to Kmart and bought all of the bullets. Then they returned to Kmart headquarters and demanded answers. To sum it all up: Michael Moore not only asked questions, but he asked them in different ways than the norm allowed for, and he built off of these questions in order to challenge the people he was interviewing to see the situation in unaccustomed ways-to see that they were the ones who were truly at fault. He "proved" one point after another by doing things this way. On page 221 of "The Dialogues of Plato," for example, Socrates persuades Glaucon and the others to sway to his line of thinking by "proving" various statements to them and getting them to agree/comply. Socrates plays the "so then, (blank) must be true because (blank) you agreed is also true" kind of card. This can also be related to Michael Moore's way of interrogating others and finding out information.
Michael Moore and Socrates both utilize the Socratic method so that they are able to get to the truth and so that they are able to make others see the truth in themselves.

Socrates' Strong Argument

After reading "Crito" from Dialogues of Plato, I agree more with Socrates' argument. If Socrates were to follow Crito's advice to escape, he would have been a hypocrite! Everything that Socrates argued during his trial was supportive of his willingness to die for what he believes in; therefore, if he were to go against what he believes in in order to live, he would be ridiculed for that and deemed not supportive of his initial arguments/views. In acting as a martyr, he remains consistent with his normal behavior and conduct. I agree that Socrates should submit to Athens because Athens has nurtured him and taught him throughout the years. He chose to live in Athens and nowhere else, so he should deal with any punishment dealt out to him by his "mother and father." After all, Socrates realizes, it is the law.
Although Crito argues that Socrates will be leaving his children behind and that Socrates will be satisfying the many by submitting to their punishment, Socrates has a beautiful argument to repudiate this. He remains consistent with his "do not render evil for evil" argument, and he argues that the wise prevail no matter how many unwise citizens there are. Basically he is saying that doing right by himself, a wise person, is by far the best course of action he could take. As far as the children are concerned, Socrates believes that his children would not have as much if he remained alive because they would be forced to leave Athens and would be subject to other punishments because of their father. He knows that his children will be raised and taught sufficiently with the help of the friends he is leaving behind.
There is a strong connection between "Crito" and the "Law and Justice" packet in that both deal with the law and one's choice to submit to it given various circumstances. In the "Law and Justice" packet, some throughout history have believed that it is best to go against the law in order to right a moral/unjust wrong. Following this, this "group" refuses to accept the punishment for the broken law because they know that what they did was not wrong. On the other end of the spectrum, there have been those who have, like the previous group, done no wrong in "breaking the law," yet they feel it is their duty to accept the punishment, whether to prove the point that they are falsely and wrongfully imprisoned or to remain consistent with their views. Socrates can relate to the latter group in every way. It is unfortunate, however, that he did not even know he was doing wrong! The question that sums up the relationship between the two readings is this: should one submit to the imprisonment bestowed upon himself/herself when he or she sees no wrong in the "wrongful act?"

Memorable Topic from Q1

One topic that I truly found interesting was the topic of 'Victimless Crimes.' I had never considered gambling, scalping tickets, pornography, or sex acts, among other things, to be real crimes worth imprisoning others for until I watched the recorded television special that was played in class. I enjoyed listening to the two arguments: one being that people should be able to do what they choose to do as long as they are not directly affecting anyone else-a lot of these acts are committed in the privacy of one's own home!-and the other being that these acts are immoral, whether they are hurting anyone else or not. Under the first amendment shouldn't one be able to "mess up" his or her own life? And who is the government to decide what is moral or immoral for any one person? This are questions that were brought to my attention, and they truly made me think. I understand how a few victimless crimes, such as prostitution and drug use, are borderline, but many others that are extremely harmless are still characterized in this 'immoral' way. By learning about these "victimless crimes," I became better aware of where I stand on the issue-I do not believe many of these acts, especially sex acts, should be regulated when everyone thinks and feels differently regarding his or her own morals. I also became aware of the fact that this struggle for rights given to us under the first amendment even existed-that there are people out there who fight the battle every day because they cannot live their life happily with the infringement on their privacy and their choices. I gained a better realization of the hardships many people endure because of these "morally-regulated" laws. I value learning this because I can teach those who are not aware so that they can become aware and do something about it if they so choose. Becoming aware and spreading the word could easily become a catalyst for change! I also now have the ability to relate it to other happenings throughout the country and to compare it to various other instances outside of our country as well. I have become a more informed citizen, and I will be better able to relate back to this topic in the future.

Inherit the Wind

In the note preceding the play, the playwrights imply that the themes of the play are timeless and universal. They understand that there is always something that gets America, or even a small portion of America, riled up. People will never agree on everything because we all have unique opinions that we are entitled to have! Under the first amendment, we are given our basic freedoms of individualism and the freedoms to express those. As in the book, there will always be a battle raging between two parties who cannot seem to reach common ground. This is not wrong, but the playwrights are trying to emphasize the inevitability of this in our society. In the book, the battle was fought over "Darwinism" and evolution. An example in today's society would be the issue of abortion. It is a constant battle that exists due to two extremely different views.
As I stated before, the abortion issue is a great example of how the themes of the book tie in today, especially since both topics are very much based on religion. In Inherit the Wind, the argument is that God created all beings. The other side of the argument states that humans and all beings evolved over time. When applied to abortion, the religious side emphasizes that human life begins at conception and that abortion is murder. The other side believes that a woman has the right to decide what she is going to do with her body.
People are never going to agree on everything, which is why the Scopes trials had to happen and why Roe vs Wade occurred. There are plenty of other examples of opposition in today's society.
It's a fact of life!

Promoting Democracy Abroad

After reading "Should Democracy Abroad Be a Top U.S. Priority?" I agree with the "yes" argument. First of all, the "yes" argument is a very strong argument that states that those countries that democratize experience a sharp increase in economic growth. For example, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Mexico, Senegal, Mozambique, and other countries, all of which switched over to democratic ways, grew more rapidly than Zimbabwe, Cuba, North Korea, Uzbekistan, and Saudi Arabia, all countries with autocratic governments. In addition, Siegle makes the argument that while autocratic countries with incomes below $2,000 averaged 79 infant deaths per 1,000 live births during the '90s, democratizers in the same income category and time frame typically experienced only 62 infant deaths. Also to be noted, democratizing states that strive to establish institutions of shared power tend to develop more rapidly. Those countries such as Botswana, South Africa, Senegal, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, etc. that have established stronger methods protecting against the arbitrary use of power have realized more economic growth than other democratizers whose restraints on political monopolization have been weak. Democratic countries, he argues, also present a good example of the benefits of democracy to those countries who do not currently govern that way. I believe that these examples provide strong support and evidence that democracy anywhere is responsible for increased prosperity and advancement. This can be made evident simply be comparing and contrasting countries with a strong democratic system to those that have a poor democratic system or none at all. Who can argue with infant mortality rates and economic stability?

In reading the "no" argument, I picked up on some weak points in the text. The "no" argument, first of all, does not even really disagree with the "yes" argument-it simply disagreed in the way the spread of democracy abroad was being carried out. What kind of an argument is that? :) This in itself makes for a poor stance (the fact that the author is not supporting the completely opposite point of view). She argues that the spread of democracy abroad is costing us too much money and that our president is not carrying his duties out in the correct way, but she does not really give much of an example. She does speak of how some say that they doubt President Bush really wanted to establish democracy in Iraq in the first place, but she does not back up her argument by giving examples of who, when, why, etc. This is all simply heresay without substantial evidence. Her circumlocution is not beneficial or complementary to her argument whatsoever-it just makes her seem as if she didn't do her "research!"

Justification of Putting Suspected Terrorists Through Torture

After reading "Is it Justified to Put Suspected Terrorists under Great Physical Duress," I sided with the "no" stance. I strongly believe that because the U.S. government allowed for the beating of, many times innocent, people who were suspected terrorists, we were given a bad reputation. Many other countries who had looked up to us previously, now look down upon us as no better than the actual terrorists themselves. This could harm our country in the sense that those who took our side before on very large matters, have left us on our own after this "rendition" sort of uprising. In addition, the beating and torture of people for information teaches our children the wrong things, and it sets up very low standards for our citizens. We can no longer say that we are a morally-correct country, and there is definitely not as much to be proud of if we are defined for our unethical and inhumane treatment of our own race! I do not agree with the "no" argument at all because the author stresses that torturing others for information is essential to protecting our citizens from harm. He also states that we are sending a positive example in standing up for the freedoms and protection of our country. Yes, I agree that our citizens should be kept out of harm's way, but as the "no" argument mentions, how many people actually have information to give us? And how many times have these pressure tactics worked? I will say that I don't believe they are effective at all! We just look idiotic. In conclusion, the "no" argument is a much stronger argument, and I argue with that argument one-hundred percent.

Rendition

The movie Rendition truly brings to light the issue of illegally obtaining "intelligence," and it can very easily be connected to the theme of "nature versus nurture." After 9/11, our country became a product of society's fear-constantly labeling anyone who looked foreign as a terrorist. For example, in the movie the mayor(?) criticized Alan's wish to rescue Anwar from the unfair treatment that he was suffering, and he said that he did not wish to be called a "Bin Laden lover." This rendition program, that was electrocuting, beating up, and stripping Anwar naked, seems to make those who are anti-terrorist feel okay, but the fact is this: many of those innocent people had no information yet were tortured anyways. This nurture argument that is forming is clearly illustrated in the way that one man would torture a prisoner just because another man "found him" to be guilty. There was no evidence!
In addition, Khalid's actions were all based upon his environment. Because his brother had died as a result of this rendition program and its leaders, and because Omar, Khalid's friend, had been captured and beaten as well, Khalid set off the bomb that killed so many. This was all to prove a point. He would never have done that if it hadn't been for the past unfair treatment and torture of those he loved.
Another great example of the "nurture" argument appears when Alan gives up Anwar's wife's "case." Due to the pressure from his job and society to keep quiet about the details of the rendition program, he stops helping out a friend!
There are obviously many more examples throughout the movie that reinforce the "nurture" argument as well.
At the end of Rendition, everything comes together to make a very big impact on the viewer and to prove the point of the whole movie. Post 9/11 society corrupted the minds of those who wished for power, and they went about their "security measures" in such a way that many innocent people were humiliated and/or killed. Those affected by the killings and such lashed out in other ways to try to combat rendition. These attempts to stop or impede rendition usually only caused more serious problems. The cycles formed because of rendition ultimately destroyed many different communities and societies. And this all started because of society's impact on "a" human being.

3:10 to Yuma

The movie 3:10 to Yuma definitely has some kind of connection to the "nature versus nurture" theme. In my opinion, Ben Wade's character is strongly representative of the "nurture argument." He was probably not initially a killer, a cheater, or a coldhearted person, but because of the people and events that surrounded him, he succumbed in order to fit in and in order to survive. His bad behavior may also be a result of his mom abandoning him when he was younger. When Ben Wade, at the beginning of the movie, states, "I hate Pinkertons," he seems to be going along with what his environment is reinforcing. One example of Wade's behavior is showcased when he kills Byron. It is obvious that Wade lives defensively, and at one point in the movie he even speaks of how good deeds are contagious. And for that reason, he stays away from the good deeds. Although Wade and his comrades show their extremely societal-based behaviors throughout the entirety of the movie, the environment, once again, molds Wade's character at the end-this time in a positive way. After he was "escorted" (haha) to the train station and after William watched his father get shot by Charlie Prince, Wade was deeply affected. Because of this environmental change, Wade shot his former friend, Charlie Prince, and rather than escaping, rightfully locked himself behind bars on the 3:10 train to Yuma.

"Dead Teen Walking"

"Dead Teen Walking" is very similar to White Fang in that they both discuss society's influence on events, people, and reality in general (the "molding" concept). In "Dead Teen Walking," the unfair imposition of the death penalty on minorities and on others who are undeserving of it is discussed. It tells the story of one boy in particular who had a bad childhood and who made poor decisions. This very much reminds me of White Fang in that both the boy in the article and White Fang had very rough childhoods. Despite this fact, those who made up a part of their environment did not care or take that into account when questioning their bad behavior. It seems that these kinds of things (past experiences, etc.) are never taken into account. In White Fang, it appears as if his past was not taken into account until he came upon Scott, a man who truly looked at how the past had molded White Fang's character.
I do not believe that teens should be put on death row at all! As I discussed above, those teens' pasts are not taken into account when making these decisions. Maybe if each case was dealt with individually, then the legal process involved with youth punishment would be more fair. I also did not like the part of the article that states that valuable evidence that could be used to prove a minority innocent is often passed up or ignored. This is very discriminatory! Everyone should have the right to a fair trial. In addition, I do not agree with the fact that these youth trials are put off until the youth are of age (this makes age appear to be an uncontroversial issue). Who knows how many innocent people have died by means of capital punishment? I believe that youth should be given a chance to prove themselves. Why should they not be allowed to prove themselves? This would be much better than learning one's lesson by dying!
Reading White Fang impacted my viewpoint only in that I noticed the same "nurture" stance in which I had agreed with (and still agree with). Both pieces definitely had a lot in common!

Abu Ghraib/What Makes Us Moral: Makeup for Missed Seminar

The atrocities that happened at Abu Ghraib prison and the content of What Makes Us Moral both directly tie into the nature versus nurture theme that is prevalent throughout White Fang. They both support the "nurture" philosophy-that one's environment molds one's character accordingly.
At Abu Ghraib prison, the soldiers who were put in charge of interrogating "terrorists" or keeping order became so accustomed to the inhumane torture that, although they originally strongly opposed it, they began to get carried away. They allowed the people who were "in charge" to mold their character into an uncaring, savage beast-all for the purpose of interrogating those people, ninety-percent of who were innocent. The U.S. government, for example, also got swept up in controversy due to its external environment. After 9/11, the government became so angry that it was willing to go against the Geneva Conventions at all costs just to get people to confess something that they usually knew nothing about. Prisoners were humiliated, ridiculed, sexually harassed, and beaten, all due largely in part to the negative impact that other people and society had on the guards' characters. Anger turned into savagery and embarrassment on the United States' part.
What Makes Us Moral also offers great insight into the "nurture" argument. For example, the "shunning" concept basically says that one will succumb to the expectations of some kind of group to avoid abandonment. This clearly illustrates the "molding" concept. In addition, it is discussed how one tends not to sympathize with those whom they know nothing about (e.g. specific races, religions, or cultures) and therefore, one will be less likely to help those kinds of people out or to connect with them because their environment has never supported acceptance or even acknowleged those specific groups.
As in White Fang, both What Makes Us Moral and the story of Abu Ghraib prison tie directly into the nurture theme, in which one is continually molded and remolded to the satisfaction of society and its evil wrath.

What Makes Us Moral

While reading the magazine article "What Makes Us Moral," I noticed a strong connection to the debate of "nature versus nurture." The article explains that one is born with an innate moral code, or a kind of "moral grammar." However, one tends to switch up that code based on different environmental factors. One may know right from wrong, but he/she may not act upon these values because their "membership" in the group would be threatened if they did so. I see this as saying that nature only goes so far, and after that, nurture kicks in. Society's influence molds our, otherwise morally correct, character. The information in the article definitely supports my view of White Fang's stance on this topic. As in the article, White Fang demonstrates that character is shaped by one's surrounding environment. It supports the nurture argument completely. For example, the article discusses how one tends to show empathy towards those who he/she can relate to, but when it comes to outsiders, one has a difficult time showing empathy or acting based on their moral code. One is "programmed" by society to feel as if certain groups of people are very different from them. These specific groups become alienated to the point that one feels as if he/she has nothing in common with them. It is nurture at work!
The article "What Makes Us Moral" has, as I previously mentioned, a strong connection to White Fang, but also a connection to Lord of the Flies as well. On page 196 of White Fang it is stated that, "...according to the clay of his nature and the pressure of his surroundings, his character was being molded into a particular shape." In addition, White Fang acted only for the "gods" a majority of the time (this reinforces the "shunning" concept discussed in the article). In Lord of the Flies, the "two regions battling in the brain" concept is illustrated with every killing performed on the island. In addition, the fact that everyone kept joining Jack's group for the purpose of survival, says to me that all of the kids were trying to avoid the "shunning" as well.
The two summer reading assignments, White Fang and Lord of the Flies, truly reinforce the statements expressed in "What Makes Us Moral!"

Summer Reading Assignment: Senior Social

Between the two summer reading assignments, I enjoyed White Fang a lot more than I did Lord of the Flies. I enjoyed White Fang more because I love animals and stories about them, I truly enjoyed the transformation from heartless to loving on White Fang's part, and I was eager for each new page because of the uncertainty of what would come next. I agree with White Fang's view concerning whether man is inherently evil or not. As opposed to Lord of the Flies, White Fang supports the "evil people and circumstances mold character" point of view. I definitely agree with the "nurture" position as far as the books are concerned. I did not like the portrayal of the savage nature of man in Lord of the Flies at all. It implies that we all have it in us to kill and to be dangerously instinctual, which I do not believe. We are not born to kill!

Chambon's Link to the Holocaust

I think that it is great to hear about a town that went against all rules just to help out their fellow "men." At a time when one could easily be killed for doing such a thing, the people there hid Jews and gave them everything that they needed anyways. One "refugee" even said that he was not once asked whether or not he was Jewish. That shows true empathy on Chambon's part. The "conspiracy of good" was something that led to the honor at Yad Vashem, something I feel that they truly deserve. However, I feel that it is too bad that their heroism is so rarely talked about. Their story should definitely be in textbooks and talked about in French schools so that they can feel proud of their actions. Chambon has not gotten enough recognition for the part that they played in preserving a race. Genocide was not in their vocabulary at all! They should be proud.

"Did Communism Threaten America's International Security After World War II?"

I agree more with Richard M. Fried's "no" argument. Communism's "red scares" share too many similarities with the Salem witch trials back in 1692, especially since Joseph McCarthy went severely overboard with his accusations. I do not truly believe that there were half as many Communists as he claimed there were. It is truly ridiculous how Hollywood actors, teachers, and other prestigious people were accused. They had done nothing wrong at all! In addition, Fried makes a good point when he says that Americans' first and fifth amendments were violated because they couldn't really do anything without being accused of being Communists. Many government officials were also wrongly accused. I think that McCartney was just trying to get attention, and that he went way off track when doing so. The lists that he had of supposed Communists did not even originate from a legitimate source! In conclusion, I believe that the "witch trials" of the 1950's and the McCarthyism that accompanied it posed much bigger threats to the American people than actual Communism did. A mountain was most certainly made out of a molehill.

Dropping the Atomic Bomb

Dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not justified at all on our part. The main issue is that hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens were killed on impact either from the bomb or from the radiation that followed it. These were not just the people who had bombed Pearl Harbor, but rather innocent children and other innocent citizens who had done nothing to deserve their fate. I am sure that many more Americans would have spoken up about the catastrophe that we caused if they had known someone who was directly affected by it, but the sad fact is that, for many Americans, it did not affect them directly, so they kept quiet about the issue. We should have come up with some other way to punish the people who had directly attacked us, and only those people. At the time, Japan was believed to have been "leaving" the war soon anyways. America made an aggressive and ill-founded decision because the end of the war was coming shortly. In addition, the bombing made us look inhumane and uncaring. It also "singled us out" in a negative way. In conclusion, America's decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not necessary, and it helped further portray us as a ruthless and aggressive country.

World War I Reaction Essay

The book excerpt Eye Deep in Hell, Trench Warfare in World War I is an amazingly written account of the tragedies that occurred during this "war to end all wars." It provides an in-depth description of the heroic soldiers' everyday lives and of the horrors they witnessed and/or endured. These horrors range anywhere from trench foot to mud to cold winters to rats, lice, and much more. Although many citizens felt aware of the catastrophes in Europe, the average citizen could not possibly imagine what these men had to go through in the true sense of the words.

I truly enjoyed reading the excerpts because they opened my eyes to the true nature of the suffering that happened in the war. First of all, I was not aware that trench foot was such an issue. I did not even truly know what it was in fact. So many men had toes amputated because of it! When I initially pictured the war, I pictured more deaths from cold weather and fighting than I did from wet feet. Second of all, I did not know that the soldiers went to such an extent just to get rid of lice. I simply figured that they dealt with it just as much as they did any other bothersome conditions. Third of all, the "mud issue" truly shocked me. Who would have ever thought that men could essentially be swallowed by muck?

In conclusion, I feel that the reading was necessary to expand my knowledge of conditions during World War I. Many Americans did not know of the rats and the disease, of the stench and of the mud. These excerpts definitely "humanized" the situation and made it easy for me to picture the horrible conditions. Fighting was not the only issue that transformed the war into a living hell, and the soldiers relearned that brutal lesson each and every day.

World War I Diary Entries

Mark Platopat
March 12, 1916
London
08:00 PM



What a horrible day! At first I believed Wilson, and his promise for the "war to end all wars," but now I am not so sure. Conditions are terrible! He probably meant that this will kill off people so there are not enough for fighting future wars. Ha! What a joke. Anyways, the mud is killing me. It is by far the worst natural nightmare. Some men have been trapped up to their neck in it, and many die from the stuff too!

The most important thing that I can do is to distribute my body weight evenly. That is the key to survival. All these stupid trenches are good for are killing an otherwise sound man. Ugh. The frustration alone is killing me. Even walking is a chore. With the mud, one can not step very fast. When this war is over, I will surely come out with nothing more than strengthened leg muscles. The mud is even clogging the weapons! I can't even write a proper journal entry...



Mark Platopat
March 13, 1916
London
09:00 PM



Great! I got trench foot today! It's just another thing to add to the list. I have never even heard of trench foot before today, and I surely will never forget it! I should have known that these damp conditions would cause some kind of problems. Is it really normal to wear wet socks and boots for days on end? At first, I thought that it was just frostbite, but apparently not. All of these fancy names make me sick.
To best describe what happened, my feet went numb at first. Then they turned a reddish-blue color. That sure scared me to death! I was so frightened that I would have to lose some toes, like Paul did. I feel bad for the poor fellow. All he did was try to make his country proud. As far as I know, they discovered about fifty cases or so today. I can't believe that they didn't notice anything sooner! This will surely pose a threat to our unit's strength as a whole. If it isn't one thing, it's another...


Mark Platopat
December 08, 1916
London
08:45 PM

I haven't written in awhile, but conditions have been really harsh lately. The winter is completely dragging us down. All I can really think about is the terrible cold. My lack of clothes is seriously contributing to my problems. Everyone literally has to jump around in order to keep the blood flowing in their veins because it appears to want to freeze us from the inside out. We have had to deal with these issues since October! What a long winter it will be!
My boiling hot tea actually froze solid in a few hours! Rain, snow, and sleet are guaranteed daily occurrences. The alternating periods of extreme cold and thawing made a grand ole recipe for mud as well...And standing in water usually leads to being surrounded by a ridiculous sheet of ice. Our braziers do not really work all that well, so I guess I have to deal with the cold like everyone else is. After all, this is a war, not some luxurious vacation.

America's Real Reasons for Imperialism

I think that America's "foray into imperialism" was caused mostly by its strong belief in Anglo-Saxon superiority. Our country, at the time, felt almost invincible, and strongly believed in a "survival of the fittest" kind of world, in which Americans were the fittest. Because of this overinflated ego, our citizens worked to Christianize and assimilate other cultures in order to make them less like aliens and more like what we thought decent people should be. In addition, the United States felt that it would be doomed and easily pushed around if it did not annex certain territories. Our acquisition of various territories, to put it simply, ensured that we were not far behind other countries and their achievements. Our presidents quickly gave in to this form of peer pressure, and in the meantime, guaranteed our spot as a world power. Various other endeavors clearly show our independent, carefree, and almost conceited view of our country. In the end, it all comes down to our country's belief that it is better and more powerful than anything or anyone it sets out to conquer.

Martin Luther King Jr.

I think that it's too bad that the only thing that comes to mind when people mention Martin Luther King Jr. is the "I have a dream" speech. In my opinion, Martin Luther King Jr. is not as looked up to as he should be. There are so many people nowadays who are more famous for doing less! It is not that I think he should be extremely popular, but I do believe that he should be acknowledged more, as well as his message. The article makes a good point when it states that he was in fact fighting for unpopular things. We as citizens today should pay more attention to how he lived his life, and model that. By doing so, we will see real change because he not only fought for racial equality, but anti-poverty and war issues as well. I truly admire King, and I wish that he had more recognition, and that we actually celebrated the day that is named after him! Many people do not even remember, or know, when Martin Luther King Jr. day is! I hope that Barack Obama becomes President because he seems as if he is a strong believer in equality and change, just like King was. Hopefully someday King will be known and remembered for much more than that one speech!

Martin Luther King Jr.

Reconstruction: A Splendid Failure?

I agree with Eric Foner. Reconstruction brought about the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments and gave African Americans a sense of freedom for awhile at least. I also agree that the state constitutions that were written during that time were the most democratic the South had had up to that point. Reconstruction may have had its problems, but it also brought about much needed change. I think that Eric Foner also gave the best argument. He made a great point when he said that African Americans actually had a "real measure" of political power after the Civil War. He strongly backed up his views!

Importance of the Civil War: An Exaggeration?

I do not hesitate to agree with historians when I say that the Civil War holds great importance in our nation's history. Without the Civil War, women may not have had the increase in status that they received due to nursing wounded soldiers or even fighting in battle. In addition, the Industrial Revolution really took over the economy, and "King Cotton" no longer stood in anyone's way. The Civil War proved that our country and its government can stand up to opposition and truly come out stronger and on top of things. I think one of the main reasons that the Civil War is so famous is because of the great leadership we had under Abraham Lincoln. Without him, we may have ended up with a Confederate flag. Also important is the progress that was made towards true equality. The thirteenth amendment was passed, and slaves were actually freed! The Civil War truly brought about great change for our country!