Category: American history

As one of the biggest influences in architecture, the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 left a very imprinted memory on the city itself. The fire itself altered many aspects, from the rapid growth of Chicago to the changes in building codes that impacted on the birth of a new style that represents one of many American architectures.

The Great Chicago Fire was said to be started on the evening of October 8, 1871, in a barn that belonged to the O’Leary’s (which later became the first firefighter school in Chicago). The fire spread through 73 miles of street, into the center of the windy city’s business district on the North, the Loop. Because of that, the fire consumed almost all the buildings that were mainly using timbers for their construction. Though the business district was down for a while, the stockyards and other agriculture products on the South are left untouched by the fire.

Many were grieving due to the loss of approximately 300 people and 100,000 were homeless during the time of occurrence. Just like a phoenix that rises from its ashes, as soon as the fire completely put out by the rain two days later, began a historic event of the Great Rebuilding of Chicago. The event took a lot of time and effort, and money too. A new building code was announced; one of them is about the fireproof materials of brick, stone, marbles, terracotta, and limestones. Although these materials are considered expensive, those who could afford the cost of rebuilding from the debris has no problems with it. However, some people could not even afford to rebuild their houses – the homeless situation. These people are the ones that had lost their fire and business insurances when the fire occurs and could not reapply it due to certain circumstances.

In between the timeline during the rebuilding of Chicago, many things happened. A group of innovative architects, later known as the Chicago School, helped to rebuild the city in hope of creating a modern American city from scratch. These people are the ones who ‘invented’ skyscrapers, as Chicago could not expand its location horizontally due to railroads and the lake Michigan that surrounds it. Skyscrapers are also made with the help of the invention of elevators and steel frames. Other inventions, such as terracotta material for fireproof tiles and roofing are some of the methods used to speed up the rebuilding. That way, Chicago could still position as one of many busiest business cities in the United States.

The Chicago School’s architect, Louis Sullivan, also came up with the term ‘form follows function’ or functionalism as a modern way of thinking which later contributes to the 20th century Modern Movement. The term was embraced by many modernist architects, such as Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier, and Mies van der Rohe. Not only that, but the Great Rebuilding of Chicago also contributes to the thinking of utopian city, ‘Garden City of To-morrow’, by Ebenezer Howard, an Englishman, who at the time of the fire was living in the city.

Looking back, if the city of Chicago was never to be set ablaze, it may still grow rapidly – though maybe not as rapid as it is today, taking notes at all the aspects it already offered. Chicago was Illinois’s, even America’s, center of economic, cultural, and political growth in the mid-19th century. The geography of the city itself – being surrounded by train tracks, Lake Michigan, and other bodies of water – becomes the privilege for the rapid growth of the city’s economy. However, the city was built on a swamp and was raised for over 4 feet (over 1 meter) above the surface in the 1880s, post-fire. If the Great Conflagration never occurred, the Great Rebuilding would never happen, and the land might sink much faster than today, thus, the arrival of skyscrapers and modern movement could be delayed, or there might never be any of such things in the early 20th century.

However, the Great Chicago Fire was only one of the many aspects of the American modern movement back in the 1880s. American architects are mainly influenced by the European architecture styles, meaning, they have no characteristic of style that could represent themselves yet. The original American styles, for example, the Organic or Prairie style, only emerge after the fire, in the 1900s.

Affirming the new sense of independence that arose following America’s victory against the British in the War of 1812, the election in 1828 of Jackson demonstrated a remarkable shift towards democratic principles. Unlike all previous U.S. presidents that came from the same elite class of being wealthy, well-educated, and from the East, Jackson was a self-made man with humble beginnings and Western origins. His election began an era of changes no longer for the aristocratic gentlemen and Federalists, but in favor of the ‘common man’. Included in such changes were the emergence of universal white manhood suffrage that expanded voting rights, and the evolvement of presidential campaigns that extend to an uninformed majority. Reform movements also formed to benefit the needs and urgencies of non-white males, though experienced limited success. Thus, the Jacksonian Period provided greater political power for white males but did less to advance the rights of non-whites.

During the Jacksonian Era, major advancements were made surrounding the rise of universal white male suffrage and greater opportunities to express political views. Once new western states like Alabama and Ohio had entered the Union, by 1824 they had lowered their voting qualifications so that owning property was not a determining factor in the right to vote. This thus highly encouraged and enabled average farmers, laborers, and merchants to participate in the government and further established the idea of rule by the people not just the elite. The increased political access to the common man greatly disrupted the balance of power during the debates of the tariffs in which the South nullified the tariff of 1826 and 1832 which thus ultimately caused Jackson to sign the Compromise Tariff of 1833 that gradually decreased the rates of protective tariffs. Also, following the poor economic conditions of the Panic of 1837, there was ongoing frustration with Van Buren’s administration inability to combat the financial crisis. This resulted in the rise of third parties including the Anti-Masonic Party and the Workingmen’s Party, which reached out to groups of people who previously had shown little interest in politics. These parties provided more platforms and options for the common man to have a voice in the government. Ultimately, the Jacksonian Period witnessed a shift of politics in which government was more accessible to the common man and the presidents no longer portrayed the values of the elite upper class.

Presidential campaigns had also progressed in order to extend their reach to the ill-informed majority of people that now had the ability to vote. The states had transitioned to a nominating convention from the traditional caucus system. Previously, candidates had been nominated by a private meeting of leaders of a political party however by the 1830s nominating conventions were used which were much more open to popular participation. This allowed more citizens to be involved in the process of choosing a president. However, it also resulted in the spoils system. This system, created by John Quincy Adams granted profitable government civil service jobs to supporters and friends of the president. This is most clearly exemplified with ‘corrupt bargain’ in which John Quincy Adams became president due to the support of Henry Clay and in exchange granted him the position of secretary of state. Despite the spoils system aiding corruption in government, it did have the positive effect of involving more of the middle class in the governmental process. Also, once the president was nominated, there was then the need for candidates to campaign and attract the attention of an uneducated group of people. Presidential candidates used popular campaigning strategy that relied on performance and character flaws instead of urgent political matters. Such campaigns featured extravagant parades and floats where voters would get free food and beverages. During an election year, politics was a means of popular entertainment as each side created false myths and stories of opponents. Thus, the common man was much more likely to get involved in the election process due to their expanded rights and interest in the political campaigns.

In addition to the major political successes that came about during this era, reform movements had formed to inspire the inclusion of non-white males, though these movements were met with less success. There was a growing desire for social reforms that touched the lives of women, children, slaves, and prisoners. In the beginning stages, women had led the asylum reform and temperance movements. Dorothea Dix headed the asylum reform movement in which her efforts led to the establishment of several dozen institutions throughout the nation and changed how people viewed the mentally ill. In doing so, she addressed the stigma of mental disorders which further benefited the common man as there was now treatment accessible to them. Similarly, the temperance movement was popular among women who were abused by their drunk husbands and thus encouraged the banning of alcohol. This movement was influential in passing laws that prohibited the sale of liquor in several states which further benefited women and children that no longer had to endure the abuse. Under the leadership of Emma Willard, Susan B. Anthony, and Carrie Chapman Catt, the women’s suffrage movement was led with much ambition and even established the ‘Declaration of the Rights of Women’. The movement however failed to earn women the right to vote, but the enthusiasm garnered resulted in changes to many state laws regarding women’s issues. The abolitionist movement that worked towards emancipating slavery was also unsuccessful in their goal, however leaders like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and William Lloyd Garrison became leading figures of reform and gathered wide support. Utopian communities founded in New Harmony and Brooke Farm also helped to spread the message of reform and peace for those seeking religious freedom which benefited the common man as people now had the opportunities to practice freely. Despite certain failures experienced in some of the reform movements, there were immense strides in confronting the basic hardships of society greatly benefiting the common man.

Throughout history, society has been evolving and growing with the voice of the American people. This voice has sparked teachings in schools, organizations, and other places all around the world. Two voices in particular have sparked and contributed to these teachings and how it has educated society. These voices are E.D. Nixon and Jo Ann Robinson. It is true that these two have been taught in our school systems as ‘civil rights activists’, but they also contributed to the movement sparked by Rosa Parks called the Montgomery bus boycott. Throughout this essay we will evaluate historical events like the Montgomery bus boycott and organizations like WCP and BASCP that E.D. Nixon and Jo Ann Robinson started and greatly contributed to throughout American history.

E.D. Nixon also known as Edgar Daniel Nixon was born on July 12, 1899, in Lowndes County, Alabama. His parents were Sue Ann Chapell and Wesley M. Nixon. Nixon lived in Montgomery in his teens. His mother passed away when he was at a very young age. He was an imposing young man who worked as a pullman porter in the beginning of the 1920s. While working as a pullman porter, he found himself stumbling upon the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, also known as the BSCP. This organization was an African American union founded and presided by the one and only A. Philip Randolph. Randolph inspired Nixon and he eventually became the leader of the BSCP Alabama branch. With Nixon’s commitment he served as an empowering activist that largely impacted the civil rights movement. Nixon’s commitment took action when he wrote a letter to Eleanor Roosevelt stating a USO club for African American servicemen should be established. She responded and eventually met Nixon aboard a train as he was working as a porter, this action quickly started a very important friendship. With Nixon’s growing support and platform, he was able to create an organization called the Montgomery Voters League. As president of this organization Nixon led a march containing more than 700 citizens to the Montgomery County Municipal Court House demanding voting rights for African Americans. Shortly around his march he was elected to lead the Alabama branch of the Montgomery chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Nixon’s main promise to citizens was to grant African American votes to support a police commissioner candidate in exchange for black officers being hired on the force (E.D. Nixon). In 1995 Rosa Parks took her protest against having to sit in the back of the bus. This protest sparked Nixon to form a protest against Montgomery’s segregated bus system. Not only did Rosa influence Nixon, but she also inspired the Women’s Political Council president, Jo Ann Robinson, to come together with Nixon as well (Nixon, Edgar).

Jo Ann Robinson was born on April 17, 1912 in Culloden, Georgia. She was the twelfth child of farmers named Owen Boston Gibson and Dollie Webb Gibson. Shortly after Robinson’s father died her family moved to Macon to start a new life. Growing up Robinson was a very intelligent young woman eventually becoming the valedictorian of her class and in 1934 graduated at Fort Valley State College. After Robinson graduated from college she became a teacher in Macon for the past five years, while teaching she also got a master’s degree from Arizona State. After her master’s degree she set out to the big apple to major in English at the one and only Columbia University. Following her time in New York, Robinson decided to move to Crocket, Texas to teach English at Mary Allen College. In 1949, Robinson accepted a better job as an English Professor at Alabama State College furthering her impact on history as we know it. During her time at Montgomery, Robinson got more involved in the community and began her journey as a member of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church. Whilst being a part of this church, Robinson soon joined the Women’s Political Council. This organization was designated to put more women in civil affairs, increase voter registration in black communities, and help women who have been through rape or assault. Robinson heavily advocated for the WPC and eventually became the president in 1950. A year before Robinson was elected president of the WPC, she was verbally abused by a bus driver for sitting in the ‘whites only’ section of the bus. From that moment on Robinson heavily became set on the idea of desegregating Montgomery buses, which led to an increase in the WPC organization. Robinson also saw Rosa Parks undergo the unfair bus laws which led her to finally put an end to the segregated buses in Montgomery. Robinson soon made thousands of leaflets and passed them around town which caught the idea of E.D. Nixon. Jo Ann Robinson and E.D. Nixon would be two of the many people who would come together and start a boycott against the bus system of Montgomery.

The Montgomery bus boycott was one of the most important events of the civil rights movement ever in history. The boycott took place from December 5, 1955, to December 20, 1956 and is known to be the most large-scale U.S demonstration of protests and activists against segregation. The boycott was kickstarted upon Rosa Parks arrest for not giving up her seat she paid for due to segregation. This caused E.D. Nixon to bail Rosa out of jail and find ways to get rid of the discriminatory the bus system of Montgomery. While E.D. Nixon helped bring the idea of segregating the Montgomery buses, WPC president Jo Ann Robinson made it possible. Robinson and the WPC began passing out flyers to the citizens of Montgomery eventually gathering a huge amount of support for the boycott. As the news spread African American leaders all around Montgomery vocalized their support, ministers were preaching about it, and it even made the front page on Montgomery’s newspaper. The next day on December 5th 40,000 African American bus drivers boycotted the system causing the buses to be very behind since the majority of the bus drivers were part of the boycott. The boycott continued until the city met the demands. The city first tried to implement a ‘first come first serve policy’, but whites were still to be allowed on the front end of the bus which did not change the movement whatsoever. Five women eventually sued the city, finally bringing up the idea of relinquishing segregation laws on a state-wide level. The city of course tried to resist these demands, but the more resisting the more protests came to sustain it. Citizens did more carpooling, held mass meetings, and started reducing taxi fare prices to only ten cents since most of the drivers were African American. This eventually started hurting the city’s financial budget so the idea of integration was finally brought up to the bus system of Montgomery. The senate eventually ruled that segregation on buses violated the 14th amendment in our constitution, and eventually desegregated the Montgomery buses on June 5, 1956.

Jo Ann Robinson, E.D. Nixon, and the Montgomery bus boycott have played significant roles in the way our political culture, policies, and government are the way it is now. E.D. Nixon has made remarkable beliefs come to life throughout his years, but what impact do they have on us now? Well, Nixon was a young activist who set out for his message to be heard. He always was a head of things and was a natural born leader. His leadership skills granted him the ability for his voice to be heard and actually be listened to. Nixon putting himself out there as an African American man speaking on civil rights contributed to the way political culture is now. Politics has changed because men like E.D. Nixon have spoken against the government even if the government and culture is against them. His acts have sparked culture to change even more than it has in the past. Jo Ann Robinson is a prime example of how political culture has changed and here is why. Robinson was a young woman who valued her education throughout her life. She always was on top of her education even when she was looked down upon due to her being an African American woman in college. Robinson also contributed to political culture because she was one of the first African American women to lead an organization into fighting for the greater good, even when the government is in the wrong. She has inspired not only African Americans, but also women to be able to get into politics and to get more involved in the way our country makes decisions. The Montgomery bus boycott will forever be remembered as the first boycott to bring recognition to the civil rights movement. The boycott proved and reminded the government that society will unite and come together when something is unfair or wrong. The boycott proved the power of the American people, and brought light that everyone in America has constitutional rights. The boycott is one of many reasons that we see protests today. Protesting and boycotting are now something political culture sees quite a lot of and its contributors is definitely the Montgomery bus boycott.

Equity and freedom in America have always been something that has been fought and debated about since our government was created. The Montgomery bus boycott is a prime example of how equity and freedom have come to play in America. The boycott was during a time where people of color were stripped of equity and only had some sort of ‘freedom’. People of color were always looked down upon and treated unfairly due to the harsh system of segregation. The segregation period was a harsh time that limited African American people to certain rights than others. These rights put white people above African Americans and did not give them the opportunities and or equity to excel in life. These opportunities would be education, the workplace, or even the simplest things like sitting in the front of the bus. Freedom cannot exist without equity due to the fact that freedom is when everyone has the right to do whatever they want with no restriction. The boycott proved that just by sitting in the back of the bus affected African Americans more than what people thought. In order for America to have ‘equal opportunities’, we must ensure that everyone has equity in order for our freedom to grow.

E.D. Nixon, Jo Ann Robinson, and the Montgomery bus boycott have been key events that have developed the way that society is today. With E.D. Nixon’s and Jo Ann Robinson’s leadership and efforts, they helped to be a part of one of the most important civil rights movements ever recorded in history. Both of them came from different backgrounds and experiences, but eventually came together to support and start the same movement to help themselves and others around them. They are known in our schools as civil rights activists, but with more insight on the two they were much more than what our schools teach them to be. Robinson and Nixon should be taught not only about their contributions to the Montgomery bus boycott, but their contributions to America that we have seen today. The both of them cause our senate to regulate and practice the 14th amendment way more than what it was back then. They also set examples of how we can contribute to society and make it much better than it is now. Contribution is very important when it comes to America today. Contribution can affect policies, elections, bill outcomes, and much more. The events and contributions E.D. Nixon, Jo Ann Robinson, and the Montgomery bus boycott made to society today are beneficial and need to be recognized more throughout the teachings of history.

Evangelicalism, an umbrella group of the Protestant movement, is a part of various Christian denominations and became a dominant religious practice for many Americans and British in the early to late 19th century. Solely focusing around the concept of being ‘born again’, Evangelicals had the opportunity to repent for sins, do good and focus on individual needs, essentially having a spiritual rebirth, or a regeneration of the human spirit (Miller, 2014). The majority of the 19th century, notably the first sixty years, Evangelicalism was a leading movement among Christians and was at its peak of being the most dominant religious division (Kyle, 2006). The assumption of America being the prime Christian nation, notably selected by God for a special mission, began to grow (Kyle, 2006). A large aspect of the Evangelical movement among the British, was missionary work, particularly seeing a rise with missions all around the American history through its influence on people’s day to day lives, its missionary work, and the efforts to fulfil the “manifest destiny,” up until its decline after the Civil War. The deeply rooted history of Evangelicalism and its secular influence is one that has significantly shaped America and Britain’s cultural foundation.

Evangelicalism undoubtedly had a substantial role to play in Britain. It was in this very country where Evangelicalism had begun to spread and cultivate (Barnhart, 2005). As a result, many aspects of people’s lives were surrounded by committing to and practicing this religion. Additionally, Evangelicalism had a significant positive social impact in Britain. For one, it affected the people of Britain to the point that other matters which were not related to faith were still affected by their religious mindsets, since this changed what was and was not appealing to them (Miller, 2011). For instance, drinking, gambling and debt seemed unappealing to Evangelicals since this lifestyle was ‘undisciplined’, and they valued good rewards from their prudent behaviour (Miller, 2011). Furthermore, it was also during this time that vegetarianism became popular amongst the British. Being heavily inspired from Evangelicalism, many high-class members of society were influenced to abstain from eating meat since it was deemed as a social evil and served as a striking symbol of a man’s fall from grace (Miller, 2011).

Besides the social impact, Evangelicalism in Britain fuelled the idea of Evangelical propaganda and empire around the world (Barnhart, 2005). They held the belief that it was Britain’s ‘divine’ and ‘ordained’ mission to save the other Indigenous peoples of other lands by inviting them into Evangelicalism (Barnhart, 2005). Consequently, they trained and sent missionaries to various countries while being careful of trying not to upset religious leaders from places they had pre-existing relationships with, such as India (Barnhart, 2005). As the British Empire grew in size in the 17th century, the population increasingly began to include more non-whites and non-Christians (Barnhart, 2005). Therefore, social anxieties concerning the morality and spirituality of the non-whites and non-Christians rapidly increased (Barnhart, 2005). As such, Evangelicals from all denominations began to view themselves as the most qualified to oversee the moral health of Britain plus the whole empire, and they strived to reform people using the truthfulness of Evangelicalism (Barnhart, 2005). Their immense loyalty and love for their religion inspired them to the point that they would willingly reach out to others so that they could educate and share the beauty and truth of Evangelicalism. All in all, Evangelicalism was a vast religious movement in Britain which positively united society and attempted to share the abundance of good-will with other non-Evangelicals.

When Evangelicalism eventually eased its way into the West, America quickly became known as ‘New Israel’, and it had a simple yet dominant message; “Manifest Destiny” (Kyle, 2006). As the decades passed on, the ascendancy of the Evangelicals went on from politics to education. William Mcloughlin, historian at Brown University, described America and Evangelicalism to be so immersed into one another (Kyle, 2006). He described Evangelicalism to be so deeply rooted into the American culture, that separating them would be as difficult as “unscrambling a mixed omelette” (Kyle, 2006, p. 6). The Evangelicals goal with the “Manifest Destiny” was to spread it in the western world. Evangelicalism became “the single most influential strain of religious activity in the South” (Matthews, as cited in Kyle, 2006, p. 7). People of the South had begun to believe that in order to be a good American, you had to be a good Evangelical Christian, thus, resulting in women, men and children becoming increasingly devout (Matthews, as cited in Kyle, 2006). As a result, the image that America is a Christian state and had a calling of “Manifest Destiny” began to rapidly spread across the country. Evangelicals throughout the decades had an advantage in what was considered to be right and they made it clear that a person could become nearly flawless if they avoided evil deeds such as alcohol, slavery and prostitution (Kyle, 2006). Considering these facts, the Evangelical organizations had a say in all matters, especially in education. Many schools were built, hence, shaping the minds, cultural morals and values of the youth (Kyle, 2006). Students were to take theology classes, prayers in class and attend chapel services. However, it was at this time that American Evangelicals finally split on one matter; slavery. The magnitude of this dispute could not stop the state nor the Evangelical churches from intervening. As a consequence, slavery divided the state into North and South chapters, with both parties using their scripture to uphold their positions on this controversial matter (Kyle, 2006). Historically, countless problems have occured in the mission to spread Evangelicalism. But one of the biggest challenges for the Evangelicals that they had yet to face is how to truly prove the “Manifest Destiny” to a rapidly evolving society.

Although the Evangelicals were still prominent, the Civil War brought more doubts than reassurances (Kyle, 2006). The Evangelicals were starting to lose its grasp on many things, from social aspects to science, psychology and greater critique of the scripture (Kyle, 2006). The social aspects of massive migration, industrialism and urbanization led some Evangelicals from the North to become more open-minded to newer ideas and concepts, yet the majority of the South stayed true to their views and teachings (Kyle, 2006). Furthermore, after the Civil War, modern non-Evangelical Americans were causing a stir in the status quo, so much so, that it was making Evangelicals appear out of touch with the world (Kyle, 2006). This led to a whirlwind of shopping malls, dating services, rock music and nightclubs being introduced in this new American society. (Kyle, 2006).

Although it’s impact is not as apparent today, the impact Evangelicalism had on the 19th century society is clearly evident, causing major change in people’s lives, pushing missionary work and encouraging extreme efforts to be performed in order to fulfil the “Manifest Destiny”. This God-sent movement was enough to get all of society changing their way of life, leaving all bad habits for a re-birth, a spiritual cleanse that enabled people to remove sins from all walks of life. Through British missionaries, the word of Evangelicalism was able to spread world wide. Eventually landing in America and leading to the “Manifest Destiny,” it became a belief that America was chosen by God himself to revive religion in every aspect of life. However, with every rise, comes a fall and Evangelicalism saw that after the Civil War in which a sudden change with mass migration, urbanization and immigration led to new concepts and ideas being introduced to individuals who were not familiar with such a societal change. Although Evangelicalism no longer has an impact on people the way it once did, its deeply rooted history and the influence it had on society is a major player in shaping America and Britain’s bedrock.

Works Cited

1. Barnhart, W, C. (2005). Evangelicalism, masculinity, and the making of imperial missionaries in late Georgian Britain, 1795–1820. Historian. 67(4), 712-732. https://doi-org.subzero.lib.uoguelph.ca/10.1111/j.1540-6563.2005.00129.x
2. Kyle, R. (2006). Evangelicalism: An Americanized Christianity (1st ed.). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351321686
3. Miller, S. P. (2014). The Age of Evangelicalism. Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777952.003.0001
4. Miller, I. (2011). Evangelicalism and the early vegetarian movement in Britain c.1847–1860. Journal of Religious History. 35(2), 199-210. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9809.2010.01032.x

The Searchers’: A Cinematic Exploration

The creative decision in “The Searchers” (1956) John Ford Film makers use various cinematographic techniques and attach special attributes to characters with the aim of passing their intended message in an emphatic manner. The Searchers is a 1956 film directed by John Ford that carries such a strong message on the themes. The film, based on a 1954 novel by Alan Le May is set to depict the Texan-Indian wars in the late 1860s. Ethan Edwards, a civil war veteran has returned home to find a raid by the Comache- a Native American tribe who has taken Ethan’s niece.

Manifest Destiny and Brutality in ‘The Searchers

This story carries the themes of extremism, revenge and manifest destiny. The director uses costuming, The main theme of the story is that of manifest destiny. There is brutality and ugliness in several scenes in the film as several people lose their lives. To begin with Edward’s home has been set ablaze and three people have been killed- Aaron, his wife Martha and son Ben while two more – Debbie and Lucy have been abducted. The scene is a mess and shows the violent nature of the Comaches. As Ethan and his men pursue the attackers, they come across a burial site for some of the Comaches who had taken part in the raid.

Ethan mutilates one of the bodies in what comes across as a gory sight. More people are killed when Ethan and his men try to fight the Indians. Eventually they find Lucy brutally murdered. Further, Ethan kills Futterman who had trying to steal his money. Further Martin kills Scar. In all, many people are killed in fearsome attacks that leave the viewer with the perception of the casual killings between the first European settlers on US soil with the Native Indians. The director uses a Technicolor marvel in different shades of grey as well as a revisionist take to carry the theme of manifest destiny. The dull lighting and use of colors in the grey to black range depicts death, blood and revenge. The film carries the message that the transformation of America’s untamed lands was a tough conquest. It was a matter that brought death, desperation and savagery to all- the settlers and the natives.

Ethan, the protagonist has been depicted to be as conquered by the losses of key family members and friends as the antagonist-Scar who eventually dies. Ethan belongs to the untamed confederacy adherents who had to be dealt with before the settlers could fully focus on taming the indigenous tribes in a manner that they succeeded in taking away land and settling in the country permanently. As such, the depiction of Ethan and his men as lacking in considerable wisdom, caution and tactics shows that the group was unwanted and never meant to deliver the land to incoming settlers. The second theme that the directors and producers showed in the film is that of revenge. Many characters in the film have been fashioned as vengeful people ready to anything to achieve evenness with those that cross them.

Revenge: A Driving Force in Character Motivations

Scar is presented as being fond of killing whites for revenge on the brutality that the confederates mete out to the Natives. He kidnaps white children out of revenge. Ethan also pursues the kidnappers largely not to rescue the girl but to revenge. Further, the owner of a trading post also plans to revenge and make a profit from killing Martin and Ethan whom he alleged had ill treated him. The director take the issue of revenge further when he depicts Laurie as having agreed to marry a person she never loved because she wanted to revenge on martin for marrying an Indian girl. The third theme is that of extremism.

Extremism and Stereotyping in Character Portrayals

The director has succeeded in using the extremism of a few people to stereotype entire communities and cultures. Scar and Ethan were both extremists on either side with the former representing the natives and the latter the confederates. The director has made the men leaders of their respective people and they both lack in patience, reason and tact with each rushing to kill. Just as Ethan ought not to carry the burden as the ultimate representative of all the confederates so should Scar also not be the symbol of all Native Americans. The directors have used several issues to support the three themes. First, the film opens with the words of Stan Jones from the song What makes a man to Wander? These words define the quest for lone men to wander, search and conquer the Wild West.

The song goes “what makes a man to wander, what makes a man to roam?…and turn his back on home?” (AMC Filmsite ). This song is followed by a black screen before the words “Texas 1868” appear as a depiction of the darkness of the time. As the film opens with a cabin door opening to show the frontier all is there for the viewers to get swallowed into al the happenings in the film. There is the stunning red beauty of the rock formations of the Monument Valley in what presents the wilderness as inviting yet dangerous and hence laying emphasis on the “searching” aspect depicted in the film’s title. While he inside of the cabin represented civilization, love for humanity and family values, the outside stood for brutality, danger, lack of civilization and adventure.

Cinematographic Techniques and Western Genre Conventions

The sunny outdoors shows a savage and threatening world. As such, the cinematographic depictions of the frontier as isolated, beautiful, dangerous, and adventurous are critical in carrying all three themes whilst being one of several creative decisions by the filmmaker. The director has used Western Genre conventions in the film. John Ford (1895-1973) the film’s director was one of America’s greatest Chronicler’s of American history. Some of his films such as The Grapes of Wrath (1940) and Citizen Kane were once cited as the best American films. Having worked on his first film in 1914, he had massive experience on how to direct films especially those dealing with the American conquest and transformation of the Wild West. Ford was unrivalled in his ability to depict the wild west especially the Monument Valley. He loved camping out in the area with crew and cast eating and sleeping in chuck wagons and tents. Indeed, the making of a Ford movie about the Western frontier almost always amounted to living like a Western for all involved in its production. As such, the director’s strong attachment to the West bonded well with the depictions on the topography which further makes it more believable that the characters displayed by Ethan, Scar and others were all authentic.

The director has an eye for bold, sure and iconic shots that become the backbone on which the film remains to be treasured. In a funeral scene early on the film there is a wagon lying towards the right while a group of mourners are gathered at the middle left as they head diagonally to a hill that bore the grave. The group sings a sorrowful hymn Shall we gather at the river. Further there is another iconic scene where there was a search party for the girl in a deserted valley with the Indians riding parallel to the settlers with the Indians silhouetted against the sky. Further, an adult Debbie upon being found is seen running down a sand dune leaving Ethan behind. Ethan doesn’t see her. These unique moments in the film make it special, authentic and a masterpiece in showcasing life as it was in the 1860s and beyond as the conquest of the Wild West went on. The director has also used the postwar context of making racism a common theme in films.

Postwar Context and Racial Themes in ‘The Searchers

In The Searcher, Ford was trying or nervously depicting some sort of racism which led to the justification of the genocide meted out on the native Indians. It is slightly hard to notice but Ethan was racist. He ill treated Aaron’s adopted son Martin Pawley who was part (eighth) a Cherokee. The boy was an orphan and whom Ethan had saved from an Indian massacre and was raised up in Ethan’s family. Ethan takes note that the body does some things as a distinct native Indian would such as riding a horse on bareback and leaping off the horse. As he bursts into the doorway, it is clear that he is seen an in intruder into the white family. Ethan continually becomes prejudiced and shows hatred racism, intolerance and abuse towards the boy because of his mixed heritage. Indeed the director depicts Ethan at some point as sitting in a rocking chair facing a fire all alone. The scene presents Ethan as hard and guarded with some mystery that shows that he does not understand or accept the society around him. He wanted life for himself. The scene is reminiscent of the tug of war between what was happening in postwar America. Or after the American Civil War that had ended only three years to the years depicted in the film.

After the American Civil War and the subsequent changes such as the abolition of slavery as well as a number of changes in the country’s political structure, many people were left in a situation similar to Ethan. They did not know how to deal with white supremacy that had been the order of the day before. As such, the late 1860s have been subtly depicted as a time for self-reflection on racial relations with the majority of the whites feeling aggrieved at the disruptions in the social order originally established. There is a major stylistic component adopted in the film- satire and irony. Whilst many would be of the view that the ex-confederate soldier goes after the Comanche to rescue the girl and kill her abductors there is a twist. Ethan relentlessly pursues her beloved niece ready to die in the way with the intention of killing her because he considered her to have been tainted by being an adoptee among Native Indians!

The discovery of this irony dawning upon a viewer brings a heightened level of anxiety and tension as all await to see what Ethan would do were he o successfully meet his niece. Ethan states, “living with the Comanche ain’t living” (Ford, 1956). Ethan’s intention slowly and surely becomes clear as the story goes on and his hatred for the Indians and all that is associated with them becomes clear. At some point he shoots the eye out of an Indian corpse because he wanted the man’s soul to allegedly wander endlessly in the vast desert. Ethan goes further to learn some beliefs about the Indians so that he could hurt them further. As such, it slowly dawns on the viewers that were Ethan to find his beloved niece Debbie he would kill her and try to justify that by claiming that she was tainted.

People are used to seeing the protagonist emerge as the ultimate hero who does all that was supposed to be done though they me come out bruised and badly hurt. However in this case, the audience is confused on how to treat Ethan. He is set to become an anti-hero because it becomes clearer as the film goes on that he would kill Debbie his niece once he had “rescued her”! This is a classic stylistic setting where even the director, producer and the crew were unsure of how the audience would react to Ethan. Would the unfolding acts culminating in the murder of Debbie wreck the main character? As such the movie has one of the most intense plots that heightens massive tension towards the film’s ending. Eventually, Ethan seems not to have met Debbie who is brought to the Jorgensen ranch and reunites with Martin and Laurie with Ethan not in sight. The film falls into a category that has a significant following in America and the world- films with the plot of a cowboy trying to save a loved one who has been captured by Native Indians. Though largely a common plot, the film is unique in its own special way.

The screenwriter- Frank Nugent tool classic elements such as roaming cowboys, sweeping landscapes and Indian shootouts not necessarily to have them engage in battle-though they do but to explore the frontiers. The film showed why lobe cowboys would often go all out in the quest to rescue a loved one from the savage Natives. That reason is carried by Ethan who showed deep hatred for the natives that he would rather go it all alone and do that which hatred and ego makes him do rather than go in a group and tale time deliberating and even sympathizing with the natives. The 1956 classic film The Searchers by Ford makes use of several issues such as post war setting, stylistic devices, Western Genre conventions and an interpretation of themes to carry forward its message. The film is set to capture the Western frontier at the time of American conquest of the Midwest and Western states originally inhabited by the native Indians. The film carries the stereotypes of confederates being brutal racists as exemplified by the main protagonist Ethan while the natives are also depicted as brutal as shown by Scar. Overall the film successfully carries the themes of revenge, extremism and manifest destiny.

Works Cited

1. AMC Filmsite . The Searchers (1956). 2019. 22 January 2019 .
2. Ford John. The Searchers. (1956).

America tried to stop Japan’s expansion, Clues in ads came out to warn America. A large number of bomber planes attacked, and caused PTSD, and large amounts of death and damage.

Japan’s Unstable

During the 1930s, Japan, having already annexed Korea in 1910, sought to further expand its empire, particularly to gain resources. Japan couldn’t have done an attack more monumental than the one at pearl harbor. Even before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the country has already attacked China. The attack was planned October 1941, when Japan Army Commander Isoroku Yamamoto approved an attack against the US. They argued that “it would give an fatal blow to the enemy fleet” and it would be a surprise and give them an advantage in the war they knew would be coming. But even before negotiations to stabilize Japan fell, but the US thought it was going to be attacked in the Philippines, and not the US.

Surprising Attack

Right before the attack, President Roosevelt sent a cable to his Japanese counterpart Emperor Shōwa, hoping to “dispel the dark clouds’ by appealing to the two countries’ long-standing peace and friendship. But Major Tomura had decided to delay this cable because he believed war was Japan’s destiny. Japan had already made a 14 part cable to a announce the end of negotiations. But the same Major Morio Tomura, an army officer at the Tokyo’s cable office, delayed the cable for the America by ten hours. You may think it’s weird to warn your enemy before attacking, but it‘s part of the samurai/bushido honor code to tell your enemy before attacking. You could say that more lives were lost because the US was not warned and prepared for it. The first sign of the Japan fleet came at 7am, December 7th. A US army commander initially thought it was an American fleet coming in, as he heard the signal on the radio. The Japan fleet first attacked Pearl Harbor with 43 fighters, 49 high level bombers, 51 dive bombers, and 40 torpedo planes. Japan attacks in minutes. 167 more bombers flew in after the first bombing. Many ships are destroyed, including the USS Arizona.

Problems Afterwards

The after effect was that Japan destroyed 19 American ships, including the USS Arizona, which remains underwater. 2,403 American civilians and military personnel were killed, and 1,178 injured. Two ships and 188 aircraft were destroyed. The USS Lexington, the USS Enterprise, and the USS Saratoga had been sent on missions during the days before, so Japan didn’t destroy all ships. The 2,403 people who perished in Pearl Harbor were not the only victims, the trauma from the instant attack caused PTSD in lots of families, they say the sound of engines trigger moments from the gruesome attack. The day after, President Roosevelt gave a speech addressing this attack, calling it “a date which will live in infamy”. 3 days after, Germany and Italy declare war on US.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Japan was unstable on its journey to rule all countries, Army Commander Isoroku Yamamoto planned and approved attack on Pearl Harbor, and Japan’s army destroyed a majority of the US army’s planes and ships.

The 1930s was dominated by the Great Depression. The crash of the stock market caused mass panic. It was cataclysmic and exposed deeper economic issues that caused the long term crisis. As the nation faced an incredibly high loss of assets and saw unemployment rates rise exponentially, ways meant to protect from further loss only proved to be destructive. Hoover did not seem to do enough for the nation, often encouraging self-reliance and local communities to care for the other. The state of the nation was in poverty, and the veterans of WWI especially seemed to take a hard hit. The New Deals, under Roosevelt, helped relieve the nation but did not necessarily fix everything, nor did they try to change the social structures of the nation.

The Great Depression was a defining moment of the twentieth century that forever changed the US government’s role in the economy. On October 24, 1929, the stock market crashed. Black Tuesday was the grinding halt to the period of economic prosperity and cultural edge known as the Roaring Twenties. Stock market prices plummeted and people panicked alongside it, trying to pull out whatever money they had, creating a spiral effect which ensured the crash. By this time, it was quite common for the average American to invest in the stock market but within the first few hours, ten billion dollars in investments vanished (approximately equivalent to 100 billion dollars today) and in one month, sixteen billion dollars was lost. Many people lost everything. However, the stock market collapse did not weaken the American economy by itself, rather it exposed the multitude of factors, plus the panic, leading to the greatest economic crisis. There was also no safety net, no unemployment benefits, nor food or shelter assistance to help the nation.

The Great Depression’s origins are complicated and stem from more than just the stock market crash and panic. Many Americans were economically prosperous during the Roaring Twenties, but many problems lay beneath the surface. By this time, consumer culture had grown to become massive, yet prices were too much for the average person. So credit culture continued to grow. People paid for bigger and newer items on credit or through installment buying. On their own, these credit and installments are fine until economic uncertainty increases and it is revealed as unsustainable. Investors bought stocks on credit as well and were ultimately overextended. There was also rising inequality among classes. The nation, as a whole, prospered, but the divide grew as wealthy investors were favored and only gained more money to spend on luxury items to show their wealth. As the end of the twenties neared, the wealthy had bought the things they wanted and the demand for indulgent items, such as automobiles, declined. The same industries that had boomed in the early twenties had to scale back; they could not sell all their inventory and so had to release workers. These workers then could not afford to consume products anymore. A downward domestic economic spiral ensued. The agrarian economy as well suffered through most of the twenties. Moreover, by the time Hoover signed into law the highest tariff in American history in 1930, international trade was already suffering due to economic issues and overall debt overseas as repercussions of WWI. The tariff discouraged international trade, further harming American businesses. Early responses to panic caused economic policies to fail, tightening of credit, and banks going out of business as well.

The causes of the Great Depression were structural flaws, destructive protectionism, and panic. Ensuing issues after the crash of the stock market included economic and environmental disasters and forced mass migrations. By 1933, the national unemployment rate had risen to twenty-five percent and for African Americans, it rose to fifty percent. About half of all US financial institutions collapsed, further creating a decline in money supply and disintegration of lending. Prior to the crash, the agrarian economy already was struggling. After the crash, many farmers had no choice and lost their land to creditors when the Great Plains region of the US suffered severe dust storms during a dry period, later known as the Dust Bowl. These droughts lasted from 1932 to 1936, from Texas to the Dakotas. For many in these states, their only hope was to move West, towards areas that experienced rain, produced crops and hopefully jobs. This was the first significant reversal in the flow of people between rural and urban areas. Eventually, many states and towns put up billboards and signs saying that there were no jobs left there and to keep moving.

Everyone everywhere was struggling. Yet in response, President Hoover advocated associationalism over government intervention. Maintaining a healthy work ethic, self-control, and self-initiative were emphasized. Economic growth would depend on its people and their self governing. Whereas getting help from the government was seen as a “deadening hand”, where laziness would grow and both the community and the individual would lack responsibilities. Hoover asked business owners to maintain their investments and employment, encouraged the state and local charities to provide assistance to those in need, and organized POUR (the President’s Organization for Union Relief). Its commission was to help US citizens who had lost their jobs by coordinating local welfare agencies without spending government money. And communities did try to help each other. For example, Al Capone, a notorious crime boss, opened a soup kitchen in Chicago. But, most charitable organizations closed within a few years. The amount of need was overwhelming and the aid from the conservative politics of Republican Congress was not enough. Also, the Great Depression created a big divide between veterans from World War I and President Hoover. These veterans became known as the ‘Bonus Army’ due to being promised a bonus by 1945 for their service, but they demanded an earlier payout out of necessity. By 1932, Congress met for this and created a bill to make this possible, yet Hoover opposed it.

The Depression had exponentially increased the number of homeless people and they clustered together in hundreds of shanty towns across the nation. Veterans were no exception. 15,000 veterans and their families created a homeless encampment in Washington, DC and as protest, they called it “Hooverville”, making it clear that they blamed him for the economic crisis and their deep troubles because of it. Hoover did not tolerate this and denounced the veterans in Hooverville as insurrectionists, issued vacate orders, and sent in excessive force, through police, soldiers, and tanks, to burn their camp down. As veterans of WWI, they had witnessed many horrors from trench warfare, and faced terrible injuries not only physically, but mentally as well. They came back with depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Despite all their efforts, the very nation and government they had fought for seemed to turn its back on them. Hoover’s response to the Bonus Army further pushed US citizens to lose faith and trust in their government. By 1932, Hoover ‘ran’ for president, as if he did not want to win, and charismatic politician Franklin Delano Roosevelt won in a landslide and his response to the Great Depression, known as the New Deals, is oftentimes seen as synonymous to his presidency. During his campaign, he had suggested that it was the government’s duty to ensure a comfortable living for the average American man, which was very different from Hoover’s associationalism. Passed by Congress, the New Deal was a series of programs and projects; simplified, their purpose can be reduced to ‘3 R’s’, relief, recovery, and reform. Impoverished people would be given monetary aid through relief programs. Recovery programs were meant to temporarily help the economy through stimulation of workforce growth. And reform programs were meant to regulate the economy and prevent future economic crises like the Depression.

A big change included the establishment of social security. A large amount of support for the New Deal came from white Southerners. They elected their local leadership alongside their congressional leaders, which ensured that the Agricultural Adjustment Association and the National Labor Relations Act (the Wagner Act) would exclude sharecroppers, tenant farmers, and domestic servers. As a result, the percentage of the people left out was disproportionately African American. The New Deal seemed reluctant to change foundational economic and social structures. Racial inequalities stayed strongly prevalent. Moreover, a strong “voice of protest” came from Senator Huey Long of Louisiana. His populist rhetoric appealed to many impoverished and homeless people; his proposal of a Share the Wealth Program sparked many clubs across the nation to fight for the redistribution of the wealthy’s assets amongst everyone else in need. Overall, the government’s address to the Great Depression through the New Deals was both completely new yet stayed conservative. It did not completely fix the Great Depression but significantly helped the many in need. The Great Depression transformed everyone’s understanding of the role of government in the economy. We are entitled to a comfortable living but only recognized this after tremendous economic uncertainty and turmoil. Black Thursday, the day the stock market crashed, did not cause the largest financial crisis of US history, rather, it exposed the deeper issues that, with mass panic, lost the nation a high amount of assets. The global market, domestic industries, and individuals all struggled. Social inequalities persisted. The New Deals did not address racial issues. Yet, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was able to put the nation more at ease than his predecessor. Today, many debates surrounding welfare, the price of healthcare and education, and racial and class inequality continues to exist. In spite of persistent struggles, like the ‘Okies’ of the mass migration, many people today continue to keep moving forward, hoping for a better future.

In 1830 the president of the United States Andrew Jackson signed into law the Indian Removal act. This act would give the white settlers land they wanted in the south, and moved the Natives east of the Mississippi river. That meant that the Natives would have to go from their southern land all the way to the Midwest. This event took eight long years to play out as some of the Natives tried to fight back, but in the end the government prevailed. President Jackson’s actions will be looked at deeper to understand what he did to affect the natives. Through understanding what Jackson did will help in understanding the natives actions and emotions. In the beginning years of the United States people yearned for power and would do whatever they felt necessary to achieve their goals. The want to take was strong and in the end the natives fell victim to this want by President Jackson with the Indian Removal act.

From the day the Europeans began colonizing the United States there had been conflicts with the Native tribes already living on the land. As time when on and more Europeans came over and spread out over the land. There came a time when the two groups of people started to run into each other causing problems. This caused a lot of conflicts for both groups and treaties where forged over the years between each other. There still came a time when it wasn’t enough for the European settlers and they still wanted land that the natives were living on. The Natives were not just going to give up their land and with that president Andrew Jackson brought to the government the Indian removal act of 1830. The basis of Andrews address to congress about the natives was “To save him from this alternative, or perhaps utter annihilation, the General Government kindly offers him a new home, and proposes to pay the whole expense of his removal and settlement” (“Transcript of President Andrew Jackson’s Message to Congress ‘On Indian Removal’ (1830)”., .n.d.). In his speech to congress and indirectly to the people he was leaving out many parts that made this act undesirable. The events that stemmed from this act did not have much legal ground because what was actually done was not what the agreement explained, but that was overlooked.

During Jackson’s life the year of 1830 was not his first legal dealing with the Natives, and there were many treaties developed in the past between the natives and European settlers. Jacksons“ Indian Removal Act passed by Congress in 1830 neither authorized the unilateral abrogation of treaties guaranteeing Native American land rights within the states, nor the forced relocation of the eastern Indians” (Cave., 2003). This is showing that the Indian removal act was not used as written by government, but they had more power over the natives that they just could not override. When understanding the pain this act caused so many people it all stated with false promises and abuse of power. The two groups of people were very separated and in the end Jackson seemed to be only doing what he thought was best for the European settlers. In doing so “he broke a number of federal treaty commitments to Indians, including some that he had personally negotiated” (Cave., 2003). He deliberately discarded these treaties to get what he wanted for his people building the already high amount of distrust the natives had for the settlers. With the choices he made on how to use this act it directly effected the native people in a negative way causing them harm both physically and mentally.

There were many tribes that were forced to move to the west of the Mississippi but they did not all leave at the same time. Some tribes went with out much a fight but others tried there hardest to stop the removal and stay on their land. During this hard long journey “As many as 4,000 died along the way from dehydration, tuberculosis, whooping cough, and other hard- ships” (Blackburn., 2012). At many stops the Natives would have “a dozen or more” people to bury at a time (Blackburn., 2012). These numbers are staggering to think about when there wasn’t a truly decent reason for this event to happen. While the natives were moved hundreds of miles “they left behind highly coveted land that was, even as they walked, being divided up among white land speculators” (Blackburn., 2012). It can be difficult sometimes to think of how selfish the settlers where but they clearly only wanted one thing and that was land. There was not care for the lives of the people who had what they wanted. The leader of their country was heading this operation and they were following getting valuable land. All of these lives where changed through sickness and pain from loosing their land which was very important to them and they viewed it more as a home then property.

To better understand more of what the natives were experiencing through this event there is one source that goes in depth with what the Chickasaw people felt when they were forced to move. The natives had a different culture then the European settlers and one of the main differences was how they viewed their land. They had a deeper connection to their land because they “loved our forests and our fields” (Hogan., 2015). They valued what the land did and having that taken from them was like losing a piece of their tribe. They “ lived with the night calls of animals, the sounds of running waters, and in a close relationship between humans and the natural world” (Hogan., 2015). They valued everything it gave them from the plant life to the animal life that lived with them on the land. It could be considered that these two parts “made up one singular community” and now part of the community is being taken away because of pure greed (Hogan., 2015). They had to leave there well known land they built for one that was unknown and possibly less giving. The European settlers were getting “the forests about Chickasaw settlements had always been well tended and cared for, as were as the gardens, berries, and the many medicinal plants” (Hogan., 2015). Now these valuable sources were being left to people who did not care for them the same and that also had to be hard for them.

Jackson and his community did not give thought to this aspect of the natives and their lives. Of course there had been conflicts in the past between both groups of people but they at this time could not coexist. The native tribes had been there longer then the European settlers and because of that they found areas that were plentiful. Jackson and his people began to realize what they had and decided a way to get what they wanted. They did not take the time to understand even a little bit what their culture was, and in return did not understand what their land meant to them. Jackson felt that his culture was superior to the rest, and what he believed was correct giving no room for anything that differed. Because of these thoughts it caused destruction to the natives leaving them in a new land with a injured tribe.

Reference

1. Blackburn, M. (2012). Return to the Trail of Tears. Archaeology, 65(2), 53-64. Retrieved from https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/eds/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=1af5320c- 0e0d-4c30-a873- beabe051b6af%40sessionmgr4008&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l 0ZQ%3d%3d#db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.41781370
2. Cave, A. A. (2003). Abuse Of Power: Andrew Jackson And The Indian Removal Act Of 1830. The Historian, 65(6), 1330-1353. doi:10.1111/j.0018-2370.2003.00055.x
3. Hogan, L. (2015). New Trees, New Medicines, New Wars: The Chickasaw Removal. Canadian Review of Comparative Literature / Revue Canadienne De Littérature Comparée, 42(1), 121-129. doi:10.1353/crc.2015.0007
4. Transcript of President Andrew Jackson’s Message to Congress ‘On Indian Removal’ (1830). (n.d.). Retrieved April 21, 2019, from https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=25&page=transcript

Japanese American families are given a number to wear on their jackets as armed American soldiers order them to leave their homes. The young children hold tight to their parents’ hands. They are filled with feelings of fear and uncertainty as their families are put onto trains and buses that will take them away from the homes they have established to live in guarded, fenced prison camps. The United States government sent Japanese Americans to prison camps because of fear and hatred for the Japanese people after Japanese planes attacked the United States Naval Base on December 7, 1941, at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The surprise attack killed 2,335 American military men causing America to declare war on Japan. (Sakurai 4) Many Americans felt hate toward Japanese people because of the attack. Even towards their fellow Americans who were Japanese and living in the United States. Americans felt that they had a right to have fear and hatred toward the Japanese because their surprise attack took the lives of so many American military men. The Japanese Americans had done nothing wrong, but because they had Japanese ancestry and looked like the bombers of the Pearl Harbor attack, people became prejudiced toward them. Just as John and Elizabeth Proctor were targeted for being associated with witchcraft and were unfairly persecuted, the Japanese Americans were persecuted because of fear, paranoia, and hysteria. Fear can cause people to overreact, persecute and intimidate others who are “different” in situations like these.

In 1941 there were about 160,000 Japanese Americans living in Hawaii. Another 125,000 were living in other States, most in California. More than half were born in the United States and were good American citizens, but after the Pearl Harbor attack, other Americans thought they looked like the enemy. This caused strong feelings of fear. They were thought of as a possible danger to America. Japanese Americans were taken from their homes to be questioned. Many times a member of a Japanese American family would be taken away and the rest of the family had no idea when or if they would be coming back. A few weeks after the attack on Pearl Harbor, many U.S. citizens feared that there would be another attack by the Japanese. They believed that Japanese Americans could be spies, so thousands of Japanese Americans were arrested and put in jail. (16) In The Crucible, fear caused Abigail and other girls to blame innocent people and put them on trial. They were questioned by friends and family, put in prison and some were killed. People feared that they were under the devil’s influence. In both of these situations, fearing for their safety was one of the biggest factors leading to mass hysteria. When Mary Warren said, “I can lie no more. I am with God, I am with God” (Miller 107). Mary decided to lie and go along with Abigail and Tituba and she admits that she was lying. This is an example of people going along with mass opinions and shows the mass hysteria in The Crucible. This also relates to the Japanese Internment camps because many people lied and went along with what everyone else was doing and that led to 120,000 Japanese Americans being targeted and locked up (Stanley 27). In both situations, there was nothing to prove that they were guilty of being an enemy, and out of fear, the people overreacted causing innocent people to be put into prisons.

The Japanese Americans were being targeted by the American Government. President Roosevelt signed an executive order that caused Japanese Americans to be restricted to staying in their homes and they could not travel. (Sakurai 12) Soon all Japanese Americans were ordered to report for registration and to be moved to a prison camp. Tags with a family registration number had to be worn on their clothes at all times. They were moved into little shacks inside the prison camps and were locked up. Japanese Americans described it as humiliating to be put in prison and to be suspected of being a traitor (20). Just like fear, intimidation was also another big reason for the hysteria to spread through the masses of people. Abigail’s intimidation and control over the situation were another cause of hysteria in The Crucible. Judge Danforth would question Abigail and ask her if she was telling the truth. Abigail would accuse him of working with the devil, intimidating him, and this caused the judge to listen to whatever she said. ‘Let you beware, Mr. Danforth. Think you to be so mighty that the power of Hell may not turn your wits? Beware of it!’ (Miller 113). With everyone concerned and in havoc over Pearl Harbor, suspicion over the Japanese Americans was rising and many citizens wanted them gone. They both lost their freedom and their constitutional rights. They lost what it meant to be an American. Both of these examples are of loyal, law-abiding citizens who become prisoners in their own country. In both, The Crucible and the Japanese internment camps, intimidation was used to force powerful leaders like the judges and the President to give in to the demands of the masses and go along with the hysteria. After all the trouble that was happening to the townspeople of Salem and the Japanese people, the people in power started to realize how everything was getting out of hand.

Even after being treated so unfairly, the Japanese Americans still felt a strong loyalty to the United States. They were described as respectful people who were not the type to rebel and act out against government leaders. The Japanese Americans agreed that they should cooperate with the government. They thought that was the best way to show their loyalty and that they wanted to help their country. Their choice to cooperate eventually paid off and the people in the U.S. saw how wrong they had been treating the Japanese Americans. To try to make it better, the United States congress gave the Japanese some money to get their lands and businesses back (Sakurai 34). In The Crucible, the leaders and judges started to see that all the hangings and people being thrown in jail were getting out of control. As a way to make it better, they tried to have people confess to witchcraft to end the whole thing. “I speak my own sins; I cannot judge another. I have no tongue for it.” (Miller 148). Proctor confesses to having an affair with Abigail but will not accuse anyone else.

The Crucible from 1692 and the Japanese Internment camps of the 1940s occurred hundreds of years apart from each other but both are examples of sad and embarrassing times in United States history when innocent people were treated wrong because of fear. The fear caused people to listen to rumors and led to mass hysteria. We can see this type of hysteria and persecution continuing today when there are bans put on groups of people that the leaders of the country feel fear. It causes bad or thoughtless decisions to be made. As we have seen in the past, these types of decisions end up being regretted and stopped. The Salem witch trials and the Japanese Internment camps both showed how hysteria and fear can bring out the worst in people and cause them to act out and intimidate the people who may seem “different” in their community who in reality, are fellow citizens of their own country.

Would the U.S. have entered World War II without Pearl Harbor? It’s a very serious question that hasn’t been discussed for too long. Many questions could stem off this one question such as, would there be a significant difference in present day if World War II did not occur or how would it have affected certain things back then. There’s so many questions to be answered. Many will be answered in this excerpt, there’s so much information to be shared.

As time has gone on many questions have been asked and many have been answered. Many questions have been created and many questions have been dismissed. Today a new question has been created, Would the U.S have entered World War II without Pearl Harbor? Arguably there’s many different answers to this questions but all are based on opinion and perspective. This answer will solely based on cold hard facts. This a huge what if. According to ‘Pearl Harbor Visitors’ bureau the Japanese had two options to weigh on. Attack Russia and deliver a devastating punch or take war to southeast asia and take what the Americas and Europeans held. Taking the forces to moscow would most likely make the Russian Soldiers cave. Had the two engage however would mean defeat for the Soviets. The big question is however, would the US still intervene? With the Americas knowing Hitler’s and Japans tenacity its still very likely that they would join the War. By this time, though it would have been too late, the US holding out was a costly mistake. Russia would have already taken there fatal blow and been wiped out while the british forces would have been greatly reduced. The US would have no other choice but to intervene with the damage japan would be causing. Either way it wouldn’t be pretty for Japan.

According to ‘The national interest’, if Japan would have attacked the british forces first it still would have been just as bad. If this would have occurred it would have been the first time the US has made a request by congress that we declare war against another nation that did not fire first against the US. President Roosevelt who was the president at the time was ready to do whatever it took to take down japan, even if that means making history. Leading up to this roosevelt and British prime minister Secretly met to hash this whole thing out, it was eventually named ‘The Atlantic Charter’. One of the main objectives for churchill was to make an agreement with the japanese to either stop their aggressive behavior or face the consequences. The British barely escaped the Nazis a year before, The british were forced out of Greece by the Germans which ultimately led to the british to having struggles with General Erwin Rommel’s Afrika Korps in northern Africa. With the British getting stretched scarcely thin, they wanted to figure out a way to make the japanese not attack malaysia. And if they did churchill would want the US to declare war on Japan. Ultimately Churchill thought Japan would be intimidated by the US. Churchill wrote “The State Department in Washington believed, as I did, that Japan would probably recoil before the ultimately overwhelming might of the United States”. Unfortunately mr Churchill was wrong and Japan chose the deny Allied demands and complained that they felt surrounded by three allied countries. Japan also added that this made the situation intolerable, in other words it made it much much worse. War with japan was becoming more imminent, Churchill realized this and solely focused on getting roosevelt to announce his intention to declare war on Japan. Churchill put all his weight on the US and it wasn’t the smartest decision to solely rely on the US. Roosevelt came out with a statement stating “the government of the United States will take all steps toward safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the United States and American nationals and toward ensuring the safety and security of the United States”. Churchill wasn’t too pleased because nowhere did he mention his allies, this was a huge problem. President Roosevelt was trying his best not to start anything with Japan but still hold his own for his country. While Churchill was worried about the very loose statement President Roosevelt gave he was still relying on the assurance he gave him earlier stating that an aggressive Japanese move would cause the US to jump in. Eventually Roosevelt began to fall back because he felt as if bulking up the army would only increase the chances of the Japanese forces attacking.

In conclusion, the US could’ve been the one handing out the punishment if they would have attacked sooner. While the US held back their forces this gave the Japanese time to strategize and come up with something devastating. It was really all in the US hands at this point. The big question comes up again. Would the U.S have entered World War II without Pearl Harbor? Theres too many circumstances to give one certain answer but thats what were all here for. Yes, the US would have still entered World War II, if Pearl Harbor didn’t happen. Everybody was already on the edge of their chairs and the Japanese attack on one of the US allies would set us off. Either way it went, it would always end up being very ugly.