Category: American history

Everyone knows that America is one of the wealthiest nations in the world, and you might expect it to have one of the best healthcare systems in the world. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. With this being said, you could probably conclude that it probably doesn’t have the highest life expectancy and it’s true. For instance “In 2017, a total of 2,813,503 resident deaths were registered in the United States—69,255 more deaths than in 2016.” We see people every day on the streets homeless, filled with diseases unable to do anything for people struggling to survive due to the lack of high and ineffective prices of treatments. Everyone should have the right to healthcare in the USA because it’s the right of the people, could help the US economically, and help save many more lives.

Many people may not realize it, but healthcare in the USA is their right. The Declaration of Independence,” states that all men have ‘unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” This supports the idea that healthcare is essential for you, in order to live and pursue happiness further in life. Also, the Preamble of the US Constitution, states that the constitution is to ‘promote the general welfare’ of the people,” which illustrates that the government should be taking care of its citizens without being said. People have the right to demand healthcare no matter the opposing opinions because the Declaration of Independence states “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including… medical care.’

The US economy is severely at loss due to everyone not getting the benefit of health care. People these days are becoming more and more unhealthy in the USA, which is illustrated in the article “Why Nutrition is Important,” which states that an “Unhealthy diet contributes to approximately 678,000 deaths each year in the U.S., due to nutrition- and obesity-related diseases, such as heart disease, cancer, and type 2 diabetes.” With many people being sick and unhealthy, they are missing a lot of work days, which is hurting the US economy. A study by researchers at the Universities of Colorado and Pennsylvania showed that “workers with health insurance miss an average of 4.7 fewer work days than employees without health insurance. Also, according to an Institute of Medicine report, the US economy loses $65-$130 billion annually as a result of diminished worker productivity, due to poor health and premature deaths, among the uninsured.” The healthier the people of a nation, the more economic contribution is made by the people for their countries.

Many people at hospitals at this moment, are unable to save themselves or their family members due to a lack of money and health care. According to a study from Harvard researchers, ‘lack of health insurance is associated with as many as 44,789 deaths per year, which translates into a 40% increased risk of death among the uninsured.” Another study found that “more than 13,000 deaths occur each year just in the 55-64-year-old age group due to lack of health insurance coverage.” The lack of an effective healthcare system and benefits in the USA is taking people’s lives without letting a chance for them to live just because they are poor and unable to fight the social idea of the rich getting all the best treatments. This is the reason why the USA has such a high mortality rate.

In conclusion, healthcare for all is the right of the people, it could help the US economically and reduce its mortality rate. It is stated in both the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution that people have the right to their health and life and should demand better care. People eating unhealthy has put the USA, economically at a loss for people can’t contribute to it, and providing healthcare to all might even reduce the mortality rate in the USA. As individuals in this society, we want to make the life of others and ourselves better, not worse. So, let’s give what the people deserve, to live a happy and healthy life!

Historiography of the Vietnam War:

The traditional historical view of the Vietnam War, espoused by orthodox historians, argues that whilst military and political leaders, such as President Johnson, gave it their best efforts, American involvement in Vietnam was unjust, unwinnable, or unintentional from the start. These historians would argue that regardless of the impact of the Tet Offensive, U.S. intervention in Vietnam was doomed to fail from the start, though the Tet Offensive may have hastened it. Orthodox history remains the dominant viewpoint of the Vietnam War, although many of the original orthodox scholars wrote that the Vietnam War was still taking place. A prominent orthodox historian, David Halberstam, published ‘The Making of a Quagmire: America and Vietnam During The Kennedy Era,’ in 1965, leading to the creation of the ‘quagmire theory,’ which proposed that well-intentioned US government and military officials accidentally involved America in Vietnam one step at a time, due to their belief in the ‘domino theory,’ until eventually, it became ‘mired in the conflict and couldn’t get out.’ It was largely accepted and developed by subsequent orthodox historians, such as Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., who in his 1966 book, ‘The Bitter Heritage,’ called US involvement in Vietnam ‘a tragedy without villains,’ as the US inadvertently got militarily involved in the war.’ He agreed with Halberstam by saying, ‘We have achieved our present entanglement, not after due and deliberate considerations, but through a series of small decisions.’

However, another branch of orthodox historiography emerged in the 1970s, arguing that U.S. intervention was unjust and unwinnable due to an incompatibility between America and Vietnam. In her 1972 book, ‘Fire in the Lake: The Vietnamese and the Americans in Vietnam,’ American journalist and historian, Frances FitzGerald, proposes that the Vietnam War was unwinnable and unjust due to diverging attitudes and values between the Americans and the Vietnamese people. She says that America suffered from ‘self-deception through self-interest’ and shows that despite American battlefield successes, there was ‘no way of saving the unsavable,’ and U.S. involvement was unethical due to ‘the use of disproportionate and corrupting means on behalf of an unreachable and utterly unrealistic if idealistic, goal.’ The values of the South Vietnamese people turned them away from the Americans, as well as from their own government, resulting in the inevitable moment for ‘the narrow flame of revolution to cleanse the lake of Vietnamese society.’ George Herring, a respected orthodox historian of the Vietnam War, published ‘America’s Longest War: The United States and Vietnam, 1950-1975,’ in 1979. His focus was similar to FitzGerald`s look at a cultural clash, arguing that American intervention ‘probably was doomed from the start.’ This was because America was ‘attempting to preserve a flawed social order in South Vietnam,’ ‘and there was no long-range hope of stability without revolutionary change.’ Therefore the policy of containment was flawed and the Vietnam War was unwinnable as the communist change was inevitable in Vietnam.

However, a revisionist challenge to this orthodoxy began to appear in the late 1970s, following the U.S. defeat in Vietnam, making a moral case for U.S. intervention, but agreeing that events like the Tet Offensive contributed to the failure of U.S. intervention in Vietnam. For instance, the German-born American historian and political scientist, Guenter Lewy, defended U.S. policy and intervention in Vietnam by writing one of the first major revisionist books, ‘America in Vietnam,’ in 1978, ‘The Attempt to Prevent a communist domination of the area was not without moral justification.’ Lewy supports the policy of containment also, saying that a Communist victory anywhere appeared to threaten the U.S. because it represented a further extension of Soviet power.’ Another early revisionist historian, Norman Podhoertz, wrote in his 1982 book, ‘Why We Were In Vietnam,’ ‘In Vietnam now as in Central Europe then, a totalitarian political force – Nazism then, Communism now – was attempting to expand the area under its control. A relatively limited degree of resistance then would have precluded the need then would have precluded the need for massive resistance afterward. This was the lesson of Munich, and it had already been applied successfully in Western Europe in the forties and Korea in the fifties. Surely it was applicable to Vietnam as well.’ Podhoretz, along with other revisionists such as Michael Lind, uses this ‘lesson of Munich,’ where the UK and France unsuccessfully tried to appease Germany in 1938, to justify early U.S. intervention in Vietnam. He argued that the U.S. was simply following the precedent, as they had successfully intervened early in Korea.

Harsher revisionist historians of the Vietnam War began to emerge in the late 1970s and early 1980s, coinciding with the election of Ronald Reagan as US President in 1980 and the rise of neoconservatism. Like the early revisionists, they are known for promoting the ‘noble cause’ viewpoint of the Vietnam War, but make the case that the U.S. defeat in Vietnam was not inevitable, and in divergence with early revisionists, they placed much of the blame on American political leaders and the media, rather than on the U.S. military or events like the Tet Offensive. Reagan himself subscribed to this view, commenting before and after his election win in 1980 that American troops ‘were denied permission to win’ and that ‘we dishonor the memory of 50,000 young Americans who died in that cause when we give way to feelings of guilt as if we were doing something shameful.’ This changed attitude to Vietnam lasted into 1990, as following a vote by the UN Security Council that authorised the use of force to expel the Iraqi military out of Kuwait, President George H.W. Bush continued the Reaganite revisionist viewpoint by saying in a news conference, ‘This will not be another Vietnam… if there must be war, we will not permit our troops to have their hands tied behind their backs… I will never – ever – agree to a halfway effort,’ insinuating that political officials were never fully committed to the Vietnam War.

The revisionist historian, Harry G. Summers Jr., who served as a colonel in the United States Army in the Korean War and the Vietnam War, also agreed that U.S. defeat was not inevitable by saying in his 1982 book ‘On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War,’ ‘Although in theory, the best route to victory would have been a strategic offensive against North Vietnam, such action was not in line with U.S. strategic policy which called for the containment rather than the destruction of communist power’ But instead of orientating on North Vietnam – the source of the war – we turned our attention to the symptom – the guerrilla war in the South.’ Summers was influenced by another revisionist historian and U.S. State Department Foreign Service Officer (FSO), Norman B. Hannah, who in 1975, said ‘In South Vietnam, we responded mainly to Hanoi’s simulated insurgency rather than to its real but controlled aggression, as a bull charges to the toreador’s cape, not the toreador.’ Summers and Hannah argued therefore that the United States could have won in Vietnam, but political and military leaders failed by misjudging the nature of the war, fighting a counterinsurgency campaign in the South instead of waging a conventional war with North Vietnam. Summers places most of the blame on the earlier political policy of containment.

Mark Moyar, another revisionist historian, criticises the orthodox movement for being too biased, saying ‘During the 1960s and 1970s, huge numbers of anti-war Americans entered academia. As a result, most academic and journalistic accounts of the war written during and shortly afterwards depicted Vietnam as a bad war that the United States should not have fought.’ Moyar published ‘Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965,’ in 2006, and wrote, ‘What would ultimately doom Johnson was neither the illness of the patient nor a faulty diagnosis, but a poor choice of remedy.’ Moyar is therefore critical of Johnson’s decision to commit U.S. ground forces to South Vietnam, instead pushing alternative strategies such as deploying forces in Laos which he believes would have been more successful. In Moyar’s opinion, Johnson ignored these suggestions due to poor intelligence and advice, and if they had been implemented, the U.S. would have likely won the Vietnam War.

Since the 1990s, there has been a rise in post-revisionist historiography, following the release of new source material from the Vietnam War, which aggressively argues that the USA nearly did win the war but instead ‘stole defeat from the jaws of victory.’ This rise can largely be attributed to finding a way to attack then-President Bill Clinton for perceived ‘excessive caution’ and hesitation about intervention in the Balkans in the mid-1990s. Some post-revisionist historians do not even admit that the USA suffered defeat in Vietnam. By far the most significant post-revisionist work was published by the historian, Lewis Sorley, in 1999. His book, ‘A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America’s Last Years in Vietnam,’ looks at the leadership of General Creighton W. Abrams, who replaced General William C. Westmoreland following the Tet Offensive in 1968. Sorley argues that Abrams’ different ‘One War’ strategy, ‘demonstrated his understanding of the true nature of the war,’ so that by 1971, the USA was actually winning the Vietnam War under Abrams’ leadership, and would have won the war if his strategies had been used from the beginning.

Other post-revisionists look at how the U.S. could have acted differently in the years before U.S. intervention in the Vietnam War. The historian, Max Boot, considers the role of Edward Lansdale, an American CIA operative in Vietnam, in his 2018 book, ‘The Road Not Taken: Edward Lansdale and the American Tragedy in Vietnam.’ He argues that Lansdale’s work in helping Diem creating a secure Vietnamese state in the mid-1950s could have averted war altogether, but U.S. political leaders abandoned Diem and Lansdale’s efforts. Boot writes of the Vietnam War, ‘It might have conceivably been avoided if only Washington policymakers had listened to the advice of a renowned counterinsurgency strategist [Lonsdale].’ Mark Moyar also showed streaks of post-revisionism in ‘Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965,’ arguing that the U.S. government and media ‘failed South Vietnam morally and politically by allowing Diem’s assassination.’ Up until this point, South Vietnam had been successfully engaged in the war and were on the verge of victory, but the lack of American support for Diem caused everything to collapse in Vietnam and victory became unlikely from then on due to political and military failures like the Tet Offensive.

History of Pearl Harbor

Being stationed in Pearl Harbor was kind of a regular experience. Even though it was in Hawaii, it was still routine. On a regular basis, the maintenance of ships kept watch, laundry, cooked, mail, cleaned, etc (WWII National Museum). All the regular things people would do on a regular basis happened here no matter if it was in Hawaii or on a naval base. However, Pearl Harbor is not the home port or main docking base of the Pacific Fleet which is another way of saying the US Navy or the US Bluewater fleet. Considering before the attack on Pearl Harbor and the tension with Japan, Pearl Harbor was not always the fleet’s home port (WWII National Museum). In fact, its original home port was in San Diego. This sometimes took a toll on sailors. Considering they were so far away from the mainland, sailors were also far away from their loved ones (WWII National Museum).In 1840, the idea of building something at Pearl Harbor was introduced by Lieutenant Charles Wilkes of the U.S. Navy. He urged the dredging of the coral-bar entrance, which means clearing things in water to ensure the safe passage of ships (Britannica). However, it was not until 1887 that some work began. The U.S. had gained access to the harbor to be used as a repair and coaling station through a subsequent treaty (Britannica). Around two decades later Pearl Harbor was converted from a coaling station to a naval station in 1908 (Britannica). The location of Pearl Harbor was very critical to the USA in order to achieve naval supremacy in the Pacific. In 1904, Russia and Japan had been battling over the expansion of power in East Asia between these two nations. However, Japan surprisingly won the battle. The U.S. feared Japan would soon set its sight on America. It was very likely that Japan would come after the U.S. (WWII National Museum). It was believed that where Pearl Harbor was, it was a crucial point of defense and offense for the nation to achieve naval supremacy and to rule the Pacific Ocean (WWII National Museum). It was believed that not only was Pearl Harbor, ‘A base necessity for protecting Hawaii; it was necessary for protecting the nation'(WWII National Museum).In 1930, Japan had started to expand its border and powers and had been playing very aggressively (Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum). However, the U.S. was against what Japan was doing and was concerned that eventually, Japan would set its sight on the U.S. (Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum). As a response, to this expansion of Japanese borders and power, Franklin D. Roosevelt who was president at the time decided to move the Pacific Fleet from its homeport in San Diego on the mainland to Pearl Harbor as a show of force and strength for the U.S. As well as for this strategic move to act as a deterrent for the Japanese to further prevent the expansion of borders (Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum).

What was Japan’s problem with Pearl Harbor and why did they attack it?

Japan started to expand its borders and powers around the 20th century (History). With Japan invading many places like China and Manchuria and other places, most of the time, they had been successful and had taken over those regions in order to expand powers and borders (History). Japan knew that eventually, the U.S. would eventually try to stop their acts because they knew they had operations near the Philippians and knew the U.S. would do everything to defend their operations (History). Another very big factor in the attack on Pearl Harbor was resources. Japan had gotten almost all of its resources necessary for functions and operations in Japan from the U.S. such as oil, aircraft, metal, and other very important goods important to Japan (History). The U.S. had hoped that placing trade embargoes which means banning trade between two regions would force the Japanese to stop their expansion knowing that they relied on the U.S. (History). However, this move, ‘Actually convinced Japan to stand its ground’ (History Pruitt). Japan knew with their supply of resources cut off, they would have to try and cripple the U.S. Fleet with the element of surprise in order to conquest the Pacific Ocean and other countries (History). January 1941, the emperor of Japan, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto announced they would attack Pearl Harbor (Gilder Lehrman). It took a whole year of fine detailing and refining their plans of attack (Gilder Lehrman). The Japanese had developed a multi-step plan in order for the attack. When Japan set sail for Pearl Harbor, there was an order given for absolutely strict radio silence no matter what (Parkinson). The Japanese did not want the U.S. to intercept any of their transmission for the attack and wanted to keep everything quiet and away from the U.S. in order to catch them off, guard. The attack force against Pearl Harbor consisted of, 6 aircraft carriers, escorted by destroyers, cruisers, and battleships (Parkinson). Throughout the journey, the Japanese had constantly been checking radio signals from Pearl Harbor to see if somehow, word of their surprise attack or departure to Pearl Harbor had been leaked. However, the Japanese found nothing indicating that Pearl Harbor has not found out about their attack plan meaning so far, their plan was working (Parkinson). Along with strict radio silence orders, sailing across the Pacific Ocean is bound to get you in some harsh weather. The Japanese encountered brutal storms and waves. Believe it or not, these storms actually helped Japan to stay undetected while sailing (Parkinson). One day, a convoy of pilots had, ‘Reported two, or possibly three, Japanese convoys about 80 miles south-east of Cambodia Point’ (Parkinson 99). However, lost contact soon after. The pilots reported this, but only a general alert was issued (Parkinson). Once the aircraft carriers reached their ordered take-off point, the first wave of bombers and fighters took off (Parkinson). Tora Tora Tora was the signal radioed by Fuchida which translates to Tiger which means that the surprise attack worked and they caught the Americans off guard (Parkinson). Bombers and fighters not only attacked the Harbour where the ships were anchored, but they also attacked a little inland which consisted of oil tanks, hangars, depots, airfields, aircraft, Navy facilities, etc (Parkinson). Meanwhile, torpedo bombers got in low and steady and launched their torpedoes which is a tubes filled with explosives that propel through the water and explode when it hits their target, at the ships. Some bombers and dive bombers had also dropped bombs right onto the ships (Parkinson). It had taken a while for the Americans to start fighting back with AA guns (Parkinson). The U.S. suffered staggering losses including, ’18 major ships were sunk or seriously damaged: 188 planes were destroyed: and 2,403 people were killed including 68 civilians’ (Shapiro). For the Japanese losses, they suffered the losses of, ’29 planes, 1 submarine, 5 midget submarines, and fewer than 100 men’ (Shapiro). However, dry docks and repair facilities and some oil and fuel tanks had not been destroyed. The Japanese had intended to also destroy these but had failed (Shapiro). The U.S. was extremely lucky that these buildings and structures had not been damaged or it would have made salvation and reconstruction nearly impossible (Shapiro). Perhaps, the luckiest event of all during this attack was that not a single U.S. aircraft carrier was present during the attack. The results could have been catastrophic if there were any (Shapiro).

In 1791, Benjamin Banneker, a man who was a farmer, mathematician, astronomer, and the son of former slaves, wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson. In his letter, Banneker points out the contradictions between the rights which the Declaration of Independence promised and the continued existence of slavery. To effectively get his point across, Banneker uses several rhetorical strategies, such as pathos, and logos, and also attempts to connect with Jefferson on a personal level, while maintaining a calm, and polite composure.

The first thing that jumps out at me in the letter is the lines compelling Jefferson to think about how the British had robbed him of some of his basic freedoms. This use of pathos strengthens Bennekers argument by sympathizing with Jefferson and attempting to, rather than demanding the freedom of his people, find common ground that they both share. He compels Jefferson to think about how it felt to be oppressed by a higher power and justified that this feeling is what the slaves had experienced every day. Perhaps one of the best examples of Benneeker using pathos to strengthen his argument is when he tells Jefferson, “Look back, I entreat you, on the variety of dangers of which you were exposed, and reflect on the time when it felt like every human aid was unavailable.” While also appealing to Jefferson’s emotions, Benneker also makes use of Logos to strengthen his argument as well. The way in which he does this is by quoting the Declaration of Independence and laying out the blatant hypocrisy between what it promises, and what it really delivers. The specific line from the Declaration of Independence that Benneker quotes is one that reads, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that every man is created equal”, and so, he reasons that since all men are created equal, then the practice of slavery directly opposes the basic ideas that Jefferson had sworn to protect.

Finally, toward the end of Bennekers letter, he leaves Jefferson with some advice. He tells Jefferson that he does not wish to retell the injustice that he and others of his race face, implying that it should be obvious. He rather gives Jefferson a biblical reference to think about. The reference that he uses reads “Put your Souls in their Souls stead”, which urges Jefferson to think about the horrors and injustices that African Americans face and to find it within him to sympathize with him. The use of biblical references in this letter is very clever because they serve as another way to both connect with Jefferson and reflect on his morals. It is clear that it is very important to Banneker to maintain some level of respect for Jefferson, even though he is fighting for basic freedoms that should be afforded to everyone. He does this by insisting on calling him “sir” numerous times throughout the letter and maintaining his composure. This is because if he becomes argumentative and hard to reason with, it completely invalidates his entire argument, and erases all of his work. He also wants to somewhat appeal to Jefferson’s ego as well. If he lets Jefferson believe that he is dealing with a person who is in a way “below him”, it gives Benneker a better chance to actually be listened to instead of merely being brushed aside.

To conclude, Benneker argues his position on slavery with several rhetorical devices, such as pathos and logos, while at the same time keeping himself in check, and using politeness wherever he could. The use of these rhetorical strategies when combined serves to strengthen Bennekers argument and present himself as someone who is credible, and respectable.

In this paper, we`re going to talk about benevolent assimilation, and answer the question: why did the United States of America annex the Philippines? Is this colonization justified? Why or why not? What were the main points of Aguinaldo`s reply to the proclamation? Based o your readings of the two documents, was the Philippines betrayed by the United States of America when it decided to colonize the country? How and why so? And lastly, what ideas do the document provide in helping us understand our past as a people?

First, America annex the Philippines because they believe that there were a lot of commercial opportunities will happen in Asia, and also in their view Filipinos are not capable to rule themselves, because that time we are afraid to be ruled by other countries such as Germany or Japan, this colonization is justified because as I said earlier the Filipino`s are afraid to be ruled by others because America said and I quote we come not as invaders or conquerors, but as a friend, to protect the natives in their homes, in their employments and in their personal and religious rights but in my opinion, benevolent assimilation is just also the as colonialism because come to think of it that piece of paper just declared that America will benefit from the Philippines, how does it happen? It all started in Spanish American war which the Americans wins and bought the Philippines for about $20 million, because they are not satisfied with that they also want to invade the Asia Pacific that includes our country and Guam, no one will be happy in that kind of situation if you`re just going to analyze the Spanish just gave us to America. But let`s just view it in a positive way Americans spread their democratic values with us, they also introduce the presidential system, the education, which have a big impact on our lives now such as our culture and how we think, they help us to improve our civilization as well as our wealth.

On the other hand those are just the positive contribution of America in the Philippines, if we are going to talk about the negative impact of American colonialism in our country we will see that it results to a bloody war which a lot of Filipino citizens die, because Emilio Aguinaldo didn`t agree with the benevolent assimilation but of course he has a reason, Americans attacked on the sovereignty of the Filipinos, which they plan to conquer our country, as Emilio Aguinaldo reply to President McKinley`s Proclamation, he clarified that he never had any agreement with the American regarding the recognition of American sovereignty in the Philippines, he also stated that the United States are recognized by act of belligerency which means they show us a aggressive or war-like behaviour which was the reason why he protest against the threats of American sovereignty, he also say that he didn`t go with them to make war against Spain for the benefit of their own but for our liberty and independence, because as we know all we need that time is to be free with colonialism, and as he says in the last paragraph of his reply I quote independence has been our noble ambition.

And lastly based on my readings, in my own opinion, yes the Philippines was betrayed by the United States because at first America said that they just come as friends that protect us but at the end of the day President McKinley`s proclaimed the benevolent assimilation which refers to the policy of the United States towards our country and it didn`t approve by Emilio Aguinaldo which results to a bloody war that kills a lot of people. This document just makes us realize how our countrymen fight for our freedom, how fearless and brave they are despite all the challenges that come into them at that time, and it gives us an understanding of how we came up in this institution we have right now. It also gives us an idea of how or what we are going to do if another country will try to inva

Jefferson had a great many opinions on how governments should be run and how citizens should be treated. Although he lived in a different time than Thomas More did when he wrote Utopia, a lot of the fundamental issues that Utopia was trying to solve were still present. There was still great inequity in the time of Jefferson, and tyrannical rulers were still ruling with almost complete power over their governments. Jefferson appears to share the moral ideals that are present in Utopia. Both do not look kindly to native people and are for freedom of religion to some degree. Their opinions on warfare appear to vary with some clear disagreements like the use of mercenaries. Jefferson was clearly in favor of private ownership of land, which meant he would not support the essence of Utopia and view it as an unjust government, although he would still agree with some of the other fundamental ideals of the government.

In Utopia, there is freedom of religion for all people except for those who do not believe in God. Utopians believe that the afterlife is what serves as a motivation for people to behave appropriately and have morals. In regards to people who do not believe in an afterlife, they say, “Anyone who thinks otherwise they do not even include in the category of human beings since he has degraded the lofty nature of his soul to the base level of a beast’s wretched body.” (More, 119) Jefferson in the declaration implies that all human rights are given to humans by God. He clearly is of the belief that God is necessary for creating a government and for rationalizing people’s rights. Jefferson would likely agree with Utopia’s assertions about Atheists, and would likely believe that atheists would not respect people’s rights. Overall the religious laws and beliefs of Utopians would be seen favorably by Jefferson and something he would want in his country.

Another area where ideas of Jefferson appear to intertwine with those of the Utopians is the treatment and overall opinion of native people. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson refers to the Native Americans as “merciless Indian Savages” showing that he clearly views them as less than human. (Jefferson) The Utopians also appear to look at natives as less than human. They mention that when their population grows too big they simply take land from the natives of the area, showing they do not respect their rights as human beings.

Jefferson may be conflicted about the slaves of Utopia. In a paragraph that was taken out of the Declaration Jefferson declares, “He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them to slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportations thither.” (Jefferson, rough draft) Jefferson states here that slavery is against human nature itself, showing that he clearly is against the practice of slavery. The Utopians on the other hand have slaves. Slaves in Utopia are not like the slaves Jefferson refers to. Jefferson talks about how slaves in America were kidnapped and transported to a foreign land to become slaves. In Utopia slaves are people who “committed a serious crime in Utopia or foreigners who have been condemned to death.” (Utopia, 95) The slaves in Utopia receive much better treatment than the slaves in America did. Utopian slaves could be more effective compared to prisoners in the United States. Jefferson would likely approve of these improved conditions for slaves compared to how they were treated in America. He would still likely feel that the practice of slavery was a crime against humanity as it strips humans of their individual rights to freedom.

One area Jefferson would have grievances over is the warfare practices of the Utopians. The Utopians used mercenaries to fight their wars for them, they also used propaganda to try and start civil uprisings or assassinations so that they would not need to send soldiers to war. Jefferson has two quotes where he accuses the King of England of doing these things. The first is, “He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.” (Jefferson) This quote shows that Jefferson appears to be against the use of mercenaries. He compares the action to barbarous ages implying that using mercenaries is something he looks down on. The other quote is, “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages.” (Jefferson) Here Jefferson complains about the king starting insurrections inside the colonies. This is very similar to how the Utopians tried to spread propaganda inside of their rival countries to start civil unrest. Jefferson appears to look down on these tactics and may well find it cowardly and barbaric that the Utopians engage in these practices.

The Utopian government officials are voted for in a somewhat democratic fashion. Groups of 30 vote for representatives who then vote for the higher tier of government officials. Jefferson would view this form of government favorably. Jefferson would approve of having elected officials instead of royal bloodlines in charge. He clearly wants more representation as when he talks about his complaints about the king he lists the ways he has limited freedoms. One complaint of his is that the king has, “ dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly.” A clear sign of his efforts to limit freedom and Jefferson’s clear opposition to such practices. Jefferson wants representative houses to be the ones making policy decisions, not Kings, something the Utopian government does well.

The area that Jefferson would most strongly disagree with is the Utopian approach to property. Utopians have no private property and as a result, own nothing. Jefferson talks about people’s God-given rights when he says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (Jefferson) When talking about the pursuit of happiness he also talks about the pursuit of land, something he feels all people have a right to own. Jefferson would likely view the fact that people cannot own land as a form of tyranny. Jefferson was clearly in favor of individuals having power over government, he would likely see this as the government taking power and rights from individuals, something that would make him view the entire Utopian system as unjust as a result.

Utopian offers insight into a truly interesting form of government and a society that is much different than that of the United States. Utopia has a large focus on upholding what they feel is morally right. They place emphasis on people believing in God so that they will have a better moral compass, yet also have almost no regard for native people. These ideas appear to align with Jefferson morally. They also engage in practices involving slavery, something Jefferson, while not necessarily vocal about, was opposed to. The area most intriguing for Jefferson however would be the government and laws of Utopia. Utopia, a representative Republic of sorts, had a form of government Jefferson would approve of greatly, but he would not be able to get over the government’s laws regarding private property. Utopia’s lack of private property would be a form of tyranny in Jefferon’s eyes, and as a result, he would find the government unjust as a result of this one major policy.

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, today I’ll talk about FDR’s Pearl Harbor address to the nation. Before attacking Pearl Harbor or even before World War II. The Empire of Japan’s goal was to conquer all the islands in the Pacific and eventually conquer the entire Pacific fleet. Before attacking Pearl Harbor they have conquered Manchuria, Inner Mongolia (which is present day China), Korea and Tonkking. The reason why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor is it would destroy the American fleet making easier to conquer the Dutch Indies Islands (which is present day Indonesia) and Malaysia. Usually whenever you declare war against another country, you would either declare a performative speech act (Infamy Speech) or the act of signing it in a document (which FDR did against a war against Nazi Germany at December 11, 1941). The Japense did do this, however it was one hour late due to some translating issues. Right after the attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR gave an infamy speech, and immediately declared war against Japan, and then Germany immediately declared war against the United States because Germany was with the axis powers along with Japan and Italy. Towards the end of World War II, the US dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6 , 1945, and one on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945. Then after the Japanse surrendered, the rebuilding of Japan took place through August of 1945- April of 1952. Then, The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States was signed in 1960.

Now about FDR. FDR, full name Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was born in January 30, 1882 at Hyde Park, New York, he was a president and governor who served as the 32nd president of the United States from 1933 until his death in 1945, and the 44th governor of New York from 1929- 1932. He was a member of the Democratic Party, he won a record four presidential elections and became a figure in world events during the first half of the 20th century. While as a governor, he only won one term. He won election to the New York State Senate in 1910. Then served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy under President Woodrow Wilson during World War one. Roosevelt was James M. Cox’s running mate on the Democratic Party’s 1920 national ticket, but Cox was defeated by Warren G. Harding. In 1921, Roosevelt got an illness called polio. Polio is a virus that may cause paralysis and is easily preventable by the polio vaccine. This illness made his legs became permanently paralyzed. While attempting to recover from his condition, Roosevelt founded the treatment center in Warm Springs, Georgia, for people with polio. Roosevelt returned to public office by winning election as Governor of New York in 1928. He was in office from 1929 to 1933 and served as a reform Governor, and promoting programs to combat the economic crisis besetting the United States at the time. He then won the presidential election of 1932, deafating Herbert Hoover. He was put in office in 1933, in the middle of the Great Depression. Mainly using ethos and pathos FDR created a total of 24 programs. The New Deal included new constraints and safeguards on the banking industry and efforts to re-inflate the economy after prices had fallen sharply. The programs mainly focused on the ‘3 Rs’: relief for the unemployed and poor; recovery of the economy back to normal levels and reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression. After the Great Depression and the people noticing how good FDR was and pulled the nation up, he was re-elected again. During World War II, Roosevelt gave a strong financial support to China, the United Kingdom and eventually the Soviet Union while the United States remained neutral, until the bombing of Pearl Harbor. When he declared war against Japan, he made a priority to take down Germany and Italy first, using a strategy called ‘the Europe first’. Then, he also developed of the first atomic bomb, and worked with the other Allied leaders to lay the groundwork for the United Nations and other post-war institutions. Roosevelt won the election of 1944, but with his physical health was not very well during the World War, he died in April 1945.

Despite Fdr’s death, he won the Raven award. The Raven award is an award that recognizes outstanding achievement in the mystery field outside the realm of creative writing.

Analysis of Washington’s Foreign Policy Principles

In 1796 after Washington decided not to seek reelection for the United States presidency, he delivered a valedictory address to his ‘Friends and Citizens’. In the address, Washington articulated the principles he hoped would guide the United States as he retired. By examining Washington’s Farewell Address (co-authored by Alexander Hamilton), it can be argued that Washington advocated for the United States foreign policy principles to be rooted in moderation, peace, and avoidance of foreign alliances in order for the United States to protect its core domestic interests. Washington’s counsel on neutrality was rooted in the desire to protect the United States’ independence and the belief that the US stood to gain more as a neutral party in its foreign engagements. In his farewell address, George Washington counseled against isolationism and excessive engagements abroad, he instead urged Americans to pursue a cautionary foreign policy based on moderation and neutrality: retaining their independence while still pursuing international engagements without favor and without joining permanent alliances.

This paper argues that the foreign policy principles articulated in Washington’s valedictory address were largely driven by domestic concerns ranging from Washington’s desire to protect the United States’ independence, Washington’s views on the importance of individual liberty and the benefits the United States stood to gain from neutrality in international engagements.

Independence and Sovereignty

As the French Revolution unfolded in 1992, when Washington had contemplated retirement, the disputes between the Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian camps – who held diverging views on how the United States should act with respect to the French situation – persuaded Washington to stand for another term in order to preserve the unity of the fragile union. The struggle between the idealistic pro-French wing and the realist Hamiltonian wing prompted Washington to proclaim America’s neutrality laying the foundation for what would become a cornerstone of his farewell address. Washington was wary of the perils of foreign influence over American politics as the newly minted infant nation was still recovering from the American Revolutionary War.

The outbreak of the general European war in February and March 1993, further intensified Washington’s resolve for neutrality leading to his proclamation that saw America choosing to remain above the fray and animosities of European politics and instead opting to value peace above other goals. During this time Washington had also been irked by what he saw as French meddling in U.S. politics. The French, through Edmond-Charles Genêt their envoy to America were pressuring Americans to lend their support in the war, and one of their key goals was to leverage the 1778 commercial treaty to secure provisions for their besieged nation from the United States which would be transported to France in American ships. Genêt’s overtures infuriated Washington to a point that he demanded that the envoy be recalled back to France, but Washington did not let Genêt’s actions on behalf of the French impact his stand on neutrality. When John Jays, the federalist pro-British Chief Justice of the United States embarked on a mission to London that led to the signing of the Jay’s Treaty between the Americans and Britons, Washington sent James Monroe the pro-Republican Senator from Virginia on a mission to France to allay perceptions that the United States was breaking on its neutrality principles.

Liberty

Having recently attained independence, and with the memories of the lengthy American Revolution war still fresh in the minds of Americans, Washington was keen to pursue policies that ensure the protection of American liberties which were enshrined in the American constitution and in the hearts of Americans. As observed in the address Washington states that “Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts”. In the Circular Address of 1783 – more than a decade before he delivered his farewell address – Washington noted that human liberty was the basis of the pillars that supported America’s national character and independence.

Washington viewed Foreign entanglements as a factor that would have negative implications on the liberties of Americans. Taking sides in the war might have meant having to provide military support to allies and potentially bringing the battles to American territory. In the farewell address, Washington cautioned against expanding the military. Playing a more outsized role abroad would have inadvertently led the United States to expand its military and this was in contravention of Washington’s view on the military and liberty. As observed in the farewell address “overgrown military establishments”, are inauspicious to liberty”, and as such, they are “to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty.”

Advantages of Neutrality

In the valedictory address, Washington counsels the United States that “… even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences” Washington’s counsel for a neutrally commercial US foreign policy was rooted in the belief that the United States stood to gain more. For Washington, true national interests warranted avoiding war and promoting prosperity through peaceful commerce. The neutral United States stood to benefit from serving as a possible neutral base of transatlantic operations against enemy colonies and commerce as the European war unfolded. The United States also stood to gain from the European wrangles because it would become the largest remaining neutral supplier of provisions and naval stores, commodities.

Neutrality would also accord the United States stability and time to pay off her debts. During the revolution, the cash-strapped Continental Congress had accepted loans from Europe, and by 1790 the debt was approximately $11.7 million owed to foreigners -mostly to Dutch bankers and the French government – and about $42 million owed to domestic creditors. The Federal Government had also assumed the loans of its constituent states after independence and repaying all the loans was one of the major challenges of post-independence America.

The need for the US to preserve its newly established national credit in order to be able to repay its debts and protect its growing economy could be achieved if the United States maintained cordial relations with all.

Conclusion

After looking at the factors behind the foreign policy principles articulated by Washington’s valedictory address, it can be reasonably argued that what has generally been construed as a policy of ‘isolation’ should instead be interpreted as a policy of vigilant guarding of domestic concerns.

In looking at the motives behind the foreign policy principles articulated by Washington’s Farewell Address one factor to consider is how much of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison’s views influenced the speech. Given that most passages in the address were drafted by Alexander Hamilton, how much of Washington’s sentiments and ideas made it to the final draft? As he contemplated retirement in 1792, Washington had also commissioned Madison, his aide who held similar views to Washington on the importance of neutrality and peace to draft a valedictory address, and some of its paragraphs were incorporated into Washington’s 1796 Farewell Address. The debate over whose principles feature more prominently in the speech lingers over the analysis to understand the motives behind the text. Due to space limitations, this paper does not adequately look into how Alexander Hamilton and James Madison’s world views might have influenced the principles in articulating Washington’s address, but it is important to acknowledge that the address was not entirely drawn from Washington’s world view.

Ultimately, looking at Washington’s Farewell Address it can be argued that Washington’s foreign policy principles of neutrality and peace as articulated in his address were driven by his concern over national interest which he viewed as being critical for the United States: sovereignty and liberty. Washington warned the nation to avoid permanent alliances with foreign nations and to rely instead on temporary alliances for emergencies.

Money and authority, that’s what drove many countries including the United States during the late 18th century and early 19 century. Having authority was one thing but combining it with wealth was a lethal weapon that could open many doors. In order to gain wealth at the time, you’d need to expand which you could only do so by taking over other country’s trade routes and their assets. This would enhance the owner’s wealth thus giving them more leeway to gain authority. “The taste of Empire is in the mouth of the people even as the taste of blood in the jungle” this statement was made by a Washington D.C. newspaper, and it means that the people of the United States tremendously wanted to own and use as many territories outside the mainland of the United States. They compare the “taste of Empire” to that of the “taste of blood” to provoke an image in the reader’s head. In the jungle, you are in an unsafe environment, it’s every man for himself leading you to crave the best for yourself, regardless of who is harmed as long as you come out superior. This shows the great lengths that countries would go to in order to expand and just how much they yearned for this to take place regardless of the many killed along the way like the Native American Indians.

New Manifest Destiny, is justified by many for a number of reasons, those being the amount of cheap or free land available, Social Darwinism, and Militarism in the late 19th century. The Spanish American war happened as a result of who would win Cuba, some factors that influenced this outbreak of war was the Yellow Press, the sinking of The Maine, and Cuba wanting its independence from the Spanish.

There are a number of reasons as to why people justified the American expansion New Manifest Destiny. The main ones are the following. The first being the large quantity of cheap or free land that was fertile for farmers to harvest their crops on. An example of this would be the Homestead Act which made western land very affordable to those willing to harvest it. Since many farmers were buying land and harvesting on them, the United States now had an oversupply of crops which led them to lower the prices of produce so they decided to expand by trading with other nations markets overseas to avoid factories from going out of business and bankrupt along with having a rise in unemployment.

And, the next reason people used to justify the American expansion New Manifest Destiny is Social Darwinism, it was the idea that life is compiled up of competitive hardships in which only the strong minded survived.

These are the main reasons, but they are not the only ones.

Run for the Wall: An American Pilgrimage

Pilgrimages to locations that elicit emotions of life are ritually organized journeys that physically transport people out of their ordinary lives to symbolize events, cultures, locations, and the significance of past repeated behavior. The Wall Run starts every year in mid-May when a few hundred cruiser drivers assemble at an inn in southern California before their ride from California to Washington, D.C. Although there are a considerable number of riders, the bulk of them are Vietnamese veterans, and most have whiskers, head scarves, boots, and dark cowhide jackets. a broken ritual of short duration and a full replacement, they will engage in daily life in religious and secular ways; it was started years ago. Veterans in Vietnam, as well as other riders who left Los Angeles, included cyclists who stay near cities and participate in ceremonies.

Over the years, ritually organized pilgrimages entail the physical removal of people from the pilgrimage of the motorcyclists from LA to LA, which began by vet veterans from Vietnam and now involves other runners when traveling to places that emotionalize life and make a big difference in their everyday existence. They will stop and sometimes be capable of regular memorials in some of the cities that they visited at the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, D.C., and they will finally parade in a rolling thunder of thousands of motorcyclists who will honor the soldiers who were present at that event during the War in Vietnam.

Vietnam was captured, lost, or murdered, and after a thunderous roll struck, a procession of thousands of motorcyclists ended in the United States House of Representatives to remember and recollect officers who were forgotten in the battle of Vietnam and slaughtered drivers who could join, and some could leave the townspeople visiting Washington by name, after each person who died in the war. According to Jill Dubisch, pilgrimage is part of the rite but is not part of any religion but is part of a cultural pilgrim or practice in her essay Run for the Wall, although I don’t believe pilgrims will be part of society and faith at the same time. It means you have dedicated your life completely to this path or you have pulled yourself away from your normal lives. One example is a holy pilgrimage that takes place annually by committed Muslims, Christians, Hindus, or others. To retain power, maintain a healthy or transmittable character, reconnect with loved ones, or monitor a specific social excursion in the world is so revolutionary because it can be a very low-stage activity.

The liminal time of the excursion is determined by the real division feeling like during wartime when unity and fellowship were the policy strategy on the pow-wow issue, and the devotion itself commemorates both those who survive and those who die. I may agree and disagree with the post, but I don’t think the article really explains why people want to adhere to traditions and religions. Yeah, tradition and pilgrimage are the foundations for change, but why does it shock me that in ceremonies, religions, and pilgrimages, symbolism is a significant element? In fact, we humans seem to make a difference because our values include our 5 senses. I like how the author of this article describes symbolism in significant events such as rituals ceremonies, and more we use our understanding with regard to the article, the motorcycle ride, the trip, and the look of rough men, etc. The difficulty of what soldiers served in Vietnam is clarified, and I believe it’s a symbolic thing, a transition, a ceremonial pilgrimage.