Since the Progressive Era, we have seen a huge amount social change run through America. The 20th century brought about more social change in America than any other century before or since. Women gained the right to vote in the 20th century; the poor people of the Great Depression became more healthy, active, and secure with the New Deal legislation. The musicians of the 20th century changed music in a way that it could inspire social change, as well as this feel good jive. Songs in the 20th century inspired, hoped, loved, and showed the pain of the common man. You can say Cat's In the Cradle is a Progressive song because it shows how this father is working way to much to raise his child, and the slow progression of that child into a mirror image of the father. Perhaps Harry Chapin was trying to say that the working class has to have more time to spend with their family; that perhaps an eight hour work day would be better so the workers could spend more time with the one's they love. The people from the bottom of society came forward to protest segregation in the most attended rally in the history of the United States. MLK standing under Lincoln's shadow, he pronounced that he had a dream, that one day his children's children could hold hands with a white man, not as enemies, but as friends. In the Watergate scandal, the people realized what power they had when the Nixon resigned. They realized that the most powerful in their society could not dodge the grasp of the law. The energy crisis that happened in the Carter Administration showed people that the environment needed fixing; that something the people of America were doing was not the best example of self-efficiency. As the century continued, homosexuals and American Indians protested for equal rights, they had determination and the will to come out on top. Now we can assuredly say nobody wants to return to the 90's. That was a time of not economic depression, but just mental depression. But the music, that's what really had the emotion of the people. I'm not that into 90's music, (thank god) but what I do hear is really emotional. It may be just like this, for all the emotion the common man was supposed to show in the 90's was sucked up by the music of the 90's. Meaning, the people of the 90's expressed themselves through their music. At the turn of the century, two men had the opportunity to become President, Al Gore and George W. Bush. We al know what happened that election year, and we all want to forget the eight years that followed, but it did show the American people why the Electoral College was so important, and let them make sure that was being upheld.
All of these things are Constitutional, all of these things things inspired social change, all of these things helped us form a more perfect union. The events of the 20th century shaped the way the nation formed. What if Martin Luther King had been shot before he became well known? Our nation would be a very different place. The framers of the Constitution said that democracy was an unfinished experience, that justice was equal to fairness, that a single individual could be great. The 20th century accentuates the Constitution better than any other time in American history. The Vietnam War was adamantly opposed in the 60's and 70's. People wanted change, they no longer wanted to be in a war that would never be won. Never before had the 1st Amendment been used so openly, never before had the government been in such ignorance, with the possible exception of the Industrial Revolution. The U.S Supreme Court has heard 1,674 cases since 1789. 1,218 of those cases, according to Wikipedia, took place in the 20th century. In the 18th, 19th, and 21st centuries combined have been 456. That means that about 72% of all the cases ever heard by the Supreme Court came in the 1900's because of all the social change that went on. In 1970-1979, the Supreme Court heard 240 cases, 20 times more than what was heard in 1860-1869. Now I know not all of the court cases in the 1900's were considered to be socially changing, but I think that most of them were. Which brings me to another point. The Constitution is a Progressive Document. It changes perspectives through the years, according to the belief of the people. But sometimes, Amendments can be manipulated to favor the Capitalists, and that is where Progressives come in handy.
Progressivism is paramount to a successful nation. Our nation is based on the fact that all people have the chance to do something powerful. All people have the right to do something powerful. We as a nation have not upheld that particular promise, but with Progressivism, it could be accomplished. To believe that things will get better, that we can overcome whatever is in our way, that is the American Dream, that is what our ancestors dreamed of when crafting tis nation; this is what a Progressive does. They inspire hope when hope is not found, they put faith in the working class when no one else would. The Progressive thinkers are the one's that understand the potential and true goal of this nation. It was because of Eugene Debs, Upton Sinclair, Ida Tarbell, and Jacob Riis that the American 20th century was so influential, not only to the future of America, but the future of the world. And through the entire 20th century, the fight went on, the cause endured, and the dream never died.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Thursday, January 19, 2012
The Problems Muckrackers Face Which Somehow Makes Me Discuss the 1st Amendment
A couple posts previous, I talked about Muckrackers and who their modern counterparts were. It was a pretty unenthusiastic post, taking the easy way out by linking you to those Youtube videos. This post is going to address if Muckrackers face ridicule from government workers that they call scum.
I do believe that Muckrackers, particularly Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, face a condemning government and news reporters. By "news reporters" I mean the Fox network. When the people at Fox and in the government react to these Muckrackers' jokes, they take it personally. Which is not a good thing. Stewart and Colbert are not talking about those people because they hate them, they talk about them because that person did something that was completely bogus to someone else or relates directly to the topic being discussed. They do not intentionally try to hurt someone's feelings.
Once, in the Colbert Report , Stephen Colbert played a clip of Sarah Palin telling reporters that Paul Revere road around the country on his horse, "firing those warning shots", "ringing those cowbell's", and "telling the British that we were not going to give up our arms and we would fight for our land." Colbert then went on to get on a mechanical horse, pretend to fire a late 1700's gun, and reload, all while ringing a cowbell. The end result was it was almost impossible to do. In this instance, Colbert was not focusing on Palin, but the untruth in her statement. Colbert just found a funny situation to expound upon.
One thing is absolutely clear: Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert get under peoples' skin. All the crap Stewart and Colbert dish out about a topic does reach people with the view Colbert and Stewart are trashing. The best instance is when Rick Sanchez called Jon Stewart a bigot, and got fired from CNN. That just goes to show that sticks and stones do break bones, and words can hurt people.
But for every insulting comment a Fox News reporter has over Stephen Colbert, Colbert has an equally rude comment in reply. Let's get this thing straight, Stewart and Colbert are not being called "bigots" for no good reason, these guys do make some pretty harsh comments. When talking about Newt Gingrich, and I know I keep on going to Jon Stewart, he commented on how Bill O'Reiley thought Newt Gingrich was a lazy candidate with no potential. Look at that. He kills to birds with one stone. Making a political statement and explaining why Newt Gingrich must not be the right candidate for the job. If the most conservative reporter in America says Gingrich is incapable of leading a successful presidency, Gringrich is not the right choice.
All of this brings up the question, is this Constitutional? The 1st Amendment states that people have the freedom of speech, petition, religion, assembly, and protest as long as it does not interfere with anyone else's well-being or human rights. By saying the things they are saying, Stewart and Colbert are unintentionally interfering with the well-being of the people they discuss on their show. Which is another good point in itself. By saying Colbert and Stewart are hurting the well-being of the government workers unintentionally, is it still Unconstitutional? I believe so. The difference between the hurtful comments sent from the Fox news reporters and government workers to Colbert and Stewart and the comments made by Colbert and Stewart to the government workers and Fox news reporters is that Colbert and Stewart are not fazed by the insults, which means that the comments made by the government workers and Fox news are Constitutional because those comments do not interfere with the well-being of Colbert or Stewart. The opposite is true for the comments Colbert and Stewart makes.
This is the largest difference between Muckrackers of the Progressive Era and today. Congress has grown smaller since the original Muckrackers. The same is true for Capitalists. This means that everything Ida Tarbell, Upton Sinclair, Jacob Riis, even going back to Dorothea Dix, said, wrote, or otherwise, are all Constitutional. The reason being is that the actions of Riis did not faze the Capitalists so much as to interfere with their well-being. Sinclair did his part, he did change the working conditions for the meat-packing plants, but think the toll on the Capitalists from an economic standpoint. It was a very small percent of the wealth. What these Progressive thinkers did was not decrease the amount of money the Capitalists had, but rather the amount of influence they had over the people and government. However, the amount of power the Industrialists had over the nation that the Progressives had to work super hard to accomplish what they wanted. All of this means that because the Capitalists had so much power and were rarely upset or caught off guard by these Progressives, it would not be considered Unconstitutional.
Now here is the catch. This is for those of you who argue that what Tarbell, Sinclair, Riis, and other Progressives did was Unconstitutional. If you argue that what they did was Unconstitutional, then is it right for the Constitution to be broken if it is in the good of the common man? If we see it from Voltaire's point of view, yes, when the rights of the poor are about as strong as pudding, and that is the measure to the rights of the Capitalists, it is alright to break the Constitution to get what we want, because when one person's rights are discarded, all of us are in trouble.
Colbert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWcQEO1OG4Q
Stewart: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKLRmVYk0-s&feature=related
I do believe that Muckrackers, particularly Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, face a condemning government and news reporters. By "news reporters" I mean the Fox network. When the people at Fox and in the government react to these Muckrackers' jokes, they take it personally. Which is not a good thing. Stewart and Colbert are not talking about those people because they hate them, they talk about them because that person did something that was completely bogus to someone else or relates directly to the topic being discussed. They do not intentionally try to hurt someone's feelings.
Once, in the Colbert Report , Stephen Colbert played a clip of Sarah Palin telling reporters that Paul Revere road around the country on his horse, "firing those warning shots", "ringing those cowbell's", and "telling the British that we were not going to give up our arms and we would fight for our land." Colbert then went on to get on a mechanical horse, pretend to fire a late 1700's gun, and reload, all while ringing a cowbell. The end result was it was almost impossible to do. In this instance, Colbert was not focusing on Palin, but the untruth in her statement. Colbert just found a funny situation to expound upon.
One thing is absolutely clear: Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert get under peoples' skin. All the crap Stewart and Colbert dish out about a topic does reach people with the view Colbert and Stewart are trashing. The best instance is when Rick Sanchez called Jon Stewart a bigot, and got fired from CNN. That just goes to show that sticks and stones do break bones, and words can hurt people.
But for every insulting comment a Fox News reporter has over Stephen Colbert, Colbert has an equally rude comment in reply. Let's get this thing straight, Stewart and Colbert are not being called "bigots" for no good reason, these guys do make some pretty harsh comments. When talking about Newt Gingrich, and I know I keep on going to Jon Stewart, he commented on how Bill O'Reiley thought Newt Gingrich was a lazy candidate with no potential. Look at that. He kills to birds with one stone. Making a political statement and explaining why Newt Gingrich must not be the right candidate for the job. If the most conservative reporter in America says Gingrich is incapable of leading a successful presidency, Gringrich is not the right choice.
All of this brings up the question, is this Constitutional? The 1st Amendment states that people have the freedom of speech, petition, religion, assembly, and protest as long as it does not interfere with anyone else's well-being or human rights. By saying the things they are saying, Stewart and Colbert are unintentionally interfering with the well-being of the people they discuss on their show. Which is another good point in itself. By saying Colbert and Stewart are hurting the well-being of the government workers unintentionally, is it still Unconstitutional? I believe so. The difference between the hurtful comments sent from the Fox news reporters and government workers to Colbert and Stewart and the comments made by Colbert and Stewart to the government workers and Fox news reporters is that Colbert and Stewart are not fazed by the insults, which means that the comments made by the government workers and Fox news are Constitutional because those comments do not interfere with the well-being of Colbert or Stewart. The opposite is true for the comments Colbert and Stewart makes.
This is the largest difference between Muckrackers of the Progressive Era and today. Congress has grown smaller since the original Muckrackers. The same is true for Capitalists. This means that everything Ida Tarbell, Upton Sinclair, Jacob Riis, even going back to Dorothea Dix, said, wrote, or otherwise, are all Constitutional. The reason being is that the actions of Riis did not faze the Capitalists so much as to interfere with their well-being. Sinclair did his part, he did change the working conditions for the meat-packing plants, but think the toll on the Capitalists from an economic standpoint. It was a very small percent of the wealth. What these Progressive thinkers did was not decrease the amount of money the Capitalists had, but rather the amount of influence they had over the people and government. However, the amount of power the Industrialists had over the nation that the Progressives had to work super hard to accomplish what they wanted. All of this means that because the Capitalists had so much power and were rarely upset or caught off guard by these Progressives, it would not be considered Unconstitutional.
Now here is the catch. This is for those of you who argue that what Tarbell, Sinclair, Riis, and other Progressives did was Unconstitutional. If you argue that what they did was Unconstitutional, then is it right for the Constitution to be broken if it is in the good of the common man? If we see it from Voltaire's point of view, yes, when the rights of the poor are about as strong as pudding, and that is the measure to the rights of the Capitalists, it is alright to break the Constitution to get what we want, because when one person's rights are discarded, all of us are in trouble.
Colbert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWcQEO1OG4Q
Stewart: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKLRmVYk0-s&feature=related
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
The Power: From the Top Down
This is how our government should function. The government should control what goes on in America, but it rarely does, and that's what the protestors are for. The government has to look out for those people who are living on the streets, it must happen like this. It is a necessity that power comes from the top down in order to form a more perfect union, but also to create a more sound democracy.
Earlier this week I read an article by Jonathan Kozol, about how America is becoming illiterate. It was a very powerful article and brought to mind just how serious the situation is in America. Illiterates are forced to be observers, they can't comprehend the written word. I can say this with absolute certainty: any illeterates looking at this blog won't understand any of it. It is important for the power to come from top down because many in America cannot live with the illiteracy they have. Illiterates are in constant danger of doing something that is not beneficial to their family, for instance, in Kozol's article, a mother buys a gallon of Crisco for dinner because she saw a chicken on the front of it. She could not go back to the store because she used all her money for the day. When the average man signs a lease, he is expected to read it. An illiterate signs the lease like the average man clicks "I Agree To These Terms of Service" on Itunes. Congress has to take a stand against this epidemic. Only Congress can change the education, men may protest for better education, but in the end Congress makes the final decision.
To begin his article, Kozol begins with a Drano warning label. It is direct and to the point:
PRECAUTIONS. READ BEFORE USING
Poison: Contains sodium hydroxide (cause soda-lye)
Corrosive: Causes severe eye and skin damage, may cause blindness.
Harmful or fatal if swallowed.
If swallowed, give large quantities of milk or water.
Do not induce vomiting.
Important: Keep water out of can at all times to prevent contents from violently erupting...
He begins with this because it shows what harmful things can happen if Drano is used incorrectly. He does not explain it, because it speaks for itself, illeterates cannot read that. This warning speaks for itself because illiterates cannot understand what the dangers are of this product. In the article, Kozol uses a number of examples and the effects of illiteracy, and as the article progresses, their power intensifies, the emotion is more clear, and his argument more well supported. One in particular, about a man whose care broke down, and when he called the police the only thing he could tell them was that he was on a one way street, touched me deeply. The reason is quite simple. Every Wednesday for a couple of years, I went on the highway to get to my therapy center. Every week, rain or shine, I saw a homeless man just standing in the turn-in, always the same guy, mind you. He just stood their with a blank face, he didn't even ask for money. I had the feeling he was lost, at times, he moved so infrequently I thought he was dead. I believe that man did not know where he was, and that saddens me. With all the other examples Kozol uses, non of them can I connect such a strong connection to. Kozol uses direct quotations from illeterates because they know the truth. They are experiencing the thing he is fighting for. Kozol uses language such as "uninsured" and "intimidation" to explain that he is angry at the literate, but sympathetic to the illiterate. He uses these words because the show how unstable and controlled the lives of illiterates are. Illiterates can't write, read prescriptions, read newspapers to keep up with the news, understand maps, find addresses, or do computation. It is very bad.
Let us now relate this to Progressivism:
Illiteracy and this article relates to power coming from the top down for the reasons above. It also relates to injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere because the injustice being due to the illeterates is not in anyway upholding forming a more perfect union. Also, to the victor belongs the spoils of victory is against Kozol's article because Kozol believes that everyone should have the power of literacy. I think Booker T. would agree with this article because they both believe strongly in the things they talk about and believe that the illiterates and blacks should have a voice. In this article, the most Progressive sentance is "not knowing the world that lies concealed behind those worlds is a more terrifying one", because it shows that change needs to happen and progress must be made. I believe the author is right, we do need to change the proportion of illiterates to literates. That is why we need a power that comes from the bottom up.
Earlier this week I read an article by Jonathan Kozol, about how America is becoming illiterate. It was a very powerful article and brought to mind just how serious the situation is in America. Illiterates are forced to be observers, they can't comprehend the written word. I can say this with absolute certainty: any illeterates looking at this blog won't understand any of it. It is important for the power to come from top down because many in America cannot live with the illiteracy they have. Illiterates are in constant danger of doing something that is not beneficial to their family, for instance, in Kozol's article, a mother buys a gallon of Crisco for dinner because she saw a chicken on the front of it. She could not go back to the store because she used all her money for the day. When the average man signs a lease, he is expected to read it. An illiterate signs the lease like the average man clicks "I Agree To These Terms of Service" on Itunes. Congress has to take a stand against this epidemic. Only Congress can change the education, men may protest for better education, but in the end Congress makes the final decision.
To begin his article, Kozol begins with a Drano warning label. It is direct and to the point:
PRECAUTIONS. READ BEFORE USING
Poison: Contains sodium hydroxide (cause soda-lye)
Corrosive: Causes severe eye and skin damage, may cause blindness.
Harmful or fatal if swallowed.
If swallowed, give large quantities of milk or water.
Do not induce vomiting.
Important: Keep water out of can at all times to prevent contents from violently erupting...
He begins with this because it shows what harmful things can happen if Drano is used incorrectly. He does not explain it, because it speaks for itself, illeterates cannot read that. This warning speaks for itself because illiterates cannot understand what the dangers are of this product. In the article, Kozol uses a number of examples and the effects of illiteracy, and as the article progresses, their power intensifies, the emotion is more clear, and his argument more well supported. One in particular, about a man whose care broke down, and when he called the police the only thing he could tell them was that he was on a one way street, touched me deeply. The reason is quite simple. Every Wednesday for a couple of years, I went on the highway to get to my therapy center. Every week, rain or shine, I saw a homeless man just standing in the turn-in, always the same guy, mind you. He just stood their with a blank face, he didn't even ask for money. I had the feeling he was lost, at times, he moved so infrequently I thought he was dead. I believe that man did not know where he was, and that saddens me. With all the other examples Kozol uses, non of them can I connect such a strong connection to. Kozol uses direct quotations from illeterates because they know the truth. They are experiencing the thing he is fighting for. Kozol uses language such as "uninsured" and "intimidation" to explain that he is angry at the literate, but sympathetic to the illiterate. He uses these words because the show how unstable and controlled the lives of illiterates are. Illiterates can't write, read prescriptions, read newspapers to keep up with the news, understand maps, find addresses, or do computation. It is very bad.
Let us now relate this to Progressivism:
Illiteracy and this article relates to power coming from the top down for the reasons above. It also relates to injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere because the injustice being due to the illeterates is not in anyway upholding forming a more perfect union. Also, to the victor belongs the spoils of victory is against Kozol's article because Kozol believes that everyone should have the power of literacy. I think Booker T. would agree with this article because they both believe strongly in the things they talk about and believe that the illiterates and blacks should have a voice. In this article, the most Progressive sentance is "not knowing the world that lies concealed behind those worlds is a more terrifying one", because it shows that change needs to happen and progress must be made. I believe the author is right, we do need to change the proportion of illiterates to literates. That is why we need a power that comes from the bottom up.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Booker T. or W.E.B? And In Extent MLK or Malcolm X?
Okay, before I begin, let me say why MLK and Malcolm X relate to these guys. Booker T is the predecessor to Martin Luther King Jr. They both believe slow progression and peaceful protests are the way to go. Most of the time, I believe in that reality. It is logical yet remains in the boundaries of the Constitution. The 1st Amendment is represented and yet nobody's individual rights are being violated, that includes the government workers. The African American's were the ones having their individual rights stripped from them, even while protesting. When police hosed those children, it seems to go against the 1st Amendment, because voices were being silenced, promoting the general welfare disappeared in this moment because the people were hurt when they were hosed. There were more violations of the Constitution, but those are the two big ones. Then their is the W.E.B/ Malcolm X. These two guys are for instant change. It kind of is like those Insta-Coco stuff, when the coco (the African Americans, ironically) lands on the milk, ( the white government, policemen, and racists, ironically) we want to see explosive results. They figured if we take the whites by surprise we can rule like the whites rule and we can get what we want. Now the question is, who is right: Booker T. Washington/ Martin Luther King Jr. or W.E.B/ Malcolm X?
I personally believe that the true way to get what you want is through constant and gradual persistence, all I have to do is look at my five year journey to get a phone. I HAVE NEVER HAD TO USE DRASTIC MEASURES TO GET WHAT I WANT! Although the African Americans have had to. Booker T/MLK's way of getting civic rights is the correct way to do things... but not in this instance. The maltreatment of the African American had gone on too long, even in Booker T.'s time, and I believe it would have been better if segregation and racism to end as fast as humanly possible. So I think that while the morally correct way to integrate African American's is the Booker T. way, the way that they would get their rights would be through the W.E.B way. Now yes, Booker T./MLK's ideas did win out in the end, but both were very powerful.
Booker T. once said that "character, not circumstances, makes the man." This basically means that what a person does defines him, not the current events of the day. How the man responds to the KKK actions represents is personality, not what the KKK did. MLK would agree, believing that peaceful marches are much more sufficient to the rioting like that of Haymarket. DuBois, "ignorance is a cure for nothing." DuBois says this, probably addressing the government, in order to make the statement that just blowing off that there is a problem is completely wrong, and does not help move us towards a more perfect union. It means exactly what it says. If we ignore environmental ideas, then what will happen to the environment? Yes, I think that if we ignore environmental concerns (insert sarcasm here) " the environment will become better, the ozone will repair itself, and we can go about our business as usual." Of course that is not true!
DuBois/ Malcolm X is a perfect example of power that comes from the bottom up. He urged the African Americans to fight and to rebel, and in no way were the African Americans on the top in DuBois' time. The same with Malcolm X. Booker T. Washington and Martin Luther King Jr. represents "democracy is represented best when all voices are heard" because they raised the voices of those blacks. MLK rose the voices of those marching on Washington.
Booker T. and W.E.B are both equally important to the African American movement. I can't tell you who is better. It is that of opinion, such as a Democrat believes Obama is better to be President, while a Republican believes that Mitt Romney is better for President. Obama and Romney are equals, Romney may be better than Obama in the Private Sector, but on the same token, Obama may be a more proficient spokesman. The same is true for Washington and W.E.B. While they are both fabulous spokesmen, Washington appealed to the Capitalists, as well as the people. However, DuBois was rejected by the Capitalists, which was a good thing for the cause he was fighting for. I think it may have hurt Washington's reputation that he was respected by the Capitalists.
In conclusion, Washington and DuBois, while both brilliant, have their flaws. Washington and DuBois are both important, they both helped their cause, they both fought for what they believed in. They are the true meaning of what it means to have the fight go on, the cause endure, and the dream never die.
I personally believe that the true way to get what you want is through constant and gradual persistence, all I have to do is look at my five year journey to get a phone. I HAVE NEVER HAD TO USE DRASTIC MEASURES TO GET WHAT I WANT! Although the African Americans have had to. Booker T/MLK's way of getting civic rights is the correct way to do things... but not in this instance. The maltreatment of the African American had gone on too long, even in Booker T.'s time, and I believe it would have been better if segregation and racism to end as fast as humanly possible. So I think that while the morally correct way to integrate African American's is the Booker T. way, the way that they would get their rights would be through the W.E.B way. Now yes, Booker T./MLK's ideas did win out in the end, but both were very powerful.
Booker T. once said that "character, not circumstances, makes the man." This basically means that what a person does defines him, not the current events of the day. How the man responds to the KKK actions represents is personality, not what the KKK did. MLK would agree, believing that peaceful marches are much more sufficient to the rioting like that of Haymarket. DuBois, "ignorance is a cure for nothing." DuBois says this, probably addressing the government, in order to make the statement that just blowing off that there is a problem is completely wrong, and does not help move us towards a more perfect union. It means exactly what it says. If we ignore environmental ideas, then what will happen to the environment? Yes, I think that if we ignore environmental concerns (insert sarcasm here) " the environment will become better, the ozone will repair itself, and we can go about our business as usual." Of course that is not true!
DuBois/ Malcolm X is a perfect example of power that comes from the bottom up. He urged the African Americans to fight and to rebel, and in no way were the African Americans on the top in DuBois' time. The same with Malcolm X. Booker T. Washington and Martin Luther King Jr. represents "democracy is represented best when all voices are heard" because they raised the voices of those blacks. MLK rose the voices of those marching on Washington.
Booker T. and W.E.B are both equally important to the African American movement. I can't tell you who is better. It is that of opinion, such as a Democrat believes Obama is better to be President, while a Republican believes that Mitt Romney is better for President. Obama and Romney are equals, Romney may be better than Obama in the Private Sector, but on the same token, Obama may be a more proficient spokesman. The same is true for Washington and W.E.B. While they are both fabulous spokesmen, Washington appealed to the Capitalists, as well as the people. However, DuBois was rejected by the Capitalists, which was a good thing for the cause he was fighting for. I think it may have hurt Washington's reputation that he was respected by the Capitalists.
In conclusion, Washington and DuBois, while both brilliant, have their flaws. Washington and DuBois are both important, they both helped their cause, they both fought for what they believed in. They are the true meaning of what it means to have the fight go on, the cause endure, and the dream never die.
Monday, January 16, 2012
The Modern Muckrackers
Muckrackers, such as Upton Sinclair, were very important to the time period of Progressivism. They revealed the government workers to and Capitalists to be the slime they actually were. They gave the truth to the people in order to bring the Capitalists down to the ground. The Muckrackers of that time, Riis, Tarbell, and Sinclair, are the forefathers to Sabasian Salgado and, as strange as this may sound, Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart.
Before I explain my connection, let me say that these are the only three guys besides Johnny Carson I could think of since the actual Progressive Era, and that is why I am not going to go through the individual decades like I did for my inaugural post.
For Salgado, his pictures represent the hardships of the many, the struggles of the poor, and the unfairness of the ruling elite. His pictures inspire men and women to take action against the unfairness of the world. He unveils the true nature of life in African countries. When a protestor of child labor needs to find an image depicting that action, he/she must look no further than the images of Salgado.
Colbert and Stewart I'll just explain in one lump. They have dug out the dirt on these GOP candidates for President. Stewart played a clip of Bill O'Reily saying he thought Newt Gingrich was a terrible candidate. To use a hip term, Stewart was flamin'. That is a Muckrackers job. They are supposed to "flame". I really can't explain it otherwise. The only thing I can tell you is to follow the link at the end of this post.
I also believe that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert dig through the rhetoric of other news anchors. Jon Stewart, at one point, was interviewed by Larry King, where he explained why CNN was going downhill. He may have been mad that that Sanchez guy insulted him.
Now I know these guys are not real muckrackers, but rather are just their to poke a joke. But they bring to light the flaws of the government. I really can't explain it. All I can tell you is that these reveal the slime that is a Congressman while telling a joke, and that is the greatest way to be a muckracker.
This will explain everything I'm talking about for Colbert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1T75jBYeCs
Here is a good one for Stewart: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW4EdVh4TeY&feature=related
Before I explain my connection, let me say that these are the only three guys besides Johnny Carson I could think of since the actual Progressive Era, and that is why I am not going to go through the individual decades like I did for my inaugural post.
For Salgado, his pictures represent the hardships of the many, the struggles of the poor, and the unfairness of the ruling elite. His pictures inspire men and women to take action against the unfairness of the world. He unveils the true nature of life in African countries. When a protestor of child labor needs to find an image depicting that action, he/she must look no further than the images of Salgado.
Colbert and Stewart I'll just explain in one lump. They have dug out the dirt on these GOP candidates for President. Stewart played a clip of Bill O'Reily saying he thought Newt Gingrich was a terrible candidate. To use a hip term, Stewart was flamin'. That is a Muckrackers job. They are supposed to "flame". I really can't explain it otherwise. The only thing I can tell you is to follow the link at the end of this post.
I also believe that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert dig through the rhetoric of other news anchors. Jon Stewart, at one point, was interviewed by Larry King, where he explained why CNN was going downhill. He may have been mad that that Sanchez guy insulted him.
Now I know these guys are not real muckrackers, but rather are just their to poke a joke. But they bring to light the flaws of the government. I really can't explain it. All I can tell you is that these reveal the slime that is a Congressman while telling a joke, and that is the greatest way to be a muckracker.
This will explain everything I'm talking about for Colbert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1T75jBYeCs
Here is a good one for Stewart: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW4EdVh4TeY&feature=related
Friday, January 13, 2012
The Power: From Bottom Up
Progressivists, in their life-long search for social unity, believed that the people, the workers, the immigrants, the segregated, those people are the true voice of America. The American politicians, they listen to the American people. They have to. When public outrage from these American voices becomes powerful enough, unfortunately,the Occupy movement has not had enough voice, the politicians have a duty to act upon that issue.
I'm not going to relate this power from bottom up to the modern day world, but instead focus on the importance of having power from the bottom up. Since the beginning of this nation, people have been fighting for one thing or another, and, in conjunction with that, the lawmakers only considered change of mind or way until the pendulum of power was swinging in the direction of the people. Only then did the politicians stand. The most recent example of this is John McCain's response to the War In Iraq. In 2001, McCain was for the war, he most likely voted for it, and he believed on the war on terrorism. Move forward seven years, the election of 2008 comes around, and most people believe that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are wrong. McCain then changes his ideas about the war, saying that it is wrong in order to win popular support. Abe Lincoln's main goal was to keep the nation together during the Civil War, even though the abolition movement was like a wild boar during the war, he only considered it when he was sure that the voices from the bottom would be in support and he knew he could win the war.
Our Constitution itself is a documentary proof that power comes from the bottom up. It is:
" WE the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
We the people. What a powerful three words. Now my argument must be, this means that big industry and all the politicians are not people. Of course this is false, the politicians are actually people and the big industry are people, according to the Supreme Court. Now for my rebuke. The things the Capitalists did were inhumane, the things the government did in that time were equally inhumane. My question is: can a person be considered part of the people if the actions he committed were against human sympathy? My thinking is as follows, because the events of these inhumane Capitalists, they had dictator-like powers. They had massive control. It is the people, the people living in the slums, who are responsible for rebelling. Those Occupy movement people are in charge of making sure the control of the government is equally distributed. It should not be their job, but alas, that is their job.
The framers intended the power from the bottom up. That is why it is WE THE PEOPLE. Remember, most Capitalists came to power with the help of others. They were already wealthy when Industrialization began so naturally they would want to keep the power and the money. Yet the Capitalists got to where they were because of the people. Without the people, their would be no labor force. Their would be nobody to work for the Capitalists. The Industrialists would be nowhere without those men living on the streets.
The men on Capital Hill procrastinate, lets get that fact down. They are on top. They decide what the heck is going to happen to our nation, why do they procrastinate? Well, I believe because they are scared for how the general public, their ticket back into Congress, will not approve. This is what separates the men from the boys. The general public, the tax payers, the homosexuals, the Latino, they understand mistreatment. They are willing to stand for a cause. They are willing to make a speech that may upset some, but for the purpose of creating a more perfect union. The bottom are willing to take action, are ready to protest. Why do we always see normal men and women protest? Because that's just it. They are just men and women. Non of them are government officials. That is because government workers have nothing to protest. In the long run, my point is this: we see everyday more and more people trying to be active in our government, by means of protest, letter, or otherwise, and want our system to change. So it does not make much sense why Congressmen are just sitting in the Senate Chamber going back and forth over a bill that helps only the 1%. If democracy is not an onlookers sport, then why is it the bottom that always has to persuade the top, when the top are the onlookers? I think my answer lies with "a government of the people, by the people, for the people." Abe Lincoln could mean that a government of the people, meaning the bottom controls our government, and that those people comprise the Congress, by the people, meaning the laws put into consideration are almost a written statement from the people, which would mean in a form of protest or otherwise, and for the people, which means that a a bunch of bottom people, as compared to top people, are creating laws written for themselves, and the people. The perfect union, which we will never have the privilege of seeing in our lifetime or on Earth, may just be an Adam Smith government, as to say, no government at all. This is when power is spread and the economic stance of everyone is equal.
If this went all over your head, have no fear, I am here... to explain it more clearly. Basically, our government only works when the people make a stand. If there is no fight, there is no issue. If their is no protest, there is no injustice. This is what the government will think. Those on the bottom must bring to light what happens in America. The bottom are like the little kid who is trying really hard to win the baseball game for his team, while the rest of the kids on the team are slacking off until they realize that they don't get their post game snack if they don't try. This analogy would also mean that the Capitalists were greedy and only when they found an aspect of personal gain from a workers plight did they try and make that thing happen. The people must control the government because without their Indian, African American, homosexual, womens, and 99% civil rights movements, there would be no concept or action for the government to grab hold of to make right.
I'm not going to relate this power from bottom up to the modern day world, but instead focus on the importance of having power from the bottom up. Since the beginning of this nation, people have been fighting for one thing or another, and, in conjunction with that, the lawmakers only considered change of mind or way until the pendulum of power was swinging in the direction of the people. Only then did the politicians stand. The most recent example of this is John McCain's response to the War In Iraq. In 2001, McCain was for the war, he most likely voted for it, and he believed on the war on terrorism. Move forward seven years, the election of 2008 comes around, and most people believe that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are wrong. McCain then changes his ideas about the war, saying that it is wrong in order to win popular support. Abe Lincoln's main goal was to keep the nation together during the Civil War, even though the abolition movement was like a wild boar during the war, he only considered it when he was sure that the voices from the bottom would be in support and he knew he could win the war.
Our Constitution itself is a documentary proof that power comes from the bottom up. It is:
" WE the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
We the people. What a powerful three words. Now my argument must be, this means that big industry and all the politicians are not people. Of course this is false, the politicians are actually people and the big industry are people, according to the Supreme Court. Now for my rebuke. The things the Capitalists did were inhumane, the things the government did in that time were equally inhumane. My question is: can a person be considered part of the people if the actions he committed were against human sympathy? My thinking is as follows, because the events of these inhumane Capitalists, they had dictator-like powers. They had massive control. It is the people, the people living in the slums, who are responsible for rebelling. Those Occupy movement people are in charge of making sure the control of the government is equally distributed. It should not be their job, but alas, that is their job.
The framers intended the power from the bottom up. That is why it is WE THE PEOPLE. Remember, most Capitalists came to power with the help of others. They were already wealthy when Industrialization began so naturally they would want to keep the power and the money. Yet the Capitalists got to where they were because of the people. Without the people, their would be no labor force. Their would be nobody to work for the Capitalists. The Industrialists would be nowhere without those men living on the streets.
The men on Capital Hill procrastinate, lets get that fact down. They are on top. They decide what the heck is going to happen to our nation, why do they procrastinate? Well, I believe because they are scared for how the general public, their ticket back into Congress, will not approve. This is what separates the men from the boys. The general public, the tax payers, the homosexuals, the Latino, they understand mistreatment. They are willing to stand for a cause. They are willing to make a speech that may upset some, but for the purpose of creating a more perfect union. The bottom are willing to take action, are ready to protest. Why do we always see normal men and women protest? Because that's just it. They are just men and women. Non of them are government officials. That is because government workers have nothing to protest. In the long run, my point is this: we see everyday more and more people trying to be active in our government, by means of protest, letter, or otherwise, and want our system to change. So it does not make much sense why Congressmen are just sitting in the Senate Chamber going back and forth over a bill that helps only the 1%. If democracy is not an onlookers sport, then why is it the bottom that always has to persuade the top, when the top are the onlookers? I think my answer lies with "a government of the people, by the people, for the people." Abe Lincoln could mean that a government of the people, meaning the bottom controls our government, and that those people comprise the Congress, by the people, meaning the laws put into consideration are almost a written statement from the people, which would mean in a form of protest or otherwise, and for the people, which means that a a bunch of bottom people, as compared to top people, are creating laws written for themselves, and the people. The perfect union, which we will never have the privilege of seeing in our lifetime or on Earth, may just be an Adam Smith government, as to say, no government at all. This is when power is spread and the economic stance of everyone is equal.
If this went all over your head, have no fear, I am here... to explain it more clearly. Basically, our government only works when the people make a stand. If there is no fight, there is no issue. If their is no protest, there is no injustice. This is what the government will think. Those on the bottom must bring to light what happens in America. The bottom are like the little kid who is trying really hard to win the baseball game for his team, while the rest of the kids on the team are slacking off until they realize that they don't get their post game snack if they don't try. This analogy would also mean that the Capitalists were greedy and only when they found an aspect of personal gain from a workers plight did they try and make that thing happen. The people must control the government because without their Indian, African American, homosexual, womens, and 99% civil rights movements, there would be no concept or action for the government to grab hold of to make right.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Has the Gilded Age Passed? and What is the Modern Progressivism?
The Progressive Era, beginning in the Industrial Revolution to advance workers, womens, and African Americans rights, has continued to this day and age. After and during the Great Depression, the government saw that the way the economy had been run was the wrong way to have an economy. Therefore, the government created a more stable economy so that something like the Great Depression would not happen again. Franklin Roosevelt, by creating The New Deal philosophy and legislation, allowed the working class to have insurance and a government with more branches, which allowed protection and security of the rights for the people. People had better lives because of New Deal legislation. FDR was greatly influenced by his Progressive relative, Teddy Roosevelt. Moving forward to the 1950's and 60's, we have a rage of new music frowned down upon by parents and government officials alike. Elvis Presly, Jerry Lee Louis, Buddy Holly, Fats Domino, these are a few of these "rebel", wild wippersnappers, who were shunned by those old farts still listening to Mozart. Just look at how that music and those musicians could change the tide. You know, one of the best songs by Elvis is "In the Ghetto" which speaks to all those people living on the streets who don't have enough money to raise their child the way that child should be raised. I'm sure that could inspire someone to advocate and speak for those people who live on the streets. If you still can't see the connection between Elvis and Progress, at least cut me some slack and admit that these guys were the pioneers for later artists, and those guys spoke to a deeper purpose, right?
Martin Luther King Jr. stood in front of a crowd 250,000 people on August 28th, 1963, proclaiming he had a dream, that one day he wished his children's children could hold hands with a white man, as friends. If the March On Washington is not a Progressive moment, I clearly do not understand the meaning of Progressivism. The Supreme Court is also another fine example of Progressivism. Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, United States v. Darby Lumber, these are all examples of the Supreme Court taking Progressivist stances on major issues. Don't get me wrong, the Supreme Court has had a crap ton of cases that they have just been downright wrong about, such as Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v. Furguson, and The Butchers' Benevolent Association of New Orleans v. The Crescent City Live-Stock Landing and Slaughter-House Company, which wrote out the Due Process clause, among other things. Yet again, I stress that their have been a fair number of cases that have done some good and have been used for social progress, that is, after all, what the Warren Court revolved around. Since Rehnquist's tenure, however, the court has taken a blind eye to the progress of the nation.
The year is 1838, the Indians start a journey which only end in death and sadness. This journey, spurred on by Andrew Jackson, is called the Trail of Tears. To me, this event is equal to that of the Nazi Camps where Jewish people were held during WWII. Now you may ask, how is this Progressivism, and why are we talking about something that happened before Industrialization? My answer lies 140 years in the future, where Native Americans protested for equal rights on Capitol Hill. On the surge of the 1960's, the Native Americans fought for their rights. One of the greatest things about Progressivism is the ability to find some fact or statistic that helps your cause that swells emotion in the listener and encourages them to support their cause. For the Native Americans, it was the broken promise that the Native Americans should have land in America, "As long as the grass grows or water runs."
In this current day and age, the Occupy movement is the Progressive movement. Nobody knows what they want, besides to spread the money around, and that is a very large issue, pertaining directly to the issues of Industrialization. But despite this, we have a lot of reforms to consider. How can we, as a nation, allow our troops to laugh at naked Afghan prisoners? Are the events of the Arab Spring and Libya a calm, sane way to achieve social progress, or is it a way to just move a step closer to anarchy? A theme I'm discussing nowadays is that raising public outrage and concern became the "fourth branch" of government. The Egyptians, the Libyans, they all heard the news, they all wanted change. They were the Muckrackers. They brought the truth to light the began to think that perhaps the way the government was running was not right. The Arab Spring began as a small protest. It got larger and larger as more voices joined, and began to reveal the truth about their government. How can the Supreme Court say it is the guardian of the Constitution, the document which tells us how our government is run, the government, which dictates the rules which we live by, and condemn people who insurrect, and yet still deny Troy Davis his First Amendment rights to speak, his Sixth Amendment rights to a speedy trial and his right to an attorney, and still put that man to death for the sake of remaining neutral in State affairs? If we think about it, this is a major act of injustice, and, when pulling from a great thinker and his themes for Progressivism, seem to directly link to this instance in the news. The theme is, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, is a perfect example of what this represents. Troy Davis was given a great injustice by the Supreme Court. If all individuals are rooted together, what makes it wrong to just blow off another criminal who pleads innocent? If we allow one death, it opens up the gateway for more deaths. We are a nation strongly rooted in the fact we are fair, this act tells the world we are not fair. What we do in America effects the world, and vice-versa, similar to how the Progressivists fought for their cause, and it effected how the future Progressive leaders fought their causes. My final point, are we moving towards a better social nation when a Congresswoman is shot down for no good reason? Yes, Gabriel Giffords has made a remarkable recovery, but the act in itself is an atrocity and a step back from social progress. That is a lot of questions, and not a lot of answers. Most of the things I just wrote I believe are atrocities. To laugh at Afghans gives an image of what America is to foreigners, and is not the way to form a more perfect union, of that, I am sure. On Troy Davis, I am in uproar. Even if Davis was guilty, he should have been given an appeal, although I believe he was innocent.
The Gilded Age will never end. Their will be always something to fight for, and someone always their to oppose it. Progressivism has it's swells in voice and popularity. Though many years may pass before the issue is fully recognized appropriately, we know that the fight goes on, the cause endures, and the dream will never die.
Martin Luther King Jr. stood in front of a crowd 250,000 people on August 28th, 1963, proclaiming he had a dream, that one day he wished his children's children could hold hands with a white man, as friends. If the March On Washington is not a Progressive moment, I clearly do not understand the meaning of Progressivism. The Supreme Court is also another fine example of Progressivism. Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, United States v. Darby Lumber, these are all examples of the Supreme Court taking Progressivist stances on major issues. Don't get me wrong, the Supreme Court has had a crap ton of cases that they have just been downright wrong about, such as Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v. Furguson, and The Butchers' Benevolent Association of New Orleans v. The Crescent City Live-Stock Landing and Slaughter-House Company, which wrote out the Due Process clause, among other things. Yet again, I stress that their have been a fair number of cases that have done some good and have been used for social progress, that is, after all, what the Warren Court revolved around. Since Rehnquist's tenure, however, the court has taken a blind eye to the progress of the nation.
The year is 1838, the Indians start a journey which only end in death and sadness. This journey, spurred on by Andrew Jackson, is called the Trail of Tears. To me, this event is equal to that of the Nazi Camps where Jewish people were held during WWII. Now you may ask, how is this Progressivism, and why are we talking about something that happened before Industrialization? My answer lies 140 years in the future, where Native Americans protested for equal rights on Capitol Hill. On the surge of the 1960's, the Native Americans fought for their rights. One of the greatest things about Progressivism is the ability to find some fact or statistic that helps your cause that swells emotion in the listener and encourages them to support their cause. For the Native Americans, it was the broken promise that the Native Americans should have land in America, "As long as the grass grows or water runs."
In this current day and age, the Occupy movement is the Progressive movement. Nobody knows what they want, besides to spread the money around, and that is a very large issue, pertaining directly to the issues of Industrialization. But despite this, we have a lot of reforms to consider. How can we, as a nation, allow our troops to laugh at naked Afghan prisoners? Are the events of the Arab Spring and Libya a calm, sane way to achieve social progress, or is it a way to just move a step closer to anarchy? A theme I'm discussing nowadays is that raising public outrage and concern became the "fourth branch" of government. The Egyptians, the Libyans, they all heard the news, they all wanted change. They were the Muckrackers. They brought the truth to light the began to think that perhaps the way the government was running was not right. The Arab Spring began as a small protest. It got larger and larger as more voices joined, and began to reveal the truth about their government. How can the Supreme Court say it is the guardian of the Constitution, the document which tells us how our government is run, the government, which dictates the rules which we live by, and condemn people who insurrect, and yet still deny Troy Davis his First Amendment rights to speak, his Sixth Amendment rights to a speedy trial and his right to an attorney, and still put that man to death for the sake of remaining neutral in State affairs? If we think about it, this is a major act of injustice, and, when pulling from a great thinker and his themes for Progressivism, seem to directly link to this instance in the news. The theme is, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, is a perfect example of what this represents. Troy Davis was given a great injustice by the Supreme Court. If all individuals are rooted together, what makes it wrong to just blow off another criminal who pleads innocent? If we allow one death, it opens up the gateway for more deaths. We are a nation strongly rooted in the fact we are fair, this act tells the world we are not fair. What we do in America effects the world, and vice-versa, similar to how the Progressivists fought for their cause, and it effected how the future Progressive leaders fought their causes. My final point, are we moving towards a better social nation when a Congresswoman is shot down for no good reason? Yes, Gabriel Giffords has made a remarkable recovery, but the act in itself is an atrocity and a step back from social progress. That is a lot of questions, and not a lot of answers. Most of the things I just wrote I believe are atrocities. To laugh at Afghans gives an image of what America is to foreigners, and is not the way to form a more perfect union, of that, I am sure. On Troy Davis, I am in uproar. Even if Davis was guilty, he should have been given an appeal, although I believe he was innocent.
The Gilded Age will never end. Their will be always something to fight for, and someone always their to oppose it. Progressivism has it's swells in voice and popularity. Though many years may pass before the issue is fully recognized appropriately, we know that the fight goes on, the cause endures, and the dream will never die.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)