womens rights

This is the third in a series of blogs debating a statement in an average American History textbook. The statement that is being debated in this blog post is, "By giving women the right to vote in at least in local or state elections, these states recognized the women's contributions."

First, I will debate for the statement. My main argument for this statement is simply that a step forward is a step forward, however small it is. As long as there was being reform allowing women somewhere sometimes to vote at all, it should be recognized and praised. If we don't believe that small steps are important, than we will make much less progress. "The turtle always wins the race" because the turtle is careful and does not rush through issues blindly. The turtle understands the importance of making small progress, which adds up quickly. If I may ask a somewhat stupid but interesting question, is 10+10=5+5+5+5, or are the two fundamentally different?

But how is something so small as local elections important? Shouldn't we be focusing on the big picture, not the small details? I have a few points against the statement. First of all, they may or may not have been trying to include women when they let them vote. They just as well may have been trying to expunge their state of the women's rights protesting and rioting. Just like some of the giants of the Gilded Age gave away tons of funds to charitable causes, they just did it for the fame and recognition and to not be viewed as such a "bad guy." I don't believe that the government had some kind of emotional epiphany where they saw the light and decided to let women vote. They must've been doing it for it's own personal malicious benefits. 

I believe that this statement is not true and that the small benefits that it had were nowhere near the significance of the large scale reform of the 19th Amendment.

"Swim away!" or "Stay still so it can't see you!"

This is the second post in the series of posts debating a statement in an average American History textbook. There are two opposite statements both from the same textbook in this blog post that I will pit against each other in a debate. The statements are "Urged blacks to fight discrimination actively rather than patiently submit to it" and "Eventually, they (African Americans) would have enough money and the power to move up gradually in society."

First, I will debate the merits of the first statement and the drawbacks of the second. First of all, action is the only way to cause change, because the only way to cause change is to change. A change in the way you do something can make a change in the outcome of the process. If we change, at least we will try something as opposed to remaining the way we are. As a wise person somewhere said sometime in the past, "If you put the same old effort into it, you're gonna get the same old results." Although there can be an element of unpredictability, in most cases what you give is proportional to what you get. 

Contrary to this point, there are multiple things that gives the second statement an advantage. First of all, the African Americans of the time were not in a very positive situation. They were not in power or even acknowledged by the general public. If they tried to speak up at the time, they would likely be either ignored or lynched by mobs of people opposing their views. Also, they lived in bad economic conditions, getting doing only the most menial of tasks and being paid measly amounts of compensation for their grueling work. They had more important things to think about than if they could shop at the same schools. If they had focused on their citizenship instead of their life and their financial situations. It seemed to be a better solution to their situation than devoting their entire lives to fighting against discrimination.

This may seem like a cop-out, but I believe that both sides were equally valid and the solution is that those who could fight for their rights would and those who couldn't, wouldn't.

Good Evil and Bad Evil?

The issue on the docket for this blog post is the first in a series of posts which debate a point made in an average United States history textbook. The statement: "He (Theodore Roosevelt) saw a difference between "good trusts" and "bad trusts"." Is this statement really true? Is there any difference whatsoever between a "good" trust and a "bad" one?

I have a few points to make on the side for the statement. As everyone has heard, the Wall Street compensation is outrageous. The people who are skilled (or deceptive) enough to land a position in with one of the big funds receive enormous salaries and giant bonuses. However, because of the recent economic downturn, some funds have done much worse than years past. But, regardless of that, the amounts earned on Wall Street are infinitesimally diminished. How is it that even when someone drives a company or fund into the ground, they still get paid and retain their position? In a perfect world, shouldn't people only be rewarded for doing well? This view of the financial world implies that we are in a very bad situation right now. Only a Progressivist President like Roosevelt would be brave enough to tackle this huge issue of compensation.

On the other side of the debate, there are also a couple of points to be made opposing the previous statement. First of all, the trusts themselves are not to blame for their issues. It is the people running them that are to blame or reward. Also, if we discourage any institutions in bad financial situations, we will have less individuals willing to take a risk in the markets. This would drive our economy down even more than having a few bad trusts and create a fear of the financial world in all of the citizens. It would be like a mass holocaust of investors. That's a very radical view of it but it makes sense. Another reason why there is no difference in trusts is because trusts provide more investors into the American market which in turn helps our country's economy. Even if the trust goes down, the person's investing in that trust pulls up the market and helps others.

Overall winner of debate: You decide. This matter can be somewhat biased because, of course, those who benefit pecuniarily from either side would support it.

Down is Up and Up is false? All in the world of Muckraking.

I believe that not only has the world gone topsy-turvy, but that it has been picked up and thrown at a wall. People, during these times, are confused and mislead beyond belief. The muckrakers of the Gilded Age believed the same and wanted to change it. They were strong believers in the notion that power resides and will always be in the individual people. This means that the world's distribution of power is equal and is truly a socialist world, therefore the argument of who holds power and superiority are rendered completely moot. I don't believe that anyone else is committed to understanding theory enough to say that, but it brings up a touchy matter. Most journalists believe that power exists in a material form, but are unsure of wether or not the individual has the same magnitude of strength.

However, there are few modern muckrakers who are brave enough to support this radical assumption, and favor a more common view that power comes from the people and filters down into the government. Eric Schlosser, the author of the book Fast Food Nation, which probed the issue of the Kwik n' EZ food market, is an example of a well-known contemporary muckraker. Even the literary critics praised him for his views about the power of the people, comparing his works to that of Upton Sinclair, author of The Jungle.

Not only do the modern muckrakers show their support and belief in the theory of "power comes from the bottom up", but there are much of the American people now believe this. The American people want to take hold of their lives and their government. As we can could see in the presedential campaign in 2008, the political parties recognize that the people want to have "my government", not a "government". Of course, you remember the catchphrase that lead Obama to victory, "Yes We Can." It is an obvious example of attracting the people through empowering them to feel that they can make a difference in their government. Obama ran his campaign through mostly Progressivist ideas, but when he came into office we realized that he was just another Democrat.

Because of this time of economic fatigue, it is evident that we have many more politicians and journalists talking to the people about the idea of being able to change their own government, and people wanting to make a difference in their society for their own good.

Collision, Collusion, and Confusion

Doesn't it always seem to be Gov't vs People? This is an observation first made by the Progressive Muckrakers of 19th Century America, who aimed to create a society where all people were able to hold power as opposed to a select elite few. A major concern of these crusaders was the collusion (conspiracy-like corruption) between the government and businesses. The fundamental question being put to the test in this scenario is whether or not the government has good intentions or is a powerful, corrupt, mischievous demon. They were not as much concerned in the state of the economy or fair rights for all as exposing the terrible truth of their country. I believe that the issue of collusion between government was and is an extremely pressing issue. If we cannot trust our government, then what can we believe in? If it was said by an influential muckraker, whether truthfully or erroneously, that the government was a complete sham and that the country was ruled by the rich and powerful, we would have a national emotional breakdown. 

However, the modern muckrakers are not as concerned with radical, far-off ideas like this. They are more concerned with the scanty scandals of Tiger Woods and pondering George W. Bush's lack of material intelligence. Although there is likely more corruption and collusion in our society than ever now, I don't believe that the few muckrakers that exist now are as concerned with collusion of government as the ones of the Gilded Age. 

Raking off the Muck of 2009 (and 1849)

Let's face it. The media clobbers us over the head with false news, opinionated stories, extreme one-sidedness with regard to political issues, and 'filler' stories on slow news days. It is our job as a people to be critical in what information we intake and what we should believe, but back in the time of the Premier of the Gilded Age and the Progressives, people were ignorant of the fact that the public media was dangerously corrupt. When this was realized, rebellious journalists decided to diverge from the normal path of news and attempted to bring even an ounce of truth to the public eye. These individuals were given the title Muckrakers, for their racking off of the muck and filthy scum off of the news that was force fed to the citizens, who had little to no choice of what opinion that they could hold.

Is there a group of Muckrakers existing today who are silently exposing the horrid

corporate corruption and government grafting, or has the small flame that existed in the public media been extinguished? The majority of people in this area of the country would say that the Democratic Party is the side that is exposing and fighting against the corruption on Wall Street and on Pennsylvania, but I believe differently. The Democratic Party gained the reputation for being the shining light after GEORGE W. BUSH's presidency. After those 8 years, people just wanted to flee blindly into the shelter of the Democrats. We should remember that Theodore Roosevelt, the archetype of Progressivist reformers, was also Republican Party leader. So, is obvious that the modern Muckrakers do not reside/hide within either of the two major parties. This leads me to believe that they do still exist, but their values do not match those of the Democrats or Republicans.

Surprisingly, the Muckrakers of today do not differ much from those of the first Gilded Age. Both of the two groups attempt(ed) to unmask the corruption and unfairness in the world of business and politics. They also both are and were groups of crusading journalists who went against the views of the other public media in an attempt to give the truth to the people. The only difference between the Muckrakers of today and yesterday is that they are less in quantity. Nowadays, most publications make shore that the items published were not against good moral values, but I feel that back in 1849, the newspapers were happy just because they had a story/article to publish. Now, if a journalist tries to go completely against the political correctness, he/she is instantly cut down by a wave of others like a small blade of grass. It would be much harder to find another Upton Sinclair or Jacob Riis in today's media than then.

So, in short, the Muckrakers of today, although fewer in quantity, are much like those in the Progressivist times.

Gilded Age vs. Progressivism; Now and Then

The number of billionaires and other extremely affluent people in the United States is growing at an extremely rapid rate. It appears as though a large amount of America is experiencing good fortune. But is this a true Golden Age, or more of a FeS2 Period? Back in the time of Rockefeller or Carnegie, it was viewed as most as being the best of times and also the worst of times.

Perpendicularly, the Progressives of the time saw this era as a time of corruption, evil, and deliberate deceptiveness. They attempted, with limited success, to bring into public knowledge the fact that these rich snobs were just so, rich snobs, and when giving, were nothing more than filthy philanthropic phonies. The Progressives aimed to destroy the residing system of classicist oligarchy posing as a democracy and to create a more fair society through major political/governmental reform. In short they tried to turn the hourglass of power upside-umop.

One of the best indicators of a new political eras lies in the country's economic standing. We can see, as was in the time of the infamous business moguls making millions every week, most citizens are having trouble with their employment. During the Industrial Revolution, it was not uncommon for people to have to choose between fighting against pay cuts and risk unemployment and passively taking it from 'the man.'

Likewise, people now have to figure out how they will deal with the issue of unemployment; should they actively fight for their job or attempt to hop from job to job until one remains open? Last year, the top hedge fund managers made (on average) about $500 million and received more compensation in 2009. In both economic situations, although people at the top of the heap were becoming more and more wealthy, the vast majority of the population was suffering. Based on this, I would conclude that the two periods in time are very much alike in terms of how the rich became even richer and the others experienced much misfortune.

Meanwhile, as the glamorous lives of the rich and successful went on smoothly, the others slaved away while only receiving infinitesimally small compensation. Following the natural order of things, where there is a thesis and an antithesis contained within it, a group of working class individuals joined together in what was called the Progressivist movement. The Progressivists held Marx's theory in high regard and believed that the only way to create an equal society is to let the people take control of their own government and create a communist society (Pure Communism, not Bolshevism or Marxism-Leninism) , therefore any action made by the government would have already been approved by the people. Excuse me for using such a cliched phrase, but they were a group "Of the people, by the people, and for the people" (Without no gov't nonsense!)

I believe that there exists a modern day Progressive movement. My decision is based off of principle. If the government is not stepping in enough to help the people in need, then the people will tend to vote for the Democrats. If the vox populi think that government is spending too much and interfering with their personal lives, then they will vote Republican. However, eventually, they tire from choosing between the two extremes and aspire to take the government into their own hands, starting a new Progressive movement.

To synopsize (<- a real word) this blog entry, there still exists a Gilded Age and a Progressivist movement.