Trouble continues in the mines of South Africa. With more than 200 deaths in the past year, workers became angry about the unsafe working conditions and went on strike for a day. Unions are encouraging firms to spend more on safety and force the government to prosecute negligent mine owners. The parties (workers unions and firms/government?) have agreed to sit down soon and work out some safety improvements and stuff. Hopefully things will improve quickly so that workers can get back to work and South Africa can recover a large part of their GDP.
Apparently, there is also significant inflation in South Africa, but some people view this as a positive thing. Food and oil prices are up, and Mboweni says that they'll just have to deal with those problems because inflation targeting (inflation control by a central bank) will "never go away."
The countries in southern Africa have been growing and looking to diversify their own economic choices in view of the creation of the SADC area of free exchange, which should come into play in 2008. South Africa has the strongest economy and recently witnessed the implementation of the new regularisation of the credit system, which could have an influence over the entire area.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Thursday, December 20, 2007
theme and standards December 2007
For our new type of "homework" I have picked theme #1: Demonstrate the evolution of the concepts of personal freedom, individual responsibility, and respect for human dignity.
To illustrate this theme, I have chosen the MCAS standards:
USII.15 - Analyze how German aggression in Europe and Japanese aggression in Asia conributed to the start of World War II ~ and summarize the major battles and events of the war. (ch. 24:WWII...)
USII.26 - Describe the accomplishments of the civil rights movement. (ch. 29...)
USII.27 - Analyze the causes and course of the women's rights movement in the 1960s and 1970s. (ch. 31, sec. 2)
USII.30 - Describe some of the major economic and social trends of the late 20th century. (ch. 31)
For my end product, I really don't know what I'm going to do, probably an essay, and definitely NOT an online google notebook or anything...
So far I have learned about the generally low respect for human dignity, the placement of responsibility into the government's hands (and away from individuals, i.e. communism), and the restrictions on personal freedoms such as speech that occurred during the start of War World II. I need to research/ find out how (if) those trends or ways of thinking and acting changed throughout the course of the war (and after...).
To illustrate this theme, I have chosen the MCAS standards:
USII.15 - Analyze how German aggression in Europe and Japanese aggression in Asia conributed to the start of World War II ~ and summarize the major battles and events of the war. (ch. 24:WWII...)
USII.26 - Describe the accomplishments of the civil rights movement. (ch. 29...)
USII.27 - Analyze the causes and course of the women's rights movement in the 1960s and 1970s. (ch. 31, sec. 2)
USII.30 - Describe some of the major economic and social trends of the late 20th century. (ch. 31)
For my end product, I really don't know what I'm going to do, probably an essay, and definitely NOT an online google notebook or anything...
So far I have learned about the generally low respect for human dignity, the placement of responsibility into the government's hands (and away from individuals, i.e. communism), and the restrictions on personal freedoms such as speech that occurred during the start of War World II. I need to research/ find out how (if) those trends or ways of thinking and acting changed throughout the course of the war (and after...).
Thursday, November 29, 2007
ch.22 sct. 3 C.T.#3
Hoover's belief in "rugged individualism" shaped his policies during the Great Depression through his views of people and the way they should be/live, and how that translates into the role of the government.
Hoover thought the government should encourage cooperation, but he thought that people should succeed through their own efforts and not depend on the government to bail them out or provide federal welfare (p.685). So basically, he thought it was good for people to tough it out on their own and thought the government should only encourage them to work together and prompt charities to help the needy.
His beliefs were reflected in his policies (and lack there of) during the Great Depression. After the stock market crashed, he called together leaders of the economy and asked them to work together and not make things worse. He also created a special organization to help charities, but none of these steps really worked and many people had expected him to take more drastic measures to try to help the situation. Instead of directly handing out food and money to the poor, he did stuff such as approving the Hoover Dam, which would make money from the profits, but more importantly, provide a lot of jobs for people.
Hoover believed people should try to make it on their own for the good of their own character, and this shaped his policies during the Great Depression, which, unlike what many poeple wanted, provided only a kind of passive encouragement or opportunity for work, not material aid.
Hoover thought the government should encourage cooperation, but he thought that people should succeed through their own efforts and not depend on the government to bail them out or provide federal welfare (p.685). So basically, he thought it was good for people to tough it out on their own and thought the government should only encourage them to work together and prompt charities to help the needy.
His beliefs were reflected in his policies (and lack there of) during the Great Depression. After the stock market crashed, he called together leaders of the economy and asked them to work together and not make things worse. He also created a special organization to help charities, but none of these steps really worked and many people had expected him to take more drastic measures to try to help the situation. Instead of directly handing out food and money to the poor, he did stuff such as approving the Hoover Dam, which would make money from the profits, but more importantly, provide a lot of jobs for people.
Hoover believed people should try to make it on their own for the good of their own character, and this shaped his policies during the Great Depression, which, unlike what many poeple wanted, provided only a kind of passive encouragement or opportunity for work, not material aid.
ch.22 sct. 2 C.T.#3
Men, women and children each had a different family role, different changes to make, and different help available to them during the Great Depression.
Men had to deal with unemployment, changes in ways of survival, and the loss of dignity that came with that. They were used to working and supporting their families and it was difficult to take not being able to do that. Their role in the family had been to be the provider and head of the household, but now that they couldn't provide, many of them no longer felt the dignity and familiarity of their place. (p.681). For the people living in the streets there were soup kitchens and bread lines (p.679). There was also some direct relief for the poor in some places, but it was so meager it could not possibly feed a family properly (p.681).
Women did a lot for the family and household during the Depression. Many women canned food, sewed clothes, and carefully managed household budgets. Many women also tried to work outside the home to help support their family. However, there were less jobs open to women and they were often resented for competing with men, who were considered "more worthy" of jobs. (p.691). While women probably could have gone to the bread lines and other help services, many of them were too timid or ashamed (p.682).
Children suffered from malnutrition and starvation. They became sick with many malnutrition-caused diseases, their families couldn't pay for health care, and welfare programs were slahed due to cut budgets. Schools closed because of lack of funding, and children who did not work in sweat shops becasme bored and sick of poverty. Many teenagers, mostly boys, tried touring the country in freight cars, but it could be dangerous and sometimes led to injury or even death.
Men had to deal with unemployment, changes in ways of survival, and the loss of dignity that came with that. They were used to working and supporting their families and it was difficult to take not being able to do that. Their role in the family had been to be the provider and head of the household, but now that they couldn't provide, many of them no longer felt the dignity and familiarity of their place. (p.681). For the people living in the streets there were soup kitchens and bread lines (p.679). There was also some direct relief for the poor in some places, but it was so meager it could not possibly feed a family properly (p.681).
Women did a lot for the family and household during the Depression. Many women canned food, sewed clothes, and carefully managed household budgets. Many women also tried to work outside the home to help support their family. However, there were less jobs open to women and they were often resented for competing with men, who were considered "more worthy" of jobs. (p.691). While women probably could have gone to the bread lines and other help services, many of them were too timid or ashamed (p.682).
Children suffered from malnutrition and starvation. They became sick with many malnutrition-caused diseases, their families couldn't pay for health care, and welfare programs were slahed due to cut budgets. Schools closed because of lack of funding, and children who did not work in sweat shops becasme bored and sick of poverty. Many teenagers, mostly boys, tried touring the country in freight cars, but it could be dangerous and sometimes led to injury or even death.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
current events summary nov. 28
Countries in southern Africa have been having a hard time with their economies lately. While some countries have made improvements and are growing economically, most of them are still experiencing many problems and are stuck in poverty.
Some people, such as the writer Miriam Isa, think Africa is doing well, considering that the percentage of Africans living in poverty decreased 6% since 1990. But while she (writer) mainly focuses on the growth of African countries' economies, she sort of "admits"/says that there ARE (many) problems with those economies, including how "African exports had declined in importance as a share of national income, with little diversification and innovation" - John Page.
One improvement trying to be made in many African countries is making the internet more accessible to more people, partly due to their "need for opportunities". According to Internet World Stats, about 10% of the population of Zimababwe and South Africa uses the internet. I think if they could bump the percentage up, the economy might do a little better because some business happens over the internet so that would be better off, and people would have more resources for education and such, which might in the long run provide more "skilled laborers." Mobile usage in Africa has grown a lot, which is good, and many African nations are investing lots of money in the telocommunications infrastructure.
There are two different stories, or sides that I encountered about the recent investments in South Africa and other African countries that foreign nations have made. One side is that the U.S., European, and other institutional investors have been investing a lot more lately in African private equity, which, if true, says to me that African businesses must not be doing too bad if big countries are willing to risk lots of money in investing in them. But on the other side, some are saying that investors are losing confidence in southern Africa (a report from South African research company BusinessMap). The risk factors which potential investors scrutinize - political stability, transaction costs, extent of privatisation, and labor and infrastructure costs - have apparently increased, or are at least high enough to make investors hesitate. This "side" views South Africa as the exception because they are doing relatively well and have more investments. As to which "side" is correct, and whether African countries really are being invested in a lot or are not doing so well, I am not sure, but my conclusion is that its a little of both; South Africa and some other countries probably are doing pretty well while other countries are struggling and hence, not being invested in.
There are many problems in the economies of these African countries, and one of South Africa's problems is its lack of skilled labor. Many whites, which are "for historical reasons" considered the most skilled segment, have left South Africa since 1995. So now, there is a shortage of skilled laborers.
Also in South Africa, there have been mining incidents where many workers have been killed, and the rest of the workers are now considering a strike. South Africa is Africa's biggest gold exporter, and the strike would probably stop work at global firms and obviously put a dent in their exports.
General poverty in South Africa is also an issue. The number of people living on less than $1 a day has more than doubled in a decade, and many many people are jobless.
Zimbabwe has been experiencing bank troubles; they ran out of notes, currency has decreased in value and the people cannot get as much money as they asked for because it is sold for higher prices... its just a mess!
So, while there is continued growth in many countries' economies in southern Africa, there are still many problems that need solutions, and a seemingly everlasting amount of poverty that still remains very visibly.
Some people, such as the writer Miriam Isa, think Africa is doing well, considering that the percentage of Africans living in poverty decreased 6% since 1990. But while she (writer) mainly focuses on the growth of African countries' economies, she sort of "admits"/says that there ARE (many) problems with those economies, including how "African exports had declined in importance as a share of national income, with little diversification and innovation" - John Page.
One improvement trying to be made in many African countries is making the internet more accessible to more people, partly due to their "need for opportunities". According to Internet World Stats, about 10% of the population of Zimababwe and South Africa uses the internet. I think if they could bump the percentage up, the economy might do a little better because some business happens over the internet so that would be better off, and people would have more resources for education and such, which might in the long run provide more "skilled laborers." Mobile usage in Africa has grown a lot, which is good, and many African nations are investing lots of money in the telocommunications infrastructure.
There are two different stories, or sides that I encountered about the recent investments in South Africa and other African countries that foreign nations have made. One side is that the U.S., European, and other institutional investors have been investing a lot more lately in African private equity, which, if true, says to me that African businesses must not be doing too bad if big countries are willing to risk lots of money in investing in them. But on the other side, some are saying that investors are losing confidence in southern Africa (a report from South African research company BusinessMap). The risk factors which potential investors scrutinize - political stability, transaction costs, extent of privatisation, and labor and infrastructure costs - have apparently increased, or are at least high enough to make investors hesitate. This "side" views South Africa as the exception because they are doing relatively well and have more investments. As to which "side" is correct, and whether African countries really are being invested in a lot or are not doing so well, I am not sure, but my conclusion is that its a little of both; South Africa and some other countries probably are doing pretty well while other countries are struggling and hence, not being invested in.
There are many problems in the economies of these African countries, and one of South Africa's problems is its lack of skilled labor. Many whites, which are "for historical reasons" considered the most skilled segment, have left South Africa since 1995. So now, there is a shortage of skilled laborers.
Also in South Africa, there have been mining incidents where many workers have been killed, and the rest of the workers are now considering a strike. South Africa is Africa's biggest gold exporter, and the strike would probably stop work at global firms and obviously put a dent in their exports.
General poverty in South Africa is also an issue. The number of people living on less than $1 a day has more than doubled in a decade, and many many people are jobless.
Zimbabwe has been experiencing bank troubles; they ran out of notes, currency has decreased in value and the people cannot get as much money as they asked for because it is sold for higher prices... its just a mess!
So, while there is continued growth in many countries' economies in southern Africa, there are still many problems that need solutions, and a seemingly everlasting amount of poverty that still remains very visibly.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
ch.22 sct. 1 C.T.#4
Based on the events of the late 1920s to early 1930s, I think that public confidence is very, very important and influential to the health of the economy. Overconfidence led people to speculate and buy on margin and led to more consumer borrowing.
During the 1920s many households bought lots of items on credit, so they went into debt when they kept buying stuff they couldn't afford. After business/the economy in general sort of peaked, it started going down a little, and then the stock market just ruined it. Americans' belief in the prosperity of the economy ended up being detrimental to both their own financial situations and the economy's as a whole.
Since in the early 1920s, business was doing pretty well, the stock market was doing well also. Lots of people began to invest in the stock market, thinking that they had enough money to afford the shares, businesses were doing very well and climbing, and that they might strike it rich from quick profits. They engaged in speculation and ignored the risks of the companies NOT doing well. The idea of buying things on credit, which had appealed to many many people in the 1920s was extended into the stock market so that people could buy on margin, and pay most of the cost of the share later. Many people took advantage of this and bought shares even though they didn't really HAVE the money to pay for it. So, if the companies did not do well and the values of the stocks declined, people who had bought them on margin would have no way to pay off their debts. This is precisely what happened. When the stock market crashed, all the people who had invested huge amounts in the stock market because of their overconfidence in business lost all their money, and the people who had bought them on margin had no money to pay off their debts. If the people hadn't been so confident in the superficial prosperity of the economy, less of them would have invested (and thus lost) so much in the stock market with money they didn't have. (p.673). Public confidence affected the economy greatly in this aspect.
Public confidence is very important and influential to an economy in that it leads people to jump to conclusions and sometimes make descisions that will turn out poorly once the true state of the economy's health is revealed.
During the 1920s many households bought lots of items on credit, so they went into debt when they kept buying stuff they couldn't afford. After business/the economy in general sort of peaked, it started going down a little, and then the stock market just ruined it. Americans' belief in the prosperity of the economy ended up being detrimental to both their own financial situations and the economy's as a whole.
Since in the early 1920s, business was doing pretty well, the stock market was doing well also. Lots of people began to invest in the stock market, thinking that they had enough money to afford the shares, businesses were doing very well and climbing, and that they might strike it rich from quick profits. They engaged in speculation and ignored the risks of the companies NOT doing well. The idea of buying things on credit, which had appealed to many many people in the 1920s was extended into the stock market so that people could buy on margin, and pay most of the cost of the share later. Many people took advantage of this and bought shares even though they didn't really HAVE the money to pay for it. So, if the companies did not do well and the values of the stocks declined, people who had bought them on margin would have no way to pay off their debts. This is precisely what happened. When the stock market crashed, all the people who had invested huge amounts in the stock market because of their overconfidence in business lost all their money, and the people who had bought them on margin had no money to pay off their debts. If the people hadn't been so confident in the superficial prosperity of the economy, less of them would have invested (and thus lost) so much in the stock market with money they didn't have. (p.673). Public confidence affected the economy greatly in this aspect.
Public confidence is very important and influential to an economy in that it leads people to jump to conclusions and sometimes make descisions that will turn out poorly once the true state of the economy's health is revealed.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
ch. 21 sct.4 C.T.#5
The Harlem Renaissance contributed not only creativity and advances in culture (entertainment, ect.), but advancement and (more) acceptance of blacks in society in American society.
The history of general America was affected by the creativity of blacks, which produced new forms of entertainment such as jazz music, new theatre productions performed by blacks, and more. A lot of new literature was also produced in the Renaissance. New forms of literature and other blossoms of creativity helped to further and widen American culture. Whites started appreciating, liking, and indulging in the the new performances, music, and other things blacks were producing.
For blacks, this appreciation by whites was key to their slight rise in society. Some of them became famous writers or performers, and new opportunities were opened for their people through this Renaissance. The blacks were finally making a comeback (however small it might start) in American society.
The history of general America was affected by the creativity of blacks, which produced new forms of entertainment such as jazz music, new theatre productions performed by blacks, and more. A lot of new literature was also produced in the Renaissance. New forms of literature and other blossoms of creativity helped to further and widen American culture. Whites started appreciating, liking, and indulging in the the new performances, music, and other things blacks were producing.
For blacks, this appreciation by whites was key to their slight rise in society. Some of them became famous writers or performers, and new opportunities were opened for their people through this Renaissance. The blacks were finally making a comeback (however small it might start) in American society.
ch. 21 sct.1 C.T.#5
The passage of the Volstead Act and the ruling in the Scopes trial did not represent genuine triumphs for traditional values. Urban life was changing and moving away from traditional values in the 1920s, and the people were not very swayed by these attempts to preserve them (the values). Prohibition really didn't stop the drinking, but produced other negative affects, and the Scopes trial was looked down upon by many as they opened to "advancement" and new ideas in science.
Urban life was changing in the 1920s. Many immigrants in the cities did not think drinking and gambling, ect. "sinful" but acceptable social behavior. The city became a place of competition and change, where people argued openly about social and science topics. Religion did not prevail in the sense that not as many people went to church, and many people started drinking at bars, ect. (p.641). The old traditional values no longer had such an impact on the urban life style.
Prohibition did slightly lower the number of drunks and the general amount of drinking, but it certainly didn't stop it, and prohibition produced many negative affects. People started comitting "organized" crimes, bootlegging alcohol and other illegal activities. People figured out how to distill alcohol themselves, and some started making their own. Disobeying the law became a sport that almost eveyone played. The Volstead Act established a Prohibition bureau, but it was underfunded. The underpayed policemen and federal agents could not do a very good job at enforcing the law, so drinking continued all over the place.
The legacy of the Scopes trial did not leave a very good impression on many people. Many people in urban areas were opening up to new scientific ideas, and many of them probably did not like the law forbidding those teachings, and probably thought that trial ridiculous. I highly doubt people would actually continue to follow that law, especially with the ACLU to protect them.
Urban life was changing in the 1920s. Many immigrants in the cities did not think drinking and gambling, ect. "sinful" but acceptable social behavior. The city became a place of competition and change, where people argued openly about social and science topics. Religion did not prevail in the sense that not as many people went to church, and many people started drinking at bars, ect. (p.641). The old traditional values no longer had such an impact on the urban life style.
Prohibition did slightly lower the number of drunks and the general amount of drinking, but it certainly didn't stop it, and prohibition produced many negative affects. People started comitting "organized" crimes, bootlegging alcohol and other illegal activities. People figured out how to distill alcohol themselves, and some started making their own. Disobeying the law became a sport that almost eveyone played. The Volstead Act established a Prohibition bureau, but it was underfunded. The underpayed policemen and federal agents could not do a very good job at enforcing the law, so drinking continued all over the place.
The legacy of the Scopes trial did not leave a very good impression on many people. Many people in urban areas were opening up to new scientific ideas, and many of them probably did not like the law forbidding those teachings, and probably thought that trial ridiculous. I highly doubt people would actually continue to follow that law, especially with the ACLU to protect them.
ch. 20 sct.1 C.T.#3
Americans were justified in FEARING radicals and foreigners after WW1, but I don't think their REACTIONS to that fear were justified. Americans had reason to fear the radicals and foreigners: the challenges Americans were facing (they were harsh and made them more vulnerable, ect.) and the goals of the Russian Revolution, which were very threatening to American society, and the drastic measures many Communists took.
Americans faced many challenges after WW1. Their economy was all messed up because soldiers were just returning and either out of work or taking their jobs back, putting women and minorities out of work. The cost of living had doubled, and businesses were suffering as wartime orders diminished. (p.618). People were struggling enough without a huge change in their economic system (communism). If radicals and foreigners got a hold and led to changing the American system of capitalism, there would be huge affects on everybody.
The goal of the Russian Revolution (Lenin and his followers) was to spread a worldwide revolution that would abolish capitalism everywhere. According to the communist system, the government would be ruled by a dictatorship and own all private property and businesses. (p.619). Most Americans would probably fear this type of government, because they would not want to give up ownership of all their property. Because the Communist leaders and followers had such revolutionary goals that would change the American way so much, and they pursued these goals with such a passion, the Americans had reason to fear them and the change they represented.
Many radicals took some drastic measures to try to bring down the government and bring about the change they wanted. Several dozen bombs were mailed to government and business leaders, and after that the American public became fearful that the Communists were taking over (p.619). I think bombs being sent to people is a good enough reason for Americans to fear people such as radicals and foreigners, who even just MIGHT be associated with that group.
Americans faced many challenges after WW1. Their economy was all messed up because soldiers were just returning and either out of work or taking their jobs back, putting women and minorities out of work. The cost of living had doubled, and businesses were suffering as wartime orders diminished. (p.618). People were struggling enough without a huge change in their economic system (communism). If radicals and foreigners got a hold and led to changing the American system of capitalism, there would be huge affects on everybody.
The goal of the Russian Revolution (Lenin and his followers) was to spread a worldwide revolution that would abolish capitalism everywhere. According to the communist system, the government would be ruled by a dictatorship and own all private property and businesses. (p.619). Most Americans would probably fear this type of government, because they would not want to give up ownership of all their property. Because the Communist leaders and followers had such revolutionary goals that would change the American way so much, and they pursued these goals with such a passion, the Americans had reason to fear them and the change they represented.
Many radicals took some drastic measures to try to bring down the government and bring about the change they wanted. Several dozen bombs were mailed to government and business leaders, and after that the American public became fearful that the Communists were taking over (p.619). I think bombs being sent to people is a good enough reason for Americans to fear people such as radicals and foreigners, who even just MIGHT be associated with that group.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
ch.19 sct.4 C.T.#5
I think the Germans will be outraged by the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty humiliated Germany! The war-guilt clause layed the entire blame of thge war on Germany, but other countries had been involved, and I think Germany will point that out (angrily). As for the reparations, Germany could not even pay them, so they'll probably think that is ridiculous and they shouldn't have to pay for all that since other countries were involved in the war and should also be held reaponsible. In addition to having to return the region of Alsace-Lorraine to Fance, Germany was also stripped of its colonial possessions in the Pacific, which might have helped it pay its reparations bill. They will probably be furious if this plan goes through and they have to sacrifice so much... after all, they were "just trying to protect" their friend, Austria-Hungary.
ch.19 sct.4 C.T.#3
The Treaty of Versailles didn't lay the foundations for a longlasting peace because of the remaining anger of the Allied countries against the "brutality" of the Germans and the "unfair" treatment of Russia and Germany in the treaty.
Some of the Ally leaders had experienced German brutality such as Georges Clemenceau, who had survived 2 German invasions and was determined to prevent future invasions. This anger felt by many of the Allied countries made them hesitant to make any "peace" with Germany.
The treaty made Germany forfit the right to maintain an army, give back the land to France, and pay a large amount for repair costs to the Allies. Germany obviously was not happy with this, and they didn't have enough money to pay the huge sum.
Russia also would be forced to give up a lot of land by the Treaty, so they opposed it too. Even some Americans thought the treaty was too harsh.
Many people were opposed to the Treaty of Versailles, and since noone was really happy with it, it wouldn't provide a longlasting peace.
Some of the Ally leaders had experienced German brutality such as Georges Clemenceau, who had survived 2 German invasions and was determined to prevent future invasions. This anger felt by many of the Allied countries made them hesitant to make any "peace" with Germany.
The treaty made Germany forfit the right to maintain an army, give back the land to France, and pay a large amount for repair costs to the Allies. Germany obviously was not happy with this, and they didn't have enough money to pay the huge sum.
Russia also would be forced to give up a lot of land by the Treaty, so they opposed it too. Even some Americans thought the treaty was too harsh.
Many people were opposed to the Treaty of Versailles, and since noone was really happy with it, it wouldn't provide a longlasting peace.
ch.19 sct.3 C.T.#5
I think the war had positive effects on American society, BUT the negative effects outweigh the good. Even though it opened job opportunities for women and African Americans, I think it gave the government too much power and made the people behave ignorantly and narrowmindedly.
The demand for work in the speeding economy opened many jobs for women and blacks. Many blacks migrated to the northern cities to work (p.599), and women filled in those empty spots where men had been (p.600). They certainly benefited from that, but I think society as a whole "declined" (for lack of a better word) slightly.
The government's power expanded so much that I think they slightly outstepped their limits. The Constitution is still the Constitution in wartime, but they violated it with the passing of the Espionage and Sedition Acts. Also, the way the government took over the economy was a little beyond their "call of duty". Wilson got to control most of the economy, fixing prices and such. People and business should not have been basically controlled by the president, just because it was wartime.
The propaganda campaign influenced peoples behavior. People were being fed propoganda, and all they were told is how good the war was (ignorance), and the government "shielded" the public from the "bad" views of the war, silencing all those with opposing views. Supporting the war became the expected, and those who didn't agree or even those who were simply non-native Americans were persecuted (narrowminded).
So, I think the war most affected American society negatively. Although the war created opportunities for many people, it gave the government too much power and twisted the behavior of America's society through propaganda.
The demand for work in the speeding economy opened many jobs for women and blacks. Many blacks migrated to the northern cities to work (p.599), and women filled in those empty spots where men had been (p.600). They certainly benefited from that, but I think society as a whole "declined" (for lack of a better word) slightly.
The government's power expanded so much that I think they slightly outstepped their limits. The Constitution is still the Constitution in wartime, but they violated it with the passing of the Espionage and Sedition Acts. Also, the way the government took over the economy was a little beyond their "call of duty". Wilson got to control most of the economy, fixing prices and such. People and business should not have been basically controlled by the president, just because it was wartime.
The propaganda campaign influenced peoples behavior. People were being fed propoganda, and all they were told is how good the war was (ignorance), and the government "shielded" the public from the "bad" views of the war, silencing all those with opposing views. Supporting the war became the expected, and those who didn't agree or even those who were simply non-native Americans were persecuted (narrowminded).
So, I think the war most affected American society negatively. Although the war created opportunities for many people, it gave the government too much power and twisted the behavior of America's society through propaganda.
ch.19 sct.3 C.T.#3
WW1 expanded government power in the U.S. The president gained much control over the economy, the government's tactic of propaganda made many private businesses work with the government, and the Espionage and Sedition Acts silenced many protesters.
Congress gave President Wilson direct control over much of the economy, including the power to fix prices and to regulate - even to nationalize - certain war-related industries (p.594). Wilson established the National War Labor Board
to deal with disputes between management and labor (p.595). He also set up the food administration to help produce and conserve food (p.595).
The government set up a propaganda agency to get people to support the war. The agency persuaded artists and advertisers to create art supporting the war, as well as printing millions of written pamphlets and other forms of written word (p.596). Many private businesses started supporting the war effort, mass producing and selling war supplies, growing more food, and conserving food and energy. Businesses also bought and promoted bonds for financing the war.
The Espionage and Sedition Acts were also a reflection of the expansion of government power. Under the Acts, a person could be fined and sentenced to jail for interfering with the war effort (basically speaking out in any way against the war). (p.598). This law went against the free speech amendment of the Constitution, but in wartime, this was accecpted in order to "keep the country together".
During WW1, the power of the U.S. government was supported by many private businesses and expanded so that they had the power to control most of the economy and restrict people's speech rights.
Congress gave President Wilson direct control over much of the economy, including the power to fix prices and to regulate - even to nationalize - certain war-related industries (p.594). Wilson established the National War Labor Board
to deal with disputes between management and labor (p.595). He also set up the food administration to help produce and conserve food (p.595).
The government set up a propaganda agency to get people to support the war. The agency persuaded artists and advertisers to create art supporting the war, as well as printing millions of written pamphlets and other forms of written word (p.596). Many private businesses started supporting the war effort, mass producing and selling war supplies, growing more food, and conserving food and energy. Businesses also bought and promoted bonds for financing the war.
The Espionage and Sedition Acts were also a reflection of the expansion of government power. Under the Acts, a person could be fined and sentenced to jail for interfering with the war effort (basically speaking out in any way against the war). (p.598). This law went against the free speech amendment of the Constitution, but in wartime, this was accecpted in order to "keep the country together".
During WW1, the power of the U.S. government was supported by many private businesses and expanded so that they had the power to control most of the economy and restrict people's speech rights.
ch.19 sct.2 C.T.#3
WW1 represented a frightening new kind of warfare because of the new military technology which resulted in large casualty figures, shell shock, and many other horrors.
The new military technology included the invention and use of machine guns, tanks, airplanes, and poison gases. Machine guns were much faster than previous models (p.590), which meant they take away more lives much faster. Tanks made advancement into enemy camps much easier (p.590), and powerful guns were often mounted on the tanks, adding to the destruction. Airplanes made it possible for big-scale bombing and more detailed information-finding. Poison gases killed many soldiers by making them sick and/or suffocating, burning, and blinding them (p.591).
Many soldiers that did survive came out of the war with not only phisical health issues such as lost limbs, but emotional/mental health problems such as shell shock, which was developed from the explosions and many other terrors of the war and made veterans go pretty much crazy or lose their memory, ect.(p.591). This showed the devastating effects of the new kind of warfare started by WW1.
Another reflection of this was in the huge casualty figures. Deaths numbered about 22 million, and more than half of them were civilians. 20 million were wounded and 10 million more became refugees.(p.593). That is a lot of people that lost their lives, health, or least their way of life. War World 1 was the bloodiest war in history up to that time, and the major reason was the advancement in military technology, which led to this frightening new kind of warfare.
The new military technology included the invention and use of machine guns, tanks, airplanes, and poison gases. Machine guns were much faster than previous models (p.590), which meant they take away more lives much faster. Tanks made advancement into enemy camps much easier (p.590), and powerful guns were often mounted on the tanks, adding to the destruction. Airplanes made it possible for big-scale bombing and more detailed information-finding. Poison gases killed many soldiers by making them sick and/or suffocating, burning, and blinding them (p.591).
Many soldiers that did survive came out of the war with not only phisical health issues such as lost limbs, but emotional/mental health problems such as shell shock, which was developed from the explosions and many other terrors of the war and made veterans go pretty much crazy or lose their memory, ect.(p.591). This showed the devastating effects of the new kind of warfare started by WW1.
Another reflection of this was in the huge casualty figures. Deaths numbered about 22 million, and more than half of them were civilians. 20 million were wounded and 10 million more became refugees.(p.593). That is a lot of people that lost their lives, health, or least their way of life. War World 1 was the bloodiest war in history up to that time, and the major reason was the advancement in military technology, which led to this frightening new kind of warfare.
ch.19 sct.1 C.T.#4
America's ties with the Allies were stronger than its ties with the Central Powers because it had more connections to, and dependence on the counries known as the Allies. One of the major (most influential and prominent) countries in the Allies group was Britain, with whom America was "close with". Americans had pretty much come from Britain, so they were almost like "family", but way more important, America did a lot of trading with Britain and they benefited from their sort of partnership. Britain also shared many of the same views as America in things such as world issues, imperialism, ect. America also agreed with Serbia in their wish for freedom. America had many immigrants from Ally countries, whereas there were not many immigrants in America from Austria-Hungary or Bulgaria...
America was not majorly involved in trade with the Central Powers, nor had America had experiences that would bring them close or indebt them to Central Powers. America had different views than Austria-Hungary, in that America thought Serbia should get its freedom and be left alone. Then when Germany attacked some American ships and passengers that were near Britain, America was driven farther from the Central Power countries.
America had economic ties and motives that drew them to the Allied countries, so those ties were stronger than their (very few) ties with Central Power countries.
America was not majorly involved in trade with the Central Powers, nor had America had experiences that would bring them close or indebt them to Central Powers. America had different views than Austria-Hungary, in that America thought Serbia should get its freedom and be left alone. Then when Germany attacked some American ships and passengers that were near Britain, America was driven farther from the Central Power countries.
America had economic ties and motives that drew them to the Allied countries, so those ties were stronger than their (very few) ties with Central Power countries.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
ch.19 sct.1 C.T.#5
Germany escalated its U-boat attacks in 1917 both out of necessity and because of the pressure of the competion of the times (which led to the necessity of defenses once involved in the war).
Other countries, especially Britain, were building up their naval forces at that time, and Germany didn't want to be overpowered by them, so it started building up its own navy, which encouraged Britain to become even stronger, which in turn, prompted Germany to further build-up, and so on. It became a race for power. Germany had ideals of becoming an empire, and since they had built up this navy, they wanted to use it to help them reach their goal. Then Germany (and its navy) became involved in the war, and Britain blockaded the coast of Germany to prevent the delivery of supplies. Britain also wouldn't allow neutral nations to trade with Germany, so almost all of Germany's supplies, including food, were cut off. They had no choice but to come up with a new plan/tactic with which to overcome Britain's power. Germany's need for a counterblockade against Britain led to the use of submarine warfare. Their navy was much weaker than Britain's, so they needed to be sneaky in their attacks. The submarines, or U-boats, allowed the Germans to do this. In 1917, America joined the Allies, whichprobably contributed even more to Germany's need for submarine usage.
Germany needed to use submarines for attacks in order to overcome the amassed strength of the British navy. This was a time of advancing forms of warfare, and Germany made the advancements necessary for survival by increasing attacks by u-boats in order to defend themselves.
Other countries, especially Britain, were building up their naval forces at that time, and Germany didn't want to be overpowered by them, so it started building up its own navy, which encouraged Britain to become even stronger, which in turn, prompted Germany to further build-up, and so on. It became a race for power. Germany had ideals of becoming an empire, and since they had built up this navy, they wanted to use it to help them reach their goal. Then Germany (and its navy) became involved in the war, and Britain blockaded the coast of Germany to prevent the delivery of supplies. Britain also wouldn't allow neutral nations to trade with Germany, so almost all of Germany's supplies, including food, were cut off. They had no choice but to come up with a new plan/tactic with which to overcome Britain's power. Germany's need for a counterblockade against Britain led to the use of submarine warfare. Their navy was much weaker than Britain's, so they needed to be sneaky in their attacks. The submarines, or U-boats, allowed the Germans to do this. In 1917, America joined the Allies, whichprobably contributed even more to Germany's need for submarine usage.
Germany needed to use submarines for attacks in order to overcome the amassed strength of the British navy. This was a time of advancing forms of warfare, and Germany made the advancements necessary for survival by increasing attacks by u-boats in order to defend themselves.
ch.19 sct.1 C.T.#3
War World 1 threatened the lives of civilians on both sides of the Atlantic in two main ways: the threat of death and the threat to people's "way of life".
Many peoples' physical lives were taken away or put in jeopardy by the war. In America as well as in other countries, the potential of being drafted into war definitely presented some threats to civilians' lives. There was also a threat of death from attacks by U-boats, which the Germans used to sink any boat found in waters around Britain (p.584). The blockade of the German coast by the British killed several Germans who couldnot get enough food to survive (p.584). Lives were also being endangered by invading armies of (European) countries such as Germany, which attacked civilians and destroyed villages throughout Belgium (p.583). Much of the fighting took place in France, and many many soldiers ( probably as well as villagers cought in the midst of warfare) died during the war. In addition to soldiers' and civilians' lives being in danger, leaders of nations faced assassination, such as the Archduke of Austria who was shot by a Serbian.
The way of life for many people was also put in jeopardy by WW1. The British blockade also stopped German goods from going out, so anyone who was used to buying and using German products would have been affected in addition to the obviously suffering Germans. If Germany and her allies win and conquer the other countries (ex. Serbia), the conquered countries will definitely have a change in their way of life; Germany would probably force the people into sharing their customs and their laws and their wishes. For many countries involved in the war, food and supplies were needed for the military, so everything had to be rationed; people had to get used to not having plentiful amounts of food and having to work hard to get it.
I think there were more threats to actual lives than to people's "way of life" during the war and that is what most people would have been most concerned about anyway (their LIVES), so I believe danger of death was a bigger issue than losing one's culture or way of life.
Many peoples' physical lives were taken away or put in jeopardy by the war. In America as well as in other countries, the potential of being drafted into war definitely presented some threats to civilians' lives. There was also a threat of death from attacks by U-boats, which the Germans used to sink any boat found in waters around Britain (p.584). The blockade of the German coast by the British killed several Germans who couldnot get enough food to survive (p.584). Lives were also being endangered by invading armies of (European) countries such as Germany, which attacked civilians and destroyed villages throughout Belgium (p.583). Much of the fighting took place in France, and many many soldiers ( probably as well as villagers cought in the midst of warfare) died during the war. In addition to soldiers' and civilians' lives being in danger, leaders of nations faced assassination, such as the Archduke of Austria who was shot by a Serbian.
The way of life for many people was also put in jeopardy by WW1. The British blockade also stopped German goods from going out, so anyone who was used to buying and using German products would have been affected in addition to the obviously suffering Germans. If Germany and her allies win and conquer the other countries (ex. Serbia), the conquered countries will definitely have a change in their way of life; Germany would probably force the people into sharing their customs and their laws and their wishes. For many countries involved in the war, food and supplies were needed for the military, so everything had to be rationed; people had to get used to not having plentiful amounts of food and having to work hard to get it.
I think there were more threats to actual lives than to people's "way of life" during the war and that is what most people would have been most concerned about anyway (their LIVES), so I believe danger of death was a bigger issue than losing one's culture or way of life.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
ch.18 sct.4 CT #4
I do not think the U.S.should have become invloved in those Latin American affairs because the U.S. only had so much power - it was silly to try and spread themselves all around the world (China->Colombia) and everything just ended upin a huge mess with a binch of little mini-wars.
The Roosevelt Corollary DID have pretty positive results for the U.S. because we got control of Nicaragua's railroads and its national bank. But, I still don't think it was worth it because of all the effort involved to put down the revolts, ect. The dollar diplomacy was often used to keep European countries out of the Caribbean (p.569), so I guess that was positive too, but that's a responsibility to GUARENTEE loans, and we'll see if it comes into play later... The implication of Wilson's diplomacy was that Americans would NOT tolerate bad, hostile governments, which gave the U.S. a lot of power and responsibility.
This "evidence" of America's involvement seems to be a positive thing for the U.S. but I still think they should not have gotten involved because they didn't really end up with any long lasting, significant benefits (besides the Panama Canal), and it cost a lot of effort and money to keep sending troops down there and fighting mini wars.
The Roosevelt Corollary DID have pretty positive results for the U.S. because we got control of Nicaragua's railroads and its national bank. But, I still don't think it was worth it because of all the effort involved to put down the revolts, ect. The dollar diplomacy was often used to keep European countries out of the Caribbean (p.569), so I guess that was positive too, but that's a responsibility to GUARENTEE loans, and we'll see if it comes into play later... The implication of Wilson's diplomacy was that Americans would NOT tolerate bad, hostile governments, which gave the U.S. a lot of power and responsibility.
This "evidence" of America's involvement seems to be a positive thing for the U.S. but I still think they should not have gotten involved because they didn't really end up with any long lasting, significant benefits (besides the Panama Canal), and it cost a lot of effort and money to keep sending troops down there and fighting mini wars.
ch.18 sct.4 CT #3
Roosevelt's Big Stick policy and Wilson's missionary diplomacy had similarities and differences.
Roosevelt did not want European countries to come to Latin America and "help" those countries with debts, ect. Roosevelt liked the West African proverb that said, "Speak softly and carry a a big stick." He just reminded the European countries of the Monroe Doctrine, and spoke about the "possibility" of America having to use force to protect its interests in Latin America. This policy was applied several times in the next decade in order to excercise its police force. ->(p.568)
The goal of Wilson's missionary diplomacy was to put a moral side on the Monroe Doctrine and not allow recognition of governments they deemed oppressive, undemocratic, or hostile to U.S. interests (p.569). They would deny recognition to those countries, and that was all it (the diplomacy) said. When Huerta controlled the government in Mexico, the U.S. "watched" Mexico closely until trying to shut down Huerta's government, refusing to recognise the government that had come to power through violence.
Both Roosevelt's and Wilson's policies were meant to keep governments hostile to U.S. interests either out of Latin America or out of power. The policies both made U.S. intervention seem only "possible" if MAYBE it was necessary. And both policies were applied to involve America more deeply than they seemed to say.
The differences were that the two policies were used in 2 different cases, so they each had a different SPECIFIC goal, definition and application.
Roosevelt did not want European countries to come to Latin America and "help" those countries with debts, ect. Roosevelt liked the West African proverb that said, "Speak softly and carry a a big stick." He just reminded the European countries of the Monroe Doctrine, and spoke about the "possibility" of America having to use force to protect its interests in Latin America. This policy was applied several times in the next decade in order to excercise its police force. ->(p.568)
The goal of Wilson's missionary diplomacy was to put a moral side on the Monroe Doctrine and not allow recognition of governments they deemed oppressive, undemocratic, or hostile to U.S. interests (p.569). They would deny recognition to those countries, and that was all it (the diplomacy) said. When Huerta controlled the government in Mexico, the U.S. "watched" Mexico closely until trying to shut down Huerta's government, refusing to recognise the government that had come to power through violence.
Both Roosevelt's and Wilson's policies were meant to keep governments hostile to U.S. interests either out of Latin America or out of power. The policies both made U.S. intervention seem only "possible" if MAYBE it was necessary. And both policies were applied to involve America more deeply than they seemed to say.
The differences were that the two policies were used in 2 different cases, so they each had a different SPECIFIC goal, definition and application.
ch.18 sct.3 CT #4
U.S. policy toward China was rather "open." America didn't claim China as a territory or anything, they just tried to have an influence in it, an economic opening for trade (p.562). They made a deal with the other countries in China to share trading rights with the Americans.
In the Philippines, America played the role Spain had in Cuba. They claimed the Philippines as their territory and put rebels in areas like concentration camps, starting a little war with the Philippines.
I think America acted different with China than with the Philippines because China was A) too large for Americans to control by themselves, B) being inhabited by other powerful countries, and C) not exactly what America was looking for in terms of a little colony that they could own but could govern itself and just provide a trade post for American products; China was a different, bigger deal.
In the Philippines, America played the role Spain had in Cuba. They claimed the Philippines as their territory and put rebels in areas like concentration camps, starting a little war with the Philippines.
I think America acted different with China than with the Philippines because China was A) too large for Americans to control by themselves, B) being inhabited by other powerful countries, and C) not exactly what America was looking for in terms of a little colony that they could own but could govern itself and just provide a trade post for American products; China was a different, bigger deal.
ch.18 sct.3 CT #3
American rule of Puerto Rico harmed the Purto Ricans by keeping Spanish officials in office and punishing Cuban protestors (p.558). America also reserved many rights to Cuba, including handling many of its military and economic affairs in the Platt Amendment (p.560).
The Puerto Ricans were helped by the American government supplying food and clothing, improving sanitation and medical research, restoring farm land, and organizing elementary schools (p.559). While they were basically in charge of Cuba, which many Cubans did not like, America was also protecting Cuba from other countries such as Spain that might try and "abuse" Cuba...
I think the benefits outweighed the harmful effects because even though the Cubans didn't like it that America was in control of a lot of their country, the Americans weren't putting them in concentration camps or destroying their land; in fact, the Americans restored their land, gave them food and clothing (which to me is more essential than political rights), and let them elect (eventually) both houses of their legislature (p.559). I think it was better to be controlled by the Americans than to suffer the "atrocities" of the Spanish.
The Puerto Ricans were helped by the American government supplying food and clothing, improving sanitation and medical research, restoring farm land, and organizing elementary schools (p.559). While they were basically in charge of Cuba, which many Cubans did not like, America was also protecting Cuba from other countries such as Spain that might try and "abuse" Cuba...
I think the benefits outweighed the harmful effects because even though the Cubans didn't like it that America was in control of a lot of their country, the Americans weren't putting them in concentration camps or destroying their land; in fact, the Americans restored their land, gave them food and clothing (which to me is more essential than political rights), and let them elect (eventually) both houses of their legislature (p.559). I think it was better to be controlled by the Americans than to suffer the "atrocities" of the Spanish.
ch.18 sct.2 CT #3
The unstated editorial policies of yellow journalism were basically just to be as exaggerated and entertaining as possible, in order to win attention and popoularity from readers. It was like a war between newspaper companies, and truth got burried in the competition. Journalists would basically take a seed of truth and blow it up for entertainment (p.553).
James Creelman exaggerated the stories he covered of Spanish atrocities committed against the Cubans. Doing this, he aroused sympathy and American intervention in Cuba, as well as boosting newspaper sales (p.552). People who saw the stories more realistically, such as Remington, were silenced by publishers (p.553). The newspaper's headline about the blown up battle ship immediately put the blame on the Spanish and blew the story up into something it was not (p.554), a cause for war.
The basic unstated editorial policy of yellow journalism was to be the "best" by exaggerating stories in such a way that would arouse sympathy and wishes for intervention in Americans and boost newspaper sales.
James Creelman exaggerated the stories he covered of Spanish atrocities committed against the Cubans. Doing this, he aroused sympathy and American intervention in Cuba, as well as boosting newspaper sales (p.552). People who saw the stories more realistically, such as Remington, were silenced by publishers (p.553). The newspaper's headline about the blown up battle ship immediately put the blame on the Spanish and blew the story up into something it was not (p.554), a cause for war.
The basic unstated editorial policy of yellow journalism was to be the "best" by exaggerating stories in such a way that would arouse sympathy and wishes for intervention in Americans and boost newspaper sales.
ch.18 sct.1 CT #5
Beveridge says the U.S. needs (that is their destiny) to basically control world trade, and they can do that by establishing trade posts in colonies all around the world. The colonies supposedly will govern themselves and be great, trading with us and distributing American products. So, according to Beveridge, America needs to acquire new territories in order to control world trade through setting up trade posts in colonies.
ch.18 sct.1 CT #3
In the first half of the 19th century, Americans claimed Western lands and moved west towards the Pacific, corresponding with their ideas of Manifest Destiny, God's plan for them to inhabit the land. After they had moved west, fixed up their political system, and made a few reforms ("progressivism"), Americans felt they had the need (or at least want), and now the power to expand elsewhere. Many American leaders in the 1880's were convinced that the U.S. should join the imperialist powers of Europe and establish colonies overseas (p.548). Their beliefs in Manifest Destiny had eventually led them to follow the trend of rushing and competing to aquire lands and colonies all over the world, mainly to create trading posts for their country all over the world.
Monday, October 22, 2007
current events summary oct. 22
What a surprise! Almost all the countries in East Africa are still pretty poor, they don't have enough aid, and their economies are doing poorly...
Kenya’s rigid employment regulations are becoming obstacles to creating jobs as well as making businesses less willing to hire employees because of all the “rules” they have to follow. This is slowing down the potential growth of the economy. I think they should just loosen up the regulations so more people can actually have jobs and the workforce (and thus the economy) can grow some.
Uganda's president has pledged $57,000 to assist victims of the heaviest rains in 3 decades, and has said that the people of Uganda will not starve when that government is in charge. Uganda and other countries are still suffering from damage done to homes, crops, and basically countries caused by the torrential rains a couple of months ago. Many people have been helped but many more still are in great need, and there is not exactly an endless amount of aid (/money for aid) available. The promises that Western countries made to double foreign aid in Africa have not (yet) been met, which is a contributing factor to the extreme poverty of several East African countries. The UN says Africa is not likely to meet any goals for poverty-busting (at least not soon), in part due to those unmet promises of aid from Western countries. I think they should use some of the collected tax money in countries such as America to support aid in suffering nations, instead of less-neede projects for our own benefit.
Wars in Africa are also draining several countries’ limited money supply... buying arms, training and supporting troops, ect. costs a lot of money. This is yet another reason to strive for world peace... too bad there's human nature and power hunger to get in the way!
So, the poverty prevailing in the economic, and thus social realms of East African countries is mainly being caused by natural disaster, lack of will to fix the damage from those disasters (on the part of OTHER countries - that HAVE the money), not so wise descisions such as rigid employment regulations, and the lack of an ability to install peace, therefore eliminating the expenses of war.
Presumably, this poverty will effect other economic realms such as opportunities for trade, technology, general advancement, ect.
Kenya’s rigid employment regulations are becoming obstacles to creating jobs as well as making businesses less willing to hire employees because of all the “rules” they have to follow. This is slowing down the potential growth of the economy. I think they should just loosen up the regulations so more people can actually have jobs and the workforce (and thus the economy) can grow some.
Uganda's president has pledged $57,000 to assist victims of the heaviest rains in 3 decades, and has said that the people of Uganda will not starve when that government is in charge. Uganda and other countries are still suffering from damage done to homes, crops, and basically countries caused by the torrential rains a couple of months ago. Many people have been helped but many more still are in great need, and there is not exactly an endless amount of aid (/money for aid) available. The promises that Western countries made to double foreign aid in Africa have not (yet) been met, which is a contributing factor to the extreme poverty of several East African countries. The UN says Africa is not likely to meet any goals for poverty-busting (at least not soon), in part due to those unmet promises of aid from Western countries. I think they should use some of the collected tax money in countries such as America to support aid in suffering nations, instead of less-neede projects for our own benefit.
Wars in Africa are also draining several countries’ limited money supply... buying arms, training and supporting troops, ect. costs a lot of money. This is yet another reason to strive for world peace... too bad there's human nature and power hunger to get in the way!
So, the poverty prevailing in the economic, and thus social realms of East African countries is mainly being caused by natural disaster, lack of will to fix the damage from those disasters (on the part of OTHER countries - that HAVE the money), not so wise descisions such as rigid employment regulations, and the lack of an ability to install peace, therefore eliminating the expenses of war.
Presumably, this poverty will effect other economic realms such as opportunities for trade, technology, general advancement, ect.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
17-5-#4 CONTINUED
Wilson, like the presidents before him, Roosevelt and Taft, had won the support of civil rights groups by acting very supportive during campaigning, but once in office, he slacked off in his support of their causes. Wilson even placed segragationists in charge of federal agencies, which expanded racial segragation and dissapointed/angered some of Wilson's former supporters.
ch.17 sct.5 C.T.#4
Wilson failed to push for equality for African Americans despite his progressive reforms because of his backround (which affected his personality) and the primary group of people the reforms targeted.
Wilson grew up in a strict household in the South during the Civil War and Reconsrudtion (p.539), so he was accostumed to the southern view of blacks and probably had a pretty weakened resolve to help them. He was also a person who could be very uncertain in his support, such as when he "cautiously supported suffrage" (p.538).
Progressive reforms targeted the big businesses and governments and such that had a hold on the people and were creating "unfair" conditions for individual people. By making reforms of/to these things, the people would (in most cases) obtain more rights. Wilson was very obsessed with breaking down trusts and their power (i.e. by taxes) that were "strangling" the "free market"... Since Wilson focused so much on these economic reforms, he was less strong in his push for African American equality.
Wilson grew up in a strict household in the South during the Civil War and Reconsrudtion (p.539), so he was accostumed to the southern view of blacks and probably had a pretty weakened resolve to help them. He was also a person who could be very uncertain in his support, such as when he "cautiously supported suffrage" (p.538).
Progressive reforms targeted the big businesses and governments and such that had a hold on the people and were creating "unfair" conditions for individual people. By making reforms of/to these things, the people would (in most cases) obtain more rights. Wilson was very obsessed with breaking down trusts and their power (i.e. by taxes) that were "strangling" the "free market"... Since Wilson focused so much on these economic reforms, he was less strong in his push for African American equality.
ch.17 sct.3 C.T.#5
W.E.B. Du Bois opposed Booker T. Washington's views on racial discrimination because Washington accomodated segregationists, blamed black poverty on blacks and urged them to accept discrimination, whereas Bois demanded immediate social and economic equality for blacks (p.531). So basically, Washington was like "Its our own fault we live bad lives and are poor. Suck it up!" whereas Bois believed all men were equal and should be TREATED that way. So Bois was probabaly mad that Washington could let whites just walk over them and even agree with them.
ch.17 sct.2 C.T.#5
If I were a woman during the progressive era, in order to recruit women to support the many different causes, such as improving education, housing reform, food and drug laws, and the right to vote, I would stress the problems that needed fixing and explain how the movement was trying to remedy those problems. I would then explain how women benefited from each cause.
For example, womens' education was in need of some major repairs. Many colleges did not accept women and those that did probabaly didn't offer many choices to women for education. If I wanted a woman tojoin the cause to improve womens' education, I would remind them of how women were being discriminated against in colleges and given inferior (or no) educations to women. I would point out that with better educations available to women, they had more options. They no longer had to rely only on marriage (p.521) and could be independent, following their own dreams as far as careers go.
Another example is the cause to win womens' right to vote. All male citizens were allowed to vote, but not females. This meant women had no voice in politics. If women supported the cause for suffrage and they got a breakthrough, they would have a voice in politics, (possibly) be able to put an end to things such as alcohol ("issues") and be able to have a say in work conditions, ect. This sis what I would tell a woman back then to get her to join the cause. (p. 521-2)
For example, womens' education was in need of some major repairs. Many colleges did not accept women and those that did probabaly didn't offer many choices to women for education. If I wanted a woman tojoin the cause to improve womens' education, I would remind them of how women were being discriminated against in colleges and given inferior (or no) educations to women. I would point out that with better educations available to women, they had more options. They no longer had to rely only on marriage (p.521) and could be independent, following their own dreams as far as careers go.
Another example is the cause to win womens' right to vote. All male citizens were allowed to vote, but not females. This meant women had no voice in politics. If women supported the cause for suffrage and they got a breakthrough, they would have a voice in politics, (possibly) be able to put an end to things such as alcohol ("issues") and be able to have a say in work conditions, ect. This sis what I would tell a woman back then to get her to join the cause. (p. 521-2)
Thursday, October 4, 2007
ch.17 sct.1 C.T.#3
Illinois, Wisconsin, and Oregon can be considered trailblazers in progressive reform.
States such as Oregon made legislative and electoral reforms that gave the people more of a voice in matters, such as "initiative," "referendum," and "recall" (p.518). These reforms (initiative, ect.) were the results of the work of William S. U'ren, who also prompted his state of Oregon to adopt the secret ballot, which would help less scandals take place with threats, bribery, ect.
Robert La Follette also led in political reforms. He was governor for 3 terms and then went into the U.S. senate. He worked to drive big bussinesses "out of poitics, and then to treat them exactly the same as other people are treated," and focused on railroad companies (p.516).
In Illinois, Florence Kelley worked to improve the lives of women and children, and was appointed chief inspector of Illinois factories. Prior to that, she had helped to win passage of the Illinois Factory Act in 1893, which prohibited child labor and limited women's working hours. This soon became a model for other states.
Illinois helped trailblaze the progressive path of improving personal rights, and Oregon led in electoral and legislative reforms. These states caused many others to follow their examples, and could be considered trailblazers in progressive reform.
States such as Oregon made legislative and electoral reforms that gave the people more of a voice in matters, such as "initiative," "referendum," and "recall" (p.518). These reforms (initiative, ect.) were the results of the work of William S. U'ren, who also prompted his state of Oregon to adopt the secret ballot, which would help less scandals take place with threats, bribery, ect.
Robert La Follette also led in political reforms. He was governor for 3 terms and then went into the U.S. senate. He worked to drive big bussinesses "out of poitics, and then to treat them exactly the same as other people are treated," and focused on railroad companies (p.516).
In Illinois, Florence Kelley worked to improve the lives of women and children, and was appointed chief inspector of Illinois factories. Prior to that, she had helped to win passage of the Illinois Factory Act in 1893, which prohibited child labor and limited women's working hours. This soon became a model for other states.
Illinois helped trailblaze the progressive path of improving personal rights, and Oregon led in electoral and legislative reforms. These states caused many others to follow their examples, and could be considered trailblazers in progressive reform.
ch.17 sct.1 C.T.#4
I think the artist of the cartoon had an unfavorable opinion of Carry Nation, revealed in the way they portray the scene in the painting. Carry looks very fat and big-headed, which could represent the way the artist felt about her (negatively). The men in the bar all look like scared, helpless victims, rather innocent. The bar lays in complete destruction and there is no sign of moral improvement or even victory... just destruction. The way this scene is depicted so negatively implies that the artist had a very unfavorale opinion of the prohibitionist, Carry Nation.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Current Events Summary 2
About a month ago, there was some big flooding in Africa. In east africa, it was most felt in Uganda, Ethiopia, and Sudan. In some parts of the land, it floods most years, but the people were still surprised this time at the rapidness of the rising rainwaters. Thousands of people lost their homes, and hudreds their lives. This will be a negative affect on their economies because the rains destroyed many peoples crops, which is a large part of income. Many of these East African countries do not really have enough money to repair all the damage and bring help to their suffering countries. The UN is lending a hand, but many more are needed. UN agencies are seeking $43 million for Uganda alone... Now the African countries will be using their money to help fix this issue, instead of using it for other economic plans they may have had. (This connects to the theme that geography affects history.)
But according to Takatoshi Kato, sub-Saharan countries are doing great economy wise. He says East Africa has grown economically (related to the merging of world markets/companies or something), and growth is expected to continue increasing in the next few years. The growth is due in part to oil-exporting countries, but non-oil-exporting countries are assisting as well. There are risks for the future though, such as the fact that "aid flow from international donors has not yet fully materialized." So, for the most part (according to this guy), East African economies are growing rapidly and gaining stability, but there are a few economic dangers.
Kenya has rigid employment regulations that are apparently becoming obstacles to creating jobs. The IFC says that this rigidity produces "less job creation, smaller company size... and longer spells of unemployment... -all of which may reduce productivity growth." They warn that this is not in the long term interest of workers and businesses.
In Sudan, there are people still in bondage of slavery, but since it costs money to free them, the government and other countries have lost motivation to free the people. The slave owners had originally taken them because of ethnic rivalry, but are probably keeping them today because the slaves get them more MONEY. The government has a hard time funding programs to free the slaves because the government doesn't have "enough" money. (talk about priorities!)
So, basically, right now East African countries are suffering economically from things ranging from flooding to employment regulations. But according to some people, their economies are doing great, growing and stabilizing.
But according to Takatoshi Kato, sub-Saharan countries are doing great economy wise. He says East Africa has grown economically (related to the merging of world markets/companies or something), and growth is expected to continue increasing in the next few years. The growth is due in part to oil-exporting countries, but non-oil-exporting countries are assisting as well. There are risks for the future though, such as the fact that "aid flow from international donors has not yet fully materialized." So, for the most part (according to this guy), East African economies are growing rapidly and gaining stability, but there are a few economic dangers.
Kenya has rigid employment regulations that are apparently becoming obstacles to creating jobs. The IFC says that this rigidity produces "less job creation, smaller company size... and longer spells of unemployment... -all of which may reduce productivity growth." They warn that this is not in the long term interest of workers and businesses.
In Sudan, there are people still in bondage of slavery, but since it costs money to free them, the government and other countries have lost motivation to free the people. The slave owners had originally taken them because of ethnic rivalry, but are probably keeping them today because the slaves get them more MONEY. The government has a hard time funding programs to free the slaves because the government doesn't have "enough" money. (talk about priorities!)
So, basically, right now East African countries are suffering economically from things ranging from flooding to employment regulations. But according to some people, their economies are doing great, growing and stabilizing.
Monday, September 24, 2007
ch.15 sct.2 C.T.#5
The migration from rural areas to the cities had many effects on urban society.
People moved to the cities because with the advancement of technology and the merging of farming companies, there were less jobs available for people in rural areas (p.469). Supposedly, there were lots of jobs available in the cities, so people flocked there.
Rapid urban growth caused some problems. One problem was the lack of transportation, which they improved with innovations in mass transit (p.470), but still, there was the problem of the lack of space for so many people. Many families would be crammed into one tiny house, which led to sanitation issues (p.470). Crime rate also rose with the increase in population, as did the risk and occurence of fires, kindled by the many, many wooden houses (p.471). A shortage of water was also an issue. Not only did that worsen the fire situation, but people did not have enough clean water to drink (p.470). Another big problem was the (limited) amount of jobs available. With that many people all in one area, a certain number of jobs only went so far. The native-born Americans got angry at the immigrants for taking their jobs, and turmoil stirred (sct.1).
Blacks were also affected by the migration. They were all farmers, and lost their jobs when demand for human labor on farms decreased. Even in the north, they were discriminated against and it was hard for them to get jobs. On the other hand, some whites prospered from the migration. The farm owners had their machines - which were cheaper than hiring help - to keep their farms up, and the businessmen in the north could use the cheap labor of the new immigrants and desperate job-seekers.
The migration of people from the rural areas to the cities benefitted some people and hurt others.
People moved to the cities because with the advancement of technology and the merging of farming companies, there were less jobs available for people in rural areas (p.469). Supposedly, there were lots of jobs available in the cities, so people flocked there.
Rapid urban growth caused some problems. One problem was the lack of transportation, which they improved with innovations in mass transit (p.470), but still, there was the problem of the lack of space for so many people. Many families would be crammed into one tiny house, which led to sanitation issues (p.470). Crime rate also rose with the increase in population, as did the risk and occurence of fires, kindled by the many, many wooden houses (p.471). A shortage of water was also an issue. Not only did that worsen the fire situation, but people did not have enough clean water to drink (p.470). Another big problem was the (limited) amount of jobs available. With that many people all in one area, a certain number of jobs only went so far. The native-born Americans got angry at the immigrants for taking their jobs, and turmoil stirred (sct.1).
Blacks were also affected by the migration. They were all farmers, and lost their jobs when demand for human labor on farms decreased. Even in the north, they were discriminated against and it was hard for them to get jobs. On the other hand, some whites prospered from the migration. The farm owners had their machines - which were cheaper than hiring help - to keep their farms up, and the businessmen in the north could use the cheap labor of the new immigrants and desperate job-seekers.
The migration of people from the rural areas to the cities benefitted some people and hurt others.
ch.15 sct.2 C.T.#4
The settlement houses had the most impact. By providing shelter and support for poor people, the settlement houses helped solve one of the biggest problems in cities:poverty. Not only did the houses give people a home, but offered them classes that could help them adapt to the culture and take care of themselves. Healthcare was also provided for the sick who did not have enough money to get it by themselves. Financial support such as insurance was also made available to widows and others in desperate need.
By 1910, about 400 settlement houses were operating in cities across the U.S. Many immigrants, as well as African Americans, who were suffering from racial discrimination, took refuge in these settlment houses. The houses had a great impact on the U.S. by helping improve the huge issue of poverty (which led to the issues of poor health, ect.).
(all details from p.472)
By 1910, about 400 settlement houses were operating in cities across the U.S. Many immigrants, as well as African Americans, who were suffering from racial discrimination, took refuge in these settlment houses. The houses had a great impact on the U.S. by helping improve the huge issue of poverty (which led to the issues of poor health, ect.).
(all details from p.472)
ch.15 sct.1 C.T.#4
The massive influx of immigrants to the U.S. in the late 1800's had both positive and negative effects on America.
Since there were so many new workers willing to work for low wages, factories could afford to hire many workers and produce more stuff faster. The Japenese immigrants worked on the railroads, which then grew much faster (p.461). This provided more transportation for the country, thus widening the path for industrialization and westward settlement.
The huge amounts of immigrants also provoked stress and tension between people fighting for jobs. Many foreign people thought that America had tons of open jobs to offer, and were surprised when they got here and that was not quite the case (~p.462). Since they would accept lower wages, white Americans (native-born) were worried that the immigrants would take all the available jobs. The Americans also did not accept the different languages and cultures of the foreigners; they thought the immigrants threatened the American way of life, and wanted the immigrants to leave (p.464). This tension between people brought America into inner turmoil and unrest; the people were beginning to get upset.
Since there were so many new workers willing to work for low wages, factories could afford to hire many workers and produce more stuff faster. The Japenese immigrants worked on the railroads, which then grew much faster (p.461). This provided more transportation for the country, thus widening the path for industrialization and westward settlement.
The huge amounts of immigrants also provoked stress and tension between people fighting for jobs. Many foreign people thought that America had tons of open jobs to offer, and were surprised when they got here and that was not quite the case (~p.462). Since they would accept lower wages, white Americans (native-born) were worried that the immigrants would take all the available jobs. The Americans also did not accept the different languages and cultures of the foreigners; they thought the immigrants threatened the American way of life, and wanted the immigrants to leave (p.464). This tension between people brought America into inner turmoil and unrest; the people were beginning to get upset.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
ch.15 sct.1 C.T.#3
Asians, especially Chinese immigrants, faced the greatest challenges in the U.S. Right from the start, they had a more difficult time getting into the country at Angel Island, where they were harshly questioned and detained in filthy places for a long time (p.463), but most of the Europeans who were admitted at Ellis Island had only to wait about 5 hours. Prior to arriving in America, the Asian immigrants had to travel on a ship for about 3 weeks, whereas the European journey was only about 1 week (p.462).
Chinese people spoke a completely different language, and had a completely different culture than the "Americans." The Americans didn't like the customs of the Asian immigrants and thought of them as threats to the American way of life (p.464), and the Asians did not understand American culture/customs. The Chinese had a hard time communicating with the English-speaking Americans, which made it harder to get jobs and just cooperate in everyday life.
The Americans thought that Anglo-Saxons were superior to other ethnic groups, and objected to the religious beliefs of other races (p.464). Nativism was one resonse to the growth of immigration. Labor unions feared that jobs would go to Chinese immigrants, who would accept lower wages. Leaders of labor unions went around giving anti-Chinese speeches. In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which banned almost all Chinese immigrants, and later this law was extended indefinitely, until it was finally repealed in 1943. (from "nativism" on: p.465)
Although all immigrants faced hardships, Chinese immigrants faced the greatest challenges in the United States. They faced harsh travel and admission conditions, foreign obstacles, and racial predjudices.
Chinese people spoke a completely different language, and had a completely different culture than the "Americans." The Americans didn't like the customs of the Asian immigrants and thought of them as threats to the American way of life (p.464), and the Asians did not understand American culture/customs. The Chinese had a hard time communicating with the English-speaking Americans, which made it harder to get jobs and just cooperate in everyday life.
The Americans thought that Anglo-Saxons were superior to other ethnic groups, and objected to the religious beliefs of other races (p.464). Nativism was one resonse to the growth of immigration. Labor unions feared that jobs would go to Chinese immigrants, who would accept lower wages. Leaders of labor unions went around giving anti-Chinese speeches. In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which banned almost all Chinese immigrants, and later this law was extended indefinitely, until it was finally repealed in 1943. (from "nativism" on: p.465)
Although all immigrants faced hardships, Chinese immigrants faced the greatest challenges in the United States. They faced harsh travel and admission conditions, foreign obstacles, and racial predjudices.
Monday, September 17, 2007
ch.14 sct.3 C.T.#3
I think 19-century tycoons are best described as effective captains of industry, although a lot of what they did was ruthless.
Their management tactics and business strategies, although a bit harsh, were very effective. Rockefeller payed his employees very low wages, which wasn't nice, but it DID help his company get rich. Forming a trust may have interfered with free trade, but it was smart, and once he controlled the competition, he got lots of money by raising the prices that people had to pay (p.449). These tycoons did interfere with "free trade," especially with the smaller businesses, but they helped create copetition that led to more development. According to the Social Darwinism theory, they also helped the economy rid itself ofthe weaker businesses (p.448). The tycoons had a ruthless, but effective attitude toward competition. They would use tactics to grow larger than other companies, then buy the smaller companies (p.448-449). Once they had bought the other company, they would offer jobs to the people from the old company, which wasn't "nice" (rubbing it in their faces), but it was a smart business move. The tycoon would eliminate its competition of other companies, but then encourage competition among his assistants, as Carnegie did (p.448). Although the tycoons of the 19th century were pretty ruthless, they were very effective captains of industry.
Their management tactics and business strategies, although a bit harsh, were very effective. Rockefeller payed his employees very low wages, which wasn't nice, but it DID help his company get rich. Forming a trust may have interfered with free trade, but it was smart, and once he controlled the competition, he got lots of money by raising the prices that people had to pay (p.449). These tycoons did interfere with "free trade," especially with the smaller businesses, but they helped create copetition that led to more development. According to the Social Darwinism theory, they also helped the economy rid itself ofthe weaker businesses (p.448). The tycoons had a ruthless, but effective attitude toward competition. They would use tactics to grow larger than other companies, then buy the smaller companies (p.448-449). Once they had bought the other company, they would offer jobs to the people from the old company, which wasn't "nice" (rubbing it in their faces), but it was a smart business move. The tycoon would eliminate its competition of other companies, but then encourage competition among his assistants, as Carnegie did (p.448). Although the tycoons of the 19th century were pretty ruthless, they were very effective captains of industry.
ch.14 sct.2 C.T.#4
The government was eager to promote the growth of railroads in order to encourage settlement of the west and economic growth. Governments always want the country to advance and develop, and moving more people west would lead the country to development (p.442). There was good land in the west that the government wanted the people to farm so they could make money. If the people have more money, that means the country does too, which means the government then has more money too. If people had easier transportation to take them west and transport their goods to market, they would be more likely to go. And if more people were selling more goods, the markets would enlarge, and that combined with taking advantage of the available natural resources (not only land but oil, ect.), would lead to industrial growth. Railroads would also lead to the growth of new towns and markets along its paths, furthering the development of the west, and thus the country. To encourage the settlement and growth of the nation, the government was eager to give land and loans to the railroad companies to promote their growth.
ch. 14 sct.1 C.T.#5
I think the invention of electricity had the greatsest impact on society, although the other inventions such as steel had great impact too.
Electricity had many effective applications. It was used for light bulbs, powering machines, electric streetcars, and more (p.438). Steel also had many applications, but not as many as electricity, because many, many different types of machines ran on electricity.
Electricity also had a great impact in the home and peoples daily lives. It powered many time-saving appliances (p.438) such as sewing machines, telephones, and typewriters. These allowed people to work at home and opened up many jobs for women in offices (p.439). Electricty and the inventions that stemmed from it affected the workplace by allowing people to work faster from the home and in the workplace. It did much of the work that had been being done by manual labor, so it reduced peoples work hours and backbreaking labor. Electricity also took some of the need away for manual laborers, which some people did not like (p.439). One of the biggest effects of electricity on the workplace was that factories no longer had to be on rivers; they could spread over the land in city areas. This caused industry to grow very rapidly (p.439).
The invention of electricity had the greatest impact on society at that time, affecting both the workplace and peoples daily lives (in the home) greatly.
Electricity had many effective applications. It was used for light bulbs, powering machines, electric streetcars, and more (p.438). Steel also had many applications, but not as many as electricity, because many, many different types of machines ran on electricity.
Electricity also had a great impact in the home and peoples daily lives. It powered many time-saving appliances (p.438) such as sewing machines, telephones, and typewriters. These allowed people to work at home and opened up many jobs for women in offices (p.439). Electricty and the inventions that stemmed from it affected the workplace by allowing people to work faster from the home and in the workplace. It did much of the work that had been being done by manual labor, so it reduced peoples work hours and backbreaking labor. Electricity also took some of the need away for manual laborers, which some people did not like (p.439). One of the biggest effects of electricity on the workplace was that factories no longer had to be on rivers; they could spread over the land in city areas. This caused industry to grow very rapidly (p.439).
The invention of electricity had the greatest impact on society at that time, affecting both the workplace and peoples daily lives (in the home) greatly.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
current events: summary 1
In East Africa, many things are going on in the world of economic policies.
Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania have agreed to implement a trade pact on january 1, that includes "The Common External Tariffs" and is supposed to help boost trade. Their goal is to eventually establish a common market, allow goods to pass between the three countries tax-free, lead to a common currency, and eventually a political confederation. The three countries' farm-based economiesare considered stable compared to their war-devasated countries, and Kenya is considered to have a more developed industrial base, so to compensate for this, according to the East Africa Community Customs Union, Kenya will pay duty on its goods entering Tanzania and Uganda for 5 years. The Customs union will also enable businessmen to freely access an enlarged market of more people and more money.
Joining the East African Community are the countries of Rwanda and Burundi, and their membership will take effect from July first. Consultations on forming a political union are also under way.
There is no duty on goods exchanged between countries in the E.A.C., making the movement of goods across the region cheaper. Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda have all reported increased revenues since the launching of the customs union, so it seems to be working.
Plans for further integration are being made, including an East African common market, a single currency, and a federal president and government.
Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania have also unveiled budgets that will hopefully keep hefty deficits in check and reduce their reliance on aid. In Kenya, the public deficit has risen since lasy year. The three countries hope to raise taxes and boost tourism in order to help narrow the budget gaps. Unfortunately, joining the Customs Union, which will mean the abolition of customs duties, an important source of revenue for the countries, could cause difficulties in the short term.
Kenya, Tanzania, and many other African countries rely heavily on tourism as a source of revenue, but with the recent terror attacks, tourism is declining because tourists do not feel safe traveling there. Afican countries are attending the World Tourism Conference, along with their other attempts to encourage western tourists to return.
In East Africa, many countries are suffering from declining tourism. Some have widening public deficits, or are having trouble trading with each other because of duties, uncommon currencies, ect. Some efforts to boost the economy include making budgets and forming the East African Community.
- info. from BBC News (online)
*
Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania have agreed to implement a trade pact on january 1, that includes "The Common External Tariffs" and is supposed to help boost trade. Their goal is to eventually establish a common market, allow goods to pass between the three countries tax-free, lead to a common currency, and eventually a political confederation. The three countries' farm-based economiesare considered stable compared to their war-devasated countries, and Kenya is considered to have a more developed industrial base, so to compensate for this, according to the East Africa Community Customs Union, Kenya will pay duty on its goods entering Tanzania and Uganda for 5 years. The Customs union will also enable businessmen to freely access an enlarged market of more people and more money.
Joining the East African Community are the countries of Rwanda and Burundi, and their membership will take effect from July first. Consultations on forming a political union are also under way.
There is no duty on goods exchanged between countries in the E.A.C., making the movement of goods across the region cheaper. Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda have all reported increased revenues since the launching of the customs union, so it seems to be working.
Plans for further integration are being made, including an East African common market, a single currency, and a federal president and government.
Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania have also unveiled budgets that will hopefully keep hefty deficits in check and reduce their reliance on aid. In Kenya, the public deficit has risen since lasy year. The three countries hope to raise taxes and boost tourism in order to help narrow the budget gaps. Unfortunately, joining the Customs Union, which will mean the abolition of customs duties, an important source of revenue for the countries, could cause difficulties in the short term.
Kenya, Tanzania, and many other African countries rely heavily on tourism as a source of revenue, but with the recent terror attacks, tourism is declining because tourists do not feel safe traveling there. Afican countries are attending the World Tourism Conference, along with their other attempts to encourage western tourists to return.
In East Africa, many countries are suffering from declining tourism. Some have widening public deficits, or are having trouble trading with each other because of duties, uncommon currencies, ect. Some efforts to boost the economy include making budgets and forming the East African Community.
- info. from BBC News (online)
*
Sunday, September 9, 2007
ch.13 sct.3 C.T. #3
I think the most significant factors in bringing an end to the Populist Party were their policy on the monetary system and their third-party status (and quite obviously the election of McKinley, but that was an effect of these causes). If the Populist Party had their way and the monetary system was based on both silver and gold, money would lose a lot of value. I think a lot of people (not in the populist party) wouldn't like the fact that everyone would have money, but it would be worthless (kind of on p. 428), causing inflation, which most people didn't want. So people not in the Populist Party (people who were consumers, not farmers) wouldn't like their monetary policy, and the Populist Party wouldn't get much support. Also, the Populist Party was a "new" party, and it wasn't as big or firm as the Democratic or Republican parties. I think the fact that it (the party) was so undecided (they didn't know whether to join with the sympathetic major parties, or to nominate their own canidates: p. 428) kept it a small, "third-party-status" party. Although their main source of support came basically only from farmers, farmers made up a good portion of the country then, so I don't think that was one of the most significant factors in bringing an end to the Populist Party. I also don't think that their popular participation policy was a significant factor. I would think most people would be happy to have a bigger voice in electing U.S. senators and letting the majority choose (if the policy means what I think it does). I believe that the Populist Party's monetary policy and their third-party status were the most significant factors in bringing an end to the party.
ch.1 sct.1 C.T.#3
Government efforts to promote settlement of the Great Plains was very successful, even if they weren't quite as successful as the government had hoped they would be. The population of the Great Plains grew as hundreds of thousands of families migrated west, lured by huge pieces of cheap, fertile land. An example of this was Esther Clark Hill's family, who lived on the prairie, farming, hunting, and raising animals (p. 420). The government encouraged railroad building, giving out land grants for laying track, and these competing railroads helped the economy by providing transportation for people and their goods (cattle, crops), drawing many, many people to the west (p. 420-421). When Congress passed the Homestead Act, offering lots of free, fertile land in the west, there was a huge land rush of people trying to stake out and claim their land. Almost 600,000 families took advantage of the offer and settled into the land from 1862 to1900 (p. 421). So, the government successfully made efforts to promote westward settlement by encouraging railroads and giving out free land in the Homestead Act, drawing thousands and thousands of people out to the westand greatly increasing the population of the Great Plains.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)