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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.