Interview: The Effects of WW2 on Civilians (EXTRA CREDIT)

This is an interview I did over Skype with my great uncle, Robert Mottley, who was born in January, 1940 and grew up during World War 2. He recounts his memories of how the war affected his community as well as shares personal story of a relative who was involved in the war.

(Audio Only)

I concluded from this interview that the war did not only affect those actively serving, but also the lives of every day civilians.

My Life as a White Woman

This shall be interesting....

My name is Martha Anne. I am 32 years old and live in Virginia. My husband James recently lost his job at the automotive shop. We are not poor, but we are barely passing as middle class.

The New Deal affected me in many ways. Up until the Depression, I had stayed at home and cared for my children while my husband worked. But after the economy started decreasing and especially when James lost his job, I began looking for work. I had heard about the "New Deal" but didn't care much for politics. But after talking to my friend Sally, who had got a job as a telephone oporator, I began to learn more and more about this Deal. I found out that it alone did not do much for women like myself and mostly provided work for men. Through the Civilian Conservation Corps, my husband began work on the Blue Ridge Parkway in 1936. I talked with local officials and eventually found myself working in a textile factory. The pay wasn't much, but I am thankful for the WPA for helping me find a job to better suppoer my family.

I personally wish that this "New Deal" would deal more with women, but I guess society is still sexist. Hopefully in a few decades women will be able to have equal job opportunities as men. But I am very supportive of the New Deal.

Yours truly,

Martha Anne Winscott

Myth vs. Reality

For this entry, I watched several clips on YouTube from popular western films and television shows. I will embed clips when necessary so you can get a clearer idea of the points I am making.

When looking for westerns, the first thing I came across was a trailer for the 1953 western, "Shane".

In this trailer, major themes from most westerns are apparant. The heroic cowboys, the gunslingers, the tavern fights, and many things we consider to be "Western".

But was 'Life on the frontier' really as great as this? In reality, life in the American West during times of expansion was not 'All beer and skittles' (Yes, I did look up some Western slang).

People faced many hardships, and cowboys were no more heroes than entreprenuers are today. Yes, they set out for adventure, but they didn't go around killing indians all the time or rescuing the 'pretty ladies'. They set out to find a new home and a new way of life for their families.

Wow... I pray to God that this was meant to be ridiculous. This is a disgrace to people who headed west. The Homestead Act led to a massive rush to settle the west, but wagon trains often failed because of diseases or indian attacks. The quote 'The going gets might rough' is putting it lightly.

The last clip I want to show is an example of the early westerns. It is the 1903 film titled "The Great Train Robbery".

Maybe I enjoyed this film because I'm a big film junkie and enjoy looking at the history of film. I love the part where he throws the dummy off the train. Great "special effects". Ok, back on topic. This shows that the American film industry glamarized the West into making it appear so adventurous and exciting, when settling the west was a very long, tedious, and boring experience for the most part.

Yet, we seem to continue this Myth because it's entertainment. If they made realistic movies about the West they would probably end up on the History Channel and most people wouldn't watch them. Sometimes we twist realistic events and make them into much more than they actually were. Same with the Titanic, the 9/11 attacks, or any major event in our history. We don't know all the details, and we believe what we are told because, well, it's exciting.

Don't be fooled by the myth, the West was not as 'hootin' and hollerin' as it may seem. Now, 'Go Gettem Cowboy!'. (I had way too much fun with this article...)

Reconstruction = EPIC FAIL.

Ok, I'm not really that geeky. But I do see the Reconstruction as mainly a failure. Firstly, I believe the Civil War was a waste of time and money, but that's another topic. I believe Reconstruction was a failure because we didn't accomplish much.

We "abolished" slavery, but did it really do anything? Blacks were freed, but did they have anywhere to go? No. Many went into poverty, never reuniting with their families which were split up during slavery. The Freedmen's Bureau was established to help ex-slaves with food, education, and land. The government passed laws "eliminating" discrimination of blacks. But take a look at the South. They continued to think they were superior to blacks, with beliefs such as Social Darwinism to back up their point. Groups such as the KKK and The Knights of the White Camellia were formed. Reconstruction was a betrayal of former slaves.

Another problem about Reconstruction was that even though the Union convinced the Southern states to re-enter the Union, there were still extreme tensions between the two. Southerners still felt seperated from the North, and Northerners still looked down upon the South. Some of this tension still exists today.

So even though we may have rebuilt cities, expanded our army, and reunited our states, the Reconstruction era was a failure socially, economically, and politically. Oh, and sorry for the casual tone of this entry, I just figured it was the best way to express my opinion on the topic.

King Andrew: Champion of the Northern White Man

Some people refer to President Andrew Jackson as "King Andrew" while others call him "Champion of the Common Man". I, however, consider him to be "King Andrew: Champion of the Northern White Man".

During Andrew's campaign, he mainly appealed to the "planter elite" in the South. He promoted the idea that the common man was capable of uncommon achievements. He was said to have "Heart and Soul with the plain folk". However, he himself was a wealthy slave owner. So much for "common man".

But once Andrew Jackson was elected as the seventh President of the United States, that all changed. First, he implemented the spoils system, putting all of his avid supporters in office, most of which were rich, white State Politicians.

His Presidency was very successful in the beginning, being able to pay off a large portion of the national debt. However, this success was short lived due to the following economic downfall known as the Panic of 1837.

The contriversy began when he took action against the National Bank. He believed it had too much power, and favored Northern states above the South. This would be one of the two (the other being the Indian Removal Act, which drove Native Americans from the South) things that President Jackson did that made him appreciated by the "Common man".

After this, it seems that Jackson changed his mind completely about the south. He passed the "Tarriff of Abominations", as it was known in the South, which put a tax on imports in an

attempt to promote American industry. This severely hurt the South, causing angry Southerners to revolt and even attempt assassination. However, the "Tariff of 1828", as it was called in the North, caused American industry to boom and pleased the wealthy, northern, businessmen.

Although Andrew Jackson was a very successful President, he had several enemies and did not benefit the common man in any way. His legacy is mixed, seen as a protector of popular democracy, as well as individual liberty. That is why I consider President Andrew Jackson as "King Andrew: Champion of the Northern White Man".

Jefferson's Vision: One Man's Dream or a Legacy?

Thomas Jefferson was not the typical presidential candidate. The first two presidents, Washington and Adams, had focussed on building up a strong central government. That was the only way they knew how to form a country since that is how it had been back in England. Jefferson started the Democratic-Republican party, and was the first candidate from it. Jefferson had a vision of a nation with limited federal government involvement in the daily lives of the people. He wanted to focus the economy on independent farmers and agriculture instead of merchants and bussinessmen. He did not want a class-divided, industrialized nation like Europe was. With his idealistic vision and appeal to the average American, he won the election of 1800 and became the first Democratic-Republican president.

The time that Jefferson presided the country was known as the Jeffersonian Era. During his presidency, he did several things in an attempt to work toward his vision. He lowered

government spending, especially on the military, and repealed the Alien and Sedition Acts. In 1803, he made the Louisiana Purchase, doubling the side of the United States. He did all he could to promote simplicity and frugality.

However, after he was reelected in 1804, he experienced several problems that interupted developing his vision of America. Events such as the British attack on the USS Chesapeake; the trial of his former vice president, Aaron Burr; and the Napoleonic wars in Europe. American commerce was caught in the conflict between Great Britain and France. Jefferson passed the embargo policy in 1807, which forbade U.S. trading vessels to leave port for any foreign destination. Merchants, traders, seamen, and farmers growing crops for export, were outraged. The Embargo Act was repealed in 1809. Soon after, his term ended.

Even though Jefferson was not in office, the "Jeffersonian Era" continued on until the late 1820s. Thomas Jefferson had been interested in Freedom of Religion. His ideas helped spark the seperation of church and state later in American history. He fought for states rights and to reduce the power of the federal government, which eventually balanced out.

I believe that Jefferson's visions lived on throughout his presidency and the Jeffersonian Era. Although his second term distracted his attention, his development of the values of the Democratic-Republican party helped set the guidelines for future candidates to continue to carry out his vision of America.

How Radical was the American Revolution?

Radical (definition) - advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs.

The American Revolution was extremely radical, it had to be. First of all, the colonists were taking a huge risk, going against the most powerful country at that time, England. Second, the reason they seperated was for change. Change in religion, power, economy, and most of all as a nation. They went through extreme measures to ensure their freedom and natural rights. Men lost their lives to protect their nation and break free from England. So in my opinion; Yes, the American Revolution was very radical. RADICAL DUDE!