Category Archives: HIST107-Archive

NOW Statement of Purpose

Posted on by

Three Points:

1) NOW observed that the status of women in American society had actually been declining in recent years. They supported this with facts and identified that 75% of working women were relegated to routine jobs that required little skill and earned on average 60% of what men earned.
2) NOW demanded a concerted effort on the part of the government and civil rights organizations to integrate women into the “mainstream of American society.” Women must be provided equal opportunities as men to fulfill their potential.
3) To realize any major advances and provoke change, women needed to unify and mobilize. For fear of discouraging any group of women, NOW did not affiliate itself with any political party. Women had often refrained from voicing their indignation with their position in society for worry of being labelled a feminist, but this attitude must change for any real progress to be made.

Questions:

1) What initiatives did NOW take to enhance the status of women? What impact did they have on the women’s rights movement in America?
2) Did NOW collaborate or receive support from any civil rights organizations?

Observation:

NOW’s Statement of Purpose outlined very specific goals and used facts to prove the inequality of women. I found some of there statistics very startling as I had not realized the extent of male domination in the U.S. only some-odd years ago. I also found it interesting that NOW used the increasing life span of women as support for women going out and achieving outside the household.

NOW Statement of Purpose

Posted on by

Three major points:

– This organization, made up of both men and women, want to create a society that holds women in the same regards as men. They want to bring women into “mainstream America” and allow them to have the same privileges and responsibilities that men enjoy. This will all be done in order to ensure that women are able to have truly equal partnership with men.

– This group’s logic is being uncovered as technology “has reduced most of the productive chores that women once performed.” Therefore, women are not needed as much in the home and can expand their responsibilities to the workplace. They are now able to use their intelligence and ingenuity to help out the workforce instead of it being “wasted” in daily household chores.

– This group wants women to take a stand for themselves on a much more basic level. They want them to reject the long-standing idea that women are inferior to men while demanding representation in political, business and other influential circles.

Questions:

Why haven’t women brought these point up before? They could’ve fought for more rights in the earlier half of the century – they didn’t have to wait some forty odd years to make a stand for themselves on this front.

What is the most important step for women in this document? Is it their “necessary” involvement in politics? More prevalence in the business community? Their want to be educated just as much as men are?

Observation:

At this point there was no defined civil rights organization for women. During this period there were many civil rights groups popping up for minorities and smaller delegations, but there hadn’t been one specifically for women. Shocking.

National Organization for Women : Statement of Purpose(1966)

Posted on by

Three main points

1. Women have possessed many disadvantages in the society such as a low income, sex discrimination, low statues in workplace for a long time. They also could not take part in political decision makings since their political rights had not been guaranteed for a long time.

2. Although women have suffered from a lot of disadvantages in the society, these disadvantages should be removed for realizing a society that both men and women can live under equal rights.

3. It is significant to make a society that women can freely choice their own lifestyle. Since most of women had to  take care of children after a marriage, they had to quit their jobs regardless of  their will. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a measure to realize a greater participation of women in public affairs.

Two questions

1. In page three, there is an old idea that men have to take care of their family members, while women mainly engage in a household to back up husband. What was a factor that produced this idea?

2. In page three, the establishment of child-care center was suggested to help women who would like to continue their works after they gave birth to children. After this suggestion, Were there any movements or measures to help women continue work ? If so, how much did women come to continue their works comparing to before?

Observation

Although I mentioned in the question part, there is an old idea that men have to take care of their family members, while women mainly engage in a household to back up husband. This idea had also been common in Japan for a long time. Now, many Japanese women have their workplaces and work with men workers. However, few women engaged in a work except for a household thirty to forty years ago. Therefore, I understood that some countries had shared the same idea about the role of each gender.

 

 

 

 

National Organization for Women

Posted on by

Statement of Purpose (1966)

  1. NOW’s mission was to rally support of all American citizens and to take action in bringing women into full participation of American Society. By exercising all the privileges and responsibilities stated in the US constitution, women must be in a truly equal partnership with men.
  2. NOW rejected all previous assumptions that a man is in charge of supporting himself, his wife, and family, and that a woman’s role is to support her husband from the home. NOW believed that marriage should be equal among both partners and the responsibilities dealing with the home and family support should be shared between husband and wife.
  3. NOW declared itself independent of any political party for the purpose of rallying political power of men and woman sharing its goals. NOW strove to make sure that no candidates who did not believe in full equality between the sexes would be elected or appointed to office.

Questions:

  1. Do woman have equal rights in the United States today?
  2. Why is it that woman often make less money for a similar job where a man makes more money?

Observation:

I find it unbelievable how long and how difficult a fight it was for woman to finally attain civil rights in America. In my generation, equality for women would never be a question. It amazes that in 2014 women do not have equal rights in many other countries around the world.

National Organization for Women- Statement of Purpose

Posted on by

Three Points:

–       Says that the social restraint of keeping women in the home has been surpassed by the increased life span. Since women can live longer, the majority of their life is not spent raising children and thus they have the capacity to strive for more personal accomplishments other than domestically. In addition, technology has reduced the work in the home as there are less” chores” for women to do. This allows for women to expand from previous societal restraints because there is more time and opportunity for them to excel outside of domesticity.

–       NOW wants more federal backing for the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 so that women are not discriminated against in the work place. They state that this has occurred numerous times, and despite legislation, has yet to be addressed to the full extent that it needs to be.

–       They show many statistics in higher education and higher power jobs that show the disparity between men and women- women making up 51% of the population but rarely having jobs that pay well and that give them societal power (for example, at this time only 4% of all lawyers were women). This causes them to call for more educational opportunity for women and more jobs that would allow them to claim as equal members of society to men.

Two Questions:

– How did the feminist movement in America affect similar movements globally, and how did those other movements play into American feminist identities?

– Was the reaction of men towards feminist issues more accepting and supportive than in the past, or was there still resistance?

One Observation:

– I think it is important to see how the feminist movements work alongside the Civil Rights Movement for racial inequality. Both being subjugated to unfair social standings and inequality from the white male led governing body, on many fronts they were able to support each other and stand in solidarity for equal treatment. Specifically in the Statement of Purpose from the National Organization for Women, they discuss the double victimization of black women in society, and how they are being undervalued by two different aspects of inequality in America.

Stalin’s Reply to Churchill

Posted on by

3 Observations

1. Churchill had a similar view to Hitler, believing that one racial group should control all the power.  Instead of believing the Aryans had all the power Churchill believed that English-speaking nations should rule over the world.

2. The world must notice that the Soviet Union has lost more men in German invasions then both the United States and the United Kingdom.

3. The common people are being controlled by Churchill and his party and need to think for themselves.

2 Questions

1. What was the international response to comparing Churchill and Hitler?

2. What was the reaction in England to Stalin’s comments about the “common people”?

1 Thought:

It is interesting to see Stalin alienate both sides of the war.  He goes after Hitler, briefly calling him out for the Nazi racial theory and attacks Churchill.  He has basically left himself with no one to lean on in war.  However Stalin does not come across as worried.  He says that the Soviet Union has lost the most men in the war and yet does not say they will give up.  He gives strength to the Soviet Union in his speech while also taking away both possible allies.

 

Joseph Stalin: Reply to Churchill, 1946

Posted on by

Main Points:

1. The Soviet Union suffered casualties from the German invasion several times greater than the US and UK put together. These caualties included men lost during the invasion, in battle, and then in the slave labor camps. Stalin feels this expense of the Soviet people that was essential to the eradication of Hitler’s regime, and the subsequent freedom thereby returned to Europe, has been overlooked.

2. Communism is growing as a natural result of the negative effects of fascism and the dependability that communism offered. Communists proved themselves as “fighters against fascist regimes” and concerned with the freedom of the people.

3. Accuses Churchill of believing the “common people” are easily manipulated and therefore takes a condescending stance towards them. Stalin states that the opposite is true and that the common people have opinions and views on politics of their own, that they are able to “stand up for themselves”. He points out that this ability was demonstrated when they (the “common people”) voted Churchill and his party out and voted for the Labor party instead. They preferred “Left democratic parties” to conforming with fascism and the extremists who cooperated with it.

Questions:

1. How does this document expose the enduring strain between the wartime Allies and cultivate tensions leading to the Cold War?

2. How come the Allies did not see it imperative to maintain good relations with the Soviet Union after the severe costs of WW2?

Observation:

I found Stalin’s tone in this document significant. He talks in a condescending, reticent, and provoking manner. It seems as if he is attempting to incite the other European nations to initiate war against Russia. He compares Churchill’s words to Hitler’s in terms of “racial theory”, saying that Churchill only speaks to English-speaking nations. This accusation separates the English speaking nations from the non-English speaking nations, but holds Churchill responsible.

Churchill’s Iron Curtain Speech

Posted on by

Three Points

1) Churchill identifies the US as being at the pinnacle of its world power. With this power comes a sense of duty and responsibility for the future of the world.

2) Churchill sees Russia as posing a threat to the relative peace of the world that follows World War II. He believes that Russia doesn’t necessarily want a war, but they desire expansion of their power and the “fruits of war”. He sees Russia as having the potential to repeat events similar to those that Germany sought in World War II.

3) Furthermore, Churchill thinks that European nations must unite. Also, the English-speaking world has the ability to ensure a sense of worldwide security and peace.

Two Questions:

1) Is this the speech that started the Cold War?

2) Is Churchill correct in thinking that the US was at the height of its power? Has the US ever been stronger than it was at this time?

Observation:

The passive-aggressive approach which Churchill takes may have not been the best choice. As we can see from Stalin’s response, Russia took great offense. Stalin lashed back by comparing Churchill to Hitler, making the case that Churchill believed that English speaking races were superior. The manner in which Churchill addressed the US only served as to aggravate tensions that were present before, during, and after World War II.

Truman’s Ulterior Motives

Posted on by

3 Observations

1. In his address to Congress to request aid for the reconstruction of Greece and Turkey due to the damages done during the Second World War, President Truman justified his request by saying that if the United States didn’t provide assistance to these countries, another power could potentially impose upon their respective sovereignty. He omitted what seemed to be his true intention: the inhibition of communist ideas. He seemed to believe that if the United States did not act promptly, the Soviet Union would instead try to impose communism upon these nations, even though he did not once mention the Soviet Union by name. His true intention was to instill democracy before the USSR could instill communism.

2. It is not uncommon for the President of the United States to request that Congress work with the Executive rather than against it. While most of the time this plea falls upon deaf ears, Truman managed to win the approval of the Legislature with his appeals to preserving the sovereignty of the two countries. He managed to do so with a variety of tactics, the most prominent of which was appealing to Congress’s sympathies with the Greek people, of whom he says “Greece is not a rich country. Lack of sufficient natural resources has always forced the Greek people to work hard to make both ends meet. Since 1940, this industrious and peace loving country has suffered invasion, four years of cruel enemy occupation, and bitter internal strife.”

3. I must provide credit for the following point to its source: (http://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/truman-doctrine). This page brought up an interesting point which I felt compelled to include in this post: the Truman Doctrine changed the United States’ policy on foreign involvement. While normally the US tended to keep out of international affairs prior to World War II, Truman’s call for aiding Greece and Turkey caused the US to become more active in shaping the global economy and network.

2 Questions

1. In what way(s) might the Truman Doctrine be considered a factor of the initiation of hostilities between the Soviet Union and the United States?

2. Upon reading the Brezhnev Doctrine, do you think it is a response/reaction to the Truman Doctrine?

Interesting Idea

The Truman Doctrine was seemingly the United States’ first attempt to impose democracy in the Middle East. Not only does the United States provide aid to Turkey in order for the nation to rebuild, but one year after he issued this request to Congress, the United States became the first country to officially recognize the sovereignty of Israel. In quick succession, President Truman established relations with two sovereign nations in this region of the world, perhaps to further prevent the spread of communism.

Churchill’s “Iron Curtain”

Posted on by

Interesting Points:

1) Churchill emphasizes that it is the West’s task to ensure the prevention of another world war.

2) He calls upon a variety of organizations, including the legal offices, the United Nations, and each of the powers to prepare and assemble the proper tools and plans for what is to come. Churchill notes that he had previously wished for the same actions to take place following the first world war.

3) It was Churchill’s phrase, “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent” that made people realize that things were going to change between the democratic West and the Communist East.

Questions:

1) From where do you think Churchill’s premonitions derived from and why?

2) Why would many people refer to Churchill’s speech as the beginning of the Cold War?

Interesting:

I thought it was interesting that Churchill titled his speech “The Sinews of Peace.” A sinew is something that is a part of a structure to give it strength. I find it ironic that Churchill named his speech after something that is uniting peace when it actually tacitly started a war.