Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A place for the educated exchange of information about books, reading, writing, and more. Format: title "Title of book" by Author. The post is the synopsis from the back of the book. Your comments are your feelings on the book, author, writing style, etc. Your comments are where you make your connections to the book and talk about what the book means to you and WHY!
What did your parents, or whomever you talked to think about Carter during his presidency, before, or after?
ReplyDeletePretty indifferent for the most part, in my parents opinion. However, they did mention that a lot of other people during that time did have very strong feelings for or against Carter. When I asked my grandparents, they said that it was hard to see Carter in a good light because of the current economic situation of the US, even though it wasn't Carter's fault necessarily.
DeleteMy mother called him "one of the most ethical presidents we've ever had," and said that he lived by "real christian values" They said very positive things, which surprised me.
DeleteDuring the period that Carter was in office neither of my parents were very interested not involved with politics, they said. Though from what they did remember they did like his morals and thought he worked well as president.
DeleteI remember my mother just loving Carter. She was of course a Democrat, and a single mother (in a time when such was still not socially great). We sat at Bove's on election night and she just cried. I don't remember things being better or worse financially before or after.
DeleteThe Panama Canal is back (well, Zinn might not have discussed it much, check with the other class to talk about their views before answering this question). Is the new info on the Panama Canal anything new really? What is the "problem" this time?
ReplyDeleteThe other students mentioned that the Panama canal was acquired as a bi-product of the intervention in Columbia.This is not unlike what Zinn says about it in chapter 21. In addition to that, however, Zinn mentions that in handing over the canal to Panama, they used "vague language" that might make it possible for the US to intervene under certain circumstances.
DeleteThis is just another example of American imperialism. The US taking over other countries' land out of greed. They didn't relinquish control until it "had lost military importance," and even then they included "vague language" allowing them to intervene.
DeleteDid the other students mention the interesting way Panama became a country? That Colombia, who originally owned the area that became Panama did not want to have a canal???
DeleteThe replies that I got were fairly vague, but I did only ask two or three people.
Deleteall the replies I got were also fairly vague, I think one of them said something, but they also all seemed very disinterested, and mumbled a lot, so it's very possible I missed something.
DeleteObviously I was not able to talk to the other students about this issue. The talk of the panama canal in chapter 21 in my opinion was no different of new information than given previously.
DeleteAs we looked at in the other class, the U.S. wanted to build a canal in Colombia, but they didn't want to play. Suddenly the people of the Panama province (or whatever they call them) rose up and demanded independence. With a U.S. war ship (or two) sitting out off the shores of the area. Columbia gave Panama their independence-- with very little fuss-- and the U.S. then treated with the new government of Panama to buy canal space, etc.
DeleteJust re-read Zinn, and found the chapter that said almost the same thing... Sorry, information dense!
DeleteHow has economics been working? The other class just learned about Hoover's "trickle down economics" policies. Then came FDR and the New Deal. Are things better now (as of chapter 21)? Worse? The same?
ReplyDeleteThere has been no change in the economics, rich people still got all the money and it was supposed to "trickle down, but it never really did. There was, however, more people arguing against this model.
DeleteIn regard to how money was spread through the population, there was not enough of a difference to notice. Though the us did have a few more conflicts bringing in revenue to keep the country stable economically.
DeleteReagan tried "trickle down" as well. Didn't go well for most lower-class Americans that I saw or understood from Zinn.
DeleteAs far as "trickle down politics", it has not changed. Giving money to rich people and hoping that it will make its way down has not changed whatsoever. The upper class holds just as much of the wealth as they did before.
ReplyDeleteWhat was the reason for starting both the war in Panama and in Iraq? How did Bush justify those two interventions?
ReplyDeleteAt that time, the cold war was dying out, it was readily coming to peoples' knowledge that the US had won. However, in the years after, the military budget dropped by only 7%. If the US were to keep pouring money into the military, they had to find a use for it, or else people would lose faith.
DeleteThe war was broadcast to people as being an intervention to stop the unruly powers that were Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein, whose dictatorships were cruel and inhumane.
In actuality, the reason for both interventions was to re-establish the failing American sphere of influence in those places. For Iraq, oil happened to be a beneficial bi-product, as did the canal in Panama.
I just watched part of a Frontline on PBS, Tuesday? Monday?
Deletehttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/rise-of-isis/
Can't remember. About the start of ISIS, and while it's not directly related to your question, it is tangentially. It seems that the Bush administration needed a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, so decided to pick a radical thug
(who had gone to and been rejected by Hussein) and "prove" he had been there. So, Colin Powell and VP Cheney, against the wishes of the CIA and Intelligence community set up al-Zarqawi as a much more important player than he actually was... I didn't see the end of the show, but in the beginning, they talked about how Obama also had a place in the creation of ISIS (or ISIL).
I have not watched it yet, but I plan to do so. That ISIS and past terrorist groups have been created by American leaders is a very interesting perspective. As a population, fed by media, we often only think of the quick solution, the quick drone strike, the quick assassination, but not about the picture as a whole. I think this is a situation in need of reviewing our past and finding the root of the problem.
Deletethe reason for these wars was the same as always: winning america money and power, money for obvious reasons, and power because america wins all its wars, and uses being at war always as an excuse to spend a ridiculous amount of money.
Deletefor Amanda's comment, it seems interesting, but also a little paranoid, I'm sure there's some truth in this, but I also feel like this is the same people who claim the world is secretly run by a shadow government.
Not my opinion, what I gathered from the short amount of the show that I watched. But, it was very interesting before I fell asleep! I think Keagan's point has merit as well. All the bragging we do makes others want to knock us off our pedestal!
DeleteAren't wars the "best" way to drive the economy? Isn't that what most American's want? A vibrant economy?
Is it better or worse that we try to use "humanitarian" reasons for war instead of just "gimme oil"?
I still also have yet to watch the documentary but it does sound interesting. I do sort of also feel that the America as a society has helped to create the threat of terrorism and these radical groups, by always boasting about our country. As well as always making such a large fuss about other countries conflicts and being "America The World Police".
ReplyDeleteWhat were some of the things that marked president Jimmy Carter's downfall and ultimately his defeat for a second term in 1980?
ReplyDeletePresident Carter's downfall was caused by his supporting the military too much, and also large corporations. He spent more money on the military, claiming it was to prepare for war with russia, but he only opposed symbolically, not militarily when the soviet union invaded afghanistan. "a number of countries with deplorable records of human rights observance are also countries where we have important security and foreign policy interests." his downfall was caused by american greed and militarism, at the expense of the working class, and at the expense of everyone living in these dictatorships.
DeleteWhen Carter was elected, he was tasked with equalizing the distribution of wealth in the US, something that prior administrations had failed to accomplish. On page 571, Andrew Zimbalist, an economist, was said to have described the state of economy as being thirty times in the favor of the top ten percent. In weak response to this skewed situation, Carter tried to institute benefits for the lower class, which were completely turned down by Congress. In 1978, also on page 571, Carter approved heavy tax cuts labeled "reforms" that really only targeted large companies, the result of which was a 44 percent increase in profit during the final quarter of 1978. He also tried to not relinquish many of the existing social programs already in place to help the poor, but he found little leeway in the enormous military budget to support them. At this time, people were hearing of Carter's actions in the dictatorships in Le Salvador, Nicaragua and the Philippines, where Carter requested and used money to suppress rebellions that were trying to overcome borderline fascist systems, page 572. Most notably, in Iran, where Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi was trying to suppress a viscous rebellion, and where student protesters were gunned down without Carter batting an eye. When the Shah was deported under the protection of the US, students held hostage 55 embassy members. Although released and in full health fourteen months later, the hostages were still in captivity when Carter lost to Reagan in the general election of 1980. Page 573, "That fact (referencing the hostage crisis) and the economic distress felt by many, were largely responsible for Carter's defeat."
DeleteCarter (or his advisors) increasing the military budget by $10 billion, and then cutting $25 million from second servings of milk for free/reduced meals eligible students certainly didn't help!
DeleteOhhh, I knew there was a reason I stopped reading 1/2 way through this chapter. I don't like this, (Uncle) Sam I am, I do not like bombs over man!
ReplyDelete