In our class we just got done talking about western migration. There were many different opportunities for moving west, such as mining, ranching, and farming. However with these advantages there is always a down side. In the mining business there was risk of dieing. In order to mine you have to blow up the inside of a rock. To get the dynamite in there someone has to physically put it there. In some instances people didn't make it out in time.
The mining communities were very poor. These communities had different kinds of people. Everyone depended on each other to survive, so whatever feelings anyone had toward a certain or immigrant had to be put aside or life wouldn't be that long for them. Other than mining there was farming.
People moved west for land. To obtain this land they had to put a ten dollar payment on it and farm or ranch for five years and the land is theirs. This was called the homestead act. It sounded like a good deal but when other people came there came competition. When there is competition prices drop and that presents a problem. The farmers were selling their goods for less than it cost to produce them.
When this problem arose the farmers came together as one. These farmers set one price for their goods so there would be no competition. With no competition all the farmers were making money. However the framers next obstacle was transporting the goods to the east. Thats when they decided to transport by train. But soon that became a problem.
The railroad industry was good money. Especially when it came to transporting crops. The railroads also came together and set one price on the transportation of crops. These railroads were charging regular passengers a fair price to ride, but were charging farmers oober amounts of money to send crops east. If they were smart they would own the railroad, the farm and pocket all the profits.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
That Dunning guy.
Yesterday in class we read a packet about the views of William Archibald Dunning and John hope Franklin. They had two totally different views about the reconstruction period post civil war. At first I thought what does this have to do with me.I have my own opinion. But as I read I soon realized that it have to do with me.
William Archibald Dunning was an American historian who founded the Dunning School of Reconstruction historiography at Columbia University, where he had graduated in 1881. Between 1886 and 1903 he taught history at Columbia, and was named a professor in 1904. Dunning and his followers condemned white Southerners who did not stand with the Confederacy during the Civil War and who joined the Republican Party after the war. White Southern Republicans who did not identify with the goals of former plantation owners as Scalawags. They also referred to Northern whites who moved to the south after the war as Carpetbaggers. Both were derisive terms that Dunning and his followers popularized. Dunning believed that the reconstruction process was not successful because of the corruption there was through out the political parties.
John Hope Franklin is the James B. Duke Professor Emeritus of History. Professor Franklin's numerous publications include The Emancipation Proclamation, The Militant South, The Free Negro in North Carolina, Reconstruction After the Civil War, and A Southern Odyssey: Travelers in the Antebellum North. In contrast to Dunnings belief, Franklin believes that reconstruction was a success. He thinks that it set the stepping stone for the civil rights movement.
I agree with both of them. Dunning's belief in a way true. The more rights blacks got the more the state government tried to limit those rights. That wasn't the plan. However with blacks rights getting limited that helped those in the civil rights movement. Although blacks could and things they couldn't eat in restaurants and couldn't go to school with whites. So both arguments, in my opinion, are true. Also their different opinions stem from their different eras. Dunning was there( not physically] and Franklin was in the 50's&&60's.
By the end of the class i was quite interested. I wonder what the class thinks. Hopefully we discuss in class tomorrow.!
William Archibald Dunning was an American historian who founded the Dunning School of Reconstruction historiography at Columbia University, where he had graduated in 1881. Between 1886 and 1903 he taught history at Columbia, and was named a professor in 1904. Dunning and his followers condemned white Southerners who did not stand with the Confederacy during the Civil War and who joined the Republican Party after the war. White Southern Republicans who did not identify with the goals of former plantation owners as Scalawags. They also referred to Northern whites who moved to the south after the war as Carpetbaggers. Both were derisive terms that Dunning and his followers popularized. Dunning believed that the reconstruction process was not successful because of the corruption there was through out the political parties.
John Hope Franklin is the James B. Duke Professor Emeritus of History. Professor Franklin's numerous publications include The Emancipation Proclamation, The Militant South, The Free Negro in North Carolina, Reconstruction After the Civil War, and A Southern Odyssey: Travelers in the Antebellum North. In contrast to Dunnings belief, Franklin believes that reconstruction was a success. He thinks that it set the stepping stone for the civil rights movement.
I agree with both of them. Dunning's belief in a way true. The more rights blacks got the more the state government tried to limit those rights. That wasn't the plan. However with blacks rights getting limited that helped those in the civil rights movement. Although blacks could and things they couldn't eat in restaurants and couldn't go to school with whites. So both arguments, in my opinion, are true. Also their different opinions stem from their different eras. Dunning was there( not physically] and Franklin was in the 50's&&60's.
By the end of the class i was quite interested. I wonder what the class thinks. Hopefully we discuss in class tomorrow.!
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Apartheid- a rigid policy of segregation of the nonwhite population. Segregation- the act or practice of segregating. Sounds like something that is happening in 1860 America. But in reality its not. These policies and laws were put into action in South Africa. When i hear South Africa i think of black as the dominant race and them having structure and control over what they call home. But realistically it wasn't like that.
Apartheid in Africa was a system of legal racial segregation enforced by the National Party government of South Africa between 1948 and 1990. Apartheid had its roots in the history of colonisation and settlement of southern Africa, with the development of practices and policies of separation along racial lines and domination by European settlers and their descendants. Following the general election of 1948 the National Party set in place its programme of Apartheid, with the formalisation and expansion of existing policies and practices into a system of institutionalised racism and white domination. Apartheid was dismantled in a series of negotiations from 1990 to 1993, culminating in elections in 1994, the first in South Africa with universal suffrage. The legacies of apartheid still shape South African politics and society.
When we talked about it in class today I thought that it happened at least a century ago. However when I did some research I found that it only ended a little over a decade ago. It surprises me to see such nonsence in this day, but to see it in a country where the population is primarily black. And it wasn't just the black people getting mistreatment there were also migrant workers from India being mistreated.
The system of apartheid sparked significant internal resistance.The government responded to a series of popular uprisings and protests with police brutality, which in turn increased local support for the armed resistance struggle. In response to popular and political resistance, the apartheid government resorted to detentions without trial, torture, censorship, and the banning of political opposition from organisations such as the African National Congress, and the Black Consciousness Movement which were popularly considered liberation movements. Despite suffering extreme repression and exile, these organisations maintained popular support for the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa and forged connections with the international anti-apartheid movement during this period.
As antiapartheid pressure mounted within and outside South Africa, the South African government, led by President F. W. de Klerk, began to dismantle the apartheid system in the early 1990s. The year 1990 brought a National Party government dedicated to reform and also saw the legalization of formerly banned black congresses and the release of imprisoned black leaders. In 1994 the country's constitution was rewritten and free general elections were held for the first time in its history, and with Nelson Mandela's election as South Africa's first black president, the last vestiges of the apartheid system were finally outlawed.
-mOrqan*
Apartheid in Africa was a system of legal racial segregation enforced by the National Party government of South Africa between 1948 and 1990. Apartheid had its roots in the history of colonisation and settlement of southern Africa, with the development of practices and policies of separation along racial lines and domination by European settlers and their descendants. Following the general election of 1948 the National Party set in place its programme of Apartheid, with the formalisation and expansion of existing policies and practices into a system of institutionalised racism and white domination. Apartheid was dismantled in a series of negotiations from 1990 to 1993, culminating in elections in 1994, the first in South Africa with universal suffrage. The legacies of apartheid still shape South African politics and society.
When we talked about it in class today I thought that it happened at least a century ago. However when I did some research I found that it only ended a little over a decade ago. It surprises me to see such nonsence in this day, but to see it in a country where the population is primarily black. And it wasn't just the black people getting mistreatment there were also migrant workers from India being mistreated.
The system of apartheid sparked significant internal resistance.The government responded to a series of popular uprisings and protests with police brutality, which in turn increased local support for the armed resistance struggle. In response to popular and political resistance, the apartheid government resorted to detentions without trial, torture, censorship, and the banning of political opposition from organisations such as the African National Congress, and the Black Consciousness Movement which were popularly considered liberation movements. Despite suffering extreme repression and exile, these organisations maintained popular support for the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa and forged connections with the international anti-apartheid movement during this period.
As antiapartheid pressure mounted within and outside South Africa, the South African government, led by President F. W. de Klerk, began to dismantle the apartheid system in the early 1990s. The year 1990 brought a National Party government dedicated to reform and also saw the legalization of formerly banned black congresses and the release of imprisoned black leaders. In 1994 the country's constitution was rewritten and free general elections were held for the first time in its history, and with Nelson Mandela's election as South Africa's first black president, the last vestiges of the apartheid system were finally outlawed.
-mOrqan*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
