Eisaku Sato: Nobel Peace and Nuclear Proliferation

It’s around 20 years after the end of World War II and the surrender of the Empire of Japan. Japan is an entirely new nation—vowing to never engage in war again, the country has no military and has become focused on attaining ideals of peace and democracy. Even though Japan’s not going to fight in any battles, they’re in a delicate position, participating in a more diplomatic conflict; tensions in Asia with the Vietnam War are heating up and the Japanese have to carefully balance their arrangements between the United States and the People’s Republic of China. However, despite being caught in the crossfire of a US-China struggle, Japan has a relatively steady relationship with the world as the scars of World War II heal. As a tentative trust is established, they can turn their focus on boosting their economy rather than spending all of their time and energy on diplomacy. Now, enter Eisaku Sato: Prime Minister, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, and an extremely controversial man. A leader born out of peace, not necessity, and trained as a lawyer, Prime Minister Sato was elected into office by the people of Japan in 1964 and remained there for 3 terms, retiring in 1972, just 3 years before his death. Sato became popular among the people because of his extremely successful economic policies and controversial because of his, perhaps less successful, but equally influential foreign policy strategies. In 1974, he was awarded one half of a Nobel Peace Prize, sharing the title with French-Irish human rights activist Seán MacBride. The justifications of the Committee’s decision were stated that “as Japanese Prime Minister he represented the will for peace of the Japanese people, and that he had signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970. In the Committee's opinion, the award to Sato would encourage all those who were working to halt the spread of nuclear arms” (Nobel). Despite this, many others contested the choice—one of pioneer manga artist Fujia Akatsuka’s iconic characters mentioned “Since Eisaku Sato won the Nobel Peace Prize, I’ve been unable to believe in anything at all” (H. Sato). Officially, a Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses” (Nobel). In the past, there have been many controversial Peace Prize recipients. People protest that the person’s actions were not enough, or counteracted by other actions. In 1973, Vietnamese politician Le Doc Tho became the only person to decline the Peace Prize, feeling that he was not deserving of a medal awarding efforts towards peace (Nobel). This study will attempt to analyze Sato’s actions both in a historical context and from a current point of view to determine whether the summation of the decisions the Prime Minister made were worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. First, this study will evaluate the public view and opinions, both past and present, concerning Prime Minister Sato and his Prize. Then, this study will attempt to establish the change and consequences of his actions, both immediate and long term. Finally, it will place his actions in a historical context, determining why Sato made the decisions he did. Now, an analysis of the public’s view of Sato will be performed.

    In order to properly determine whether or not Sato deserved the Prize, understanding who Sato is and how the public regarded him can be useful. To do this, this study will analyze several newspaper articles to discern the public’s perspective on Sato. Opinion on Sato’s competence as a leader varied wildly from one end of the spectrum to the other. Admirers credited him as a leader that was not afraid to compromise and for boosting Japan to her place as an industrial power. Critics expressed disapproval of his overly-cautious nature and accused him of “being an obedient servant of American interests” (Nobel). In Japan, Sato was initially a popular man, but slowly, his popularity ratings declined until a Japanese poll recorded only 23% of the population was in support of him. In 1971, during a ratification of a bill in Parliament, several members, stood up and demanded his resignation, focused on his policies with China (Halloran). Sato stepped out of office just eight months later. When Sato was awarded the Prize, a sensation broke out in Japan. The Tokyo press offered the Nobel Committee “the best black humor award” (Abrams). At Sato’s acceptance ceremony of the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, demonstrators threw rocks and shouted “militarist Sato” and “no to war prize” (Culbert).  In the past, the American view on Sato was generally favorable, citing that he “preferred to move cautiously behind the scenes” and calling him a “shrewd leader” (Krebs). The American media most likely had an encouraging view of Sato because of his obvious support of the west—bringing Asia’s only major non-communist country and third largest world economy closer to the US. The Nobel Committee saw him as the embodiment of Japan’s will for peace and an example to the rest of the world, all while acknowledging the controversy of their decision in Japan. And yet, even now, controversy surrounds the decision. Global authority on the Peace Prize Irwin Abrams calls Sato “a statesman of not very high moral standing” and begs the question, “Does a prize not reward a statesman for what in his office he should be doing anyway, keeping the peace?” (Abrams). Seeing these texts reflects and justifies the ideas projected by  both the U.S. and the Nobel Committee (a portrayal of a man who carefully tread the path to a peaceful and weaponless world) and Japan (a criticism of a man who obediently follows the word of America and supported the U.S. war in Vietnam). Now that an analysis of the opinions and arguments for and against Sato has been done, a thorough examination of the change and consequences of Sato’s actions must be done so that an unbiased conclusion can be drawn.

    There is a reason why the Nobel Peace Prize is such a highly respected award. It’s not enough to just want peace. An ideal laureate has to make it happen—remember, to facilitate “fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses” (Nobel). To be such a candidate, the consequences of Sato’s actions should have reflected one or more of these principles. The primary action of Prime Minister Sato that earned him a Peace Prize is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which is a three-pillared treaty that emphasizes nuclear nonproliferation, disarmament, and the peaceful use of nuclear energy (Nuclear). This, to the Committee, is proof of Sato’s will for peace and change—an example to all other nations of the world to follow the example of Japan to halt the spread of nuclear arms. However, Japan was not the first country to sign the NPT—actually, 91 other countries had signed the treaty before Japan did (Godsburg).  In fact, Sato himself was quoted in support of going pro-nuclear in Japan, in December of 1964 saying,“If the other fellow has nuclear weapons, it is only common sense to have them oneself. The Japanese public is not ready for this, but would have to be educated” and in 1968 continued to challenge the anti-nuclear mindset in Japan with a speech entitled “How to Survive in the Nuclear Age” (Kase 57-59). Sato was not a revolutionary or a pioneer in the regard of the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons and his country’s signing of the NPT did not change the course of history any more than those of the 184 other countries that participated in the NPT. An analysis has been done on what the consequences of his actions were. Now, an investigation must be done on Eisaku Sato’s motives—to relate what he did to the events of his time.

Before hasty decisions are made, the actions of Eisaku Sato must be put into historical context. The mindset and current events of the time were very different than of those today. Objections to Sato’s award often stem from the mindset that he had concerning peace—the reasons that he did what he did. This study has already analyzed the actions Eisaku Sato did to earn the Nobel Peace Prize and found that he had signed the NPT. It was found that Sato was not the first to sign the NPT and that Sato was personally in support of having nuclear weapons in Japan. The NPT was an important treaty, but why did Sato sign it if he was in support of nuclearizing Japan? The answer comes in two parts. First, Japan did not want nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons in Japan were, understandably, still taboo—in 1969, 74% of Japan was opposed to nuclearization (Kase 57). Although Sato was personally in favor of nuclear weapons, Japan was not. Sato responded accordingly to the opinion of Japan—perhaps because he wished to represent the people, perhaps because he caved to pressure. Sato was a politician and he wished to appear popular in the eyes of Japan. Secondly, signing the NPT was a part of a plan to appeal to the United States. The U.S. made a somewhat unofficial deal with Sato. President Nixon agreed to stop the United States’ occupation of the area of Okinawa in exchange for a sum of money and, to some degree, Sato’s continued cooperation (Sekiguchi). One of Sato’s claim to fame was getting back the small island Okinawa from the United States. Relating to his mindset, Sato was in strong support of the Vietnam War—another reason for public disapproval of the awarding of his prize.

In conclusion, the Nobel Peace Prize is a highly respected award. Although their committee habitually makes appropriate decisions, they do sometimes make mistakes—it is when this happens that the people must find these discrepancies rather than blindly accept a decision. This study is attempting to establish whether or not Prime Minister Eisaku Sato of Japan is worthy of his Nobel Peace Prize. It will hopefully answer questions pertaining to the nature of a Nobel Peace Prize and challenge common assumptions about Prime Minister Sato and his relationship with Japan and the United States. First, this study analyzed the public opinions and arguments for and against Sato. It was discovered that the awarding of the Peace Prize to Sato in Japan was met with opposition and incredulity, even going so far as to throwing rocks at him at his acceptance ceremony in Oslo. They believed that his motives, opinions, and actions were not that of a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Second, the study analyzed the change and consequences of the actions that the Nobel Committee cited Sato on and found that Sato was not the first (and was in fact the 92nd) country to sign the NPT—which definitely does not differentiate him from other world leaders. Finally, it broke down the motivations of Sato and saw that his mindset was not paralleled in the Nobel Committee’s decisions. Rather than being in support of peace, he advocated the Vietnam War and the nuclearization of Japan. Judging by his decisions and opinions (including those of supporting the Vietnam War and having nuclear weapons in Japan), Eisaku Sato is not worthy of an ideal Nobel Peace Prize. However, perhaps the Nobel Peace Prize has deviated from its original path. Sato is not the only controversial decision in the 100 years of Nobel Peace Prizes. Instead of awarding peace and fraternity, the Peace Prize has become a trinket to award the “Goodists”—the people that like to be seen as good (Stephens). Although Eisaku Sato is a good Prime Minister who facilitated the rise of Japan as an economic power, he is still very much a politician, and most definitely not an ideal Nobel laureate. But perhaps, he is an ideal candidate for what the Prize has become.

Works Cited

Abrams, Irwin. “Reflections on the First Century of the Nobel Peace Prize”. The Norwegian Nobel Institute Series Vol. 1, No. 5, Oslo: The Norwegian Nobel Institute, 2000. Nobel Peace Prize: Research & Information. Web. 7 April 2014. <http://www.nppri.org/pdf/Vol1_No5.pdf>.

Culbert, Patrick, ed. "Exiled Author Claims Nobel Award Belatedly." The Dispatch[Lexington, NC] 11 Dec. 1974: 24. Google News. Web. 7 Apr. 2014. <http://tinyurl.com/mh7v8ep>.

Godsburg, Alicia. "Non-Proliferation Treaty Signatures." The Nuclear Information Project. Federation of American Scientists, 3 Dec. 1998. Web. 09 Apr. 2014. <http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt3.htm>.

Halloran, Richard. "Sato Comes Under Increasing Attack Over His Foreign Policies." Editorial.New York Times 21 Oct. 1971: 2. ProQuest Historical Newspapers. Web. 18 Feb. 2014. <http://tinyurl.com/kw8vudm>.

Kase, Yuri. "The Costs and Benefits of Japan's Nuclearization: An Insight into the 1968/70 Internal Report." The Nonproliferation Review 8.2 (2001): n. pag. James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Monterey Institute for International Studies, Summer 2001. Web. 9 Apr. 2014. <http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/82kase.pdf>.

Krebs, Albin. "Eisaku Sato, Ex-Premier of Japan, Dies at 74: Shared Nobel Peace Prize in 1974 for Efforts in Asia." Editorial. New York Times 03 June 1975: 36. ProQuest Historical Newspapers. Web. 18 Feb. 2014. <http://tinyurl.com/nler9hd>.

Nobelprize.org. Nobel Media AB 2014. Web. 18 Feb 2014. <http://www.nobelprize.org/>.

"Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty." U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State, n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2014. <http://www.state.gov/t/isn/npt/>.

Sato, Hiroaki. "Controversy Is No Stranger to Nobel Peace Prize" The Japan Times. The Japan Times, 31 Oct. 2011. Web. 18 Feb. 2014. <http://tinyurl.com/myksqtu>.

Sekiguchi, Toko. "Okinawa-gate: The Unknown Scandal." Time. Time Inc., 01 May 2007. Web. 10 Apr. 2014. <http://tinyurl.com/jwepdot>.

Stephens, Bret. "A Perfect Nobel Pick." Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition ed.Oct 13 2009. ProQuest. Web. 18 Feb. 2014 .

Celebrating the Civil Rights Act of 1964

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was one of the major turning points in history. It started America on the path towards equality that we are still fighting towards today. Nowadays, people seem to forget the significance of the Civil Rights Act—the changes it made and the people that struggled for it. Sometimes we need a reminder of why the Civil Rights Act was (and remains) one of the most important laws ever made.

            The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was first proposed by President John F. Kennedy—the idea was to end segregation between races once and for all. It banned all instances of public displays of segregation and discrimination from employers. Although the United States had been working strongly towards ending segregation since 1955, the Civil Rights Movement desperately needed infrastructure. The government, in passing the Civil Rights Act, provided a widespread element of approval and the aspect of enforcement that the Civil Rights Movement previously lacked. By banning segregation in places that the government could enforce, Kennedy gave the United States the final nudge it needed to get on the path to true equality. Although the Civil Rights Act was not the beginning of the revolution, it remains one of the most important laws in the history of the United States—the landmark that signaled the beginning of the end and the start of a generation striving to end inequality.

            The United States has a long history of discrimination—even before we were the United States, colonists demonstrated their elitist mind-set by portraying Native Americans as heathens and vicious savages. Today, the battle is still being fought. Even in contemporary times, racial discrimination exists—though not as prominently as before. Of course, we also face different kinds of discrimination. Discrimination against those of different sexual orientations, discrimination against sexes, and discrimination against those of different religions happen on a day-to-day basis. Stereotypes against women have been around since Aristotle and tensions between people of different religion and people of different race have existed since the beginning of time. Beliefs that reflect these are keeping us from reaching that societal model of equality. Why are those who keep us from a social ideal doing so? What can we do to stop discrimination? These are very important questions each of us should be asking ourselves every day. To rectify social injustices and possibly answer some of these questions, perhaps we should put ourselves into someone else’s shoes. Why does discrimination happen? Conceivably, the answer could be irrational fear. Instead of using logic and reason to respond to new ideas, people react with irrational panic at new and scary thoughts—such as the mass anti-Catholic hysteria in the early 20^th century. In every generation there are those that continue to discriminate, thanks to the teachings of their forefathers.

 But of course, it is not all so bleak. For every one closed-minded, discriminating bully, there are 10 equally open-minded and kind people. How can we help discrimination? We can start by educating the next generation about the history of discrimination and the importance of equality. We can ensure that these radical ideas are no longer quite so new and scary. The Civil Rights Movement is a parallel to today—although, at the moment our own revolution isn't quite as volatile. The government could not have passed the Civil Rights Act if the people did not first start their own protest 1955. We cannot wait for the government to change us—we must start our own revolution to bring about change. The government can pass laws to supplement change, like Kennedy did with the Civil Rights Act, but ultimately, those who bring change in society are the common people. Do everything you can in your everyday life to change the social norm of discrimination. We must always remember to keep an open mind—to not act in haste. To think before we condemn. We can work towards a more equal America, nay, a more equal world, if we all work together as a united people! Let us change the world together as one like so many others before us. Vive la revolution!

A Long Way From Chicago, a Literary Analysis: Justice will be Served

A Long Way From Chicago by Richard Peck is a heart-warming story set during the Great Depression about Joe “Joey” Dowdel and his little sister Mary Alice Dowdel’s annual week-long journey to their Grandma Dowdel’s house in a small mid-Illinois country town. Joey narrates the story from the perspective of a city boy in a country town that is “A Long Way From Chicago”, as the title suggests. Grandma’s town is indeed a far cry from the steel jungle of Chicago in many ways, as Joey and Mary Alice quickly learn from their first visit at 9 and 7. In each of their summer visits, Grandma concocts an elaborate scheme, pulling her grandkids into her quests to return justice to her hometown through many clever and unorthodox adventures. Richard Peck, through Grandma’s plans in A Long Way From Chicago, is trying to convey the message that justice can be restored and good deeds achieved in surprising and even hilarious ways. The next three paragraphs will demonstrate with examples from the book itself how justice can be served and good deeds performed in unexpected circumstances and from unexpected people.

Firstly, in the story of “The Mouse in the Milk”, set in 1930 when Joey and Mary Alice were 10 and 8, Grandma gives out several helpings of justice to the Cowgill boys, the antagonists during this particular visit. The story begins with Grandma and Joey sitting in the front room while Mary Alice sulked around the house after being called in from jump roping outside. Then, an explosion went off, “a flash of light (that) filled the bay window...an explosion shook the house and made my puzzle jump” (19). Joey, Mary Alice, and Grandma investigate outside and find her mailbox blown to smithereens. Grandma immediately knows who did it, saying “Cowgills”, proving that they have been terrorizing the town for quite a while (19). The next morning over breakfast, the threesome finds Mrs. Effie Wilcox’s privy has been “wrenched up…by the posts and flung…all over the yard” (21). The day after, Mary Alice and Joey finds Grandma has initiated her plan since “(n)ext to a box of shells, Grandpa Dowdel’s old double-barreled Winchester Model 21 was on the kitchen table along with a greasy rag…somebody besides Grandma was in the kitchen, over by the door…His gaze kept flitting to the shotgun”(21-22). The person eyeing the shotgun is introduced as Ernie Cowgill, who delivers the milk. Grandma also tells Ernie that she found a mouse in her milk in the last batch, which Joey confirms is a “whopper” (22). However, this is just the first of the lies Grandma feeds Ernie. She then proceeds to say “I’ll be gone tonight and all day tomorrow…I’m taking my grandkids tan a visit to my cousin Leota Shrewsbury.”, to which Joey thinks “Another whopper, and a huge one”(22). Grandma is very mysterious about her plans. When Joey asked “Grandma, what was the shotgun for?” Grandma simply replies “Bait”(23-24). Later that day, Grandma takes a half-decapitated mouse and drops it into that day’s batch of milk. Then, after supper, Grandma has Mary Alice and Joey turn off all the lights and bolt the front door. The three sit quietly, “only outlines in the dark parlor” (27). Then, after a while of waiting, they hear the four Cowgill brothers sawing at Grandma’s screen door. As the Cowgill break in, presumably to steal Grandpa Dowdel’s shotgun, Grandma rolls a lit cherry bomb into the kitchen, which created “and almighty explosion like the crack of doom”(28). Then, after Joey turns on the lights, Grandma has the boys pinned down with “both barrels of the gun they’d come to steal” (29). After Joey fetches the Cowgills from church, Mr. Cowgill “convinces” Grandma to lower the gun after she makes him promise to pay for a new screen door and mailbox. She lets the boys leave, but keeps Mr. Cowgill and blackmails him with the mouse in the milk that she made earlier. Mr. Cowgill is confused at what Grandma wants, and Grandma replies “Justice” (34). They have a moment of understanding and Mr. Cowgill takes Grandpa Dowel’s leather “strop” and “whaled the tar out of every one of (the boys)”(34). So, in the end, Grandma returned law and order to the town by lying on numerous occasions, blackmailing the Cowgills, and blowing up her own kitchen. Next, more evidence will be revealed of justice being served and kind actions performed through strange methods.

Second, in the story of “A One-Woman Crime Wave”, set in 1931 when Joey and Mary Alice were 11 and 9, Grandma sets the uppity Sheriff O. B. Dickerson down a notch, feeds an old lady, and feeds the poor and hungry through her unlawful and creative ways again. The story starts with Joey contemplating the Great Depression and how he noted that Grandma’s house was practically the same in spite of it. The first inklings of another plan comes up when Mary Alice discovers something in the cobhouse that “smelled bad enough to gas a cat” and Grandma, being as vague as ever, simply replies “It’s cheese” and “It’s not for you” (38). The next day, Grandma gets up and puts on a ridiculous amount of clothes, so much that “(s)he looked like a moving mountain”, and tells the kids that they are going fishing in the country(39). The trio head out with the cheese and illegally goes to Salt Creek, which is private property of the Rod and Gun Club. Grandma then proceeds to “borrow” Sheriff O. B. Dickerson’s boat and uses the cheese in illegal fish traps. When Joey, Mary Alice, and Grandma are rowing back, they catch a glimpse of “the porch sagged with singers—grown men in their underwear, still partying from last night. Old guys in real droopy underwear…They were waving bottles and trying to dance. ‘(It was) O. B. Dickerson, the sheriff,’ (Grandma) said, ‘and them drunk skunks with him is the entire business community of the town.’ ” (48). While Joey is thinking that “it was time to head upstream as fast as Grandma could row”, as they were on their private property and in O. B. Dickerson’s boat full of illegally trapped fish, Grandma started rowing down the bend(48). When they came in sight of the Rod and Gun club members, “Grandma saw them, as if for the first time. She seemed to lose control of the oars, and her mouth fell open in shock. Mary Alice was already shocked and didn’t have to pretend…you never saw anybody as scandalized as Grandma was at these old birds in their union suits and less”(49). After this, Grandma goes to her old employer, Aunt Puss Chapman and feeds her and supplies her with enough food for the next week. Afterward, she goes back home and has her grandkids help with making a dinner and dragging the card table all the way up to the railroad. The three set up the outside banquet until “the platters of fish and potatoes overlapped on the table, and the opened beer bottles stood in a row beside the tracks” (55). Then, “(a)s the drifters came along, being hounded out of town, Grandma gave them a good feed and a beer to wet their whistles…Then…(u)p trooped O. B. Dickerson, dressed now with his badge on and his belt full of bullets riding low under his belly”(55-56). When the sheriff asks questions about keeping the drifters in town, using illegal fish traps, and stealing his boat, Grandma coolly dodges each question, rebutting with the fact that they were in the county now and “point(ing) her spatula at the sheriffs feet”, remarking that the town stopped there. She argued back, accusing O. B. of illegally running fish traps as well. When the sheriff used his stolen boat, a last resort, Grandma blackmails the sheriff with Mary Alice and Joey, claiming that “they’d already seen what no child should—the sheriff and his deputies, blind drunk and naked as jaybirds” and that “it’s like to have marked this girl for life…I don’t want her to develop one of them complexes you hear about” (58). The sheriff and his deputies leave and once again, Grandma, hauling with her Joey and Mary Alice, has managed to spread good around her town with the help of trespassing on private property, stealing the sheriff’s boat, illegally trapping fish, brewing beer during Prohibition, and blackmailing the sheriff. The final evidence of kindness spread and lawfulness reinstated through perhaps not-so-lawful methods will be imparted in the next paragraph.

Finally, in the main story line of “Things With Wings”, set in 1934 when Joey and Mary Alice were 14 and 12, Grandma gets Effie Wilcox’s house back and Joey and Mary Alice each 2 dollars, which would be the equivalent of getting 35 dollars today. The story starts with Grandma sending Effie off on the very train that Joey and Mary Alice came off. Joey and Mary Alice learn that Effie’s house has been foreclosed upon. Some of the story passes in a somber mood. Joey visits the Veech’s Gas and Oil and is reminded that driving lessons from his semi-friend Ray Veech are a full 2 dollars and instantly falls in love with a new “showroom fresh Terraplane 8 from the Hudson Motor Car Company”(104). The threesome watches a horror movie, Dracula. After the movie, however, Grandma seems back to her old self, and immediately begins plotting and setting it into action. She has Joey and Mary Alice look in the attic for “(a)ny old rummage for the church sale”, and Joey gets suspicious, as “Grandma…didn’t take part in community activities” (108). They spent “all morning to go through everything”, and in the end, all Grandma took was an old preacher’s stovepipe hat and a frayed quilt pieced by her Aunt Josie Smull (111). That afternoon, they go to the church rummage sale. Joey can tell that “she was biding her time” (112). Finally, what Grandma has been waiting for finally happens. “A flurry began at the other end of a table…Grandma sat on, at her ease…the strict lady in charge, who was Mrs. Earl T. Askew, came through the crowds, heading for us…Bending to Grandma, she spoke in low, urgent tones”, informing Grandma that Mrs. Weidenbach, the banker’s wife, presented 15 dollars (worth 260 dollars today) for Grandma’s old stovepipe hat (112). Grandma “accidently” lets slip that “it was in with some other old stuff Effie Wilcox threw away” (113). Joey sees “Mrs. L. J. Weidenbach was over at the cashier, peeling off five-dollar bills as fast as she could dig them out of her pocketbook” and wonders what Grandma has done this time(113). Suddenly, Mrs. Askew rushes back, clutching Aunt Josie Smull’s quilt, stuttering and stumbling about Grandma asking if she really wants to part with the quilt. While a crowd gathers, Grandma smoothes out the blanket to reveal that “initials had magically appeared on the fraying hem: M▪T▪L” (113). Mrs. Weidenbach soon exclaims, “Oh my stars and garters! M.T.L. Mary Todd Lincoln! And I’ve got Abe Lincoln’s own stovepipe hat. His name’s lettered in on the sweatband!”(114). The morning after, Grandma gets a visit from Otis, the bank teller, requesting her to meet with Mr. Weidenbach, the banker. When Grandma shows up, Mr. Weidenbach goes right to the point, saying, “‘Certain items supposedly from the estate of President and Mrs. Abraham Lincoln have surfaced in a house that the bank is forced to foreclose on. Do you grasp what this could mean, Mrs. Dowdel?’…‘I expect the state will take that land and restore the house as a museum’” (115). Mr. Weidenbach expresses to Grandma his distress, as the bank is too deep into a deal with Deere and Company that would build an implement shed across the entire property of Effie Wilcox and the old brickyard. They go back and forth until Mr. Weidenbach accuses Grandma of falsifying the “so-called Lincoln items” (116). Mr. Weidenbach falls right into Grandma’s trap as he threatens to throw her in jail. She then pulls out a Grandma Dowdel classic: blackmail. “That’s right”, Grandma says, staring behind Mr. Weidenbach, “The banker throws the poor old widder in the pokey. That’ll look real good for your business” (116). The banker now knows he’s been trapped. He sits, deflated, and begs with Grandma to help him out of this situation. Grandma slyly offers a solution, telling him to build a shorter implement shed and “leave Effie Wilcox’s house be” (116). Mr. Weidenbach gives Effie’s house back “free and clear” in exchange for Grandma confessing that the “Lincoln items” were falsified (117). Grandma waves that off and creates a rumor then and there about Effie meaning that the stovepipe hat was the kind that Lincoln wore and Mrs. Wilcox’s cousin Maude Teeter Lingenbloom. Then, as an afterthought, she adds on two dollars for each of her grandkids. Joey finally gets his driving lessons. And so again, Grandma returns integrity to Piatt County by falsifying items of President Lincoln, lying to numerous people, and, once more, blackmailing the banker. After these examples, the evidence is irrefutable that justice being served and good deeds being done in crazy and funny ways is the theme in A Long Way From Chicago.

Of course, there are many other examples in the book showing kind deeds and justices being served through questionable and hilarious means, but these three are the most prominent. These antics of Grandma’s make us laugh, but also has meaning too, teaching us about the importance of helping the less fortunate. Lessons like these show us to expect the unexpected in life, and maybe have a laugh about them too. By using humor, Richard Peck ensures that these lessons and Grandma Dowdel herself will stick in our brains for a long time, even after we’ve finished their story. Kind deeds will be performed in life, just maybe not the way you expected. In the end, though, justice will be served…maybe even Grandma Dowdel style.

Short Synopsis: The Extraordinary Education of Nicholas Benedict

Before becoming dedicated to stopping evil, Nicholas Benedict was just another orphan in another orphanage. Set as a prequel to the wildly popular The Mysterious Benedict Society series, The Extraordinary Education of Nicholas Benedict tells the story of a 9-year-old Nicholas and the challenges he faces. As if having narcolepsy (a condition that sends Nicholas to sleep unexpectedly) isn’t enough, Nicholas now has to move to a different orphanage—one with a particularly interesting history. At Rothchild’s End, he faces a trio of bullies, obnoxious adults, and discovers that there is a long-lost treasure on the property! Fortunately for Nicholas, he’s a genius with the element of surprise. Can he and his friends find the treasure and outwit the bullies? In this riveting tale of genius, Nicholas discovers mysteries, friendship, and treasure. Nicholas Benedict, with his clever solutions and bright, kind mind, will long remain a well-remembered and cherished character. Trenton Lee Stewart spins out another masterpiece with witticisms, mystery, and heart-warming companionship—a perfect read for kids.

Brother Against Brother: A Comprehensive Study of the Causes of the Civil War

The American Civil War was the bloodiest war in American history, with casualties clocking in at 600,000 men—a percentage that, when converted, would be today’s equivalent of the state of Washington being completely wiped off the map. The Civil War is notorious for being so controversial that it tore families apart—turned brother against brother. What could have caused carnage and controversy of such great magnitude? The average person might immediately, and unthinkingly, blurt out “slavery”. While this is technically true, the full answer is much more complicated and split, just like the United States right before the War. In this report, one will attempt to understand what led to the start of this horrific war. First, the differing economies of the North and the South led to rising sectional interests. Second, their different ideas about slavery increased tensions and carved the way to the formation of the Confederate States of America. Finally, the United States’ failure to efficiently and effectively create a political compromise finally broke the back of the South and sparked the most horrific war in American history. Learning the full extent of the cause of the Civil War will be difficult; to start, one should look at the differing economies of the North and the South.

The drastic distinctions between the economies of the industry-mogul United States and agriculturally-based Confederate States are extremely prominent and can be easily proved. Firstly, if one looks at the number of railroads in comparison to the amount of cotton produced and slave density, one would see that most of the railroads are criss-crossing the North, while all of the slaves and cotton are in the would-be Confederacy and the border states. This suggests that the North was industrialized (thus the need of railroads to transport machinery and other goods), while the South was centered around farming (thus the little need of railroads; the South typically used the Mississippi River to move cotton). If one looks harder, one would see that typically the density of slaves is directly proportional to the amount of cotton produced, further suggesting that the South, to grow cotton and thus create revenue, needed slaves to do it (Document 1). Secondly, if one were to compare the different resources of the Union and the future Confederate States, one would see an obvious trend of differing financial systems. The North had 92% of all industrial workers and 91% of the revenue, whereas the South had a 100% of all cotton bales grown in the United States—a whopping 5 million. The South also had 88% of all slaves, which would again suggest the Southern policy of “slaves = cotton” (Document 2). Finally, if one were to examine the opinion of one North Carolinian, Hinton Helper, it is apparent how the different economies led to rising tensions. Hinton Helper, a well-known political writer, stated in his book The Impending Crisis of the South, among other things, “It is a fact well known to every intelligent Southerner that we are compelled to go to the North for almost every article of utility…that we are dependent on Northern [manufacturers] for the means necessary to build…public improvements” (Document 3). This affirms the fact that the South, having little manufacturing, relied on the North, therefore making the South uneasy about the power-hold the North had over them. As illustrated in these evidences, the conflicting economies led, over time, to the Civil War. Next, upon learning this information, it is crucial to acknowledge that different North-South beliefs about slavery contributed greatly to the rise of the Civil War.

Second in our quest for the truth is the idea of slavery and the different reactions to it between the North, the South, and even slaves themselves and how it caused the Civil War. First, the Southern view of slavery must be presented in the form of George Fitzhugh’s book Cannibals All! Or Slaves Without Masters. George Fitzhugh, a sociologist who is again from North Carolina, says many things about slavery, including “The Negro slaves of the South are the happiest, and, in some sense, the freest people in the world. The children and the aged infirm work not at all, and yet have all the comforts and necessities of life provided for them. They…are neither oppressed by care nor labor. The women do little hard work…The Negro men and stout boys work…not more than 9 hours a day…they can sleep at any hour.” Fitzhugh’s writing plainly shows the common Southern belief that they are taking care of the slaves opposed to abusing them (Document 5). Second, one should look at the point of view of a slave to get a fuller comprehension. Fredrick Douglass, a famous African-American abolitionist, gave a speech on July 5th, 1852 titled “The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro”. Douglass spoke about how July Fourth, to the slave, is a meaningless sham and “hollow mockery”. He accuses the United States of “bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy” and of “crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages”. Douglass’s speech really conveys the point of view of a slave that free Americans do not truly take time to think about (Document 4). Third, the reaction to the John Brown incident illustrates how different the responses are between the North and the South when provoked with the issue of slavery. John Brown was a staunch radical abolitionist who attempted to organize a slave rebellion to overtake Harpers Ferry (a federal arsenal) in Virginia. The endeavor was, however, to be his last. John Brown took his five sons to spread the word to the slaves and to attack the arsenal. His call, unfortunately for him, remained unanswered, so when it came time to attack, Brown led a whopping “band of 18 men, black and white, into Harpers Ferry” to stand up to throes of local troops and U.S. Marines. All of his five sons were killed, along with five others and Brown was turned over to Virginia for trial. In the end, Brown was publicly hanged for treason. The real story, though, starts here when the hanging sparked fierce reactions from both sides. Northerners called Brown’s motives “sublime” and “expressed admiration for him or his cause”. In the North, “Bells tolled at the news of his execution, guns fired salutes, and large crowds gathered” and some Northerners even hailed Brown as “a martyr for the sacred cause of freedom”. The extreme reaction in the North, however, mirrors the one in the South. Outraged mobs would attack suspected antislavery whites Southern whites became paranoid that Northerners were plotting slave uprisings everywhere. How did this lead to the Civil War, though? John Brown’s antics caused the South to think more seriously about secession. Even long-time Union supporters changed their minds about secession. One former Unionist explained that “I am willing to take the chances of…disunion, sooner than submit any longer to Northern insolence and Northern outrage” (Document 6). Obviously, this finalizes the fact that the opposing views on slavery led to the secession of South Carolina and the start of the Civil War. Now that we are even more aware of why the Civil War started, one must examine how the failure of creating an effective political compromise to fill in the final missing piece.

Although many compromises were tried, they all failed in the end, leading to higher tensions between the seceding states and the Union. To prove such a point, one should analyze several different sources for confirmation. Firstly, if one looked at a Supreme Court case by the name of Dred Scott vs. Sandford, one would see some interesting things. Dred Scott was a slave whose owner had taken him to live in the free North for many years. After his master had died and he had moved back to Missouri, Scott sued for his freedom on the basis that by living on free territory, he had become a free man. It was continually appealed until it made it to the Supreme Court and, after nine years, Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled in 1857 two things. First, he stated that “slaves…had no rights which the white man was bound to respect…And, accordingly, a Negro of the African race was regarded by them as an article of property…”, basically saying that African Americans had no rights and that they were property instead of people. Second, Taney used the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution as grounds for voiding the Missouri Compromise. The Fifth Amendment “provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law” and the Missouri Compromise “prohibited a citizen from holding and owning…slaves in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned”. By this logic, Taney concluded that if no one can be deprived of property without due process of law and if slaves were property, then Congress could not prohibit slavery in any territory of the United States. Taney’s ruling essentially wiped the United States of all free soil; there was no more “free” territory now. Slaves, as property of their owners, could be taken anywhere as easily as you could take a purse or a book. The Northerners became furious at this decision, which soon led to the Civil War a mere 5 years later. The Dred Scott decision is a prime example of how the government’s inadequacy infuriated the people into war (Document 9). Secondly, another example of this insufficiency would be the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. The Act granted popular sovereignty for the Kansas and Nebraska territories, repealing the Missouri Compromise line of 1820. When Stephen Douglass enacted popular sovereignty, a bitter contest between the pro-slavery and anti-slavery supporters broke out. The pre-Civil War was simply over one thing: control of Kansas. The Kansas-Nebraska Act is another chief reason the Civil War started. Thirdly, the caning of Senator Charles Sumner on the Senate floor sparked a reaction equally extreme on both sides, helping to lead to the Civil War. On May 19 and 20, Sumner gave a long speech entitled “The Crime Against Kansas” insulting South Carolina and the well-liked Senator Andrew Butler. He also affronted the pro-slavery men, saying they were “hirelings from the drunken spew and vomit of an uneasy (unstable) civilization”. Two days after the speech, House member Preston Brooks stormed into the Senate and beat Sumner with his cane. The North and the South had drastically different reactions to this incident. The North published thousands of copies of Sumner’s speech and vilified “Bully Brooks”. The South send Brooks dozens of gold-headed canes emblazoned with the words “Hit Him Again!” to replace the one he broke giving Sumner brain damage. The Sumner-Brooks incident was a horrible example of the political tensions in the pre-Civil War United States. Now that one has examined all of these evidences of failure of political compromise, one must go over all of the points again to cement these causes.

In brief, many factors influenced the start of the Civil War, but there were three main reasons. The first was the giant economic difference between the North and the South. Since the two were so different, sectional loyalty and interests continued to rise among both sides until a clash was eventually inevitable. The second was both sides’ wildly opposite beliefs concerning slavery, which obviously caused problems on both sides. The opposition flared when a controversial event took place that concerned slavery, making it only a matter of time when a larger incident would spark the Civil War. The third was the government’s failure to reach an effective political compromise, leading to rising tensions with each failed negotiation. The carnage and controversy in the American Civil War was higher than any other war in America; now, by reading this report, one would know why it started—a crucial portion of American history that all Americans should know.

The Miners of Somerset: The Strike for Unionism, 1922-1923

“The power of capital aligned against the exploited miners was overwhelming.”

—John Brophy, 177

Today, the country is fretting as unemployment rates continue to remain high. A few years ago, the auto industry went bankrupt and the President of the United States decided to bail out the three biggest car corporations in America. In the 1920s, a similar situation occurred. Irving Bernstein writes in his book, “A number of once proud and powerful organizations met with disaster. The downfall of the United Mine Workers was most important” (85). Unfortunately, this story goes differently. The miners of Somerset, Pennsylvania, didn’t have fair wages even before the coal mining industry plummeted. By 1921, bituminous coal production was down to 407,000,000 tons, compared to the 556,000,000 tons of the year before. Production of the mines continued to drop in 1922 and the market demand grew even weaker, as nobody seemed to need bituminous coal anymore (Brophy 179-180). The purpose of this study is to inform the populace of the little known miners’ strike of 1922-1923 in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, and how it changed history. First, to properly understand the topic, background information about mining, John Brophy, the president of District 2, and the how the condition of the rest of the nation affected the strike must be known. Second, the miners’ strike tactics against the corporation, who had the upper hand, must be more thoroughly examined. Thirdly, and on the contrary, the actions and retaliation of the Berwind-White Mining Company are a necessity to analyze. Finally, the reason why and exactly how it ended will be thoroughly appraised. The mining industry was one of the biggest in United States history. How did this strike happen? What caused it? What did the miners want? Some background information is in order to understand what transpired.

The coal industry was not doing well; it had been beginning to plunge into the deep end in the recent years before the strike. John Brophy, the president of District 2, sent a letter appealing to the President of the United States for help. As known, a few years ago the auto industry fell into bankruptcy and the President came to their aid with federal help. Regrettably, instead of bailing the miners out and responding to John Brophy’s pleas to extend the work week, President William G. Harding gave “only the barest acknowledgement” to Brophy’s letter and “soon made it clear that no action was ever contemplated” (179-180). Brophy realized that no governmental help would be forthcoming and took matters into his own hands as he turned to the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA). “The 2,200 delegates to the February 1922, international convention at Indianapolis stood firm against wage cuts and demanded a six-hour work day and five-day week to reduce unemployment,” recalls Brophy in his writing. “They decided that…if that agreement was not reached by April 1, a general suspension of work should be ordered” (180). The miners wanted six things to happen with this agreement: collective bargaining and the right to affiliate with the union, fair wages, accurate weighing of the coal they mined, fair pay for the “dead work”, a system where the miners were fairly represented and disputes and grievances could be settled in a peaceful manner, but “above all, they struck to assure their rights as free Americans…to put an end to the absolute and feudal control of these coal operators” (Primary Sources). After all, according to the United States Census of 1920, miners, on average, got paid roughly 54% of the value that their products are actually worth. Disappointingly, “these reforms won widespread support from both coal miners and delegates…but John L. Lewis [President of the UMWA] rejected these proposals” and no agreement was reached (Strike for Union). Hence, the miners declared strike and set down their mining tools. It would not be an easy fight, however. The miners were striking under all economic odds (Mountjoy). The mining company controlled the miners’ entire lives. They got their wages from the company, they lived on company owned land, and they spent their wages at a company owned store. What could the miners do to undermine the corporation and obtain the fair wages and free rights they deserved? What little wages they got all went back to the company through rent and supplies. To learn further about this strike for unionism, the miners’ tactics has to be analyzed with care and thoroughness.

With the miners practically under the complete control of the Berwind-White Mining Company, they used everything they could get their coal-streaked hands on. District 2 had three major tactics at their disposal: seek help from non-union miners, broadcast the strike and get the public on their side, and create a pact with Berwind-White through the UMWA that met all of their requirements. John Brophy “became convinced that the spread of the strike to the non-union fields on a big scale was our only salvation, and that publicity had to be used to the utmost end”. He called on the non-union miners to come on strike and prepared 20,000 throwaway cards with a strike call. He prepared an additional strike call that briefly stated the arguments against the corporation that was to be released to the press on March 31. Once prepared, they took action, trying to spread the word with these throwaway cards to the non-union miners “particularly in Somerset County”. Though some miners were arrested, it worked. The non-union miners were sufficiently rallied and “there was no stopping the spread of the strike” (180-4). The strike gained ground. The miners picketed outside of buildings and held secret meetings. The mayor of New York City sent a commission of inquiry and found that the condition of the striking miners was “worse than the conditions of the slaves prior to the Civil War” (McCollester).They invited in newspapers and had one of their own: Pick and Plow—later changed to Penn Central News. In fact, the News enjoyed its greatest circulation during the strike when the district bought 20,000 copies of the paper to blanket the entire striking area (Brophy 201). Brophy also asked for help from outside sources, such as a thousand tents from the army (Mountjoy). With such innovative tactics, it seems almost inevitable that the strikers would gain the reforms that they wanted and needed. Before jumping to hasty conclusions, though, an inspection of the Berwind-White Mining Company’s retaliation must be performed.

The Berwind-White Mining Company had several tactics that they used to block out the effects of the striker’s plan. After all, even though the miners had the element of surprise, the company had everything else. “They were in a better position to make the adjustment to the situation than the union was. They had vast funds at their disposal and could hire all the men they needed for any kind of work, no matter how sinister,” recalls Brophy (186). And sinister deeds there were. For a mere nine days after the miners declared strike, Berwind-White evicted several miners from their homes. Newspapers boldly declare the terrible news: “Men Ordered to Vacate Homes—Eviction notices received by a number of Berwind-White miners” (Mountjoy). The miners fought back and lived in tents as they were forced out of their houses. The Berwind-White Mining Company complained to judges under the interpretation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, which made any effort of unionizing workers without their employers’ consent illegal. “We were forbidden to hold meetings, to pass out leaflets, to picket, to use union funds to house and feed strikers, or to do almost anything else the bosses might object to…hundreds were arrested for ‘trespassing’ on company property and other trumped-up charges,” Brophy writes. “Company guards were free to ignore the law and the rights of Americans in any way they chose. Strikers were beaten up, their homes invaded, their wives and children terrorized without any recourse. We were driven from meeting places…on the excuse that our meetings ‘might lead to violence’, or with no excuse at all” (187). They even took it so far to rape the wives of workers. No punishment was given to the guards. Unfair use of the law was exploited all over. On June 5, 1922, 60 men and 20 women were arrested for “throwing eggs and annoying the guards”. On the very same day, seventeen more miners’ wives were accused of “annoying the guards” in Windber (Mountjoy). Now that both sides’ tactics have been examined, how and why the strike ended must be inspected.

With two powerful tactics, the press versus numerous dishonest methods, going head to head, the outcome would be hard to predict. Both the UMWA and the Berwind-White Mining Company were still going strong. However, after a while, things started going awry for the strikers. First, in Penn Central News, which could have been an invaluable resource, Thomas D. Stiles, the editor, bashed the strike instead of endorsing it, lowering the strikers’ morale (Brophy 201). By the time they threw him out, it was too late. Then, on April 2, 1922, Ellis Searles, editor, wrote a letter that was published in the United Mine Workers’ Journal that stated, among other things, “Communist and reds are in Somerset County…working under the direction of a headquarters in New York…Unfortunately a few of these reds have worked their way into the membership in the United Mine Workers…If your report of dynamitings and other crimes is true, then these crimes can be traced to these red agitators.” John Brophy states that, “Coming from the international union itself, at a time when the country was still obsessed with the red scare and the bosses were using it on every hand against labor, this letter had a devastating effect on public opinion and on the morale of the strikers, laying a basis for the charge that anybody who supported the Somerset strike and its implied criticism of the Cleveland settlement was a Red” (205). However, the tides really turned when John L. Lewis, president of the UMWA, negotiated a controversial agreement that left out the non-union miners (Strike for Union). John Brophy says that he “put up a fight for the principle that no agreement be signed with an operator unless it covered all of his mines that were on strike, both in the newly organized and in the old, established fields...Instead, Lewis accepted any and all who came to his Cleveland conference” (191). These negotiations left thousands of newly organized workers stranded (Mountjoy). The contract ruined many hopes of winning the strike. Once the paper was signed, there was no going back. In fact, Brophy states that “the whole tremendous effort of 1922 was a failure, because of Lewis’s shortsightedness” (192). However, the miners of Somerset survived on the strike for another year before “succumbing to the superior wealth and power of the Berwind-White coal company and its allies” (Strike for Union). For that entire year, however, there really was no fight. The miners were just holding on—barely, at that. Having examined all of the tactics and the end, it is time to study how all of this affected the overall conclusion.

Despite how it ended, the Somerset miners’ strike of 1922 still changed history. First, we learned that the union and the coal mining industry were declining for years before the strike. Second, we learned that the miners used publicity and the non-union miners to try and win their fair share. Third, the Berwind-White Mining Company played unfairly and used the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to forbid anything the miners were doing. Finally, we learned that the entire strike, which was going well for the miners, toppled once John L. Lewis signed a controversial contract that omitted the newly initiated miners. This strike was one of the first instances where we truly saw blatant mistreatment of workers in American society that wasn’t due to race or religion. It showed America that we need to stand up to these corporations and be brave. The miners of Somerset were indeed brave. John Brophy says that “The Somerset strike was an inspiring demonstration of the heights of self-sacrifice and devotion that ordinary people can attain for a noble cause.” This was one of the noble causes. America knows now, hopefully, that we should not be taken over by capitalism. We should keep an eye on ourselves to make sure nothing gets out of hand. The miners will never be here again, but their message remains. Not much has changed overall since then. Corporation still dominates in America. And the Berwind-White Mining Company is celebrating its 126th anniversary this year (Berwind: History).

Works Cited

Bernstein, Irving. The Lean Years: A History of the American Worker, 1920-1933. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972. Print.

"Berwind: History." Berwind: History. Berwind Corporation, 2011. Web. 20 Dec. 2012. <http://www.berwind.com/history.htm>

Brophy, John. A Miner's Life. Madison and Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin, 1964. Print.

McCollester, Charles. “Less Than Miraculous.” Nation 276.10 (2003): 21-23. Academic Search Elite. Web. 27 Nov. 2012. <http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=6454b203-c8ba-4ec7-87c6-05f5c55764b9%40sessionmgr104&vid=6&hid=128&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=afh&AN=9208888>

Mountjoy, Eileen. "That Magnificent Fight for Unionism." IUP.edu. Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 2012. Web. 29 Nov. 2012. <http://www.iup.edu/page.aspx?id=86115>.

"Primary Sources about the Windber Miners' Strike for Union in 1922-1923." IUP.edu. Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 2012. Web. 29 Nov. 2012. <http://www.iup.edu/page.aspx?id=86481>.

"The Windber Miners' Strike for Union in 1922-1923." IUP.edu. Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 2012. Web. 29 Nov. 2012. <http://www.iup.edu/page.aspx?id=86481>.

U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1920: Mines and Quarries, 1919. General Report and Analytical Tables and Reports and Selected Industries: Pennsylvania. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1991. <http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/1920.html>

My Top 10 Books in Random Order

1. The Mysterious Benedict Society Series (along with Ex Ed of Nick B)
2. Percy Jackson Series
3. The False Prince
4. The Enchanted Forest Chronicles
5. A Long Way from Chicago
6. The Floating Islands
7. Lunar Chronicles
8. Artemis Fowl Series
9. Sisters Grimm Series
10. Keeper of the Lost Cities

Honorable Mentions: Half/Twice Upon a Time (also Once Upon the End/best one), Septimus Heap, The Girl Who Could Fly

Realizing the Dream: Equality for All

Ever since James Truslow Adams wrote the words “the American dream” in his book The Epic of America, the name has been used to represent a dream sought after by people all around the world—equality regardless of race, religion, gender, ethnic background, or sexual orientation; the dream of a land where anyone can become successful and have the same opportunities. Equality for all, however, has proved elusive in the United States over the past 237 years, ever since Thomas Jefferson first penned the Declaration of Independence.

Discrimination has existed in America even before it was the United States. In fact, the first Puritan colonists came here to escape religious persecution. However, this truth did not stop discrimination from happening in the colonies. Native Americans were branded and stereotyped as murdering savages. In 1750, over sixty percent of the population in South Carolina were enslaved African-Americans. Even in more modern times, discrimination remains high. Women did not gain the right to vote until 1920. There was a large anti-Catholic hysteria in the early 1900s. Many, many other acts of injustices remain unsaid, but discrimination is common throughout American history. This trend continued over the decades and still happens today, even after many measures aiming to prevent it.

I like to think that all injustices are rectified. Sadly, this is not the case. Injustices occurred throughout history without solutions. This is a difficult subject though, as “justice” is a subjective term, since all cases are different. Even little injustices should be set right. Not just conventional “crimes” that are tried in court, either. Justice, however, is specific to every case, which is why we have judges and juries. This system is still faulty, as shown in the Dred Scott vs. Stanford case where the Supreme Court ruled that any person of African descent could not be American citizens. Many, many others still happen today. The “correcting” of an injustice should start with identifying and acknowledging it. After this step, however, it is difficult to make a standardized system to remedying an injustice. Therefore, we need to correct all wrongs with whatever fits the situation.

However, eliminating discrimination still remains a daunting task. One may think that doing this is near impossible; nevertheless, I believe we can take steps toward it. We can start by educating the next generation about the history of discriminations and the importance of equality.  Through a curriculum to increase awareness in young children, we will be much closer to this social ideal. After all, every generation, the problem of discrimination diminishes. As a second generation immigrant, I have faced no discrimination at all. However, generations before me, my parents and my grandparents, have shared their personal stories of unjust treatment and discrimination. But the million dollar question will forever be: will discrimination eventually die away? The answer rests on what we do from now onwards.

So far, we may not have been perfect in treating people with balance and equality. But we can change this! Eradicating discrimination and rectifying injustice may be a tall order, but we can do it if we have the work ethic and the gumption to fix America’s problems in unfair bias. We need to educate our next generation about this crisis. We need to set things right and not only strive to be the judicial ideal, but work towards it and be the model for the other countries that look up to us. Let us set new and improved standards for preventing injustice everywhere.  America, the Immigration Nation, the great melting pot, should set an example for the world. So, start righting wrongs in your actions and your community, no matter how small. No law can fix this problem without the consent of the people. You can contribute to a fair and just society, one piece at a time. Right now. Right here. Step up for the less fortunate, the victims of unlawfulness and discrimination, and fix the problems in your community. Contribute to a discrimination-free America, a discrimination-free world, by treating people around you with fairness and equality, regardless of their race, religion, gender, ethnic background, or sexual orientation.

Book Review: The Gardener by S.A. Bodeen

It is beyond my understanding how this book became one of the Truman nominees. I really had high expectations for this book; it was a great idea. I especially liked how Bodeen brought up serious issues like world hunger and moral issues on bio-engineering to make a story. Growing humans that can photosynthesize  has great potential as sci-fi story material. Unfortunately, her character development practically stops when Mason, the main character, meets Laia, the human autotroph.

The narrative makes me feel like he was only helping Laia because she was pretty. Plus, I honestly didn't think that the science experiment was “gruesome”. Personally, I thought it was pretty interesting! I thought that Bodeen exaggerated Mason’s reactions when he was in the greenhouse and the plot was so predictable. The Gardener is his dad? Really?  That’s the best you could do?

Still, I’ve read plenty of books with predictable endings that I still enjoyed. Why? I think I simply didn't like reading this book. It was bland and boring. The whole story just seemed fake. It just felt like all of the thoughts and actions of all the characters were played out too perfectly by the author. If Bodeen had made it seem more real and less artificial, I think the story as a whole would have been much better.

Glog

Guns, Germs, and Steel Essay #4: Bronze v. Steel: Why Spain Trumped the Inca

Why were Spanish weapons so much more advanced than the Inca’s? Professor Jared Diamond of UCLA thinks this is due to geographic luck. Geographic luck is the term coined to describe the phenomenon of the fact that some people are placed on a better geographic latitude than others. Nevertheless, advanced steel swords were developed only in Europe because of geographic luck. First, Incan bronze knifes should be examined. Then, Spanish steel will be inspected thoroughly. Lastly, a side by side comparison between steel and bronze as weapon material will ensue. However, before conclusions can be drawn, Incan bronze must be studied in further detail.

Incan bronze was pitifully primitive. Its soft and malleable consistency makes the weapons made of this metal prone to breaks if heated to too high temperatures and inclined to bend if put under too much pressure. Such a weapon can make it dangerous in a fight; if it breaks or bends, it strands the owner without any defenses. Nonetheless, why did the Inca use such pliant material to make weapons? The answer is simple: they had to. First of all, bronze was the most reliable and most suited to weapon making material that they had. They also had a plethora of the semi-precious metal. In addition, the Inca could not make long burning fires required to make steel. Given that they could not create these fires, it was easy for them to use bronze since it was so easy to mold. However, this came at a price. Using the supple material made it easy to shape, but its effectiveness as a weapon decreased as a result.  If the Inca’s weapons were so hopeless, how did they become such a large empire?  Though the Inca could only make these weapons, the rest of the Americas were stuck with them. Since everyone had the same weapons, they could easily overpower others by sheer numbers or strategy. Having now evaluated the tools of the Americas, steel must likewise be appraised.

Steel was wickedly sharp and advanced. It was strong, but not brittle. It was flexible, but not soft. It was lightweight, but still weighted. It was long and maneuverable. How did it get to be this way? The answer lies in the lines. The geographic lines, that is. Since Spain lies on the same latitude as the Middle East, they got to inherit all of their special tricks. They got the secret of gunpowder. Developed and domesticated farming. Most of all, they got their centuries of metallurgy. Since the people of the Fertile Crescent had already started Europe off, Europeans had an easier time; instead of wasting time trying to find the secret of steel, they could begin right off perfecting it. They got a running start ahead of the rest of the world. In addition to having years of inherited experience, they also had large deposits of iron ore and generous amounts of forests to burn. Now, the Spanish had the experience and the materials that are needed to create steel. For another reason, the Spaniards were constantly at war with their neighbors, creating the element of competition. Spain had the wisdom, the resources, and the drive to make the best steel in the world. Now having examined both materials individually, a side by side comparison is essential.

Spanish steel is better than Incan bronze in many ways. Spain had sharp, hard swords. The perfect balance; neither pliable nor brittle. The Inca had blunt knives, unable to sharpen bronze to a point. In war, the Spanish can use the long reach of their swords to thrust, hack, and slash their way through a battalion of enemies. The Inca can only use their 5-6 inches of range. Spain can use their weapons without much danger of snapping or deforming their weapons. On the contrary, the Inca’s soft weapons bend easily, causing constant worry of warping a weapon. When all is said and done, it can be easily recognized that Spanish steel was a more preferable alternative to Incan bronze.

All things considered, Spanish steel is definitively a more beneficial weapon than Incan bronze. Incan bronze is a soft, pliant metal, unfit for making top grade weapons. Alternatively, Spanish steel is a deadly sharp and flexible metal, the best in the world for making swords. Since steel has so many more advantages, it is a metal more suited to making weapons than bronze. All in all, steel has more desirable characteristics as a weapon making material than bronze. But a person has to give it to them. The Inca can sure make a shiny knife.

Guns, Germs, and Steel Essay #3: Domesticated Animals to World Riches

Ever wondered how Europe became such a successful empire? Part of the reason is because of the livestock they owned. Their blessing of good latitude placement, or geographic luck, allowed them to have livestock, one of the most important factors in the development of a booming civilization. Animal domestication played a large role in the development of rich societies throughout the world. Livestock passed on smallpox, a crucial part in European conquest. Next, material items gave the societies in question a nutritional edge. Finally, domesticated animals performed important services that greatly improved the workings of a certain people. To start, however, an explanation of livestock in the development of smallpox is appropriate.

Smallpox was one of the ways that domesticated animals aided advanced civilizations. How is this possible? Well, among the general populace, it is a little known, although crucial, fact that smallpox was originally a cow’s disease. It was passed on through drinking their milk, eating their meat, and keeping them in close contact. How would this be useful though? Would being sick not be a disagreeable experience? Would a plague that swept over an empire’s population not be a bad thing? Here’s the thing. The answer is both yes and no. While in the short term it would dramatically reduce the inhabitants of the land and contribute to a declining economy, in the long term, a civilization would eventually breed against smallpox. Since only the strongest and most immune survive, the weak and sickly genes eventually die off. A plague is nature’s pruning system; breeding only the best and brightest allows the survivors to become more resilient. Consequently, in the case of the Europeans, they were able to “grow out of it”, so to speak, and use it as a weapon. Everywhere they went to conquer, where smallpox was a foreign disease, the indigenous people were swept off of their feet, bombarded by artillery and the more dangerous ailment of smallpox. On top of smallpox, livestock’s material items gave farmers a significant upper hand.

Domesticated animals supplied many material items that assisted considerably in the creation of great civilizations. It might be thought that materials may not give one much of an advantage, but in reality, the opposite is true. Meat and milk from livestock enabled societies that owned livestock to gain a sizable advantage over other empires. It gave them important sustenance food; a nutritious counterpart to other protein sources. Additionally, without milk, finding calcium would be difficult. Good nutrition is one of the most important things you can keep track of. Why do they teach about it in schools today? Livestock provided the extra head start for civilizations that owned them.  Domesticated animals provided tools. Their bones became weapons. Their hides became shelters. These primitive tools gave Europeans and other civilizations with domesticated animals a wide advantage. In addition to providing material items, livestock also executed services crucial to a society’s development.

Domesticated animals carried out key services for people in advanced civilization. In war, they rode horses into battle, giving them the ability to trample and scare their enemies. When Spain was battling the Inca, they scared off them with their giant horses, causing the Incan infantry to collapse in panic. This allowed Spain to capture and hold their leader hostage. That’s not all. In farming, oxen and donkeys plowed the land in a shorter time than it would take to do by hand. As a result, farming became a more efficient and, therefore, beneficial process. They were also able to move trade and ideas throughout their continent faster, making it more worthwhile to make a long journey. After analyzing the many services given from livestock, it can be concluded that domesticating animals was one of the prime reasons why certain civilizations became successful while others failed.

Through domesticating animals, civilizations were able to glean off of their benefits and, therefore, became rich and successful. Smallpox, which came from cows, made conquest easier for the occupiers in question. Material items procured by livestock allowed for good nutrition and tools. Services provided by domesticated animals gave advanced civilizations the edge in trading and battle.  To sum up, domesticated animals aided critically in the creation of advanced societies.

Guns, Germs, and Steel Essay #2: The Inca’s Fall to Europe

Even though the Inca had a mighty force of 80,000 men and Spain only 168, the Europeans easily defeated them. Why did this happen? Europe conquered the Inca without difficulty, despite their large numbers, because they were more advanced than them. They had many weapons on their side. One of their most deadly being the silent killer: smallpox. They had one of the smartest strategies, proven to work from previous battles.  And finally, they had top-notch swords and guns while the Inca had none. To look at this issue further, one needs to look at how European smallpox was one of the most potent weapons in history.

Smallpox played a key role in the Inca’s collapse to Europe. Smallpox was a deadly European disease that killed almost everyone who contracted it. According to Professor Jared Diamond of UCLA, 95% of indigenous Americans were wiped out completely by smallpox. So why didn’t the Spaniards suffer from the same fate? Well, turns out, they did. Smallpox was a disease that came from domestic cows. The Inca had no cows, only llamas. The Spaniards had, over time, built up immunity from smallpox. Over the generations, when smallpox was an epidemic in Europe, only the strongest of people survived to regenerate. So after many centuries, the Europeans had become almost a super-breed; practically immune to smallpox, they could fight wars without danger of a large breakout. However, the Inca had no helpful animal friends to develop any sort of resistance. Their vegetation did not serve as proper feeding grounds for cows. Moreover, they did not allow their llamas into their homes, nor did they milk them. Therefore, since the Inca had no cows, smallpox was a foreign disease. During the war, the Americans were either sick, nursing, or dead. However, while it is important to recognize that smallpox was a vital aspect concerning the Inca’s downfall, it is equally essential to realize that the Spaniard's strategy also played of utmost importance.

The strategy employed by the Spanish was one of the reasons they won over the Americans. What the Spaniards lacked in quantity was redeemed in brains. However, their brilliant strategy would never have come to be had the gift of writing not occurred.  According to Professor Diamond, the expedition’s leader had taken a page out of a war strategy from a few years ago. A former conquistador, Hernando Cortez, had written a book containing the surprise attack tactic. The Inca had no writing because of the continent they were placed on. Since the Maya had writing, it should have passed on to the Inca. But since they did not lie on the same latitude, it did not pass on. During the battle, they employed the scheme beautifully. When they fought, their priest showed the Inca’s leader, Atahualpa, their bible in attempt at peaceful conversion. But since Atahualpa had never seen books, he scoffed at the Spaniards and called for his massive army to attack. They obeyed, but foolishly fell apart into a mass panic when the Spanish brought out their guns. They thought the Spaniards were gods, sitting majestically on giant horses with lethally sharp steel swords, compared to their own blunt bronze ones. Now that the army was in a panicked frenzy, the Spanish promptly capture Atahualpa and force him to command his people to obey Spain and give the Spanish 20 tons of gold and silver. After they gather their riches, they kill Atahualpa, realizing that he was of no use to them. The Inca have now been cleverly reformed by Spain. Having examined this brilliant line of attack, it is imperative to note that none of the stratagems utilized here would have worked without Europe’s weapons.

Spain’s development in weaponry was superior to that of their adversary’s. First of all, Europe's guns were top of the line in the world at the time. They were developed because of gunpowder brought from China. The Inca never got to make them because China was an entire ocean away. Steel was also one of Spain’s fineries. They had the best in the planet, while the Inca had no steel at all! Incans did not have the proper climate to have long burning fires required to make steel while Europe had centuries to perfect it. They had inherited all of the Fertile Crescent’s metallurgy. Now that all of these have been examined, it can be concluded that Europe was more advanced than the Inca.

As can be seen, Spain was infinitely more sophisticated than the Inca, which is why they were able to defeat the enormous Incan army relatively effortlessly. Smallpox went on a rampage, making the Spaniard's job simpler by incapacitating most of the Americans. Then, their outstanding strategy involved staging a surprise attack, then capturing Atahualpa. Of course, the strategy depended on Europe’s fine weapons. Finally, on the whole, the reason why Europe’s exiguous cavalry overpowered the Inca’s extensive infantry was because of Europe’s degree of experience and good fortune was vastly superior to that of the Inca’s.

Guns, Germs, and Steel Essay #1: Geographic Luck in the European Domination of the World

Have you ever thought about how Europe became such a large empire? Jared Diamond, a UCLA professor, explains on the TV program Guns, Germs, and Steel, that it is due to geographic luck. Geographic luck is the term used to describe the phenomenon of the fact that people in some areas are just luckier than others. For instance, the Fertile Crescent got nutritious wheat and barley while Papua New Guinea got sago palm. However, Professor Diamond has the right idea. Geographic luck shaped the path to European dominance. Firstly, farming, which played a huge role in Europe, came through their good fortune. Second, key roles in Europe’s conquering spree came through their well-placed civilization.  Finally, Europe’s weapons, the finest in the world, came through their good geographic placement. In order to understand geography’s role in Europe’s superiority, farming and agriculture are essential subjects to look at.

Farming was a vital character in Europe’s progressive march towards global dictatorship. According to Jared Diamond, Europe’s domestic animals provided crucial items, such as shelter made from skins, bones for tools, meat, and milk. Using these, they were able to develop more as a society compared to other places without livestock. Domesticated animals helped Europe evolve against smallpox since smallpox was originally a cow’s disease. Over the generations, after the fittest and strongest had been put into the gene pool, the Europeans had become almost completely immune to smallpox. Europe’s livestock were also used for war and to plow land for nutritious foods that Europe’s geographic luck had pulled through for. While the Inca got bad land and the New Guineans got sago, the Europeans got arable land with nourishing wheat and barley to grow in it. As a result, Europeans became a more stable culture than hunter-gatherer nomads. In understanding farming’s benefit to Europe, it is also important to recognize how the Europeans were more developed than the empires they conquered.

Europe was superior to the civilizations they conquered in every way, except in numbers. Disease came to Europeans early, so they could suffer in an unimportant time when they were not fighting. The Inca and the Khoi San were not so lucky. According to Guns, Germs, and Steel, they were mostly killed by smallpox during the heat of war against Europe. Because it was a foreign disease to them, they had no resistance like the Europeans. Europe also had incredible weapons. Soft Incan bronze was no match for European steel. While Europeans frolicked about, defeating empires right and left, their victims had to fight against the most innovative weapons at the time, all while ailing through one of the most deadly diseases in the world. The final area to be examined is Europe’s authority in weaponry.

Weapons, along with Europe’s war power, came to existence only because of Europe’s environment. Europe inherited decades to centuries of metallurgy from the Fertile Crescent and had even longer to perfect it. The level of steel Europe had existed only because their climate was dry enough to create long burning fires required to heat the iron ore. While Europe had strong steel, the Inca were still using soft bronze weapons. In addition to top-notch swords, the Europeans also had guns. Gunpowder came from China. If the two empires were not on the same latitude, gunpowder would not have arrived at Europe for them to perfect the gun. Examining all of these factors, it can be confirmed that Europe was clearly influenced by geographic luck.

As can be seen, geographic luck helped Europe conquer the rest of the world. Farming allowed Europeans to form villages and develop advanced societies. It assisted them to evolve against diseases like smallpox. Farming also let them develop transportation and labor through livestock. Europe’s advancements in society were all due to their geographic location. It was the reason why they conquered other disease-ridden, primitive empires so easily. Plus, weapons and metallurgy were only developed through the good fortune of the European’s placement and climate. As a result, it is obvious that geographic luck paved the way to the Western-dominant present.