glenshistoryppage

final blog

   

     The morning of the attacks, I was sleeping in since I did not have Political Science until 11:30. Then all of a sudden my roommate, Mikey, came storming to my door, banging away, screaming, "Glen, you have to come and see what's happening on TV." I had initially thought it was something on HBO, since he had an affinity to be carried away with movies that he sees, and told him I would watch it later when it came back on again. He then persisted on with constant pounding at my door, trying to convince me into coming out to see what was being showed on the television. Finally I arose from bed threaten him with bodily harm if what I saw was not "wicked cool”.

     When I got to the living room and looked at the screen, I was somewhat confused as to what I was watching. Thinking it was a movie, I was impressed by how real the footage of the fire was from the initial hit appeared, and was struggling to figure out its title. Then the sobering moment hit, blasting away the surreal ness that had existed, the second plane hit the tower. Things then began to click.

     Unsure of what to do I stood. No thoughts ran through my head, or maybe there were many thoughts running so fast I just could not realize it. Someone in the house then turn on the radio to get other news about classes. The Administration at Radford had decided it was in the best interest of the students and the community if classes were held as usual. Unfortunately, it backfired.

     When I went to my Poli Sci class there were no lessons being taught, not from any Prof. anyways. Just a room full of eyes starring at a screen showing the aftermath unfolds. There was no chatter among the students; some had tried to call home to no avail. Finally, they began to read off the numbers of the flights that were brought down, and suddenly there was a girl two rows to the right of me who just fell to the ground in tears. She screamed so terribly loud. Most of us thought she had injured herself somehow. Then we made the connection someone she knew was on the flight. Turns out it, was her father making his routine business trip?

     The rest of the day was a vivid blur, as strange as it seems. I remember it all very clearly, but not in the way, you would think. I am not really able to break apart the day and examine it. It is more like a large portrait of everything that happened. All the events and emotions blended together to make a huge image. There are parts that stand out that I talk about and then parts that I tend not to discuss.

Other Stories

Final group blog

The 1980’s was the decade that spawned the ‘me’ generation, Ronald Reagan’s Reaganomics, Mrs. Pacman, and perhaps most importantly, the American corporate juggernaut, ie large corporations. These corporations helped shape and define the 80s into what we remember them as. No, they didn’t give use Fraggle Rock, or Punky Brewster, but they set the mentality of the 80’s. The 80’s was a time of greed, self interest, material girls, the cold war, and a populous striving to move up in their jobs and lives, at any cost.

The world of the 80’s was a place far different than the preceding decades, businessmen lived lifestyles that rivaled, and sometimes even surpassed that of rock stars, and they were able to achieve this by one following one mantra: Money, anything for money, meaning they achieved it through greed. The best example of this was the NYSE, New York Stock Exchange. It was the central core of commerce, and every businessman’s best friend and worst enemy. The movie Wall Street depicts the theme of greed, and the corporate lifestyle and mentality of the 80’s.

             One scene in particular sums up the theme, the message of the movie, and the essence of the 80’s in general.  It is the party scene, and Laurence Wilder, and Gordon Gecko are talking about a company called Annicot Steel. Wilder wants to buy the company, and Gekko knows this. Gekko in turn, bought up as much stock as he could, and drove up the price to ridiculous amounts. Wilder tells him that he’ll simply not pay the price that Gekko has driven it up to, and Gekko says that he’ll sit on it.  As a businessman, Gekko knows the repercussions of his actions. Holding a company in instability like this leaves the employees in perpetual chaos. Large corporations support any number of people, and in turn any number of families. Not only that, but it affects the clients that the company provides steel services to, and hurts them because they may now have to go with a more expensive company, and to make up costs they may also downsize. In short, keeping a large company like this in turmoil causes a chain reaction of events that are bad for everyone else except for Gekko. He knows this and still wants to go through with his plan, to drive up the price just for his own benefit. He does anything and everything for money, and has no regard for what the consequences of his actions are on others. The biggest reason for greed was the state of the economy in the 1980’s. Increased defense spending, cuts on social programs, and Reagan and his Reaganomics in general tended to support big business. Once the large businesses got a taste, they wanted more and more. While the lower and middle class taxpayers were hurting, guys like Gordon Gekko might put them out of a job the way he can, just to make even more money, to cap off the mountain of it he’s got in the bank. Its totally unnecessary for him, he’s just plain greedy.

That was the 80’s, a world of corporate deceit. It was where the big businessman was born and where greed ruled over all people with an iron fist; no one could escape greed. It spawned the stereotype of the ‘average worker’ as we’ve come to know him, a man in the middle class who worked in his cubical at the office of his big company from 9am to 5 pm everyday, 5 or six days a week. It has left us with large corporations that still exist today, and to this day still have a bit of that 80’s greed left in them, like Enron. In a time of turmoil, Reaganomics and a struggling economy, greed prevailed.

Interesting Links:

Wallstreet journal

Entry 11: Top Tens of 1970

Top Ten Songs of 1970's

10. "Long Winding Road" - Beatles

9. "Everything is Beautiful" Ray Charles

8. " American Woman" - the Guess Who

7 "ABC"- Jacksoon Five

6. "Let it be" Beatles

5. " Bridge over Troubled Waters" Simon & Garfunkel

4. "Thank You for being a Friend" (Golden Girls Theme) Sly and the Family Stove

3."Venus" the Shocking Blue

2"I Want You Back" jackson Five

1. "Raindrops Keep Falling on my head"

Click to find Lyrics for songs listed

Top Ten Movies of 1970

10.Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice

9. Catch 22

8. The Rolling Stones - Gimme Shelter

7. Cotton Comes to Harlem

6. Love Story

5. Five Easy Pieces

4. Woodstock- 3 days of Peace and Music

3. Patton

2. M*A*S*H

1. Airport

Click for a plot summary of each movie

Comparison between the two lists. An underlying tone of Peace.

The top ten songs of 1970 which includes songs from the Beatles, Jackson Five, Ray Stevens and other popular singers of that era are concentrated around the Vietnam War. The general tone of the songs is sad, yet very optimistic of the future. For example, in the song “Long and Winding Road” by the Beatles, the singer talks of the hardship, interpreted as the War, that he is going through to get to his lover, which in the context of time, we can interpret as his country, peace or his family. Another example of such a tone is the song “Let it be” by the Beatles. Again, in this song, the singer talks about how he always consults his “Mother Mary” when he is in a trouble or is going through a difficult time in his life. The following is a part of that song:

And when the broken hearted people
Living in the world agree,
There will be an answer, let it be.
For though they may be parted there is
Still a chance that they will see
There will be an answer, let it be.
Let it be, let it be. Yeah
There will be an answer, let it be.

This stanza explains the fact that when the Vietnam War is over through negotiations of both sides, namely the US and Vietnam, peace and prosperity will come again

Similarly, the movies of 1970 which included pieces like Airport, MASH and others revolved around the same concept of war, disasters and sadness. For example, in the movie Airport, this concept is revealed through all of the disastrous situations that happen in the film. The bomb threats at the airport, the old lady trying to sneak in through different airlines and the married pilot who is having an affair with a stewardess all prove the fact that Americans were not in an ideal situation at that time. That America had gone out of control.

However, there is one difference in the movies of the 1970 and the songs. Even though, movies like MASH were about war, they were comedies. MASH is set the during the Korean War and depicts the war through cruel humor. In the songs of 1970, there was no such thing as making fun of the war. The concept of war was simply not funny to singers and listeners. This difference in the songs and movies could be because of the fact that movies are and were a source of entertainment. People watched movies to get away from the hassles of their life and get entertained. Movies like MASH provided the audience an opportunity to step back and look at their lives and the war in a whole different way. Not surprisingly, movies were made to make money as supposed to songs at that time. The movie makers made films that would entertain them and distant them from the troubles in their lives. Songs however, were written and sang to depict the reality and touch people's souls. Songs were made not to entertain but to educate and inform the Americans.

Songs and movies have been a very important aspect of the American life style from a long time. In the 1970, movies and songs both depicted the same concept of war and sadness. The songs however, were more optimistic about the future of America while the movies helped Americans look at the war from a whole new perspective.

Photo Album

1950's cinema on the brain

Group 9 Comments

Coments for Maria

Comments for katie

Coments for omar

Blog Group Post

When a group of twelve men and women come together in a courtroom, they probably have one thing on their minds: deciding your fate and determining how much longer you will be living. The idea of jury and jury duty traces back to the early sixteenth and seventeenth century, and is all too familiar to the United States. Probably one of the greatest examples of jury being used in a criminal case in history is the case of State vs. Rehberg (1885). In this case, Edward Rehberg was accused of severely beating and abusing her eleven year old daughter, Clara Rehberg, who died as a result of these beatings. Due to the evidence from the text of the case , both a twentieth century and a nineteenth century jury is not likely to convict Edward Rehberg guilty of murder.

First of all, from a twentieth century jury point of view, there is not enough evidence for Edward’s conviction. In the twentieth century, in order for a person to be convicted guilty of murder the following pieces of evidence have to be present: motive of the murder, a specific time and place of the murder, eye witness, and/or the instrument by which the person is murdered.

In Rehberg’s case, we see absolutely no motive whatsoever. After all, how can a person murder his own offspring who is just a kid of eleven and what harm could an eleven year old kid do to her family? None. Also, by today’s standards a time and place of murder has to be present. As seen in text, every witness that spoke during the trial, including Emma Rehberg and Joe Tiebow repeatedly said that Clara was inside all day long on Sunday while Edward was outside in the barn working on the haystack. In between breakfast and supper, Clara and Edward were never alone together. So, the chances of Edward beating Clara are very, very minimal.

Moreover, there is no eyewitness to the beating. Witnesses are present but they all prove the point that Clara was never alone with Edward. The weapon of the beating is not present as well. There is a short mention of the stove lifter in the barn by Joe Tiebow but according to the Physicians that were presented, Clara had fingernail scratches on her not stove lifter scratches.

As we can see, the pieces of evidence needed to prove Edward guilty of murder are missing. However, in today’s world Edward might be guilty of neglect because he was unaware of his child’s life despite living in the same house with her. Edward was Clara’s father and was responsible for her life. He was the one who should have taken care of his daughter thus preventing Clara’s death. But this, by no means, constitutes Edward’s being guilty of murder.

When this crime happened back in nineteenth century, the jury was still not likely to find Edward guilty of murder for the following reasons. Back then, families were very private. What happened indoors stayed indoors. People liked and preferred for their family matters to remain private and not to have the interference of an outsider, even if it was a severe case of murder such as the Rehberg case. Also, the idea of oath and a religious promise was very important to the nineteenth century jury. When Clara swore under oath and said that her dad was innocent and that she was beaten by her step-mother, this would have been greatly considered by the jury. During the 19th century, according to the Christian belief, when a person swore on God knowing that she/he was going to die, she/he was probably telling the truth. Even if Clara was only eleven years old, according to Dr. Weed, she was a very “intelligent child, and made rational answers to the questions put to her”. This proved to some extent that Clara knew what an oath was and was telling the truth.

Nonetheless, Clara’s beating was a very cruel and an unjust action that should have and could have been prevented. Even if there weren’t enough evidence in both the 19th century and 20th century standards to prove Edward guilty of murder, someone was responsible for the murder and should have gotten punished to the fullest extent.

Phot Album

Andersonville

Andersonville Photo Album

http://slaterspage.typepad.com/photos/andersonville/book_andersonvilleprison.html

blog 5

In a community filled with sameness and equality, grief and disasters often enter with caution. This is the main reason behind the structure and design of our community. Our community is a socialist community where everything from goods to services is shared equally among the population. No person is financially or socially inferior or superior to their fellow citizens.

This idea of equal share is reflected through the farmland in which every family has their own share. The land is divided equally among these families and as a community these families are responsible for deciding who plants and grows what. Also, each of these families has their own orchard next to their houses.

Our community is a mixture of an agricultural and industrial economy. We think that in combining two different economies, our community would be at a huge financial advantage. Along with the farmlands, we have factories and mills that are run by the members of the community. To get rid of the pollution and noise created by these factories, we have planted huge trees along the bank of Freedom River.

Our community will be open to the rest of the world. Trade and tourism is greatly appreciated and encouraged. However, this community is not an urban community. It is rural in nature in that it is small and not very densely populated.

As mentioned before, in our community everyone is equal. Therefore, slavery is out of question. No one is allowed to keep, sell or buy slaves. If they do so, they will be asked to leave the community and all their possessions would be taken from them.

The Community of Equals is not a community where everyone has to share the same beliefs. All citizens have a religious freedom. They can believe in what they want and they can practice how they want. Each religion is given the choice of buying a piece of land for a low price and building their religious house. The government is not involved in any activity of our community including the religious beliefs. How much the members allow for government involvement is decided through a vote by the members of the community.

We also have public service buildings including family and domestic counseling which provide support for families that are going through a family crisis. By the passage of time, the role of men and women and their relations change. Therefore, we want to make sure that we have services that can help people incase any problems rise.

Parity and equality is the backbone of our community. Through this we hope to have a community that is safe from the evils that greed and jealousy create. And we hope that everyone lives happily ever after…

Blog #3

The portrait on Pigeon’s Egg head is a depiction of the identity crisis of the Native American in the 19th century.
Catlin’s Pigeon’s Egg Head was an illustration of the political affect Washington had on the Native Americans. Creating two worlds in which they must live in, but never really be apart of. In order to understand it you’d have to look at the time period itself and the politics it held.
In the early part of the 19th century America was on the move much like it has been throughout its life. The American man headed west to the new frontier, to settle new lands, and start new profitable lives. Unfortunately there was a bit of a problem there was already some one there. Natives who had arrived eons before hand already laid claim to the land. So there was only one choice for the European-American settler. Kick them out or get them to assimilate. This brings us to Catlin’s portrayal of Pigeon’s Egg Head.

The Natives were forced to choose one of two worlds the old Native American World that they have live in for ages, or the new modern American world. This was a very though thing to do. Whatever world they choose would affect how the other would perceive them. For example in the portrait you have P.E.H. (Pigeon’s Egg Head) facing two worlds as two different people. While he’s facing Washington, D.C. he’s portrayed as a savage Indian. The perception that most Americans would have of him if he remained in the old ways. As an American gentleman though facing the old world of teepees, he’s portrayed as a drunkard and possibly immoral man. The perception that his native ancestors or relatives might have of him if he choose the modern American lifestyles of the 19th century.

Another twist to this is that it also shows how he would be portrayed if he were to move to the city. To most white American’s he may be portrayed as a savage no matter how much he attempted to assimilate. While to other Native Americans he would be considered a sellout even if he changed very little.