#12 - 6/5/'15

As an IB student taking American Studies and American Literature, I was able to learn how to make insightful connection between these two courses. It is certainly interesting to see how these two different subjects fit together like puzzle pieces. Before coming to high school, I was resolute that these two had no correlation, but through the metacognitive blog, I was able to establish the bridge between the two, and was then able to analyze the significance of it. It is true that what I say on my blog posts is not all that great. Unlike my peers, I make rather dull connection, and it takes a while for me to really digest the information and produce it in my own words and thoughts. However, I believe that my ability to relate these two subjects along with my real life has definitely escalated since the beginning of the year. Although history is not my forte, I have learned to become a "thinker" and slightly more "knowledgeable", as I tried to intertwine the pieces from Studies and Literature together. I believe that this metacognitive blog has been an enriching experience for me, and has shaped me to become a better "historian".

#11 - 5/21/'15

In class, we have been talking about how "the sixties" was a time of great changes in America. Right now, I would like to focus on the advocates of homosexuality. In one of the American Studies readings, Foner states that "gay men and lesbians had long been stigmatized as sinful or mentally disorder". Back then, this was how the society perceived these people. Let's take a look at the African Americans, who were severely abused by the white people. Even this group was not considered mentally ill. Nevertheless, the homosexuals were classified as sinners or sick people. Later on, Foner touches base on one of the most crucial events for this group of people, which was the 1969 police raid on the Stonewall Bar, where these underrepresented people finally stepped out of their "closet", as Foner calls it, and insisted that "sexual orientation is a matter of rights, power, and identity". Nevertheless, the contemptuous act by the government continued on, and each time, the homosexuals counteracted. The police must not have expected the minorities (back then) to act this way, for they used to be very conservative about their sexual orientation. Foner calls the emergence of the movement for gay liberation "the greatest", which signifies a great change in how the society deemed them back then and how it view them now. Right now, 37 states and the District of Columbia have legalized same sex marriage, which is a great improvement for them.

#10 - 4/25/'15

zAccording to Professor Foner, the two greatest powers that emerged from World War II were the United States and the Soviet Union. He also stated that it was all, but inevitable that these two would come into conflict. Quite frankly, I do not completely agree with this statement. Furthermore, I do not understand the situation fully. To a great extent, it would be true that they would engage in a dispute, now that all the other leading powers were eliminated, and thus, granting them a higher chance to gain total control of the world. I am also aware that they were enemies to begin with, but it seemed very unusual for the allies of the Great War would soon become mortals enemies. To a lesser extent, the fact that they were trying to engage in another battle simply did not make sense, because the whole world barely made its way out of a Great War. A clash between them would cause even more massive destruction, and could have potentially lead to utter destruction of all nations. Anyhow, it turned out that the main conflict arose from Russia attempting to apply its communistic ideals onto other nations, such as Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria. Here, I guess it is justified that the United States was doing a moral thing, for only it had the ability to stop Russia's evil intention and potential domination of the world.

#9 - 3/7/'15

With good intention, Prohibition was established. However, enforcing the policy was almost impossible, but only brought more trouble. Smuggling, bootlegging, corrupt officials and police officers rose from this occasion. The ratification of the 18th Amendment, which banned manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor was the worst part. I believe that if the Dry Forces were not so strict (not ratifying the Volstead Act and allow little bit of casual drinking), Prohibition would have worked fine. To the citizens who viewed beer and wine as an integral part of the life, the complete ban of alcohol must have been ridiculous. If the government were better aware of the secondary effects, then it could have avoided the unexpected decadence of the society. This brings us to one of the main questions from the presentations; "Once a change has been made in society, policy, or law, can you change back to the way it was before?". Although the 21 Amendment, which repealed the 18th Amendment, was created, it could not contribute any good to the society. It simply did not change anything, because by that point, there was more than 30000 speakeasies, home-made alcohol, and major impact on the society, for it only made drinking more popular, and encouraged solitary drinking. Instead of alleviating the troubles, it only aggravated the situation. Thus, once a change has been made, it cannot be reversed, for these reasons.

#8 - 12/6/'14

The immigrants during 1870 and 1900 desperately wanted to move to the U.S. in search of better life. I am an immigrant as well - my family and I came to the States four years ago, for better education and future. And I know it is better here, but it is not something that is greatly different from South Korea. Like my family, the immigrants must have thought that in this very country, a great prize was waiting for them. Because we are from different timeline, it is possible that there are different reasons as for why they chose to immigrate. Some decided to move for the sake of freedom of religion, or avoiding religious persecution or ban, to stay away from the corrupt government or political persecution, possible failure in business or agriculture, need for new jobs, escaping from famine or taxes, and/or searching for better education. I believe that to those people, America was a symbol for “new life”, mainly because it was a vast land, which had less than 200 years of history. They must have thought that living in a new country would offer them better life and future, which did not turn out to be true.

#7 - 11/14/'14

The Autobiographical Narrative by Luther Standing Bear on his first days at Carlisle was very remarkable in my opinion. I find it interesting that "bravery" was so important to the Native Americans; it was as if it were their ideal, symbol of power, and representation of dignity. Even though the protagonist chose this path to seem "brave", I believe that it was just an act with reckless bravado, for it eventually led him to live a unpleasant life forced by the white people. He must have realized what a big mistake he had just made in the course of five years. Also, it was interesting to see that Chief Standing Bear, who was described as a wise "blanket Indian". He retained the tribal custom, and thought that all the things that the white teachers told him were just "sweet talks". Just like this, he was a stubborn, strong-willed, loyal chief. However, later in the narrative, he tells his son, "Try to be like a white man". This suggests that he was accepting the fact that the white men were superior and overpowering, and although the hesitance and reluctance, had to admit that his son would have to learn and adjust to the life of white men in order to survive in the chaotic world. Later, there is a picture of the chief wearing the white men's clothes. His face does not show that he was content with his new life, which shows that he was not comfortable or happy with the fact that he, the blanket Indian, was in the process of becoming more like a white man. Overall, I enjoyed this text.

#6 - 10/25/'14

For the 2014-2015 National History Day project, I chose Andrew Mellon as the topic for the leadership theme. I am not fully sure if I made a correct choice, for it is unclear if he is a leader or not. To give a brief summary, Andrew W. Mellon was born to a rich family, and later in his life, he was appointed to serve as the Secretary of Treasury, which he did for ten years and eleven months. In 1913, he established a memorial for his father, called the Mellon Institute of Industrial Research. It soon became to be known as Carnegie Mellon University, and there, he was an alumni president and trustee of University of Pittsburgh. Even though he spent and devoted a lot of his time to serve the position of a "leader", it is vague to tell if he deserved the title of a "leader". Nowadays, the college accepts 18% of its applicants, and the applicants must be admiring Andrew Carnegie and Andrew Mellon for what a huge contribution they had made for the people. Moreover, he did succeed; as he offered many people an opportunity to better education, him and his school gained fame, and he lived the rest of his life as a wealthy person. My question is, is this information enough to endow him the title of a leader, and if not, what other information is required?