#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?

#5 - 10/11/'14

In the first American Studies test, we were asked to address the Origin and the Purpose, and assess the Value and the Limitation of two texts: David Walker’s Appeal and Dred Scott’s Case by Roger (aka OPVL). Although it was very easy to provide the Origin, the Purpose, and the Value, it was difficult for me to give two examples of Limitations for each source. I think this was the case because these texts were sort of challenging to interpret. Just by looking at the documents, I was not able to identify factual inaccuracies or omissions, because in my opinion, they were being as honest as possible, and there were no reasons for omissions. Next, I could not find anything that we could NOT learn from the document, other than what the founding fathers actually meant when they wrote “all men”, in the Declaration of Independence. Lastly, I could not recognize what the author left out of the story. Quite frankly, these two were pretty challenging texts to analyze and OPVL, especially the limitation, other than them not putting themselves in the others’ shoes. It would have been way easier if I had prior knowledge about the appeal written by Walker and Dred Scott’s Decision.

#4 - 10/7/'14

On today’s American Studies test, we were asked to analyze liberty or natural right. In it, I wrote that the word "liberty" was manipulated in that time period. This was so because the people of America had been using the term for their own advantage. For example, it is stated in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal". In the document, Thomas Jefferson and the men of Congress believed that all people were endowed the rights by their Creator or their God. Using this strong statement, they conveyed their message, and forced their way to acquire their freedom from the Great Britain’s rules. Now that they were over with the British oppression, they soon began to show some tyrannical action towards the black men and the slaves. In consequence, a group of angry abolitionists rose up to fight against the immoral and unjust society. In return, the white men, including Taney, manipulated and “tweaked” the Declaration, in so claiming that what the founding father meant by “all men” was a group of “rich, white males”. Thus, the blacks were silenced each time like this. As I was writing this on the paper, I remembered the first journal from American Literature, which was “Is man born good or evil?”. Even though people’s opinion may differ due to their impact from religion and others, the fact that men are evil still stays the same. Throughout the American history, there were lots of evil found in the action, the men, and the country itself, and it all started from “liberty”.

#3 - 9/26/'14

In the video, "Slavery and the Making of America", we were presented with a young African-American girl, named Harriet Jacobs, who was born as a slave. Harriet desperately wanted freedom from her lustful owner, James Norcom. She risked everything to gain liberty. In the process, she married a white man, named Sawyer, in the age of 15. However, marrying Sawyer did not grant her any freedom then. Soon, she gave birth to two children, whom Norton claimed as his properties. The greedy man even turned down the children's father, when he tried to purchase his own kids. The journey to freedom was difficult for the family, and eventually, Harriet decided to make an escape. Not to be blunt, but this was a reckless decision in my opinion. Things could have turned out worse for her children. First, Norcom was a merciless and avaricious man. Who knows what he could have done to them? With the snap of his fingers, he could torture them or even sell them, in order to bring his slave back to where she really belongs. Second, we saw in the video of the treatment of black people. When the group led a rebellion, the white men gathered to suppress the uprising. When the slave owners had a desire to harass their slaves, the church claimed that it was legal and that it was not a wrong thing to do. The “superior” thought that African-Americans deserved those actions - anything could have happened to Harriet, who made an escape as a slave. A great consequence could have faced her later on, and Sawyer would not have able to do a single thing for her. So, my question is, What would you have done if you were in Harriet’s shoes?

#2 - 9/20/'14

Does the United States of America really deserve its name? This issue was discussed in American Studies class, and it was something that I never thought about. In my opinion, the United States was once united. This was shown during the existence of the first 13 colonies, when the men of the Congress all agreed upon the fact that they wanted to declare their independence from Great Britain. They all shared a common goal, and it eventually set them free from their colonizer. However, the U.S. came apart when the issue of slavery rose. The southern states refused to abolish slavery, and decided to secede themselves from the others who had different opinion from them. From then on, they established the Confederate States of America, and went on a war against the Union. This separation was over after the Civil War, and they were once more united. The most important question that remains is, are we still united? I believe that we are united because the states need each other to survive, and because they have equal representation in the U.S. government. Some states have what other states lack, for example, resources, and they can be the counterpart of one another. On top of this, the country provides all men, including women, children, poor, and other races, with equal rights. Therefore, the United States does deserve to be called, a single united country.

#1 - 9/14/'14

In the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson throws in an important word: "self-evident". The term had a blunt, strong, and demanding connotation. It basically meant that there was no need for an explanation on why the three truths were the necessities in human lives. Jefferson’s insightful list consisted of these statements; “all men are created equal”, “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”, and “among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. However, the term “all men” did not apply to everyone. Behind the word hid the true definition, and it changed the meaning of the whole declaration. What Thomas Jefferson meant by “all men” was all white, affluent, 16 and/or older male. There were certain limits, and the document did not reach out to everyone. Therefore, any men who met the requirements were born equal. Next, some were not given the inalienable rights that God himself gave to his creation, his people. God was omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, and the powerless men took a wrong approach and chased away the rights that were promised to the people of other category. Finally, none of the pledge was presented to the “outcasts”. Under the restrictions, those particular people were not able to live their free life, or even be content for the rest of their lives. It is funny how all the men who were part of the declaration felt the same way about the three truths and the interpretation of “all men”. Moreover, it is amazing how selfish and inconsiderate these people were, that these men even defied the Divinity’s will to set everyone free.