What issues (both short and long term) need to be addressed?What other issues do you assume exist?Who is capable of and responsible for addressing them?What are the priorities of reconstruction? Who decides what the priorities are?Who or what is expendable or can be sacrificed in this process?How can you measure the efficacy or success of the recovery plan?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis analogy is all wrong for many many many reasons. First and foremost, this author only knows the basics of history. In the article, he says “despite Brown v. Board of Education, Martin Luther King’s I-have-a-dream crusade and the 1964 Civil Rights Act — the Civil War could never truly be said to have ended until America’s white majority actually elected an African-American as president.” The fact that the author only talks about racism in respect to civil war makes it seem that the author believes that the civil war was only about racism. As a 10th grade social studies class, we know better than this. So, this guy, a grown college-educated man, thinks that the civil war is all about slavery. That alone shows that the author is not qualified to write anything making connections to history.
ReplyDeleteEven if you play along with his theories, you find more and more blaring holes in the author's logic. For one, the author says that “That is what happened Tuesday night and that is why we awake this morning to a different country. The struggle for equal rights is far from over, but we start afresh now from a whole new baseline. Let every child and every citizen and every new immigrant know that from this day forward everything really is possible in America.” Although the election of Obama was significant, it does not even begin to solve anything. The fact that the author thinks that the election of Obama will make everybody star-eyed an make it so that everybody has faith in the US Govt. is just naïve.
The author further shows his complete misunderstanding of US history. By saying “Part of F.D.R.’s greatness, though, “was that he gradually wove a new governing political philosophy — the New Deal — out of the rubble and political disarray of the economic depression he inherited.” Obama will need to do the same, but these things take time”, the author directly links obama to FDR. Although the economic circumstances of FDR and obama are slightly similar, there are many things, such as the domestic and foreign circumstances, that are totally different. Any amateur historian could point this out. Personally, I think Obama is the democratic Reagan, but I will not go into that unless asked to.
I could go on forever. This article was bad almost to the point of hilarity. It was biased, got things insanely wrong, and the author came of as pretentious. In other words, it was exactly what I would expect from a NYT journalist.
long story short: I really hate the NYT, and think that current events do not relate back to reconstruction but to the late cold-war.
While I consider some of Sila's points legitimate, I think it's worthwhile to consider the fact that the article was an editorial, and thus will be based the author's opinions. Obviously, Friedman's opinion is that the Civil War actually ended in 2008, which is something worth consideration. Ms. Schager discussed the significance of Virginia’s secession during the war, and so Virginia voting democratic in the 2008 presidential election offers a sense of things 'coming full circle’.
ReplyDeleteMoving past the author and his opinions, Friedman's article does discuss a major issue faced by the country during post-Civil War Reconstruction: reuniting the country. It's clear that prior to slavery becoming the all-encompassing issue of the Civil War, the tensions between the industrial North and the "dream world" South were already existent (Adams 90). Such a clear division between Northerners and Southerners undermined the concept of the United States of America, which led to people pledging allegiance to their respective sections of the country and not the country itself. Intense sectional loyalty led to what historian Avery Craven considers a “dropped […] effort to compromise […] differences”, which ultimately led to the Civil War (Craven 161).
Because of this, one of the most significant long term issues that needed to be addressed was the lack of American nationalism. Friedman alludes to this concept through the use of the phrase “civil idealism”, but in simple terms, this is really just patriotism. The focus needed to be switched from ‘Southerner’ and ‘Northerner’ to ‘American’; from “Confederacy’ and ‘Union’ to ‘The United States’. There is evidence that Lincoln realized this—his making Thanksgiving, an occasion largely based on giving, kindness, and togetherness, a national holiday, is an excellent example, but he failed to realize another, shorter term issue that needed to be addressed in combination with this: Southern animosity toward the victors.
It seems trivial to say that the South wanted an apology after the war, but that is actually something incredibly important. It is impossible to rebuild a country that has one side entirely hating another, and while this appears to be too broad of a generalization, modern day Southern Atlantic hostility toward New England and Midatlantic states proves that it really isn’t. Not only did the South lose the war physically and in terms of what they wanted (slavery is abolished; federalism prevails), the actual land itself was ravaged: General William Sherman’s burning rampage through the South—particularly in South Carolina—is of considerable fame. Lincoln, who as president at the time was responsible for addressing these issues, should have realized that the South needed to be almost coddled after what it had gone through during the war and after the subsequent loss.
These issues come to sum up the major priority of Reconstruction: creating a strong unified country, for if unity is present the danger of a second Civil War is nonexistent. The United States of America—as Lincoln should have realized—needed to trump North vs. South: I’ve come to find that an internally sparring country is a weak one.
ReplyDeleteBecause life as it was halted for the Civil War, there is little that can be considered expendable during Reconstruction. The only thing I can believe was absolutely vital to be sacrificed is all forms of radicalism. Radical Republicans didn’t exactly get their way— after the war, slavery is abolished but several African-Americans are still trapped in slavery under a new name, sharecropping—and clearly, radical Democrats lost out completely after the war. During Reconstruction the country was extraordinarily fragile, and Friedman says it well in his article: “there [was] so much work to be done”. Moderate, slow change was a necessity and progress comes from compromise. Radicalism is inflexible. With radicalism comes radicals, but what to do with the actual people? I can’t offer a legitimate solution. Actively trying to change individual opinions is an idea, though I believe it’s a faulty one with a fifty-fifty success rate at best.
Judging the success of a plan such as the one to reunite the country and mitigate animosity needs to be done years later, which is where Friedman’s editorial comes in. With an African-American president, I find it difficult to believe that anyone could argue that America’s Reconstruction hasn’t been successful. Feel free to try, though, as even I can think of some ideas proving this false. Obviously—at least to me— blatant racism and sectional separations exist in the United States, but we’ve made considerable progress. Success, then, must be judged by positive social change.
Lola, you have some interesting points, and sure manage to use a lot of evidence while somehow keeping it short.
ReplyDeleteHowever, your analysis raised another issue of legitimacy in this article: the author's view of Obama. Although he acknowledges that racism is not fixed, (“The struggle for equal rights is far from over”), he still says that obama will solve all of america's problems. I am not extrapolating there. He actually says “my gut tells me that of all the changes that will be ushered in by an Obama presidency, breaking with our racial past may turn out to be the least of them. There is just so much work to be done.” Regardless of what anyone thinks of the guy, he isn't the messiah. Obama is one guy and, regardless of how good a president he probably will turn out to be, he not be able to everything on his agenda, much less anymore than that.
Also, the Virginia point is rendered moot do to the way Obama won. First, although he swept the electoral vote, he only won the popular vote across the entire country by a 53%(CNN). That means that 47% of all voters voted against Obama in the 2008 election. This is hardly a great show of how the “voters rebelled against Bush. In Virginia, although Obama did indeed win, the electoral paints a different story than the Virginia Commonwealth gladly electing Obama as their new Commander in Chief. McCain won the vast majority of all precincts by a wide margin, with Obama winning the population centers to come out victorious(CNN). Furthermore, if one looks at the exit polls, you will see something drastically different that what the author was trying to state as fact. McCain carries all of the categories where the people were white by a 5-10 percent margin(CNN). To furthermore bury the author's argument, Obama won an astounding 90% upward on all polls where the participants were black(CNN) . This, if anything, exposes how the racial divide still exists with gusto, and is not gone by any sense of the imagination. I will say this once again: this author has no idea what he is talking about.
Although Lola points out that there are many arguments against the author's thesis, that is not why I take beef with it. There are a thousand arguments for or against any thesis. It was the fact that the author's main idea was so horribly supported. He provides one reason, Obama winning Virginia, that is easily proven totally, utterly, completely wrong with relative ease. Never mind the fact that this article is insanely naïve, declaring Obama to be the authors savior. Never mind how out of touch this article is, with the author seeming to believe that everyone loves Obama. Never mind the fact that this represents everything that is wrong with the liberal elite, and shows why the republican party is gaining steam. It is not that that made me decide that this article is horrid. It was the lack of evidence in this article that proved to me it was horrible.
Both Lola and Mike make interesting points. Personally, I, too, disagree with the author when he wrote, "the American Civil War ended, as a black man — Barack Hussein Obama — won enough electoral votes to become president of the United States." I believe the physical Civil War ended in 1865 with the abolishment of slavery, yet it is Reconstruction that has still been continuing, and like the author, I believe it still occurring today.
ReplyDeleteAs for answering the question, "what are the priorities of reconstruction," the priorities of reconstruction are to unify the union and rebuild America as a whole. I think reconstruction will never end. We will never be able to completely unite the union. This is seen in the 2008 election because as the article says, 47% of American voters, voted against Obama, proving that this racial divide is far from being destroyed. Although many of the people in this 47% are not racist, and just disagree with Obama's views, we know through watching "Right America Feeling Wronged" that many people in our country are still in the process of reconstructing and against unifying every single person in the country. What are your opinions on the priorities of reconstruction? Do you think reconstruction will ever end?
To some of what Sila said, I disagree. The author of the article was not saying that Obama is the messiah. He was just wondering, “Can he be one of our few great presidents?” All he’s doing is being hopeful that better times will come with a new president in this economic crisis. He was merely highlighting the significance of finally having a black president. I do agree with most of what you said, though. There definitely was a lack of supportable evidence.
ReplyDeleteI also like what Maddie said about how the physical Civil War ended in 1865 and that Reconstruction is still going on. To answer your question, in a sense, perhaps, Reconstruction may never end. Our country will never be perfectly unified because that is just pretty much an impossible thing to ask for. There will always be people like those you mentioned from “Right America, Feeling Wronged.” However, does that small percentage really indicate that Reconstruction is not over? The purpose of Reconstruction was arguably to rebuild the government and that small percentage of people does not make up the government. With an African American in the highest political position, it seems like a huge part of Reconstruction is accomplished. So does anyone think that maybe it was actually Reconstruction that ended with Obama’s presidency?
I think that it's important to define what exactly Reconstruction is defined as. If Reconstruction is interpreted as the North's efforts to maintain racial equality in the South, then it ended in 1870 when Northern military forces were driven out (Digital History). If Reconstruction refers to the general attempt to eliminate racism and racial inequality in the country, then I believe that while we have decreased racial inequalities, Reconstruction hasn't ended yet and won't for a very long time, if ever. Interestingly, Thomas Friedman points out that with Obama’s election, the “Civil War” has ended and only now will “Reconstruction begin.”
ReplyDeleteBut considering Reconstruction from a more long-term perspective and in terms of what's happening today, it's interesting who exactly decides what should be done. After the Civil War, since the goal of Reconstruction was to instill racial inequality in the South, the victorious North was clearly was the most reliable force to administer the task. Additionally, since Northerners were so unanimously against slavery and blatant prejudice against non-whites, the goals of Reconstruction were very clear as well.
But today, assuming Reconstruction is going on, who decides what the standards for racial equality are or what inequalities even exist? The government would ideally represent the people in this case, passing laws boosting the socioeconomic (and consequentially political) statuses of certain demographic groups. While it can be argued that the government may have much more trouble eliminating more subtle racial inequalities, such as prejudices passed down in families in different areas, I believe that that the priorities of Reconstruction should be decided by the highest government authority in the country. What does everyone else think?
I think that reconstruction should be defined as a re-construction. A rebuilding of the south, and a return to the way things once were. Sort of like Warren G Harding's return to normalcy. If you look at it my way, then reconstruction was accomplished in the 1870's when Rutherford B Haynes made the deal with the southern democrats to pull out of the south, with the southern democratic commission ruling in favor of Haynes, giving him a lead in the electoral college of 1 vote(Whitehouse.gov). Under Grant, radial reconstruction was in full swing, with a strong military presence in all parts of the south(whitehouse). With Grant gone, the south almost immediately instituted “Jim Crow” laws to keep the black man down. Soon enough, there were almost no African-American's in the US Legislature. In addition, sharecropping, although different in theory, was much like slavery. So, after reconstruction, the south hated the north, had a slavery-like system, and blacks had almost no rights. In other words, almost exactly like what it was before the civil war.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Michael, Lola, and Maddie in disagreeing that "...on November 8, 2008...the American Civil War ended as a black man- Barack Hussein Obama...[became] President of the United States" (Friedman). In my opinion, as well as many others, believe that slavery and a "racial divide" were not the main causes of the Civil War. I believe that our country's damaged society was due to many factors, including the economy and the over all union as one nation. However, I do not feel we have the right to dismantle Thomas Friedman's article, claiming that he is "...not qualified to write anything making connections to history" (Sila). No one person can pinpoint exactly what caused the Civil War, and how significant each factor was in tearing down our nation. It is all a matter of opinion, being based off of where you're coming from, where you are, how you've been raised, etc.
ReplyDeleteA point that I actually found I agreed with claimed that, "[The election of McCain] would have made a mockery of accountability in government and...in some ways, meant rewarding incompetance" (Friedman). President Bush, in a matter of opinion, had negatively effected America and its stability as one nation. It would have been obscure to then proceed to elect another representative from that same political party, implying that America does not have sense.
Going off of Matt's point, it is an interesting observation that after the Civil War, the "North" was given the power to reconstruct this country to form one nation. At the time, it would seem that the North was the most capable in Reconstruction, but now looking at it from over 100 years ago, the most sensible solution would be to let both the North and South contribute in the Reconstruction of our country. Think about it- by only giving the power to the North, it is implying that the North is superior to the South, which is just what we were trying to overcome.
I agree with Maddie's point that the priorities of Reconstruction were to unify us as a nation, but the way we went about it only set us up for more failure. It is impossible to unite as one country if we are candidly allotting more power to one side of the country verses the other. The point of Reconstruction is to diminish the differences between the "North" and "South", "Union" and "Confederacy", so that it is just the "United States of America".
I feel that the South definitely had to sacrifice the most, even though I completely agree with the North's decisions. If we want union, sacrifices need to be made by both parties. However, that was not the case, and due to this issue, these problems of unity are still inflicted upon us today.
Though I do not agree with the author, Thomas Friedman, and his article, "Finishing Our Work", he does continue to make a few good points, though, as Michael stated, his thesis is not entirely supported by his evidence. The election of President Obama did not end the Civil War, and until we overcome our "differences", prejudices, etc., our Reconstruction is still left unfinished.
-Brittany B.
Regarding Maddie's question Do you think Reconstruction will ever end? My answer is no. I think that the prejudices that have made reconstruction go on for the past 147 years are no where near gone. These prejudices are to deep to go away. They are prejudices that are taught to children by their parents and that continues down the line. It's a lot like how many of the things kids believe and grow up believing are based off of what their parents say and teach them, and the way that kids are raised. And as long as their are still people who have prejudices I don't thing reconstruction will ever end.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Maddie and Shira's comments I strongly agree. When one is to think about generations and how parents teach their children about certain issues and topics, opinions generally never seem to alter and stray off into new thoughts and views. This is widely viewed in "Right America Feeling Wronged" and even when visiting the south today. The proud patriotism not only of the United States but the Confederate flags waving in the air, on the back of a truck, or even on shirts are still seen all over the south today. After 145 years since the civil war ended, I do not think it is remarkable to be talking about the fact that blacks may not be equal to whites and that our nation is not together as a whole. I do not think that our nation will ever have the same opinions and that is why it is so great. However, because so many people have this type of freedom the sense of being equal in terms of respect towards ethnicities or parties will never exist. I am not saying the way blacks and other ethnicities being treated poorly is right but I think that our country will never view every person as an equal individual. Thus, I think the question of whether or not we want everyone to be happy in a magical equal world is for the best. I also believe the real controversial topic is how the president and the nation can improve situations for individuals that are less fortunate and help bring more happiness towards the vast nation.
ReplyDeleteI think Ben and Shira are completely right, Reconstruction and the Civil War will never compeltely end. While this article claims that having the majority of people vote for Obama ends reconstruction, that is simply not true. A map of the voting spread of the presidential election, http://jutiagroup.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/2008_us_presidential_election_final_results.jpg, proves that this election did not break down any age old societal barriers- Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and the majority of the midwest states, all voted for John McCain. Every New England state and California voted for Obama. In our presidential elections, a few states are the difference between victory and defeat (in this case Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio) and the rest simply vote for their respective party. Therefore no major dents were made in racism in America.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the fact that racism is even present in this discussion is a sign that racism is still present in America. This article implies that anyone voting for McCain was racist. The amount of racist overtones surrounding that election (opposition to Obama was racist) completely over shadowed the actual issues. If racism was not an issue anymore, and reconstruction was over, those issues would not have even been raised.
In conclusion, this election only made minor strides in ending reconstruction as only a few states changed their votes, as well as this election's racist undertones prevented the utopian goal of race not being a factor.
I agree with Maddie on the fact that the Civil War physically ended in 1865, however, I actually think that is when it officially ended as well. For people to say "the Civil War is still going on" would change the definition of the Civil War from a physical battle between the North and South to something much more. While I will agree that there was a lot to the Civil War, we cannot stretch it out over a long period of time, and have it encompass the large amount of racism that ensued.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Friedman's column, I went onto the New York Times website to read the comments by readers about the column. Most were extremely positive ("I am thrilled," "the windows and doors of America have been opened")
However, comparing the hope that people had back then with how people feel about Obama now is very different. Perhaps this is what Friedman means by "let the reconstruction begin." What are the parallels between the Civil War's reconstruction and what Friedman defines as reconstruction?
I agree with Ben when he say, "parents teach their children about certain issues and topics, opinions generally never seem to alter and stray off into new thoughts and views." This belief is definitely still present in our country. My parents went to school in Georgia and my brother currently goes to the same school and they have all said that what southern cultures value is different from ours and is portrayed in Right America Feeling Wronged. I feel that part of the reason why they have this feeling is because they are still going trough reconstruction and personally I don't believe that reconstruction will ever come to an end. Similar to what Ben said the confederate flag still waves all over the south. In addition, the prejudices and racism towards blacks from the civil war is still present. For example,in Right America Feeling Wronged, people wouldn't vote for Obama simply because he was black. Most of the prejudices beliefs that those people had were probably opinions that were passed down from their parents. In reality, as long as racism and prejudices are around reconstruction will continue.
ReplyDeleteMelanie Mignucci
ReplyDeleteTo directly address Mike Sila, I wouldn't say Friedman is "not qualified to write anything making connections to history," for one because the article was an opinion, and also because the man has just a right as any to draw parallels between the FDR presidency and Obama's presidency. I would even venture to draw my own parallels and say that the global climate is fairly similar, with Al-Qaeda playing the role of ascending Hitler in the Third Reich, the global economy having collapsed, unemployment on the exponential rise. FDR's and Obama's policies are similar in that they try to demand from each according to his ability, and give to each according to his need (I think that is a quote from Ayn Rand regarding socialist practises). That being said, of course Obama is not going to solve all of America's problems, which one could say started with the reconstruction period, which leads me to my next point.
The issue of racism is of course one that was not addressed outright, because politicians are notorious for equivocating so as to avoid offending anyone. So of course legislation was enacted that did not take into account personal beliefs and rebellion among southerners or northerners. In order to drive away racism (which at this point had become the cultural norm), one had to use the same method by which it was brought in: force. Arguably, it wasn't until the civil rights era when the government began to force people to be decently human to each other, and still today we suffer from drastic inequalities. In the book "The children of room E4," the author explores the nature of racism in connecticut as recently as the late 1990s. She shows how school district lines and budgets were designed to keep poor people in the cities and out of the suburbs, to which many people could attest are still fairly segregated. The main priorities of reconstruction should have been fair treatment for blacks, reparations for Sherman's march, and creating a stable balance between strict and loose interpretations of the constitution that worked for every state. Barring that, it would have been much easier to let the South secede, as its interests were and still are far from those of the North, making bipartisan cooperation nearly impossible.
Matt- While I do agree with your overall point, there was one thing in your passage that jumped out at me. You said that "the goals of Reconstruction were very clear" because "Northerners were so unanimously against...blatant prejudice against non-whites" (Silver), and I'm not sure about either part of that.
ReplyDeleteTo begin, I don't agree that Northerners in general were totally against prejudice. Although the views were not as open as in the South, there was still plenty of racism in Northern states. As author Davison Douglas explores, schools in particular stayed separated in the North (umd.edu). Even as late as the 1930's, there was still separation in northern schools. Also, when blacks were being allowed to fight during the war, "northern whites...flinched at the prospect of arming black men" (niu.edu). Because of that, I feel like there was not actually a clear goal for the Reconstruction era. I think that they wanted to resolve the discrimination issue in the South, but by essentially disregarding their own prejudices, which were probably subconscious, they could not do it. I agree with Sila that it was largely a failed attempt, and I believe that was why.
I really liked what David said about “the fact that racism is even present in this discussion is a sign that racism is still present in America.” Everyone here seems not to have any belief that racism could ever not play a role in peoples’ lives. However, we all know the principals of why the north is more liberal, because of large cities like New York where ideas are spread with more facility. That is very present today and is a huge reason why there is still racism in the south. The United States is constantly growing industrially and I believe that over time more and more people will start moving themselves throughout the country and move to potential developing cities in the south. There, ideas will spread and more and more people will understand how unnecessary racial prejudice is. I know this analogy is kind of a stretch but bear with me for a moment. I think it is safe to say that almost every single Christian child believes in Santa Clause and The Eater Bunny, however as they are exposed to more and more media and different opinions as they get older they lose their faith. This shows how 1. If southerners grow up with prejudice values and relocate to a different part of the country they could gain a new understanding for racial equality and 2. How, if in an environment where one is exposed to more information and opinions, one can develop new opinions. These two reasons support why I have faith that our nation can someday be rid of racial inequality (I obviously don’t suggest that this is in the near future.)
ReplyDeleteConcerning reconstruction I believe that after the civil war reconstruction was just the government’s way to try and tape the nation back together. I don’t think they seriously believed that they were going to do anything to abolish racial inequality in the nation so I do not think anyone could say that reconstruction is still going on. I think it was just intended to secure the nation well enough for it to function under a federal government. I think the priorities were just to make sure that the nation was united enough to function as a unit, and to prevent further violence between the north and south. Lastly, I do not believe , like some others have said, that it is fair to measure the success of the recovery plan by how much racial inequality exists today.
Caroline Smith
ReplyDeletePicking up where Charlotte left off answering the question of how can you measure the efficacy or success of the recovery plan, I say that unfortunately, a plan like this will take time. As Harvard University political philosopher Michael Sandel said, "part of F.D.R.'s greatness...was that he gradually wove a new governing political philosophy...out of the...economic[ally depressed country] he inherited." As Sandel said, "...these things take time." The success of the recovery plan will be best measured decades later, when we can reflect upon what has been done and what should have been done. Of coarse, the "success" of the recovery plan will be subjective. For Southern states who were forced to adopt the 14th amendment, giving blacks (men) equal rights, the recovery plan was a source of anger and not a source of positivity towards the new future of the Union. Conversely, for abolitionists like Salmon P. Chase, the fact that former Confederate states had to constitutionally agree to blacks having equal rights was an optimistic step forward, and a positive solution that stemmed from a very negative war. There are immediate thoughts of success from the recovery plan (equal rights for blacks) and then there are those things that cannot be seen until much later. These long-term things are often negative and I will say that the tension between the North and South over various matters disappoints me. Although one of the reasons we fought this war in the first place was because the North and South were incapable of compromising with words, I think reconciliation should have been tried again after the war. Without getting too much into that I will say that there is no one way to measure the success of the recovery plan because there are so many variables such as time and personal opinion.
Charlotte-I know you said that you think our nation can be rid of racial inequality, and that it won't be in the near future, but I wonder why the country would begin to change now, instead of over the last 145 years? The country has had plenty of time to spread their ideas throughout the population, but have they? And would this even have an affect if children are still being raised to believe certain things? Parents are the ones who affect their children the most, so if you cannot change the views of the parents, which I guarantee would be a very difficult job, as shown in Right America Feeling Wronged, how could you in turn change their children's views?I guess I just don't understand how you would spread our ideals to the racist population, if they already despise the south.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what others have said with the fact that both Reconstruction and the Civil War will never truly have an end. I also agree with Charlotte when she says that Reconstruction was the government's way to "tape the nation back together" and that they didn't necessarily believe it was going to abolish racial inequality. But then this made me question whether Obama is using the same strategy of introducing the message of "change" as a way to help our country recover from this economic crisis.
ReplyDeleteI think Sam makes an interesting point regarding the “subconscious” discrimination of Northerners and how they were keen on fixing racial discrimination in the South without necessarily addressing it fully in the North. While Friedman’s article demonstrates the joy and pride felt by many Americans after electing an African-American president, the reality in our country is that racial discrimination and prejudice are still very active and deeply ingrained in our society. Although it may not be “cool” to talk about our prejudices anymore, they are most definitely still there. Sam’s reference to segregation in schools “even as late as the 1930’s” is a good example, but doesn’t go far enough. Let’s consider our very own school and look at Staples and the surrounding schools like Bridgeport. Even today, in the North, in 2010, we basically have a segregated school system and very different levels of educational facilities and opportunities for different races in our country. So I guess I really disagree with Friedman’s idea that Obama’s election marks the “end” of anything as not much has really changed. We may all feel better about ourselves for living in a country where a “black man-Barack Hussien Obama-won enough votes to become president of the United States” (Friedman), but without real change I think it is a false hope.
ReplyDeleteIt is also interesting to think about the big separation that existed in culture, racial attitudes and political thinking in the North and South and compare them to the very similar tensions that exist today between Democrats and Republicans and conservatives and liberals. Just turn on any TV news show today and listen to the tone of the commentator talking about what is wrong with the “other” party. Friedman points to this election as inspiring and as the “end of the war”. But look closely at the red vs. blue map showing the election results from 2008 (umich.edu). Haven’t the North/South divisions in our country just been replaced and moved around a little bit and are now Red/Blue divisions? Haven’t we just replaced black vs. white with left vs. right?
I agree with what Maddie with saying how Reconstruction is still happening today, and as the other blog talked about, I do not believe it can ever really be completed. I dont think that our racism will ever go away, because if it could happen in the first place, it proves that humans are capable of racism and that even if you havent been grown up with racism through the media you could become prejudice. As Charlotte was saying you could loose faith in what your parents taught you. Although I wish Charlotte could be right and that racism would end in our nation, but according to philsopher Thomas Hobbes who believed that all men have evil in them.
ReplyDeleteWow so many great comments have been made here. David, you made a great point when you said, "This election only made minor strides in ending reconstruction as only a few states changed their vote". Mel, I definitely agree with you when you wrote, "The main priorities of reconstruction should have been fair treatment for blacks, reparations for Sherman's march, and creating a stable balance between strict and loose interpretations of the constitution that worked for every state." Britt, I agree that the South sacrificed the most during Reconstruction. Charlotte, I loved your analogy with children and the Christian faith. Lastly, to Caroline, I think you made a great point when you wrote that the efficacy of Reconstruction can only be judged objectively; there is no factual evidence that shows whether or not it was effective.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Thomas Friedman that " the American Civil War ended, as a black man — Barack Hussein Obama — won enough electoral votes to become president of the United States" (Friedman). Maddie, I agree that the Civil War really did end in 1865. The Civil War actually ended on April 9th when General Robert E. Lee surrendered his army. After that, Reconstruction began. Rather than Reconstruction beginning after Obama's election, I believe Reconstruction has been going on for 145 years and will continue for generations, maybe forever. And Mike, I think you might have been a little harsh on Friedman. He was just trying to make a clever analogy for America's current struggles. You should not look at his article too literally; it is clear that there are a few blemishes in it as many others have pointed out on this blog.
I think the main goals for Reconstruction should have been, and should continue to be, ending racism and uniting the nation. These aspects of America still must be improved, just at a lesser degree than in 1865. Back then, the North fought to end slavery and take a step towards social equality between races. Back then, the North and South physically fought a war between each other, so the nation had to be mended together again. Now, any race can vote, but we are still battling for equality in the work place and to end prejudices across America, especially in the "deep south". A divide still exists between the North and South. Great friction and animosity still exists between "red states" and "blue states". America is still reconstructing from the Civil War to help destroy this divide and truly unite both sides and parties.
I disagree with Kelsey who said, “this made me question whether Obama is using the same strategy of introducing the message of "change" as a way to help our country recover from this economic crisis” because I think while Obama did use “change” as a form of manipulation, I do not believe it was for the purpose of the economy. Instead, I believe that he used it to win an election. I feel that he preyed on American’s sense of disapproval of the Bush administration and promised to do things differently. I find the word choice very clever because “change” is a euphemism here for ambiguous differences. While not specifically promising a positive outcome, Obama’s presence left voters with feelings of hope for the future, such as the author of this article. He states, “My gut tells me that of all the changes that will be ushered in by an Obama presidency, breaking with our racial past may turn out to be the least of them. There is just so much work to be done.” He uses “change” again optimistically.
ReplyDeleteNone of this is to be confused with the fact that I do believe that Obama is a boundary-breaking president. I think the point that the author is trying to get across is that this elusive “change” is upon us. Racism and race still create a dividing line between parties. However, I agree with Jamie that it is being substituted for political party preferences instead. I am going to take a leap here and state that it is because of social networking. I feel that the technology generation of kids feel more connected to each other and are beginning to care less about what you look like than what you act like. And by this I mean to imply that social class is more important now. One of the biggest divides among parties is obviously the question of taxes. In less wealthy parts of the country, such as the South, republicanism often rules based upon their preference for lower taxes. In the North, democrats find majority because the upper and middle class supporters flock to the suburban areas surrounding places such as Boston and New York. From what Zinn has taught me, racism is not a natural occurrence. From what I have observed in America as a teenager today has taught me, over the next three or four generations perhaps it will become an almost invisible issue. However, stereotyping based on socioeconomic class will become more prevalent.
I find Friedman’s article interesting, if not idealistic at best. His belief that the “American Civil War ended [...] as a black man — Barack Hussein Obama — won enough electoral votes to become president of the United States (Friedman)” brings with it an air of naivety – it neglects the bigger picture. I agree with Sila that it shows a limited understanding for the Civil War and American history in general. Though it has to be taken into account that this is an opinion piece, I can’t help but cringe at Friedman’s blatant bias. According to Friedman, “it probably took a once-in-a-century economic crisis to get enough white people to vote for a black man (Friedman).” I feel that this sentence alone discredits the general population of America and the whole of Obama’s campaign. By saying that Obama only won because of his race, Friedman puts his foot in his mouth. It then means that the Civil War is not over, and that there are many more milestones to overcome before the war ends.
ReplyDeleteI think that Civil War ended when it ended. As Maddie said, it is Reconstruction that has yet to end. In order to find that end, America has to reach past the racial barriers that keep it from achieving that common peace. That means looking past the racial divide in America and “[tapping into] a dormant civic idealism, a hunger among Americans to serve a cause greater than themselves, a yearning to be citizens again (Sandel).”
I agree with so much of what everybody else has already said. Echoing what many others have already stated, I do not believe that Reconstruction is over and racism is obliterated simply because Obama was elected president. In the article, Friedman cited the "Buffet Effect" as a reason why Obama may have been elected, saying, "It was white conservatives telling the guys in the men's grill at the country club that they were voting for John McCain, but then quietly going into the booth and voting for Obama" (Friedman). Ideally if this election proves there is no longer slavery, then why, according to Warren Buffet, would people feel the need to lie about who they intended on voting for simply because of race? Furthermore, I disagree with the last lines of the article, "The Civil War is over. Let reconstruction begin." I agree with Maddie and others when they say that they believe the Civil War ended in 1865, and reconstruction has been continuing this entire time.
ReplyDeleteCharlotte, I appreciate your optimism when you say that you believe (far into the future) eventually racism can end. While I am doubtful over whether or not all forms of prejudice will eventually be nonexistent, I do agree that it can definitely be diminished. Margot, to answer your question of why things would begin changing now, rather than in the past 145 years, I think that things are not just beginning to happen now, but rather what has been happening will continue to happen at a more rapid pace. For example, after the Civil War ended, it took nearly 90 years for the Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court case to finally decide that schools must be integrated in 1854, and then another ten years for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to outlaw segregation in jobs and public facilities. It took about 100 years after the Civil War to make this one step for integration, but then only fifty years after that Obama is elected president. Now as stated earlier, I do not believe that Obama's election ends racism, but rather shows hope that there have been improvements. Furthermore, imagine if every new generation is just slightly less prejudiced than there parents were, through more experiences with different people and different social interactions. If this continues, doesn't that show hope for the future?
I completely agree with Ana's statement when she said, "I can't help but cringe at Friedman's blatant bias." It's one thing for him to support Obama, but saying that his election into office is the end of a the Civil War just doesn't make sense. Friedman states, “the Civil War could never truly be said to have ended until America’s white majority actually elected an African-American as president”. I strongly disagree with this statement because it shouldn’t have to take an African American president to end the legacy of racism and inferiority that blacks in America feel today—if our country was truly headed towards racial equality we wouldn’t need a black president to accomplish this, any color president could do. Our country’s obsession with the fact that we have elected a black president into office I think actually shows a step back, if anything, for our country. Why can’t a white president have the same effect on people that our first black president is expected to have? Yes, seeing a black man in the highest position of our government is a huge milestone for us, but this shouldn’t be the reason that the voters of our country were supporting him. I can only hope that our country elected our president for his policies and his characteristics, not for the color of his skin.
ReplyDeleteI think that Abby brings up a very good point. Our country obsessed over the significance of the race of our President, that it actually exposes how racially aware we are as a nation. I believe that in a completely racially unbiased society, people would have been raving about the significance of Obama because of his ideas, not the color of his skin. Unfortunately, I believe that some people supported Obama solely because of the color of his skin and are now upset that they are not getting everything they want out of the President. I believe this is the cause of Obama’s decrease in approval ratings and the reason I have not heard of a plethora of new cases of racial equality.
ReplyDeleteThis leads me to another issue that has been brought of whether or not reconstruction is over yet. I agree with those before me who have stated that having a black President does not automatically mean that reconstruction is over or the Civil War is over. There have been many instances of increased racial tension since Obama’s election, such as the congressman shouting, “You lie, boy!” at Obama. So no, I do not think reconstruction is over yet, and I believe that there is still much to do with reconstruction. Furthermore, in contrast to Thomas Friedman’s view when he states, “the Civil War could never truly be said to have ended until America’s white majority actually elected an African-American as president” (Friedman), I believe that the Civil War could never truly be said to have ended until America becomes apathetic and blind to whatever race the President is. I believe the Civil War could be said to be over when people, including Presidential candidates, are chose solely for their political standpoints and not for the color of their skin.
Responding to Jessica's post, I think that the Buffet Effect is actually the opposite. Maybe 50 or so years ago it would be that the "inn" or "trendy" thing to do would be to vote for the white man, but now the situation has been reversed. We are all subject to trends of society, not only those in the form of fashion and hair, but political and social conventions. Television channels such as MTV are creating an environment where young American adults feel that its cool to vote for someone because he's black. In fact, most of my friends who I spoke to said that they supported O'Bama because they would like to see a first black president - the value of his political views had been ignored because they were so absorbed in race. So no, I do not believe that in the past presidential election the Buffet Effect took place except for in a small population of voters.
ReplyDeleteJessica also brought up the idea that each generation is becoming slightly less prejudiced than the last, an optimism that I sadly have to disagree with. Prejudice must obey the law of conservation of mass - it can be neither created nor destroyed. Instead, prejudice is rotated in different forms. A prejudice against a black slave as inhumane that existed during the time period of the Civil War might now be a prejudice against an asian as intelligent.
Also, the term prejudice has been used throughout the blog. However, we have not addressed what conditions are attached to prejudice? What mindset does one have to have to be titled "racist" against President O'Bama?
Also, in terms of measuring the success of reconstruction, I think that to be successful would be to have solidified the principles that race should not be a factor to sway decision making in the work force and government, and in this sense, we have failed. Affirmative Action, along with simple over-consideration of clusters of race can be seen all over America. Just leafing through a college pamphlet of Williams College, I saw a huge pie chart bragging about how diversified. If racism is when race has influence, then would the strive for diversity in colleges such as Williams be considered racist?
http://www.williams.edu/admission/apply_stats.php
No! I didn't refresh again and didn't see Robert's post... Sorry!
ReplyDeleteAbby, I really like your comment. You bring up an interesting point, that it shouldn't take color to end the issue of color. I think it's important to take the entire 2008 election into consideration and the faces that we saw - Clinton's, a woman, Obama's, a black male, and McCain with a female vice president. Each runner presented a milestone and that in itself says a lot about where we've come as a country.
ReplyDeleteJessica, you literally said what I was about to say. Friedman's comment about the reverse Buffett Effect completely ruined his argument about the Civil War "ending" upon the election; if there were no more racial instability in this country, the conservative white men would not feel a need to tell their friends that they were voting for McCain but then voting for Obama. This clearly shows that the divide between races and political parties is still very much there, and thus Friedman's inclusion of this reverse Buffett Effect is simply degrading his argument.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, Friedman makes a weak case when he says that "Bush & Co. did not believe that government could be an instrument of the common good." If Bush weren't for the "common good," then how come there are security systems in place at airports that protect airplanes from being hijacked and crashed by terrorists? I do not want to instate another discussion here, yet I do believe that Friedman is simply throwing in biased points for which he has no evidence nor proof. His bias between political parties is just like the racism that is still prevalent today.
I am glad that "Maureen Down will appear on Thursday," as I cannot read any more of Friedman's opinion pieces.
I could not agree more with what Abby posted. As the election went on, I really felt that there were many supporters that were behind Obama simply for his race and not because of what he necessarily stood for. Also, Robert's reasoning behind the drop of approval ratings seems entirely feasible and realistic.
ReplyDeleteI also thought that what Friedman said about the crisis was extremely interesting. In Obama's case, he said that a major crisis could be the opportunity for greatness. Relating back to Reconstruction, the country needed a strong leader to pull the nation out of the mess that it was in. Back then, it was the Civil War and the feuding sides of the country, but now, it's the economic nadir that's gotten everyone into trouble. The situations are very different because back then, people were literally at each other's throats about problems that they had with each other, but with the current problem, most of the country is targeting a select group of people that caused major issues. Either case is, of course, a lot to deal with for a president, but in one case, the country is pretty much split in half, whereas it seems that more of America is all in it together with the current crisis.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy original thoughts while reading the article are as follows: I disagree – having a president of different color does not mean that everything is really possible. This irks me that the author is using a change of skin color as a reason for possibilities. Under the skin color is the man, so black or white, blue or green, it is a human being that leads our nation each election, not a a black one or a white one, as they are so labeled. Just because Obama is black does not mean everything is possible. This brings me to raise a difficult question: If Obama was white, would he have even been elected? I honestly cannot say yes or no, because if color is out of the question, it comes down to simple policies. However, the elections would not have been merely as big a deal because 2 rich white guys running for office is nothing new. It was the color of Obama’s skin that blew up the elections. If he were white, no one would have given a crap about the Civil War ending. The Civil War ended in 1865, and Friedman’s screwed up logic about it ending in 2008 and Obama ending all the problems of America seems to be something new that should be condoned.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, like many on the blog, I couldn’t agree more with Abby’s comments. When she said, “Our country’s obsession with the fact that we have elected a black president into office I think actually shows a step back, if anything, for our country,” my eyes were pried open. I had not interpreted the elections and after-effects (obsession) as a step back, but now I do. However, although it can be frowned upon, it was inevitable that we would become obsessed. We are America, after all, and if we were obsessed with racism and keeping the blacks and whites separate, it was impossible for us to not become obsessed with the fact that we have, dare I say it, a BLACK president! (sarcasm) However, her final comment, “I can only hope that our country elected our president for his policies and his characteristics, not for the color of his skin,” is cute, but in reality, it was the color of his skin that obviously factored into who America would choose as their president. Like I said before, if he wasn’t black, 2 white guys would have been nothing new and would’ve ruffled some feathers but it was that divisive middle name – Hussein – that fired people up.
I agree with many points brought up by different people but I do think that this article is a very exaggerated. It seems ridiculous to me that this author presents that “the Civil War could never truly be said to have ended until America’s white majority actually elected an African-American as president”. I think that the civil war was not just a racial battle; it encompassed so many more issues that are overlooked by many people today. I think that yes, President Obama is coming into office at a trying time and I think the statement “Let reconstruction begin” is extremely accurate. But I don’t think Obama needs to reconstruct from the Civil War, I think he needs to reconstruct the country as it is right now. Obama needs to take care of the current economic state and all of the problems in our country, almost none of which involve the Civil War’s racial issues as Friedman explains.
ReplyDeleteI think that Friedman saying that Obama’s election into office marks the end of the Civil War and the beginning of reconstruction is a unreasonable statement. It is untrue to say that our country has not made any sort of progress since the Civil War. The state that our country was in right after the war cannot even be compared to the country that we are today. Yes, we aren’t a perfect country, but that is why we are still in reconstruction and still trying to improve on the flaws that our country has. But to say that Obama’s election is what actually ended the Civil War doesn’t make sense. Obama’s election is a huge step forward to a better America- an America where people are “colorblind,” as Martin Luther King dreamed of. But we cannot discredit the progress, that even Friedman points out, “Brown v. Board of Education, Martin Luther King’s I-have-a-dream crusade and the 1964 Civil Rights Act.” I can completely agree with what people have been saying about our country still being in an era of reconstruction, an era that I don’t think will ever have an end, because there is always room for improvement. For decades, our country has made a tremendous amount of progress, and I think it would have been a lot more accurate if Friedman said in his article that Obama’s election was a huge step forward for our country in our ongoing journey of reconstruction.
ReplyDeleteCaroline Nantz
ReplyDeleteIn agreement with Michael, Brittany, etc., I feel that, unlike the beliefs of Friedman, Reconstruction is still going on, and the end is not in sight.
Though this battle began with North fighting South, I believe it has switched over to people fighting for equality for everyone, and those who oppose equality. We have improved in our struggle for successfully reconstructing this nation, but we have yet to fully reach Reconstruction. The South is not threatening to secede from the United States, and the North is not the controller of the nation. However, in the beginning of Reconstruction, the South was unfairly treated, being completely governed by the North, as Brittany had stated earlier.
Since our expansion from the east to west coasts, I believe this battle has switched more towards equality. Some people firmly believe in differentiating "races", while others strongly stand by their belief in gaining equality for all.
I agree with Brittany in that to fully reconstruct this nation, we have to drop our differences because, in truth, how are we going to accomplish equality if we still believe we are different? In my opinion, it means that we are acting very hypocritical.
Shweta Lawande
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more with Caroline and Jamie's idea that we are still working towards Reconstruction.
I believe the Civil War was one between two groups of Americans with separate interests for the nation. Just like the way differences existed between Northerners and Southerners over the presence of slavery, Democrats and Republicans have different views on how our country should be run. These differences are evident during presidential elections when members from each party try and win the vote of the Americans.
However, I don't think our country is reconstructing from the Civil War, but it is reconstructing from events that occurred after such as the War in Iraq the current economic recession. I think many of the lessons learned from the Civil War are still present today such as
(Caroline Wu again.)
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone here in that the article is definitely biased. As far as the Civil War goes, I think that it ended in 1865, but what has been continuing on is the reconstruction, or at least part of it. Reconstruction means both the physical reconstruction that occured after the war ravaged the land, but also the emotional one, which consists of repairing the damage the war wrecked upon the north and the south's relationship. Reconstruction in a physical sense is already complete. There are no more damaged buildings to rebuild or burned farmlands to retill. However, emotional reconstruction is still on-going. Sila says earlier that "reconstruction should be defined as a re-construction. A rebuilding of the south, and a return to the way things once were." I disagree, since the conflict between the north and the south started before the civil war, and by the time South Carolina declared that "we are determined to maintain this our ordinance and declaration, at every hazard, do further declare that we will not submit to the application of force on the part of the federal government, to reduce this State to obedience," the tensions were already very high (Nullification). Therefore, reconstruction should not be going back to what they once were, but an attempt to figure out what will work in order to preserve peace and safely reconstruct. I think that it takes every citizen, not just a few selected people, to determine what they are willing to compromise and what they truly want to achieve, and using that as a platform, re-create the kind of country they want.
The question that Maya asked a few posts back really intrigued me, asking if Obama had been white, would he still have been elected. This question is particularly difficult for me to swallow, as I’m sure it is for the rest of the country.
ReplyDeleteI found the article interesting, agreeing with some points and disagreeing with others. When the author is discussing Obama’s election into office, he states, “The struggle for equal rights is far from over, but we start afresh now,” (Friedman). I agreed with this because I do think that Obama’s election was a huge change, in a good way, for this country. However, when the author states, “Let every child and every citizen and every new immigrant know that from this day forward everything really is possible in America,” also about Obama’s election, I find this as a huge exaggeration. Yes we were able to overcome our history of racism with African Americans and elect one as president, but I don’t think that means everything is possible in America. There is still much racism and gender discrimination present in our country that we still need to overcome. There is no country where everything is possible.
First of all, I disagree with Thomas Friedman when he says that the election of President Obama is only just when the civil war ended. Friedman's logic isn't any good because he is suggesting that when Obama gets elected, that is the end of racism and the conflict regarding racism. I would argue that a country that was only just ending this civil war would never have elected a black man, and that the fact that it did is proof of the fact that the civil war is over and that since it ended long ago, the country has been in a reconstruction phase. The reconstruction has been going on long enough, and has made enough progress that the country had the capacity to elect a black man.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, while I believe President Obama's election was indicative of the progress America has made in recovering from the civil war social divides, the reconstruction is far from over. As we saw in "Right America Doing Wrong," racism still exists in large quantities. There were people who flat out said that they couldn't bear the idea of an African American as president. These sections of people are still far from having reconstructed all the way from the social walls that were created by the civil war.
Overall, I believe that while one can point to specific pieces of progress during reconstruction, it is impossible to actually quantify progress. This is simply because different parts of the country are in different places on the path to recovery.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Anya's opinion on the Buffet Effect. Granted, black is beautiful in our culture, and is now embellished amongst young adults. But this has nothing to do with the Buffet Effect. In fact, we have nothing to do with this theory, because young adults like us seem to be veering away from the conservative side. Most of us want change, and likewise most of the young adult population is becoming democrats.
ReplyDeleteFor white conservatives, a black president is a shock. Yet the truth is no one can speak like Obama, no one can persuade like him, and he is the right person to be leading the nation. But, many conservatives knew this. This is when the Buffet Effect became applicable. Thus, leading the white conservatives dilema. Vote for Obama, loose this sense of "white pride" and be left exonerated, in a sense. So what were these "secrative Obama loving conservatives" to do....Vote for Obama, yet act as if it were not true.
I also believe that in a sense Friedman is right. There is no better way to make our nation more equal and complete civil rights, than our president being a minority, a black minority. The gap between what could be and what is, has filled. One of the most highly respected man in the world is black, and is our president.
Yet, we have been on the road to reconstruction ever since the day Fredrick Douglass walked the streets of the dirtied America. The presidential election was a milestone on the road to reconstruction, a sign that there will be peace.
Although Jake makes a valid point, I think that Freidman was trying to state how there is now PROOF to support the fact that the Civil War has officially ended. Technically it is true that the Civil War ended in 1865, but even after the end of the Civil War, there have been a lot of discrimination and unequal treatment of African Americans. For example, the Black Codes limited the rights of blacks, and hate groups such as the KKK acted violently against blacks. Although slavery was abolished, the country was not ready to treat blacks as equal to the whites.
ReplyDeleteSo as Freidman states in his article, the election of Barack Obama has been an official end to the Civil War in the fact of America seeing blacks as equal and putting trust in African Americans just as they would any white president. He says, "the state that once exalted slavery and whose secession from the Union in 1861 gave the Confederacy both strategic weight and its commanding general — voted Democratic, thus assuring that Barack Obama would become the 44th president of the United States." This is showing how America has come to realize that a black president can be just as good, if not better than a white president. Discrimination and unfair treatment of African Americans has finally been pushed aside after Obama's election.
Anya, i completely agree with you. Probably a main reason for obama's election was that he is hip, trendy, and black. Upon asking many of my friends who said they supported obama (which was all of them,) the only reasons i could get out of them was that he is cool, he would be the first black president if elected, and his slogan of hope and change. I asked them, okay, what about his ideas, his plans, his principles, the issues he supports? once again, the only answer was hope, change, and the fact that he was black. In fact, after the election, i read an article about an exit poll showing that more than 90% of black voters voted for Obama. what does that say for reconstruction? what does that say about equality, and about judging people not on the color of their skin, but on the content of their character? hope and change? what does that mean? I guess it means a trillion dollar bailout, a trillion dollar stimulus package, and that trillion dollar obamacare bill he wants, which he says "will not...add one dime to our deficit."
ReplyDeleteSo no, i do not think that the election of Obama marks the end of reconstruction. To me, actually, recontruction means the reconciliation between the north and the south, which i believe has already been accomplished. Reconstruction was completed not too soon after the civil war, when the south was rebuilt and the north and the south reconciled their differences.
I know with war come reconstruction. But I don’t understand why people spend millions of dollars on building communities to have them jeopardized by the affects of battle, just to be re-built. I don’t think the Earth as a whole civilization will be able to live with out war, in that I believe war is natural. And I know this is silly, but why cant there just be a separate area for battles to avoid the entire reconstruction process? It would save material items and a lot of money.
ReplyDeleteBecause reconstruction has to happen, because no one sets aside a war zone, I believe it is up to the US Congress to be in charge of reconstruction because they are the group that declares war in the first place. I believe one of the main priorities is to make sure all building and homes destroyed are rebuilt for every citizen of America or the country in need of reconstruction to have shelter. This process could take literally, forever and cost all of the money in the world. Now I know this is a bit exaggerated but it’s true, I’m sure the head of reconstruction can spend millions or billions of dollars on the reconstruction of a community or communities. I say so because there are always a community can be improved. I think the only way to determine the success of reconstruction is the golden rule I learned camping. This is to leave the area used, better than you found it. I can only assume that this rarely happens after a community has been invaded from war. I doubt Hiroshima or Nagasaki were just as successful communities as they were before we, as in America, bombed them. I don’t believe reconstruction can ever be complete, but I do believe that it is up to the US Congress to have a reconstruction plan after war.
When I say the recontrution process, I mean all of the physical re-building as opposed to the reconstruction of the government and society.
ReplyDelete