World War II: Stay out or help out?

Upon the invasion of Poland and outbreak of WWII, Americans lined up to take sides. President Roosevelt addressed the war in his State of the Union in January 1941 and Congress was divided between interventionists and isolationists. There is an excerpt of the speech in your text as well as a video link here. After viewing and reading, visit one of the sites below and support a position: interventionist or isolationist. Remember this is in the beginning of 1941, Pearl Harbor as not been attacked yet. Sites to visit: http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1592 http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1601 http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1593 http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1594 For full credit, you must clearly voice one (time-appropriate) position and support it from one of the radio addresses. You should also respond to other student posts. Posts should be completed by Sunday, 12/19.

Depression/Recession Stories

Choose your option:
1. Talk to a relative about their experiences during the Great Depression and share how the Depression affected him or her.
2. Current recession: How has the most recent recession affected you and/or your family, how might if affect your future plans.
3. Respond to a story found at: http://www.erroluys.com/WhatLifeWasLikeintheGreatDepression.htm
For full credit, answer must be reflective. Respond to classmates' posts when appropriate. Please post by Saturday, December 11, 2010.

Immigrant Story Reflections

What did you learn about your family in your immigrant artifact research? Was there something in particular that stuck with you? After listening to (and sometimes tasting)presentations from your classmates, what similarities did you find? Was there a particular story that mirrored yours? Do you think immigrants today are different from your ancestors? Explain. Please post by Tuesday 11-2-10 for full credit.

Women in Combat

Much has changed since World War I. During WWI, African Americans were assigned to segregated units and women could not serve. Today the Armed Forces are integrated and women can serve, however women are still prevented from serving in certain direct combat positions. Your debate topic: Is this policy outdated? Read the articles below and take a stand. Post by Tuesday, October 12th for full credit.
Check out the following sites:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/us/16women.html
http://www.cdi.org/issues/women/combat.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14960494

Puerto Rican Independence

Puerto Rico statehood plebiscites

Since the United States gained possession of Puerto Rico after the defeat of the Spanish in the Spanish-American War, Puerto Ricans have had different movements for statehood or independence. Those movements have resulted in three plebiscites on the political status of the island.

Puerto Rico is a self-governing and incorporated commonwealth state of the United States. In 1917, Puerto Ricans were given U.S. citizenship but were not allowed to participate in government. In 1922, the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party was established to support independence and to that end, instigated uprisings in 1930 and 1950. In 1947, international anti-colonial pressure helped gain Puerto Ricans the right to elect their own governor. In 1950, Congress passed an act to make Puerto Rico a commonwealth, and in 1952, Puerto Rico adopted its own constitution. Puerto Rico then formally became the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico with the status of a free associate state.

During the 1960s, agitation for independence in Puerto Rico increased, and the first status plebiscite was held in 1967. Commonwealth status received 60.4% of the vote, statehood received 39%, and independence received 0.6%. During the 1970s and 1980s, support for statehood grew, and another plebiscite was held. On November 14, 1993, Puerto Ricans voted for the retention of commonwealth status as a free associate state with 48.6% of the vote; statehood received 46.3%, and independence received 4.4%. On December 14, 1994 and again on January 23, 1997, the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico petitioned Congress to sponsor a referendum on the future political status of Puerto Rico under the U.S. Constitution (1787). In February 1998, President Bill Clinton openly supported another plebiscite for Puerto Rico.

On March 4, 1998, the House of Representatives approved the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, which sponsored a referendum on Puerto Rico's political status. The legislation was approved by a one-vote margin, and a requirement to make English the official language of Puerto Rico was defeated by Republicans. On September 17, 1998, the Senate passed a resolution that supported self-determination for Puerto Rico and confirmed congressional authority to decide Puerto Rico's status. Both President Clinton and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich supported the referendum.

On December 13, 1998, Puerto Rico was able to hold a status vote under local election laws. However, the 1998 plebiscite was different from the votes of 1967 and 1993. The Popular Democratic Party, which traditionally supported commonwealth status, disagreed with the definition of commonwealth on the ballot and supported an alternative definition that was rejected by the House Committee on Resources. The Popular Democratic Party then called for its members to vote for "none of the above," which was added to the ballot; it received 50.3% of the vote, while statehood received 46.5%, independence received 2.5%, free association received 0.3%, and "territorial" commonwealth received 0.1% of the votes cast.

The results were more confusing than helpful, and it was agreed that future plebiscites were needed to ascertain the meaning of the 1998 vote. Puerto Rico will hold a status plebiscite every 10 years until independence or statehood wins a majority.

Today, Puerto Rico retains its commonwealth status, which gives the local government authority to maintain order under its own constitution. However, U.S. laws prevail, and Congress has the ultimate authority over Puerto Rico. That status defers foreign policy, defense, and financial matters to the U.S. government. Puerto Ricans have U.S. citizenship, use U.S. currency, and are free to travel in and out of the United States.


"Puerto Rico statehood plebiscites." American History. ABC-CLIO, 2010. Web. 19 Sept.

2010.

Check out the following sites and answer this question, Should Puerto Rico become a state? Yes or no? (no maybes) Refer to at least one document and agree/disagree with your classmates. Post for full credit by Saturday 9-25.

Check out:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,591683,00.html

http://www.essortment.com/all/puertoricansta_rdla.htm

http://www.prstatehood.com/home/index.asp

9-11 Portraits of Grief

Go to the link below and read several portraits and comment on something you found memorable. Do not repeat persons viewed/commented on by previous students. For full credit post by Monday June 7.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/newyorkandregion/series/portraits_of_grief/index.html

Roe v. Wade

What's in a name? How would you identify your position on the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion? Would you classify yourself as Pro-Choice, Pro-Abortion, Pro-Life or Anti-Abortion and why? Plese be respectful of others' opinions. Class 7 Post by Monday 5-17 for full credit. Class 3 by Tuesday 5-18 for full credit.

Birth control in schools

Should students be able to obtain birth control (e.g. condoms)at the nurse's office in a [public] high school? Why or why not? Read the article at the site below to assist you in your post.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/03/5/gr030505.html

Class 7 Post by Thursday 9am (5-13 for full credit)
Class 3 Post by Friday 7:35am (5-14 for full credit)

Censorship during war

Censorship!

Myron Fox is vice president of the Military Postal History Society , a group that studies the mail that is sent to and from soldiers. He is an expert on United States military and civilian censorship in World War I and World War II. In this interview, he describes how wartime letters were censored.

When were the first soldiers' letters censored in the United States?
We do not believe it was done in an overt manner before the Civil War. It might be that most of the troops before then were illiterate and officers were largely trusted, so they didn't bother.

There was some censoring in the Civil War because letters sometimes had to cross enemy lines. Most of the censoring comes from the prisoner-of-war camps. For example, if someone was writing a letter from Andersonville [a Confederate prison camp where many Union soldiers starved] those at the camp didn't want people to know what was happening, so the prisoners wouldn't be allowed to say anything bad about a camp. The first heavy censorship of U.S. soldiers took place during World War I.

What were the censors looking for?
The censors were looking out for two things in World War I and World War II. They didn't want the soldier to say anything that would be of value to the enemy, such as where they were. They always wanted to camouflage how strong the troops were. "Loose lips sink ships" was the phrase that was very prevalent in WW II and that was the theory in WW I as well.

Officers also were looking to see any weakening of desire among the troops. It's very important in wartime for officers to know about morale issues.

Were the letters ever censored for moral reasons?
One of our researchers recently found over 500 confiscated and condemned letters at the National Archives in College Park, Maryland. They included letters that used graphic language dealing with sex. Our member also found that in some cases the same writer would keep having his letters confiscated and apparently didn't get the message. These letters were never delivered and apparently the sender was never sent a notice of the offense.

Were other types of letters confiscated?
Letters that were sent in foreign languages were also intercepted. Many members of the armed forces were immigrants or the children of immigrants and they were more comfortable communicating home in their native language. A letter written in Polish or Italian usually wasn't delivered because the typical censor didn't know what it said.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/warletters/sfeature/sf_censorship.html

To respond:
What types of censorship during times of war would you agree to and what types would you disagree with? Respond to previous posts. Post by Sunday May 2, 2010 for full credit.

Depression Photo Narratives

What struck you most from your research of the Great Depression in the United States and which of your classmates' presentations made the biggest impression on you? You are encouraged to ask questions of your classmates and check back for additional questions. Final posts complete by Thursday, April 15 for full credit.

At the height of the Great Depression, two hundred and fifty thousand teenage hoboes were roaming America. Some left home because they felt they were a burden to their families; some fled homes shattered by the shame of unemployment and poverty. Some left because it seemed a great adventure. With the blessing of parents or as runaways, they hit the road and went in search of a better life.
Identify and explain three things you would bring in a backpack if you were forced to leave your home during the Depression. I will be responding to posts as well, so check back at least once. All posts must be completed by Sunday, March 28th for full credit.

Political Status of Puerto Rico

What political status is best for Puerto Rico? Discuss from 2 perspectives:
1. From the perspective of a native Puerto Rican and 2. From a "mainland"
US citizen with no ties to Puerto Rico.
Respond to other posts. Post by Sunday 2-28 for full credit.

Reflections on Experience

You have just completed an essay on your family's immigration experience. What was the most interesting or revealing thing that you learned from your research? What about the presentations, what created an impression on you from your classmates' experiences? Post by Friday 2-19 for full credit.

Would a national language unite or divide our country?

Read the article below and answer the title question. Cite from the article and respond to other students' posts. Post for full credit by Thursday, February 4th for full credit.

One nation, one language? Would making English the nation's official language unite the country or divide it?

Pub:U.S. News & World Report
Detail:Susan Headden. 119.n12 (Sept 25, 1995): p.p38(5). (2057 words) From Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center.

For a Sherman Oaks, Calif., election worker, the last straw was hanging campaign posters in six languages and six alphabets. For a taxpayer in University Park, Texas, it was a requirement that all employees of the local public utility speak Spanish. For a retired schoolteacher from Mount Morris, N.Y., it was taking her elderly and anxious mother to a Pakistani doctor and understanding only a fraction of what he said.

As immigration, both legal and illegal, brings a new flood of foreign speech into the United States, a campaign to make English the nation's official language is gathering strength. According to a new U.S. News poll, 73 percent of Americans think English should be the official language of government. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole and more than a third of the members of Congress support proposed federal legislation that would make English America's official tongue; twenty-two states and a number of municipalities already have English-only laws on the books.

Like flag burning and the Pledge of Allegiance, the issue is largely symbolic. Without ever being declared official, American English has survived--and enriched itself from--four centuries of immigration. It is not much easier for today's Guatemalan immigrant to get a good education and a good job without learning English than it was for his Italian, Polish or Chinese predecessors. And at best, eliminating bilingual education might save about a dollar per student per day. But many Americans are feeling threatened by a triple whammy of growing economic uncertainty, some of it caused by foreign competition; rising immigration, much of it illegal; and political pressure to cater to the needs of immigrants rather than letting them sink or swim. "Elevating English as an icon," says author and bilingual expert James Crawford, "has appeal for the insecure and the resentful. It provides a clear answer to the question: Who belongs?"

Nation of strangers. There is no question that America is undergoing another of its periodic diversity booms. According to the Census Bureau, in 1994 8.7 percent of Americans were born in other countries, the highest percentage since before World War II. More tellingly, at least 31.8 million people in the United States speak a language other than English at home. Of the children returning to urban public schools this fall, a whopping one third speak a foreign language first. "It blows your mind," says Dade County, Fla., administrator Mercedes Toural, who counts 5,190 new students speaking no fewer than 56 different tongues.

English-only advocates, whose ranks include recent immigrants and social liberals, believe that accommodating the more than 300 languages spoken in the United States undercuts incentives to learning English and, by association, to becoming an American. Massachusetts offers driver's tests in 24 foreign languages, including Albanian, Finnish, Farsi, Turkish and Czech. Federal voting rights laws provide for ballots in multiple translations. Internal Revenue Service forms are printed in Spanish. And in Westminster, Calif., members of Troop 2194 of the Boy Scouts of America can earn their merit badges in Vietnamese. "It's completely insane," says Mauro Mujica, the chairman of the lobbying group U.S. English and himself an immigrant from Chile. "We are not doing anybody any favors."

Pulling the plug. The proposed official-English laws range from the barely noticeable to the almost xenophobic. A bill introduced by Missouri Republican Rep. Bill Emerson would mandate English for government use but provide exceptions for health, safety and civil and criminal justice. Although it is the most viable of the bunch, it would change the status quo so little that it begs the question of why it is needed at all. The most extreme official-English measures would pull the plug on what their sponsors consider linguistic welfare, ending bilingual education and bilingual ballots.

Advocates of official-English proposals deny that their measures are draconian. Says U.S. English's Mujica: "We are simply saying that official documents should be in English and money saved on translations could go to help the people learn English. We're saying you could still take a driver's test in another language, but we suggest it be temporary till you learn English."

U.S. English, which reports 600,000 contributors, was founded by the late U.S. Sen. S.I. Hayakawa, a Japanese-American linguistics professor, and boasts advisory board members such as Saul Bellow and Alistair Cooke. The group was tarred eight years ago when its founder, John Tanton, wrote a memo suggesting that Hispanics have "greater reproductive powers" than Anglos; two directors quit, Tanton was forced out and the group has been rebuilding its reputation ever since. Its competitor, English First, whose founder, Larry Pratt, also started Gun Owners of America, is more hard-line.
Defenders of bilingual education, multilingual ballots and other government services ask whether legal immigrants will vote if there are no bilingual ballots. If foreign speakers can't read the street signs, will they be allowed to drive? Such thoughts bring Juanita Morales, a Houston college student, to tears. "This just sets up another barrier for people," she says. "My parents don't know English, and I can hardly speak Spanish anymore and that's painful to me."

Go it alone, the hard-liners reply, the way our grandfathers did. But these advocates don't mention that there is little, if any, evidence that earlier German or Italian immigrants mastered English any faster than the current crop of Asians, Russians and Central Americans. And it's hard to argue that today's newcomers aren't trying. San Francisco City College teaches English to 20,000 adults every semester, and the waiting list is huge. In De Kalb County, Ga. 7,000 adults are studying English; in Brighton Beach, N.Y., 2,000 wait for a chance to learn it.

The economic incentives for learning English seem as clear as ever. Yes, you can earn a good living in an ethnic enclave of Chicago speaking nothing but Polish. But you won't go far. "Mandating English," says Ron Pearlman of Chicago, "is like mandating that the sun is going to come up every day. It just seems to me that it's going to happen."

What worries many Americans are efforts to put other languages on a par with English, which often come across as assaults on American or Western culture. Americans may relish an evening at a Thai restaurant or an afternoon at a Greek festival, but many are less comfortable when their children are celebrating Cinco de Mayo, Kwanzaa and Chinese New Year along with Christmas in the public schools. In Arlington, Va., a classically trained orchestra teacher quit the public school system rather than cave in to demands to teach salsa music.

But diversity carries the day. The U.S. Department of Education policy is not simply to promote learning of English but also to maintain immigrants' native tongues. And supporters of that policy make a good case for it. "People ask me if I'm embarrassed I speak Spanish," says Martha Quintanilla Hollowell, a Dallas County, Texas, district attorney. "I tell them I'd be more embarrassed if I spoke only one language."

Language skills. That may be what's most disturbing about the English-only sentiment: In a global economy, it's the monolingual English speakers who are falling behind. Along with computer skills, a neat appearance and a work ethic, Americans more and more are finding that a second language is useful in getting a good job. African-Americans in Dade County, now more than half Hispanic, routinely lose tourism positions to bilingual Cubans. Schoolteachers cry foul because bilingual teachers earn more money while monolingual teachers are laid off. "There is no way I could get a job in the Los Angeles public schools today," says Lucy Fortney, an elementary school teacher for 30 years.

The proliferation of state and local English-only laws has led to a flurry of language-discrimination lawsuits and a record number of complaints with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Ed Chen, a lawyer with the San Francisco office of the American Civil Liberties Union, says clients have been denied credit and insurance because they don't speak English. But courts increasingly have endorsed laws that call for exclusive use of English on the job. Officials at New York's Bellevue Hospital, where the vast majority of nurses are Filipino, say an English-only law was necessary because nurses spoke Tagalog among themselves.
Other employers have wielded English-only laws as a license to discriminate, giving rise to fears that a national law would encourage more of the same. A judge in Amarillo, Texas, claimed a mother in a custody case was committing "child abuse" by speaking Spanish to her child at home. Another Texas judge denied probation to a drunk driver because he couldn't benefit from the all-English Alcoholics Anonymous program. In Monterey Park, Calif., a citizens' group tried to ban Chinese signs on businesses that served an almost all-Asian clientele. In Dade County, a since-repealed English-only law was so strict that it forbade using public funds to pay for court translations and bilingual signs to warn metrorail riders against electrocution.

Though it is not intended as such, the English-first movement is a reminder of a history of prejudice toward speakers of foreign tongues. Many American Indians were prohibited from speaking their own languages. The Louisiana Legislature banned the use of Cajun French in public schools in 1912, but instead of abandoning their culture, many Cajuns dropped out of school and never learned English. French was finally allowed back in the schools in the 1960s. As recently as 1971, it was illegal to speak Spanish in a public school building in Texas, and until 1923 it was against the law to teach foreign languages to elementary school pupils in Nebraska. At Ellis Island, psychologists tested thousands of non-English-speaking immigrants exclusively in English and pronounced them retarded.

Champions of diversity say it's high time Americans faced the demographic facts. In Miami, with leading trade partners Colombia and Venezuela, businesses would be foolish to restrict themselves to English. If emergency services suffer because of a shortage of foreign-speaking 911 operators, it is downright dangerous not to hire more. As for embattled teachers, Rick Lopez of the National Association of Bilingual Education says: "Why should we expect students to learn a new language if teachers can't do the same? We have to change the product to fit the market. The market wants a Toyota and we're still building Edsels."

Many Americans still value the melting pot: General Mills's new Betty Crocker is a digitized, multiethnic composite. But Skokie, Ill., educator Charlene Cobb, for one, prefers a colorful mosaic. "You don't have to change yourself," she says, "to make a whole thing that's very beautiful." The question is whether the diverse parts of America still make up a whole.

Related material on U.S. News Online on CompuServe. Free start-up kit: (800) 510-4247.
A LANDSLIDE FOR OFFICIAL ENGLISH
A rising tide
A larger share of Americans were foreign born earlier in this century, but their numbers are again on the rise.
Foreign born residents as share of U.S. population
1900 13.6 percent
1910 14.7 percent
1920 13.2 percent
1930 11.6 percent
1940 8.8 percent
1950 6.9 percent
1960 5.4 percent
1970 4.8 percent
1980 6.2 percent
1990 7.9 percent
1994 8.7 percent
USN&WR--Basic data: U.S. Census Bureau
American voters who favor making American voters who favor making English the official language of government (for instance, printing government forms only in English):
FAVOR: 73 percent OPPOSE: 23 percent
Voters who favor legislation that would prohibit bilingual election ballots and swearing-in ceremonies:
FAVOR: 50 percent OPPOSE: 43 percent
U.S. News poll of 1,000 registered voters conducted by Celinda Lake of Lake Research and Ed Goeas of the Tarrance Group on Sept. 11-13, 1995. Margin of error: plus or minus 3.1 percent. Percentages may not add up to 100 because some respondents answered, "Don't know."

DEFENDING THE MOTHER TONGUE
English not spoken here
Most of the 6.7 million non-English-speaking people in the United States live in the Southwest, south Florida and New York. So far, 22 states have enacted English-only laws.
[Map is not available.]
Note: Demographic data as of 1990 census and laws as of August, 1995.


Source Citation
Headden, Susan. "One nation, one language? Would making English the nation's official language unite the country or divide it?" U.S. News & World Report 25 Sept. 1995: 38+. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Web. 30 Jan. 2010. .

Risk-Taking

We are currently studying the homesteaders and moving west. Do you think you have it in you to be a pioneer? Why or why not? Be specific about qualities you need or qualities you would need to overcome in order to be a successful pioneer. Agree or disagree with prior responses. Post for full credit by 1/10/2010.