America's Hidden History, by Kenneth C. Davis, is chockfull of tidbits that highlight certain events in the beginnings of United States….before it was the U.S.

Just think, in a way, it was a woman that discovered America. Queen Isabella of Spain was the one that gave the go ahead for Columbus and others to explore. She also funded it.

The other thing that I had never thought of, yet found extremely interesting is that the early colonists were all about religious freedom, but only if it was the right religions. I had always assumed that the scorn of all things Catholic stemmed from the wave of Irish immigrants that came during the Potato Famine. How wrong I was. The colonists vehemently hated and distrusted Catholicism even going so far as to consider refusing French help in the Revolution. They feared a “Catholic Invasion” from the French provinces in the north.

The only Roman Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence was Charles Carroll. He was one of the richest men in the country, so I guess that they were able to overlook his “idolatry”.

America's Hidden History is organized into chapters that are sort of mini stories about periods of American history up to the 1780's. All of the vignettes in Davis' book are interesting and pretty brief. Some left me wanting more and at least one left me wondering, “So what?” When you read the chapter on Benedict Arnold, you will see what I mean. I mean really, is a military genius any less of a traitor because of that genius? For me, a smart traitor is still a traitor.

If you enjoy history, but don't want to get mired down in 200 pages on one battle or issue, this is the book for you. The tales are tightly wrapped and just enough detail to understand not only what was going on, but the why and the how. I enjoyed learning about some of the motives and the people behind the major events of our country and I think you will too.

 

I learned from reading this book was how the Japanese forces were winning the war at the start. I thought the United States used their technology against the Japanese and held them back. This is a very interesting and important fact about history that this book taught me because it helped me from passing on wrong information to young children.

My opinion of this book is that it was a good book to inform you about the history of the world. I recommend this book to people that are interested in the topic of history. That is my opinion and my recommendation of the book From Pearl Harbor to Okinawa. I hope you enjoy it!

During both of these time periods, there were exceptional leaders. In 1637, John Winthrop delivered “A Model of Christian Charity,” inspiring and leading the Puritans to their new home and religious freedom in America. In 1741, Jonathan Edwards delivered “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” a sermon that essentially sparked the Great Awakening single-handedly. The rhetoric and arguments put forth by these men in their preachings proved to influence entire societies in their respective times. Despite this major similarity, however, the events and environments in which the men existed affected the tactics they used to communicate their points.

When John Winthrop delivered his “A Model of Christian Charity,” it seemed to him that his followers were struggling with the difficulties of immigration. He needed an avenue through which he could re-spark the fire of their eyes and, more importantly, their faith. This sermon was intended as a rallying of the troops, as a way to remind the Puritans that predestination was in play and God gave each what He saw fit to give. “God Almighty, in His most holy and wise providence, hath so disposed of the condition of mankind, as in all times some must be rich, some poor, some high and eminent in power and dignity; others mean and in subjection” (Norton Anthology 147). Winthrop preached that the perils of a new world would be trying, but ultimately survivable, if one only held onto his faith. In question-answer format, Winthrop takes a head-on approach to addressing the concerns his followers had on their treatment of neighbors, on the event of this journey. He asks, “What rule must we observe in forgiving?” and answers with,

Whether thou didst lend by way of commerce or in mercy, if he have nothing to pay thee, [you] must forgive…Deuteronomy: 15.2. Every seventh year the creditor was to quit that which he lent to his brother if he were poor as appears-verse 8: “Save when there shall be no poor with thee.” In all these and like cases, Christ was a general rule, Matthew: 7.12: “Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye the same to them also.”

Through this format, Winthrop is attempting to set up some form of structure for society. The answers to these questions, which he also offers arguments against, would provide his followers with basic guidelines under which to live in their new world.

Also inspiring the people was Winthrop's use of metaphor. Towards the end of his sermon, he introduces the image of the city upon a hill mentioned in the Matthew 5. 14-15. Winthrop says, “The eyes of all people are upon us, so that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world” (Norton Anthology 158). Through this use of biblical metaphor, Winthrop hoped to convince the Puritans that they were an example for all of the world, and that their actions would be watched closely, so they must behave in a manner that fully represented their faith.

The culture in which the emigrating Puritans existed had a heavy influence on the delivery of John Winthrop's “A Model of Christian Charity.” Those traveling to the New World with Winthrop found him to possess the characteristics of a good leader and elected him governor of their colony-the Massachusetts Bay Colony. This placed a great weight and responsibility on Winthrop, which undoubtedly influenced him in the writing of his sermon. The establishment of a new home led many to be discouraged and require the uplifting only a leader like Winthrop could provide. Were he to preach fire and brimstone, many of his followers would have surrendered to the harsh conditions they were to face.

By the 1700s, the passion Puritans had once possessed for their faith had all but flickered out. The colonists attended church routinely and listened to mundane sermons, seemingly unconcerned with their salvation. Jonathan Edwards witnessed this dispassion and became infuriated. Where had the all-consuming fire of Christ gone in his people? They'd crossed an ocean in the name of God, and now they seemed bored by Him. Leading with Deuteronomy 32.35: “In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them” (King James Bible), Edwards delivered a sermon that inspired what could be considered a religious revolution. “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” brought the Puritans face-to-face with their sins and promised the wrath of a vengeful, pitiless God.

Through gruesome images and repeated threats of damnation, Edwards succeeded in causing churchgoers to faint and weep:

If you cry to God to pity you, he will be so far from pitying you in your doleful case, or showing you the least regard or favour, that instead of that, he will only tread you under foot. And though he will know that you cannot bear the weight of omnipotence treading upon you, yet he will not regard that, but he will crush you under his feet without mercy; he will crush out your blood, and make it fly, and it shall be sprinkled on his garments, so as to stain all his raiment.

These sorts of words, addressing the absolutely awful weight of sin and the wrath of a far superior God convinced listeners that their faith was lacking, to say the very least. Edwards's use of numbered points made every argument seem logical, as well as frightening. He placed such heavy emphasis on the degree of sin committed by the people of the congregation and their inability to be forgiven for such blatant disobedience to their God that the people were unable to do little more than bow their heads in complete shame and weep.

The society in which Jonathan Edwards lived was one in which the strict laws of Calvinism was losing its grip. It seemed that the fire was gone, now that the New world had been settled and the persecution was over. Edwards and his peers saw a need for their neighbors to develop closer, more intimate relationships with their Creator. Delivering a sermon remotely resembling Winthrop's “A Model of Christian Charity” would elicit no spirit from a despondent community. Edwards's choice to deliver such a hell-bent and damning speech is understandable, when viewed in the light that, once the struggle is over, people are more likely to slip back into comfort and forget what they once fought for. Words like, “God will be so far from pitying you when you cry to Him, that it is said He will only "laugh and mock" Proverbs 1.25-26” could be deemed absolutely necessary (Norton Anthology).

Both prominent religious figures in their respective eras, John Winthrop and Jonathan Edwards shared much. Both possessed an intense faith in their God. Both desired to bring their people to the light of God. Finally, both implemented any means necessary to save their neighbors.

It falls to parent therefore to acquaint them with this transition period. In order to help their children through it; they need to be constantly ready to make a helpful remark, to give needed assurance, and to provide answers to delicate questions. Perhaps the most striking of a threshold period is the child rapid growth. Within a few months a youngster will shoot up several inches in height. The feminine characteristics of young womanhood become apparent.

The capacity to grow constitutes one of the greatest gifts God has bestowed upon His creatures. Growth is vital to human existence. The infant must grow in order to become a child. The child must grow in order to become a youth, and the youth continues to grow until becomes an adult.

Success in life depends not only on physical growth. In order to live abundantly a person must also grow intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually. Physical growth is usually completed before age of twenty. Intellectual, emotional, and spiritual should continue, however, throughout life.

Girls usually reach their growth spurt when they are between nine and thirteen. During this period a girl becomes a young woman. By the end of the growth spurt, she becomes just about as tall as she will ever be.
A girl in the threshold period has reason to be happy when she is no longer a child. However, if she is not informed on the changes that take place within her body, she may become worried and anxious over what these changes means. It is in this situation a kindly and sympathetic mother can be of great help to her daughter. As the mother explains the events that take place in a girl's body her daughter will feel reassured that she is normal and will develop a poise and self-confidence that will even improve her personality.

During childhood, a girl's body contains certain organs different from those of a boy. Those are the organ that will enable her later, to become a mother. During childhood they do not function simply presenting a miniature, they await the time when womanhood arrives.

Chief among the organs in a girl's body which brings about the changes of this threshold are the ovaries. There are two of these, one on the top right and one on the left, in the lower part of the abdomen. The ovaries perform two duties. First they produce a chemical substance, estrogen, which circulate throughout the body and influence the various tissues to follow the feminine pattern of development. Becoming active for the first time during the threshold period, the ovaries are responsible for stimulating rapid increase in height, for bringing about a broadening of the hips, for stimulating the development of the breasts, for prompting the growth of hair under the arms and in the pubic area, and for causing a maturing of the uterus (womb). The second function of the ovaries is to produce the female sex cells, called ova. The purpose of the cell is to help in producing a new life to furnish a tiny bit of material that assist in forming a baby. But a baby has two parents-a mother and a father.

The creator therefore planned the life of human beings in such a way that a baby comes into being only when a female sex cell, produced by one of the mother's ovaries is joined by a male sex cell, produced by the baby father. When the union of these two sex cells occurs within a woman body, a new life is started and the woman is said to be pregnant. The mother should be able to educate the girl child being wise enough not to tell the whole story at one sitting. She should tell her daughter little at a time.

Educating the girl child therefore, on the primary basis of her developmental process into entering adulthood is simply unavoidable; this certainly will go a long way in making the mind of the growing girl child be at peace.

"Although I was raised in the Dominican Republic by Dominican parents in an extended Dominica family, mine was an American childhood." Alvarez quipped while she was interviews in American Scholar. Her fondness for Dominican Republic still shows though.

The stories she relate in her autobiography and in her various works of fiction offer glimpses of immigrant life which anyone who had to immigrate and immerse to a different culture with new sets of social demands and, on top of that, acquires a bicultural/biracial identity could easily identify with. These are but a few of the adjustments living in America for immigrants had to cope with.

Culture shock is one aspect of immigrants' lives that need some closer inspection. The acclimatization to a new culture, new language and new way of life for some immigrants could be a nerve-wracking even traumatic experience for some. The emotional rollercoaster characterized by uncertainties, fears and insecurities that plague the immigrant during the initial phase of immigration could be an overwhelming experience.

The Alvarez family's experience of fleeing Dominican Republic to seek political asylum in the United States is not an isolated case. There are a number of people who were forced to flee their country due to social and political unrest and settled in America indefinitely. Perhaps the stigma of being driven out of the country by force must have compounded the misery and the pain the Alvarez's felt in settling in the new country they were in. Fortunately, the majority of those who immigrate to America were not due to political reasons but as part of their personal decision to attain a better and more prosperous life for themselves and their families.

Alvarez starts her life story by recalling that her father belonged to a wealthy family who supported the losing political party during the revolution in Dominican Republic. Due to that, they felt the brunt of the winning party's anger. Since her mother's parents supported the winning political group they transferred to mother's family compound. Alvarez experienced growing up with extended families consisting of cousins, aunts, uncle, grandparents and maids. Alvarez's father is a doctor who became poor due to the revolution.

Their way of life in Dominican Republic was highly influenced by the American culture. They dressed in American clothing, ate American food and studied in American schools. All the families in the compound where Alvarez grew up were obsessed with America. To them, it was a picture of idealism and perfection.

Things took a dramatic turn in young Julia's life when her father decided to join the resistance movement. Police began to spy on them. Just as the police was about to arrest him, an American agent passed the information to the doctor a few hours prior to the planned arrest. To evade arrest, the family immediately got on board an airplane out of the country and headed to America.

When the plane landed on American soil, Julia thought she was finally home at last. America had been the ideal country she wanted for the longest time. Now her dreams were about to become real. All her American training back in Dominican Republic would finally have its deserving ending - to call America home.

But not so. Life was not a bed of roses for young Julia as she found herself feeling homesick most of the time. She longed to be with her cousins and relatives in Dominican Republic. She also wanted to go back to her way of life, complete with the luxuries accorded to their family. Her experiences with the new country America were not exactly a nightmare but they were not as ideal as her dreams either. She also felt alienated and discriminated due to her race. She missed her home and relatives. They lived in a small apartment. She found solace in reading books. The books diverted her from the painful reality she felt then. She later pursued degrees in literature and writing and gained respectable degree of success.

Julia Alvarez's book critically acclaimed book “How the Garcia Girls lost their Accents" was published in 1991. This fictional book as the author admits is derived from her immigration experiences.

The book is about four sisters who came to America and the hardships and conflicts they faced in the middle of two cultures - their country's and America's. Fifteen stories comprise the novel and depict various interesting characters as well as offer deep insights. Hispanic women specifically find the book a true depiction of their lives.

The book features four girls: Carla, Sandra, Yolanda and Sofia. Carla is the oldest of the four girls. She is responsible one and acts as the analysts of the family. She later became a child psychologist so that she can fathom her own loss of identity as a child. Carla is seen as the strongest and more independent among the four and she does not demand much attention just like her younger sisters. Sandra is the second oldest. She is the beauty of the family due to her lighter skin but has an eating disorder. She becomes obsessed with her weight in a society that equates thinness with beauty. The third daughter is Yolanda. Her story dominates the book. She's a writer, school teacher and poet. Sofia is the youngest. She is seen as the wild one. She fell in love with Auto while studying abroad. They had a son. And Sofia had to quit schooling

The stories do not only delve on their different personalities but also show how young immigrants journey through life as they make necessary adjustments to adapt to the new surroundings and culture. The girls lived in the United States but are brought up under the strict almost overbearing rule their conservative of Dominican Republic parents. They were expected to abide by Old world rules reminiscent of their previous country and set by their parents. The girls rebelled in the process.

The book mostly revolves around the problems encountered by the four daughters when they first set foot in the United States. Later, these same problems beset them as they returned to Dominican Republic on summer vacations as visitors. The girls have an extremely difficult time adjusting particularly in making friends: "Here they were trying to fit in America among Americans; they needed help figuring out who they were, why the Irish kids whose grandparents had been micks were calling the spics." (p.138)

Julia Alvarez's books and her very own life story reflect the triumphs and travails of immigrants in the United States. The conflict of the immigrants revolves primarily on their need and struggles to assimilate to the American culture at the same time retaining their inherent identity. Once the inner conflict is resolved, acceptance and acclimatization begin.

Upton Sinclair's The Jungle exposes the rotted and frankly disgusting underbelly of the meat packing industry. His jarring and shocking presentation of the corruption and ignorance in the industry gives good reason for the public to take notice and for politicians to make a difference. His exposé of the industry made the nation safer and healthier by making the public more aware; however, his ideas on the solution to this went farther than simple regulation or reprimand. In his mindset, a complete social and political overhaul was required. Sinclair's viewpoint was this: the corruption and waste found in the industry was not just the result of incompetence, it was the result of competition in itself. Due to the constant need to make more profit and oust competitors simply to get by, industry as a whole was corrupt. Quantity was valued over quality, and profits were considered, rather than the working conditions. Sinclair also claimed that the system of competition which created these problems also developed vices in the participators; alcoholism was rampant in business men due to competitive stress. Similarly, Sinclair declared that capitalism creates the shiftless masses that are the illnesses of most societies: the citizens that contribute nothing to the community. Most of these views differed from the common conceptions held by the majority of America. For example, Roosevelt felt that while there were indeed problems within the industry, the only thing to be done was a correction of the flaws and a close eye on potential problems. Conversely, Sinclair's answer would have been to destroy the independence of the industry and make it a simple non-profit organization.

The difference was Roosevelt wished to keep everyone reasonably happy and make America a power in the world, whereas Sinclair wanted to stage a revolution and equalize America, without regard to outer influences and with only ideals in mind. In Sinclair's goal, not everyone would be satisfied nor would power truly be in balance. There are three reasons why Roosevelt's goals won out over Sinclair's. The first is that the public is usually reticent to do anything against the norm. The second reason would be simply that the nation was not quite ready for such a change because the nation was not completely in contact with all of it's parts; the playing field was not level. The third is that such a revolution would have such dire socioeconomic implications that those who headed it would surely be destroyed by the cause they wished to extol.

Sinclair's ideology was largely either disregarded or ridiculed by the public. However, his decisive criticism of the meat packing industry had an effect, though not the one he intended. This is greatly exampled by the quote by Sinclair that he had “aimed for the nation's heart, but hit it in the stomach.” Sinclair had indeed caused the public to rally behind social reform, but not the kind he intended; the incensed and critical public eye had turned to industry. The citizens of America were disgusted by the wanton ignorance towards public health in my high places, but rather than take these ignorant figures from their pedestals, the public wished to simply change the way they stood. Only a minority of the populace saw deeper into the troubles of America and agreed with Sinclair's viewpoint.

Popular thought came along the lines of Roosevelt's thinking: muckrakers like Sinclair were useful when the muck was there to be raked, but should ever such talented journalists let their skills stagnate in the pond of muck through which they find solace and commerce, their credibility would be shattered and they would themselves become the root of the evil. If the muckraking journalists ever began to make muck (or rake muck that did not even exist), Roosevelt would have withdrawn his support. This shows Roosevelt's devotion to keeping life going for the common man of America, and love for the truth, no matter the good intentions of the lies. Roosevelt's viewpoint on this matter was an example of why Roosevelt was popular in America and yet could lead justly and well. Some might criticize the president's reticence towards eliminating the social problems in the nation with impunity, as it was not keeping with his normal brusque manner of problem solving. However, at the time America was unstable enough as it was; agitating the matter would merely have cause turmoil and chaos.

During the same year as The Jungle was published, Roosevelt instituted a consumer-protection legislation intended to halt the corruption in the meat packing industry. Upon reading excerpts of The Jungle and examples of Roosevelt's reaction to muckrakers, one could establish a distinct connection between the two events. Similarly, the political cartoon titled “The Beef Trust Exploits the Public” made four years earlier shows that there was indeed unrest to be found for the meat packing industry. One could take this connection a step further and easily see that the consumer-protection legislation put in action by Roosevelt was a culmination of public dissatisfaction with the business. It can also be inferred from the other political events during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century that the laborers felt similarly to the feelings expressed in The Jungle and “The Beef Trust Exploit's the Public.” Sinclair's obvious sympathy for the public and political views might also be influenced or even caused by personal experience or connection to oppressed workers in America.

Immigrants in America would easily be affected and display unrest because of the oppression brought on by competition and the bigger businesses, as they were generally the more destitute individuals. The Jungle holds many elements that would ring true with the feeling of immigrants in America, and many of Sinclair's supporters were drawn from the ranks of the impoverished immigration population. Due to general prejudice in most American cities, immigrants were often on the lower class side. Should Sinclair's view have come through and had a popular affect, his solution would have equalized the job market and brought them to a much higher standing in society.

Sadly, Sinclair's socialist view of a new America, while raising the living standards of many of the poor, would greatly reduce the privileges of the higher class and would have broken class boundaries in a dangerous way. The poor would have less experience with their new found power and might become overzealous, creating a new capitalist society, and the rich would constantly long for their former privileges in the new equalized atmosphere. Roosevelt's support of an equilibrium (now termed a social-democracy) established a future platform for both revolt and tradition, and gave the public what they needed without giving the majority quite what they wanted. As a president, this gave him great prestige with both the working man and the middle class. Despite present and future social difficulties with the capitalist system in place (such as decay of quality when in need of capital and the oppression of the less powerful), for Roosevelt (and for the rest of America), the solution was definitely not a complete destruction of social norms.

With an event like Virginia Tech, people that were not involved were only thinking of the bereaved in their spare time. After a thing like 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina, America is still getting itself back together. Some Americans are still mad at the so-called “Muslims” that attacked us so suddenly and viciously. Some people were actually rejoicing at our pain.

Americans as a whole enjoy the times with friends and family but put a computer in front of one and that is a serious distraction from the good times. One thing I notice is that Americans take too many things for granted. Americans take for granted the fact that they live in a country where people in other countries only dream of being.

Most Americans are fat. We hear about it in the news almost constantly, right along with how we should stop it. No one is really taking action. When a single person does something for their health, they quit more often than not because they are too fat and have problems with stamina and will along the way. Once, I heard a story of a woman in New York who sued “Taco Bell” and “McDonalds” because their food made her obese: an example of how stupid Americans can be.

We go from barbarism to self-indulgence with no intervening culture, but I believe that the culture that causes the shift is always there. Steinbeck did not realize that there is always a counter-culture pushing cultural progress along. In most of our history, there was always something pushing development, only that push did not happen between barbarism and self-indulgence. Sometimes, wars were pushing our development. World War Two, for example, pulled our economy out of the Great Depression and sent the economy into a war-time economy. We needed to develop things, and the war pushed the barbarism that was the 1930's to the greatest times we had since the 1920's.

Steinbeck says that Americans are a people contradictory of themselves. I say he is more right than wrong.

Obviously any novel on the depression contains a great deal of despair within it, because without despair there can be no hope. In John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath, (Hong Kong: The Readers Digest, 1992) and Harriette Arnow's The Dollmaker, (New York: Perennial, 2003) there are numerous examples of despair brought about by disappointing new circumstances and environments portrayed and experienced through the novels' characters and events.

In The Grapes of Wrath the Joad family suffer one disappointment and set back after another during their search for a better life in California. Grampa and Granma die during the family's epic voyage to the west in an old jalopy, Uncle John battles alcoholism, Noah and Connie walk out on the family in despair of ever finding something better together as a family unit, and Rose of Sharon gives birth to a stillborn baby. One book reviewer at the time described the novel "as pitiful ... a novel ever to be written about America." (Jack p.160)

Similar despair is evident in The Dollmaker by Harriette Arnow. When the family move to Detroit during World War II, in search of a better life, they instead find only despair and heartache. Gertie Nevels can not adjust to their new, cramped surroundings, Clovis gets tied in with the unions and is badly beaten, Reuben runs away back home realising that the grass is not greener in Detroit (in fact there's no grass at all) and the biggest blow comes with the death of young Cassie on the railway tracks by the family's small house. The reader also sees the despair experienced by those families surrounding the Nevels as well, including the drunken aggression of Mr. Daley, the abandonment of Victor by his wife, Max, and the tears that flow at various times during the book from Mrs. Anderson, Mrs Bommarita, and Sophronie and so on.

It seems that many people don't know what they have until it is gone, and all this despair serves a purpose, as many of the characters eventually realise that they were better off as they were, before they began to dream and try to move towards a better life for themselves. Some may say that the exception to this would be the Joad family in The Grapes of Wrath, as they had already lost their farm to the depression and their circumstances when the novel began were generally out of their control. However, their decision to move to California was their own choice and it is not until they reach the west coast state that they realise they were better off back in Oklahoma. Their plight is summed up brilliantly by a stranger they meet bathing in the Colorado River who when asked if he's going to California, states that he's returning home to Pampa because "at leas' we can starve to death with folks we know. Won't have a bunch of fellas that hates us to starve with." (Steinbeck p.197)

In the case of the Nevels family in The Dollmaker, the house they were living in, back in Kentucky, was much larger and nicer than the one they moved into in Detroit. Gertie Nevels even had enough money saved up after fifteen years to buy a house and land (the Tipton place) outright, instead they move to Detroit and keep renting. In Kentucky they had fresh vegetables and other food easily at hand, and Gertie could make a little money here and there selling eggs and such things, but in Detroit fresh produce was harder to come by and subsequently many of the family meals lacked the same warmth and freshness that they had back in the country. Also when Cassie lays dying in her mother's arms, in an attempt to cheer her up and keep her smiling Gertie tells her that they'll, "be goen home pretty soon - real soon. It's spring - an you can climb trees agin an run ...." (Arnow p.409) Gertie chooses the image of their old life in Kentucky because that was where the family were at their happiest, not Detroit, and this is the image that she wants Cassie to hold onto. "Faced with bleak conditions, Gertie feels alienated, stifled, and, at critical moments, acquiescent." (Walsh p.185)

However, the main message that these novels try to get across to their readers, is that despite all the hardship and despair that people experienced during the depression, there was always a great hope that things would get better for the people of America. What goes up must come down, and visa versa and people knew that they were going through one of the hardest times in their lives during the depression, and that things could only improve from there on.

In The Grapes of Wrath we see Tom Joad for the final time, hiding from the law in a thicket, and being secreted food by his ma. Tom is probably in the deepest pit of despair he could imagine. He has violated his parole by leaving his home county and has killed a man, and is being hunted by the local law enforcers. Yet Tom still has hope that things will change for the better, and his hope is not just for himself but it extends to the rest of the American people that he has seen suffering along the way. "I been thinkin ... how our folks took care a theirselves, an ... I been a-wonderin' why we can't do that all over ... All work together for our own thing - all farm our own lan." (Steinbeck p.402) So the last glimpse of Tom we get is that of someone full of optimism and hope that he can still make a positive difference in the world that he lives. In fact the Joad's journey can be seen as "the ultimate optimistic, ennobling process." (Levant p.99)

At the end of The Dollmaker Harriette Arnow leaves the reader with a sense of hope that things will improve for the Nevels family. When Gertie takes the carved block of cherry-wood to be cut up she is not destroying it out of desperation at never being able to finish it or find its face, but instead it is "a gesture of investment - the cherry-wood block in exchange for a promising source of income." (Parker p.214) Gertie obviously has enough hope in her current situation that she is going to need that income for the future of her and her family.

Even Woody Guthrie's autobiography, Bound for Glory (London: Penguin Books Ltd, 2004), although set mainly during the great depression has a positive message of hope found within its pages. Where people can dream there is always hope, and Louis Adamic, writing for the New Yorker summed up Woody Guthrie's Bound for Glory as being about "not the deeds of princes but the dreams of people." (Jackson p.8)

The film versions of all three books, The Grapes of Wrath, The Dollmaker and Bound for Glory also focus heavily on this idea of hope coming out of the depression. Near the end of The Grapes of Wrath (2004) Tom Joad leaves the family from the dance-floor of the government run camp, but there is hope in his eyes and "Tom's speech and mission look forward." (Gossage p.122) In The Dollmaker (1983) the final scene shows the Nevels family buying a new truck with the proceeds from Gertie's whittling, and returning as a family to Kentucky. As the credits roll on Bound for Glory (2000) Woodie Guthrie's character can be seen sitting on the roof of train, once again moving forward, and all to the upbeat strains of Woodie's This Land is Your Land.

So these three successful novels and films based on events that occurred around the time of the great depression in America, were all created around a similar formula. They were based around a character or set of characters that at the start are settled or doing well for themselves. The characters are then shown to suffer in a new environment and with new circumstances forced upon them by the depression. However, despite all that the characters have suffered and endured on their search for a better life and an escape from the great depression, they still maintain hope, and as explained, this hope is evident in the pages of the novels and in the scenes of the films.

Orend addresses and subsequently dismisses several arguments of this nature, including one which concerns America's support for Israel, a state which Orend admits has engaged in “the persecution of the Palestinians.” Orend argues that Israel alone has “front-line responsibility” for human rights violations against Palestinians, and that the United States cannot be blamed in this regard.

With the US-Israeli relations case in mind, Orend generalizes this line of reasoning. He contends that if a systematic human rights violation is to justify an armed response, this violation must be “a directly, clearly culpable action,” as opposed to an action in support of another country's “controversial policies.” According to this rule, Israel's aggression against the Palestinians, even when done so with American material support, does not sufficiently implicate the United States so as to justify an armed response against it. The 9/11 attacks were therefore unjustified.

However, a mere two pages later, Orend adds another rule to his sizable set of stipulations concerning Just War, which I shall term the Indirect Aggression Rule. In order to place blame on Afghanistan for the 9/11 attacks, Orend argues that “if Q commits aggression against R, and Q had substantial support from P in doing so, then P also aggressed against R.” By this mode of argument, if a group commits aggression against the United States, and this group had substantial support from Afghanistan, then Afghanistan has also committed aggression against the United States. Since Orend argues that this was in fact the case, his Just War theory therefore allows the United States to invade Afghanistan after 9/11 in a war of self-defence against this aggression.

A troubling conflict arises between Orend's stipulations, however, when the Indirect Aggression Rule is applied to the aforementioned US-Israeli relations case. One might argue, using Orend's own template: if Israel commits aggression against the Palestinians, and Israel had substantial support from the United States in doing so, then the United States also aggressed against the Palestinians. This argument would seem to trump Orend's earlier argument that the United States did not have “front line responsibility” for aggression against Palestinians.

If this is so, then it follows that the United States was not a minimally just state, and furthermore that the 9/11 attacks must be tolerated by Orend's theory. Recall Orend's initial stipulation, however: the 9/11 attacks were clear “instances of aggression” against America. Clearly, Orend rejects any such tolerance of the 9/11 attacks. In order to successfully reject this tolerance, however, Orend must withdraw his Indirect Aggression Rule, so as to keep the United States a minimally just state. Importantly, Orend cannot withdraw this rule without a price. Without it, he is left without his argument that implicates Afghanistan in the 9/11 attacks, and Orend loses his justification for the United States' invasion of this country.

By the arguments Orend lays out, he must either accept that Just War Theory tolerates the 9/11 attacks, or that the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan cannot be justified as a war of self-defence. Orend finds both of these results unappealing, but must choose between them if he is to hold to the core principles of his Just War theory.

 

New measures of success and achievement subordinated previously strong morals and lifestyles. Increasing factory production, wealth, and income became priorities over religion, education, and politics. Industrialism had, as Hays puts it, “provided for every American an opportunity to participate in great economic achievements and to enjoy a higher standard of living; but it also demanded drastic changes in their lives (3).” Hays accurately realized that when the individual fought industrialism, he also adapted to it, thus creating the revolutionary changes to American society.

The Response to Industrialism 1885-1914 is part of a chronological series of books covering American history from beginning to end. The book itself is organized into four broad topics, along with a separate section on the political happenings of the era. The first topic covers organizational revolution, which studies how the individual is forced to join with each other to cope with a new, impersonal economic environment that threatened an old way of life. Hays use the farmers' battle against high costs and low yields as an example of organizational revolution. Farmers first organized themselves into The Patrons of Husbandry to lead the agrarian protest movement.

The second topic covers reform as a search for individual values. Hays brings attention to both physical values and moral values. Wealth and production permeated the minds of American business owners and resulted in the new urban middle class. Hays uses an excerpt from E.L. Godkin's published in the Nation to describe the reaction felt against the new wealthy class, in which Godkin describes them as a “gaudy stream of bespangled, belaced, and beruffled barbarians (25).” New moral obligations resulted in humanitarian reform, as the Americans of the early 20th century felt guilt for the “necessary element” of society, also known as the urban poor.

The third topic describes the response to the city. Hays explains that industrial unrest and economic hardship further separated agriculture from labor. The farmer ceased to trust the city worker, a potential enemy to a lower tariff. From within the city workers could find factory jobs earning a static wage. The last topic gives the reaction of less developed and more developed areas. Existing cities expanded. People from less developed areas or suburbs could now have jobs in a city without living in the city. The invention of the automobile greatly accelerated this work lifestyle.

Hays's book accurately and in detail describes the variety of ways in which the people of the United States responded to the drastic innovations of industrialism. A variety of books and articles are cited to create plausible explanations. Each chapter covers a topic in thorough detail by further subdividing each chapter into specific sub-categories. Hays achieved his purpose of viewing the populace-progressive era with a full understanding of cause and effect, and not oversimplifying the forces that led to full integration with an industrial society. With an aim to expose these forces, Hays succeeded.

It is conclusive to say that American society interpreted the changes, adjusted to them, and created new ways of living patterns of behavior out of them. However, there are a few factors in which Hays could have delved deeper to further explain the social and cultural changes occurring. The labor movement along with the role of women are either missing or too short a section to provide valid support of his purpose. Both had strong effects on the new industrial society, from building worker-business relationships to the dramatic cultural and political changes brought about by women activists. Hays also takes on the viewpoint of the individual rather than the viewpoint of big business, creating an almost one-sided view on how the individual felt and influenced the full burden of change.

This book is best geared towards the student wanting to greater his or her knowledge of the many changes taking place during the late 19th century and early 20th century. This book had specifically mentioned events discussed in the classroom. One that came to mind was the beginnings of Andrew Carnegie, a farsighted entrepreneur whose steel company helped industrialize railroad transportation. Further in the book, Carnegie is mentioned again when one of his steel plants brought a bloody clash between strikers and Pinkerton detectives, events already familiar from AP history. Overall, Hays's book provides vital views on the individual's effect on industrialism, but is to be used in conjunction with other material for a fair, all-sided view of the industrial era and the changes it brought to the American lifestyle.