Leadership and the Humanities Class Blog Posts

Howard Zinn’s chapter on World War II offered many counterarguments to the version of the war learning in standard textbooks. As Zinn points out, WWII is widely considered to be the most supported war in American History. The United States was standing up for democracy and fighting against oppression and overpowering regimes. The Nazis had invaded its neighbors, persecuted its people who were not part of the “Aryan Race” and done whatever is best for the economic needs of the German Reich. The difference between the United States’ strategy and the Germans was that the US kept its real motives away from the public eye. The Nazis were explicit in their anti-semitism and quest for global superiority. The United States was more subtle in their imperial conquests, claiming that they were promoting global democracy and just lending a hand to less developed countries. However, their true goals were to expand their sphere of influence across the world so they had as many trading partners as they wanted and very few enemies. The United States valued its economic assets above its social stances at this time because they kept sending oil to Italy even when Italy invaded Ethiopia. They also adopted appeasement stances in the thirties with Hitler’s regime to prevent a war that was already inevitable because they knew the war would be costly. The United States was focused on gaining trading partners abroad at all costs. If anything threatened their interests, they did what they could to tear it down. 

After the war, the main concern on the homefront became communism. The United States and the Soviet Union emerged as the two largest world powers after the Yalta conference, and both believed their governments were superior. The US government became obsessed with cracking down on spies and disloyalty following the war because they were nervous about communism spreading into their country. World War II fed right into the cold war because of the Truman Doctrine and the two world powers that emerged after the war. 

Every event has a cause and effect, and many historians like to play the blame game and trace back every event to something before it. David Swanson’s Article World War Two Was Not a Just War had many interesting claims about when this chain of wars during the twentieth century truly began. Swanson blamed World War I and the unsuccessful Treaty of Versailles for causing World War II, which is also believed by many historians, but the causes for World War I can be traced back even further. The top powers of the world are always looking out for their economic interests over anything else. This selfish point of view is the ultimate cause of conflict in the world. The United States is just as much to blame for this behavior as any other country, and it is probably the biggest culprit. As I discussed earlier, the US puts its economic interests as its number one priority. Swanson even discusses how Wall Street continued to fund Nazi Germany leading up to WWII even though they were suspected of being despotic and authoritative.

3 Comments

It is so weird to hear all of this. I feel like I’ve learned about World War Two a million times throughout my time in k-12, but never like this. What was really eye-opening that the United States claimed to have entered the war to uphold the values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness while also being seen as the defender of helpless countries. When in fact the United States only entered the war when Germany and Japan threatened US world interests, and to seek out an “open door” policy in the Middle East for oil. They were also trying to look like the supreme world power, and they wanted to make sure that the winning nations were friendly with them.

It is interesting that they try to claim that they entered the war because of morality, but what was happening within the borders was immoral. They put Japanese- Americans into camps, and then claimed it to be a mistake when it wasn’t a mistake, they did it because they’re racist and have always been racist. I am not surprised that the US acted the way they did. It is sad that we have been manipulated into thinking of the US as a hero.

5 Comments

I never knew that when Roosevelt went into the war it was for any reason other than human rights, the narrative that is told throughout grade school and high school. In some way, I guess this makes sense because, at the same time as we were fighting in the war, the US had Japanese internment camps, which were committing acts that violate human rights. This can also be seen in the fact that the US only entered the war after the bombing of Pearl Harbor when they felt threatened. The US The United States classifies this as a “mistake” but considering how we condemn Hitler’s concentration camps, the term “mistake” seems a little light to me.

Another thing that struck me was how Zinn talked about the bombings in Japan. Previous to this I had no idea that the suggestion of warning the civilians was made and ignored and also that the United States had intel that Japan was considering Peace allegations. The whole narrative I was told was that Japan would not surrender which is why the US was forced to drop two bombs and end the war. The US used the bombings to assert its military dominance and power and came out of the war as one of the most powerful countries in the war with the Soviet Union.

The hidden motives of the war were shocking to me. It made me question if the United States would have gotten involved in the war if Pearl Harbor had not happened? Would we have let the genocide continue because entering did nothing for us?

5 Comments

Howard Zinn’s chapter, “A People’s War?” discusses United States interventionism in nations across the world following World War II. This movement, masked by anti-communist, anti-Soviet rhetoric, promoted American exceptionalism and resulted in the economic exploitation of nations attempting to recover from imperialism. The United States’ economic takeover of the global economy through exploitation was made possible by the establishment of international government organizations (IGOs) such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the United Nations, which consolidated power in the hands of the Allied Powers, with the United States at the helm. This monopolization of global influence by the United States was discussed by former Secretary of State Cordell Hull, who said, “Leadership toward a new system of international relationships in trade and other economic affairs will devolve very largely upon the United States because of our great economic strength. We should assume this leadership and the responsibility that goes with it, primarily for reasons of pure national self-interest” (Zinn 8495). This economic strength would be bolstered in the coming decades through US intervention into foreign governments with the use of covert, and not very covert, coups.

Beginning with the Truman administration, US interventionism was justified as a necessary method of communist prevention, balanced out by Soviet expansion, which “established a climate of fear… which would steeply escalate the military budget and stimulate the economy with war-related orders” (Zinn 8719). In the coming decades, the United States would, directly and indirectly, assist government rebellions across the world in an attempt to promote democracy. For example, the United States funneled weapons, money, and military advisors toward the pro-Democracy side of the Greek Civil War. That said, the “fight for Democracy” was not always the primary motive of the United States. In 1953, the CIA staged a coup d’etat that ousted democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and replaced him with the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. This decision was made to allow the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (formerly Anglo-Persian, now BP) to maintain their oil monopoly. This pattern of US interventionism would persist into the twenty-first century (first and second Gulf Wars), legitimized by American Exceptionalism and the “world police” narrative. 

Leave a Comment

After reading the article, “World War Two Was Not a Just War,” and the PHUS chapter, “A People’s War,” I was honestly in shock. Throughout my history classes and other parts of my education, I was under the impression that the U.S. was somewhat of a hero during World War 2. I thought that America helped to saved Jewish people from the concentration camps. This seems to be an ongoing theme throughout American History that in early education young Americans are taught about how heroic and great our country is but as I continue to learn more details and I am exposed to different perspectives America is not as great as we think. 

Zinn discusses how the U.S. only entered the war after Pearl Harbor got bombed by Japan. Roosevelt portrayed the bombing as a shocking and terrible event but in reality, Roosevelt expected that the bombing was going to happen. Zinn talks about how the U.S. used the bombing of Pearl Harbor as an opportunity to advance in foreign relations and America’s image. This is surprising to learn because in history books and other parts of early American education this idea is often avoided. 

It was interesting to me when Zinn compared FDR and the Holocaust to Lincoln and the Civil War. It is viewed that FDR and Lincoln were fighting for human rights but instead, they both had other motives as well behind their actions. American’s view FDR as someone who fought for the human rights of Jewish people in the Holocaust and a hero during WW2 but he actually had other intentions such as economic interests in mind. This chapter of PHUS and the article gave me a new perspective on America’s intentions during World War 2 and these intentions are much different than what I have been taught in my American education.

4 Comments

I found the chapter “A People’s War?” from A People’s History of the United States to be very interesting because I never viewed World War II from the perspective that was addressed. Regarding the chapter from A People’s History of the United States, I have to agree with Zinn that World War II really was an imperialistic war. Prior to the Second World War, the United States and various other European nations had imperialistic foreign policies. They went around imposing their rule on any piece of land that they could. With Germany crushed economically and politically after World War I, they needed and wanted to get on the map by taking control over other countries. Hitler first took over Czechoslovakia and moved to Poland, Austria, France and more. At the same time, German’s allie, Italy, attempted to take over Ethiopia. During and before the war, the United States set up bases in nations in the Pacific frontier as well as in Europe. Another reason why I believe that the war was about imperialism was because after the Allied Powers got to Berlin, they divided it up between the United States, France, Britain, and the Soviet Union. Sticking with the same point, the Soviet Union imposed their lifestyle and their communist beliefs on the Eastern European nations, eventually making up the Communist Bloc.

Something else that Zinn brought up in the reading was the impact of World War II on the home front. While the men were fighting abroad, the role of the American women shifted. Now women were relied upon to work in factories to help the war effort. The reliance on women for the war effort not only helped the US win the war but also changed the role of the American women in society. World War II also helped the racial problem within the United States but only to an extent. The war helped to unite African Americans and whites. Similar to what happened with American Women, African Americans were relied on to serve in the military and aid in the fight towards winning the war. Lastly, the economy dramatically changed at the start of the war. Not only was the United States exporting goods to allied nations but they also employed thousands of workers to help build the supply of weapons, food, and other supplies that was needed by the American military. This is seen when reading that a textile mill that was referenced in the reading had a profit growth of over 600% between 1940 and 1946. Overall, World War II had a massive impact on the United States.

On another note, something else that Zinn addressed in this chapter that I didn’t recognize before was how self-centered the United States. The United States promoted and supported numerous independence movements in other countries; however, while the nation was unstable, they imposed themselves in the country often times by building military bases, and sending American businesses. An example of this was seen with Cuba and the United States. The US supported the Cuban independence movement against Spain. While the entire thing was going on, they built a military base on the island. With the rise of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, the US lost its influence in Cuba and its military base. Another self-centered moment in American history was when the United States demanded an Open Door Policy in China while also demanding a Closed Door Policy in Latin America. The last and most obvious form of the US being self-centered was its policy of imperialism. The United States took over numerous nations and territories throughout its history. Some examples have been Hawaii, Mexico, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and more.

 

 

Leave a Comment

In this chapter of PHUS and the article we were assigned to read, I once again found myself shocked at the information I was presented with. World War 2 is one of our nation’s favorite topics to brag about and when seeing a negative light being shed upon it is something I have little exposure to. I have often heard the argument about whether the use of nuclear weapons was necceassry, but decides that not much other rebutal.

One of the topics I found most disturbing was when Zinn stated that Roosevelt would not publicly oppose Hitler’s actions , specifically his persecution of the Jewish people. I also found it interesting when Zinn made the comparison to Abraham Lincoln in that both of their decisions not to speak out against the apparent evil at the time was based off of political motive. Although I realize the presidents job is to do what is best for their country, should this come at the expense of millions of human lives?

4 Comments

The Swanson article and Zinn’s (1980) chapter on “A People’s War?” did an excellent job of presenting another narrative about WWII. It amazes me how the United States continues to instill certain narratives and ideologies into its youth even after WWII ended 75 years ago, just so that the youth will not collectively overthrow the government and form a more just union and society. What specifically astonished me about WWII was this particular paragraph from Zinn’s chapter. Zinn writes, “Roosevelt was as much concerned to end the oppression of Jews as Lincoln was to end slavery during the Civil War; their priority in policy (whatever their personal compassion for victims of persecution) was not minority rights, but national power” (410). A recurring sentiment Zinn highlights throughout this chapter is how the United States’ involvement in WWII was not for humanitarian efforts. Instead, the U.S. was eager to feed its exceptionalism ideology by expanding its values of capitalism and democracy across Asia and Europe while maintaining those same systems and structures domestically. In response, I believe this is why Zinn questions Americans’ validity calling WWII “a people’s war” when so many wrongs against people- both domestically and internationally- were occurring at the hands of the United States government.

 

Moreover, I discovered another danger to the exceptionalism ideology. Suppose that you become the best at everything you wanted to be superior in after much sacrifice and effort. Is it equally possible that you would not be satisfied with your status in the world, and so you would continue to exploit others to feed this twisted hunger of yours? And, by twisted hunger, I mean the feeling of being chosen by God to lead everyone else through the darkness that surrounds our world since everyone is less than compared to you. Zinn presents a similar message as he quotes revolutionary pacifist A.J. Muste, “‘The problem after a war is with the victor. He thinks he has just proved that war and violence pay. Who will now teach him a lesson?’” (424). While there may be anticipation surrounding WWIII, I do know one thing: killing human beings is wrong no matter which side of the war you are on, and there’s not anything “good” nor “just” about that.

2 Comments

Zinn’s chapter, “A people’s War?” as well as the article “World War Two Was Not A Just War,” changed my perspective on the United States involvement and contributions to World War II. I had previously thought and been told that America did a good job in this war and contributed heavily to the freeing and helping of imprisoned Jews in Germany. However, both the chapter and the article proved otherwise. I was also surprised, but by no means shocked to find out that blacks were still treated so unfairly in America during World War II. 

Our country really didn’t advance before, during, or after World War II. War times are times when a country should be all hands on deck in giving the country the best tools and supplies for success. However, Zinn says, “Despite the urgent need for wartime labor, blacks were still being discriminated against for jobs,” and “Roosevelt never did anything to enforce the orders of the Fair Employment Practices Commission he had set up,” (Zinn 415). The fact that even in the country’s biggest times in need, during a World war, people and our own leader couldn’t get over their discriminations and biases, saddens me. Beyond this, proof that America did not advance before, during, or after the war is the 1960s in America. The rebellions in all aspects of life prove that the citizens were incredibly unhappy and felt the need to lash out in any way they could against the government.

 

2 Comments

The arguments presented in Swanson’s “World War Two Was Not a Just War” caused me to stop and pause. I was always taught that World War II was America’s shining moment. Many times my school would go visit the National World War II Museum that was located just down town. Throughout the museum examples of America’s greatness were all over the wall. I remember my teacher telling me that if you went to a WWII museum in the UK, they paint themselves as the hero of the war, but no matter where you go this war was always presented as the fight against fascism and to protect the Jewish communities.

Therefore, when I read that the war wasn’t marketed as a humanitarian war until after I was surprised. I was taken aback that the United States did not accept many Jewish refugees and that the public was in agreement with this policy. Many of my close friends from home had grandparents that emigrated from Germany and other parts of Europe because they were Jewish and feared Hitlers rule. I don’t know how their lives would have been different had they not been allowed into the United States. Moreover, I found it horrific that the main reason citied was that it would be too difficult to transfer that many people to the United States. This whole ordeal made me wonder how much of our history has been reshaped to paint us in a better light.

3 Comments

This week’s readings on WWII open an important dialogue on the true utility and necessity of such large scale wars, as well as failings in global interventions on peace. It is extremely difficult to see past the level of destruction the world experienced when even the motives of American involvement were more convoluted than the public recognizes. Moreover, the concept of a “just war” is often extremely oversimplified and ignores any motivations for war that don’t fit a specific moral narrative. There is absolutely no doubt that American opposition to German fascism and the Holocaust was necessary and moral. However, American foreign policy failed to prioritize the oncoming genocide until it worked in America’s best interest. If this were not true, concessions to Hitler would not have been made for as long as they were and an entire ship of Jewish refugees would not have been turned away from America’s shores. In fact, Roosevelt first turned the matter of handling the Holocaust over to a state department that was riddled with anti-semitism (Zinn 415). To claim a higher American moral standard than what was actually practiced is a to fail to plan for present and future policy that could combat genocide.

Zinn’s chapter and the article both present a stepping stone to a larger conversation on international policy on peacekeeping and where those organizations can strive to be better in and out of wartime. Zinn notes that the United Nations was formed in the midst of WWII, at the whims of major imperialist powers (415). The UN today handles a large portion of peacekeeping operations worldwide, but to understand the shortfalls and areas where it might strive for more sustainable peace, we can look towards the historical creation of the greater organization. The fundamental dissonance of an organization created by inherently violent imperial powers with the stated goal of maintaining peace is evident- it is only natural that peacekeeping operations are often found to have capitalistic or exploitative motives behind them. That is not to say that peacekeeping operations like the UN bare unjust or cannot operate at a higher function of morality- they absolutely can, it just requires a certain amount of public consciousness and accountability of historical shortcomings. Zinn’s chapter on WWII presents an opportunity for awareness- dissecting the past failures of foreign policy has a unique ability to reform future actions by governing powers and the people alike.

Leave a Comment

Today’s reading from PHUS, “A People’s War” and the article “World War II Was Not Just a War”, gave a very behind the scenes look into World War II and our country’s role in it. I was shocked by much of the information presented in this chapter, as much of it was depicted in a very negative tone, bashing the United States for everything they did before, during, and after the war. Specifically, both works denote president Franklin D. Roosevelt almost as a villain, for many reasons that I had no prior knowledge about.

I thought it was very interesting how Zinn compares FDR’s stance on ending the oppression of the Jews to Lincoln ending slavery, with both leader’s priorities focused on national power, not minority rights. I thought this was a little harsh, as I had never thought of them being compared in this way, as I thought I had been taught that the United States did not learn about the oppression of the Jews until it was too late.

In addition, I found the idea from the article that FDR knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor before it occurred, sickening. Having visited Pearl Harbor myself and doing numerous school projects on it, I could not believe I never read or saw anything that gave me this insight. I’m not sure how accurate this really is from the article, however they must have heard it from somewhere, which is definitely concerning.

Overall, after reading the chapter and article, I have gained a new understanding and perspective on the United States and their role during war. I believe much of the information in these works have either not been discovered, or swept under the rug by most people, and that needs to change. We need to stop only focusing on the simple facts from history, and instead focus on what was actually going on between people behind the main scenes.

 

 

3 Comments

In this week’s reading of PHUS, the truth behind the United States’ intentions in WWII were revealed. When we read about the United States’ involvement in our early education, we always learned about how heroic our country was and how the U.S. alone saved the world from the Nazi’s.  Contrary to what our textbooks have taught us, the truth is quite the opposite. When WWII broke out, the United States did little about Hitler’s policies of prosecution. Zinn explains that, “It was not Hitler’s attacks on the Jews that brought the United States into World War II, any more than the enslavement of 4 million Blacks brought the Civil War in 1861” (410). We learn about how heroic our country was in WWII, when in reality we only entered the war because of economic reasons and Pearl Harbor.

 

Pearl Harbor was presented to the American people as “a sudden, shocking, immoral act”. However, this was truly not the case. Although the bombing was immoral, the event itself was not shocking to the American government. The American government already initiated economic sanctions against Japan that they recognized might risk war. Roosevelt ignored this fact and lied to the public about two incidents involving German submarines.  He thought that these lies were for the right cause.

 

Zinn continues to highlight the truth about monumental events in American history. Over and over throughout history we learn the true intentions of our government. Democrats and businessmen in WWII were focused on making sure that the American economic power would be “second to none in the world” at the end of the war. This economic war was aimed to save capitalism at home and abroad. This makes me question whether our government has started any war without having some sort of economic intention behind it. Is the United States really a “defender of hopeless countries” or are they more concerned about the economy?

3 Comments

After reading this chapter, I can’t help but think how different the world we live in would be if governments operated under moral code rather than political and economic agendas. I don’t only mean the United States, but every other country who seems to put their imperialist goals above basic ethics. In this reading, Zinn makes connections between President Roosevelt and President Lincoln during their terms. As we discussed before, Lincoln was not too concerned with slavery from a moral standpoint. He mainly used that as a way to follow through with his own agenda. Then there is Roosevelt. He also didn’t have much concern for the Jewish people from a moral perspective because if he did, when the Nazis first started killing the Jewish people, he would’ve intervened then. The fact that they both used these reasons as justifications for getting involved or to defend their point, shows that they understand that morals do matter in politics, but only when they want them to. They only used the basis of the opposing actions as not being right when they ran out of other options, but by this point, it is too late.

Another very big problem that Zinn talks about is the dropping of the atomic bombs. What I learned from this chapter that I didn’t know before, was that the United States government knew that the Japanese were going to surrender but they still chose to drop the bombs anyway. Not only did they drop one, but after seeing the aftermath of the first one, they went ahead with the second. I will say it is a strong maybe the first one can be justified, but there is no reasonable defense for the second one.

Hitler’s rise to power had a lot to do with him capitalizing on the weak economy of Germany and using that for his gain. I see a parallel to the United States government in later years. During the Cold War, the Truman administration presented the Soviet Union as an immediate threat to Americans. There were drills and propaganda during this time that put Americans in a state of constant fear because they did not know what could happen. Although the types of vulnerabilities were different, how different is it from Hitler who also used the vulnerability of the people for political gain? I’m not trying to say that Truman was turning into Hitler and that genocide was going to happen. However, the government did decide to evacuate and place Japanese into internment camps, another unethical choice on the U.S. that goes ignored. There are so many similarities between America and other countries, but for some reason, we only focus on the minuscule differences and not on the obvious problems that are there. How do the U.S. and its people continue to distance themselves from the wrongful actions of other countries when our actions have proved that we may not be all that better? Something to think about is a point that Zinn makes about these wrongful actions, “Was it a “mistake”-or was it an action to be expected…” (416)

 

3 Comments

After completing both of the readings, I have elected to focus on the article that outlines 12 problems with World War 2, and I am going to provide my opinion on these listed problems as I tend to disagree with most of what was said. To begin, “World War 2 Was Not a Just War” provides 12 examples of why WW2 was unjustified and why the United States should have approached entering and fighting the war differently. The article posed many ideas that appear to be more hopeful conspiracy theories than actual, proven knowledge. For example, reason 2 alludes to the idea that FDR intentionally prompted the Japanese to strike pearl harbor for the sole purpose of having an excuse to join the war. This is not proven, nor does this make sense as the Japanese would never have agreed to this proposal knowing that they would eventually be attacked by the United States and lose many, many Japanese citizens. Also, reason 4 delineates the idea that WW2 was not a defensive war and that the United States’ president, FDR, lied about Nazi intentions to rally the American people into desiring war. Again, I do not believe that this is true as the United States would be in shambles if it was proven to be true that the president lied so the country could intentionally incite violence in a foreign territory with the sole purpose of killing.

Furthermore, there are other points in the text that I also believe to be untrue based on familial experience. In high school, I was tasked with tracing my familial roots by talking to my grandparents and great grandparents about their life and immigration stories. I am Jewish and my ancestors fled from Europe during the WW2 era in an attempt to flee the anti-Semitic nature of their home as well as find a new beginning as being a European jew at this time was difficult. Through recounted stories, I uncovered that my ancestors came to America and were welcomed with love, promise, and opportunity the moment they arrived. This directly contradicts the statements and content of argument number 3 saying that the United States had a negative and unwelcoming attitude towards Jewish refugees. That same story holds true with many of my Jewish friends as well.

Finally, I take a large problem with the idea of demilitarization that is proposed multiple times throughout the article for example in reasoning number(s): 6&12. The United States is a world power that maintains our status as a dominant country through military ability. While we are not conquering or seeking un-necessary wars, we delegate money to our military as a preventative measure that protects American citizens, our allies, and our democratic style of government that allows us Americans freedoms that are forbidden all over the world. There are countries like North Korea and China that despise the United States’ type of government, and it wouldn’t be a surprise if a war were to arise because of this at some point. The sole knowledge that those countries possess of our military strength often defuses potential war situations because the United States’ military has the power to defend the country from any foreign threat across the globe. Pouring money into military funding keeps the United States’ homeland safe, and protects the freedoms and safeties that we all take for granted every day.

While I understand that there are many contradicting opinions to my arguments and points made, I strongly disagreed with much of the contents of this article. It was quite interesting to read and hear the perspectives of different opinions on World War 2, I believe that the war was necessary for saving the lives of millions of people, dismantling a racist, homophobic, the regime in the German Nazi’s, and protecting the people of the United States. Without US involvement, there is no telling where the world may be today, which gives me comfort in the United States’ involvement in the war.

1 Comment

After reading the article, “World War Two Was Not a Just War”, I was sort of surprised. In my past history classes, it was made out that the United States was the hero of the war because it seemed like they saved jewish people from concentration camps and defeated the horrible Nazis. Everyone fails to mention all the negatives of this war, like the trauma that this caused soldiers, or the innocent civilians that were killed. This is obviously a big part of any war but it is often failed to be mentioned because people would rather highlight the victories. The United States as a whole also feels no remorse for taking as much credit as possible for defeat of Nazi Germany, when in reality the Soviet Union did a majority of the work, “The party that did most of the killing and dying for the winning side, was the communist Soviet Union” (Swanson). This idea takes away from the idea of the “United States Heroes”. 

World War II is most known for trying to defeat the Nazis and save the jews from major oppression, but as Swanson exposes in the article, the United States was nowhere near doing all they could to help them. “The war was not humanitarian and was not even marketed as such until after it was over. There was no poster asking you to help Uncle Sam save the Jews… The U.S. engaged in no diplomatic or military effort to save the victims in the Nazi concentration camps” (Swanson). This factor brings up the idea of America’s need to “save the world”. It feels like the United States entered this war so that they could get the praise after they helped to defeat the enemy. It is sad to think that a main reason for entering this war was for recognition, and not the population of jewish people that were being severely abused and oppressed. Reading this article makes me question many of the United States choices and now I wonder if they were made morally or just so that the United States could remain the heroes be seen as “the greatest nation” always there to save the day.

3 Comments

     I thought the Yellow Wallpaper reading was one of the most interesting and dynamic stories we have read all year. I thought the stylistic choices of a first-person perspective narrator and a developing character, rather than a stagnant one, were important as it heightened the tension of the story. In the beginning, I thought it was disturbing to “hear” what she thinks of herself since it was completely based on what her husband thought, and saw the wallpaper as irrelevant. As the story progresses, I thought the metaphor of the wallpaper was ingenious and creative as it was a direct representation of our narrator who was still and quiet in the light of examination by characters John and Jennie, but mentally active and alive at night, in the shadows of her “caretakers”. Although she is characterized as having “hysteria”, the powerful metaphor and the symbolic ripping of the wallpaper stands for the feminist idea that men (represented by John), and other social/political forces (represented by Jennie), force her to act a particular way. This means her “hysteria” is not created or caused by herself but instead created and imposed by others. Our main character has to “crawl” and “creep” over, around, and between these other forces in her life at night in order to live her more true and active self, which is not defined by those viewing and monitoring her “hysteria”. This piece was published in 1892, which makes me wonder just how popular it was at the time. To me, this message seems especially unique for its time period and reminds women that they are also their own person, regardless of what others define them as. 

     The Yellow Wallpaper’s message reminds me clearly of the “second generation” of the Women’s Suffrage Movement who, as stated in the video, were not afraid of occupying space as their predecessors already broke those social barriers. Although the second-generation women had a completely different way of working towards liberation through activism and constant interaction with politicians and media compared to the woman in The Yellow Wallpaper, who secretly worked towards her unknown liberation, their messages are the same: women are made to feel less by external pressures/forces, they are not inherently less than their counterparts parts, and once women recognize their intrinsic equal worth action must be taken to break those bars or barriers. My biggest critique of The Yellow Wallpaper would when John faints at the end. Although it would have been too progressive for the time period, I wish that John and the women could have had some type of conversation after she rips down her tinged wallpaper because it could have inspired more dialogue between men and women in real life. A conversation between the two in The Yellow Wallpaper would have also been historically similar to the recognition that men had to do after World War One once they realized that many of their old jobs could easily be done by women, which I think led to a lot of internal conversation during that time period which pushed the women’s movement. 

     Although not connected to the Yellow Wallpaper, I cannot forget to mention the overlap between the Abolitionist Movement and the Women’s Suffrage Movement as I think it is an interesting dynamic not explored enough in American history textbooks. Although I knew of Frederick Douglass and Susan B. Anthony, I did not realize the interesting plays each leader had to make in order to successfully pass their primary objectives (slavery and the vote respectively). Susan B. Anthony’s decision to join forces with southern and racist (but also powerful) women was similar to a tough call made in war. Her political and social moves only searched for increased power and numbers for the Movement, which she knew would be the only way for her to advance the cause. This follows direct war strategies and reminds me of how intense and important the Women’s Suffrage Movement is and was in the trajectory of American history.

4 Comments

Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s “The Yellow Wallpaper” follows the narrator as she and her husband, John, spend the summer at a haunting estate. The narrator describes how John belittles her and her “slight hysterical tendency,”  which keeps her from doing any sort of work or writing (648). The narrator, who is admittedly mentally unstable, begins to fixate on the odd yellow wallpaper in a room of the mansion. This fixation becomes an obsession, as she sees herself as trapped behind the pattern. She eventually escapes, exclaiming to her husband “I’ve pulled off most of the paper, so you can’t put me back!” (656). However, she does not escape the madness she has succumbed to. 

 

I first read “The Yellow Wallpaper” when I was in the eighth grade, and I am still just as disturbed as I was then. The idea of being in that situation, driven to madness by the restrictions on creative expression, is terrifying. The idea of being in that severe of a subordinate position in a marriage seems unreasonable to me today. As a woman, I could not imagine being so belittled in an engagement that is presented as a partnership. The wallpaper symbolizes the domestic role of women that the narrator, and many women throughout history, have attempted to escape. We’re lucky today to not have these pressures weighing on us to this degree, even though they are still there. This story was published in 1892, almost thirty years before the 19th amendment was passed, giving women the right to vote. While the right to vote did not make women equal, it was a step in the right direction. Society has come a long way since Gilman wrote this story, but there is still a far way to go.

8 Comments

The role that gender plays in this short story is very evident.  It seems that the narrator has been put into some kind of mental institution and struggles to find her identity, while explaining how much she hates her room.  It seems that after having her child the narrator was admitted to an institution of some kind because of depression.  While, John her husband says that she is fine, and that she will be back to normal soon, the narrator obviously is not okay.  The idea that a woman is dependent on a man is evident, “John is a physician, and perhaps—(I would not say it to a living soul, of course, but this is dead paper and a great relief to my mind)—perhaps that is one reason I do not get well faster.  You see, he does not believe I am sick!”  The idea of male superiority shows in John’s actions, because instead of listening to the narrator’s problems, he doesn’t believe her.  Meanwhile, the narrator has given up trying to convince people otherwise, “And what can one do?  If a physician of high standing, and one’s own husband, assures friends and relatives that there is really nothing the matter with one but temporary nervous depression—a slight hysterical tendency—what is one to do?”

Towards the end of the story though the narrator begins to become more defiant of these gender stereotypes.  She doesn’t always listen to what John says becoming more and more defiant as the story continues.  Until the very end of the story when she finally breaks out of her shell.  She was able to pull off all of the wallpaper that made her so unhappy.  While admiring the wall she writes, “I quite enjoy the room, now it is bare again.”  This signifies how she has broken out of the shell that she was in, and is now able to defy John and become her own person.  This continues until she locks everyone out of the room and is by herself contemplating how to escape.  Finally, she says, “I’ve got out at last,” said I, “in spite of you and Jane! And I’ve pulled off most of the paper, so you can’t put me back!”  This is the final stage in her evolution, because the narrator has fully escaped the grips that John has kept her in, and she now feels free for the first time.

 

6 Comments

The main character and speaker of Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s “The Yellow Wallpaper” struggles to live contently in a world that forces any women’s sense of empowerment into a box. Quickly after the start of the story, the speaker admits to having “a slight hysterical tendency.” (648). While there are valid historical reasons to believe that her husband and brother actually diagnose her with hysteria, I believe the story takes on a more nuanced meaning if this “hysteria” that she is diagnosed and locked away for is understood as feminism.

 

The men in the speaker’s life — namely her husband and brother — are the ones who “diagnose her with hysteria;” however, their roles as successful men living in a patriarchy explains why they condemn her for (at least what I understand as) feminist sentiments. If her hysteria is seen as feminist sentiment, then it would make sense why the men in her life attempt to suppress it. Indeed, the men in the story try to convince the speaker that “the very worst thing [she] can do is think about [her] condition.” (648). Here, the speaker alludes to the point often made by sexists that “women should just be happy to be taken care of.” By insisting that she should not think about her “condition” (that is feminist sentiments), the men forward the idea that women should not give too much thought to her individual freedom or rights. So, recognizing that her husband will not listen to her complaints, the speaker “let it alone and talk[s] about the house.” (648). Despite her concern for herself, the speaker listens to her husband because that is what is expected of her. By shifting focus to the house, the speakers subjects herself to a domestic role. Ironically, this eventually drives her crazy as she becomes obsessed with the yellow wallpaper. Eventually, she sees a women in the wallpaper which can represent herself. Repressed by her denial of empowerment, the speaker feels trapped like the women in the wallpaper, thus explaining why the woman escapes when her husband passes out.

 

The story of the speaker is a product of its time. Published in 1892, the story responds to increasing sentiments about women’s rights. Indeed, women in the late 19th century rightfully felt that they were restricted in both opportunity and rights. In specific, this story shows both how small-scale power structures indicate larger societal issues and how the cult of domesticity negatively impacted women for centuries. First, the lack of power the speaker has over her husband reveals how misogynistic attitudes can suppress women from expressing their true feelings. On the small scale, this may go be hard to see. However, when this power structure exists in countless relationships, it suppresses women from becoming empowered. Finally, the story explains how the myth of women finding happiness in the house is harmful. Indeed, the speaker does not appreciate being locked away in a house and only being able to find interest in wallpaper. By granting women basic rights and eliminating patriarchal power structures, women can feel empowered to become agents of their own change. However, there are many walls that need to be broken down in order for complete change to occur.

4 Comments