The world is my oyster.

           Throughout this course there were many topics I have absorbed and felt were important throughout American history. But one specific topic covered recently was the civil war. The civil war in my opinion was one of many wars that have occurred on American soil, but the most important in my opinion due to the possible effects if the union did not win. My overall response to this topic comes with many assumptions when asked “what if” the union didn’t win, but instead the confederacy. I would ask questions such as how slavery would be looked upon today or even how it would impact the economy for certain races besides whites.

           The bias in the course was presented through the history of certain historical figures such as presidents as well as even the citizens who went against them or other known leaders or organizations or groups. These people sought out their goals whether with the use of tyrannical acts or even with the support of the people, they used different forms of communication such as propaganda throughout history to achieve such. I feel that many of the sources and videos used in the course covered most of the material that needed to cover, as well as videos that expressed humor that young adults would understand during this age of time in order to understand the topic.

           American history covers a lot of the past that relate to the present, but I feel that the course could include a lot of historical events that have occurred at least in the past 50 years. I feel that students do not keep up with the news enough that history now that isn’t seen such as genocides in other countries or international diplomatic issues will be covered in new classes that will be developed to cover our current time and age.

           I can confidently say that my least favorite sections were the sections in the very beginning that included historical settlements and travels to the America and the establishment of colonies. I feel like this is a bullet that was shot in elementary school, and slowly worked its way through the vest into the chest of a college student with more in depth information, it also made me question what I believed was true such as Sacagawea being a super young girl not accurately portrayed in Disney movies.

           How history is portrayed in popular media has not changed from this course because first I don’t know what popular media is. If popular media is considered CNN or any obviously false establishment to get more views, then popular media definitely is showing that the world is going down a dark hole and possibly never coming back.  

The film “The Conspirator” connects too many topics discussed in class as it deals with the most important advocate in anti-slavery, Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln as many know is the president to abolish slavery during his term, and is later assassinated by John Wilkes Booth who supported the South and their beliefs, one of them being pro slavery. Not only does this film connect to the idea of slavery, but also the first of many of a handful of elaborate and successfully planned assassinations throughout American history, without the thought of failed assassinations from Andrew Jackson who was struck by Robert Randolph to another attempt on Jackson where Richard Lawrence’s pistols misfired twice. Lastly the film portrays the nation in distraught after Lincoln’s successful assassination, which much outcry through the beginning of the movie was able to show the audience. This in relation to class discussion could relate to almost equal to that of the Panic of 1837 where financial crisis led America to the brink of possible bankruptcy.

           The historical accuracy of the selected film definitely gives the correct information and event timeline that occurred during the assassination of Lincoln. The beginning gives a brief summary of events that already occurred such as the surrender of Robert E. Lee to General Grant, and even how multiple assassination attempts took place besides Lincoln. Mary Saratt is portrayed as a business woman who is innocent of all accusations and simply provided a living establishment for those who held meetings to assassinate President Lincoln, but in doing so tags her as part of the death of Lincoln. She later on admits she wants to abduct Lincoln or exchange of Southerners, which doesn’t help her case either way. Although the film can’t be extremely accurate with what each character said at the time of the trials of the conspirators, but the film successfully portrays the ending of the movie, which no matter the defense of Frederick Aiken and his attempt to prevent Saratt from being charged as guilty and hanged for the death of Lincoln. I couldn’t see much historical errors or missed opportunities that the producer could have added to make the film more accurate as possible and felt that the information already given in the movie was enough to get the idea of the trials that occurred after the assassination of Lincoln occurred and their respective verdicts of being guilty.

           All in all, I feel that “The Conspirator” is a good work of historical film due to its fair representation of each character that was involved in the case, from the Lawyer Aiken to the innocence of Surrat. The story begins accurately of Aiken’s involvement in the film overall, from starting off fighting in the Civil War, and finally given the case to defend Surrat. Throughout the film it gave a more bigger background on Aiken and how he no matter how guilty everyone in the court felt Surrat was, continued to fight for her life and prevent her from being hanged, but instead at least a lifetime in jail. When the movie ends, and like previously stated above about her conviction, her son is finally caught and given a trial in which he is not hanged. This shows how his mother received the worst ending possible knowing she was far less guilty then her son.

           Throughout the documentary about saving South Sudan, we can see how dictatorship can form and how such government officials use their power to keep their power. Such in this video, Salva Kiir, the President of South Sudan publicly displays his former vice president Dr. Riak Machar as a traitor who attempts a coup against him. But later on in the documentary, Dr. Riak says that Kiir only says this due to the fact of his possible lost if he himself were to run against him for the presidential election. After being banned from the local government area, Dr.Riak stays commissioned somewhere in South Sudan with his own personal militia in attempts to right the wrongs of Salva Kiir.

           My reaction to this film out of all the documentaries shown in class is not so surprising. Throughout public schools up to the collegiate level, history teachers I have personally had always said to look for small injustices around the world in relation to genocide and continue to emphasize how the holocaust was not just last genocide on earth. Although Dr. Riak attempts to create a democracy, civilians in the area up to the local government in South Sudan are killed without mercy and their goods plundered upon. But this once again is not surprising to me as people will need to do just about anything to survive.

           I do think the filmmakers show a certain bias towards the real intent of Dr.Riak, because it is easy to capture what you want to hear from someone who was thrown out of the government. From “creating a democracy” to “I just want peace for the people”, simple statements like that are easy to say but not do. This also doesn’t take in account to what might actually happen if Dr.Riak is successful in his rebellion and whether or not he will stand true to his words.

           There are a few blind spots throughout the whole documentary, one including who the prophet is that controls the so called “white army”. Continuing with this, the video does not explain how the targets for the white army happen to be oil supplies in addition to civilians in South Sudan and who they are fighting, whether its soldiers sent by Salva Kiir or other tribes simply attempting to protect their land, family, and belongings.

           Genocide can be related to the current topics covered in class, especially in relation to slavery. Slavery in my own words describes the forcing of those to do a bidding against their will, and as history shows happen to be Africans. I feel that in the video about genocide, soldiers who fight for something don’t really know what they are doing. They lack an education unlike Dr.Riaks wife, and may be forced to believe that what they are doing is right.

           Throughout the documentary I learned about different opposing sides of South Sudan, and why these sides were formed. But as these sides are portrayed, they do not explain what they are doing to progress besides forming protective borders so their enemies to not continue moving in to certain areas.

           The term “never again” can never really be a reality. This is due to the fact that there are always opposing sides due to tensions in politics, financial institutions, and culture/religion. Due to these strong beliefs and also strong arguments, there will always be some sort of fighting to prove one side is right over the other.  I feel that no matter how much people donate, or even spread the word, the term “never again” will still seem to be a question worth asking from now and to the future. As we can see that in the film, no matter how much aid is given, a truck exactly for giving aid to South Sudan was stolen and used for rebellion causes. Words spread from teachers in classes to even a video such as this doesn’t exactly mean people will do anything because it is not of their concern.

The demagogue I selected is Louis Farrakhan. He leads the Nation of Islam which I models the teachings of Elijah Muhammed. He uses the teachings of Islam to gain political gains and to fight oppression among the black community when needed. Such ideas he fought for include things from vaccines to abortion which was stated earlier by the interviewer in the video. A lot of what the video was looking towards is the corruption of the current government as well as what side Louis Farrakhan has taken, but with some consideration. For example he doesn’t exactly endorse Trump who is a current presidential candidate, but he does approve of how he is straight forward and doesn’t want “the people’s money”, and the interviewer then plays a small video on how Trump in one panel actually stated that he gave money to other political candidates on the stage. Another part of his agreements is Trumps idea of keeping Muslim people out until America understands what they are getting into.

           My overall reaction of the video first of all sounds ridiculous. Louis Farrakhan does say that the people deserve a government for the people and by the people, but the people consists of every one, no matter what color of skin. But in his teachings from when he was young and possibly until now, he says that white people are evil and can be considered to be the devil. Another statement he said was that you as a person must kill people who killing you. Which does not sound exactly pleasing morally.

           Do the filmmakers show a bias in this video? 100% definitely. The video shows clips or news articles that support the interviewer’s points of view to prove that he is right, as well as other pieces of evidence that support what Louis Farrakhan says. They also show pieces of public documents that show the point of view of current politicians such as President Barack Obama, and shreds his beliefs with what Louis believes in.

           There are plenty of blind spots throughout the film. One to point out is how no matter the teachings of killing people who are killing you. Louis says there is no definite proof that the people who listen to such teachings have actually killed anyone. The blind spot here is yes there is no definite proof, but that doesn’t mean killings don’t happen. Another blind spot is certain pieces of evidence from clips do not pull out their source. If anything they are playing video with no credible source.

           Throughout the film, I feel like I learned nothing besides what I already know from the study of the Nation of Islam done in high school. Peaceful protests but aggressive speaking from those such as Malcom X to Louis Farrakhan himself. If I wanted to learn something, I would definitely want to know more of Louis Farrakhan’s views on certain political ideas that are on people’s mind now more in depth, as the video only addresses them as what he does talk about.

               The history of my documentary covered how the previously existing Soviet Union spread communism throughout present day Russia, which soon spread to North Korea. North Korea now with this great sense of communism wanted to move towards conquering South Korea, which created this sense of tension between the United Nations and the respective communist states. Throughout the entire war, North Korea received assistance from both China and the Soviet Union, while the South had the U.S. and as well as any assistance from the United Nations. North Korea soon controlled over 90% of South Korea while the South soon was retreated back towards the oceans. But eventually with more strategic battles, the North was pushed back to their respective border.

               In the beginning of the film, I was somewhat disgusted to hear that North Koreans or communist in general would use children as shields during the war from gun fire. In addition to the first waves of prisoners of war were children. But besides that, this war seems as typical of any war, consisting of firefighters, artillery fire, and environmental factors that contributed to losses.

               Film makers for this documentary certainly do show a certain bias in the film because they show mostly the point of view of men throughout the war with only one case of a women. This shows the difficulty of the war through combat, but not through what is going on behind the scenes of wounded warriors and the medical nurses required to tend to them. In terms of blind spots or missed opportunities, these included more elaboration on the counter attack that pushed North Korea back. This is important because in the beginning of the film the narrator describes how North Korea and their respective soldiers were highly motivated while U.S. soldiers were not trained or ready for this conflict.

               This documentary in relation to class could point out how South Korea on the brink of defeat could easily be put back to winning in comparison to when the British attacked Baltimore. Although ships were not used in the battle of Korea, land forces were primarily used to push back South Korea. But with one stroke of a decision and action such as the killing of the commander of the British offensive in comparison to Douglas MacArthur counter offensive.

               In all honesty I feel like I didn’t learn much in the film since most of it was point of views that are similar to other documentaries I’ve watched showing how soldiers were wounded and how they personally felt about the situation. But throughout the documentary as well as to the present day, I would like to learn more about why North Korea continues to use communism as a sense of government after the biggest communist country being the soviet union fell.

Throughout the Florida Conference of Historians, I participated in Panel 2A (“Unfinished American Revolution”, SoTL, and the Plenary Session. Out of all the sessions I did attend, I personally liked the first panel because it related to what occurred after the civil war where the Historian presented on what is coined as the “Carnival of Crime”. This focuses on how crimes nearly doubled after the civil war, and to my surprise was due to the soldiers themselves from the war in addition to the not so surprising deserters of the war. Veterans to immobilized soldiers were found to be causing these crimes, from murder to even suicide. The historian was asked questions later on about what would have caused these veterans to go haywire, and he responded that in the time it was not “PTSD” but instead “mental casualties”. Later on the historian mentions that these mental causalities in today’s time would be depression, nostalgia, and home sickness. What I found also interesting about the topic is how these veterans or deserters were never caught. The same historian then moves on to an example of murders and homicides that didn’t relate to veterans after the civil war, but instead those who were civilians. His example were the bloody benders, which I later on researched more about and found that these family owned an inn, hid behind a curtain and killed those who stayed over and simply put them in a trap door nearby where another family member would slit their thought to make sure they were dead.

           In the same panel, another historian talked way more in detail without a visual aid and simply was confusing, but later on he discussed how his researched related to the previous historians presentation and included factors such as alcohol that could have possibly led to the rise of crimes after the civil war. He mentions later on that due to this rise of crime, these events could have led to prohibition later on in the 1990’s.

           SoTL also known as scholarship of training and learning was not a panel but I listened into the meeting since there was free lunch. The target audience was more for teachers and other historians as the presenter provided information on how to educate students in a better fashion, and to my surprise actually knows what students think and was able to relate to me.

The film titled “How we got gay” portrays images of the past to near modern times where gays were treated unfairly to a point where they have geared towards their tipping point to freedom. In the beginning of the film, the video stressed on how homosexual actions were treated illegal, and those who practiced it would not only be criminalized, but also hospitalized as if being gay was a disability, condition, or disease that plagued the nation. These people who treated through electric shock therapy until they admitted to liking women, although the video did not express how women were treated if they were to like the same sex. Later on small rebellions occurred in stonewall, where gays began to join political discussions on the attempt to approve of gay rights throughout the states, although this was slow and steady and did not reveal strong wins in their favor. But the film then goes into the spread of aids due to homosexuals who had sex in public places like forests, bathrooms, and specifically bath houses. These homosexuals were treated truly like a disease and soon died off with no help from the government who failed to provide research on the disease or any form of treatment. Lastly the video then goes towards the 20th century where governments from Canada who made gay marriage legal, to the United States who began approving research for treatments for the aids epidemic.

           My reaction to this video is abrupt and not really surprising. I feel like our government slowly takes in strong causalities in both the people and in political discussions to finally understand the problems that are plaguing the nation. From racism and slavery to gay rights, millions have died to finally get an idea and sooner or later a plan of action.

           In this video, I feel like a certain bias was indeed formed when aids was introduced as a topic of interest to mix in with gay rights. Concluding that all aids, although proven with statistics in the past, were spread through bath houses and much more, the video producers cannot simply only portray gays as the issue of the spread of aids. They do not mention straight couples who may have spread the disease as equally as a gay couple.

           There were many blind spots in the video. One of these was pointed out in the first paragraph of this post where video producers fail to mention how were women targeted in the case of homosexuality, in this case a women like another women. They do not mention any form of shock treatment for them, or any treatment at all that could “cure” them. Another blind spot would include how specifically how gay right leaders attempted to get the attention of the government and also appeal to their laws.

           If I had any questions to ask the film makers, I would definitely ask them about their personal sources as those may seem bias as well. Although most of the video expresses how the government treated homosexuals badly, overtime they must have done something to improve the quality of life later on as they sooner realized that this was an issue.

           When reading the articles about religious freedom as well as religious liberty, I found both topics fairly confusing when coming up with a definition but there definitely is a difference. Religious freedom in my opinion is defined as conflicts between law and conflicting groups due to religion that was sought after a situation but not before. Examples of this would be conflicts that prevent gay couples from receiving benefits from the government or including businesses that prevent certain groups besides gays from providing those services. Then when it comes to religious liberty, this can be defined as laws that conflict the beliefs of people. This shouldn’t be confused between religion and beliefs. For example the belief of providing contraception medication to those who do not want to become pregnant no matter what age, as well as abortion to those who may not want to have a child. Religion does conflict with this as the bible may go against this, but this is the belief of the general people, whether or not they are religious.

           One article in regards to religious liberty refers to the recent death of Supreme Court Justice Scalia. His death is important in regards to religious liberty because there are supposed to be nine court justices, one extra judge to eight breaks any ties. But if half of judges say yes and the other half say no to a bill, there will be a tie. The article clearly states although that this bill does not necessarily mean a tie, a tie would lead to prolife decisions which would mean that abortion in Texas would be void, which in all terms would be unfair.

           Another article in regards to religious freedom talks about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which possibly discriminates against certain groups of people. Although the business in this article did not specifically state how such bill would affect their business, they simply say that “having the shops views widely known will negatively affect business”, which could lead to not just leave this business to dwindle over time, but others as well.

           With the article in regards to religious freedom and businesses, we can relate back to the owner of this business who attempts to create a call of action which he states that everyone should take part of political discussions. Just like the social contract theory by Rousseau which explains a person’s political obligation work upon the society in which they live in. But in this case modern society stresses political discussions but many fail to take part of it. Another example in regards to religious freedom is William Penn and the creation of a colony that stresses religious freedom.

           Throughout most of the video clips in relation to the Syrian Refugee Crisis, we can see that state politicians refuse to accept any sort of resettlement plan for those in need across the seas due to many reasons. These reasons include fear of security in terms of terrorism and possibly even the fact that those that are affected in Syria are coined as terrorists themselves due to their religious beliefs.

           When reflecting on the ideals of the videos themselves, many common issues came up that America has been facing throughout its history. Ranging from terrorism and homeland security to immigration in general, politicians and even American’s themselves fear the idea of accepting not only those just south of the border where one video expresses statistical facts of homicides, assaults, and rape, but quite possibly even accepting those across the sea that could lead to the idea of suicide bombings or detrimental destruction of important structures.

           The topic of the Syrian Refugee Crisis is relevant to the historical topics covered in class as in class we are covering how the development of colonies have pushed Native Indians out of their homeland, in relation to the previous Tumblr post on how they are now affected in modern ages now. Also learning about the Salem Witch Trials and how some citizens would turn against each other for land due to overpopulation and accuse those of witchcraft sentencing them to death or even exile, in relation to the Syrian refugee crisis this would represent how terrorists in Syria exile citizens through destroying their homes and belongings, making them move forcibly to other neighboring countries and or states.  

           There we many statements in throughout watching all the videos that I agreed and disagreed upon. In the first video, the representative from the third party resettlement agency said that resettlement for anyone whether it be refugee or not is not an “entitlement”. I agree with this statement because many people struggle not only through this war, but other factors such as environmental disasters. So not everyone can be helped and the family shown in this video is certainly lucky someone reached out to them. Also when they compare the family to the middle class back in Syria and how they should remain middle class in America I also disagree with. In comparison to the father of the family who was a shop owner back in Syria and now a bakery worker, he is lucky to overall find a job. Another statement made by trump is how documents can be forged, but in all honesty documents can be forged at better quality in America and cause equal amounts of damage than those that are not as better quality in Syria.

 In summary the film “In Light of Reverence and in Whose Honor” is about Indian tribes, specifically the Wintu are facing issues about religious freedom and sacred territory. The video focuses on the history of the Wintu people and how over time many factors such as federal government and other religions have driven them from their land or from their own religious belief in spirits and sacred land. From the gold rush, building of a dam, to hunters sent to kill native Indians for bounty, much of the population of the Wintu have dwindled in size while losing sacred land at the same time. Assimilation also occurred possibly from the Christian faith where Indians went through public schools and were baptized and were punished for speaking their native tongue. In addition to religious oppression, other religions that were not specifically noted in the video shows young adults who also appreciate the land but do things that would seem disgraceful to the native Indians such as nudity.

           Within a personal view, I believe it is unfortunate that not only do native Indians attempt to protect the land they find sacred but in addition to government agencies and private third parties who attempt to save land for other reasons fail to do so themselves. Pointing out what the native Indians attempt to portray as the sacred land as their “church” is a very strong comparison and how they point out that what they do to the land is what they do to their church, whether it’s from damage or disrespectful actions. In addition to other examples from how if the Indian people themselves were to actually stand in a physical church, that they themselves would do nothing to disrespect it themselves and they want that equal right to their land.

           In my honest opinion, the filmmakers do not show any sort of bias, but if they were trying to portray a side, they chose to be with the native Indians. Throughout the film they expressed the constant beauty of this “sacred land” the native Indians try to portray, then transition to clips of mineral extraction as well as young adults who try to defend themselves in their religious views.

           I found that there were many blind spots throughout the film. Starting off with anecdotes given by the medic of the tribe, they show more of how she felt versus how the tribe felt about the situation overall. When mentioning the building of the dam and how the native Indians lost land, they should’ve added more detail about exactly how much land they lost. Overall the film mentions three tribes in the beginning but only focuses on the Wintu tribe located in the northwestern section of the United States, and defends their loss of sacred land with mentioning the gold rush, which should not have affected the other two tribes mentioned. The film should have went into the conflicts and struggles that the other two tribes experienced to support evidence that the Wintu have struggled for long enough.

Within previous history classes, I wasn’t quite impacted by much information that was presented to me. From the development of the current American government, to pieces of historical documents written by old men that now defines not only the American people, but the nation united, much of this historical events was only explained through multiple wars and much bloodshed in my honest opinion. But later on in my recent travels to Washington, Philadelphia, and Virginia and visiting the Smithsonian museums ranging from the American history exhibit to the national air and space museum, looking through history of technological developments and priceless ideas that revolutionized what the United States is now today made me realize how appreciative I should be towards not only what people had to sacrifice, but to also endure to make this country great. Other locations I visited was the independence hall where the constitution was debated and adopted, the white house where many presidential candidates pursued power to rule the nation and make crucial decisions, and lastly the Arlington National Cemetery which holds much of the fallen soldiers who’s brave sacrifices helped maintain and create the future of many generations.

           Within the introductory class session, the historical fiction I chose to bring up a novel called Farewell to Manzanar written by James and Jeanne Houston. This historical fictional takes place during the first bombings of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. Due to this unfortunate event, the United States for its safety and security creates internment camps for the Japanese located in California. These internment camps almost similar to those of concentration camps minus the killings require the Japanese internees to live in overcrowded bunks and lack of proper environments that provide a sense of hygiene. Due to this, many of the Japanese conduct riots while the family in which the story encompasses can only make do without getting into any trouble, but only to hope for the war to end. At the time one of the options was one the family’s sons to draft into the army, which would prove the loyalty of not only him, but possibly the loyalty of the family as well. This soon happens and later on the family is moved to a nicer barrack. Much later in the family’s life, they visit Manzanar after enduring the cruel hardships from lack of proper food, hygiene, and housing. Only to revisit the worst memories their family had come across, and only to see ruins of the old camp.