How the Beats Beat the Man by Joseph Lagalante, Jr.

            The post WWII American landscape was certainly an interesting one.  Having persevered both world wars and the Great Depression, America began to jockey for position as supreme world superpower with the Soviet Union.  Being as “American” as possible became important during this time as the country soon became consumed with paranoia due to the “red scare.”  Hollywood quickly became a point of interest in weeding out potential leftist-radicals: Congress had feared the Communists had infiltrated the American film industry, causing Congress to identify these bad red seeds among prominent Hollywood directors, actors and writers.

            Considering the late 1940s and early 1950s proved to be incredibly trying times for celebrities in the United States it is interesting to note the rise of a contesting counter-culture.  Although they knew they would be met with great opposition, a group of young writers emerged during the late 1940s as anti-conformists who refused to bend to the whims of the American government; who discussed through their literature and art items deemed “obscene” and “unmentionable” in the American mainstream media.  Motifs such as sexuality, homosexuality, drug use and biting political commentary involving the Vietnam War, all served as focal points for the Beat Generation writers; these themes were utilized to attack the attempt to stifle creativity in the American media, and the Government’s attempts to reconstruct the First Amendment of the Constitution.

            Allen Ginsberg served as one of the founding and perhaps most influential members of the Beat Generation writers.  Along with Jack Kerouac, William S. Burroughs and others, the Beat writers handled the topics no one at this time would dare approach.  In his poem “Howl,” Ginsberg juxtaposes explicit homoeroticism with religious diction and imagery.

who howled on their knees in the subway and were dragged off the roof waving genitals and manuscripts,

who let themselves be fucked in the ass by saintly motorcyclists, and screamed with joy,

who blew and were blown by those human seraphim, the sailors, caresses of Atlantic and Caribbean love,

who hiccupped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob behind a partition in a Turkish Bath when the blond & naked angel came to pierce them with a sword… (Ginsberg lines 35-39).

It was this type of overtly sexual and borderline blasphemous poetics that landed Allen Ginsberg in front of a Congressional hearing committee and was tried in an attempt to censor his “obscene” publication.
            Ginsberg, however, was able to evade prosecution which served as a major victory for the Beat Generation, the First Amendment and America at large.  Although many people would quickly assess the Beat Generation as “un-American,” due to their counterculture nature and their unwillingness to conform to the contemporary “American ideals,” I would argue these brave men were perhaps even more American than those portraying the contemporary American ideals.  By directly opposing the American government and combating censorship in the 1950s, these Beat writers embodied the ideals our founding fathers revolted to secure.  As Americans we should find the Bill of Rights entirely non-negotiable.  These are the rights our founding fathers dictated should never be denied to this country’s citizens.  By attempting to censor creative artistic projects, the American government in the 1950s almost successfully denied the first right promised to us.  We have seen this right try to be redefined, or reconstructed several times throughout the past hundred years; but I maintain as Americans this should be what we hold and cherish most.  When the government tries to take away any of these ten rights, but perhaps most importantly the one which promises us the ability to speak, worship, assemble or protest freely, it is detrimental for us as a society to reaffirm that we are unwilling to forego this promise our country has made to us.  I only hope men as strong as Ginsberg and Burroughs will continue to persist throughout time, and this country’s history.

Richard Nixon, "What Freedom Means to Us"

Ashley Baker American People II 30 April 2013 Professor Andrew Mattson In voices of Freedom, “An Affluent Society”, Richard Nixon discusses “What Freedom Means to Us. “Overall Nixon speech and the ensuring debate reflected the triumph during the 1950s of a conception of freedom centered on economic abundance and consumer choice within context of traditional family of life”. Throughout the speech Richard Nixon is basically convincing the Soviet Union that a Capitalistic society is the best option for their nation. This was during the time of the cold war, when every nation was trying to prove that they had the best policies and government. The United States and the Soviet Union realized that they couldn’t compete in the arms race because they both have extremely powerful weapons that could be pointed against one another, so the idea of competition between the better societies seamed beneficial to both. Nixon states, “We welcome this kind of competition because when we engage in it, no one loses -- everyone wins as the living standards of people throughout the world are raised to higher levels”. In 1958 the Soviet Union and the United States agreed to display exhibits, allowing the other to become acquainted with the life of the other. In Nixon speech he congratulated the Soviet Union for a job well done with the rockets they developed, but he also lets them know that while they are ahead of us in the scientific department they are still lacking in others such as industrialization. He quotes Abraham Lincoln, "...We do not propose any war upon capital; we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else. In Nixon exhibit rest a car, radio, and a house, each of the most modern objects produced. Nixon goes on to explain the definition of rich but at the same time he is showing the Soviet Union how prosperous the United States is. He states, “In fairness we must recognize that our country industrialized sooner than the Soviet Union. He explains how almost every American can afford the objects that were represented in the exhibit. “The average weekly wage of a factory worker in America is $90-54. With this income he can buy and afford to own a house, a television set, and a car in the price range of those you will see in this Exhibit. There are 44 million families in the United States. Twenty-five million of these families live in houses or apartments that have as much or more floor space than the one you see in this Exhibit. Thirty-one million families own their own homes and the land on which they are built. America's 44 million families own a total of 56 million cars, 50 million television sets and 143 million radio sets. And they buy an average of 9 dresses and suits and 14 pairs of shoes per family per year”. As Nixon continued through his speech he gave examples of what freedom meant to them. Material progress is important but the very heart of the American ideal is that "man does not live by bread alone." To us, progress without freedom to use a common expression is like "potatoes without fat. The workers right to join with other workers in a union and to bargain collectively with management is recognized and protected by law. No man or woman in the United States can be forced to work for wages he considers to be inadequate or under conditions he believes are unsatisfactory. President Eisenhower is one of the most popular men ever to hold that high office in our country. Yet never an hour or a day goes by in which criticism of him and his policies cannot be read in our newspapers, heard on our radio and television, or in the Halls of Congress. The fact that our people can and do say anything they want about a government official, the fact that in our elections, as this voting machine in our exhibit illustrates, every voter has a free choice between those who hold public office and those who oppose them makes ours a true peoples' government. Under our Constitution no church or religion can be supported by the State. An American can either worship in the church of his choice or choose to go to no church at all if he wishes. Acting with this complete freedom of choice, 103 million of our citizens are members of 308 thousand American churches. We also cherish the freedom to travel, both within our country and outside the United States. Within our country we live and travel where we please without travel permits, internal passports or police registration. We also travel freely abroad. For example, 11 million Americans will travel to other countries during this year, including 10,000 to the Soviet Union. We look forward to the day when millions of Soviet citizens will travel to ours and other countries in this way”. Nixon concludes his speech stating, “The great majority of Americans like our system of government. Much as we like it, however, we would not impose it on anyone else. We believe that people everywhere should have a right to choose the form of government they want”. Although it seems as if the U.S was promoting capitalism in a calm matter, they were still considering themselves the superior nation and felt everyone should follow their lead. Work Cited "An Affluent Society." Voices of Freedom / a Documentary History. Ed. Richard M. Nixon. Third ed. Vol. Two. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2011. 243-48. Print.

Women in the Progressive Era

Stephania Bonnet

Prof: Andrew Mattson

American People II

03/12/13

Women in the Progressive Era

It wasn't the first time that women fought for equal rights in the society and in the progressive era women continued to fight but with and for the nineteenth amendment now called Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). Elsie Hill who supported the Equal Rights Amendment fought for women to gain complete freedom economically, politically, and socially and Florence Kelley who brought important contributions to social reform.

What was the status in the progressive era? They were bound once married to only be real housewives, especially middle-class women. They had to stay home and give birth to children. The second thing that bounded women in the progressive era was the absence of the right to vote. Women had no right choose their own president. That was the reason the nineteenth amendment proposal was supported by so many women.

Voices of Freedom talks about two important figures one fought for the Equal Rights Amendment, Elsie Hill and Florence Kelley. Elsie Hill, daughter of Republican Congressman Ebenezer J. Hill, was born in 1883. She was a graduate student of Vassar College, Hill taught French at a Washington, D.C., high school. Hill was a leader of the D.C. Branch of the College Equal Suffrage League. She led a delegation from the League to meet with President Woodrow Wilson on the suffrage issue shortly after the Congressional Committee of NAWSA staged its huge suffrage parade in the nation's capital in March 1913.Elsie was a ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee. Hill joined the Congressional Union of Woman Suffrage's executive committee in 1914-15. In August 1918 Hill was arrested for speaking at a Lafayette Square meeting and served a 15-day sentence. She was arrested in Boston in February 1919, where she was picketing Woodrow Wilson upon his return from Europe.

Elsie Hill believed in the Equal Rights Amendment. She wanted to “remove the discriminations against women in the laws of the United States”. She focused on the legal the legal side of the women’s fight. She didn’t agree how the law allowed the men to have more control over children than women, how men would go unpunished for certain things while women would get punish. She was trying to get rid of old traditions that oppressed women.

Among the many famous and powerful women whose names are associated with the Settlement House movement and the Progressive movement of the early 20th Century, one of the most remarkable was Florence Kelley. Florence Kelley was born in 1859 (1932). She was an American social and political reformer. Kelley brought important contributions to social reform used in challenging the status quo of social ills. She married science to moral zeal by developing detailed, scientific studies of child labor in factories, stockyards and sweatshops, and then reporting her solid findings with fiery style and vivid detail of the horrendous abuse of children. For example, she proposed and fought for legal requirements for states to register births, and for employers (rather than desperately poor parents) to document workers’ ages, as steps toward ending exploitative child labor. Enforcement of mandatory school attendance was also a part of the strategy to end child labor.

The victory of the movement of women in the progressive era brought many benefits all the results we are benefiting today; for example, playgrounds for children, women’s voting, minimum wages and more.

Work Cited

Voices of Freedom

http://www.nwhm.org/online-exhibits/progressiveera/home.html

http://americancivilwar.com/women/Womens_Suffrage/Elsie_Hill.html

Sinclair vs. Taylor: But What About the Workingman?

"Let me suggest to Mr. Taylor and his other experts ... what is the really great problem of Scientific Management in our time. Let them set themselves down to figure how the ninety million people residing in the United States of America, and being in full communal ownership and democratic control of the instruments and means of production and distribution, can so organize and administer these instruments and means as to produce the greatest quantity of necessary wealth with the least possible expenditure of labor." (Sinclair, p. 243)

In response to Frederick W. Taylor’s The Principles of Scientific Management, Upton Sinclair writes a provoking critique in the defense of the workingman. To give a brief summary of Taylor’s Scientific Management, his proposed ideas promised great increase in productivity through finding the quickest, most efficient method of performing a certain job and enforcing this method on the laborers. In doing so, Taylor argues that not only will productivity increase but also the employers would be able to increase pay for its staffers with the moneys earned from the extra products sold. In short, both the employer and the employee benefit from Scientific Management.

In response to this, Sinclair argued that Taylor’s Scientific Management was not in favor of the workingman. In particular, when Taylor wrote that a man should be given $1.85 for loading 47 pig irons (having previously been making $1.15 for loading 12.5 pig irons), Sinclair attacked Taylor’s suggestion that the workingman should be given only a 60% increase in pay for a 362% increase in productivity. He mocks how Taylor’s figures do not seem to have any financial basis, or, if it does, that his basis is very skewed in the employer’s favor. (For information on justifying for inflation, go to http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl)

Sinclair also finds Taylor’s idea, increased productivity leading to men being laid-off being a good thing because they will find work elsewhere, very disturbing; Sinclair believes that the laid-off men will not be able to find work elsewhere because everywhere else will be just as scientifically managed as the place from which they were just let go. Being a notable “muckraker,” founder of the Californian’s chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, and an open Socialist, Sinclair naturally opposed the idea that the workingmen be laid-off for the sake of something as ethereal as progress—especially when he considered that this progress was being built on the backs of these selfsame workingmen.

Lastly, Sinclair wonders aloud about what will happen with the surplus now being made due to the increase in productivity. Does the productivity outweigh the demand for the product? How can the employer find new consumers for their products? Do they rehire the men they fired to go out and market the surplus products to other communities?

Sinclair notes the slant Taylor has given towards the employer, but ever the Socialist optimist, Sinclair uses his critique to sprinkle more Socialist propaganda and looks to the future saying, “I believe that the time will come when [the workingmen] will take possession of the instruments and means of production, in order that when they produce $1,000 in value they may receive $1,000 in wages” (p. 243)—thus reconciling the Scientific Management with the workingmen’s agenda.

Alternatively, Sinclair opts that Taylor stop pandering to the employer and use his researchers to find out how a workingman can make a good living and sell that research to them for fifty cents so that Taylor can get rich and shut up. Sinclair writes that since the business is built on the backs of the workingman, then the workingman should receive his raise in direct correlation to his productivity, not be laid-off for the sake of progress, and therefore given a better opportunity to make a living for his family.

"And the means which the writer firmly believes will be adopted to bring about, first, efficiency both in employer and employee and then an equitable division of the profits of their joint efforts, will be Scientific Management, which has for its sole aim the attainment of justice for all three parties through impartial scientific investigation of all the elements of the problem." (Taylor, p. 245)

To defend his case, Taylor is given his own turn in the same piece. Taylor argues that Sinclair has only looked at his Scientific Management through the lens of a workingman and not those of the employer or especially the consumer. Taylor starts by taking the side of the employer and defends his only 60% raise by saying that the workingman had before been “incompetent,” and now that the managers have made him competent, or in Taylor’s words “not due to this man’s initiative or originality … but to the knowledge … developed and taught him by someone else” (p. 244-245). In other words, because the workingman did not teach himself how to be more productive he does not receive a better increase in salary than 60% for his greatly increased productivity.

Taylor does not dwell on this subject for long, but jumps right into the consumer’s point-of-view. He gives a lot of pomp about how the consumer gains “the greater part of the benefit coming from all industrial improvements” (p. 244), but he’s really just saying that the more output the company has the lower the prices will be for the product before he gets right back to showing us why the workingman shouldn't be given a raise any larger than 60% of what he’s already making.

Taylor actually has five reasons why the workingman should not get a better raise than 60%. Reason number one, Taylor says that the workingman is not such a hard to come by and actually compares the workingman to an ox, saying that the workingman is “heavy both mentally and physically” (p. 244). Reason number two is that this new work pace does not tire this man out anymore than his previous one, and if it does end up making the workingman more tired clearly the employer is not using the Scientific Management in the way Taylor intended.

The third reason is the same as the one stated beforehand; the workingman should not be paid any more than 60% because it was not his own idea to make himself more competent with his job. It was the employer who made the workingman more productive, so the workingman cannot take credit for, in Taylor’s example, loading more pig iron than before Scientific Management was applied. The forth reason takes this a step further and says that all workingmen should be paid about the same amount of money because “[it] would be grossly unjust to other laborers, for instance, to pay this man three and six tenths as high wages as other men of his general grade receive for an honest full day’s work.” (p. 245).

In Taylor’s last reason, he makes an outrageous claim that employers should not give the workingman more than a 60% raise because, in his words “[our] experiments showed … that for [the workingmen’s] own best interest it does not do for most men to get rich too fast.” (p. 245). Taylor claims that if the workingman does receive more than a 60% increase in pay he will squander it, but if he receives the 60% increase or less then the workingman will be content and save his money. Oddly enough, Taylor forgot that if the workingman does not get a raise in direct proportion to his increased productivity than the employer runs the risk of becoming unfathomably rich too fast. Who is going to protect that poor employer from squandering his wealth? Having finished listing his reasons, Taylor pats himself on the back saying, “[the workingman’s] 60 per cent increase in wages is not an object for pity, but rather a subject for congratulation” (p. 245).

Lastly, Taylor concludes that his Scientific Management’s sole aim is “the attainment of justice for all three parties [the employee, employer, and consumer] through impartial scientific investigation of all the elements of the problem” (p. 245). Taylor does expect that there will be a backlash from the employer and employee, but he believes that eventually the consumer will straighten the two out and Scientific Management will ring in a new, more productive future.

Masculinity and Self-Assertion as Necessity in Destroying the Color Line

Is it possible, and probable, that nine millions of men can make effective progress in economic lines if they are deprived of political rights, made a servile caste, and allowed only the most meager chance for developing their exceptional men?  W.E.B. Dubois Of Mr. Booker T. Washington and Others 25

In his essay Of Mr. Booker T. Washington and Others, W.E.B. Dubois brings to terms the potential flaws he sees in Booker T. Washington’s ideologies.  The question Dubois poses forces us to recognize the limited nature of Washington’s teachings: if the African-Americans in the South are limited to only learning industrial and agricultural knowledge, how will they ever be able to advance the race beyond the servile nature of their previous existence in the United States.  Without at least the option of higher education for those both willing and capable of its pursuit, the African American people will never be able to develop educators, litigators, political leaders, etc.

Furthermore, Dubois highlights the key differences between the approach taken by Frederick Douglass and other prominent leaders in the African-American community who emerged before Booker T. Washington.

…they recognized the slavery of slaves, but insisted that they themselves were freemen, and sought assimilation and amalgamation with the nation on the same terms with other men…together as men, they said, not as slaves; as “people of color,” not as “Negroes…”  Douglass in his old age, still bravely stood for the ideals of his early manhood,--ultimate assimilation through self-assertion, and on no other terms…Booker T. Washington arose as essentially the leader not of one race but of two,--a compromiser between the South, the North, and the Negro…compromise which surrendered their civil and political rights. 23-24

Unlike Douglass and others who fought for equality with whites- to be seen as people and not as “Negroes,” or any other designation determined for them by whites, Dubois contends that Booker T. Washington concedes to this notion that the color line should exist, and people should be designated by color as opposed to simply being recognized as “people.”  Dubois argument is especially potent, regarding Booker T. Washington’s The Atlanta Exposition Address. “Governor Bullock introduced me with the words, ‘We have with us to-day a representative of Negro enterprise and Negro civilization” (Washington 146).  Washington almost states this proudly, even though the Governor views him solely in the capacity of a “Negro,” and not another human being.  This is incredibly condescending and Washington’s acceptance of this indicates Dubois’ assessment of his overall outlook as having merit.

Dubois also takes a number of shots at Booker T. Washington’s ineffectiveness in asserting himself in a masculine demeanor as well; he defines Washington’s approach as being emasculated: “Mr. Washington’s counsels of submission overlooked certain elements of true manhood…” (22).  Considering his earlier sentiment regarding Douglass’ “bravery” in standing for the “ideals of his early manhood,” Dubois carefully crafts Washington’s argument and “propaganda” as lacking the strength and masculinity of his and other renowned figures in the African-American community.

Lastly, Dubois warns against the damaging effects of Washington’s conceding to the Southern notion that the problem African-Americans now face lies entirely in their own hands.  He claims Washington fails to understand that slavery and prejudice are largely at fault in the current position of the African-Americans in the South; that education was not readily available to African-Americans upon emancipation, because it took time to develop schools and educate their teachers; and although they are capable of advancing their race in many ways themselves, they must still rely on the acceptance, aid and understanding of the whites in the South if they ever hope to make any significant strides forward.  Additionally, opportunities must be afforded to the African-American population, such as higher education and acceptance in political and community roles if any further advancement should be achieved.

  

Works Cited:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Dubois, W.E.B. "Of Mr. Booker T. Washington and Others." The Souls of Black Folk. 20-29. Kindle.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Washington, Booker T. "The Atlanta Exposition Address." Up From Slavery. Excerpts from Up From Slavery Packet. 146.

Martin Luther King Jr. "I Have A Dream"

During the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's one man by the name of Martin Luther King Jr had a dream for the Black Americans in the United States. Martin Luther King did not like segregation, he was pro-integration, he wanted to end this thing called racism. During his fight and push to end racism in America, Martin Luther King had this famous "I Have a Dream" speech, which he delivered on August 28th 1963 during the March on Washington. In this speech, Martin Luther King said

 "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.' I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood...I have a dream that my 4 little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today."

What makes his speech so important and significant is because it brought Martin Luther King and his message of non-violence to a nationwide & worldwide audience. People heard his speech on the radio and it was also reprinted in newspapers and magazines all over the United States and all over the world. After this speech people really started to pay attention to the civil rights movement that was happening. In a way, his speech made Congress move faster in passing the Civil Rights Act. Although these laws was finally passed in 1964, many of the laws gave African-Americans more equal treatment than they ever had before.

Litigation: The Scopes Trial Gina Cronin

       The 1925 scopes trial was a famous trial that challenged teaching evolution in schools. A biology teacher in Tennessee named John Scopes was charged for teaching evolution in school, supposedly breaking state law. A key reason as to why this case was so famous was because lawyer Clarence S. Darrow gave such a powerful, hard-hitting defense.
       Sternly he insists that William Bryan's claims that teaching evolution is against the law is simply ignorant. He says "I am going to begin with the simpler reasons why it is absolutely absurd to to think that this statue, indictment, or any part of the proceedings in this case are legal; and I think the sooner we get rid of it in Tennessee the better for the people of Tennessee, and the better for the pursuit of knowledge in the world". He believes that rejecting evolution as a defense for the freedom of Catholicism is ridiculous as the book of Genesis was written during a time when people believed the world was flat. It is important to acknowledge the progress that science makes and not be held back by religion.
        Bryan followed the belief that "to teach that theory denies the story of the divine creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower form of animal."  A lot of what is in play here, in my opinion, is ego. Man feels that he has a superiority of the earth - Catholicism does not encourage partnership, connection and oneness with the earth - instead it propels a mindset of dominance in which humans are heaven-sent and animals are not. Evolution is a huge blow the the catholic ego. Jennings whole defense hinged on the hysterical disagreement that man descended from a "lower form of life" (whatever that means - for I believe animals are equal and people need to humble the heck down). He says that it isn't fair that these tested scientific theories can be taught but by the law the bible can not.
       Ultimately Bryan won the trial and a law prohibiting the teaching of evolution stayed in the books in Tennessee until 1967. Crazy world.
  

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 1954A change in education forever...
In the case of Brown v. The Board of Education was a decision that changed education forever. Linda Brown, a black student from Topeka, Kansas was forced to attend a segregated school that was far from her home because she could not attend the "white" school that was near her home. She fought the Board of Education and argued that segregation is unconstitutional because it denied students "equal protection o the laws." The segregated schools did not have the same quality teachers and schools that the "white" students had. On May 17, 1954 the Supreme Court ruled that "separate but equal" was not equal and had no place in education. This was a triumph for the NAACP and changed schools forever by integrating them.

"The plaintiffs contend that segregated public schools are not "equal" and cannot be made "equal," and that hence they are deprived of the equal protection of the laws."

Diana Bender

 Declaration of Environmental Rights
 "We, therefore, resolve to act. We propose a revolution in conduct toward an environment which is rising in revolt against us. Granted that ideas and institutions long established are not easily changed; yet today is the first day of the rest of our life on this planet. We will begin anew."
Declaration of Environmental Rights, 1970.

Due to an oil leak in 1969 caused by a drilling installation in California, the United States of America created the Declaration of Environmental Rights. The Declaration declared that people need to respect the environment that surrounds them. If people do not have respect for the environment it will disappear and we will not be able to survive.
 "We need an ecological consciousness that recognizes man as member, not master, of the community of living things sharing his environment." I choose this quote from Hofstadter because it reminds people that they are a part of the environment. That they need to respect their surrounds because if they don't, one day it will be gone.

Diana Bender

Lyndon B. Johnson- Policy in Vietnam

President Lyndon B. Johnson makes a speech on April 7, 1965 addressing the war in Vietnam, his concerns and why it is his goal and the goal of America to help South Viet-nam. President Johnson intentions is to keep a promise in which he offers support to the people in South Viet-nam and promises to defend their independence. A promise that American Presidents have made and kept since 1954. People all over the world depended on President Johnson to help them, God Forbid they were attacked during the Viet-nam war and Johnson refused to let them down.In his address President Johnson mention that:

"We are there because there be great stakes in the balance. Let no one think for a moment that retreat from Viet-nam would bring an end to conflict. The battle would be renewed in one country and then in another. The central lesson of our time is that the appetite of aggression is never satisfied. To withdraw from one battle field means only to prepare for the next". 

This statement to me means that even after a war has ended a countries be cautious and aware of what could happen next. Nations all around the world should be prepared for any conflict that may come their way because there will always be enemies trying to destroy them. So, President Johnson feels as if it is his responsibility to defend and protect the people who are at risk of being hit during the war.

The objectives that were focused on by President Johnson was stop the spread of communism. He believed in the domino theory which states that if one southeast asian territory fell to communism then the rest would follow suit and join the communist territories. President Johnson really wanted the spread of communism to stop throughout these areas. He made a promise to the people of these territories that he would not let communism spread towards their parts and that he would help preserve a land that we had the best intentions for. The ultimate goal was for South Vietnam was to become free from attacks and run their land the way that they saw best. President Johnson did not want to do this in order for the United States to gain something but for the South Vietnamese to live in peace. He also stated later than until things can be talked peacefully through discussions, then force will be necessary to achieve the independence they need.

By Julian Z. and Kiara P.