Final Episode: Sam Talbert and Larry Heinemann

Both of these articles are incredibly interesting, but I found it somewhat difficult to read the interview of Sam Talbert because his language was very poor.  I thought Sam had some great ideas and it was interesting to hear his perspective in which he believes that people are ruining society.  He says, "It scares me sometimes thinkin' people are never goin' to learn.  I sometimes get to thinkin' people's gettin' too hard-hearted.  There's no trust in anybody.  Used to be hitchiking, you'd get a ride.  Now they're afraid they'll be robbed, but people has always been robbed all their life.  So it's hard for me to pass up a hitchiker" (pg. 415).  Although this idea is relatively simple, the fact that he would give open arms to a hitchiker today is very daring.  I personally would never do such a thing simply because there are lots of bad people in the world.  I think Sam understands that, but he is willing to trust everyone, until their devil is released.  On the other hand, being a war veteran, like my grandfather, there are many stories to tell.  In the case of Larry Heinemann, he chose to begin his story talking about life back at home after the war.  When explaining that MLK Jr. had just been killed, he said, "I was gettin' a haircut for my wedding. These guys in the barber shop were talking, I remember: Somebody finally got that nigger....Black cities were just going up in flames.  And then Bobby Kennedy was shot.  It was almost as if I had brought the war home myself.  I didn't want any part of it whatever" (pg. 417).  This was the most intriguing statement in the entire passage because it really makes me think.  The Civil War occured a little over 200 years ago from this point in time and yet the issue regarding race still lingers in our history.  I also thought it was interesting that he blamed everything on himself, he said that it was just as chaotic at home as it was in Vietnam.

Post #8: Dolores Dante and Mike LeFevre

Dolores was a very interesting girl.  She was a waitress who had broken up with her husband in which he left her 3 children and lots of debt.  She was forced to become a waitress because it was the only way to make quick money.  She says, "I have to be a waitress. How else can I learn about people? How else does the world come to me? I can't go to everyone. So they have to come to me.  Everyone wants to eat, everyone has hunger.  And I serve them.  If they've had a bad day, I nurse them, cajole them.  Myave with coffee I give them a little philosophy.  they have cocktails, I give them political science" (330). This is an incredibly interesting quote because she takes her very demeaning job, as she puts it, and turns it into something optimistic.  She eventually tells us that she likes her job and that she enjoys the conversations that she has with people. 
Mike Lefevre had a different kind of story.  I thought the beginning of the story was the most significant because he layed out his perspective of his job.  Unlike Dolores, he didn't really appreciate what he did.  He said, "You can't take pride anymore....It's hard to take pride in a bridge you're never going to cross, in a door you're never gonna open.  You're mass-producing things and you never see the end result of it" (319). This is the exact opposite to what Dante said.  Dante could have looked at her job and said, 'I never get to eat anything that my costumers eat which sucks.'  That is kind of what Lefevre is saying here.  He isn't appreciating the fact that he is helping out the community by building that road, by making that door, by building a house.  These are all important features to a successful society, and he is a major part of it that he doesn't originally appreciate.

Blog Post 7: Division Street America

Tom Kearney's story was incredibly interesting in the sense that he tried to portray this world as two groups of people.  There are those who were nationalists and pro-America, and then there were those who either hated America or were indifferent. However he says, "You’re going to have to get along with them. They’re here, so you might as well go to school with them and get along with them” (265) referring to the communists, which are the people who are on the other half of the spectrum.  It is interesting in the life of a policeman because he understands this separation of the worlds.  It is interesting because he notices all of the little things and all he wants is for the world to be at peace.  He didn't have very much money growing up because of the depression, and he mentions how he would have had a better education if only his father could have provided for him.  The fact was, was that his father was not able to provide for his family and they were forced to live the life that they currently live, in Chicago.  He doesn't seem to have many complaints but that's a completely different idea in itself.  Chester Kolar, on the other hand, discussed modern day society rather than the past.  He basically discussed how the press and the media networks that we have today are huge influences.  It is interesting because he claims that news is actually bad for us because in most cases, no news, is good news; this idea is contradictory to the say that any new is good news.

6th Blog Post: Peter Ota and Betty Bayse

I would just like to start this blog episode by commenting on the title of the section.  It is called, "The Good War."  I feel like this is very ironical in the sense that this was one of the worst wars of all time and yet people are calling it the good war because it ended up being a positive thing for the United States collectively.  Anyways, It is interesting to see the both sides of this.  Peter Ota explains how on the day of the bombing, his father was taken by the FBI due to the fact that he was Nisei and was brought to one of the internment camps. He explained how his father was put into prisoners clothing and was essentially treated like an inferior to the Americans. On the positive note, I thought it was incredibly interesting that Betty had made her decision to become a nurse as quickly as possible to help our troops.  It is interesting because, in this notion, it kind of does feel like it is the good war.  People seemed to come together and there was this feel of community within the people.  To go off on another tangent, this war reminds me a little bit about religion.  In all religions, people celebrate the holidays mostly by coming together and eating food.  For the record, what better way is there to celebrate a holiday by coming together as a family and eating dinner? Anyways, I'm not saying that war is necessarily a holiday, but at home, it seemed like it was a little bit like a get-together.  People were celebrating when the soldiers did something fantastic and they would party and celebrate and build weapons together, as one unit.

Fifth Post: The Good War (Cont.)

In today's episode, I will focus my attention towards the Stud's Terkel interviews of Peggy Terry and E.B. (Sledghammer) Sledge.  To start off, I just want to illustrate the fact that these two people lived completely different lives.  Terry's life was of a typical southern woman of Paducah, Kentucky, who lived in a factory constructing shells to send off to war.  Sledge's life was of a rifleman in the front line in the Guadalcanal in the Pacific.  In the lives of the women of the factory, they worked long hours in this factory building shells for a war they didn't even know existed.  Terry said, "You won't believe how incredibly ignorant I was.  I knew vaguelythat a war had started, but I had no idea what it meant" (Terkel 190)  She then went on to explain that the only thing she ever worried about, from day to day, was her social life. "The only thing we worried about was other women thinking we had dyed our hair.  Back then, it was a disgrace if you dyed your hair" (Terkel 191).  Where she lived, people didn't even think of the war as something that was 'directly important' to the country.  No one seemed to feel threatened at all.  On the other hand, Sledge explained how lives of the frontline rifleman was lived hoping to stay alive for another day.  He explained how the lives of the men were not at all "macho" as people percieved it and still do today.  He said that "over 80% of the men in the Guadalcanal were under the age of 21" (Terkel 197). He explained how their life was to kill the Japanese and there was no surrender.  War was their life, while the people at home didn't even know what was going on?

Fourth Post: The Good War

The most significant thing that I had read throughout these two passages was the fact that the soldiers were not necessarily attached to wanting their families or their housing or even going back home; the soldiers in Japan and the soldiers in Germany/Europe were in desperate need of food.  They explained how they would stop wishing to God how they wanted to to see their families again and how they wanted to be home.  They became simple only praying for food.  "Food. Fear. Comradeship." (165 Terkel).  These were the three things that were most important to the men.  Rifleman Bob Rasmus explains how when he was a boy, he was so excited to be in the war and never even thought about the possible consequences of being sent to the first lines.  He then goes on to say that he entered the army and was ultimately placed as a rifleman in the middle of the war.  After being placed in this infantry group, he then realized that there was a high possibility that he would be killed.  He then explained how they had a great time when they had their time off, but when it came time for battle, everyone "sobered up" and got their heads in the game.  To me, this was extremely significant being an athlete.  I sometimes have a hard time getting myself ready after fooling around with my teammates before the game.  Obviously the situations have their differences but at the same time, they have their similarities.  When I saw the title of this section I became confused; after reading this section, I still do not really understand why any "war" could ever be even somewhat "good"?

Third Post: Jane Yoder, Tom Yoder, Peggy Terry, and Mary Owsley

"I knew one family there in Oklahoma city, a man and a woman and seven children lived in a hole in the ground.  You'd be suprised how nice it was , how nice they kept it.  They had chairs and tables and beds back in that hole.  And they had the dirt all braced up there, just like a cave" (Terkel 138).

Just think about that... If you had to take your family, who had lived in a nice home your entire life, and you had to go out west and live between walls of dirt filled with who-knows-what. Just imagine someone taking away everything that you once had and having to essentially live in a dump.  Even worse, imagine living the way that you live right now but without enough money for any luxuries. Jane Yoder, for example, had to go to school in one of the ugliest winters jackets anyone had ever seen, but it was the only one she had and it kept her warm.  It is almost just as depressing hearing about these stories as the depression itself was.  I can't imagine living like that.

To go off on a tangent, I had dinner with my grandfather tonight.  He was born in 1930 and I started to ask him about life back in the day.  He explained to me about how in his neighborhood, they hadn't really been hit that hard by the depression, but they obviously still felt it.  When he was a really young boy, he worked in a factory putting washing machines together after school and was paid weekly for his hours.  He also explained to me that everyone in his neighborhood was relatively democratic and they all thought that FDR was "God".  People worshipped him, and at the time, they convinced themselves that he was, and always will be, the greatest president that America had ever/will ever have.  After watching a few episodes of "The Century: featuring Peter Jennings" I think that I am starting to understand this whole situation, along with WWII even better.

However, going back to the point of the post, the ultimate question here is, "If the depression hit you so bad, just as it hit Peggy and her family, what would you have done?"

New Deal Post: Mexican Immigration

Even today, immigration is a major issue that ultimately causes controversy.  People are debating what we should do about this issue.  There are the people who think people should be allowed to come to America and there are other who think that the immigrants are bad for our country because they take away job opportunities and other services.  In the 1930's, during the depression and after the New Deal had been established, Mexican Immigration was turning into one of the largest issues in Southern America.  During this time, the government was essentially repatriating anyone who was not a citizen of the United States, and even the people who looked like they were not a citizen.  People were either tricked into going back to their home country, forced, or voluntarily left the U.S. However, there were always the few people who were not caught and stayed in the States.  There were also many Mexican-Americans who were citizens and sought for aid from the government. "Many found temporary stability in the migrant work camps established by the U.S. Farm Security Administration, or FSA."  I believe that it is important for us today to recognize that people had to live through harsh things such as this.  They were forced to pick up their belongings and leave.  We need to feel somewhat sympathetic....right?

Second Post: Arthur A. Robertson, Oscar Heline, and friends

It kind of makes you think, what would it have been like if I had lived back then?  Would I have lost everything?  But then again, after reading stories like this, you would say to yourself, 'I am smart enough to know that I need to get my money out of the bank right away,' or you may say, 'I would have invested a lot smarter if I lived back then.'

It is hard to say... People don't really realize these things when they come up.  For example, the recession.  People don't really realize that it was basically a glimpse of what happened in the 1930's.  We essentially lived through our own little depression.  The only difference was, this time, we were a little more prepared for it.  I understand that this is irrelevant but think about it...No one, especially in our little suburb, saw the recession coming.  No one did anything.  The only difference between now and then was that we all had financial security. Arther Robertson said, "Everybody in those days expected the sun to shine forever" (Robertson 101).  I believe this is one of the most significant passages in this Stud's Terkel interview for many reasons.  I think that this quote really defines the time period.  I say this because I feel like everyone felt like the celebration essentially never stopped after WWI.  Everything was just happy, people were drinking, no one really cared, they had this sense of individualism, women got their rights.  But no one really payed attention to the economy.  It was like a balloon.  They just kept on filling the balloon until one day, October 29, 1929, the balloon just exploded and there was nothing anyone could do.  Oscar Heline, a farmer, explained how the farmers in the south had ultimately pay the grocery stores to sell their produce.  He says, "If you wanted to sell 'em (bushels of corn), you had to bring in three cents."  In other words, you had to pay the grocery store in order to "sell" the corn. Another problem was the deportation of Mexican Immigrants.  Deportation became such a threat to these people that even the excuse of an "anchor-baby" wouldn't have been tolerated.

So respond to this... Would you have seen this coming?

First Post: C.B. Ellis and Vine Deloria

It is basically human nature for a person to look at another person and make initial assumptions right off the bat.  I know it's terrible to say, but sometimes, I will look at a guy that I have never said a word to in my life, maybe never even seen this guy before, and I will start asking myself, 'Hey, I wonder if he is a good athlete.' Then I might watch he walk a few steps and decide whether or not he is a jerk or he is a pretty nice guy.  I am admitting to it, and I am sure that everyone else does it as well.  It is immature and childish in the sense that we make assumptions through observations without any evidence.  It's almost like I were to say that I think all oranges taste bad, when in reality, I have never really had an orange.  This may seem irrelevant, but it is another example of, what we will call, a pre-assumption. 

In his story, C.P. Ellis describes his transition from being the president and well-known member of a Klu-Klux-Klan in Durham, North Carolina, to becoming a man he recognizes that we- meaning all blacks, whites, Jews, Arabs, Catholics, etc.- are all human beings.  No matter your race, your religion, how well you do in school, or what kind of cars you like, we are all humans with thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams, and, most importantly, our rights to the pursuit of happiness in this world.  He gave a very good explanation of why people join things like the Klan in the first place, or at least it was his reason, which was very feasible. He said, "I can understand why people join extreme right-wing or left wing groups.  They're in the same boat I was. Shut out.  Deep down inside, we want to be part of this great society.  Nobody listens, so we join these groups" (Ellis 66).  The question here is, 'is this why all people joined the Klan?' If so, then clearly there was a bigger problem in America other than Civil Rights.  Was the depression the possible cause for under-priviledged whites to gain rage against the colored people and start to blame their own problems on them?

However, that same shoe can be put on the other foot.  Vine Deloria explains to us that American Indians had prejudices against white people just as white people had on all other races.  Let me rephrase that...Many white people had on all other races- not necessarily all other races, but possibly a few.

So the overlying question to this whole situation is, 'Where do these things originize?' or 'What makes people make these assumptions of other people?'