Final Thought

The central theme from which I’ve derived the two most important lessons is fear. Throughout history it is evident that fear controls our society. Fear is the reason behind many actions made by political leaders and that fear often times brings the public together in support of an otherwise disagreeable agenda. The correlation between fear and the unhindered support of the American public for government agendas in American history is the first lesson to be discussed. The second lesson is the fear of anything outside the American “norm”. Our obsession with normalcy and creating perimeters to define what is normal throughout history has caused great social unrest and prompted revolutionary movements as a result to combat the marginalization of groups that went against what was perceived to be conventional. The problem we face as a nation is that often throughout history we’ve let our fear trump our rationality.



"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."- FDR

The prominence of fear as a tactic to earn support for political agendas is a familiar one in American history. Throughout history propaganda or manipulation of statistics have been specifically used to bring the majority together in support of intervening in foreign affairs. This type of manipulation of statistics to incite fear in the American public can be seen when the government attempted to rationalize dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. President Truman and his Secretary of War Henry Stimson released a statistic to the American public that supported the atomic bombings because otherwise “over a million” would die in a Japanese land invasion. That statistic isn’t supported or proven in any way, but two government officials repeating that sentiment scared a large majority of the nation into agreeing with the atomic bombings. Another more recent incident of government propaganda used to incite fear was the Bush administration and the Iraq war. In Episode 10 of the documentary Bush is quoted speaking on Saddam Hussein, saying “we know he’s been developing weapons of mass destruction” (Stone, 2012). Bush’s persistence that Saddam Hussein had WMDs scared the public into supporting what became an eight year long Iraqi war. There were no WMDs ever found.

Below is a clip of Bush speaking on weapons of mass destruction:



"Those who choose to live in denial may eventually be forced to live in fear."- George W. Bush

Truman and Bush had two of the lowest approval ratings when leaving office. Eventually truth came out involving both of their campaigns and the American public turned against them. With Truman photographs and realistic statistics were released concerning Hiroshima and Nagasaki; while Bush’s “weapons of mass destruction” ploy was uncovered as unsupported and fabricated. Fear can only control the American public for so long before the truth comes out, the fear subsides and rationality re-emerges.

The American public’s rationality also seemed to have disappeared when there was a widespread panic surrounding the release and public showing of the porno film Deep Throat. As mentioned in the documentary Inside Deep Throat, in 1972 when the film was released for its first showing in Times Square, many did not even know what the sexual act was, or denied and condemned it. It was so unconventional and controversial to even speak about such an act, much less produce it on film. Americans were still trying to portray traditional norms of privacy and secrecy surrounding sexuality, but Deep Throat pushed the sexual revolution to the forefront in a way that could not be ignored. Many speculate that the sexual revolution itself was a product of fear, equating the sexual revolution and fatalism; though that will not be discussed here, I am sure that the widespread opposition to it was spun from fear of breaking away from the façade Americans had held of “normalcy”. Speaking to the smoking mirror of American prudence; a quote from Deep Throat, “when you have a nation that totally lies than there is no reality”. Extremists even tried to illicit fear in the public by claiming that “there is a relationship between violence and porn”—once again a claim totally unsupported, but some people will say anything to have you support their agenda.



Protestors demonstrating against a showing of the film Deep Throat.

Another example of widespread fear of abandoning the American “normalcy” instilled within us is the reaction to homosexuals. The Lavender Scare, which is equated to McCarthyism, took place in the 1950s and made a cause for arrest and prosecution of those even suspected to be homosexuals. Again, two men didn’t fit into the nuclear American family, so they were persecuted and marginalized—forced to repress their identity because it was incompatible with the American norm. This continues to be seen later in the semester with the death of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay politician, in 1978.

Although pornography is now more widely accepted, homosexuals are still largely subject to discrimination—and a lot of times the reasoning behind that is it is not “normal” or “traditional” in the views of many Americans. We need to separate from our fear of abandoning this established normalcy we cling so tightly to for a false sense of comfort. Every American needs his or her regular dose of fear to maintain the illusion that he or she is incapable of taking care of him/herself. Those who submit to fear and blindly support government agendas are the status quo. Only can we hope, that one day rationality will finally trump fear—but at this point it is so essential to the maintenance of our governmental system that I wonder; would it survive?

The 'Chronic Multisymptom Illness' of Gulf War Veterans

Gulf War Syndrome is not a term that is used by the United States Department of Veteran Affairs. The VA refers to the illnesses experienced by Gulf War Veterans as 'Chronic Multisymptom Illness' (CMI). Through reading 'The Untold History of the United States' I came across the term Gulf War Syndrome and was intrigued by the prospect, drawing me to conduct further research, since the mention of the syndrome in the book was brief and left an aura of mystery surrounding the claim. The book mentions the use of depleted uranium on what is referred to as the "highway of death". There is a brief mention of the claim that this new chemical weapon could have claimed victims from the U.S. forces, who now experience illness classified as Gulf War Syndrome.

Through researching the syndrome, my understanding of the reality behind this illness was not clarified--if anything it was further clouded when stumbling upon the 'politically correct' term of 'Chronic Multisymptom Illness'. The VA asserts that the symptoms are so vast and differing with no singularly identified cause that it is not correct to refer to the ailments of the Gulf War Veterans as Gulf War Syndrome; which seems to suggest the same symptoms and cause. According to the VA, primary symptoms are: fatigue, headaches, joint pain, indigestion, insomnia, dizziness, respiratory disorders, and memory problems. One-third of active U.S. military in the Gulf War have experienced at least two of these symptoms, chronically (According to a Report Brief on the Gulf War and Health). The Report referenced prior was the only source I found which mentioned the possibility of "chemical and biological agents" as the culprit.

Since the symptoms of Gulf War Veterans are so vast and the government and military agencies are highly skilled in covering up past wrongs during warfare, I am not very surprised by the lack of concrete information behind the Gulf War Syndrome (or CMI) experienced by veterans. When beginning my research I figured there would be more reliable material with more concrete information on the syndrome, such as can be found with Agent Orange, but that is just simply not the case here. All we can hope for is time to reveal the truth of these illnesses, as for now, at least the ailments of these veterans are being recognized, researched, and treated--whether we're calling it CMI or Gulf War Syndrome is something that will have to be dealt with in time.

Reagan's Hostages

As we discussed in class, the Iran Contra scandal as a whole is suspicious, but here I'd like to address the way in which the Reagan Administration has been implicated in facilitating a hostage situation--and got away with it!

I retrieved this quote from Consortium News:

"In a Christian Science Monitor commentary about the movie “Argo,” Bani-Sadr wrote that “Ayatollah Khomeini and Ronald Reagan had organized a clandestine negotiation … which prevented the attempts by myself and then-U.S. President Jimmy Carter to free the hostages before the 1980 U.S. presidential election took place. The fact that they were not released tipped the results of the election in favor of Reagan...two of my advisors, Hussein Navab Safavi and Sadr-al-Hefazi, were executed by Khomeini’s regime because they had become aware of this secret relationship between Khomeini, his son Ahmad, … and the Reagan administration.”

(Here is a link to the full commentary by Bani-Sadr on Christian Science Monitor.)

The negotiation between Reagan and Khomeini was later know as "October Surprise".

(Note: Ayatollah Khomeini was a religious and political leader who made Iran the world's first Islamic Republic in 1979, where Bani-Sadr became the first president in 1980. According to BBC. )

By cutting a deal with Iranian leaders to delay the release of American hostages Reagan and his administration facilitated a hostage situation.

Bani-Sadr's information came out in a letter dated December 17, 1992, but by the time it came out the House Task Force conducting the investigation on the Reagan Administration made the decision to dismiss the evidence and declare the Regan Administration and Campaign innocent. The House Task Force made this decision even after being asked to extend the investigation three months.

As we can see, Reagan and his Administration were pretty good at cutting deals, so we can't find this information that surprising--just offensive to the integrity of our Nation.

The New York Times crediting Reagan with the release of the hostages in Iran. Courtesy of Iranian.com.

Linda Lovelace on the big screen again

I found the story of Linda Lovelace's life before and after "Deep Throat" to be very interesting--and apparently so did American film makers when introducing the movie "Lovelace" in 2013. Rob Epstein and Jeffery Friedman directed the biopic about Linda Lovelace's life before and after her debut in "Deep Throat"--Epstein and Friedman also directed "The Times of Harvey Milk", which I found particularly interesting and ironic, since we viewed "Inside Deep Throat" (about Lovelace) and we will now be viewing "The Times of Harvey Milk", werid. Anyways, the film was shown at this year's Sundance Film Festival and achieved an 83% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes; 97% recommend seeing the film. I'm intrigued! I also found it interesting and ironic that Lindsay Lohan was originally cast to play Linda Lovelace in another biopic of her life titled "Inferno. Lohan and Lovelace have relentless, negative attention in the spotlight in common. From the description of "Lovelace" the story doesn't much differ from any other mainstream speculation about the 70's adult film star's relationship with the porn industry--she is portrayed as a victim at the hands of her first husband, Chuck Traynor, forced into performing sexual acts that had her thrust into the American spotlight with a negative connotation. This is the story Lovelace stuck with when joining the feminist party, doing television and radio interviews, and writing her book; but by the testimony of the film makers in "Inside Deep Throat" she was not victimized or forced into doing anything on the set of "Deep Throat". One of the film makers described her as a "puppet", she always needed someone to tell her what to do and how to think--whether that was her first husband or the feminists, she always had someone behind her regulating her behaviors and thoughts. Of course you couldn't expect them to admit to any foul play on the set of their already controversial film, especially after they saw Reems under fire. The true story of Linda Lovelace may never be known, but I find it interesting that in 2013 they are still trying to figure it out.



Above is a photo of Lindsay Lohan posing as Linda Lovelace on the cover of "Inferno", courtesy of the Huffington Post.



This photo is of Amanda Seyfried posing as Linda Lovelace in this year's new release, "Lovelace. Photo courtesy of imdb.com.

Women's Rights are Human Rights

(http://www.aclu.org/womens-rights/human-rights)

I've really taken interest in the primary source documents provided on the Feminine Mystique and Second Wave Feminism from this week's readings. I've taken a particular interest in these documents because the struggled recognition of women's rights as human rights is a topic I've been recently researching. In the NOW Statement of Purpose from 1966 the contention that “human rights for all are indivisible” is made. It is interesting to see that statement in writing as early as 1966, yet it was not until 1993 at the UN World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna that women’s rights were confirmed as human rights (UNFPA). Why did it take so long for women’s rights to be recognized within the confines of human rights—a.k.a. the indivisible rights of ALL human beings. It’s preposterous that it essentially took that long to affirm the fact that women were, at the least, human beings!—and should be afforded the same protections as all other human beings. I think sometimes the women’s struggle for equality is thrown to the wayside when women are fighting, still now, to be recognized equally under many facets of international law.

(March 8, 2009, Lebanese feminists in Beirut participate in a demonstration to mark International Women's Day.)

Transgender is the new Black

After reading about the African American struggle for equality in our text and in lieu of the recent blowing up of the controversial story concerning a transgender student in Colorado, I began to consider the parallels between the two. The civil rights movement in the African American community years prior fairs similar to the struggle the LGBT community faces today. Discriminatory and unequal treatment of transgender people rings especially relevant for discussion during this time with the controversy over a first grader named Coy in Colorado. Coy was born with male genitalia, but identifies with the female gender. The family has sought extensive therapy and it has been concluded that Coy is not just going through a “phase”, but is, in fact, transgender. She was allowed to use the girl’s bathroom until recently and is now being homeschooled as a result of the school revoking her privilege to use the facilities of the gender she identifies with. As you would imagine, in recent days this story has been elevated to the utmost importance of social equality issues.

Along with discussion of this particular issue, there has been a broader debate concerning the discriminatory and unequal treatment of transgender people that is enforced daily upon the community. In the article from the Huffington Post covering Coy’s story, it was stated that this type of discrimination is still being enforced in one of the only 16 out of 50 states which has enacted anti-discrimination laws for transgender people. This statement holds weight because it is not only establishing the fact that not even half of our states have enacted legislation for the equal rights and protection of the transgender community, but it also reveals that even in states with legislation, transgender rights are not being protected as they should.

This is not a new debate. Issues of inequality and discrimination against the LGBT community have been prevalent in our history and continue to be prevalent today; the Lavender Scare, the Laramie incident, recent legislation finally passing for equal marital rights of homosexual couples, gay high school and college students being outed and feeling the only way to escape the shame and oppression is to take their own lives on almost a weekly basis…and the list goes on.

The United States is not shy to discriminate against a target population; there is always a scapegoat community present. When equality comes for the LGBT community, who will be next…what will be the new Black?

JFK: Drug Addict?

Photo courtesy of: www.huffingtonpost.com

President John F. Kennedy is often thought of as a partaker in debauchery; called a sex addict, a drug addict, an adulterer. I will focus on JFK’s drug use in this post. In episode six of “The Untold History of the United States”, ‘JFK to the Brink’, there is a reference made to JFK’s addiction to pain killers. I wanted to explore that further… Was JFK just an addict or did he have good reason for taking the medications he did? The answer is a bit of both.

JFK had a number of medical disorders which he hid and even outright denied to the public; including such illnesses as, colitis, prostatitis, Addison's disease, and severe osteoporosis of the lower back (ABC News). He suffered terribly on a daily basis due to these conditions. In order to function it was necessary that JFK be medicated; he was on as many as 12 different medications at one time, including: “codeine, Demerol and methadone for pain; Ritalin, a stimulant; meprobamate and librium for anxiety; barbiturates for sleep; thyroid hormone; and injections of a blood derivative, gamma globulin, a medicine that combats infections” (id.).

To determine whether the medications he took were abused or necessary to his health remains inconclusive because he kept his medical records under great security. JFK wasn't the first president to mislead the public about his good health (Roosevelt, Nixon) and I’m sure he won’t be the last. Good health or not, JFK is among those presidents of the highest approval, with a peaking rate of 80 percent (Washington Post). Overall, his reliance on drugs didn’t seem to much affect his performance while in office.

Albert Einstein, "Father of the Atomic Bomb"

Albert Einstein’s contribution to the initiation of the Manhattan Project and creation of the atomic bomb is seldom discussed, but still he may be considered as the “Father of the Atomic Bomb” to many; I will explain why…

First, Einstein addressed a letter to FDR on August 2, 1939 which detailed information he had obtained while in Germany of a possible Nazi attempt at a weapon using uranium would which invoke a nuclear fission reaction to cause mass destruction. A copy of the letter is inserted below



Documents courtesy of Argonne National Laboratory

As you can see, Einstein urges Roosevelt “for watchfulness, and if necessary, quick action on the part of the Administration”—shortly after, the Manhattan Project commenced.

But, Einstein wasn’t the first scientist to suspect the need for combative nuclear research; scientists had brought the idea to government attention as early as the 1930s. So, what would make Einstein stand out from the rest so substantially to name him as “Father of the Atomic Bomb”. Well, the answer is more obvious than you may think… One of his best known accomplishments, Einstein’s famous formula E=MC2 actually made the bomb theoretically possible. Although Einstein was not explicitly a nuclear physicist and did not participate in the actual construction of the bomb, his famous formula served as the base component to the construction of the atomic bomb.

Einstein graced the cover of a 1945 Time magazine just months after the bombings of Japan.



Image courtesy of www.time.com

Einstein reduces his involvement with the bomb to a signature on the letter he wrote to Roosevelt. He regretted having any involvement with the atomic bomb and it uses; he even wrote a letter to the president urging him against dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In 1950 when Truman announced that “super”/hydrogen bomb efforts would continue, Einstein appeared on Eleanor Roosevelt’s television show with a grave warning, “If these efforts should prove successful, radioactive poisoning of the atmosphere and, hence, annihilation of all life on earth will have been brought within the range of what is technically possible” (Stone & Kuznick, 230).

Below is a video chronicling Einstein’s involvement with the atomic bomb; I found it to be both interesting and helpful.



Other Sources:

Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick, The Untold History of the United States (New York: Gallery Books, 2012), 230.

Walter Isaacson, "Chain Reaction: From Einstein to the Atomic Bomb," Discover Magazine (2008): 1-3, Accessed February 23, 2013.

The 'No Sir' Nation

After looking through last week’s reading material, I couldn’t help but make the connection between an outbreak in teenage rebellion and the stern enforcement of a plethora of militant rules. The post-WWII environment bred militant authority figures that led teenagers to rebellion; it was one extreme behavior counteracting another. America was just coming out of the deadliest conflict in human history and the attitudes and demeanor possessed during wartime was translated to everyday society; it was like a social wartime crisis resulted from the ending of an extremely devastating period in American history. It isn’t hard to understand that at the immediate end of the war society didn’t instantly mold back into a place of peace and happiness.

The broad enforcement of militancy is seen in teenagers’ testimonials of their parents being “too strict”. In the article “Teenagers” from the Baltimore Sun, “A solid 98 percent of teens say that juvenile delinquency can be controlled by parents who love their children and guide them competently”. Those same teens later complain in the article that their parents are too strict on them as opposed to just supervising or guiding them. The conclusion to this finding is a feeling of limited freedom on the part of the teenagers, causing a massive outbreak of teenage rebellion.

Militant authority is not only seen at home in the 1950s, but also amongst all other societal components. An article from Stanford cites some of overbearing rules and stereotypes enforced on teens in school and amongst other components of society:

● Boy's hair touching the ears wasn't allowed, punishable by expulsion from school.

● Most girls weren't allowed to wear pants, and boys weren't allowed to wear blue jeans. Even Stanford University prohibited the wearing of jeans in public during the 1950s.

● The new slang - hipster talk - bothered most adults. It was part African American, part beatnik and part street gang... an offensive combination in the eyes of the status quo.

● There was alarm about teens dating and "heavy petting." Any talk about sex was taboo and could be punishable.

● Many parents were worried about their daughters adoring black rock musicians, fearing the possibility of racial commingling.

● Hot rods were considered dangerous. All it took was a few fatal accidents and the other 99% of the custom cars and hot rods were considered a menace to public safety.

● Dancing to rock'n'roll music was often banned, with school and teen dances shut down.

When looking at the nature, number, and severity of rules imposed upon America’s teenage population in post-war circumstances it isn’t hard to understand the source of the massive outbreak of teenage rebellion.

Miscommunication Nation

From this week’s readings there is one quote that works as an all-encompassing thesis of what we’ve learned thus far:

“Who, if anyone, in this great land actually receives accurate and unbiased information about the outside world?” –George F. Keenan’s “Long Telegram”

This quote is applicable to all we’ve seen and read in class. Secrecy, conspiracy, and miscommunication pollute local, national, and international relations. This demeanor can and has negatively affected the bond between the government and other nations, the government and its constituents, and even within the government to other sectors or actors of the government. Although this evasive, elusive nature has a negative impact on various levels, our focus is currently drawn to the negative effects that secrecy, conspiracy, and miscommunication can have on international relations.

One of the first displays we saw in class of secrecy, conspiracy, and miscommunication negatively affecting our relationship with another nation is when Robert McNamara speaks about the Vietnam War in the documentary, “The Fog of War”. McNamara describes this atrocious war as a “total misunderstanding”. The U.S. saw the Vietnamese as an element of the Cold War; a pawn of China and Russia, and the Vietnamese saw the war as a civil war in which they were fighting for their independence. To lose over one million soldiers (U.S. and Vietnamese combined) in a war that was fought over a “total misunderstanding” is outrageous and unfathomable. It’s a trickle-down effect of bad information traveling; it’s like the “telephone game” with adults with immense amounts of power and deadly weapons. To me it’s unconscionable that somewhere along the line not one person comes out to say “this doesn’t make sense” or “that doesn’t seem right”, until after the death toll has reached over 1 million (in military casualties, alone) and then it’s a “total misunderstanding”.

Another display of secrecy, conspiracy, and misunderstanding affecting our relationships with other nations is in this week’s readings of primary source documents. It’s very interesting to contrast and compare the documents from the Soviets and the U.S. One of the reasons it is so interesting is because they have essentially the same image of one another. Each side is writing from the position of defense; speaking of the over nation aiming for “world domination”, attempting “hegemony”, urging that it is essential to up their defense against the other nation whose speculated to be settled on some sort of global takeover. It’s actually semi-amusing to read because the narratives sound so similar, at times it’s hard to decipher whose documents you’re reading. I didn’t think you could fight a war with two defensive players and no offense, but apparently you can. What lead to the Cold War, from what I took away from these documents, was the utter paranoia and speculation of eminent destruction coming from the other side, fueled by secrecy, conspiracy, and miscommunication.

It is interesting, to say the least, how misinformation can be passed along within the government, to other nations, and then to the public, often unscathed, utter speculation and misinformation still intact. It is further interesting that once this all happens, we, the public have to take responsibility in putting together the pieces and finding the truth.