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.