Tag Archives: Eric Foner

04/8/11

Breaking the rules!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7ut8JV0EbU

This video depicts the actions of brave African Americans who boycotted on buses. One individual who was the driving force of these boycotts was Rosa Parks. According to Foner on December 1, 1955, Parks refused to give up her seat on the city bus to a white rider. After is event, there began a year long boycott.

Today, we are reminded of Parks bravery. According to Foner, in 2000 Parks was named one of the 100 most significant people of the twentieth century in Time magazine. Her influence on many African Americans to stand up for their right can not be forgotten. As a result, in November 1956, the supreme court ruled segregation in public transportation unconstitutional ending the boycott in a triumph.

03/1/11

Ketchup for my Liberty Sandwich, Please?

In World War I, Germany was considered the main culprit and provacateur of the war. Therefore, it stirred the movement against Germans in United States. Prior to the war, German-Americans were able to express and promote their ethnic culture through the fine arts and language. Once the war began, German-Americans came under public scrutiny and ostracism. To raise support for the war, German culture was belittled to establish the notion of superiority of America. Any traces of German culture was erased in America. For example, instead of saying “hamburger,” which has German roots, it was called “liberty sandwich.”

I thought Foner did a good job in presenting the Anti-German Crusade.  He stated several statistics to demonstrate how the war negatively affected German-Americans and their culture.  However, Foner could have developed and expanded the topic more to illustrate the hardships of German-Americans during the war. The three images above adds depth to the portrayal of how German-Americans were singled out and excluded from mainstream America.

02/28/11

Zimmerman Telegram

Zimmerman Telegram is one important reason why the U.S went to World War I. Foner talks about how the Zimmerman Telegram was made public by the British spies in March 1917. He says how the German foreign secretary  Arthur Zimmerman call on Mexico to join the war against the U.S and promised to help recover their territory lost in the Mexican War of 1846-1848. I think that Foner basically covered most of what the Zimmerman Telegram was.
A revolution in Russia overthrew the czar and established a constitutional government making it more plausible to believe that the U.S would be fighting on the side of democracy. The war resolution was passed the Senate 82-6 and House of Representative 373-50.

02/7/11

History is Memory.

In the review of David Blight’s “Race and Reunion,” Eric Foner brings to light the interesting and unique aspects of the book, setting it apart from other books written about the Civil War. However, personally while I feel that I would be interested as to see for myself why exactly Foner believes that Blight’s book is worth reading and why it stands out from all the rest, I feel as if I wouldn’t enjoy it. Although it is certain that there is much I do not know regarding the Civil War because you can only learn so much from reading a couple of textbooks, I feel as though, from the way it is presented in this review, that I would not be able to view it as literature, but rather as a textbook.

From this review, I have learned that memory is what makes up a large part of history. Without memory, we would not know as much about our history as we do today. However, what is tricky about this fact is that lots of times, memory can be subjective or incomplete. Granted, historians do not rely on only one source but rather a plethora of sources so as to see what matches up and can be considered valid and certain. Memories can definitely be politically motivated. Many moments in history are caused from political distress or events. A relevant example to this article is the Civil War itself. Those who took sides had to have some political motivation that lead them to make that decision. Politics is a huge part of society also, it is only natural that it can affect everyone when discussing a national conflict.

02/7/11

History=Memory

David Blight’s book “Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory” basically is a book of collective memory of Americans, Blacks and Whites. Based on Eric Foner’s book review, this book sounds interesting to me because as a person who has never gone through the real war, I really want to know more inside stories of Civil War besides what we have learned from the textbooks. I would recommend this book to people who have gone through the Civil War and who might interesting to know more about the consequences of Civil War from different perspectives.

As Eric Foner says in his book review, “memory is a product of history”. I completely agree with him since that sometimes what people remembered is the consequences of the history. Many historical events were been remembered in so many ways, such as in novels, in monuments and most important it is stored in people’s mind. Historical memory sometimes can reveal things that people usually did not notice. One disadvantage of that is people see things from different perspectives, so it is up to the historian to judge.

The Nanking Massacre which happened in China in 1937 is one of the examples which are remembered in many different ways. The memory of Nanking Massacre reflected in novels, movies, and monuments. I remember my teacher showed us a movie of Nanking Massacre in which it contents many of people’s accounts of what happened in Nanking Massacre.

I think different memories are politically motivated because people usually want to have positive thoughts about such figure or such event; thus, it is very hard to tell whether a person’s account is reliable or not.

02/7/11

Remembering What Was Meant To Be Forgotten

How America remembers the Civil War or any other historical events, is always going to be based on who wrote history.  Mostly on someones documented memories.  Using primary documents that historians have gathered.  Each with enough supporting evidence to draw up a valid conclusion.  “Valid meaning, each piece of evidence supports the conclusion that certain events occurred, but doesn’t necessarily makes it true or sound.

The review that Eric Foner writes about Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory” by David Blight showed that many people remember the Civil War differently.  Everything from the cause of the war,  political views,  rebuilding, and how it should be looked back on was different; causing drifts and segregation.  It actually made me want to read the book.   I mean I was actually shocked to discover how the celebration of Memorial Day was started, and even more by whom.  It use to just be a day off from work for me.  I can honestly say that has changed a bit.  Funny, while speaking to some friends about it, none of them knew that was how that national holiday began.

The review helped solidify my view of what in history is actually available to you.  How much of the truth do we actually know? How much are we allowed to know?  The people in power make the laws, and the people in power write history.  One should think that judging from what we know about that past, you can come to appreciate, and really thank those people who are able to seek the truth…as they saw it.  The black soldiers that died in the war, could have easily been left out of the memoirs, letters, and documents from those time.  Foner even mentioned how Blight “…gives black Americans a voice…denied in work of memory…”  This to me, shows that historians can choose to omit a lot of the past, if they haven’t already.  This would have completely stolen the voices of black America, and kept us from knowing about the past that many would wish was forgotten. Our current war on terror, is an example of history, though not very distancan be views as being very  politically motivated.  Why are we in the war?  Is it because of the 9/11 terrorist attack, oil, weapons of mass destruction’s, and/or war profiteering. This list can grow longer depending on who you ask.

02/7/11

What really happened?

Eric Foner’s book review of “Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory”, by David W. Blight, shows that it would prove to be an interesting read.  It sheds light on the fact that history should not be accepted for its face value.  As Napoleon once said “History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon”.  The result of a battle is quite simple, there is a winner and a loser; and the only side of the story that is heard is that of the victor.  This creates a bias and a convenient addition/deletion of certain facts and events.  The picture that results is therefore a distorted image, not an accurate representation of the actual events.  The people who would most benefit from reading this book are students, for the reason that many believe that what they were taught in grammar school is the way it actually happened.  This book would teach them to other half of the story, and perhaps get them to begin questioning other historical events, encouraging them to discover the truth for themselves.

An event that is remembered in many different ways is the concept of Manifest Destiny that the United States used to expand westward.  Many believe that the government relocated the nation’s Native American population in a fair manner and that they agreed to actually move in the first place.  This is an ideal thought but, the reality was much more brutal and violent.  In reality the Native Americans were essentially told move to a designated remote location, with useless land and die there, or stay and fight the troops that would be sent to “relocate” them i.e., get slaughtered in battle.  In the case of the Native Americans, the moves taken were absolutely rooted in political agenda.  In the case of the North Vs. the South, the moves taken were also based in political dominance.  The north wanted to erase the fact that the country had been divided so they tried to tarnish the image of the South in as many ways as possible.  This included rallying the Northern voters to only vote for their politicians by “waving the bloody shirt” — reminding voters of the war — during election campaigns”, essentially guilting them into voting the way they were told.  Elections may have been rigged and power was unfairly distributed, but in the end we never heard about it, because remember “we won the war”.

02/6/11

A War to Remember

In the book review of “Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory, ” by Eric Foner, it sheds light on the distorted memory of the Civil War. The Civil War may have ended, but the battle of how to remember it is still going on. When asked about their opinions on the war, a Southerner will most likely give a completely different answer than a Northerner. This is primarily because of politics. Both the North and the South wanted the memory of the Civil War to be favorable to them.  In addition, our perspective of the Civil War depends on how racial relations are in present day.

This is an important issue because historical memories are valuable sources to understanding the past. If memories are manipulated, it will present a biased, false impression of the event. There are many instances of historical happenings that result in different experiences and views. For example, the truth about the first Thanksgiving. In American textbooks, the first Thanksgiving was illustrated to be happy and harmonious. The story goes that the Pilgrims met a nice Native American, called Squanto, who taught them how to plant corn.  Out of respect, the Pilgrims invited the Native Americans for a Thanksgiving feast. However, the truth about Thanksgiving is that Pilgrims did not come up with it. Indians had been celebrating Thanksgiving for centuries. Pilgrims were never actually part of it. In the 1890s, the Pilgrims started to be tied in with the tradition after Abraham Lincoln made it a national holiday.

The book is interesting because it reveals the forgotten heroes and repressed memories of the Civil War. It is a useful opportunity to enlighten the people, who previously held certain biases or reservations regarding the war.