American History

The 1960s was a time of social and political upheaval in the United States and even musicians have taken notice of it and used their songs to express their sentiments on the prevailing issues at the time.  Songs are considered to be more effective than speeches as music has a unique way of penetrating the human psyche and deliver the subliminal message.    In this case, two such songs come into mind, Feel Like Im Fixing to Die by Country Joe McDonald in 1967 and Bob Dylans Blowin in the Wind in 1963.  They were first sung at the height of social and political upheaval in the United States brought about by the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War and these songs have a message to convey with regard to these issues.

Cultural Analysis
These songs underscore the new kind of  culture  raging through the 1960s.  It was a culture that was demanding change from the old ways of the prewar and war time period which was conservative in nature and this showed in the civil rights movement where blacks were struggling for equality and were challenging the status quo to eliminate segregation.  This is underscored in Blowin in the Wind in the line,  How many years can some people exist, before theyre allowed to be free (Dylan, 1963)   In  Feel Like Im Fixing to Die, the song is filled with sarcasm and irony as it pokes fun at Americas seemingly misguided patriotism in fighting what activists consider a war with an unworthy cause as expressed in the lines,   Uncle Sam needs your help again. Hes got himself in a terrible jam. Way down yonder in Vietnam. (McDonald, 1967).  This line reflects how people now question Americas involvement in world affairs compared to what it had done in the two world wars and in the refrain,   What are we fighting for Dont ask me, I dont give a damn (McDonald, 1967).   This underscores the lack of a just cause that makes people oppose the war which they feel was not worth fighting and sacrificing American lives.

Historical Analysis
As stated before, the songs were timely in the context of the period.  Blowin in the Wind initially became anthem of the civil rights movement as the movement, led by Martin Luther King Jr. challenged American society to make the change and the songs lyrics serve as a rhetorical question to the issues they were facing then as mentioned above.  The song also became the anthem of the antiwar movement during the Vietnam War as peace was the quest of the protestors and the line from the song underscores that by saying,  How many times must the cannonballs fly, before theyre forever banned (Dylan, 1963)

McDonalds song, as mentioned earlier, appears to taunt those who support the war and the lines of the song underscores the sarcasm that goes, To have your boy come home in a box (McDonald, 1967).  There is absolutely no fun nor is it amusing for families to send their sons and daughters to war just to have them killed and be proud of it.  From the view of the antiwar movement, the war was unjust and they were trying to discourage people from supporting it by saying it was not their war and that the politicians were deceiving them into thinking they need to save the world from the communist menace since this was also the Cold War.

Conclusion
In conclusion, these songs became the anthems of a  revolution  that swept America in the 1960s.  It was a kind of revolution that challenged the old way of thinking and attempted to introduce something new.  In the case of the civil rights movement, the challenge was to consider people of different races as equals in humanity.  In the Vietnam War, to oppose  unjust  wars to spare young men and women from making needless sacrifices.  These are the messages of these two songs.

The Vietnam War can be viewed in two different perspectives.  One of them is a struggle by the local population against a foreign (imperialist) power, assisted by their locally-installed puppet leaders. In its history, Vietnam has been the battleground of conquerors, particularly its powerful to the north, China.  Yet, despite being invaded several times, the Vietnamese showed remarkable resilience in the face of adversity as they valiantly and vigorously resisted the foreign occupiers even when they were conquered.  In the 19th century, Vietnam was conquered by the French in retaliation for the persecution of European missionaries.  Although Vietnam was colonized, the French allowed the Vietnamese monarch to continue reigning though his power to govern was taken away from him.  Even though the French brought some vestiges of western civilization to Vietnam, their discriminatory practices drove several Vietnamese to embrace socialism (Marxism) because it was the only ideology that empowered them to fight for their freedom after giving up on liberalism which appeared to do little other than provide sympathy for their plight.

What made Marxism appealing to them was that it encouraged them to rise up and topple their oppressors if they wish to be free of their sufferings.  Modern Vietnam s founding father, Ho Chi Minh was able to synthesize Marxism with Vietnamese nationalism which further empowered the Vietnamese people to fight for their freedom.  Not all Vietnamese who took up the cause were really communists as the French, and later the Americans might think.  They simply wanted to be free and they had nowhere else to turn to.  When one is to look at it from the perspective of the Vietnamese, it was not a conflict between democracy and communism, it was a conflict between freedom and tyranny, first from their colonizers, and later to liberate their brothers in the south from an oppressive and unpopular regime.  Furthermore, Ho and his followers believed that Vietnam must not be divided.  Ho was well versed in the ways of the west and he knew what they were up to when they created South Vietnam it was a case of  divide and conquer.   He did not buy into the rationale that they created South Vietnam to be a bastion of democracy in the face of communism, he saw it as a continuation of western imperialism.

There was essentially no ideology involved (Marr 100).
The Vietnamese simply wanted to be free they just do not like to be subjugated by a foreign power and they have proven it many times throughout their history against the Chinese (ancient times), French, the Americans and the Chinese once more in 1979.  The conflict with the Chinese in 1979 underscored the fact that ideology was not a factor nor did it bring the two communist states together. Vietnamese nationalism just happened to be intertwined with socialist ideals which appeared to be compatible to their culture of wanting to remain free from any subjugation.

Vietnams history also showed the strength of their resolve.  Even though they may lose battles, the Vietnamese do not care.  What matters to them is winning the war by simply persevering.  Vietnam is their home.  They live there, the foreigners do not.  Ho knew this and eventually, when they see that keeping a colony where the people will continually resist them (win or lose), it will be very costly for them in terms of material and human resources and will realize it will not longer be worth keeping and will eventually leave on their own accord without having to defeat them in battle.  This was the case in dealing with the United States.  Ho simply waited for the tide of opinion to turn in the United States and when it happened, he knew that they (Vietnamese) had already won, especially after the Tet Offensive in 1968.  Even though he died in 1969 and never lived to see the outcome, the fall of Saigon in 1975 had proven that he was right all along.

On the distaff side, the Vietnam War was viewed from an ideological point of view.  Vietnam was must another ideological battleground between the forces of democracy (or capitalism, as the Marxists would put it), and communism.  This is in conjunction with the  domino theory  espoused by the Eisenhower Administration and carried over to the succeeding administrations.  The theory goes that if one nation becomes communist, the adjacent states will follow suit like a row of falling dominoes.  The United States has taken it upon itself to defend the rest of the free world from the menace of communism.  Based on what they have learned about communist regimes, they are totalitarian and have no regard for human rights and they exercise repression to anyone who attempts to exercise his or her rights the worst thing that can happen to one is death for trying to be free.  It is for this reason that the United States is fully committed to defend freedom wherever it is threatened.  In this postwar period, they have proven it in Korea and they saw Vietnam as another chance to stop the expansion of communism.

Whereas the communist bloc would embark on expansion by spreading the communist ideology in any way possible through formal political process or revolution, the west responded by containment to keep communism from spreading.  This has worked in Germany, Japan and Greece when they provided economic aid to help bring stability to society.  A stable society will not foment unrest.  The communists needed instability to foment unrest by agitating the people.  The problem with (south) Vietnam was that the French and the Americans sided with the wrong leaders who were authoritarian and lacked the charisma of Ho Chi Minh.  Because they were so repressive and corrupt, they would command the respect of their people nor did they possess charisma to gain their support.  This was the mistake made by the French and the Americans and did not win them the support they need to continue fighting the war until victory was achieved (Yerxa 29-30).

Another misfortune of the American war effort was they did not entirely enjoy the support of the media as they were growing in power and influence as they accompany troops in the field.  It was rather unfortunate that they covered reports of atrocities and abuses committed by South Vietnamese and American forces like in My Lai, but did not give much attention to the terror tactics employed by the Vietcong in villages that refuse to cooperate with them. Even sympathetic journalists had to bow down to the pressure of the liberal press in downplaying this but it was apparent that the media during the Vietnam War was a far cry from the  Yellow Journalism  at the beginning of the 20th century which was the opposite.

Until now, this is how the Vietnam War is seen   in two different perspectives.  If one were to insist on a definite answer, it would be subject to a very vigorous debate would probably have no end in sight.

The U.S. Military attach in South Vietnam at the time of the fall of Saigon, Colonel William Legro, said that anti-war activists, the U.S. government, and particularly the U.S. Congress were guilty of betraying the South Vietnamese.  After anti-war activists had significantly prolonged the war by giving aid and comfort to the enemy, the U.S., he said, had withdrawn from the country after having made promises to the South Vietnamese which it was honor bound to keep.  Instead, when in 1974-75 the going got rough, the Americans cut and ran.  In light of what you have learned from the spotlight reports, lectures, and readings, especially in chapter 13 of McMahon and appropriate essays in Gilbert (to which you MUST make specific reference), analyze and evaluate this contention.

If there is a main thesis to be found here, it is on who is to be blamed for the debacle in Vietnam.  Col. Legro gave such a provocative remark when he mentioned specific people who had contributed to America s loss of the Vietnam War.  The author agrees with his statement.  What was strange was that US military did not lose in the field of combat, they lost in the court of international public opinion (Gilbert 77).  The United States was doing pretty much well in prosecuting the war but ultimately, they pulled out in disgrace because those who were there felt they were abandoning their South Vietnamese allies who were counting on them for support (Yerxa 29).  Legro had singled out liberals in America from the  hippies  on the street to the powerful men in Washington, DC who were regarded as defeatists disguised as sympathy for the North Vietnamese.

The United States military has never lost a war in its long history and Vietnam was the first debacle.  It was not from the battleground but in the hearts and minds, not only of the Vietnamese but of their own people.  The people in the States did not seem to understand or appreciate what they are doing fighting to defend democracy in Vietnam and defeat communism.  These liberals saw it the other way.  They saw America s involvement as meddling in a civil war between two Vietnams that were trying to unify.  They appeared to have ignore the fact that Vietnam was to be unified under communist rule.

Because of this notion, they felt America had no business here and it was not worth sacrificing the lives of young American men just to satisfy the vested interests of a few politicians.  They saw their soldiers not as heroes keeping Vietnam free, but killers who wrought havoc to the countryside with their  search and destroy  missions. Ironically, some of these anti-war activists were veterans.  After being  in-country  it was easy to understand why they were disillusioned after coming back to the States and their testimonies helped reinforce their cause.  They ceased to believe their commanders anymore.  They believed that the goals and missions were not clear enough or to a certain extent, not worth taking because they simply felt it was not worth it.

The policymakers in Washington were also being blamed.  The common argument of the veterans and military leader was that the powers-that-be in Washington did not want them to win on the account of the micromanaging of the war from afar and making decisions from there to the commanders in the field to follow (Gilbert 117-118).  Such would be not taking the offensive to North Vietnam, limiting it to air strikes in Hanoi.  The commanders  in country  assumed that the people in the White House and the Pentagon thought that the same strategy they used to win the Second World War would also work in Vietnam.

The media was partly responsible for the defeatist attitude of the people in the States, thanks in part to television which brought footages of the fighting to every living room in the States which also included the brutality that went with it, especially at the height of the Tet Offensive when a South Vietnamese police officer shot a captured Vietcong in the head at close range.  News footage of downed airmen captured in North Vietnam, American casualties in the field and even incidents of atrocities and abuses committed by American troops such as the My Lai massacre, helped shape the image of the war in the minds of the people back home and influence their public opinion which led to adapting the defeatist attitude.

One might think that the US military was blameless for the defeat in Vietnam but it turned out that they should also be held accountable for the following reasons the leaders in The Pentagon did not give sound advice to the White House on how to prosecute the war which resulted in giving wrong directives to the commanders in the field they allowed inter-service rivalry to fester and was not kept under control for effectiveness the use of the wrong strategy such as relying purely on heavy firepower to defeat the enemy abuse of mismanagement of human resources   the troops in the field and failure to recognize the limitations of air power which was similar to the situation among the political leaders in Washington.  Furthermore and looking at it from a different perspective, it would appear the leaders in the Pentagon, especially those who support the commanders in the field appeared to have lacked the heart or will to resist what was considered  war-losing  policies coming from the White House and even Congress (Gilbert 118-133).  The most obvious mistake US military leaders made was to fight an unconventional war against an unconventional enemy, in this case the Vietcong.

The senior military leaders failed to grasp the new trend in warfare which was low-intensity conflict   guerrilla warfare and to a certain extent, terrorism.  This was partly because of the myopic mindset of The Pentagon and the White House because they abhor such  dirty  tactics because it is so  Un-American  and decided to stick to the usual way Americans fight wars   through the use of technology and superior firepower.  They thought that such firepower would intimidate the enemy into submission but it only showed how much they underestimated their enemy which used guerrilla tactics.  They will not attack whenever they were on the offensive rather they will strike whenever they were at rest such as attacking fire bases at night. Conventional  pacification  tactics, known as  search and destroy  and basing their victories in enemy  body counts  were exercises in futility as the Vietcong cleverly hid in tunnels where Americans with their large build and physique, could not pursue them.  Sometimes, the frustration of not engaging the enemy would lead them to turn on the villagers whom they suspect of aiding and abetting them.
 
As stated before, the leaders in the Pentagon underestimated the Vietnamese resolve to resist in the light on continual aerial bombardment.  What later dawned upon them was air power does not win wars by itself.  Because they abhorred low-intensity conflict, they failed to recognize the value of American special operations forces such as the Special Forces (Green Berets) and the US Navy Sea Air And Land (SEAL) Teams which were created for this very purpose with the blessing of President John F. Kennedy who recognized it.  Unfortunately, the generals in the Pentagon and even the commanders in the field paid little heed to their capabilities and did not employ them effectively or in a way that would make them maximize their full potential such as using Special Forces troops as regular infantry, forming auxiliary armies and setting up outposts, something that are not part of the job description of the Special Forces.  Even the SEALs were constrained to certain parameters on the extent of their operations though they had enjoyed remarkable success in their operations which were mainly hit and run tactics, using the same tactics of the Vietcong against them.

It could be said that the conduct of the war in Vietnam was flawed from the very start despite having a good idea.  Kennedy knew what he was facing in Vietnam and already had a plan but it was skewed by the succeeding administration which led to the quagmire the moment American troops hit the ground.
Most of the feature films I showed you this semester focused on the role and impact of the Vietnam experience on those Americans who participated in or were affected by it.  Taking for your examples one film from each of the following groups
I.                                          
Red Dust(1932)              
China Gate (1957)
 Quiet American  (1957)                      
                                                                                           
II.
The Green Berets (1968)
The Boys in Company C  (1977)III.
The Deer Hunter (1978)
Apocalypse Now (1978)
Wholl Stop the Rain (1978)        
Hair (1978)

For this activity, three films were selected form each group. It is also noticed that the way the films are grouped, it would appear that there is a progression stage going on which also reflects how Americas involvement in Vietnam had also progressed.  The first one is the 1957 film, The Quiet American which was remade in 2002.  In the second group would be The Green Berets and the third would be Apocalypse Now.   The Quiet American is the story of an idealistic young American economist working for an aid organization in Vietnam.  If there is one American value or virtue exhibited here, it is the American sense of and idealism altruism where Alden Pyle (played by Audie Murphy and later Brendan Fraser) came to Vietnam with the hope of making it a better place by helping out the indigent people by acting as a  Third Force.

In The Green Berets, the film idealistically depicts the best soldiers in the United States Army.  The film serves to  market  or promote the capabilities of the Special Forces.  The men who join this elite unit represent the best not only in the US military, but of America as well, as the line in their ballad goes,  these are men, Americas best.   They are depicted as patriotic and very noble in their intent and deeds as shown when they were conducting civil-military operations in a Montagnard village as well as putting up a gallant stand when their camp was attacked by Vietcong forces.  It also helped that John Wayne appears in the movie as a senior-ramking Special Forces officer.  John Wayne was an iconic figure, not only in Hollywood, but in America as he would display the kind of attitude Americans ought to have   tough (when necessary), sincere and generous and never backing down from a challenge or a fight.  

Apocalypse Now also shows the similar values mentioned above though the film would take a darker turn in the latter scenes.  One particular virtue that can be found here to be American is the sense of purpose exhibited by Captain Willard (played by Martin Sheen) who is the central character of the film where he was given a special mission to find and neutralize a rogue US army officer who could hurt the war effort.  There was also his commitment to the mission where he wants to see the mission through to the very end despite the difficulties he and the boat crew were facing as they drew nearer to their mission.

In The Quiet American, the plot and setting is prior to overt American involvement in Vietnam, beginning with civilian aid workers, as Alden Pyle is depicted in the film.  He was  in Vietnam in his capacity as a private US citizen, not connected in any way to a particular government agency.  As an aid worker, he was employing the  winning hearts and minds  strategy as part of Americas master plan to contain the spread of communism by conducting relief work, medical missions and building or rebuilding villages which communist guerrillas would destroy.  In essence, Pyle epitomized an American on a crusade to fight communism, initially as an aid worker.  Even though he did not take up arms, he was doing his part in helping win the Cold War against communism.  Yet, in the course of his mission of mercy, he became the victim of intrigue by an embittered English journalist Thomas Fowler (Richard Redgrave and later, Michael Caine) when Pyle stole his mistress and Fowler concocted a story that Pyle was actually a CIA agent.

In The Green Berets, the Special Forces soldiers see their work as vital to winning the war on communism.  Despite their  Special  tag, they are not super-soldiers.  They are special because they possess exceptional skills that make them special from the average American soldier.  Not only do they specialize in a plethora of skills such as engineeringdemolitions, communications, field medicine, as well as the  traditional  commando skills.  They possess language and cultural sensitivity skills which enables them to easily interface with the local population.  By using these  special  skills, they can win people to their side and would be a big help, or what is called a  force multiplier.  

The idea here is to enhance the image of the locals by giving them the confidence to protect themselves rather than be overly dependent on the Americans.  Because of their cultural sensitivity skills, they are different from how an American soldier is depicted in films like Platoon, Casualties of War and even Apocalypse Now.  The film ends with the Special Forces troops conducting a commando operation that saw the capture of a high-ranking North Vietnamese general.  This goes to show that Special Forces soldiers are not wholly killers.  By capturing the general for intelligence-gathering purposes, it goes to prove that live prisoners are more valuable than body counts.  The Green Berets is essentially an optimistic film and as stated before, it intends to promote the unit

In Apocalypse Now, the movie underscores how the war has spiraled out of control as far as the conduct of the war is concerned.  This is seen in the mood and disposition of Captain Willard as he travels deeper into Colonel Kurtzs turf.  He was completely transformed into a brutal, cold-blooded killer as seen on how he first killed a dying woman and later Kurtz.  It reflected how the war, in all its brutality and madness can transform men into cold-blooded killers like Willard and in the case of Kurtz, a demented man with delusions of grandeur yet delighting in violence.

With regards to the accurate portrayal of the characters in the three films, The Green Berets tend to portray the characters a lot more precisely than the other two films.  The reason for being is that this is what Special Forces soldiers still do to this very day in Afghanistan and Iraq.  The reason for their existence and their general mission remains the same and it is reflected in their official motto,  De Oppresso Liber,  to free the oppressed. They fight an unconventional war, conducting operations deep behind enemy lines and at the same time win the hearts and minds of the local population.  This film truly captures the image of the Special Forces soldier which is a far cry from the John Rambo movies starring Sylvester Stallone which is the opposite and unrealistic portrayal of the Green Beret soldier.  As for Alden Pyle, it is rather hard to tell if a civilian like him is really an altruistic American who is serving out of the goodness of his heart or if he was really working for the CIA.  Fowler had to invent one out of spite though he did harbor suspicions on Pyles activities.  In Apocalypse Now, Coppolla appeared to have put too much drama and exaggeration into the portrayal of several of the characters like Colonel Kurtz and Kilgore (played by Robert Duvall).  If there is any accuracy, it is the proliferation of drugs among American soldiers and this showed when one of the boat crew was so high that Willard had to guide him.

By way of conclusion, the three films show a progression on how the public saw their involvement in a war.  It began with idealism (The Quiet American) starting with individuals and later actual involvement (The Green Berets), seeing that the Vietnam War was a worthy cause but somewhere along the way, the direction was lost (Apocalypse Now) to the point that even the soldiers in the field do not even know what they are fighting for.  If one were to believe that the portrayal of Willard, Kilgore and Kurtz is truly reflective of the conduct of Americans in Vietnam, public opinion would surely wane quickly and make them realize it was not a worthy cause after all as seen also when Kurtz went rogue.  The idealism that was there in the early stages seemed to have evaporated and everyone seemed to have forgotten what was it all about being there.

Racial segregation did not end with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Similarly, it was more than the non-violence movement led by Dr. Martin Luther King that resulted in change of policies and abolishing of Jim Crow Laws. Many black organizations led militant struggle against segregation and white supremacy.  Robert F. Williams led armed struggle in North Carolina and his book Negroes with Guns is an excellent example of the relationship between civil rights movement and the use of guns in self-defense. Gun control laws and the value of ammunition to an average African American  especially in self-defense  is evident from his work. It also sheds light on the importance of self-defense and one can easily correlate the historical events with contemporary debate on gun control in the US.

Robert Williams played an important role in the civil rights movement during the 1950s and early 1960s. While he was the president of Monroe, North Carolina NAACP and following the non-violent struggle of Dr. Martin Luther King, he was also participating in militant tactics to advance the cause of racial integration.  His book Negroes with Guns offer glaring examples of the marriage between militancy and peaceful struggle with incidence of highhandedness of police authorities and white supremacists. Gun control and other issues take a center stage in this struggle as the country is still debating the pros and cons of gun possession. Guns as a tool for self-defense played an important role during the civil rights movement and their significance remains in contemporary times.

Robert Williams life story and participation in the civil rights movement sheds light on the social and economical aspects of that era and emphasize the hatred of the southern whites towards their former slaves. They were not ready to give up their centuries-old supremacy and mastership over blacks despite the fact that President Abraham Lincoln had abolished slavery in 1863.

There were many social and economical currents running beneath the peaceful  and often violent  struggle of blacks to achieve their rights. Williams home state of North Carolina turned into a battleground for both the colored and whites.

Monroe had a population of 11,000 in 1955 of which around one-fourth were blacks. The town also had the headquarters of the southeastern command of Ku Klux Clan. The area was home to major activities of white supremacists and blacks were living in deplorable conditions. Only 4 of them had registered as voters and most had accepted their status as second-class citizens of the United States.
Amid all these conditions, Williams landed in Monroe after serving in the Marine Corps during the Korean War. He had already seen the discrimination and segregation while serving in the military and was ready to take on the challenges of racial integration.

Williams struggle started with joining the local chapter of National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

It all started with harmless picketing at the Monroe swimming pool, which, of course, was whites-only. Blacks started picketing at the pool in hopes of finally winning a permission to use it along with their white neighbors. Expectedly, this drew the ire of local KKK and they started their counter-picketing attacks.

Williams had already established Black National Guard by then to protect colored people from KKK attacks. The latter had started using night raids and shotgun firing as a mean to deter black picketers. When they saw no scaling back of picketing, they started campaigning for large-scale attacks. Some reports of that time suggested that as many as 15,000 whites had gathered in Monroe with regular meetings and cross burnings.

Clashes ensued though Williams ordered his cadre to only use guns as a tool of self-defense and never as a tool of provocation. He ordered the setting up of shelters in blacks homes to protect them from the bullets of white supremacists the latter regularly used to enter black neighborhoods and terrorize the inhabitants.

Williams narrative explains in detail the use of guns as an essential tool of self-defense and the importance of militant struggle along with peaceful campaigns. Local police and FBI had condoned these attacks and blacks had no other option but to possess guns as per their second amendment rights.
Gun control is a hotly debated issue in the United States and proponents of gun rights argue that it is the best way to ensure ones safety during turbulent times. Opponents, however, argue that state protection is enough to guarantee ones security.

Williams book has a clear tilt towards the first group  the proponents of individual ownership of guns  as he thinks that armless men can become easy targets of criminals and rioters.

He elaborates his theory by citing the main event that prevented bloodshed in Monroe. White supremacist had gathered in large numbers in response to the arrival of Freedom Riders from the north. While these Freedom Riders came with the non-violence message of Martin Luther King Jr., Minute Men and other armed organizations of white men were ready to confront them. A large crowd gathered at the Monroe courthouse they taunted, and hurled slurs at Freedom Riders with threats to kill them. With no police protection in sight  as local police chief was a major sympathizer of KKK  Williams group had to take things in their own hands.

They used guns as their tool of self-defense but still did not open fire on whites. It was only after threats of violence that two state troopers came to the rescue of Freedom Riders. Whites were obviously enraged at this state protection of Negroes and a white couple decided to test the limits of black tolerance by driving through their neighborhood with racist flags attached on their car. Blacks stopped them and took them hostage but Williams provided them asylum in his house and tamed the mounting anger of the black community that had otherwise killed the couple.

The self-defense strategy of Williams averted any massacre and rioting but plotting whites entangled him in kidnapping charges of the white couple. He had to flee the town and ultimately the state to avoid arrest and ultimately sought asylum in Cuba and then China.

While he was not involved in the later part of the civil rights movement  which most historians consider the zenith of racial struggle in America  he led the armed self-defense that also earned him the ire of the national leadership of NAACP. They suspended him for six months and leveled other charges against him.

Irrespective of his later travails and asylums in Cuba and China, Williamss initial struggle and use of arms as an essential means of self-defense provided ample security to local blacks who otherwise might have died thanks to the massive gathering of KKK and other white supremacist organizations at the time.

Another context of gun rights for self-defense is evident from the fact that black political struggle for civil rights was largely non-violent but riots did break out in areas where they met extreme resistance. There were some black armed militias, including Williams group, but each of these armed groups require a separate analysis as each of them had separate ideology.

Strain (2005) has dissected the historical perspective of blacks using guns as a tool of self-defense during the civil rights movement. Apart from Williams famous quote when he said that, violence must be met with violence, there are other examples of black militarism during the time.

Local laws and statutes of that era allowed the use of guns as a tool of defense as long as they were loaded and publicly displayed. Southern culture, with its emphasis on All American macho culture and guns, was unable to comprehend the non-violent tactics of black civil rights activists. Most assumed that the movement would wither away and KKK and other groups started congregating to confront peaceful black activists and to lynch a few to end the movement.

Williams, Malcolm X, Black Panther Party and other militant organizations and individuals surfaced as a direct reaction of the non-violent and Gandhi-inspired policies of MLK. They wanted a direct confrontation with a major chunk among them only going as far as keeping guns as tools of self-defense. A minority group was more interested in bloody confrontation and retribution. Both ideologies prevailed but the first group was able to take charge in most cases and thus avoided any large scale rioting or massacres.

Strain emphasizes that the amalgamation of militancy in civil rights empowered the otherwise disenfranchised youth but also created serious problems for the society. Nation of Islam and other groups preached hatred towards whites that created difficulties for people who were working towards an amicable desegregation and broader social acceptance of blacks.

He, however, also argues that use of guns as self-defense and Williams policies averted massacres and played an important role in North- and South Carolina where black farmers were not active in the civil rights movements before his arrival at the center stage of the movement. Williams himself describes that only 4 of blacks were registered as voters and there were only a few members of the local NAACP chapter before he took the matters into his own hands.

Kleck (2005) argues that the main reason behind gun possession is for self-defense and always has been since their invention. Post civil rights gun possessions rates in the United States have dwindled but not to a degree where one can assume that people are no longer interested in keeping guns.

Local conditions at the time permitted the use of guns, especially in the southern states where KKK had a massive presence and blacks were facing daily beatings and social and economic boycott. Kleck, however, opines that guns exacerbated problems instead of solving issues.

He has mostly focused on the contemporary gun control laws and gun possession trends to analyse changes in public perceptions and their correlation with crime rates. As a tool of self-defense, guns have not been able to reduce crimes. According to figures quoted in Klecks book, Americans use guns for self-defense for as high as one million times in a year. With an average of 4 Americans possessing guns, this ratio is quite high.

He also argues that it is the duty of law enforcement agencies to provide ample security to every citizen instead of the latter depending on its own firepower.

While one can debate the contemporary gun possession trends ad infinitum and many points raised by Kleck holds water, civil rights era was a different time. Gun possession helped blacks in the southern states to ward off attacks by white supremacists. There were some incidents of rioting but overall the situation remained calm and the loss of life was not a great as it would have been had blacks relied solely on non-violent struggle.

Even in Monroe alone, casualty rate would have been significant  as high as in hundreds  in absence of a basic defense policy adopted by Williams and his compatriots.  They were able to strive for their rights in a mostly peaceful manner despite the fact that local police and FBI agents had visible tilt towards whites and they were not ready to let go of Williams and other black leaders easily.

Gun control is necessary but it should not come at the expense of reduced security for ordinary citizens of the United States. Blacks and racial minorities still face discrimination in law enforcement and complete gun riddance might result in serious consequences (Jacobs, 2002). Blacks proved that they can use guns as an effective means of self-defense during the movement and others can learn some lessons from that period, especially those that are averse to gun possession for any purpose.

The 1989 civil war movie Glory starring Matthew Broderick and Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman and directed by Edward Zwick.  The film is about the formation of the 54th Massachusetts Regiment, a unit primarily consisting of African-Americans who came from varying backgrounds such as former slaves and free blacks.  They were formed in 1863 following President Abraham Lincolns Emancipation Proclamation and fought with distinction is several skirmishes.  Perhaps the most famous action they took part in was their assault on Fort Wagner which resulted in the death of their first commanding officer, Colonel Robert Gould Shaw.  Despite the loss of their first commander and a substantial number of their men in this engagement, the 54th was reconstituted and went on to take part in many more engagements until it was disbanded at the end of the war.

In the film, another colored infantry regiment was featured as well, the 2nd Regiment South Carolina Volunteer Infantry commanded by Colonel James Montgomery, a   Jayhawk  from Kansas.  The 2nd was made up of blacks from the surrounding area of South Carolina as opposed to the 54th which was made up of blacks who came from all over, including freed and escaped slaves from the South.  In the movie Glory, the 2nd is depicted as a unit made up of seemingly uneducated blacks, lacking manners and discipline that typical of any military unit like the 54th when both are to be compared.  The men were called  Contrabands (Zwick).   The 2nd would be notorious for pillaging and looting the town of Darien, Georgia which made the image of black soldiers tainted.  One caveat here is that this unit is different from a unit whose story is being told in Thomas Wentworth Higginsons book, Army Life in a Black Regiment, which focuses on the 1st South Carolina Regiment and the way Higginson described it is a far cry from the rowdy bunch commanded by Colonel Montgomery that committed abuses in Darien and supported (unwillingly) by Colonel Shaw and his 54th Massachusetts Regiment.  As a matter of fact, Higginson, in his journal entry on December 2, 1862 states

We are exposed to no direct annoyance from the white regiments, being out of their way and we have as yet no discomforts or privations which we do not share with them. I do not as yet see the slightest obstacle, in the nature of the blacks, to making them good soldiers, but rather the contrary. They take readily to drill, and do not object to discipline they are not especially dull or inattentive they seem fully to understand the importance of the contest, and of their share in it. They show no jealousy or suspicion towards their officers (11).

Incidentally, this was how the 54th Massachusetts was also depicted in the film.  It was a well-trained, well-disciplined unit which underwent intensive preparation despite the difficult conditions they had to go through such as getting shoes, being paid well and even the training itself before even being deployed to the combat zone in the South.  There is another similarity between the 54th Massachusetts and the 1st South Carolina where the men were deeply religious, if not spiritual.  In the film, the men of the 54th, on the eve of their assault on Fort Wagner, gathered around the bonfire and engaged in a spiritual activity with singing and speaking as a form of preparation for battle (Zwick  Gallagher, 96-98).  In Higginsons account, he would observe the men in camp doing the similar thing as well (13).

This film is one of the many movies made to depict the American civil war.  In his book, Causes Won, Lost and Forgotten, Gary Gallagher points out how such movies tend to be consistent to the four interpretative traditions of the war   the Lost Cause, which leans a lot on the Confederate side which tends to portray a gallant yet futile struggle against hopeless odds.  Such tradition denied the importance of slavery in causing secession and war, and ascribed to themselves constitutional gallantry on the battlefield in the defense of state rights against the alleged  tyranny  of Washington.  One good example of a civil war film that adheres to this tradition would be Gods and Generals and to some extent, Gettysburg and The Last Full Measure though Gods and Generals but a lot more emphasis on the gallantry and nobleness displayed by the Confederacy (11-12).

For the Union (Won) Cause, emancipation represented a tool to punish slavery and to weaken or  discredit  the Confederacy but unfortunately Hollywood, in earlier movies, would depict Union soldiers quite differently.  They are seen more as cruel and more racists than the Confederates.  After the release of Glory, that attitude has changed, and such movies like Gettysburg and The Last Full Measure would underscore that new attitude though Cold Mountain and Dances with Wolves appear to follow the old way of depicting the Union.  Gallagher further adds that Hollywood tends to depict Union soldiers the same way as American soldiers during the Vietnam War and such movies as Platoon, Full Metal Jacket , Apocalypse Now and  Casualties of War would come into mind (94-95).

The Reconciliation tradition, also related to the Union, adheres to the need of reconciliation, as the name suggests.  This aims to put behind the hurt and animosity that tore the nation asunder. What makes the adherents of the Reconciliation tradition different is that they tend to avoid discussion about which was the more just cause, supporters of the Union never wavered in their insistence that Confederates cause was wrong. The problem with this tradition is that it placed too much emphasis on the fence-mending attitude of the whites of both the north and south and in doing so, set aside, if not totally omit the issue slavery, or at least the issue of emancipation. And despite the Unionists insisting that the Confederates have pursued the wrong cause, many former Confederates, along with their descendants and regardless of their profession of loyalty to the Union, continue to assert  themselves in celebrating a struggle for southern independence (Gallagher, 12-13).

The Emancipation Cause, related to the Union Cause, stood as the most important goal of the northern war effort which also gives it a noble mission worth taking as the cause is seen to be more glorious than merely keeping the Union intact.  Glory, and to an extent, Cold Mountain and Sommersby would fall into this tradition.  As stated above, Glory tells of the story of the formation of a military unit which was mainly composed of African-Americans.

The significance of this movie is that it made the general public (surprisingly) aware that there indeed existed such units in the civil war.  The general impression was that white men were the only Union soldiers.  This movie intends to rectify that wrong impression.  As stated earlier, the 54th was made up of blacks who came from various walks of life and this is reflected in some of the characters there such as Thomas Searles (Andre Braugher), an educated free black, which shows in his manner of dress and of speech that he is sophisticated.  There is Trip (Denzel Washington), a runaway slave with a rebellious streak John Rawlins (Morgan Freeman), a gravedigger who would later become the Sergeant-Major of the regiment and Jupiter Sharts (Jhimi Kennedy), another free black man but unlike Thomas, is illiterate and stutters in the film, he is seen to be a skilled shot with a musket (Zwick).  The diversity of the blacks in the unit underscores the impact the Emancipation Proclamation had upon them. This is also true in Higginsons account when he said

They did not get their freedom by enlisting they had it already. They enlisted to serve the government, trusting in its honor. Now the nation turns upon them and says Your part of the contract is fulfilled we have had your services. If you can show that you had previously been free for a certain length of time, we will fulfill the other side of the contract. If not, we repudiate it Help yourselves, if you can (214).

The film also showed the difficulties and risks involved in forming such a unit.  In one scene, Colonel Shaw (Matthew Broderick) addressed the men about the decree enacted by the Confederacy where any black serving in the Union would be returned to slavery or executed and the same held true for any white officer like himself who would lead such men into combat.  Shaw was expecting a lot of them to be intimidated by this decree and would volunteer out but surprisingly, all of them remained the next day, a sign that they were fully committed to the cause of emancipation and everything the Union stands for and were willing to put their lives on the line as an expression of their freedom (Zwick).  The film leans more on the Won Cause, or as stated earlier, Emancipation which is still related to the Won Cause.  Though Gallagher made a distinction between four different traditions, the tradition of emancipation is intertwined with that of the Union (Won) Cause, because it also upholds the freedom of the slaves along with its desire to preserve and restore the Union. Higginsons above-mentioned account underscores this cause as well.  In the film, it did not focus much on the Confederate side and they are depicted as a faceless entity since the center of attention are the African-Americans.

It is the authors opinion that Glory does not present a skewed view of history.  The film remains very true to the actual events that took place despite the exercise of artistic license in the portrayal of some characters such as Major Forbes (Cary Elwes) who was not the actual second-in-command of the 54th but Lieutenant Colonel Norwood Penrose Hallowell.  It was his younger brother, Edward who would go on and command the regiment following Shaws death.  The story is based mainly on the letters and accounts left by Shaw.  As a discipline, history regards accuracy (of facts) as a virtue and when such events are depicted on film, it must adhere to this virtue.  Failure to do so would not do justice to the historical event and to those who participated in it, especially those who are still living even though filmmakers claim, they care more about entertainment than education, hence the liberal use of artistic license.

In Glory, despite the emancipation of slaves, tensions were still there as whites, even northerners towards the blacks.  The film did not show the  enemy  side very much except for the battle scenes and instead, the conflict was within the Union ranks.  Such as the case when the men were not issued proper gear, especially shoes.  This was underscored when Trip left camp to find shoes and was mistaken for a deserter.  Another was the pay where they received a lesser sum compared to their white counterparts.  There is even the taunting between black and white union soldiers and even within the 54th when Trip continually insults Thomas because of his refined background, calling him a  chimp in a suit (Zwick).    This was also evident in Higginsons account in the issue of bounties (207-208).

In conclusion, the value is very high in depicting the civil war on film.  Like other historical films, this is intended to be a useful supplement to printed readings which makes students of history understand the material better.  Best of all, films also capture the emotions of the events taking place which captivates audiences far better than any reading material that is too sterile and devoid of these emotions.  As stated before, nothing is lost and what is gained is a better understanding on these events and makes it easy to digest and understand primary sources.

Thomas Paine is a prolific writer whose dedication to freedom of speech and supports the right of each man made a significant impact in history.  Age of Reason is an essay about religion and his viewpoint on the subject.  He believed in one God and one alone, free from any doctrine and beliefs, and views the moral teachings of different religions and churches, like the Jewish, Catholic, Turkish and others, as a fabrication of facts to manipulate peoples thinking of what is wrong and right.  The only church he trust is his own.

Thomas Paine went on discussing that these different religions have their own take on the word of God, from angels to divine intervention to Moses, which have diverse beliefs on the teachings and even questions each others principles.  He points out the inconsistencies in the writings of the word of God in these various churches that mislead peoples view on what really is the truth.  Paine believed that when the word revelation is applied, it depicts that there is a direct communication between man and God.  He doesnt question the capabilities of God and how God can communicate with mankind if he wishes to, but query in hand is, as revelation is a direct statement to one person, the revelation only pertains to that person.  When that person passes the information to the next person and the person after that and so on, it is not a revelation anymore to the second, third, fourth individual.  It is now considered as hearsay information as it was just passed on and may have been edited at some point of the communication.  Thomas Paine regards revelation as something that cannot be invented by human mind and impossible to modify.

He continued to talk about the makings of the scripture and how it was formulated, causing queries on the credibility of information.  The discussion about how creation, religion and God are connected to different aspect of being arises.  Through astronomy, science and theology, it manifests that the study is not about God alone anymore, but instead focus on the writings of mankinds understanding about the matter.  He urges people to rely not only to the writings of the revelation but have conscious logical reason before taking things to heart.

He also expressed his doubts on how the Christians have altered the innocence of the theology, opening it to a field of fallacy.  He pointed out the hypocrisy of the beliefs and the morality of principles, stating that many churches and its goers exhibit a pretentious behavior   that is inconsistent with the teachings that they preach.  They yield to deceitfulness for the sake of personal satisfaction, forgetting the ethics for their church and religion.  The hunger for power and the urge of corruption lead the Christians to be a questionable morality model.

Other preachers convey the message that if they believe in Christ, sins are pardoned, freeing them from guilt. In turn, this encourages the followers to succumb to sin, since they were convinced that such belief will save them from condemnation.  They also state that God has pre-selected those who will be saved and those who will be damned in the future which brings a message of uncertainty and doubt to a persons being. Paine clearly viewed this preaching as misleading and prejudiced.

Also included in part (2) two of his writings, depicts the content of the bible and questions the purity of the scripture.  He doubts the integrity of the information, since it wasnt clearly presented who the real source of the content of the bible.  There is no direct proof of the writer or that it even exist.  He was also skeptic with the accuracy of information and content of the book, specifically the content of the Old and the New Testament, being falsified due to its history of malice.  Paine was convinced that this was a man-made myth and not exactly from Almighty itself.

He goes on to conclude that the creation is the scripture of deist, that all the testaments and writings of other bibles are fraudulent and merely forgeries.  The content of the testaments, like the stories, fables and obscure writings, only confuses the masses more on the accuracy of beliefs and teachings and move towards the weakening belief in God.  The contradictions of the writings and the preaching only proves that people are being mislead into a pool of confusion on which and where to position their morality and their principles.

He clearly voiced out his remorse to Christianity and its hypocrisy to the morality and it points as an insult to God.  He views that the Christian church is a study of nothing and lacks knowledge about the creator.  Paine also attests to his beliefs in Deism, where when a man emphasized fully his belief on God, his principles and morality will seek towards that belief and in turn would not do the things that might contradict that belief.    He urges that the Bible of Creation is the only viable foundation of principles and should be the basis of Theology.

He also compared religion to science, not knowing the Creator itself but by the work He has done.  He pointed out that The creator of man is the creator of science, that in this belief its like knowing the creator as if in person.   True enough, other religions create their own beliefs, that they have created stories that contradict and disparage the true identity of God.

He closed the writing with a message that every person has the right to believe what he thinks is just.  Whatever he said in this essay can be interpreted in many levels and leaves the conclusion to the readers imagination.  Paine believes that opinions are free, not just in religion or government, but in general.  He points that at the end of everything, the truth will always prevail.

Analysis and Reaction
Thomas Paine clearly voiced his investigation, comprehensions, hesitations and disbeliefs of some details of various religions that have been around for decades.  Focusing on the content of the bible, he elaborated the inconsistency he strongly believed that makes the context questionable and unreliable.

Various religions that now exist in our society have different beliefs and extent of faith that brings confusion on where to place ourselves in terms of morality.  Thomas Paine believes there is one God, and with the scriptures brought to light, he doesnt approve the methods of specific religions.  People around the world have practiced the right to choose and the freedom of choice, especially with regards to religion. Paine pointed out the contradictions of the Christian teachings and how one can preach morality and act inappropriately.

He strongly believed that there is one God alone and that there shouldnt be a representation of God for this only put conflict to the belief.  In his other writing, Common Sense, he discussed that when the Jews created a King for their people, it produced a window for sin.  Paine stated
In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology, there were no kings the consequence of which was there were no wars it is the pride of kings which throw mankind into confusion.

There should only be one God ruling mankind, but when man is placed in the position to rule his fellow being, is a severe offense.

Religion has been a long lived sensitive matter for any being, and to be questioned on its credibility can create a mass of argument.  During the period, where Paine released the Age of reason to America, it opened a whole new argument in the revolution.  Some have viewed Paine as an atheist but later on was accepted as a bold awakening for social control.  We see how religion and government are connected but at the same time created conflict.

As what he state in Common Sense, he argued that monarchy originated by sin.  Like what he mentioned about the Christian beliefs, that constitutes head and high priest as their guidance, it is more evident to succumb to sin because of the power of position that it holds.  Therefore, it contradicts the principles of following the acts of honesty and purity, when corruption is apparent.  Paine has despised how the Christians use the position as a means of gaining control to what people should think and follow, deceiving them of their acts of injustice and deceit.

He was opposed to the idea of monarchy in the government as he views this as inequality of the people and hinders them to practice their rights of man.  He believes in the equality of man and each deserves this privilege. Although he didnt imply that he doesnt believe in Jesus Christ, but how the Christ was represented like one of us and dying for our sins is quite confusing to Paine.  He questioned the totality and accuracy of stories of the Old and New Testament and how they were conceived to be true.  He knew soon enough that after he wrote Common Sense and it tackled the issues in the revolution and the structure of its government, he will continue on tackling the religion and how it has a great impact in the government.

I may not agree completely to what he believes is factual and how he discuss the discrepancy of the bibles content, but I can see the idea behind the writing.  It may dawn on you at the beginning that he is a cynic when it comes to the teachings of the churches, but when you have fully read the elaborations and explanation you see a glimpse of a possibility that it might be true.  We may have our differences in beliefs and teachings, we may choose to follow or work against it, the bottom line still exist that our right of choice still prevails.  I dont feel that he is totally encouraging readers to change their minds about the religion that they are into, but it is more of the intake of the message he wishes to put across.

Regardless of what religion we belong to or believe in, we must never forget the true essence of what that religion represents.  There may have contradictions to Thomas Paines views, his choice of words may come as a shock to some and the expansion of his views to the parts of the Bible may be too vulgar and unseemly, but he is practicing his rights to free expression.  He could have used a lighter and more wholesome take to it, as not to create a conclusion that he despises what these religion has reveal. A more subtle approach on the discussion can probably persuade the readers more to take a second look at the things that we see and may believe.

He may have taken the context too literally that created a whole new argument to the matter.  For some, people say that when you read the bible, each person has different understanding, take or reflection to it and it depends on the person that is reading the verses, how she sees between the lines.  I have nothing against Paines writing, like he has nothing against the religions and what their beliefs may be.  He just wrote what he feels deemed necessary to open the minds of the people about the probable deceptions these teachings convey.

Religion did play a huge part in our history.  It is one of the catalyst that created what the government and law is following now.  Age of reason is a powerful essay of belief, principles and conviction.  Some may not understand what the writing is trying to tell us, and some may be offended as well, but it serves to open our minds of other possibilities rather than sticking to one detail.  Age of reason may not only talk about religion and its effects to the society, it also encourages readers to think outside the box.

There are instances in the essay that clearly batters the writings of the bible.  Its an ongoing argument that may never be resolved, for in our current generation, there will always come a Thomas Paine in our midst that will raise questions to matters like this.  His methods may be wrong in some ways but I do believe his intentions were true.

When James Marshall found gold in the American River, he unknowingly initiated a set of events that dramatically transformed California and the United States. The paper compares various and different relations between white miners and the African Americans, Indians, and Chinese in the mining camps. The second paper looks at various and different relations between the white miners, the Europeans and Latin Americans in the mining camps. They look at the various roles played by gender in both situations.

The movement of millions of Anglo Americans, black Americans, European Immigrants, Mexican immigrants, and Chinese into the American West, rearranged the social and physical landscape and altered forever the regions history. The number of Chinese immigrants was hard to compute and the vast majority of the 105,465 Chinese in the United States as a whole lived in the West.  In 1880, there were 75,132 Chinese in California alone, Chinese migration was at the mercy of unique forces and the Congress in 1882, passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which virtually ended legal Chinese immigration. Chinese American population declined while American borders remained open to Europeans. This portrays the levels of racism that engulfed the relationship between the white miners and the Chinese
A worse situation applied for Africans since slavery and laws banning the settlement of free blacks in states and territories such as Oregon and Kansas, restricted black migration to the West before the Civil War. Almost 3000 blacks had migrated to California by 1850, but they failed in their attempt to claim their rights as American citizens. Anti-black legislation in the 1850s relegated them to second class citizenship, and many left to seek a better life in Canada. It was only in Texas where black slaves worked in the fields of the eastern part of the state, where there was a substantial black population before 1865.

The Indians had no better relations with the Americans. This is clearly evident in scrutiny of the immigrants trails to the mines. Indians killed 362 whites on the trail, whites killed 426 Indians. Other migrants died at the hands of white outlaws, who disguised as Indians, they were also responsible for atrocities which were blamed on Indians such torturing children. Despite all these atrocities executed on the Chinese, Africans and the Indians they all mixed together with European immigrants on the roads to the California mines.

The Indians, Chinese, and African Americans had a difficult time in relating with the white miners at the camp. Racism was of the highest degree which created a sour relation among the races. There was also a gender bias which had a role to play in determining the relation of these groups of immigrants.

Racism
It was often that Californian resentments against slavery as unfair competition with free labor were played out in campaigns against the experienced Mexicans who had deployed slaves to increase their work force. In 1852, there were about two thousand Africans Americans in California. Slavery was outlawed in the state but some of these Africans came with their masters to work in the mines whereas the others were free blacks or escaped slaves who hoped to earn enough to pay for the families freedom back in the south. The Californian Military Governor John Mason determined that only foreigners that attempted to work in the mines would be treated as trespassers. In reality all the miners were trespassers since none had the legal right to possess or work on land. This law provided the basis for a foreign miners tax that demanded 20 dollars per person per month. This generated high resistance among these foreigners and the tax was reduced to three to four dollars per month per person.

In the year 1848, there were said to be only 3 Chinese in California, but a year later they were 700. The number increased to 10,000 in 1852, and to begin with did not face any opposition from the Americans as they did all the work the Americans refused to do for little money. The Americans later feared being driven out by the Chinese who might be used to lower the wages. They therefore decided to expel the Chinese from the diggings in many camps and where they were allowed to stay they were forced to work on separate, exhausted soil that allowed a very little return. The Chinese were also not allowed to testify in the California Courts and they organized their own district unions which handled disputes and took responsibility for the care of the sick and burial of the dead. This leads us to the conclusion that the factor responsible for disunion between the Chinese and the American miners was the Chinese wage labor which seemed to contradict the California ideology of free labor.

Gender Roles in the Relationship
Men were the decision makers. Migrating to the West was purely mens decisions such that three quarters of the women in a certain sample had opposed the decision to move citing the necessity of leaving parents or family members who they would most likely not see again. Migration was very difficult for women unless they could work as schoolteachers, prostitutes or domestic servants.
The broad net that drew people into California had a fine mesh it filtered out women and children, who together were about five per cent of the Gold Rush Migrants. Those women who entered the net, however, sometimes regretted it. This is the Paradise of men, I wonder if a paradise of poor women will ever be discovered. Martha Hitchcock wrote back home in 1851.

The migrants were thus predominantly male, and the greed, violence and occasioned deaths were very much prevalent as most men preferred to go physical when diplomacy failed. Nevertheless the first black to reach the camp mines was a woman, Clara Brown, who had purchased her own freedom from slavery she persuaded a group of gold prospectors departing for the west to hire her as a cook. Once in Colorado she started a series of laundries, and with the process she outfitted 34 of her relatives for a trip to Denver after the Civil War. Afterwards, she sponsored other blacks
The almost complete absence of women made the Anglo miners feminize Chinese and French men. This situation made them to make fortune in laundry and in cooking as often as they made in mining gold.

Conclusion
The lack of a controlling governmental democratic framework in the mines provided a perfect breeding ground for nativism and racism. The discrimination was initially based on some foreigners economic superiority, which was later intertwined with greed, opportunism and mutual hatred.

The relationship between the white miners, African Americans, and Chinese in the mining camps can be summarized by a note in the 1858, The San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin which reported a rare instance of authorities hanging a member of the Indian tribe for the multiple numbers of Chinese at California. White men are not usually hanged for killing Chinamen the article noted.

PART II
Introduction
By the beginning of 1849, word of the Gold Rush had spread around the world, and an overwhelming number of Gold-seekers and merchants began to arrive from virtually every continent. The largest group of the forty-niners in 1849 was Americans, arriving by the tens of thousands. They came from Latin America, particularly from the Mexican mining districts. The first immigrants from Europe had a longer distance to travel and they therefore began arriving in late 1849. They were mostly from France, Germany, Italy, and Britain who arrived from seafaring, coastal regions. The northern immigrants in the westward flowing stream tended to be northern Europeans and Canadians. Large numbers of Norwegians, Swedes, Germans, Irish, and Canadians migrated west and formed their own communities.

This paper will look at the relations that existed among these arrivals and the white miners at the mining camps. It will consider the role of gender and how it affected or influenced this relationship.

When the gold rush began in 1848 there were no federal regulations governing mining rights, and disputes about claim jumping- beginning work on a previously claimed site, were frequent and they could sometimes turn out to be violent. This led to creation of regulations so as to clarify when a mining site could be considered abandoned and available for a new claim. Miners however, had to be constantly vigilant to protect their claims as they had not established a permanent property right.

In 1850 when the easily accessible gold had been collected, and attention turned to extraction of gold from more difficult locations, the new California state Legislature passed a foreign miners tax of twenty dollars per month, and American prospectors began organized attacks on Latin Americans. These huge numbers of newcomers were also driving Native Americans out of their traditional hunting, fishing and food-gathering areas. In order to protect their homes and livelihood, some Native Americans responded by attacking these miners. This provoked counter attacks on native villages. The Native Americans, out-gunned, were often slaughtered. Those who escaped massacres were many times unable to survive without access to their food-gathering areas, and they starved to death.

Gender Roles
Women who came had roles such as single entrepreneurs, married women, poor and wealthy women, and prostitutes. Some came with their husbands, men sent for their wives at home and others came for the adventure and the economic opportunities. Many women were widowed long before arriving California, others widowed due to mining accidents, disease, or mining disputes of their husbands.
The physical and embodied nature of racial discrimination that defined the dynamics of class relations in the mining camps was made clear in conflicts surrounding sexuality. It became a sphere in which the dynamics of class tensions, ethnic and national relations defined by racisms were played out. Male workers expressed their loss of autonomy in terms of their loss of control of the masculine honor whose manhood was expressed by independence, physical strength, bravery and sexual freedom.
Miners viewed class domination by North American bosses as a form of sexual domination and exploitation which was propelled by racism. Male workers lost their dignity in their inability to guard or control womens sexual virtue. Miners were conscious of their own exploitation and the tales of North American bosses raping Chilean women confirmed this assertion.

June Nashs study of Bolivian tin miners reveals how women, community solidarity and the work itself created a revolutionary labor force that had a profound effect on the nation. Probably half the women in these mining camps were prostitutes. Alcohol, isolation, and struggles over access to gold were the main reasons for the increase in violence and homicide. There was less predictability in gender roles, being rather more flexible than in homes of most migrants. The society was dominated by men and they had to perform traditionally feminine domestic tasks or pay women entrepreneurs, good money in order to do so. This may have given married women more power and options. It was not until the end of easy riches and the arrival of significant numbers of white women in the 1850s that signaled the end of gold rush society. Newly arrived middle-class women curtailed gambling, drinking, prostitution, and much of the openness in gender roles that had characterized the region.

Conclusion
It would be very rational for us to conclude that white discrimination which was embodied on foreign miners in form of heavy taxes and other injustices, kept most Latin Americans and partly the Europeans out of the choice diggings. It did not work to profit them, as their income would barely meet the huge expenditures on food, shelter and entertainment which came in form of drinking and prostitutes.
The number of women in these camps was far much lower than that of men. The almost complete absence of women made relations among the men complicated. This had significant effect on gender roles as men performed traditionally feminine roles. Men went to the extent of fighting for women and this minimized further the chances of good relations between the various races. Lawlessness thrived and most men who had gone to seek for better opportunities and lifestyles met their deaths instead.

The declaration of independence was a phrase proclaiming the independence of the United States from Britain in 1776. The phrase expressed the ideas and beliefs of the founding fathers of the United States on what the role of the government should be. In the first line we hold truths to be self evident. The phrase identifies that the reason for founding of the government were rational and that laws could be used in determining what was right and wrong. In the second part that all men are created equal meant that the founders of the nation regarded that all people were equal before the law. The third sentence that they are endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights expressed the source of the liberties and rights of man the creator. This meant that the power of the people were before those of the government.

The phrase that among these are life and the pursuit of happiness expressed the rights the founders deemed to be important among the citizenly which all sum up to the right of being free. That to secure these rights governments is the institutes of men. The phrase highlights the belief in the founders of the nation that the powers of the government were vested on the people. The last phrase deriving there just powers from the consent of the governed meant that the founders believed that the government could only exist through the approval of the governed.  In 1865, in the celebration of American independence day fiftieth anniversary, the declaration of independence highlighted the new and freshly rejuvenated principles of freedom and liberty for America in the wake of abolition of slavery and the unity of the United States government at the end of the Civil War between the north and the south of America and signified the identity of the new nation. In todays America, the principles outlined in the declaration of independence are critical in the pursuit of the American dream in which democratic ideals are practiced in order to achieve liberty and prosperity for its citizens. These ideals have made America to be a beacon of affluence and liberty attained through the adoption of the principles of the declaration.

On October 28, 1962, BBC reported The world has breathed a collective sigh of relief after the superpowers reached an agreement ending the immediate threat of nuclear war (1962 World relief as Cuban missile crisis ends).  The leader of Russia, Nikita Khrushchev, had finally consented to the dismantlement of Russian missiles located in Cuba.  The missiles were to be brought back to USSR.  The president of the United States, John F. Kennedy had heard of this public announcement on Moscow radio (1962 World relief as Cuban missile crisis ends).  Kennedy had stated in response that this move was, indeed, a momentous contribution to peace (1962 World relief as Cuban missile crisis ends).  The president of the United States had further made a public announcement of his promise not to invade Cuba (1962 World relief as Cuban missile crisis ends).  He also promised to lift the US naval blockade that had been imposed on Cuba through the Cuban missile crisis (1962 World relief as Cuban missile crisis ends).  However, the United States required inspectors from the United Nations to ensure that the Russian missiles in Cuba had been dismantled before the blockade could be lifted (1962 World relief as Cuban missile crisis ends).    
   
The significance of the conditions imposed on Cuba can be illustrated by the fact that the Cuban missile crisis was about to lead to the first nuclear war in world history.  Both the United States and Soviet Union were ready to engage in this war.  Soviet Union had placed missiles in Cuba because these weapons could not have reached the United States from Russia.  The United States, on the other hand, owned missiles that could strike the entire USSR.  For Russia, therefore, placing missiles in Cuba was a defense tactic.  But, Soviet military stationed in Cuba was also ready to attack the United States with its nuclear weapons so as to protect the island from invasion (Wiersma  Larson, 1997, 3).  After all, Fidel Castro had agreed to allow Soviet Union to secretly construct its missile installations in his country (Wiersma  Larson, 3).  As the invasion of the Bay of Pigs had been a failure in the year 1961, Castro had believed that the United States was going to strike again (Wiersma  Larson, 3).  
   
The U.S. had no idea that the Soviet Union had placed its missiles in Cuba, until American spy planes uncovered in September 1962 that Russia was constructing launch sites on the island for its surface-to-air missiles.  The United States had further observed that Russian ships coming to Cuba were growing in number (Cuban Missile Crisis).  As Kennedy feared that Russians might be sending weapons to Cuba, he had complained to the government of USSR and also warned the second superpower that America would not tolerate offensive weapons, which include surface-to-air missiles, on the island (Cuban Missile Crisis).  But, Cuba was now in the position to destroy American spy planes, U-2, with its surface-to-air missile installations (Cuban Missile Crisis).  As Kennedy had already been criticized for his policies on the island of Cuba, and elections for the United States Congress were due soon, the president decided at the time to restrict the number of flights of the American U-2 planes over the island (Cuban Missile Crisis).  He did not only desire to save American spy planes from being shot down in Cuba with this decision, but he also wanted to prevent turning Cuba into a controversial issue through the upcoming election campaign (Cuban Missile Crisis).      
   
On September 27, an agent of the CIA overheard the personal pilot of Castro telling a man in a bar that his country now possessed nuclear weapons (Cuban Missile Crisis).  American spy planes also took photographs showing that there was unusual activity in the area of San Cristobal in Cuba (Cuban Missile Crisis).  However, it was not until photographs were taken to reveal that the USSR was, indeed, placing long range missiles on the island that the United States could confirm its suspicions (Cuban Missile Crisis).  This happened on October 15, 1962 (Cuban Missile Crisis).  Kennedy was not informed about the photographs until the morning of October 16.  The president decided to arrange for the EX-COMM as soon as he had heard the news.  Through the EX-COMM, twelve of the most trusted advisors to the president were required to get together with him so as to resolve the crisis (Wiersma  Larson, 3-4).    
   
Kennedy held intense discussions with his advisors for a number of days.  These debates were not revealed to the public.  The American people had not even been informed about Russian missiles in Cuba (Wiersma  Larson, 4).  Top officials of the government of the United States desired to reach a consensus about their reaction to the crisis before it could be revealed to the public.  As the president and his top advisors weighed their governments options, they could have decided to absolutely ignore the threat (Cuban Missile Crisis).  In that case, the American people may never have been informed about the crisis.  Another option was for the United States to make a deal with the Soviet Union, asking it to dismantle missiles on the island of Cuba in return, the United States could have agreed to withdraw its own missiles from Italy and Turkey.  Missiles were withdrawn from Italy and Turkey three months after the crisis.  However, the United States did not have to negotiate with the Soviet Union to agree to this.  Rather, America withdrew its missiles secretly (Cuban Missile Crisis).
   
The government of the United States further considered the options of invasion and blockade of the island of Cuba through its debates at the time (Cuban Missile Crisis).  It was possible to carry out conventional air-strikes against military targets and, of course, the missiles in Cuba to boot (Cuban Missile Crisis).  Nuclear weapons were also available to the United States to use against USSR andor Cuba.  Just the same, the United States government had to weigh the costs and benefits of its various options by considering not only the reactions of the American people but also those of Cuba and Russia (Cuban Missile Crisis).  Undoubtedly, Russia and Cuba could have attacked the United States with nuclear weapons if the latter had chosen to employ them.  As the decision to attack Cuba could have been highly dangerous for the United States, the top government officials meeting with President Kennedy were especially divided over the option to attack the missile installations in Cuba (Cuban Missile Crisis).
   
Even though the United States military and CIA were in favor of the options to invade Cuba and carry out bombing raids, the rest of the government officials meeting with the president eventually showed preference for the option to impose a naval blockade (Cuban Missile Crisis).  As the majority of his advisors decided to opt for a blockade, Kennedy honored the decision before instructing Theodore Sorensen, a member of his advisory team, to compose a speech through which the president of the United States could explain to the rest of the world why it was necessary to choose this option to deal with the crisis (Cuban Missile Crisis).  On October 22, the president delivered the speech to announce that the United States had discovered Russian missile installations in Cuba, and his government had decided to quarantine the island (Wiersma  Larson, 4).  Kennedy further declared that the United States would regard launching of a nuclear missile from the island as an attack by Russia (Wiersma  Larson, 4).  Additionally, the president demanded removal of all offensive weapons from the island of Cuba (Wiersma  Larson, 4).
   
At the same time, Kennedy commanded the air force to get ready to attack both Soviet Union and Cuba.  As the government was still unsure of how the enemies would react, the United States army was further commanded to position more than one hundred thousand men in the state of Florida where they could wait for the order to invade the island.  War could have begun if Russian ships arriving to Cuba had refused U.S. inspection during this time.  Moreover, if Soviet ships that carried weapons to Cuba were to refuse to turn back, the United States could have started war (Cuban Missile Crisis).  Kennedy had ordered low level spy planes to fly over Cuba every two hours (Wiersma  Larson, 4).  The president had vowed to attack the missile installations in Cuba if the enemies were to shoot down any of his spy planes (Cuban Missile Crisis).  
   
The world waited anxiously (Cuban Missile Crisis).  Neither the Soviets nor the Americans could foretell the outcome of the crisis.  There were angry protests staged in various parts of Europe, including London.  Most Americans expected a nuclear war to begin.  Even so, they were supportive of their president through this time.  Kennedy learned on October 24 that Russian ships had stopped moving in the direction of Cuba after spotting U.S. ships that blockaded the island.  Khrushchev dispatched an angry letter to the president that evening, stating that Kennedy had deliberately created a crisis to win public support before the election (Cuban Missile Crisis).  On October 25, the president of the United States raised military readiness, expecting the worst (Wiersma  Larson, 4).
   
The following day, the leader of USSR issued another letter to Kennedy, proposing the removal of Russian personnel and missiles if the United States were to agree not to invade Cuba.  On October 27, an American spy plane was shot down in Cuba before the United States government received yet another letter from Khrushchev demanding of the U.S. to remove its missiles from Turkey.  In exchange, the Russians were willing to remove their missiles from the island of Cuba (Wiersma  Larson, 4).
   
Although Kennedy was reminded of his promise to bomb Cuba if any of the American spy planes were fired upon, the president refused to honor his promise at the time, as peace was of the essence (Cuban Missile Crisis).  Attorney General Robert Kennedy advised the president to ignore the second letter (Wiersma  Larson, 4).  Anatoly Dobrynin, the Soviet Ambassador, was contacted soon after with the decision of the U.S. government to accept the terms of the letter issued on October 26 (Wiersma  Larson, 4 Cuban Missile Crisis).  Thus, the two superpowers were able to avert nuclear war, protecting countless innocent people around the world from man-inflicted disaster.                            

America sent troops in Iraq in 2001. Since then, the question of whether the troops have achieved what they went to do is still unanswered. Basing on the previous Anti-war campaigns around the world with the USA and Britain leading the park, its clear that the troops have brought more harm to the volatile Iraq than any good. Tony Blairs meeting with George Bush where he agreed to send British troops to Iraq have since then brought controversies making him face a tribunal to answer for his decisions. Even after change in leadership, there are still American troops in Iraq killing innocent civilians including women and children. President Obama has just been good in speeches giving promises that the troops shall be removed from Iraq something that has never happened.

Media coverage has mainly concentrated around the Anti-war and war campaign crusades being done by both the British and American citizens of the two super powers forgetting what the African continent has to say about this. It is important to know what other world leaders including those in Africa think about the war in Iraq.

African Leaders view on war in Iraq
Over the years, Africa has been seen as an underdog in any major global decisions. In 2003 March, all African leaders through the African Union opposed the war against Iraq citing major catastrophic implications to their continent. However, since the war was declared, many people have been left wondering on how to deal with the issue as it has seen some leaders withdrawing from their first stands and backing up the then president Bush.

Even though the African Union Spokesman Desmond Orjiako alterated the fact that the African Union stand had not changed and that President Bush could have gone for the implementation of resolution 1441 by the Iraq Government he emphasized that if the inspectors could have been allowed to do their job in Iraq, they could have come up with other non-violence ways of disarming Iraq rather than war. War was not the solution as it kills innocent civilians. He spoke comparing to what war had turned countries like Rwanda and Somali into. He acknowledged the fact that it destroys countries social amenities like good roads, power supplies, hospitals and schools. He farther commented that war destroys the poor countries especially when fighting with the rich like in the case of Iraq and the USA. The already marginalized countries continue to be marginalized even further and even suggested that million of dollars being invested in war like activities by Americans be channeled to Africa in form of Aid for the development of the continent and help it fight disasters like HIVAIDS, Malaria and extreme poverty.

Unfortunately, immediately after this, the Cameroonian president Paul Biya visited ex President George Bush to discuss about the two countries cooperation. This was a blow to the AU for he later announced that his country alongside Ethiopia and Eritrea will support the then President Bush. Uganda later followed suit.

A war of words later emerged among Senegal, Nigeria and South Africa. Apparently, the three countries had agreed to sign a letter which stated that they were against the so called war against terrorism urging Bush to ensure the preservation of the United Nations credibility and maintain justice to avoid people seeking extreme measures to get it. They urged the USA to let the UN go ahead and implement its resolution 1441 and disarm Iraq not only for the benefit of Iraq but also the interest of Africa, Middle East and the whole world in general. The process was to be transparent and meet the UN standards, as it will help the Continent achieve its millennium goals. However, the Senegalese president, Abdoulaye Wade sent another letter supporting Bushs policies and Bush later endorsed his letter rejecting the letter that was submitted first causing a lot of embarrassment to the continent. This was contrary to his earlier view that war would lead to unnecessary terrorism which would lead to increased prices of oil hence negatively affect the non- oil producing African countries.

The Causes of Controversy
The controversies surrounding different African states arise as a result of threat from European countries to impose sanctions to countries that would not support the war against terrorism. Most countries depend from Aid and loans from the USA and Britain hence compelled to support their policies. A country like Kenya has supported America for a long time and this has landed it in trouble for it has been bombed twice. The first was on the American Embassy in Nairobi and secondly in Mombassa leading to the deaths of many civilians. Sadly, America has done little to stop such like actions from reoccurring.

Eritrea and Ethiopia chose to support America for their own benefit. It is clear that the two countries are on the verge of war so supporting America would avoid the other taking advantage on the boundary issues by being supported by America for supporting their policies (Nohrstedt  Ottesen 2005).

Nigerias Uniqueness
Nigeria has been on the cross roads with the USA for it has been the greatest protestors against war in Iraq. Having large number of Muslim followers, the USA and Britain at one time stopped their diplomatic activities in Nigeria due to the Muslims in the country uprising against them. Osama Bin Laden in his broadcast had asked the Nigerian Muslims to takeover leadership. The USA further went ahead to stop any military assistance to Nigeria unless they supported the war against Iraq. This relation has further been damaged by a Nigerian Muslim who was caught with Bombs in attempt to kill the US citizens.

Conclusion
It is clear that Africans will never have one stand when it comes to the War in Iraq. This is mainly as a result of their poor political systems and Poverty which almost make them enslaved to the Western Countries. Even if other African states do support the protests, their views have never and will never matter because apart from speeches, they have nothing else to offer.