This seminar is over::
I'm about to turn in my paper... meaning I'll be done with this seminar! As you can tell I didn't write about all of the selections I read throughout the whole quarter, however I did write about them all in my paper, all twenty-two pages of it! Also, as you might have noticed, my posts are pretty much unedited because I just used them as jumping off points for my paper. Thank you and I hope you enjoy reading!
Origins of the Cold War, edited by Thomas Paterson, chapter: Harry S Truman as Parochial Nationalist, written by Arnold Offner - week 7::
"Who was Harry S Truman, what were his assumptions, and did his style of leadership matter? More generally, what weight do we give to a powerful individual in an explanation of postwar world conflict that also includes analysis of competing national interests and ideologies and of international systemic causes? ... Arnold A. Offner tackles such questions in a critical study of Truman as a
parochial nationalist who seemed better suited to Missouri politics than to global politics." (49)
This summarizes what the reading is about. I honestly didn't know that much at all about Truman before reading this. I asked my mom what she thought of Truman and she said she was very young when he was president, but her mom thought of Truman as a pretty good president. My dad said something similar. However, this writer, Arnold A. Offner, definitely didn't like Truman. After reading this I want to read some of the biographies and articles that Offner talks about briefly that say Truman was a great guy. It's hard to get a nonbiased opinion, because most everything that's easily accesible to me to read has been written by someone else, so it has gone through their own mind and then they have put it out to the world in a certain way, whether they're aware of it or not. I remember Barbara Tuchman (one of the first readings in this seminar) and how she said that she never ever used secondary sources, like books written by someone else, because like I just said, they've gone through someone else. She's always looked for the first sources, like journals, newspapers from that time period, sources like that. But at times, it's refreshing to get another perspective of things, I don't want to just believe what my parents say. So, I read this with an open mind.
"From the initial American-Soviet confrontations in Europe at the end of the Second World War through the bitter Korean War, President Harry S Truman directed American foreign policy in a manner that profoundly affected the nation's--and the world's--history." (49)
"Despite this extraordinary bipartisan consenus, analysis of Truman's background and recently available personal and governmental records reveal a darker side to his world view and foreign policy. His parochial nationalist heritage, his perceptions about American moral-industrial-military superiority, his belief that the Soviet Union and communism were the root cause of all international problems, his quick disregard of contrary views, and his propensity to exaggerate and to oversimplify, profoundly shaped his presidential policies and contributed significantly to the onset and intensification of the Cold War." (50)
"Young Harry took his nurturing from his mother, who taught him his 'letters' and inspired his book and Bible reading. Later he admonished people and nations by frequent reference to the Ten commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. But Truman derived less a system of morals or religious sense from his Biblical readings than stern belief, as he wrote in 1945, that 'punishment always followed
transgression,' a maxim he would apply later to North Korea and to the People's Republic of China." (51)
his beliefs and how he put those into politics (above)
On page 53, the writer discusses how Truman joined the army and traveld to Europe and absolutely hated it..
"But parochialism shone through Captain Harry's European experience, and not just because he may have been the only soldier in history to call the Folies Bergere 'disgusting.' Truman deplored France's 'narrowly dirty streets and malodorous atmosphere,' disliked French food, insisted that Germany smelled and that the Kaiser aimed to despoil 'our great country and beautiful women.'... Truman sought only to return to 'God's country,' the land of 'Liberty loans and green trading stamps,' and never to return to Europe: 'I have nearly promised old Miss Liberty that she'll have to turn around to see me again,' he wrote upon reaching American shores in 1919." (53)
He was even going to join the KKK, but he wasn't accepted "because he refused to deny jobs to Catholics." (53)
"He was ready to leave office [he was a judge in Jackson County, Missouri]--to run a filling station and then go to 'a quiet grave.' Perhaps his lament at that time--'I am only a small duck in a very large puddle'--might apply to his presidency.
Luck struck the Missourian in 1934, however. After four Democrats refused their party's nomination, Truman became the 'Senator from Pendergast,' as some politicos derisively referred to him. Indeed, Truman was an outsider in Washington..." (53)
There's evidence on page 54 and 55 that Truman was a parochial nationalist. hated many kinds of people (middle of page 55).
Thirty Years of Treason by Eric Bentley - week 7::
"Mr. Reagan: ...I believe that, as Thomas Jefferson put it, if all the American people know all of the facts they will never make a mistake...
Mr. Chairman: There is one thing that you said that interested me very much. That was the quotation from Jefferson. That is just why this Committee was created by the House of Representatives: to acquaint the American people with the facts. Once the American people are acquainted with the facts there is no question but what the American people will do the kind of a job that they want done: that is, to make America just as pure as we can possibly make it. We want to thank you very much for coming here today.
Mr. Reagan: Sir, I detest, I abhor their philosophy, but I detest more than that their tactics, which are those of the fifth column, and are dishonest, but at the same time I never as a citizen want to see our country become urged, by either fear or resentment of this group [the Communists], that we ever compromise with any of our democratic principles through that fear or resentment. I still think that democracy can do it." (146)
Wow. Uh, I didn't fully understand all of this but what I did get from it is that talk is a whole lot different than actions. Well, I don't really mean that. I think sometimes people may not want to know all the facts. No wait, I think the facts should be open for people to find, but not slammed in their faces. Nothing should be hidden, but at the same time it shouldn't scare citizens... well or should it? Do some people need to be scared to do something about the bad things going on in the world? And you don't want it to seem like the world is perfect. Definitely not. I wouldn't want to be hidden from what's going on in the world, but I have to admit, sometimes I don't want to know the horrible stuff going on. I don't
want it to be going on. I think this is a way I'm a total optimist, I want there to be peace! : ) But back to this, obviously it's made me think. I've gone off in a bunch of totally separate tangents. I think that people should have all the facts available to them, but not pushed on them. Or should the (sometimes scary) facts be pushed? Will that make some people finally wake up?? Perhaps I'm talking more about the events happening currently than those of the late 40's and 50's but I bet if I lived in that time period I would be thinking along the same terms because I know there was hiding of facts, lies, and everything that happens in governments.
I didn't find much in this reading, Thirty Years of Treason written, well edited I guess, by
Eric Bentley, but I guess this part really made me think and let my mind go off.
Here's another piece I noted as important:
This is transcript is with Gary Cooper, an actor born in 1901.
"Mr. Smith [I guess he is one of the Committee members?]: Can you tell us some of the statements that you may have heard at these gatherings that you believe are Communistic?
Mr. Cooper: Well, I have heard quite a few, I think, from time to time over the years. Well, I have heard tossed around such statements as 'Don't you think the Constitution of the United States is about a hundred and fifty years out of date?' and--oh, I don't know--I have heard people mention that, well, 'Perhaps this would be a more efficient Government without the Congress'--which statements I think are very un-American."(148)
un-American, unpatriotic!
Are You Now or Have You Ever Been? - week 7::
These readings are some of the transcripts of the hearings by the Congress on Americans who were suspected of being communists. I found these very engaging and I feel like I learned a lot more about this time period and how it affected everyone in some way. Personally, I don't enjoy reading about war and how the US fought against the British and a whole "us against them" kind of idea. It's in these more personal and human accounts, such as these transcripts or the Studs Terkel interviews, that I find the most informative tidbits that help me, maybe not others, understand what really went on in this confusing era.
Here are some quotes that I found thought-inducing (and some of the thoughts that were induced are below, too)::
"Before the end of 1951 Ronald Reagan proclaimed a victory:
For many years the Red propagandists and conspirators concentrated their big guns on Hollywood. They threatened to throw acid in the faces of myself and some other stars, so we would never appear on screen again. I packed a gun for some time. Policemen lived at my home to guard my kids. But that was more than five years ago. Those days are gone forever!" (79)
Ummm.. I
love how Reagan is so.. I can't think of the word. He believes that this will NEVER happen again. Hmmm, I'll try and remember the word I was going to use, it was a good one.
A woman, Lillian Hellman, wrote a letter to the Chairman on the Committee of UnAmerican acts (not sure what the name of the Committee was called) [EDIT: 2:39PM:
House UnAmerican Activities Committee.] Here are some parts that I enjoyed:
"But I am advised by counsel that if I answer questions about myself, I will have waived my rights under the Fifth Amendment and could be forced legally to answer questions about others. If I refuse to do so, I can be cited for contempt. This is very difficult for a layman to understand. But there is one principle that I do understand: I am not willing, now or in the future, to bring bad trouble to people who, in my past association with them, were completely innocent of any talk or any action that was disloyal or subversive. I do not like subversion or disloyalty in any form, and if I had ever seen any, I would have considered it my duty to have reported it to the proper authorities. But to hurt innocent people whom I knew many years ago in order to save myself is, to me, inhuman and indecent and dishonorable. I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year's fashions... I was raised in an old-fashioned American tradition and there were certain homely things that were taught to me: to try to tell the truth, not to bear false witness, not to harm my neighbor, to be loyal to my country... It is my belief that you will agree with these simple rules of human decency and not expect me to violate the good American tradition from which they spring." (112)
I don't think I needed to include all of this from her letter, but I don't want to delete it after I typed it all up! : ) Lillian Hellman stated some ideas that I hope made
someone think, well it did make me think so it worked! Her thoughts made me think because this was an American committee created by the American gov't and they were, at least Hellman and I think, going against "old-fashioned American tradition."
This Committee seems like a very strange thing in history. A whole lot of the transcripts sound very comic and unreal. Now, that may be because a whole lot of the people being tried were actors... I don't know.
Lionel Stander, didn't want the cameras on him while he was being asked questions. And he fought over it for awhile with the Chairman of the Committee. (page 116)
It seemed as if even if you weren't really a communist, if your name was in the paper in the same article as one talking about the Committee, then you were blacklisted, or at least shunned or something...
proof:
"Mr. Stander: That appeared in the paper. Just to have my name appear in association with this Committee! It's like the Spanish Inquisition!
Investigator: Let me remind you--
Mr. Stander: You may no be burned but you can't help coming away a little singed." (121)
I'm not sure if this will make sense out of context, but I liked this part of a later transcript with Stander:
"The Chairman: Now will you answer the question [if he was acquainted with Martin Berkeley]?
PauseMr. Stander,
quietly: I decline under the First Amendment, which entitles me to freedom of belief, under the Fifth Amendment--in which there is no inference of guilt-- and under the Ninth Amendment, which gives me the right to get up in the union hall, which I did, and introduce a resolution condemning this Committee for its abuse of powers in attempting to impose censorship upon the American theater.
Investigator: Now, Mr. Stander--
Mr. Stander,
still quiet. And, finally, I can't understand why a question dating back to 1935 concerning statements made by a bunch of stool pigeons and informers can aid this Committee in recommending legislation to Congress. The question is not relevant to the purposes of this Committee.
Lionel Stander remained on the blacklist." (130)
"Arthur Miller, May 21, 1956." (135)
"Investigator. Who was there when you walked into the room?
Pause.Mr. Miller. I understand the philosophy behind this question and I want you to understand mine. I am trying to--and I will--protect my sense of myself. I could not use the name of another person and bring trouble on him. I ask you not to ask me that question.
CM 1. We do not accept your reasons for refusing to answer. If you do not answer, you are placing yourself in
contempt." (135)
I feel like the Committee put a great amount of pressure on those they questioned. The whole US was so afraid of the Communists and I don't think they had any idea of how to deal with their fear. Everyone handled it differently, the gov't, "regular" people, children, teachers. In the second to last reading of this week, Exaggerations of the Soviet Threat, explains just that, the exaggeration of the Soviet threat... It's hard to tell how I would feel at this time, if I was alive then. My mom remembers asking her parents when the Communists were coming, she told me she remembers thinking that when she woke up in the morning, they, the Communists, would be in her house. She had drills very often at school when they went into the basement if the Communists suddenly dropped bombs... I'll continue talking, writing, about this in the other posts for this week's readings.
Some names/places/things/-isms that came up in the reading::
J. Edgar HooverMcCharthyismHouse UnAmerican Activities CommitteeSubpoenaLionel Standerthe Fifth Amendmentthe United States Constitution
