Developement of Zoos

For our second quarter final project, we got to pick an area of impact on urban life from around 1880-1920. I picked the development of zoos. According to National Geographic, "a zoo is a place where animals live in captivity and are put on display for people to view. The word “zoo” is short for “zoological park.” Zoos contain wide varieties of animals that are native to all parts of the Earth." 

Throughout the past few weeks we have been studying migration and the affects it had and is having on the United States. If it wasn't for immigration, zoos might not have become as popular as they are or might not have opened in the U.S. at all. The first ever zoo was opened in Austria in 1752. It is still open today and was opened a little over 100 years before the first one in the U.S. Some of the largest groups of immigrants were from Austria and known as Austrian-Americans. It is thought that this is one of the reasons for the development of zoos, especially because of when they opened. Keeping this in mind, it doesn't come as a shock to see that the largest groups of these people could be found in New York, Pennsylvania, California, Florida, New Jersey, and Ohio considering a majority of the first zoos opened in these areas.

The first zoo to open in the United States was the Philadelphia Zoo. The zoo was originally planning to open on March 21, 1859 but the outbreak of the Civil War put a pause to this idea. As a result, the gates did not officially open to the public until July 1, 1874. Under the care of Dr. William Camac, a founding father of the zoo and a local physician at the zoo, 813 animals came to call the Philadelphia Zoo home. Within the first year of opening, the zoo had around 228,000 visitors. 

So, you are probably asking yourself, why did it take a hundred years to build a zoo? The answer, it didn't. Before the 1850's people had very little leisure time. Most people spent from sun up to sun down working and if they weren't working, they were sleeping. With the technological advances made in the early nineteenth century, the amount of physical bodies needed in a workspace was greatly reduced and thus, people had time to actually fill. 

After the first zoos were so successful, people began to see the importance behind them. They provided a fun activity to do during free-time and time to spend with their families but it actually went farther than that. The zoos provided another source of education to the public, helped to promote and encourage advances in the scientific field, and helped increase the awareness and protection of the animals and their habitats. 

In 1924, the United States formed the AZA. AZA is an organization known as American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. AZA is just the shorthand way of saying American Zoos and Aquariums. The mission of AZA was to advance the conservation of these animals and their natural habitats, provide a new form of and advance education, advance the sciences, and increase the amount of recreation at zoos. 

The development of zoos also helped out the cities surrounding them. Most zoos were extensions of existing cities or suburban parks but there were also some that were built from scratch. Because of the location of most of the zoos, the cities were "put on the map" or, if they're name was already fairly popular, the city became the talk of the time. This also means that local businesses also became places that tourists attended, such as restaurants, and helped to keep the city thriving. A few other zoos that opened around the time of the Philadelphia Zoo are the Lincoln Park Zoological Gardens that opened in Chicago, IL in 1868 and Rodger Williams Park Zoo that opened in Providence, RI in 1872.

Each of the  animals was obtained in its own unique way. Once the zoos became extremely popular to the people, the public began to donate some of them. This was done either by donations of money, donation of the animal itself, or just the money that the people paid to get into the zoo. Some animals also came from commercial animal trades or zoo-sponsored collecting expeditions. This not only changed what types of animals could see at the different zoos but it also shaped the way the animals were seen through the eyes of the pubic. 

original zoo in austria

original cages at first zoos

National AZA logo

map of zoos in US

entrance sign to the Philadelphia Zoo

American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums

• I used this website to get information on the AZA organization. 

National Geographic

• I used this website to get the definition of a zoo to set up my paper and to clarify it for myself.

University of Pennsylvania

• I used this website to find out where animals came from and why zoos had such an impact on the urban societies. 

Philadelphia Zoo

• I used this website to gather additional information on the opening of the Philadelphia Zoo.

The Philadelphia Zoo

• I used this website to get information on the Philadelphia Zoo from the idea of building a zoo to after the zoo's opening. 

Information on Early Zoos

• I used this website to find where early zoos were located in cities as well as the locations of other zoos. 

Austrian-Americans

• I used this website to get information on the immigration of people from Austria into the U.S. 

Zoo in Austria

• I used this website to get information about the first zoo in Austria. 

Migration, Race, & Genetics

Today in class we completed researched about migration worldwide. To me, it was interesting to see how we automatically assume peoples' race by the way they look and more than half the time are completely wrong. On a page published by pbs, you were given a group of 20 people with 5 categories containing 4 slots. You then had to determine what race the person was based on their looks. I was shocked at how different my answers were than the actual ones. On the same website, that same group of 20 people where then shown divided by fingerprint type, blood type, and even darkness/lightness of their skin tones. There was also a page on the website that showed how the views of race have changed over the years and how the idea of "race" didn't develop until recent years. It talked about how when slavery existed, the concept of race did not exist. On a second website there was an interactive map of the world. As I began to click on country to country it showed me where the majority of the immigrants came from to the country and how many immigrants there were. I was shocked to see how some of the least expected places provided the largest amount of people to a country. For example, India, followed closely by Poland, provide the greatest number of immigrants to the United Kingdom. I think the biggest thing that stood out to me though, is that you really never know a person's story till you ask.

http://i0.wp.com/panafricanalliance.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/RacialDifferences.jpg

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/e0/e9/e0e92f4d9ac3b87d4b6e01c81a06b2f1.JPG?itok=_bRM7lfw

Philanthropy @ Work

So, lately we've been learning about philanthropy. We tied it into our last unit because most of the people in the 19th century that actually went places in life were philanthropists. At first I didn't really see how it differed from charity but now I know... You can't have philanthropy without the charity. You have to have a place to start (charity) and then you continue to grow awareness of the cause and help make the situation better (philanthropy). As it was so wisely said in class, charity is the now but philanthropy is the vision. If I were ever able to make enough money to consider being a philanthropist I would put a lot of my time and effort into the diabetes field. Being a diabetic myself I realize just how close the cure is but see the areas we are lacking in. I would also put my time into getting the world back to how it once was. When there weren't homeless pets or starving children. A place where everyone felt at home.

Survival of the Fittest?

Today in class we decided to discuss Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection. We were then sent off on our own to use primary sources to investigate these theories in practice. The Bradley Martin Ball provided one of the best examples for this. We were then given a list of links and questions from Mrs. Lawson to go along with the exercise. Just by clicking on the first link I can tell that the ball was a big deal. The entire page is strictly about the ball and let me tell you, the article is long. The editors of the paper have assumed that the readers of this article are of a higher class. Thus, the reader understands the ball's importance and what a grand accomplishment it was/is. The perspective of the paper is just an outside looking in. It discusses the background behind the party up until the point of the party. A second link took me to a completely different article regarding the ball. In this article, the ball is made out to be very lavish and beautiful. We are walked through the event from start to finish and not a bitter word was said regarding the party. From this article we can learn that of those who could "afford" to attend the ball, it was a night to remember. From a third article we get the feeling that maybe the ball wasn't so lovely after all. The article focuses on a clergyman. In the article it is quite obvious that he views elaborate displays like this as inappropriate and against the moral beliefs set by the church. He also states that with parties like this it is easy for drama to be stirred up such as discontent and casting out the votes against the existing of social conditions. This article was most likely published to show those around him that a man of a higher standing doesn't agree with the practices of the higher classes and that "bigger" isn't always perfect.... From a fourth and final article we are given an insiders view on the end of the ball. From this, we can learn that even then, looks were everything. A person had to be just the right size and spend just the right amount of money in preparation for the party in order to fit in. We also learn that people's sense of timing hasn't changed a bit and that they lack in the field of communication just as much as we do today.

Thinking About Success

In class today we were given a challenge, rank the four following words in order of importance to success. The words are: luck, opportunity, skill, and hard work. In my opinion, the order should go as hard work, skill, opportunity, and then luck with hard work being most important and luck being least important. Here's why I put them in that order. Hard work comes first because skills can't be developed overnight. There are plenty of successful people in the world who weren't "great" at their craft originally but stuck with it and then came out more successful than most. Skill comes second because sometimes it takes more than just hard work and determination. Opportunity comes third because sometimes you need that extra boost to get to where you want to be. And finally, luck, because when all else fails you might get lucky and make millions.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ3uaOxl5iFniueNJRjgNLsUHeV87OVn28CenJn2kuQcSa-3GkaxQ

Industry: The Clothing Market

Have you ever stopped to think about how clothes get on the racks in the stores? I'm not talking about how they are made or what sort of transportation is used to get them from the factory to the store. I'm talking about the people behind the clothes. Well, I'm going to be honest.... I don't think it ever really crossed my mind. I guess I knew it took people to get the job done but I didn't realize how big of a role they played. In an article published within the past 5 years I discovered exactly what it meant to work in the fashion industry. There are people designing the clothes, choosing how many of each item to make, how many stores the clothes will go to, making sure the clothes get from place to place, making sure the clothes meet company standards, and keeping track of the "it" clothes to know how to arrange their inventory. On top of all that you have to have the people actually in the factories to produce the clothes and someone to create the business itself. In a second article written about H&M the author discusses how the business has been able to be so successful all these years. It had never occurred to me how much thought or planning went into my shirt or jeans. I guess it just has to do with the fact that I've always had a change of clothes to pick from in the morning and I've never had to worry about what I'm going to wear. It was shocking to me how many warehouses and production offices and buildings there are around the world for just one store. Think about how many different stores there are that have completely different looks for the same time of the year. Okay, now multiply that number by 2 or 3 and thats not even the total number of factories. That's insane! So, my challenge to you is this: next time you go to put on a pair of jeans, shoes, a shirt, socks, or even a scarf, take a minute and just think about all the people it took to get that one article of clothing to you.

http://www.citylab.com/work/2012/03/how-us-companies-decide-where-build-their-chinese-factories/1412/

Perspective of Indians in 1887

So today, 10/27/15, in the U.S. History classroom, we decided to take another look at Indians. This time though, we used an online textbook from 1887 and read a few pages from it. We were also told to find some reliable definitions for two words...

savage- fierce, ferocious, cruel, and untamed

savagery- an uncivilized or barbaric state or condition

At first, we were supposed to just read pages 18-21. After reading this, Indians seem to be majestic and honorable. Of all the things I've ever read about Indians this was definitely the most positive. Then we were told to search for the word savages and read the blurbs that popped up. These blurbs, from the same text, had an entirely different view on Indians. We were then told to talk about how this textbook would've shaped our view on Indians if we were studying during that time. Before I read the blurbs I would've said these men (and women) were people of great character and that we should've just left them alone. After reading the blurbs I still stick with that statement. The whites came in and took over something that rightfully belonged to the Indians and they did nothing to deserve the hatred and the fighting that came with the invasion of the whites.

A Letter Home

Hello,

I hope things are going well. Today is the twelfth of February 1876 and I just received my copy of the Las Vegas Gazette. Apparently the city has been very busy lately. A new bar and billiard room has opened up next to the hotel that is now connecting. My friend, Mr. Rousseau, has finally opened up shop as an attorney and counselor and even got an add on the front page today! The paper mainly contained adds today however there was an update on the Unjust Economy. The article states that the government is not to blame for any attacks on the white settlers by the indians. The article claims that this is not fair to those who chose to settle in New Mexico however I feel that that statement is unfair. The settlers knew what to expect and they had the choice of where to settle. Thus, I do not feel the government should have to pay for the damages made by the natives. We are finally getting a shipment of seeds from Europe just in time to plant. The only downside is we have a limited supply and I'm not sure how long it will last. The city bakery was advertising their shop today. It's located in between first and second street in the city. There have been discoveries of new mining areas not too far from here. I think the closest is in Soccoro. Wood has become the target of interest lately due to all the snow. Most people think that it is hot out here but according to the paper, "the weather for the past week has been blustery and disagreeable." This barely covers everything the paper had to say today. Like I said, it contains mostly adds and promotions but there was quite a bit of captivating information. Hoping everything is well on your end. Please write soon. I miss hearing from you.

Sending you my best,
Your Loving Wife

http://www.truewestmagazine.com/blowing-in-the-wind/

*** this is written to show the point of view and attitudes from someone living in this time period ***

Social Media: The Truth Exposed

Our use of social media is selective and intentional so that we tend to remain interested in only things we've already been interested in, whereas newspapers expose readers to information on a broad range of topics. This can connect communities by providing information about what others may be interested in. It may raise questions I never thought to ask.

Newspapers Over Time

Today, not many people actually look at the news paper for news. I mean, why would we when we can get the summed up version at any time that's convenient for us? But what was a newspaper like for people before the age of technology? To them, a newspaper was "a publication issued at a regular and usually close intervals, especially daily or weekly, and commonly containing news, comment, features, and advertising." Newspapers were first seen in Europe in the 17th century. To be more specific, 1609 in Wolfenbüttel. In the United States, some of the first newspapers included The Boston News-Letter, Publick Occurrences, and The American. In an issue of the New York Times published on October 13, 2015, the leading headline was "Dell to Buy EMC for $67 Billion". Other headlines included promotions in big companies or to fairly famous people, discussion of the problems in Libya, and updates on the current political standings. Have you ever wondered what it means to be the "newspaper of record"? Yeah, so have I. I just thought it meant the paper was noteworthy and held the highest publishing/selling rate. I was wrong.... According to Wikipedia, "A newspaper of record is a major newspaper that has a large circulation and whose editorial and news-gathering functions are considered professional and typically authoritative. A newspaper of record may also be a publicly available newspaper that has been authorized or maintained by a government to publish public or legal notices, and therefore serves as a "newspaper of public record"." The nation's first newspaper of record was The New York Times deemed this title in 1913 and believed to have been given the title by librarians. A second paper that could be considered a newspaper of record is the Los Angeles Times. The difference in looking at an actual newspaper versus the internet it simple; one you know is real and the other can be questionable. Online, anyone has access to the information meaning anyone can change the facts, thus, the true story is never known. In the paper, the facts come straight from the sources and right into the machines. Even though the information can be changed overtime it is more reliable than what we read online. We also tend to only see what the social media sources want us to see when we read the news online. They want to grab the public's attention and thus they direct the news are certain groups of people whether its gender, age, or race. This often results in the omission of key facts and parts of the truth only to make the story more engaging. In the paper, everything is there for us. We have the option to pick and chose what parts we read but nothing has been omitted. Also, the newspaper actually makes people have a conversation. Online there's always that comment section allowing people to speak freely without having to use their actual name. People need to have that face to face interaction from time to time because, without it, we lose a piece of our humanity. 

http://gov20class.blogspot.com/2015/09/newspapers-versus-cnncomnytimescom.html

Fast Facts: Native Americans

As we wrapped up first quarter in the U.S. History classroom we were given a challenge: research on a topic that interests you about Native Americans for less than an hour and then write a quick summary about it. We could pick any topic from stereotypes, to car names, to controversy, to culture, to fashion. Anything we wanted but we had to show where we got our information from and write a blog that was worthy of a grade because, what's not to love about another easy A in the grade book to give your average that extra boost.

I decided I would pick a few tribes and compare their differences and similarities. Turns out there are at least 526 federally recognized tribes in the U.S. and many more that we have yet to find. I went to Mrs. Lawson with my findings and she suggested I pick two vastly different tribes and go from there. I decided I wanted to pick a western tribe (since we just completed a unit on the west) and then I would pick a region completely opposite of that. I found out that there are several hundred tribes in Alaska and I don't know how much opposite of the west than that. For my tribe of the west I chose to get the scoop on the Dakota Indians. I ended up picking an Alaskan tribe known as the Inupiaq (Inuit) tribe. Below I have made a chart that compares and contrasts the two tribes based on the research I have completed.

   

dakota tribe

inuit family

Sources used:
http://thenativeamericanlife.weebly.com/sioux.html
http://www.ncai.org/about-tribes/indians_101.pdf
http://www.everyculture.com/wc/Brazil-to-Congo-Republic-of/Inuit.html
http://www.native-languages.org/alaska.htm
http://www.ducksters.com/history/native_americans/inuit_peoples.php
http://www.bigorrin.org/dakota_kids.htm 

First Quarter Reflection

Wow! I cannot believe the end of first quarter is already here! It literally feels like we just started back… So far this year I have definitely been put to the test of seeing what I know versus what all I have left to learn. This was especially true during my U.S. History class. 

Coming into this year I didn’t know too much about America’s past. I knew we had fought in some major wars and the we had a history of slavery and that we originated from England and were discovered by Christopher Columbus but other than that, I knew nothing. Now, after just eight short weeks, I could tell you all about our nation’s past from the time of the civil war to the western expansion. 

I think the biggest take away for me from this quarter is that I have the skills it takes to form a good paper or blog post but that I just have to trust myself and write the truth. When we were first told we would be keeping up with a blog throughout the year, I’m not gonna lie, I was terrified. History is typically my worst subject and english is not far behind so I could tell this was going to be tough. Our first assignment was to make a blog and then write a post about the differences between empathy and sympathy. I was heading out of town to go on a hunting trip with my dad the next day so I had Mrs. Lawson read my post before I left. Needless to say she was very pleased. We were also working in pairs at that time and so I was able to compare mine with my partners and see. After I clicked publish post I felt a big sense of pride. I think it was one of very few written assignments I was truly happy with. Next, we went on to learn how to properly add a quote to our blog and how to add pictures and then lastly we learned how to paraphrase a source and then incorporate it into our writing. We have done a little work with this in the past but I never fully understood it but after giving it another shot, it wasn’t too bad. All of these things led up to our major essay on how it was actually possible to learn from movies. 

Going forward this year I really want to work on going more in depth with how I view things. I feel like I often miss the true meaning of something because I’m too focused on the obvious. I know I am going to get plenty of chances to improve this skill in the coming months so I’m not too concerned but it would be nice. I plan on accomplishing this by doing extra research outside of the classroom and by taking the information given to me in class and finding other ways and perspectives of looking at it. 

Is it possible to learn from a movie?

Abbie Childs

Film Essay 

Alright, here goes nothing. I’ve been building up to this moment for the past few weeks and now it is time to write. I just moved to a new school. I had gone to Randolph since kindergarten and we used movies or videos for practically every subject at least once a semester. My new history teacher has a strict policy about no movies. She says it isn't possible for us to learn anything of value or to improve out thinking skills by watching them. She gave me a challenge and that is why I am writing yet another post. My argument is as follows; it is possible to develop great analytical skills and explore real events, circumstances, and attitudes just by watching movies in a critical way, and doing some research. 

In order for me to do this, I’m going to use my knowledge of the movies Glory and 12 Years a Slave. Most people normally wouldn’t out these two movies on the same playing field but, why couldn’t you? The fact of the matter is, both of these movies are about slavery. The difference in the two is one is told through the eyes of a white man and the other through that of a black man. 

The movie Glory is based on a set of letters written by the main character. It portrays the lives of the 54th Infantry of Massachusetts. The film originally was meant to portray how rudely whites treated blacks, free or not, even in the northern states and to show how much harder it was for these men to live “normally”. Now, we all know there’s no such thing as “normal” but, to them, the whites had it better. After the film was completed, the movie ended up lessening the horrors of being a colored person, especially male, in general. At first, the blacks weren’t treated too kindly but, by the end of the movie, the main character has become the caregiver and almost guardian of these men. These are just observations made while watching the movie. We found out that people were rude no matter where they lived. We learned that there were people who cared and watched out for these men. And we learned that color should never define a person or their potential. Upon doing a little research, I found many more interesting facts. I discovered that even though a majority of the movie did occur, it was twisted around to make a better story. We also can’t be too sure how the movie ended in reality since the regiment got completely wiped out. We can depict information from years of historical research and information but the truth is, there’s always another side to the story. It doesn't matter how you look at it, everyone’s brain is wired differently. As James Bernardinelli of ReelViews states, “Glory is constructed as an inspirational tale, but the inspiration is not forced or false. It is rooted in the characters and the manner in which they overcome obstacles, including, most prominently, their own personal demons.” 

The movie 12 Years a Slave  takes a different approach to this topic. The movie is based on a book written by it’s main character, Solomon. This story is formed from a free black males perspective after being tricked and forced into slavery for twelve years before being rescued. It depicts the horror and the cruelty and the shame that is inflicted upon slaves day in and day out. If I learned anything though, it would be that this movie was simplified too and that the real world is too harsh to even display for “pleasure”. Solomon’s book actually contains more violence and just outright hatred toward the slaves. Many of the scenes in the movie are over eighty to nighty percent verbatim and very few scenes or sections of dialog cannot be proven one hundred percent accurate. One scene we prove false though is at the very end. Solomon’s daughter, Margaret, actually didn’t recognize her father when he returned. In the movie she is the first to speak and the first to approach him however in actuality, it took her quite some time to put his face with the name of her father and for it to match up. To prove just how real this movie and book are I looked up some reviews. One in particular really stood out to me and it was by Fredrick Douglass about the book written by Solomon. He said, “its truth is stranger than fiction”.  This just goes to show how even though we all know this kind of thing happened daily not too long ago, we don’t realize how truly awful it really is. Another review I found interesting was written by Steven Rea of the Philadelphia Enquirer. He says, “it speaks to the courage and resilience of one man, the savagery of many, and the potential for both good and for ill.” 

When preparing to make an argument that would allow me to bring some old traditions to a new place, this information was good but not good enough. I then went on to compare awards, cost and budget, and how successful they were. To me, the results weren’t surprising at all. Glory cost a year 18 million dollars to produce and grossed 64 thousand dollars in the first weekend it premiered at three locations. 12 Years a Slave cost roughly 22 million dollars to make and has so far made roughly 190 million dollars in return at over 1,100 locations, 56.7 million dollars of that made here in the United States. Both movies had a 90% or higher average for whether the viewer liked the movie or not and both won numerous awards. 

So, after watching and researching both of these movies I still believe that it is possible to learn from them. I think that both movies portray the key information that is needed to see what this country is based on and I feel that I have gotten a true understanding of what took place that I might not have otherwise because having it acted out in front of my face brought it all to life and made me realize that even though the world can be cruel, it always gets better.   

For more information on these movies or to just see if someone out there feels the same way you do feel free to check out the following pages: 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/10/17/_12_years_a_slave_true_story_fact_and_fiction_in_mostly_accurate_movie_about.html 

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/12_years_a_slave/ 

http://ashbrook.org/publications/oped-owens-00-patriot/

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/12-years-a-slave-review-theft-of-freedom-20140124-31cba.html

http://screenrant.com/12-years-slave-reviews/ 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Years_a_Slave_(film)

https://blogs.mcgill.ca/hist-399-2014/2014/03/20/glory-film-review-by-alex-langer/

http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/trial/reel_new/films/list/0_10_9_22

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(1989_film)#Reception

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgsZ54j_yEo 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-2536824/Brutal-brilliant-This-remarkable-retelling-evils-slavery-hard-watch-MUST-12-Years-A-Slave-says-film-critic.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzhea4Z53wY 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr3nNCoZpOI 

What I've Learned

Upon starting this blog, I was clueless. 

This is what Mrs. Lawson wanted me to learn today:

• Only use a quote when it adds power and style to my writing.• Always make it clear, from context, that I understand the full meaning of the quote.• Whether I quote or paraphrase, always be transparent about the source and how I’m using it.• If I use another author’s exact words or phrases, to any extent, I have to use quotation marks and give credit.• If I use another author’s presentation of facts or ideas, but put their ideas in my own words, I better have a good reason for doing that, and I MUST give credit.• Hyperlinking is so easy, there is no excuse for not being transparent about my sources.

Now, after writing several posts I know what is expected of me and I am ready to begin my blogging adventure. 

Paraphrase Practice

As you saw in my last post, there are some big differences in the movie Glory and what actually took place during that time period. Here is what Alex Langer thought of the film, "While the film’s errors of fact are problematic, more so is its engagement with sources. The film relies primarily on the letters of Colonel Robert G. Shaw, with letter-writing acting as a plot device. The film’s story is thus told through the perspective of an upper-class white man. While there is nothing inherently wrong with using these letters as a source, the fact that the narrative relies on them as the sole personalizing source is a problem.  The film should have, if possible, integrated some primary-source material from an enlisted (black) man’s perspective. Even if this wasn’t possible, a more critical depiction of Shaw’s narrative should be forthcoming. As the film is already a piece of historical fiction, perhaps a black narrator and protagonist could have been used to provide a more honest historical narrative, if one less directly grounded in primary sources. As well, the film paints race relations in the North as fairly rosy, with substantial prejudice but without virulent hatred. While a few white characters, such as the quartermaster who refuses to grant the regiment boots, speak rudely about black people, it is not particularly intense. This ignores a history of profound racism in the free state, with many black soldiers fighting in the war to prove their worth to society. The casual use of racial epithets by white characters when discussing the regiment, for example, would have made the film far more realistic and engaged more directly with the North’s racist past, as opposed to restricting the portrayal of racism to the South or individuals from border states like Missouri and Kentucky, such as the commander of a separate regiment of freed slaves.[3]Related to the question of perspective is the most important flaw in the film: its use of racial stereotypes and a racialized narrative of white cultural supremacy in its portrayal of its characters. First, the film’s protagonist, Colonel Shaw, is portrayed as a father figure who enacts fierce discipline to make his soldiers “behave.” This is feted in the film, so long as Shaw also appears sympathetic to his soldiers, such as when, after being forced to flog a heavily scarred ex-slave for absconding to find shoes, Shaw angrily demands that his regiment be supplied with army-issue boots. Rather than question what appears to be gross negligence on Shaw’s part in not knowing that his regiment was suffering heavily from a lack of proper footwear, he is celebrated. This eliminates the exercise of agency by black characters, showing that change is only possible if and when enacted by a white savior.Shaw’s portrayal as a beneficent and caring authority figure is problematic, although explained by his role as the regiment’s commanding officer; more troubling the depiction of the film’s black characters. The broader narrative reinforced by the interactions and portrayal of these characters is that the “whiter” the character is, the better.  The four central black characters are Tripp, Rawlins, Jupiter and Thomas; the first three characters are all ex-slaves.  Thomas, an educated free man with “white” mannerisms and culture, is portrayed positively, while Tripp, who is cynical about the Union’s promises and is hostile to white people and white society, acts in some ways as the film’s direct antagonist. Tripp is portrayed especially negatively when his cynicism affects others, such as when he attempts to interfere with Thomas’ efforts to teach Jupiter –a highly sympathetic, illiterate former slave with a speech impediment- how to read, or mocks white Union soldiers retreating from battle." This was extremely helpful but, did I truly understand what he was saying? I wasn't sure of my answer I decided to take what I had learned from Langer and form my own thoughts based on his work. The events that took place throughout the movie did occur in real life however the actions and roles of the people differ based on perspective. The movie is based on a set of letters written by the main character, Colonel Shaw, who is an upper class, white male. This automatically sets the movie up to not be hundred percent faithful to the actual events. Before, during, and after slavery blacks were (and in some cases still are) discriminated against. This brings up the question, why should this change just because a black man is free? The answer is simple, it doesn't. The white people of the north could be just as cruel, if not worse, than those of the south. The movie on the other hand actually makes it seem that many northerners considered blacks on almost the same level if not equal. The true reason the movie was made was to show the nation (and world) how hard it was for these men to have a life and how unfairly they were treated due to white supremacy and in reality makes it out to seem that everyone was on the blacks side. To me, it was shocking how the truth can vary so much from one side to the other.

Incorporating a Quotation

How often do you watch a movie based on a true story and then after seeing it wonder how much of it is truly real? I have often asked myself this question but never have I taken the time to find out. Until now. As a kick off to my junior year, our United States History teacher decided to show us a film called Glory. This movie was written about the the first ever army of blacks, also know as the 54th Infantry Regiment of Massachusetts. In an article written by Alex Langer, he states "The film is an accessible look at the history of the regiment, and is effective in its portrayal of the horrors of the Civil War. However, it is not historically accurate and engages uncritically with its source material". He later goes on to simplify this saying, "[...] Glory suffers from a lack of historical accuracy[...]". This definitely answered my question but, it just wasn't good enough for me. To find out more, read my next blog on paraphrasing to see what else Alex Langer and I have to say.

Empathy vs Sympathy

The words sympathy and empathy are often used interchangeably however, upon taking a closer look at these words, they are actually quite different. Empathy requires a person to imagine themselves in the other person's shoes. It relies more on a thought or fact versus a feeling. Sympathy is all about feeling and being sorry. By feeling sorry for someone and changing your mood based on how another person is acting, you are being sympathetic. When you are empathetic towards someone, you imagine how you would feel in their situation or you give advice and offer to help because you've been where they are before.  I know this sounds crazy but, it is possible to empathize with someone even if you haven't been in that situation. Picture this, you are walking down the hallway, halfway through the school year, and you see a new kid. You've gone to that same school since before being the new kid was awkward or embarrassing when your mom still held your hand and you had your card moved when you spoke out of turn. All the new student orientations happened months ago and all the new students and freshmen have found their groups. Yes, most people's reaction is to go "awww poor kid I feel awful for them". This would mean you are being sympathetic but, what if, instead of feeling bad you think about how awful and alone they must feel. Just take a minute and think about all of the thoughts running through their head and how overwhelmed they feel. This is empathizing and the end result most likely ends in you walking over and introducing yourself and lending a helping hand without feel sorry for them. Did you know it's also possible to feel empathetic toward a subject you don't agree with? Well it is! I don't agree with war. If there was one thing in this world I hate more than spiders, it's the constant fighting and the constant political differences around the world leading to people killing other people. I can also see why this has to take place though. By sending our troops over-seas to fight, they are protecting our nation. It's so hard to imagine having to leave my family behind, travel around the world, and go to sleep every night thinking it might be my last time to ever fall asleep because I want to. I also wouldn't want to have to kill another person. That goes against every single one of my beliefs and morals that I have been raised up on. The only reason I can empathize with these actions is because they are keeping me and you safe and protecting our rights and freedoms here as American citizens. Even though I don't agree, without these men and women fighting for us, who else would? So, I guess what I'm trying to say is, I get why they do what they do. The ability to empathize with one's surroundings is key for historians because we have to be able to look at both sides of the story, whether we like it or not, and see why certain actions where made without becoming biased, which is what happens when you sympathize with people or situations.

 pixshark.com (google images)