Archive for the ‘HIST 299’ Category

Primary Source Analysis

Sunday, September 9th, 2012

A town in the mid-west during the Dust Bowl being consumed by a dust storm.

Provide the full bibliographic citation for your Primary Source

Magoc, Chris J. Environmental Issues in American History: A Reference Guide with Primary Documents. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2006. Print.

Compose a 1-2 page answer to the following questions1.      Briefly describe the source or sources.

Environmental Issues in American History is a book analyzing major environmental disasters that took place in America.  In the book there are numerous primary source entries that promote the author’s argument based on which disaster the author is writing about.

2.      When was the source written?

The book was first published in 2006.

 3.      Who composed the source?

The author of this work is Chris J. Magoc.

4.      Provide some information about the author.

Chris J. Mogoc is a PHD, professor, and historian who specializes in environmental issues.  As a “green” enthusiast he sympathizes with the people who lived through ecological disasters in America.

5.      Under what conditions was the source composed?

The primary sources in this book are from a myriad of people and conditions.  They are regular people, reporters, the president, critics, etc.  They range from people who were living through the hardships of the Dust Bowl to the people who were responsible for trying to fix it.

6.      How will you use the source for your paper?

I will use this source for my paper in many ways.  There are many different people and sources that I can cite from to promote my argument.

7.      What are some of the problems that you foresee in using this source for your paper?

Although this book is an excellent source for primary sources for people in and during the Dust Bowl, it is in a way, slightly too specific in one aspect of my paper.  I will not just be writing about the ecological disaster of the Dust Bowl but going in depth about the people of Oklahoma.  I will be investigating how they lived their lives, the migration of “Okies” to California, and the lives of the Oklahomans when they got there.  Furthermore I will be comparing what I find with the portrayal of them in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath.  In this way, the primary sources I will be using from this book will only be addressing one part of what I will be writing about.

Also there was some disagreement between me and my professor about whether primary sources used as evidence in a secondary source were indeed primary sources.  I would be inclined to think so, but I understand his point that these primary sources are less adequate than primary sources that stand alone.  The primary sources collected by Magoc could be biased selections and therefore I need to find more primary sources in addition to the ones I found in his book.

The “Colonel Rhea Papers”

Sunday, September 9th, 2012

Map of Armenia

The “Rhea Papers” are a compilation of documents that are intended to inform the reader of the history of the Independent Republic of Armenia.  The documents record the actions of Colonol Rhea and the Azerbaijani prime minister.  There are pictures of key political figures, conversations that passed between involved actors, and even Colonol Rhea’s passport. Although it is a very interesting primary source, there seems to be little to no analysis by the author and one has to comb through the information given with no context or background history.

Just skimming through the documents one can find certain interesting names that pop out like the Ottoman empire, and the Georgia Republic.  I find the map on page 253 interesting because the USSR would have just been formed in 1922 while the letter next to it on page 252 was signed in 1919, meaning that either the map is out of place or that the conflict dragged on for years. After doing a little background research it would make sense that there would be such an interest in Armenia after WWI due to the fact that Armenia was under the Ottoman Empire’s control.  The Ottoman Empire actually put in place a systematic genocide of the Armenian people and Armenia had been at odds with its neighbors for centuries due to religious and historical differences.  The Rhea Papers are just a brief look into a conflict that had been going on for centuries that outside powers happened upon.

Impressions of Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity by Prof. Alan Sokal

Friday, September 7th, 2012

Prof. Alan Sokal

 

I am not a scientist, nor will I pretend I understood most or any of what Professor Alan Sokal was writing about in  Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.  As a student of history, I enthusiastically vaulted into the reading assigned by my professor realizing that this is an article about physics-related concepts.  A few pages in, I still clung to my faith that it would eventually morph into some kind of historical lesson and kept reading.  The familiar unfolding of a historical lesson never came.  Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity is more of an informative article about Einstein’s theory of relativity and quantum physics.  Towards the end there does seem to be some sort of argument leaning towards the theory that time is relative and therefore so are the progressions of social science, but as a moderately educated person I can hardly make heads or tails of the argument or the conclusion.

The lesson that I learned from this article is that background investigation is important.  The reason that this article was so nonsensical is due to the fact that it is indeed meant to be nonsensical.  The “Sokal Scandal” was a hoax Sokal constructed aimed at the intellectual journals in 1996 when he wrote Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity and sent it in to be published by Social Text a prestigious academic journal.  The submission of his article was a test to see if the editors were reading their submissions carefully or just publishing something that sounded good or seemed credible.  He got his point across by coming out later and admitting the whole article was a joke and in fact, did not make any sense.

Getting Bin Ladden– a Future Primary Source

Monday, September 3rd, 2012

Nicholas Schmidle with some children in Herat, Afghanistan.

History must originally come from somewhere.  In today’s day and age, that somewhere is usually journalism.  Journalists assume the role of the first person to present events, analyze, and publish their findings on the subject they are reporting on.  In Nicholas Schmidle’s case, he was the first journalist to accumulate a substantial amount of evidence about the assassination of Osama Bin Laden.  In years to come this article will be sited as a primary source and the serious limitations found will by serious historians, but until then the article can be analyzed by even casual readers.

Although I have just recently been informed that this article lead the rise to serious treasonous accusations due to the leak of information, I found this article to be nothing more than very well articulated piece of propaganda.  The article has a certain overwhelming sense of sympathy for the Navy SEALs.  Everything that the SEALs did was heroic and anything they did wrong was understandable.  The SEAL valiantly bear-tackled two of Osama’s wives in order to shield his buddies from a blast if they were wearing bomb jackets.  The SEALs understandingly crashed a helicopter which, in retrospect one of the soldiers recalls, was perhaps a good thing because it would kill conspiracy theories of the event never taking place.  Hard to argue with that the mission did not even happen when there is a crashed U.S. helicopter in Pakistan.

There is something unsettling about this propaganda, however.  To get all this information there had to be some sort of leak from the White House.  That I do not find to be the biggest of issues.  The Bush administration leaked information about Valerie Plame’s identity back in 2005 destroying her career.  Leaks, whether they were accidental or on purpose, happen.  What I find unsettling about this article is that there are a lot of facts stated, although we can not be sure whether the facts are correct or not, but that the facts are hardly analyzed by the author.

The events could not have unfolded so nicely that the U.S. was completely in the right in this situation. What exactly was the mission?  To catputure or kill?  If it were to kill than the “killing” of Osama would better be titled, the “assassination” of Osama.  Is the government seriously trying to sway the masses to believe all this jingoist nonsense about how innocent we were in the operation?  Navy SEALs entered into Pakistan with no permission to turn a residential home into a war zone.  The terrorists were reported to have been popping out of corners with AK-47′s, but how much of that is true?  Can we trust our government at it’s word?  The only thing to do now is wait and see the uncovering of truths behind this event by future historians.

The Unjust Enrichment of American POWs by Japanese Corporations

Sunday, December 5th, 2010

The Unjust Enrichment of Japanese Corporations by American POWs

During World War II, the Empire of Japan used captured American soldiers as slave labor to fill the void left by Japanese soldiers sent off to war. Of these captured soldiers, almost half came from the American surrender at the Battle of Bataan, the largest surrender in American history. Over twelve thousand American soldiers surrendered to an overwhelming Japanese force on the Bataan Peninsula in the Philippines on April 9th, 1942. On empty stomachs and sore limbs, the soldiers were marched through sixty miles of Philippine jungle in the boiling heat. Many became so weak they collapsed along the march and were subsequently beaten or executed by their Japanese captors. The Bataan Death March, as it would come to be known, was only the beginning of the horrors these captured soldiers would experience. After being released following the Japanese surrender three years later, the American government did nothing to help these captured soldiers, even after using the Death March as a propaganda tool. When the soldiers were finally freed after the war, they were welcomed home with orders not to speak of their time in captivity and received little governmental support and compensation for their lost years. The American government neglected their own veteran’s needs by providing little for their time in captivity, and blocked any attempts for compensation from the Japanese companies for which they worked in order to maintain a strong economic and political link with the Japanese in the quickly emerging globalized economy.

The American public was unaware of the tragedy on Bataan until almost two years after the Death March. The New York Times first ran a story on January 28th, 1944, after the military released what they knew of the Death March.[1] The New York Times article stirred up nationalist feelings across America, which did not go unnoticed by the government, which would subsequently use the story as a tool for creating propaganda. The American government acted quickly to use the Death March to their advantage. Images of the Death March were incorporated into military training videos and recruitment posters. One famous recruitment ad flashed the New York Times headline[2] and encouraged the reader to “stay on the job until every murdering Jap is wiped out!” Even President Truman used the march as a means to justify the use of atomic weapons in his radio address following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, telling the world that “we have used it (The atomic bomb) against those… who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare.”[3] From this one can gather that the American government wanted to use the Death March as a means of creating anti-Japanese sentiments in America and using it as a rallying cry for new recruits. With so much public exposure, one might expect for those that survived their internment in Japan to receive a hero’s welcome back home, however the American government apparently had other ideas.

The American prisoners were released from captivity following the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, understandably eager to return home. However, most of the soldiers captured by the Japanese were detained by military officials for a debriefing period in order to determine where the soldiers had been held and what they were forced to do. These debriefing periods were also used to determine the mental stability of the soldiers. Lester Tenney and Anton Bilek recall the reception that awaited them back home in their memoirs, My Hitch in Hell, and No Uncle Sam: The Forgotten of Bataan, respectively.[4] As the rest of the nation celebrated the end of the war, Tenney recalls returning to America “…quietly, anonymously, without any fanfare or banners waving to welcome us…”[5] For many soldiers this was unexpected, especially considering the regal reception many soldiers experienced upon their return from Europe. Tenney attributed this to the delay in the soldiers return home, and that the post-war euphoria the country experienced immediately after the war’s conclusion had begun to die down.

However, in her book Unjust Enrichment, Linda Holmes suggests that the American government had ulterior motives in keeping these former POWs out of the limelight. As many of the former POWs had become severely emaciated and sick during captivity, Holmes suggests that the government purposely delayed the soldier’s return home in an attempt to keep the public unaware of the kind of suffering these soldiers experienced. Further supporting this idea is the fact that the soldiers were forbidden from talking about their time in captivity to anyone.[6]

After their return home, the former POW’s struggle for justice began. As many former POWs were still busy rebuilding their lives, the American and Japanese governments signed the Peace Treaty of 1951. The soldiers would soon find that this treaty waived any claims of war crimes against Japan, therefore prohibiting any soldier from suing the Japanese corporations for which they worked for any reparations. This was immediately met with sharp criticism from those who had been held in captivity in Japan. According to accounts from Elizabeth and Michael Norman’s Tears in the Darkness, multiple former POWs claimed that they were told during their debriefing period that the Japanese corporations responsible would fund the majority of their post-war support system.[7] However, no POW ever received any monetary reparations from the Japanese corporations, and the only compensation many soldiers received came the American government. According to a report in the American Journal of International Law, the survivors were paid $2.50 a day for time in captivity, adding up to approximately $3,103 for over three years in captivity.[8][9] This clearly inadequate compensation did little to mollify the soldiers whom it affected. However, the treaty had been signed and it was clear the American government was not siding with its own veterans.

With so much of the public eye still fixed on the reconstruction of Europe and tensions with the Soviet Union beginning to escalate in the late 1940s, there was very little public support for the soldiers’ cause. Furthermore, the soldiers were still not allowed to discuss their time in captivity with anyone, including any reporters who were interested in their story.[10] With no one telling their stories, the fates of these former POWs slowly faded out of the public consciousness. Since most of Europe was in shambles after the war, the American government began funneling millions of dollars into the war-ravaged continent, in hopes of gaining allies and reestablishing Europe as an industrial competitor.[11] On the Pacific front, the government also realized a unique opportunity in Japan. Unlike the slow recovery process in Europe, Japan’s infrastructure and economy experienced an incredibly swift recovery in the few years following the war. As the Supreme Commander of Allied Powers, General Douglas MacArthur was charged with helping rebuild and stabilize post-war Japan. With American supervision, Japan was put on the fast track to industrialization. By the time the Peace Treaty of 1951 was signed, Japan had industrialized so quickly that it prompted General MacArthur to proclaim that “The Japanese people… have undergone the greatest reformation recorded in modern history.”[12] In the emerging globalizing economy, the Truman administration realized the value in maintaining strong ties with nations that could be considered valuable trade partners. This gave America a valuable ally in the global economy; one the American government knew it could not risk losing. The lingering problem of reparations for former Japanese POWs was solved by simply forbidding them to sue Japanese companies. After 1951, the soldiers captured at Bataan had little choice but to move on with their lives.

Ironically, the Peace Treaty of 1951 only addressed the American soldiers captured by the Japanese, and not the Japanese-American citizens who were held in internment camps throughout much of World War II. Possibly inspired by the Civil Rights Movement in the early 1960s, former Japanese internees began campaigning for reparations from the American government. This continued until 1988, when President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which provided $20,000 for each surviving detainee and included a formal apology from the American government.[13] Many former POWs were insulted that Japanese-American citizens received reparations, while America’s own soldiers did not.[14] This could very well have inspired some of the remaining POWs to continue their fight against the Japanese corporations for reparations.

With the Peace Treaty of 1951, the American government successfully curbed the efforts of the former POWs in their attempt to gain compensation from their Japanese captors. Most of the former POWs moved on with their lives, putting the past behind them. However, recently there has been a surge of interest in the field, possibly due to the publicity of Ghost Soldiers by Hampton Sides and Tears in the Darkness by Elizabeth and Michael Norman. Ghost Soldiers tells the story of the heroic rescue of five hundred captives from Bataan by a regiment of Army Rangers. In Tears in the Darkness, Elizabeth and Michael Norman conducted hundreds of interviews with former POWs from Bataan. This surge of public attention in the early 2000s led to the revival of attempts by former POWs to gain reparations, almost sixty years after their internment. In 2000, after realizing Japan was not going to pay reparations from World War II, former Allied powers Canada and the United Kingdom allotted close to fifteen thousand dollars to every former POW held in Japan. These reparations were funded by the nations themselves, and served as a “debt of honor” to those that had served.[15] The Congressional record from July of 2003 shows the push by Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin for the appropriation of benefits to the former POWs, to be paid by the Japanese corporations who used them as slave labor. However, the notion was struck down almost immediately, as the American government worried that they would “undermine our relations with Japan, a key ally.”[16] Here we can again see the continuation of the international policy established in the years following World War II. From this, one can gather that in today’s globalized world, economic security is still more important to the government then rewarding its veterans.

By establishing themselves as the authority in Japan after World War II, the American government managed to forge a strong ally in the rapidly industrializing world. However, this came at a high cost to those imprisoned and enslaved by the Japanese during the war. The American government neglected their own veterans’ needs by providing little to no compensation for their time in captivity, and blocked any attempts for compensation from the Japanese companies for which they worked; all to maintain a strong economic and political link with the Japanese in the quickly emerging globalized economy. Today many of the veterans of Bataan are nearing the end of their lives and many have given up hope of ever seeing a dime from their Japanese captors. Many are simply seeking a public apology, perhaps to gain some closure on what must be their darkest years.[17] Unfortunately, the American and Japanese governments have become far too intertwined in today’s world to risk losing their alliance for a few “Battling Bastards from Bataan.”[18]

Bibliography

Albrecht, James, and Edwards, Joseph, and Popravak, Terrence. “’Come as You Are’ Warfare: The Bataan Example” Military Review Vol. 83, Issue 2 (2003), pg. 84-89.

Bilek, Anton. No Uncle Sam: The Forgotten of Bataan. Ohio, Kent State University Press, 2003.

Falk, Stanley L. Bataan, A March of Death. USA: Penguin Publishing, 1987.

Frazier, Glenn D. Hell’s Guest. GA: Williams & Company Publishers, 2007.

Harkin, Tom (Iowa). Congressional Record 17 July 2003: 18511.

Holmes, Linda. Unjust Enrichment. IN: Stackpole Books, 2004.

Jackson, Charles, and Norton, Bruce. I Am Alive!: A United States Marine’s Story of Survival in a World War II Japanese POW Camp. CA, Presidio Press, 2003.

MacArthur, Douglas. “Farewell Speech to Congress.” United States Congress. April 19. 1951.

Morton, Louis. “The Battling Bastards of Bataan,” in Military Affairs, Vol. 15, No. 2. Society for Military History, 1951.

Nelson, Jim. US-Japan Dialogue on POWs. “Issues of the Bataan Death March Revisited.” http://www.us-japandialogueonpows.org/Nelson.htm (Accessed September 10th, 2010)

Norman, Michael, and Norman, Elizabeth. “Surviving Bataan” American Heritage Vol. 59, Issue 2 (2009), pg 56-63.

Norman, Michael, and Norman, Elizabeth. Tears in the Darkness: The Story of the Bataan Death March and It’s Aftermath. USA: Macmillan Publishing, 2009.

Norman, Elizabeth. We Band of Angels: The Untold Story of American Nurses Trapped on Bataan by the Japanese. CA: Atria Publishing, 2000.

Payne, Stephen. “Lest We Forget: World War II” Propaganda. http://gadabyte.com/ww-ii/usa-prop.html (Accessed September 10th, 2010)

Reynolds, Gary. “U.S. Prisoners of War and Civilian American Citizens Captured and Interned by Japan in World War II: The Issue of Compensation by Japan.” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress. Congress Research Service: 12/17/2002.

Sides, Hampton. Ghost Soldiers: The Forgotten Epic Story of World War II’s Most Dramatic Mission. IL: Doubleday Publishing, 2001.

Tenney, Lester. My Hitch In Hell: The Bataan Death March. NY: Potomac Books, 2007.

Tokudome, Kinue. “The Bataan Death March and the 66-Year Struggle for Justice.” Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus (April 14, 2008) http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/33966917/The-Bataan-Death-March-and-the-66Year-Struggle-for-Justice/fulltext (Accessed September 10th, 2010)

Truman, Harry S. Public Papers of the President, 1945.

Waldron, Ben, and Burneson, Emily. Corregidor: From Paradise to Hell!. IN: Trafford Publishing, 2006.

Wilkinson, Stephan. “The Seven Most Daring Raids Ever” Military History Vol. 26 Issue 4 (2009), p34-41.

Woods, Lewis. “Horror Tale Bared: 3 Survivors Say Thirst Sent Men Crazy on ‘March of Death’”. New York Times, January 28, 1944, pg. 1.

Young, Donald J. The Battle of Bataan: A History of the 90 Day Siege and Eventual Surrender of 75,000 Filipino and United States Troops to the Japanese in World War II. NC: Mcfarland Publishing, 1992.

American Society of International Law. “World War II Era Claims against Japanese Companies.” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 95, No. 1, January 2001. Pg. 139-143.

Commission on Wartime Relocation and Interment of Civilians. “Personal Justice Denied.” February 1983.

General Announcement. “Jap Newspapers Ordered to Tell of Atrocities” The Canberra Times, September 15, 1945, Front Page.

PBS American Experience. “Bataan Rescue: The Most Daring Rescue Mission of World War II.” PBS Online. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bataan/ (Accessed Sep 10, 2010)

PBS American Experience. “Capture and Death March” PBS Online. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarthur/sfeature/bataan_capture.html (Accessed Sep 10, 2010)

“War Department Orientation Film”. Know Your Enemy – Japan – 1366A, produced by US Army Pictoral Service, 1944.


[1] Lewis Woods, “Horror Tale Bared: 3 Survivors Say Thirst Sent Men Crazy on ‘March of Death’,” New York Times, 28 Jan. 1944, 1.

[2] This is the same headline from January 28th, 1944, when the public was informed of what happened on Bataan.

[3] Harry S. Truman, Public Papers of the Presidents, 1945, 212.

[4] Anton Bilek, No Uncle Sam: The Forgotten of Bataan,(OH: Kent State Press, 2003) and Lester Tenney, My Hitch in Hell: The Bataan Death March (NY: Potomac Books, 2007).

[5] Lester Tenney, My Hitch in Hell, 147.

[6] Linda Holmes, Unjust Enrichment (IN: Stackpole Books, 2004).

[7] Michael & Elizabeth Norman, Tears in the Darkness, 313.

[8] When adjusted for inflation in 2000, this totaled only about $20,000.

[9] American Society of International Law, “World War II Era Claims against Japanese Companies” (The American Journal of International Law, 95.1. Jan. 2001) 139-143.

[10] This trend of silence continued throughout the century. Linda Holmes, author of Unjust Enrichment, states in her introduction that she tried to write her work in the early 1990’s, but there were too few former POWs willing to discuss their time in Japan.

[11] Linda Holmes, Unjust Enrichment (IN: Stackpole Books, 2004).

[12] Douglas MacArthur, “Farewell Speech to Congress,” United States Congress (April 19, 1951).

[13] Overall, this cost the American government about 1.2 billion dollars for approximately 60,000 former detainees. Only about 6,000 American troops returned home from Japanese internment. Therefore, similar reparations for American troops would have cost the American government only about 10% of what they spent on reparations for Japanese-American detainees.

[14] Michael and Elizabeth Norman, Tears in the Darkness, 2009 & Hampton Sides, Ghost Soldiers (IL: Doubleday Publishing, 2001) 376-390.

[15] Gary Reynolds, “U.S. Prisoners of War and Civilian American Citizens Captured and Interned by Japan in World War II: The Issue of Compensation by Japan,” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, Congress Research Service: 12/17/2002.

[16] Tom Harkin (Iowa), Congressional Record 17 July 2003: 18511.

[17] Michael and Elizabeth Norman, Tears in the Darkness, iv.

[18] Louis Morton, “The Battling Bastards of Bataan,” Military Affairs, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Society for Military History, 1951) i.

Literature Review

Friday, December 3rd, 2010

I have not been able to p0st for a while, but below I have included my literature review.  It was difficult to figure out my main thesis regarding the literature, but the following is what I concluded with:

“Reflections on the writings of Olaudah Equiano and Frederick Douglass”

Carol Killian
Literature Review
Written, October 18, 2010

Throughout the late 1700s and into the 1800s, abolitionists began to speak out against slavery in the United States.  Among them were two notable authors who were African Americans and who had been enslaved themselves.  Historians have written about slavery and the abolitionist movement, basing their information on the works of Frederick Douglass and Olaudah Equiano.  Both Equiano and Douglass’ works were published during two different centuries which altered their approaches to the abolition movement.  Likewise, writers who came afterwards have discussed these two key leaders in the context of the educational status of blacks, Equiano and Douglass’ approaches to speaking out against slavery and their impact on the changing times throughout the abolition movement.

In Equiano’s Travels written by Olaudah Equiano, the editor, Paul Edwards explains in the introduction that Equiano’s literature made African literature accessible.[1] Following in Equiano’s footsteps, Douglass declared himself as “America’s black Jeremiah” and wrote the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, which was published in 1845.[2] Both of these African American writers have given historians firsthand access to what slavery was like.  Long after the emancipation of slaves, writers of today continue to use these men’s lives in order to demonstrate the changing approaches to slavery over time.  In an article by Nicole Smith, it is evident that Equiano and Douglass are similar yet different.[3] The greatest difference is their views on “the keys to freedom.”[4] For Douglass, it is education and literacy that earn a slave their freedom but for Equiano, although he believes education is vital, it is also dangerous for slaves to be educated in a “society that wishes to keep slaves ignorant.”[5] Similar to one another, Douglass and Equiano both earn support from many people who want to help them become educated and then use “the power of words and literacy” to speak out against the absurdities of slavery.[6] Today, literature that has been written about Equiano is most notable for arguing in support of his work even though it may not be a complete firsthand account.  Frederick Douglass’ main works have been analyzed by numerous historians and each look at the numerous ways he pushed for the abolishment of slavery in the United States.

In the 1700s, slavery was gaining a foothold in the British colonies and throughout Europe.  For Equiano, his work brought about questions such as, “why was it that…almost every European country supported the capture, purchase and enslavement of Africans without compassion?”[7] While he played a major role in the abolitionist movement in the American colonies, he also focused on the British Abolitionist Movement.  In his fight, Equiano made appeals to the Queen of England in 1788, and traveled mainly around England promoting his story.  Equiano’s Travels is written in a play by play format, and in this way, Equiano pleads for the lives of those that are like himself and have been placed in unwanted situations of life.

Writers such as, Marcus Rediker, have used eye witness accounts of past slaves in order to stress the traumas of slavery.  In his book, The Slave Ship (2007), Rediker uses Equiano’s narrative in order to emphasize how slaves were shipped to and from Africa.  Rediker uses Equiano’s story to emphasize that Equiano “spoke for millions.”[8] According to Rediker, Equiano’s story reveals much about the slave trade in general especially because he was “the first person to write extensively about the slave trade from the perspective of the enslaved.”[9] From The Slave Ship, it is evident that Rediker tries to emphasize the fact that Equiano was changed by his experience of being shipped from Africa.  As a result, he learned that “Multitude is strength.”[10] Rediker’s excerpt on Equiano’s narrative demonstrates the fact that Equiano spoke out against the slave trade by presenting his own testimony.

Another author who has written regarding Equiano is Emily Donaldson Field.  In, “Expecting Himself,” she explains that in “1999, Vincent Carretta changed the trajectory of Equiano scholarship with his evidence that Equiano may have been born not in West Africa but in the Carolinas.”[11] Field goes on in her essay to state that if this is the case, Equiano may have used pictures from other African Americans’ memories to depict “Igbo country.”[12] Therefore, the accuracy of The Interesting Narrative may be in question.  The fact that Equiano may not have experienced all that he said he had is of little importance regarding how his work opened the door for future abolitionist writers.  Field’s article is significant in revealing to the reader that Equiano uses an “Anglo identity” in his writings.[13] He stresses the importance of changing from an “African pagan” to a “British Christian.”[14] From Fields it is clear that unlike Douglass, Equiano’s writings can be questioned regarding their accuracy of the firsthand experiences he claims, but regardless, Equiano still influenced the rights of African Americans.

There are many writings about Douglass.  In Peter C. Myers’ book, Frederick Douglass, Race and the Rebirth of American Liberalism, he reflects on the past decade during which Douglass has been given numerous labels as an abolitionist leader.  Myers discusses the fact that some critics have found Douglass as “urging blacks to become ‘like whites.’”[15] While there are faults that can be found in Douglass’ work, Myers goes states that “Douglass was right” in his pursuit of fighting for natural rights.[16] Myers takes Douglass’ works and his life and looks deeply at Douglass’ exposure of slavery’s ‘true philosophy.’[17] Throughout the 1800s, other African American writers such as David Walker[18] and William Lloyd Garrison[19] rose to action.  Myers makes many points that argue the fact that Frederick Douglass came at the perfect time in history.  “By Douglass’ day, the wholehearted affirmation of slavery’s absolute superiority” had become grounded in southern thought.[20] Unlike Equiano, Douglass had to fight against something that had been established for centuries.

In The Black Hearts of Men (2002), John Stauffer discusses the “Radical Political Abolitionists.”[21] The Radical Political Abolitionists were Gerrit Smith, Frederick Douglass, James McCune Smith and John Brown, and they “overcame existing social barriers.”[22] The Black Hearts of Men clearly explains that for Frederick Douglass, the fight to end slavery was a pressing matter in the world around him.  Douglass worked along with other leading abolitionists such as Abraham Lincoln in order to gain recognition.[23] In Wu jin-Ping’s, Frederick Douglass and the Black Liberation Movement (2000), he describes the struggles and hardships that liberating the slaves took Douglass through.  Unlike Equiano, Douglass was fighting for the industry of slavery to be ended in the United States.  The slave trade had already ended in England when Douglass began to campaign.

Literature regarding Equiano and Douglass can be looked at topically.  Writings about Equiano focus largely on his monumental story which was the first major work published by a black man.  It is clear in the writings about him that Equiano used his dramatic life experiences to demonstrate the hardships of slavery.  According to Peter Myers, Frederick Douglass finished up what Equiano helped begin.  Writings on Frederick Douglass make reference to other abolitionists of his time while writings on Equiano have no other abolitionists to relate it with.  Both of these men changed the fight for equality for every individual.

Bibliography:

Blassingame, John.  Frederick Douglass. National Park Service, 1976.

Douglass, Frederick.  Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, Writtenby Himself. Edited by David W. Blight.  St. Martin’s Press, 1993.

Equiano, Olaudah.  Equiano’s Travels, The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano or Gustavus Vassa the African. Edited by Paul Edwards.  Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, 1967.

Field, Emily, “‘Excepting Himself’: Olaudah Equiano, Native Americans, and the Civilizing Mission,” MELUS 34, no. 4 (Winter 2009): 15-38. http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umw.edu (accessed September 19, 2010).

Jin-Ping, Wu.  Frederick Douglass and the Black Liberation Movement. New York:  Garland Publishing, 2000.

Myers, Peter C.  Frederick Douglass, Race and the Rebirth of American Liberalism. Lawrence, Kansas:  University Press of Kansas, 2008.

Rediker, Marcus.  The Slave Ship. London, England:  Penguin Group, 2007.

Ruchames, Louis.  The Abolitionists, A Collection of Their Writings. New York:  G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1963.

Smith, Nicole.  “Comparison of The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, Up From Slavery, and The Interesting Narrative by Olaudah Equiano.”  Article Myriad [cited September 9, 2010].  <http://www.articlemyriad.com/slave_narratives_literacy.htm>.

Stauffer, John.  The Black Hearts of Men. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University


[1] Olaudah Equiano, Equiano’s Travels, The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano or Gustavus Vassa the African, ed. Paul Edwards (Long Grove, Illinois:  Waveland Press, 1967), viii.

[2] Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, Written by Himself, ed. David W. Blight (St. Martin’s Press, 1993), 11.

[3] Nicole Smith, “Comparison of The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, Up From Slavery, and The Interesting Narrative by Olaudah Equiano,” Article Myriad, http://www.articlemyriad.com/slave_narratives_literacy.htm (accessed September 9, 2010).

[4] Nicole Smith, “Comparison of The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, Up From Slavery, and The Interesting Narrative by Olaudah Equiano,” Article Myriad, http://www.articlemyriad.com/slave_narratives_literacy.htm (accessed September 9, 2010).

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Olaudah Equiano, Equiano’s Travels, ed. Paul Edwards, ix.

[8] Marcus Rediker,  The Slave Ship, (London, England:  Penguin Group, 2007) 109.

[9] Ibid, 109.

[10] Ibid, 131.

[11] Emily Field, “‘Excepting Himself’: Olaudah Equiano, Native Americans, and the Civilizing Mission,” MELUS 34, no. 4, 15-38, http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umw.edu (accessed September 19, 2010).

[12] Ibid, 16

[13] Ibid, 17

[14] Ibid, 17

[15] Peter C. Myers, Frederick Douglass, Race and the Rebirth of American Liberalism, (Lawrence, Kansas:  University Press of Kansas, 2008), 11.

[16] Ibid, 21.

[17] Ibid, 22.

[18] David Walker published Appeal to the Coloured Citizens of the World in 1829.

[19] Garrison launched the Liberator, in 1831.

[20] Peter C. Myers, Frederick Douglass, 23.

[21] John Stauffer, The Black Hearts of Men, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2002), 2.

[22] John Stauffer, The Black Hearts of Men, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2002), 2.

[23] Wu Jin-Ping, Frederick Douglass and the Black Liberation Movement, (New York:  Garland Publishing, 2000), 3.

Final Paper on Calhoun

Wednesday, December 1st, 2010

 

John C Calhoun: pro-South, pro-slavery

Bram Sims

HIST 299 Final Paper

December 1st, 2010

I pledge,

            Born March 18th, 1782, John Caldwell Calhoun entered the world in the backcountry of South Carolina.  Because of his father’s failing health, Calhoun spent his late teens and early twenties at home working on the family farm in Abbeville County. Not until after these years did Calhoun get the opportunity to attended Yale, where he became a member of the prestigious Phi Beta Kappa fraternity.  After Yale, Calhoun finished his education at the Tapping Reeve Law School, in Connecticut. Calhoun then returned to South Carolina and became a member of the South Carolina bar in 1807.  From 1807 until 1817 Calhoun operated him Law firm in Abbeville.  However, he did not very much like being a lawyer and wanted a career in politics.  He undertook the position of Secretary of War from 1817 through 1825.  Calhoun then served as the seventh Vice President of the United States under John Quincy Adams and then under Andrew Jackson.  While serving under Jackson, Calhoun became the first Vice President ever to resign from office.  After his resignation from the vice-presidency in 1829 Calhoun became a North Carolina Senator.  During his senatorial years Calhoun became a strict sectionalist.  He remained a Senator till his death in 1850.  Calhoun is most well known for his years spent as a Senator because of his extreme pro-slavery pro-South views which divided him from the Northern politicians he once supported.  This paper will take a look into why Calhoun had such a strong pro-South pro-slavery views based on his family reasons—mainly the influence his father had on him—economic and financial situations of the South, as well as personal experiences during his political career. By surveying a number of sources answers to the aforementioned question will be uncovered and presented.[1] 

             Calhoun’s family life begins with his father Patrick Calhoun, best described by Coit, “Patrick Calhoun was a fighter. The whole life of this Scotch-Irish man from Donegal was a battle, political or military.”[2] This example is where John Calhoun got his fighting spirit, a spirit that which would play a large part in upholding his pro-slavery arguments. While others would simply let legislation pass or give up on it, Calhoun would never back away from a fight which he believed in.  Another time, when talking about Patrick Calhoun as a legislator for up-county North Carolina, Coit states, “Among the gentlemen from St. John and Prince George Perishes, the up-county legislator distinguished himself by his vote against adoption of the Federal Constitution on the ground that it permitted other people to tax South Carolinians, which, he asserted, was taxation without representation.”[3] This as well as the following quote show Patrick’s legacy left to John through personal freedom to decide what is best for one’s self, “ …at the age of nine he remembered his father saying that the best government was that which allowed the individual the most liberty, ‘compatible with order and tranquility,’ and that the objective of all government should be to ‘throw off needless restraints.’”[4]  Just by looking at Patrick Calhoun, one can make a reasonable connection as to why Calhoun held pro-South and pro-slavery beliefs.  In fact, overall, Coit implies that Calhoun always supported the South, sectionalism as well as state rights and never had truly believed nationalistic beliefs.  However, some believe that Coit flip flops as to whether Calhoun held strong state s rights feeling throughout his life or just later on, “Yet Miss Coit weakens her case by showing Calhoun’s regrets in later life for some of the nationalistic acts of his earlier life.”[5]  Bartlett believes that Calhoun’s youth and upbringing molded him into the pro-South North Carolinian that he became, but he also thinks that this “unquestioned commitment to his culture and it’s institutions” is very strange in such a revolutionary time period.[6]

            Not only did Patrick Calhoun teach John about politics and the fighting spirit from early on, he also shaped John’s ideology over the slavery issue.  Patrick Calhoun made it apparent to John from a very young age how the spread of slavery into the back country improved public morals by ridding the countryside of the shiftless poor whites that had once held the region back through violence and fighting amongst one another.  Patrick Calhoun preached that slavery instilled in the whites who remained a code of honor that took away the desire to fight with other whites.  From such a standpoint, John soon believed that the expansion of slavery into the backcountry decreased the likelihood for social conflict and made slavery a measure of wealth.[7]

            When considering the financial and economic side of Calhoun’s pro-South and pro-slavery argument, only logic is needed to understand his views.  Without slavery, the South would lose huge amounts of money and to hire help would be costly.  In response this would only give the North more control and economic influence over the South.  It shift could quite possibly plunge the South into a deep and immediate recession which could then lead to a depression.  This in turn would lead to heavy support from the North and the casting of Southern votes in favor of the North.  In Frederic Bancroft’s Calhoun and the South Carolina Nullification Movement (1928), this idea is shown throughout multiple chapters which focus on Calhoun’s nullification of Northern legislation. [8] An African American journal of the 1920’s sums it up by saying, “The attitude of other Southern States is considered as determined largely by economic interests. Yet South Carolina is thought of as isolated in taking such an advanced position.” [9] So, the South in general backed Calhoun’s financial and economic reasons against the abolition of slavery.

            The political reasons for Calhoun being pro-South and supporting slavery go hand in hand with those of his father, but only after John Calhoun grew older did he agree entirely.  August Spain speculates that this attitude change resulted from Calhoun’s realization that he would not become President and therefore he would no longer need the support of Northerners or their votes.  Spain believes, as do others, that Calhoun always favored the pro-South and pro-slavery viewpoint. Calhoun showed much regret in his later years towards sacrificing his sectionalist ideology for a nationalist one during the early years of his political career.[10] Spain also credits Calhoun’s Disquisition on Government as a major work to support pro-South ideology which Calhoun wrote to show the minority South’s view on current United States government.[11]  The Disquisition on Government goes on to discuss concurrent majority as a way to deal with politics and the idea that the States have sovereignty over the Constitution itself.[12] Again this supports the same idea that Patrick Calhoun had with regard to the legacy he left John. 

            Where most Southern politicians supporting slavery excused it as a necessary evil, Calhoun does not and states this in his famous 1837 speech on the senate floor. In this speech he argued to congress that slavery is a positive good and not an evil.  “But let me not be understood as admitting, even by implication, that the existing relations between the two races in the slaveholding States is an evil:—far otherwise; I hold it to be a good, as it has thus far proved itself to be to both, and will continue to prove so if not disturbed by the fell spirit of abolition. I appeal to facts. Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually.”[13]  Calhoun supports his claim based on two points, paternalism and white-supremacy.  Calhoun states that any society has a higher elite group that controls the rest and that “the relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two, is, instead of an evil, a good—a positive good.”[14] This idea also relates to Patrick Calhoun’s influence on John.  Patrick once told his son, “…a man’s wealth is measured by the number of slaves he owns.”[15]

            Calhoun’s personal experiences with Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren also shaped Calhoun into a pro-South politician because of their harsh treatment towards him.  Originally Calhoun supported both Jackson and Van Buren because they shared the ideas that the National bank was a threat and common enemy of Northern laborers, Southern plantation owners, as well as small farmers everywhere.  However, after the National bank situation settled their relations suffered due to the exclusion of Calhoun in political activities. This exclusion emotionally hurt Calhoun, who was described because of this falling out as, “sincerely upset Calhoun while illuminating his return to sectionalist policies.”[16]  Because of this, Calhoun lashes out at his fellow politicians and calls Andrew Jackson “weak, suspicious and ignorant,” and Martin Van Buren (whose political talents he respected) the Prince of Darkness.[17]  Charles Wiltse goes as far as to say that Calhoun only changed from Nationalist to Sectionalist because of Jackson’s betrayal of Calhoun, “…one does not question Calhoun’s shift from Nationalism to Sectionalism was directly related to his falling out with Jackson.”[18] However, in Manning Dauer’s review of Wiltse “ …what Calhoun attempted was the organization of the South as an effective political bloc to preserve slavery” and when he could no longer do this with the help Jackson he left the Nationalist party to seek out support for slavery somewhere else.[19]

            Because of his father’s influences during his childhood years, Calhoun came to be a fierce and unrelenting fighter in defense of what he thought to be a positive good.  With the idea that without slavery, the South would fall behind greatly and be thrown into an economic depression using the North as a crutch Calhoun sights financial reasons to maintain slavery to support the South.  Calhoun’s time spent in politics with the Nationalist Party and Andrew Jackson in particular acted only as an attempt to help preserve the South and slavery.  With the support of the sources referenced above one can draw the conclusion as to what molded Calhoun into this pro-South and pro-slavery ideology.

  

 

Bibliography

Bancroft, Frederic. Calhoun and the South Carolina nullification movement. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1928.

Bartlett, Irving. John C. Calhoun: A Biography. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1993.

Belohavic, John. Book review on John C Calhoun and the price of Union: A Biography.Tampa:    Florida Historical Society press, 1990.

Calhoun, John.  Disquisition on Government. New York: Peter Smith, 1943.

Calhoun, John.  Slavery a positive good. 1837.

Coit, Margaret. John C Calhoun, American Portrait. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1950. 

Dauer, Manning  Book review on John C. Calhoun, Sectionalist, 1840-1850. London: Cambridge             University press, 1953.

Eaton, Clement. Review. Philadelphia: The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography,      1950.

Journal of Negro History 19 no. 1 (jan): 1929, 100.

Niven, John. John C. Calhoun and the Price of Union : A Biography . Baton Rouge: Louisana      State University Press, 1988.

Wiltse, Charles. John C. Calhoun, Nullifier, 1829-1839. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1949.

Wiltse, Charles. John C. Calhoun, Sectionalist, 1840-1850. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1951.

Spain, August. The Political Theory of John C. Calhoun. New York: Bookman Associates, 1951.


[1]           from Calhoun biographies such as Frederic Bancroft’s, Calhoun and the South Carolina Nullification Movement (1928), to public speeches like, Slavery a Positive Good given by Calhoun addressing Congress on February 6, 1837.  Family reasons will be looked into with Margaret Coit’s John C. Calhoun, American Portrait (1950), which discusses Calhoun’s relations with women and father, and Irving Bartlett’s John C. Calhoun, a Biography (1993), which explains how Calhoun’s upbringing tied him to the South and slavery.  Economic and financial reasons for being pro-slavery will be discussed with the help of Bancroft’s biography as well as Calhoun’s Slavery a Positive Good, both of which are mentioned above.  Politically, August Spain’s The Political Theory of John C. Calhoun, and The Works of John C. Calhoun, edited by Richard Cralle, will give some insight as to what influenced Calhoun during his time as a politician.  Calhoun’s personal experiences will be examined through John Niven’s John C. Calhoun and the Price of Union: a Biography (1951), and Charles Wiltse’s three volume biography, both of which deal with Calhoun’s personal experiences with fellow politicians.  

[2]               Margaret Coit, John C Calhoun, American Portrait (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1950), 3.

[3]               Ibid, 4.

[4]               Ibid, 6.

[5]               Clement Eaton, Review (Philadelphia: The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 1950), 545.

[6]               Irving Bartlett, John C. Calhoun: A Biography (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1993), 233.

[7]               Ibid, 46.

[8]               Frederic Bancroft, Calhoun and the South Carolina Nullification Movement (Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1928.), 36,94,108.  Mainly Chapters 5-8 discuss this idea in detail.

[9]               Journal of Negro History 19 no. 1 ((Jan): 1929), 100.

[10]             August Spain, The Political Thoery of John C. Calhoun (New York: Bookman Associates, 1951), 57.

[11]             Ibid, 267.

[12]             John Calhoun, Disquisition on Government (New York: Peter Smith, 1943), 23,45.

[13]             John Calhoun, Slavery a Positive Good.

[14]             John Calhoun, Slavery a Positive Good.

[15]             John Niven, John C. Calhoun and the price of Union : A Biography (Baton Rouge: Louisana State University Press, 1988), 38.

[16]             Ibid, 79.

[17]             John Belohavic, Book review on John C Calhoun and the price of Union: A Biography (Tampa: Florida Historical Society press, 1990), 363.

[18]             Charles Wiltse, John C. Calhoun, Sectionalist, 1840-1850 (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1951), 135.

[19]             Manning Dauer, Book Review on John C. Calhoun, Sectionalist, 1840-1850 (London: Cambridge University press, 1953), 167.  

Lit Review

Monday, October 18th, 2010

In April of 1942, a captured American force of ten thousand soldiers was marched over a sixty-two mile stretch of Philippine jungle. The American troops had surrendered following the Battle of Bataan, the largest surrender in American history. Along what would become known as the Bataan Death March, these troops were beaten, starved, and murdered by their Japanese captors. Those that survived were shipped back to Japan to serve as slave labor for Japanese companies facing severe shortages in manpower. News of the events on Bataan was released to the public three years after the Death March and was met with intense anti-Japanese sentiments and fierce nationalism in America. The veterans and former POWs of Bataan were sworn to secrecy upon their return home by the American government, and were prevented from filing war-crime claims against the Japanese a few years later. Since the soldiers were silenced by their government and not allowed to file war-crime claims, literature from the soldiers and about the soldiers went on hiatus until the early 2000s, when a resurgence of interest in the subject was peaked by the release of several memoirs by former POWs from Bataan. These works suggest that the American government neglected their own veterans needs by providing little to no compensation for their time in captivity, and the blocked any attempts for compensation by the Japanese companies for which they worked in order to maintain a strong economic and political link with the Japanese in the quickly emerging globalized economy.

A flurry of newspaper articles from the time detail the atrocities committed by the Japanese and the whereabouts of some of the ten thousand captured American soldiers. Though news of the Death March shocked the public, it was quickly overshadowed by the end of the war months later. Reports from the 1940’s and 1950’s of the events following the Battle of Bataan are scarce. A few military journals, such as Military Affairs, Vol. 15, No. 2, retold the story but merely provided a detailed summary of the battle.[1] The story of the soldiers from Bataan seems to have evaporated from the public consciousness at the time, as no memoirs or soldier’s accounts from Bataan were published until the early 2000’s. This information further supports the theory that the American government purposely silenced soldiers from telling their story in order to rebuild ties with Japan after the vicious anti-Japanese propaganda released during World War II.

Searching through historical journals, newspapers, and magazines from between 1950 and 1990 yields scarcely a mention of the Battle of Bataan. It was not until the early 2000s that Bataan reentered the public consciousness. Published in 2001, Ghost Soldiers, by Hampton Sides details the daring mission to free captured soldiers from the island of Luzon.[2] This story quickly garnered much national attention and became a New York Times “Best Seller.” This national attention helped reignited public curiosity about the Bataan Death March. Though this work provides little insight into the lives of soldiers, or political policy at the time, it is extremely important to note the sharp rise in publications about the Bataan Death March in the following years. Ageing veterans from Bataan began to tell their story and several books were published by former POWs between 2000 and 2002, notably Lester Tenney’s My Hitch in Hell and Anton Bilek’s No Uncle Sam: The Forgotten of Bataan. [3] Both Tenney and Bilek recall the reception that awaited them in America. As the rest of the nation celebrated the end of the war, Tenney recalls returning to America “…quietly, anonymously, without any fanfare or banners waving to welcome us…”[4] These memoirs reveal much about the soldier’s time in Japan, but the publication dates reveal much more about the tight-lip attitude the government imposed upon the soldiers as they returned home.

The most useful source for examining the Death March’s after effects is Michael and Elizabeth Norman’s Tears in the Darkness: The Story of the Bataan Death March and Its Aftermath. [5] The Norman’s interviewed hundreds of Bataan veterans about their time in captivity and describe the mental and physical deterioration of the captured soldiers and their disappointment in the American government in the years following their release. It also details the reasons behind the executive order not to discuss their ordeal, as the US and Japan began work on a peace treaty that would eventually nullify any war claims against Japan by former POWs. Through these interviews, the Norman’s suggest that the American government silenced these soldiers upon their return home until a treaty could be made with Japan that would void any war-crime claims against Japan, allowing the United States and Japan to become close economic partners. The Norman’s also note that Tears in the Darkness was a work “…ten years in the making” [6] thus the interviews they conducted with former POWs most likely inspired many of the interviewees to begin to reach out and tell their story.

In an article by Kinue Tokudome in the Asia-Pacific Journal from 2008,[7] Tokudome details the former POWs’ battle with their own government over reparations from Japan, as they claimed they received unsubstantial compensation for their time spent in captivity.[8] This piece clearly supports justice and reparations for the veterans. The irony here is that there were very few sources published in America vying for reparations for the veterans, yet this article, which is in support of veterans attaining reparations, comes from an Asian journal. One can gather that in the post-war globalized economy that began to form following World War II weighed much heavier in the minds of the American government than justice for it’s veterans. Linda Goetz explores this issue further in her book Unjust Enrichment.[9] Goetz conducted hundreds of interviews with former POW’s and details the types of labor the POW’s were subjected to during their internment. Unjust Enrichment also describes the fallout from the lawsuits filed by the POW’s, and the lack of so much as a public apology from the Japanese government or companies.  This piece effectively summarizes the mindset of the POWs during the 2000’s, many of whom only wanted a public apology as they are nearing the end of their lives.

Most of the literature about the Bataan Death March and its aftermath suggest that the American government purposely silenced the soldiers who were captured on Bataan in hopes of rebuilding an alliance with Japan, and in turn left many former POWs to suffer after the years of abuse in Japan. There is also a notable spike in the early 2000s of interest in Bataan, possibly sparked by Michael and Elizabeth Norman’s Tears in the Darkness. These sentiments are repeated in almost every source regarding the Bataan Death March, and shed light on a subject the American government would like to keep in the shadows.

Works Cited

Bilek, Anton. No Uncle Sam: The Forgotten of Bataan. Ohio, Kent State University Press, 2003.

Frazier, Glenn D. Hell’s Guest. GA: Williams & Company Publishers, 2007.

Goetz, Linda. Unjust Enrichment. IN: Stackpole Books, 2004.

Morton, Louis. “The Battling Bastards of Bataan,” in Military Affairs, Vol. 15, No. 2. Society for Military History, 1951.

Norman, Michael, and Norman, Elizabeth. “Surviving Bataan” American Heritage Vol. 59, Issue 2 (2009), pg 56-63.

Norman, Michael, and Norman, Elizabeth. Tears in the Darkness: The Story of the Bataan Death March and It’s Aftermath. USA: Macmillin Publishing, 2009.

Sides, Hampton. Ghost Soldiers: The Forgotten Epic Story of World War II’s Most Dramatic Mission. IL: Doubleday Publishing, 2001.

Tenney, Lester. My Hitch In Hell: The Bataan Death March. NY: Potomac Books, 2007.

Tokudome, Kinue. “The Bataan Death March and the 66-Year Struggle for Justice.” Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus (April 14, 2008) http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/33966917/The-Bataan-Death-March-and-the-66Year-Struggle-for-Justice/fulltext (Accessed September General Announcement. “Jap Newspapers Ordered to Tell of Atrocities” The Canberra Times, September 15, 1945, Front Page.


[1] Louis Morton, “The Battling Bastards of Bataan”, Military Affairs, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Society for Military History, 1951).

[2] Hampton Sides, Ghost Soldiers: The Forgotten Epic Story of World War II’s Most Dramatic Mission (IL: Doubleday Publishing, 2001).

[3] Anton Bilek, No Uncle Sam: The Forgotten of Bataan,(OH: Kent State Press, 2003) and Lester Tenney, My Hitch in Hell: The Bataan Death March (NY: Potomac Books, 2007).

[4] Lester Tenney, My Hitch in Hell, p. 147.

[5] Michael & Elizabeth Norman, Tears in the Darkness: The Story of the Bataan Death March and It’s Aftermath (USA: Macmillion Publishing, 2009).

[6] Michael & Elizabeth Norman, Tears in the Darkness, p. iv.

[7] Kinue Tokudome, “The Bataan Death March and the 66-year Struggle for Justice”, Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus (April 14, 2004).

[8] According to a report in the American Journal of International Law, the survivors were paid $2.50 a day for time in captivity, adding up to approximately $3,103 for over three years in captivity. When adjusted for inflation in 2000, this totaled only about $20,000.

[9] Linda Goetz, Unjust Enrichment (IN: Stackpole Books, 2004).

Ridiculous Historical Thesis:

Sunday, October 3rd, 2010

http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/1903/2514/1/umi-umd-2395.pdf

This is a link to a document about the Camelots du roi in France.  it’s interesting…

footnotes for research paper sources

Tuesday, September 28th, 2010

So far I have only identified 1 primary source.

Douglas Williams, Retreat From Dunkirk, (New York: Brentano’s, 1941), ….

The following are some of my secondary sources.

         James P. Duffy, Hitler Slept Late and Other Blunders That Cost Him the War, (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1991),…

Ronald Atkin, Pillar of Fire: Dunkirk 1940, ( Edinburgh: Birlinn, 2000),….

B.H. Liddell Hart, The German Generals Talk, ( New York: William Morrow & Co., 1948),….

I have also only found one online source so far that I have decided will actually be useful for the paper.

           BBC, “1940: Dunkirk rescue is over-Churchill defiant,”On This Day BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june4/newsid_3500000/3500865.stm (Accessed September 7, 2010).

Josh Heigle