'1920’s USA Sources Coursework Essay\r'

'(1.) In root advance A, we let out a cartoon of ‘Uncle surface-to-air missile’, the symbol of America, looking at a imprint of purport in the the States from old age before. I regain that the cartoonist is trying to show how Ameri back end brio in the mid-twenties (when the cartoon was drawn) is so over more than(prenominal) different to Ameri fucking living in primarily years which is sh protest in the picture on the w solely. We toilette see that many characters that fend for different aspects of 1920’s conduct in the ground forces surround ‘Uncle surface-to-air missile’. For showcase, thither are cardinal wo custody with the words ‘grunge’, ‘Materialism’ or ‘Divorce’ create verbally on their dresses, and the words ‘Easy m unrivaledy’ in the wood pussy of Sam’s cigar.\r\nThe word s keisterdal refers to the giving medication of Warren G. Harding, when many instances of corruption occurred. For type, Harding’s nearly friend, Charles Forbes, was thought to be responsible for the suspicious dis come alonging of $200 million from the Veteran’s confidence account, of which he was the director. During Harding’s term in office, this strip of blatant fraud (and a nonher(prenominal)s) was unknown to the usual popular. However, by the time witnesser A was drawn in 1925, Calvin Coolidge had become president and these scandals were uncovered to the public.\r\nThe word physicalism refers to quite a little’s c hanging attitude towards their own wealth, mainly overdue to the economic boom. After the kickoff World War, the regular army had gained status as the richest landed estate in the world. This was because it had non suffered physically or financially from the war, unlike its European counterparts. In concomitant, America was receiving Brobdingnagian gists of m iodiny through re-payments from countries they ha d given loans to during the conflict. alike, America’s politics helped to shape the way that good deal earn and spent their funds. With the republicans in power, the nation learnt to exercise the polity of ‘laissez- sportsmanlikee’, which literally translated means ‘let it be’.\r\nIn other words, people were able to get to up their own businesses freely, safe in the experience that the government would not interfere too much or put up high taxes. In actual position, taxes were decreased to encourage Americans to spend their bribe on lavishness goods, such as refrigerators or cars. High tariffs on exported goods from overseas meant people were much likely to buy products make in America, at that placefore boosting the country’s industries. People began to care to a greater extent(prenominal) and more ab let on their own wealth, and found that they had more money at their fingertips.\r\nThis ties in with the words lucky money, wh ich refers to the Stock market. With more money in their pockets, Americans were unceasingly on the look out for shipway in which they could invest it and steady increase it. The Stock substitute and property market provided the perfect outlet for this. non scarcely did professional stockbrokers play the market, but alike the normal working public, who found they could make ‘ short money’, as it says in the cartoon, by only if buying stocks. However, the people who did this were not loyal to the community they bought them from, as they usually exchange them as currently as the prise had risen.\r\nAnother openhanded variety show that occurred in this time was the role of women in society. The fact that the women in the cartoon are flappers, shows how by 1925, women were setoff to become independent and outspoken. They smoked, swore in public, and so far rode pushcycles. The char with the word divorce on her dress emphasises this manoeuvre as salubrious . In the 1920s, the divorce rate blush wine as women began to live their own lives without depending on men for accompaniment.\r\nSo, what was the cartoonist’s message? Personally I think that he/she was trying to show how much the USA had changed from the propagation when â€Å"pioneers lived simple lives in log cabins”. The fact that ‘Uncle Sam’ is gazing at the picture and saying, â€Å"Ah, those were the days” is demo that, in effect, America yearns for the way that life utilize to be before anything became so materialistic and money-orientated, even though he himself is sitting in the ‘ screwing of luxury’.\r\n(2.) In first B, we see a put down of cardinal Negroes hanged from a tree whilst be surrounded and watched by a crowd of discolor people. Source C is an extract from a newspaper, which describes in power point the lynch of another Negro in a separate incident. These two sources are mistakable in some ways and dif ferent in others. There are a number of ways that we can see this.\r\nFirstly, two sources show a similar reaction from the crowd to the actual lynching. B shows the crowd looking up at the bodies enthusiastically, and even one man pointing to them as if to show to the camera something he is proud of. There does not appear to be anyone looking distressed or affray by the incident, with close ‘spectators’ looking joyous and pleased. some(prenominal) sources show the crowd to be diverse (obviously inwardly the same ethnic group), with people of all ages and both sexes. Source C besides describes the crowd’s reaction as being happy at the Negro’s fate. In fact, the crowd calculateed to be even more enthusiastic in the support source than in the first one, â€Å"…. joined detention and danced around while the Negro was burned”. besides ultimately, both sources show the different crowds to be in approval of the lynchings.\r\nHowever, on e difference betwixt the two sources is who actually committed the lynching in for apiece one case. In B, we can only see what appears to be normal, tweed cillivians in the crowd. There does not seem to be any members of the Ku Klux Klan in their usual white ‘uniform’. Therefore, independent bigots could squander simply do the hanging in the first source, in an or so spontaneous fashion. In comparison, Source C seems to nonplus been a more planned essence, organised by the Ku Klux Klan. The fact that the extract says that there was more than viosterol people present and that people were travelling from other cities by car just to see the lynching gives us the impression that it was super publicised within the ‘ antiblack community’. We can not identify the exact number of people at the hanging in source B, but we can ingest that it was belike not as many as in the second source.\r\nAnother difference between the two sources is that, obviously, one is a photograph and one is a newspaper extract. If I were to choose, I would probably say that a photograph (source B) gives a more true impression of an event than an account (source C) of some system who was simply present at the time. This is because a photograph is taken at the time and can not be changed. Whether or not the photographer was racist does not make any difference because, generally, the camera does not lie and is not one-sided, depending on the context. exclusively the newspaper extract was written after the event and is therefore less accurate, because the writer could live with forget important details or even written the account in an unfair or coloured way.\r\n(3.) Source F is a photograph screening a crowd of people demonstrating on the behalf of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, taken in April 1927. How useful would it be for a historiographer who was studying the case of the two imprisoned immigrants?\r\nWe can see in the photograph that t here is sooner a large crowd of people, which gives the impression that the volume of Americans supported Sacco and Vanzetti. However, that is not strictly true. Although the two criminate men did have many supporters who protested against their impending execution, nearly normal American people agreed with it.\r\nThis was mainly due to the American public’s consternation of Communists or ‘Reds’ as they were commonly called. Since the Russian variation in 1917, people had started to believe that communism was public exposure and would eventually reach the USA. This ca apply the number of immigrants brought to America to be limited, and any that did come were discriminated against. This seems to be case with Sacco and Vanzetti. In hindsight, it appears that the two men were used as ”scape-goats’ for a crime they possibly did not commit. Being Italian immigrants made them an easy target, and it was unlikely that the American public would believe their word against the American legal corpse and police.\r\nHowever, is this shown in the photograph? Without background knowledge of the subject, it would be hard to tell by the photograph whether most people were supportive of Sacco and Vanzetti or not. The photograph is kind of mis railsing, as it seems as though the majority of the American public was on their side, which was not the case. Although I can not tell for sure, I believe that the people in the photograph are other immigrants, who were generally the only people that supported the two men. This was because most immigrants felt that the discrimination against Sacco and Vanzetti could easily happen to them one day in the future. But this is not necessarily clear from the photograph. However, it could be useful to a historian as an example of the minority that did support them.\r\n(4.) I do not believe that the cartoon in Source E is genuinely useful at all. This is for a number of different reasons. Firstly, Nazis pr oduced the cartoon. This means that it is biased against the USA, and would therefore not provide a fair or accurate view of American life. even out if some aspects of the cartoon were true, they would undoubtedly be used in a misleading way. This is why propaganda can never be used as an accurate impression of something. irregularly, as the cartoon was made during the Second World War, it is intended to show what American life was like during this time (1939-1945). So therefore it does not show what life was like in the 1920s.\r\nAlso, many of the examples of American life used are broadly true but are used inaccurately. For example, the ‘body’ (which is supposedly meant to represent the USA) is shown as having the head of a Ku Klux Klan member. This could be interpreted that the Klan were very dominant throughout the whole of the USA as they are seen as being at the head of it all. This was not true. A registration of cars increased. This means that more cars were m ade because there was a bigger demand for them, and more cars were bought because people had more money to spend. Also the sale of radios greatly increased in this decade. These statistics certainly help to support Hoover’s claim that America was attractive the battle over poverty. Source J in like manner emphasises the point that during this era, the country began to spend more money on luxury goods, such as big houses and cars.\r\nHowever, the same two sources also show us that the opposite was also true. Not everyone in the USA was making a lot of money, as shown in source I. When compared to the $1246 that Californian fruit farmers made per month in 1929, the South Carolina’s farmers pay portion of only $129 per month seems very measly. This is one example of how not everybody did well in the 1920s. This was mainly due to overproduction of goods; in other words, more viands was produced than could be sold. Also, due to the high tariffs put on American exports, the food could not be sold in Europe. Source J also points out that the America people had become so obsess with making money that it would eventually be the remainder of them;\r\nâ€Å"I think the country was in greater danger during the twenties…more money every year for everyone…Suddenly everybody owned a motor car…All we needed was to make more automobiles and build bigger houses.”\r\nWe must also mark that Hoover made the speech in source H during the Presidential Election campaign. This means that he was obviously going to say something that would encourage the general public to have faith in the Republican government and to help get him in to the gaberdine House. Therefore it might be an exaggerated or ‘sugar-coated’ form of the truth, which most politicians seem to have a talent at expressing.\r\n(6.) Source K is a shout written in 1971 for an American television show. It is about(predicate) how much better life in the 1920s was t han the present day (i.e. when the song was written). Source L is an extract from a accounting textual matter about how the majority of Americans in the 1920s did not live the ‘high life’ and were, in fact, very poor and facing unemployment.\r\nAt a first glance we can see that source K is not completely accurate about life in the twenties. In the first eminence it mentions ‘Glenn miller’, a bandleader who is described as playing, ‘Songs that made the hit parade’. This is actually incorrect, as Glen Miller was a bandleader in the 1930s and 1940s, not the 1920s. It also mentions Herbert Hoover, which seems quite strange as he was only President for one year of the twenties, 1929. It is examples like these that seem to jeopardise the accuracy of the source. Also, the fact that it was written in 1971 makes me believe that it is less accepted than something that was written scalelike to the time.\r\nAlso, I get the impression that the song is slenderly sarcastic and comedic, as opposed to being a reliable account of 1920s American life. It is because of this that it could be easily misinterpreted. For example, the line that says, â€Å"Freaks were in a circus tent” could be referring to the time when people were highly suspicious of immigrants and hence Attorney-General Palmer ordered for many surmise socialists to be deported. But this is not very clear. Also the line that says that everybody was content is not very true. some(prenominal) people were very poor in the twenties, and times were very hard for some people, such as farmers. Also, Negroes were still being treated as third-rate citizens and were often discriminated against. Also, the song is an opinion, so does not represent everybody’s views.\r\nSource L however seems much more accurate. Because it was written for a history textbook it is more likely to show a reliable viewpoint on 1920s life. Especially since it contains an example of an ac tual fact, as opposed to an opinion (i.e. that blood insecurity was on the increase for the over 35s). It is much more realistic than source K, for example use words such as ‘vast come of Americans’ instead of words like ‘everybody’ as seen in the first source. So, in my opinion, Source L shows a more reliable impression of 1920s life than source K.\r\n(7.) From looking at all the sources, it is very hard to draw a straight mop up as to whether the 1920s was a ‘golden age’ for Americans or not. To decide, I will look at all the sources again.\r\nFirstly, it is evident that economically, America did extremely well in this decade. In source I we see that within three years (1926-1929) the number of cars produced each year had increased by over 1 million. We also see that within eight years (1920-1929) the number of cars registered had been increased by nearly three times and that within seven years (1922-1929) the amount of money spent on rad ios increased by $764.5 million. So what does this tell us? This basically shows us that the 1920s were the beginning of the age of consumer power. People began to have more money to spend on luxury goods, so in turn more were produced. This lead to the growth of industries in the nation.\r\nHowever, the ever-growing capitalism in the USA did not reach everyone. Source L shows us how there was still many people without jobs. Source I supports this fact by showing how there was a wide range of wages all over the country, ranging from just $129 per month to $1246 per month. Also, there was a great deal of intolerance in America. Sources B and C show in great detail how Negroes, in particular, suffered from intolerance.\r\n'