1. Reagan Conservatism: Reagan, PBS – Major Speeches – NY Times Articles – Presidential Library

2. The Iran-Contra Affair: Reagan, PBS, Iran Contra – Iran/Contra from the National Security Archive – The Secret Government (Iran/Contra Affair) Video – Time: The US and Iran

3. US/Soviet Relations:

4. Reaganomics

5. Woman’s Rights

6. Environmentalism

7. The Persian Gulf War

8. The LA Riots

9. NAFTA

10. Clinton Foreign Policy

11. The 2000 Election

12. September 11, 2001

13. The Computer & Internet

14. Multiculturalism

15. Poverty & Wealth

16. The Iraq War

17. The Afghanistan War

18. Bush Foreign Policy

19. The Great Recession

20. The Stimulus Plan

Now that the approval process is over and a new administration (superintendent) begins in New Bedford, the real work begins.  In almost five months, the NBLA will open as an autonomous small learning community within New Bedford High School.  As always, much work needs to be done.  The difference now is that we have moved from a proposal to a plan.  Almost 100 meetings, 2500+ emails, over 1000 hours and lots of dedication from teachers, administrators, and students, have produced a path that the NBPS have placed themselves on.  It is our obligation and our shared responsibility to make that journey productive.  We look forward to that work, and to the future…

WASHINGTON — The right is rewriting history.

The most ballyhooed effort is under way in Texas , where conservatives have pushed the state school board to rewrite guidelines, downplaying Thomas Jefferson in one high school course, playing up such conservatives as Phyllis Schlafly and the Heritage Foundation and challenging the idea that the Founding Fathers wanted to separate church and state.

The effort reaches far beyond one state, however.

In articles and speeches, on radio and TV, conservatives are working to redefine major turning points and influential figures in American history, often to slam liberals, promote Republicans and reinforce their positions in today’s politics.

The Jamestown settlers? Socialists. Founding Father Alexander Hamilton ? Ill-informed professors made up all that bunk about him advocating a strong central government.

Theodore Roosevelt ? Another socialist. Franklin D. Roosevelt ? Not only did he not end the Great Depression, he also created it.

Joe McCarthy ? Liberals lied about him. He was a hero.

Some conservatives say it’s a long-overdue swing of the pendulum after years of liberal efforts to define history on their terms in classrooms and in popular culture.

“We are adding balance,” Texas school board member Don McLeroy said. “History has already been skewed. Academia is skewed too far to the left.”

The effort in Texas and nationwide is controversial, however, even among many conservatives. McLeroy was defeated in a recent primary after he led the campaign for a more conservative version of history, a defeat that the National Review , a leading conservative organ, called “sensible.”

While even some conservative intellectuals say that some of the revisionist history is simply wrong, at the core, the effort reflects the ever-changing view of history, which is always subject to revision thanks to new information or new ways of looking at things, and often is viewed through a political lens.

“History in the popular world is always a political football,” said Alan Brinkley , a historian at Columbia University . “The right is unusually mobilized at the moment.”

“Part of the tide of history is that it’s contested terrain,” said Fritz Fischer , a historian at the University of Northern Colorado and the chairman of the National Council for History Education . “We should always be arguing and questioning what happened in the past.”

It’s not just historians who contest history, however. It’s also politicians and pundits.

The left has done it.

Fischer cited the case of controversial former University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill , whose essay claiming that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were the fruit of illegal U.S. policies became a cause celebre. Fischer said Churchill “ignored a lot of evidence and made some up to promulgate a particular political belief.”

Now, it’s the right.

“There’s clearly a political impetus behind this that connects to the issues of today,” Fischer said, such as labeling President Barack Obama a socialist. “But when history is ignored to do it, that can be dangerous.”

Here are five recent examples of new conservative versions of history:

JAMESTOWN

Reaching for an example of how bad socialism can be, former House of Representatives Majority Leader Dick Armey , R- Texas , said recently that the people who settled Jamestown, Va. , in 1607 were socialists and that their ideology doomed them.

” Jamestown colony, when it was first founded as a socialist venture, dang near failed with everybody dead and dying in the snow,” he said in a speech March 15 at the National Press Club .

It was a good, strong story, helping Armey, a former economics professor, illustrate the dangers of socialism, the same ideology that he and other conservatives say is at the core of Obama’s agenda.

It was not, however, true.

The Jamestown settlement was a capitalist venture financed by the Virginia Company of London — a joint stock corporation — to make a profit. The colony nearly foundered owing to a harsh winter, brackish water and lack of food, but reinforcements enabled it to survive. It was never socialistic. In fact, in 1619, Jamestown planters imported the first African slaves to the 13 colonies that later formed the United States .

ALEXANDER HAMILTON

At the same event, Armey urged people to read the Federalist Papers as a guide to the sentiments of the tea party movement.

“The small-government conservative movement, which includes people who call themselves the tea party patriots and so forth, is about the principles of liberty as embodied in the Constitution, the understanding of which is fleshed out if you read things like the Federalist Papers,” Armey said.

Others such as Democrats and the news media, “people here who do not cherish America the way we do,” don’t understand because “they did not read the Federalist Papers,” he said.

A member of the audience asked Armey how the Federalist Papers could be such a tea party manifesto when they were written largely by Alexander Hamilton , who the questioner said “was widely regarded then and now as an advocate of a strong central government.”

Armey ridiculed the very suggestion.

“Widely regarded by whom?” he asked. “Today’s modern, ill-informed political science professors? . . . I just doubt that was the case, in fact, about Hamilton.”

Hamilton, however, was an unapologetic advocate of a strong central government, one that plays an active role in the economy and is led by a president named for life and thus beyond the emotions of the people. Hamilton also pushed for excise taxes and customs duties to pay down federal debt.

In fact, Ian Finseth said in a history written for the University of Virginia , others at the constitutional convention “thought his proposals went too far in strengthening the central government.”

THEODORE ROOSEVELT

Theodore Roosevelt was long an icon of the Republican Party , a dynamic leader who ushered in the Progressive era, busting trusts, regulating robber barons, building the Panama Canal and sending the U.S. fleet around the world announcing ascendant American power.

Fox TV commentator Glenn Beck , however, says that Roosevelt was a socialist whose legacy is destroying America. It started, Beck said, with Roosevelt’s admonition to the wealthy of his day to spend their riches for the good of society.

“We judge no man a fortune in civil life if it’s honorably obtained and well spent,” Roosevelt said, according to Beck. “It’s not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it only to be gained so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community.”

Actually, Roosevelt said, “We GRUDGE no man a fortune … if it’s honorably obtained and well USED.” But either way, Beck saw the threat.

“Oh? Well, thank you,” Beck said with scorn during his keynote speech to the recent Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington . The presidential suggestion that the wealthy of the Gilded Age should contribute to the good of society was a clear danger that must be condemned, Beck said.

“Is this what the Republican Party stands for? Well, you should ask members of the Republican Party , because this is not our founders’ idea of America. And this is the cancer that’s eating at America. It is big government; it’s a socialist utopia,” Beck said.

“And we need to address it as if it is a cancer. It must be cut out of the system because they cannot coexist. … You must eradicate it. It cannot coexist.”

There’s no doubt that Roosevelt was a domestic policy liberal by today’s standards. In a 1910 speech in Kansas , he acknowledged that his “New Nationalism” meant “far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had.”

The 26th president insisted, however, that he wanted the government to guarantee opportunity, not a handout.

“The fundamental thing to do for every man is to give him a chance to reach a place in which he will make the greatest possible contribution to the public welfare,” he said.

“Give him a chance, not push him up if he will not be pushed. … Help any man who stumbles; if he lies down, it is a poor job to try to carry him; but if he is a worthy man, try your best to see that he gets a chance to show the worth that is in him.”

In his autobiography three years later, Roosevelt went on to dismiss the tenets of socialism as taught by Karl Marx as “an exploded theory.”

“Too many thoroughly well-meaning men and women in the America of today glibly repeat and accept,” he wrote, “various assumptions and speculations by Marx and others which by the lapse of time and by actual experiment have been shown to possess not one shred of value.”

In addition, Roosevelt didn’t advocate government ownership of the means of production, the definition of socialism.

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT

It’s long been debated how well Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal government programs countered the Great Depression, but now a prominent conservative has introduced the idea that Roosevelt CAUSED the Depression.

“FDR took office in the midst of a recession,” Rep. Michele Bachmann , R- Minn. , told the Conservative Political Action Conference in February. “He decided to choose massive government spending and the creation of monstrous bureaucracies. Do we detect a Democrat pattern here in all of this? He took what was a manageable recession and turned it into a 10-year depression.”

A year before, Bachmann went to the House floor to blame FDR and what she called the “Hoot-Smalley” tariffs for creating the Depression.

“The recession that FDR had to deal with wasn’t as bad as the recession (President Calvin) Coolidge had to deal with in the early ’20s,” she said.

Coolidge cut taxes and created the roaring ’20s, Bachmann said.

“FDR applied just the opposite formula: the Hoot-Smalley act, which was a tremendous burden on tariff restrictions. And of course trade barriers and the regulatory burden and of course tax barriers.

“That’s what we saw happen under FDR. That took a recession and blew it into a full-scale depression. The American people suffered for almost 10 years under that kind of thinking.”

The truth? Historians agree that tariffs hurt trade and worsened the depression.

However, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act — not Hoot-Smalley — was proposed by two Republicans, Sen. Reed Smoot of Utah and Rep. Willis Hawley of Oregon . A Republican House and a Republican Senate approved it. President Herbert Hoover , a Republican, signed it into law.

The facts also show that the country was in something far worse than a “manageable recession” in March 1933 when Roosevelt took office.

Stocks had lost 90 percent of their value since the crash of 1929. Thousands of banks had failed. Unemployment reached an all-time high of 24.9 percent just before Roosevelt was inaugurated.

JOE MCCARTHY

Sen. Joseph McCarthy , R- Wis. , burst onto the national stage in the early 1950s with accusations that he had a list of names of known Communists in the federal government. He didn’t name them, was censured by the Senate eventually and his name became synonymous with witch hunts — McCarthyism.

Now, the end of the Cold War has opened up spy files and identified many Communist spies who operated inside the government during the era. Some conservatives argue that this proves not only that McCarthy was right, but also that he was a hero and that he was smeared by liberals, the news media and historians.

“Almost everything about McCarthy in current history books is a lie and will have to be revised,” conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly said.

“Liberals had to destroy McCarthy because he exposed the entire liberal establishment as having sheltered Soviet spies,” conservative commentator Ann Coulter said in one interview.

“The myth of ‘McCarthyism’ is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times,” she said in another. “Liberals are fanatical liars, then as now. The portrayal of Senator Joe McCarthy as a wild-eyed demagogue destroying innocent lives is sheer liberal hobgoblinism. … If the Internet, talk radio and Fox News had been around in McCarthy’s day, my book wouldn’t be the first time most people would be hearing the truth about ‘McCarthyism.’ ”

Yet even some prominent conservatives say that McCarthy’s defenders go too far, and that even from a conservative perspective, McCarthy was no hero and damaged the country.

“A dangerous movement has been growing among conservative writers to vindicate the late Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy and his campaign to expose Soviet spies in the U.S. government,” Ronald Kessler wrote for the conservative Web site Newsmax.com.

“The FBI agents who were actually chasing those spies have told me that McCarthy hurt their efforts because he trumped up charges, unfairly besmirched honorable Americans and gave hunting spies a bad name.”

Kessler said the release of secret Cold War files under the Venona Project confirmed that there were Soviet spies in the U.S. government.

“The problem was that the people McCarthy tarnished as Communists or Communist sympathizers were not the real spies,” Kessler wrote.

“The cause of anti-communism, which united millions of Americans and which gained the support of Democrats, Republicans and independents, was undermined by Sen. Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin ,” wrote William Bennett , who was the conservative secretary of education under President Ronald Reagan .

“McCarthy addressed a real problem: disloyal elements within the U.S. government. But his approach to this real problem was to cause untold grief to the country he claimed to love,” Bennett wrote in his book “America: The Last Best Hope.”

“Worst of all, McCarthy besmirched the honorable cause of anti-communism. He discredited legitimate efforts to counter Soviet subversion of American institutions.”

ON THE WEB

More on Jamestown

Armey’s speech at the National Press Club

Treasury Department history of Hamilton

University of Virginia on Hamilton

More on the Venona Project

I’ve linked the ‘Blueprint for Reform’ as well as a conference call with US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan on Monday, to provide more information on these changes and their impact.  On March 17th, Duncan also testified before Congress with some details, as news providers begin to cover the story.

If you’ve noticed, much of the reform being supported by the new Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, former NCLB) in the new ‘blueprint’ aligns with the plan proposed for the Leadership Academy (teacher-leader support, 21st century learning, data-driven instruction, etc.).  At Monday night’s School Committee meeting, which addressed the four models for reform at Parker, there was alignment too.  The ‘transformation’ model supports many of the efforts written into the Leadership Academy proposal, including more community collaboration, professional development, and extended learning opportunities, among other things.

In these new revisions, much attention is placed on under-performing schools, with both carrots and sticks.  The Massachusetts Education Reform Act, passed in mid January (to qualify for the RTT funds), has the same focus.  How will these proposals, standards and new laws affect NBHS?

Please feel free to share your thoughts.  Thanks!

Here are some suggested research links for the atom bomb:

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/index.php

http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomic.htm

http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

http://chalk.richmond.edu/education/projects/webquests/wwii/

and the Nuremberg Trials:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/nuremberg.htm

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Nuremberg_trials.html

http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/php/docs_swi.php?DI=1&text=overview

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/imt.asp

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/nuremberg/

Here’s a copy of the Atom Bomb packet.

Here’s a copy of the rubric for the roles of lawyers, witnesses and jury members:

A – Lawyers conduct extensive research and present copies of their findings (in their own words, typed) to the judge.  Lawyers present their case by beginning with a clear, well written and well practiced opening statement.  This opening statement uses background information on current immigration issues, previous immigration laws, relationships between immigration and global politics, world economics and international multiculturalism, as well as civil and human rights.  The cross-examination questions asked of each witness are extremely thoughtful and planned in advance.  Copies are submitted to the judge.  Their concluding remarks use historical references, tie in statements made by witnesses, and present a clear factual and ethical argument for their case for or against immigrant rights and law in the United States.  Lawyers also present hypothetical questions to the witnesses in addition to their provided testimony.

B – Lawyers present their case by beginning with a clear, well written and well practiced opening statement.  This opening statement uses background information on immigration laws and current issues as well as the impact on civil and human rights.  The cross-examination questions asked of each witness are very thoughtful and planned in advance.  Their concluding remarks use historical references, tie in statements made by witnesses, and present a clear factual and ethical argument for their case for or against immigration rights and law in the United States.  Lawyers also present hypothetical questions to the witnesses in addition to their provided testimony.

C – Lawyers present their case by beginning with an opening statement that is clear but uses only a few historical references.  Their opening statement also makes arguments that do not fit well with their witnesses’ statements.  They cross-examine witnesses well and ask probing questions, but fail to take advantage of logical arguments and other opportunities.  Their concluding remarks use historical references, tie in statements made by witnesses, and present a clear factual and ethical argument for their case for or against immigration issues and law.

D – Lawyers present their case and use background information but don’t connect it to their arguments.  They question witnesses but don’t use their testimony in their concluding remarks.  They do some brief research but have gaps of knowledge that the other lawyers exploit.

F – Lawyers present their case with little background information and nothing to sustain their argument.  They poorly question witnesses and make quick introduction and concluding remarks.

A – Witnesses who want an A as a grade will prepare everything for three different characters.  They will also act out each of these during the trial.  Witnesses conduct research on their characters, including full details about themselves and their situation.  They have an excellent understanding of the events, people and issues affecting immigrants and US law concerning them.  Witnesses also do a great job of acting out their specific roles while being questioned and cross examined by the lawyers.  They also appear in the dress of their roles.  Witnesses submit their affidavits (full biographies) to the judge containing all their information, their positions on the issues (explained fully) and their trial interviews (transcripts) with their lawyers.  Witnesses also submit their research on their role in a three page typed report.

B – Witnesses who want a B as a grade will prepare everything for two different characters.  They will also act out both of these during the trial.  Witnesses conduct research on their characters, including full details about themselves and their situation.  They have an excellent understanding of the events, people and issues affecting immigrants and US law concerning them.  Witnesses also do a great job of acting out their specific roles while being questioned and cross examined by the lawyers.  They also appear in the dress of their roles.  Witnesses submit their affidavits to the judge containing all their information, their positions on the issues (explained fully) and their trial interviews (transcripts) with their lawyers.  Witnesses also submit their research on their role in a two page typed report.

C – Witnesses conduct research on their character, including full details about themselves and their situation.  They have a good understanding of the events, people and issues affecting immigrants and US law concerning them.  Witnesses also do a good job of acting out their specific roles while being questioned and cross examined by the lawyers.  Witnesses submit their affidavits to the judge containing all their information, their positions on the issues (explained fully) and their trial interviews (transcripts) with their lawyers.

D – Witnesses conduct research on their characters, including full details about themselves and their situation.  They have a good understanding of the events, people and issues concerning immigration.  Witnesses also do a good job of acting out their specific roles while being questioned by the lawyers.

F – Witnesses conduct some research on their characters, including brief details about themselves, but only have a basic understanding of the content.

A – Jury members will study the history of immigration issues, policies and laws within the United States.  They will submit a three paged summary of statistics, events and conclusions concerning their research.  Research assignments will be assigned by the teacher.  Jury members will take superb notes on the opening statements, the testimony and the concluding remarks.  They will rewrite these notes into transcripts that tell the whole course of the trial.  They will write a three paged opinion of the trial that is closely based on historical content, current circumstances and the events and issues of the trial itself.  This opinion of the trial must be in essay form and well explained.  They will verify (check) historical facts used in the trial for truthfulness and write a one page report on the use or misuse of such facts in the trial.  Jury members will also give an extensive statement to the court on their opinions, explaining each in detail.

B – Jury members will study the history of immigration issues, policies and laws within the United States.  They will submit a two paged summary of statistics, events and conclusions concerning their research.  Research assignments will be assigned by the teacher.  Jury members will take superb notes on the opening statements, the testimony and the concluding remarks.  They will rewrite these notes into transcripts that tell the whole course of the trial.  They will write a two paged opinion of the trial that is closely based on historical content.  This opinion of the trial must be in essay form and well explained.  Jury members will also give a statement to the court on their opinions, explaining each.

C – Jury members will study the history of immigration issues, policies and laws within the United States.  They will submit a one paged summary of statistics, events and conclusions concerning their research.  Research assignments will be assigned by the teacher.  Jury members will take very good notes on the opening statements, the testimony and the concluding remarks.  They will write a one paged opinion of the trial that is closely based on historical content.  This opinion of the trial must be in essay form and well explained.  Jury members will also give a brief statement to the court on their opinions, explaining each.

D – Jury members will research and write a one paged summary of immigration issues in United States history.  Jury members will take good notes on the opening statements, the testimony and the concluding remarks.  They will write an opinion of the trial that is closely based on historical content.  This opinion of the trial must be in essay form and well explained.

F – Jury members will take notes and write an opinion of the trial that is only somewhat based on historical content, the witness’s testimony and the arguments of the lawyers.

Finally, here’s some awesome student work on the Atom Bomb Trial from our prosecution and defense opening statements.

DEFENSE: OPENING STATEMENT – Good morning to all in attendance here in the courtroom today. On this day we gather here for the trial of Mr. Harry S. Truman, the President of the United States. President Truman is brought before us today for false accusations of war crimes committed against the people, and former enemies of Japan. This decision in question was that of the one my client made, as commander in chief to drop an atomic bomb of both the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Today the prosecution is going to try to sway your opinion against my client by providing you with the destruction that the atom bomb caused, and the civilian toll that it took. Although they may decide to call it inhumane, war laws determined at the Hague Conference, along with others, will prove that my client is innocent of the charges placed against him. You will hear evidence today on such law that allows for this type of warfare as long as military interests were in its decision, and not just barbarity of killing civilians. Today you will hear statistics of the thousands of civilians who died due to this specific bombing, that it was over one hundred thousand; however it is important to note that during World War II, approximately 26,163, 700 civilians died, some of them at the hands of Japanese bombers and in bombs themselves, six thousand of them being American. So are we here today to argue the obvious need and necessity of the atom bomb’s dropping, or just the fact that it was the most powerful bomb to ever be dropped in warfare in the world’s history? Today, my goal as President Truman’s Counsel will be to convince you of both the true necessity and justification of the said bombing that we sit in this courthouse today for. You will hear submitted evidence as well as testimonies proving such need and justification. The bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, first and foremost saved American lives and ended this war in unconditional surrender, which had been the policy set by the previous administration under the late President Roosevelt. A piece of evidence from General MacArthur himself, will display his concern that possibly one million American men may have lost their lives if an invasion of the Japanese mainland were to take place as an alternative to this bombing, for although Japan may have been economically crippled, it still did have strong military capabilities. In addition in order to prove this, you will also hear from one Japanese official himself, with reference to another, who will testify that Japan had no intention on surrendering, and therefore that the war would continue with its numerous costs to the United States. This therefore concludes that by just simply dropping one of our atom bombs on a deserted island to prove our strength would fail in forcing the Japanese to surrender considering the fact that they refused to surrender even after these economic difficulties had plagued them, including the dropping of the first atom bomb, and the Soviet Union’s entry into the war. This therefore as through evidence will also show that the atom bombing of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary to end this war, for it sent a message to the Japanese that we would defeat them and with the lives of our military at hand, decided to drop these bombs. But let it be known as well that both cities bombed did in fact have significance. Hiroshima itself was the Second Command Japanese Headquarters which controlled all of Southern Japan. This is important for the United States held Okinawa, just to the South of Japan and its bombing could potentially destroy Japan’s defense of the Southern tier of its mainland. Nagasaki was also of significant importance for it was Japan’s most significant sea port, and being economically crippled was vital to Japanese survival in the war. Finally along with other arguments supporting the acquittal of my client, you will hear from him himself. It is also important to note, that bombings had caused much greater civilian death toll in the past, making this one no more different, as seen by the War Department. In addition, President Truman will take the stand tonight and explain to you his interests in ending this war, saving American lives, and was advised by numerous committees, and even had the support of the bombs’ creator, in dropping these bombs. President Truman had no intentions or interests in these bombs, except to ensure this country’s victory and the retrieval of unconditional surrender from Japan. In closing, I ask of you to listen to the facts presented to you tonight, and decipher what really is barbaric and what is necessary. Barbarism is the unnecessary torture put on prisoners and civilians by the Japanese; necessity was the military actions that my client took in order to defend his country, which as President, he is sworn to do under the Constitution of the United States. Thank you.

PROSECUTION: OPENING STATEMENT – The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was immoral, unnecessary, unjustifiable, and a blatant war crime. President Harry S. Truman’s actions wreaked havoc on a country that was already deteriorating at a rapid pace; Japan was crumbling, both literally and figuratively. American air forces had already destroyed over sixty major Japanese cities by the use of conventional bombing, and due to the embargoes and insufficient amount of food and artillery it would have been impossible for Japan to remain immersed in open warfare for much longer. It is safe to state that the atom bomb is the most technologically advanced weapon on earth, light-years ahead of any other weapons that are currently in circulation today. The effect of a single atom bomb is devastating, but the combined effects of two atomic bombs are more catastrophic than we here in this courtroom can fully comprehend. That is, with the exception of two Japanese women who sit among us today, two women who have lived through this harrowing ordeal and have been kind enough to submit their testimonies to this case. Their stories will be added into the comprehensive books of historical records, of the world, albeit situated within one of the darkest chapters of human history mankind have ever had the misfortune to have orchestrated. Mr. Truman’s own generals Mr. Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas McArthur, and William Lahey, three of the brightest military minds of our generation, all met with Mr. Truman three days before the atomic bomb was dropped over Hiroshima; the decision between the generals was unanimous; it was unnecessary to drop the atomic bomb and there was no military need to employ such a devastating bomb at this late stage of the war. Over two billion dollars was spent on the creation and development on an atrocity with the power to decimate whole cities in a single blow and kill hundreds of thousands on impact. The atom bomb is indiscriminant; it does not know the value of an innocent; men, women, children, babies; ALL are enemies.  The ratio of civilians to military personnel in the star-crossed cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was six to one at the time of the drop. SIX TO ONE! This statistic speaks volumes; this attack was not “solely a military target”. Over 135,000 died in Hiroshima and 64,000 died due to the bombing in Nagasaki, most of which were uninvolved women and children; schools, hospitals, homes; blown off the face of the Earth by either “Little Boy” or “Fat Man”. We as a nation must collectively realize that when we dropped these bombs with the hope of ending the war, we were also waging a war on generations of future Japanese citizens, and humanity itself. The radiation caused by the blast permeates everything; the soil, the water, even the cells and genetics of the indigenous peoples. The “black rain” which immediately followed the blast fell for over an hour, covering broad expanses of land with radioactive debris. In the next few months and years the world we will be able to watch as a pattern emerges:  the civilians who survived the atom bomb itself will begin succumbing to cancers and injuries caused by Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The employment of these atomic bombs is also a clear and distinct violation of existing aerial codes, including the Law and Custom of War on Land (Hague,H). It states, Aerial bombardment for the purpose of terrorizing…… (QOUTE IS ON PAPER). The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were meant to petrify the Japanese people into submission; a gilded euphemism for something darker and more valid: terrorism.

Students have been issued their packets, containing history, evidence, questions, facts & figures, and stories concerning immigration.  We’re going to explore two documentaries – Farmingville and The New Americans – to understand the human and legal dimension behind legal and illegal immigration.  At the end of this unit, students will write a reflection essay on their experiences.  Students are also keeping journals from images, poetry, stories and more concerning immigration.  Depending on time, we may even have a mock trial or a debate (from the Choices Program at Brown University).  It’s a powerful learning experience, but one I look forward to sharing with my students.

Unit Objectives:

• Students will analyze how justice and injustice is defined and applied to political, economic and social circumstances.
• Students will investigate the perspectives of diverse ethnic and cultural groups concerning ethics, justice and rights.
• Students will analyze relationships, patterns and lessons relating to ethics, justice and rights from American and World History.
• Students will question how terms related to ethics, justice and rights are socially constructed, how they adapt to changing circumstances and how they influence behavior, values and identity.
• Students will conduct research, examine choices, make decisions and take action on important issues related to ethics, justice and rights.
• Students will debate opposing positions on the basis (whether an individual has a justified claim or protection) and content (what the rights of an individual actually are) of important political rights in current events.
• Students will evaluate the cultural consequences of ethical values and choices in American and world history.

Background: The United States is in the midst of its fourth and largest wave of immigration. With approximately one million new immigrants entering the country each year, more than ten percent of Americans are foreign-born.  Most of today’s newcomers are Latino in origin, from Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean. Others come from many different countries in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Europe. While the majority settle in traditional gateway cities with large immigrant communities and a history of employing foreign workers, a growing number are moving into smaller metropolitan areas, rural towns and the suburbs of long-established gateways.

Regardless of their numbers, ethnic origin, or destination, immigrants often arrive at America’s front door to find the welcome mat missing. The National Immigration Forum reports that, while 50% of native-born Americans think immigration levels are acceptable, 40% think they should decrease and 10% think immigration should stop altogether.  These well-worn sentiments have forged a long trail of anti-immigrant policies and legislation that spans the four hundred years of America’s history.  Even when newcomers are welcome, their presence can challenge the communities where they settle with extra demands on schools, housing, law enforcement and social services. Local governments, particularly in the newer destinations, often lack the basic institutional tools and experience to deal with the infrastructure needs created by the new population, and nongovernmental organizations are either overburdened or simply nonexistent.

Immigrants face challenges as well, struggling to find housing, jobs and a sense of community. In suburban and rural settlement areas, the receiving immigrant populations are small or non-existent and offer few resources for the newcomers. In places such as Farmingville, New York, working conditions in construction, landscaping and other low-skill service jobs are often poor.  To make matters worse, non-English-speaking laborers, are often the focus of animosity and resentment from anti-immigrant factions, who believe they weaken the “social fabric” of American communities and threaten American jobs. In spite of this, and the difficulties encountered by immigrants and the communities where they live and work, both parties benefit in many ways as well.

And…

#1:  Visit the History 2.0 Classroom webblog of Greg Kulowiec, history teacher at Plymouth South High School, MA.

Mr. Kulowiec has been a great inspiration to me ever since I heard about his classroom use and continual experimentation with different technology based tools from Clark Boyd, journalist and podcaster for the PRI radio show, The World on their Technology Podcast, a while ago.  Every now and then, I go back to his website for updates on how and why he is using different forms of internet, cellphone, and computer based applications to help students learn more about history.  I have not had the opportunity to meet him yet, but I greatly look forward to the experience.  Mr. Kulowiec holds professional development workshops around the state, and I look forward to hopefully bringing him to New Bedford at some point in the future.

#2: Weebly [free websites and blogs for students]

#3:Animoto [Picture, Music & Video Integration Projects]

#4:  Triptico [web-based, interactive classroom learning tools and resources]

#5:  SCVNGR [Interactive mobile scavenger hunts on classroom content]

#6:  Edmodo [Secure, social networking site for teacher and student collaboration]

#7:  Writeboard [Write, compare, revise and share web-based text documents]

#8:  Etherpad [Web-based word processor that allows people to work together in real-time]

#9: Epals [Secure, global connection of internet-connected classrooms]

#10:  PBWiki [Wikis for teachers]

#11:  Polleverywhere [Mobile-based (texting) classroom response system]

#12:  Google Voice [Web-based phone number for students to TXT or leave transcribed voicemail]

Native Hawaiians are the last remaining indigenous group in the United States that hasn’t been allowed to establish their own government, a right already extended to Alaska Natives and 564 Native American tribes.

With a final vote pending in the U.S. Senate and Hawaii-born President Barack Obama on their side, the nation’s 400,000 Native Hawaiians could earn federal recognition as soon as this month — and the land, money and power that comes with it. They measure passed the U.S. House last month.

Many Native Hawaiians believe this process could help right the wrongs perpetuated since their kingdom was overthrown in 1893. The also point to the hundreds of thousands who died from diseases spread by foreign explorers before the kingdom fell.

Native Hawaiians never fully assimilated after the first Europeans arrived in 1778: They earn less money, live shorter lives, get sent to prison more often and are more likely to end up homeless than other ethnicities, said Clyde Namuo, CEO of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the state-funded agency founded to improve the conditions of Native Hawaiians.

“It’s about correcting the injustice,” Namuo said. “When you look very closely at the numbers — prison, health, wealth, education — we are not at the level that our colonizers are at.”

However, just what Native Hawaiians would receive if the federal recognition measure passes Congress is uncertain. The bill sets up negotiations between a new Native Hawaiian government, the state of Hawaii and the federal government, but it doesn’t specify what resources Native Hawaiians would receive.

Namuo said he hopes the lives of Native Hawaiians would be improved if they had more control of their own destiny.

A disproportionate share of Native Hawaiians find themselves homeless, huddled beneath plastic tarps in beach camps or living in shelters. Native Hawaiians make up 28 percent of the state’s homeless who received outreach services, while accounting for about 20 percent of the population, according to last year’s report by the University of Hawaii Center on the Family.

“It’s been far too long for the Hawaiian people to be suffering,” said Bert Beaman, a Hawaiian who lives at Keaau Beach Park. “Whatever Hawaiians can get, get it and be grateful.”

Opponents of the legislation say it would give Native Hawaiians special treatment at the expense of other taxpayers. One study commissioned by a group opposed to a Native Hawaiian government predicted it would cost $343 million a year in lost tax revenue if 25 percent of the state’s lands were transferred.

“It is not the role of government to try and make up for past wrongs,” said Jamie Story, president of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, which promotes free markets and small government.

Supporters view the proposal as a way to provide reconciliation to the Hawaiian people that was urged in the 1993 Apology Resolution, in which Congress acknowledged the United States’ role in the Hawaiian Kingdom’s overthrow 100 years earlier.

They hope Native Hawaiians could eventually get greater access to affordable housing, their own culturally focused education system, health centers and full-time jobs that would include teaching hula or Hawaiian language if the bill passes.

“Things would get better for Hawaiians,” said Jade Danner, vice president of the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement. “When Native Hawaiians are truly empowered to make their own decisions, it’s not that we’ll make better decisions than anybody else. It’s that we know our communities and we know what will work.”

Others are skeptical, including some of the homeless, who wonder whether any of these changes would help them.

“I don’t think it’s going to be enough. Even if we get money, the homeless still need more help after living on the beach for so long,” said Alice Greenwood, who lives in transitional housing.

The amount of money and land at stake could be substantial.

About $338 million is held in trust for Native Hawaiians by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. In addition, University of Hawaii law professor Jon Van Dyke, who wrote “Who Owns the Crown Lands of Hawaii?”, said a Hawaiian government should receive about 1 million acres — about 20 percent of the state’s land mass that was once monarchy property.

How the trust money and land would be used is a big question, said Kaulana Park, chairman of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, which provides housing to Native Hawaiians on former kingdom lands.

“Where that goes nobody knows, whether it’s housing, economic development or health,” Park said. “The first hurdle is to get it passed.”

A majority of Native Hawaiians favor this process of federal recognition, Namuo said. But it is opposed by pro-independence groups who want the Hawaiian kingdom restored.

About 109,000 Native Hawaiians have registered for Kau Inoa, a signature drive run by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to establish a list of voters who would be eligible for elections associated with a Native Hawaiian government entity.

A spokesman for U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, said the legislation could reach the Senate floor this month, but because of other national priorities, Akaka’s goal is to get the vote by August.

“This is the moment of truth,” said Van Dyke. “I’m optimistic that we’re going to see it passed, and then it will be exciting to see what happens,” Van Dyke said.

By MARK NIESSE, Associated Press Writer Mark Niesse, Associated Press Writer

Google Voice is another web-based tool I am using to help students learn.  Give it a try.  It’s definitely been a challenge setting up.