Thomas Edison was born on February 11 1847. Thomas Edison was an American inventor who developed many devices such as the phonograph and the electric light bulb. He gathered some scientists in order to help him make many of his inventions, with the help of the inventors. Thomas Edison was able to have 1,093 patents under his name. So you can say he is one of the greatest inventors of all time. But sadly, Thomas Edison died on October 18, 1931 in West Orange, New Jersey.
An example of how Thomas Edison story relates to events that occur in today world; in the year 1883 William Sawyer sued Thomas Edison for using his invention of the light bulb. The US Patent stated that Thomas Edison invention was based off William Sawyer’s light bulb. But 6 years later, Edison made an improvement to the light bulb. The improvement was the filament was made of carbon which had high resistance. So the US Patent then approved that he could patent his idea. A similar event occurred in the beginning of this year, Nintendo was sued for 21 million dollars. Nintendo has to pay 21 million dollars to Anascape Ltd, since they infringed the game controller patents.
There is one bias emotion inherited in the research of Thomas Edison. George Westinghouse and Edison became enemies since Edison had promoted direct current (DC) for electric power distribution. The AC created by one of Edison former worker Nikola Tesla, was cheaper and easier to transmit electricity. So Edison waged “The war of currents” which he intended for people to see that AC can cause electrocution. Thomas Edison was had a bias emotion that AC were not safe as DC.
There are 2 difficult questions raised by the historical research of Thomas Edison. On of Thomas Edison main belief was violence was a very bad thing. In his war of currents, he had an elephant electrocuted, just to convince the public that AC were bad way to get electricity. Why didn’t he stick to his belief of nonviolence? In one of his speech he says “we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages”. Well Thomas Edison sent his agents to bribe the theater owner for a copy of the film “A Trip to the Moon”. After the theater owner gave him the copy, he created more copies of the film and sold it for profit. The question is why didn’t create those copies of the film, when he said that we should not harm other human beings. When they sell the copies doesn’t hurt the movie producer who worked hard to make that film?
In this essay I discovered that Thomas Edison was a great inventor who invented over 1,000 inventions. Some of his inventions were the phonograph the light bulb and the kinetoscope. Thomas main belief was nonviolence and doing good, but there were some events where he went against his “belief”. The main bias emotion was he thought that AC was not safe, but DC was very safe. I hope you enjoyed this thoughtfully written essay.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Sitting Bull
Sitting Bull (1831– December 15, 1890), Sitting Bull was a Sioux, born near the Grand River in South Dakota. He was killed by police on the Standing Rock Indian Reservation during an attempt to arrest him and prevent him from supporting the “Ghost Dance Movement”. At the core of the movement was the “prophet” of peace called Jack Wilson, he “prophesied” an end to white American expansion while preaching messages of morality and cultural cooperation. He is known for his role in the victory at the Battle of the Little Bighorn against Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer and the U.S. 7th Cavalry on June 25, 1876. In the months after the battle, Sitting Bull fled the US to Wood Mountain in Canada; where he remained until 1881. But in the year 1881, American forces surrounded Sitting Bull and his clan called the Sioux. A small number of Sioux’s remained in Wood Mountain under the authority of Chief Wambligi. When Sitting Bull returned to the US, Indian Affairs authorities ordered his arrest. The reason why they wanted sitting bull arrested is they feared he would use his influence to support the movement. During a struggle between Sitting Bull's followers and the police, while they were firing upon by his supporters, Sitting Bull was shot in the side and head by the American Police. Sitting Bull’s body was buried at Fort Yates.
An example of Sitting Bull’s story relates to events that occur in today world; The Treaty of Fort Laramie (also called the Sioux Treaty of 1868) was an agreement between the United States and the Lakota nation, Yanktonai Sioux, Santee Sioux, and Arapaho signed in 1868 at Fort Laramie in the Wyoming Territory, guaranteeing to the Lakota ownership of the Black Hills, and further land and hunting rights in South Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana. Sitting Bull did not agree to sign the agreement; he did not want America to tell them what to do. The same situation happens today, America has tried every thing in its power to get Israel and Palestine to sign peace treaties; but they refuse to sign the peace treaties.
There are 2 biases inherited in the research of Sitting Bull. The fighting from 1863 to 1864 caused Sitting Bull to hate the inhabitation of whites in Sioux territories, and he assumed a sense of uncompromising warfare against whites that would characterize him for the rest of his life. That is a racial bias emotion; he let the actions of certain white people who did the wrong thing of driving them out of their land, causing to hate the race of white Americans. Sitting Bull was a “holy” man who only who do the acts, that would “benefit” his people alone”, that is a racial bias emotion because he would do these actions a “holy” man who would, to the benefit of his own people.
There are 2 difficult questions raised by the historical research of Sitting Bull. The United States made treaties with the Native Americans, but during the 1850 to the 1860’s America started to violate its peace treaties with the Native Americans. The first question is why would America start to violate, its peace treaties with the Native Americans? In the Battle of Killdeer Mountain, Sitting Bull and the Siarmy had 5,000 “soldiers”, they were facing the army controlled by General Sully who had 2,500. Even though, the Sioux had double the amount of “soldiers” they lost the battle. The second question is why were the Sioux defeated by the US army?
In this essay I discovered that Sitting Bull did not like white Americans, because they took the land that originally belonged to the Sioux. I learned that there people like Sitting Bull do not like peace agreement that stops their own desires from being fulfilled. There were questions I wanted to know about dealt with Peace relations between whites and Native Americans. When the Americans took over the Sioux territory, Sitting Bull led attacks against them due to racial anger against whites. I hope you enjoyed this thoughtfully written essay.
An example of Sitting Bull’s story relates to events that occur in today world; The Treaty of Fort Laramie (also called the Sioux Treaty of 1868) was an agreement between the United States and the Lakota nation, Yanktonai Sioux, Santee Sioux, and Arapaho signed in 1868 at Fort Laramie in the Wyoming Territory, guaranteeing to the Lakota ownership of the Black Hills, and further land and hunting rights in South Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana. Sitting Bull did not agree to sign the agreement; he did not want America to tell them what to do. The same situation happens today, America has tried every thing in its power to get Israel and Palestine to sign peace treaties; but they refuse to sign the peace treaties.
There are 2 biases inherited in the research of Sitting Bull. The fighting from 1863 to 1864 caused Sitting Bull to hate the inhabitation of whites in Sioux territories, and he assumed a sense of uncompromising warfare against whites that would characterize him for the rest of his life. That is a racial bias emotion; he let the actions of certain white people who did the wrong thing of driving them out of their land, causing to hate the race of white Americans. Sitting Bull was a “holy” man who only who do the acts, that would “benefit” his people alone”, that is a racial bias emotion because he would do these actions a “holy” man who would, to the benefit of his own people.
There are 2 difficult questions raised by the historical research of Sitting Bull. The United States made treaties with the Native Americans, but during the 1850 to the 1860’s America started to violate its peace treaties with the Native Americans. The first question is why would America start to violate, its peace treaties with the Native Americans? In the Battle of Killdeer Mountain, Sitting Bull and the Siarmy had 5,000 “soldiers”, they were facing the army controlled by General Sully who had 2,500. Even though, the Sioux had double the amount of “soldiers” they lost the battle. The second question is why were the Sioux defeated by the US army?
In this essay I discovered that Sitting Bull did not like white Americans, because they took the land that originally belonged to the Sioux. I learned that there people like Sitting Bull do not like peace agreement that stops their own desires from being fulfilled. There were questions I wanted to know about dealt with Peace relations between whites and Native Americans. When the Americans took over the Sioux territory, Sitting Bull led attacks against them due to racial anger against whites. I hope you enjoyed this thoughtfully written essay.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Andrew Johnson
Andrew Johnson (December 29, 1808 – July 31, 1875) was the 17th President of the US. He became the next president due, to the murder of Abraham Lincoln. Since Andrew was president, he took charge of Presidential Reconstruction, – the 1st phase of Reconstruction – which continued until the Radical Republicans acquired domination of Congress in the 1866 elections. Andrew Johnson’s appeasing policies towards the South, his goal to let former Confederates back into the union, and his vetoes of civil rights bills; caused him to be involved in bitter disputes with some Republicans. The Radicals Republicans in the House of Representatives indicted Andrew in 1868. While accusing Andrew with the violation of the Tenure of Office Act, a regulation appointed by Congress in March 1867; over Johnson's veto, however Johnson was cleared by a single vote in the Senate. He served as the president of the US from 1865 to 1869.
An example of how Andrew Johnson acts of providing amnesty, to the confederates relates to events that occur in the world. Andrew Johnson provided amnesty to 13,000 confederates, and allowed them to join the Union. Bill Clinton provided amnesty to 300 people, who had committed crimes. It seemed that both presidents provided amnesty to people, who had committed crimes before their term in office is over. When Andrew Johnson violated the Tenure of Office act, he was impeached. Many years later another president called Bill Clinton was impeached basically for, violating the laws of the US government. When a president does not obey the US government laws, he/she will be impeached.
There are 2 biases inherited in the research of Andrew Johnson. The first bias includes Andrew Johnson’s letter to Thomas C Fletcher which involved racial bias. It said "This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am president; it shall be a government for white men." The second bias involved the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. The court claimed that Johnson violated the act. But in reality the act they made was not completely constitutional, but even still they impeached him anyway.
There are 2 difficult questions raised by the historical research of Andrew Johnson. Since Andrew Johnson, violated the Tenure of Office Act he was impeached. But in 1926, a case called Myers v United States (similar to the Tenure of Office Act) was ruled by the Supreme Court unconstitutional. So the question is this when they accused and impeached Johnson for violating the Tenure of Office Act, was that constitutionally protected action? After Abraham Lincoln was killed by John Wilkes Booth, the Republicans were outraged. However, Andrew Johnson took a more liberal line noting.”1 say, as to the leaders, punishment. I also say leniency, reconciliation and amnesty to thousands whom they have misled and deceived.” My question is why did Andrew Johnson provide amnesty to the confederates and their leaders?
In the essay, I give examples about the events, and actions, of Andrew Johnson; can be related to the events that occur in the world. There were questions I wanted to know about dealt with Andrew’s impeach, and his statement, of bringing punishment to confederate leaders instead of the followers. In Andrew Johnson case there were some biases; one was from his letter to Thomas and his impeachment. I hope you enjoyed this thoughtfully written essay.
An example of how Andrew Johnson acts of providing amnesty, to the confederates relates to events that occur in the world. Andrew Johnson provided amnesty to 13,000 confederates, and allowed them to join the Union. Bill Clinton provided amnesty to 300 people, who had committed crimes. It seemed that both presidents provided amnesty to people, who had committed crimes before their term in office is over. When Andrew Johnson violated the Tenure of Office act, he was impeached. Many years later another president called Bill Clinton was impeached basically for, violating the laws of the US government. When a president does not obey the US government laws, he/she will be impeached.
There are 2 biases inherited in the research of Andrew Johnson. The first bias includes Andrew Johnson’s letter to Thomas C Fletcher which involved racial bias. It said "This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am president; it shall be a government for white men." The second bias involved the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. The court claimed that Johnson violated the act. But in reality the act they made was not completely constitutional, but even still they impeached him anyway.
There are 2 difficult questions raised by the historical research of Andrew Johnson. Since Andrew Johnson, violated the Tenure of Office Act he was impeached. But in 1926, a case called Myers v United States (similar to the Tenure of Office Act) was ruled by the Supreme Court unconstitutional. So the question is this when they accused and impeached Johnson for violating the Tenure of Office Act, was that constitutionally protected action? After Abraham Lincoln was killed by John Wilkes Booth, the Republicans were outraged. However, Andrew Johnson took a more liberal line noting.”1 say, as to the leaders, punishment. I also say leniency, reconciliation and amnesty to thousands whom they have misled and deceived.” My question is why did Andrew Johnson provide amnesty to the confederates and their leaders?
In the essay, I give examples about the events, and actions, of Andrew Johnson; can be related to the events that occur in the world. There were questions I wanted to know about dealt with Andrew’s impeach, and his statement, of bringing punishment to confederate leaders instead of the followers. In Andrew Johnson case there were some biases; one was from his letter to Thomas and his impeachment. I hope you enjoyed this thoughtfully written essay.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Dred Scott
Dred Scott (1799 – September 17, 1858), was a slave in the United States who sued unsuccessfully for his freedom in the famous Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1856. His case was based on the fact that he and his wife Harriet were slaves, but had lived in states and territories where slavery was illegal, including Illinois and Wisconsin, which was then part of the Illinois Territory. The court ruled seven to two against Scott, finding that neither he, nor any person of African ancestry, could claim citizenship in the United States, and that therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's temporary residence outside Missouri did not affect his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, since reaching that result would deprive Scott's owner of his property.
An example of how Dred Scott story relates to events that occur in today world; includes Randy Squires, a racially discriminated former police man. He filed a lawsuit against the department, alleging racial discrimination and harassment by a fellow officer. Squires accuses Atcheson, a white-caucasian male and a lieutenant in the Environmental Crimes Unit (ECU), Warrant Squad and the Paternity Warrant Squad, of discriminating against him on the basis of the color of his skin and also harassing him while on the job. In both cases you can see that even people of high authority, like the Judge Taney in Dred’s Scott case and officers in Randy Squire’s case. Each authority figure had racism in their hearts, and let their racist feeling on others in different shapes and forms; whether be verbal, physical, or using the law to their advantage.
There are 2 biases inherited in the research of Dred Scott. The first bias includes how Congress had not asserted whether slaves were free once they set foot on Northern soil. The ruling arguably violated the Missouri Compromise because, based on the court’s logic, a white slave owner can purchase slaves in a slave state and brings his slaves to states where slavery is illegal without losing rights to the slave. The bias in that example is the court based their decision on how they felt the case should go, instead of taking a neutral view by having a compromise with the Missouri compromise of some sort. The second bias includes, how congress ruled the slaves had no claim to freedom; they were property and not citizens; they could not bring suit in federal court; and because slaves were private property. Chief Justice Roger B Taney delivered the majority opinion after Dred Scott lost his case, for being freed from slavery. He stated that ”Any person descended from black Africans, whether slave or free, is not a citizen of the United States, according to the Declaration of Independence.” The second bias made is ethnic bias, the court has ruled the black people only, are not citizens of the United States.
There are 2 difficult questions raised by the historical research of Dred Scott. Calvin C Chaffee was an abolitionist who married Irene Emerson. Irene Emerson had a slave called Dred Scott, though Chaffee did not know. When Chaffee discovered that Scott was their slave, he returned him to his original owners the blow family. The first difficult question is why Chaffee an abolitionist, didn’t free Dred Scott from being a slave? When John Emerson bought Scott as a slave, they traveled extensively in Illinois and Wisconsin Territories, where the Northwest Ordinance prohibited slavery. The Second difficult question is why didn’t Scott run from his master, and live in a different area? Since the area they lived stated that slavery was illegal.
In this essay I discovered that Dred Scott could not have obtained freedom, because he was considered property of a white American man. I learned that there racial cases today, just like in Dred Scott’s time. There were questions I wanted to know about dealt with freedom from slavery. In Dred Scott case there were many biases mainly from the court’s decision, which stated that all black people could not sue because they were citizens. I hope you enjoyed this thoughtfully written essay.
An example of how Dred Scott story relates to events that occur in today world; includes Randy Squires, a racially discriminated former police man. He filed a lawsuit against the department, alleging racial discrimination and harassment by a fellow officer. Squires accuses Atcheson, a white-caucasian male and a lieutenant in the Environmental Crimes Unit (ECU), Warrant Squad and the Paternity Warrant Squad, of discriminating against him on the basis of the color of his skin and also harassing him while on the job. In both cases you can see that even people of high authority, like the Judge Taney in Dred’s Scott case and officers in Randy Squire’s case. Each authority figure had racism in their hearts, and let their racist feeling on others in different shapes and forms; whether be verbal, physical, or using the law to their advantage.
There are 2 biases inherited in the research of Dred Scott. The first bias includes how Congress had not asserted whether slaves were free once they set foot on Northern soil. The ruling arguably violated the Missouri Compromise because, based on the court’s logic, a white slave owner can purchase slaves in a slave state and brings his slaves to states where slavery is illegal without losing rights to the slave. The bias in that example is the court based their decision on how they felt the case should go, instead of taking a neutral view by having a compromise with the Missouri compromise of some sort. The second bias includes, how congress ruled the slaves had no claim to freedom; they were property and not citizens; they could not bring suit in federal court; and because slaves were private property. Chief Justice Roger B Taney delivered the majority opinion after Dred Scott lost his case, for being freed from slavery. He stated that ”Any person descended from black Africans, whether slave or free, is not a citizen of the United States, according to the Declaration of Independence.” The second bias made is ethnic bias, the court has ruled the black people only, are not citizens of the United States.
There are 2 difficult questions raised by the historical research of Dred Scott. Calvin C Chaffee was an abolitionist who married Irene Emerson. Irene Emerson had a slave called Dred Scott, though Chaffee did not know. When Chaffee discovered that Scott was their slave, he returned him to his original owners the blow family. The first difficult question is why Chaffee an abolitionist, didn’t free Dred Scott from being a slave? When John Emerson bought Scott as a slave, they traveled extensively in Illinois and Wisconsin Territories, where the Northwest Ordinance prohibited slavery. The Second difficult question is why didn’t Scott run from his master, and live in a different area? Since the area they lived stated that slavery was illegal.
In this essay I discovered that Dred Scott could not have obtained freedom, because he was considered property of a white American man. I learned that there racial cases today, just like in Dred Scott’s time. There were questions I wanted to know about dealt with freedom from slavery. In Dred Scott case there were many biases mainly from the court’s decision, which stated that all black people could not sue because they were citizens. I hope you enjoyed this thoughtfully written essay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)