The wealthy people were responsible for this?

        Washington, Du Bois, and Douglas had been expressing their ideas about the civil rights of the blacks. However, they all have different direction. Washington was willing to compromise while Douglas and Du Bois were eager to earn the right to vote and let their voice heard. They believe that the rich people who have most of the control were the roots of the problems, and I totally agree with them. The wealthy people had more responsibility for suppressing the slaves and causing the conflicts between the races. Most slaves were owned by the wealthy ones; 80% of the southerners had no slaves. After the Civil War, the blacks were still subordinate to the whites who still treated them like slaves. Never had they thought about being socially or politically equal to the blacks. Therefore, the wealthy people suppressed the African American horribly: hanging them, or even massacres. Due to their own fear of the black revenge, the white people denied the requests of any equalities. They were accountable for the whole movements.

Frederick Douglas- The Lessons of the Hour

        Frederick Douglas, an African American ex-slave, abolitionist, and leader, delivered his last speech at the Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church of Washington, DC, on January 9, 1894. "The Lesson of the Hour" begins by identifying"negro problem" as a problem of white violence. Especially in the South, mobs were mostly made up by the better classes. He then deeper talked about the whites  disenfranchise the blacks so they still lived like slaves. 
           Compared to Booker T. Washington's  and W.E.B. Du Bois's thought about the development of the freed slaves, Frederick Douglas agreed with Du Bois more on slavery situation. 
           Washington believed that political freedom was not the first aim of the development. He wanted the whites to provide vocational education for the blacks; even the African Americans have to begged for the work and claimed their inferior.
           However, Du Bois criticized Washington's idea, and stated that without the right to vote, they would not be different from their status before Civil war -- slaves. Douglas assented the opinion of Du Bois that the African Americans should not accept their subordination, but fight back for being a real American citizen. 

Naturalism Challenge and Presentation

       Today in class, we divided up into groups and started to organize our thoughts into a presentation. My job in the group was to define Naturalism, which was quit difficult for me. At first, I read through my notes in class; however, it was so broad that I was unable to put in my presentation.
       I started some research on Jstor, but there was no specific information. Luckily, I found this site made by a college professor that justified Naturalism and Realism. I read the bulletin point on the site, and then came up with my the outlines by my own understanding.
       As an honor student, I am required to read one short story and determine whether the work is about Naturalism or not. I picked Jake London, read one of the stories, "To Build a Fire." This is a story about a dog and man who died because of his own pride thinking that he is better than the nature world.  

Booker T. Washington's "The Atlanta Exposition Address" and the criticism from W.E.B. Du Bois

        Washington's "Atlanta Compromise" speech stated that vocational education (a form of education in which people are provided with practical skills which will allow them to engage in careers which involve manual or practical abilities)gave blacks an opportunity for economic security and was more valuable than social advantages. One of the quotes in the chapter summarizes the Washington's idea really well: "In all things that are purely social we can be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress." In order to remain peaceful and to be socially separated, the whites should accept responsibility for improving the social and economic conditions of the blacks. Washington wanted the support from the white race and to have the opportunity for success in the work places. However, he is willing to give up getting into the political world and even abandon the eagerness of striving to be equal. Furthermore, he admitted blacks' inferiority and garantied their loyalty to their employers. 

        While Washington was focusing on vocational education for his race and white leasers in the South and the North agree with him, other black intellectuals feared that Washington's philosophy could doom the blacks. The most active one was W. E. B. Du Bois. In his "The Souls of Black Folk," the third chapter is titled as "Of Mr. Booker T. Washington and Others," and stated that "Mr. Washington represents in Negro thought the old attitude of adjustment and submission...[His] program practically accepts the alleged inferiority of the Negro races." Du Bois, on the other hand, advocated fully civil rights. 

        In my opinion, I agree with both Washington's and Du Bois's point of views. However,  in different circumstances, the two philosophy would have to cooperate with each other to earn freedom for the blacks. I understand that how Washington thought that it was more important to earn a job from the whited than to fight for social equality. Since one third of the southern population was black race, the whites were feared that the African Americans would rule them as soon as they got freedom. Therefore, Washington explained that they were willing to make compromise to give up their social equality in order to earn the money and to feed themselves. However, the African Americans should still keep in mind what Du Bois talked about, they are not inferior to the whites; this is just the really first step of fighting for equality. 

Daisy Miller -- Henry James

Questions:

1. Describe Daisy MIller (character description)

2. Why is Daisy Miller looked down on by the European family?

1.Daisy Miller can be considered to be the protagonist of the story. Compare to other European girls, Daisy has a really different personality. She is not shy and always willing to speak up her mind. She refuses to obey the old ideas of "being a woman." She enjoys having others around her but still being as her own. However, Henry James uses her story to discuss the relationship between Europeans and Americans believing of each other.  

2. Daisy Miller is looked down by other European family due to her different behavior. Winterbourne and his family represent the typical upper class in Europe while Daisy's represents the American family. Although they are both rich, they disagree with each other. Winterbourne once said that he does not realize how much America has changed after he meets Daisy. I guess it is Daisy's unique manners that caused her into troubles. However, I think that she is just the person who live like us in the modern world now.

Mark Twain - To The Person Sitting In The Darkness

        This is a pretty fascinating essay! Mark Twain used satire to portray the dark side of the imperialism in the nineteenth century. He is criticizing Imperialism not only America, but also other countries. However, he refers those "sitting in the darkness" as human beings that were considered to be uncivilized, such as China and Africa. Only those with white skin are the "civilized" once, and it is their duty to educate the others. I like the way how Twain wrote it with satire. It makes the situation look even more clearly. 

Ambrose Bierce - An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge

        Ambrose Bierce is a famous writer in the last quater of nineteenth century. His short stories are held among the best of the 19th century, mostly about the terrible things he had seen in the war. He fought in the American Civil War and had a lot of negative impact on him. 
        In his story, An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge, Bierce addressed that the wars are horrible and terrified to both the South and the North. As a northerner, he tended to write the story in the southerner's point of view. His way of telling the story makes it fascinating the the public. 
        I was totally shocked at the end of the story. Never had I ever thought about he will end the story in this extraordinary. Moreover, I enjoyed the movie that was produced. The background music totally make it hard for me to catch up my breath, especially when he was trying the run away from the Union soldiers.
       When we look back now, most of us think that the Union was right and the Confederation was not. However, this story awaken me that on the both sides of the battle/ war, there are all human beings, perhaps in this case, Americans. So, were the northern Union action totally appropriate? Maybe not.....