Panel 2

Panel on Bridging the gap

What was the main theme of the panel?
The main theme of this panel was to discuss the repercussions and solutions to events of Trumps presidency on the rights of women, all races and ethnicities, and the LGBTQ community.

How valid was the theme of the panel?
This theme was very tied to current events and valid considering the nationwide fear felt by many Americans in recent months.

What are the main points that each side makes in their arguments? Who are the panellists and do they provide sufficient evidence in proving their points?
The panellist did not really provide opposing prospectives, rather they were a semi-diverse group of people who wanted to provide potential solutions to current social issues. I came in late and missed the first part of the panel, but the points I saw made revolved around the current situation of racial and gender equality. They talked a lot about the hate which the election spread and the detrimental effects on national unity which resulted. The panel was comprised of Annita Sarkisian

Do you think their information is accurate?

From whose perspective is this argument being made?

Are a multiplicity of perspectives given?

Are any key prospectives left out?


Was this a good panel?


Would you recommend this panel why or why not?

Booker T. Washington v. W.E.B. Du Bois

Although I believe the best plan would be somewhere in between the two plans, I think Du Bios recognises the vital importance of education. Education is the most important aspect of empowering an oppressed people. Booker T. Washington advocates for starting at the bottom with manual labor before reaching for political power, however, I would argue that education is the bottom because it is the foundation for freedom and power. Without actively reaching for Education African Americans could not hope to rise effectively into political power. Although Du Bios's plan is not perfect, he puts a strong focus on the importance of using the new opportunities in political power, civil right and education to improve the lives of African Americans which are essential for further progression.

Tom Mauser

            Tom Mauser became a gun control activist after loosing his son in the tragic Columbine High school shooting and now works to promote reasonable gun safety legislation in the state of Colorado. In his speech at Dawson he made many points relating to gun safety and legislation, but the points that were the most impactful were on fixing the loopholes in the Brady Bill and background checks. Mauser discussed several legal methods of purchasing a gun, some of which involve background checks and others did not. Before his speech, I had been unaware there were legal ways to acquire a gun without a background check, and I was shocked to find out that the shooters at Columbine High school acquired their gun through a method which did not require a background check. Mauser took an impressively moderate and reasonable stance on his issues and combatted his opponents criticisms with well thought out rational and facts. I left his speech knowing more about gun legislation than I ever had and simultaneously feeling infuriated by those who refuse to support reasonable gun legislation. I feel, similarly to Mauser that reasonable gun legislation involves background checks and training before obtaining a conceal and carry permit. 

I didn’t feel like anything was missing from his speech and my only question left after his talk would be “ why would anyone oppose background checks on all gun purchasers”. Mauser’s talk reinforced my opinions on the need for gun control and also shed a new interesting light on concealed weapons. Before his talk, I thought I would probably feel safer around people who had concealed weapons. After he made the point about the caos that could have potentially happened if ten people had possessed concealed weapons in the Aurora theater shooting, I realised that more guns wouldn’t make things safer if those people had no training. I am very grateful that we were able to listen to such an informative and fascinating speaker. 

Letter to the Editor

Mr. Editor,
        I was absolutely aghast by the appalling autobiography, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave By Fredrick Douglass. The book illustrates the atrocities we northern abolitionists must be fighting harder against. The images of suffering slaves depicted in his book should make even the hardest of hearts ache. Douglass talks of a slave owner stepping upon his little brothers head “till the blood gushed from his nose and ears” and of the poor raw emaciated bodies of fellow slaves who lived on the edge of starvation. These are clearly no ways to treat fellow humans and these images only strengthened my abolitionist conviction. I implore you to publish excerpts from Douglass’s book in order to show people the atrocities they have been turning a blind eye to for so long.
        Slaves are dehumanized. Often slaves are treated as if they are the intelectual inferiors of white men, but the writings of this black slave proves otherwise. He writes with the skill and intellect of any college graduate and illuminates the hypocrisy which live in our Christian nation. He details the irony in our countries Christianity, as many of the most brutal slave owners call themselves God-loving men. Our nation cannot continue under the false pretenses of being a Godly country when people continue to starve, beat, and murder their fellow men. Douglass’s narrative should be seen by every eye in the nation. Upon reading it, abolitionists will show new conviction, and any slave owner should feel shame. We can no longer pretend slaves are too dumb to deserve basic human rights, but even a beasts should not be treated with the brutality with which a white man treats his slaves. You would not kick a dog who lays at your feet nor step on its head with your boot. Why then do we treat intelectual beings with such cold-hearted violence? As a northern newspaper, you owe it to the people to publish excerpts of this narrative and unmask the atrocities of the South.

The American Revolution and American Identity

             America is often characterized by an unfailing national pride. This patriotism is viewed as a foundational cornerstone which our nation was built on; however, this is not entirely the case. Although many people think of the American Revolution as a strong, unified effort by a people united in their cause with shared goals, values, and identity, on the eve of the Revolution the America we know today was still in its infancy. Despite the ideas of Revolution in the minds of the population, the colonies remained largely divided by loyalties and varying degrees of outrage or agreement with British actions throughout the Revolution. By the 1750s, the American identity had certainly been born, but despite the newly emerging idea of Americanism, the colonies struggled to unite due to varying personal views and a lack of connection between the colonies.

             Despite colonists' objections to British policies like the Stamp and Sugar Acts along with various other forms of taxation implemented by the British during the 1750s, many colonists remained loyal to the crown. This created three relatively equal factions among the colonists: Patriots, Loyalists and those who remained neutral. In 1781, Peter Oliver recorded a history of Massachusetts which recounts “The Origin and Progress of the American Revolution to the year 1776.”  In this history, he details that the rebellion did not occur because of consensus “but to gratify the Pride, Ambition & Resentment, of a few abandoned Demagogues.”  In fact “the generality of the People were not of this Stamp, but they were [weak] & unversed in the Arts of Deception” (Document F). Oliver’s words provide an interesting insight into the dissension among the colonists regarding British sovereignty, society was split. As Oliver suggests, the Revolution was even viewed by some people as a war led by a very small population who influenced the public. Much of the public remained divided by opinion throughout the 1700s. Mathers Byles noted in his writings that although British rule was tyrannical, American rule was similar to being governed by “three thousand tyrants not a mile away” (Document D). His comparison was not inaccurate, and lack of consensus proved to be a huge obstacle of an early autonomous America. 

             In addition to the range of personal patriotism or lack thereof, young America was also faced with disunity between the individual colonies. Unlike post-constitutional America where the 50 states combine to make one nation, the colonies had no connection to each other besides that of physical proximity and a shared mother country. In 1754, Benjamin Franklin, a patriot, respected inventor, and politician published a powerful piece of propaganda through his newspaper, the Pennsylvania Gazette. The image illustrated the disconnection between the colonies using a chopped up snake. Each labeled segment of the snake was representative of at least one part of the Thirteen Colonies. The Gazette illustrated their message with the help of a popular myth that if you put the pieces of a snake back together before sundown, the snake would come back to life. The large text “Join, or Die” across the bottom powerfully conveyed the message that the colonies needed to unite or risk falling individually. The illustration was published the same year as Franklin released the Albany Plan, a plan to join the 13 colonies through a unified government. Unfortunately, the Gazette’s propaganda was not as effective as Franklin might have hoped. The Albany Plan failed to be effective and eventually fell apart due to conflicting interests and values between the colonies. Although Franklin may have been an early proponent of an autonomous America, he was not alone in his observations about the disconnect between colonies. Parliament also recognized that the colonies were completely separated leading up to the eve of their Revolution. In 1766, in his notes for his speech to Parliament, Edmund Burke expressed that the notion of governing the disconnected American colonies from across the ocean was ridiculous (Document B). Burke’s acknowledgment of the disconnect between the American colonies is important because it supports Franklin’s observations from a British perspective. Both the works of Franklin and Burke are helpful in illustrating how dysfunctional America was leading up to the eve of its Revolution, because they both corroborate the same fact: America was anything but united. 

            Although the colonists had serious disagreements about British sovereignty and possessed no autonomy between the colonies, they all possessed one thing in common. All the colonists were immigrants or descendants of immigrants who gave up European society to be part of America and were thus Americans. This gave the colonies a central trait in common which allowed colonies to band together when the British enforced things such as the Coercive Acts. A bond between the colonies is clear when examining the list of “Contributors of Donations for the Relief of Boston” of 1774 and 1775, which was recorded by the Massachusetts Historical Society. The donations displayed in the list were sent to Boston by other colonies after the Boston Tea Party triggered England to implement “the intolerable acts” (Document G). These donations illuminate an undeniable bond between the colonies. The donations were not sent because the other colonies were required to do so. They were sent from Americans to fellow Americans in need. The idea of the American identity was a key unifying factor among colonists. As Hector St Crevecoeur states in his “ Letters from an American Farmer, composed in the 1770’s” A man “Becomes an American by being received in the brand lap of our great Alma Mater. Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men” (Document H). These two documents reveal that although the colonies were not unified, they were united under the American identity to some extent by the eve of their Revolution.

            Although somewhat lacking in unity, Americans had clearly developed an undeniable bond through their mutual American identities. The “lack of unity” and yet simultaneous ability to maintain the American bond is a powerful aspect of America.  The ability for the two to be mutually exclusive is what made America so successful throughout history. Even though the citizens may not be united in supporting an unpopular war effort such as the Vietnam war, the bond between fellow Americans and pride as an American citizen almost never disappears. 

AP US History Blog