Iran Response

The United States does not approve of the Iranian  theocracy called a quasi- theocracy govenment. This government developed when the Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi took power in 1979 and has remained the same since. This government makes the US suspicious of the background of the Iran military forces like Hamas. Iran has not been at peace since 1979 with the U.S. The main reason, is that the United States is in conflict with Iran because of the Iran nuclear program. Iran's program is designed to develop nuclear weapons, and they are continuiously working to create dangerous, new, nuclear weapons. The US is woried because there weapons can be used to harm us as well as any of our numerous allies.  The U.S. and many other countries are working hard to discontinue their nuclear program. A small victory for the US is stopping the amount of gasoline going into Iran. Iran has become secretive and possesive about certain resources, like oil. In 2012, Iran began to face an extreme economic crisis. Even though we have done a lot to protect the World from Iran's nuclear power, there is also a negative effect. Many other countries get many exports from Iran, but they can no longer afford.

Afghanistan

To me the most interesting part of the article was the section labeled, The Taliban: Not the Only Concern. To me this is extremely significant because the Afghan soldiers have started to turn on the American soldiers that taughthow to protect themselves in the first place. This really came to the attention of American when four French soldiers were killed by Afghan soldiers. These actions by the Afghan soldiers proved to be a fatal error because there is no longer a truce between then Afghans and the French. France was the fifth-largest contingent in Afghanistan. This means that they had the fifth largest amount of French soldiers stationed in Afghanistan. With American leaving Afghanistan as well this puts Afghanistan in a very dangerous state because this allows room for terrorist groups to take control again like the Taliban. The most dangerous places are still controlled by international forces, but if the Afghan soldiers keep retaliating then they will lose all international relationships.

"Three Anarchists Indicted" New York Times

This article was trying to prove that the anarchists that were arrested were arrested for a more just cause than the accusations from random pedestrians. The evidence provided, and I am using the word evidence very loosely, was that the brother in law of Schwab bought two rifles earlier in the year. The article was trying to put together that since someone related to one of the alleged dynamite throwers, it made them guilty of the crime. As well all know this is not a reasonable cause for arrest because there is no evidence that a gun was even present during the events at the Haymarket Square. Another flaw that I believe is present in this argument is that the man who bought the guns, Schwab, was arrested earlier for having the guns. Once arrested Schwab was released because the cops realized that he had a very clean story that could be backed up by many people. However, they still use this evidence to show that Schnabel was guilty. I do not understand how this evidence can be used if it was declared that Schnabel had bought the guns legally and for legal purposes. The last thing I wanted to point out is that the article also mentions the arrest of the newspaper distributor for the anarchists party. The article also mentions that the man was later released with just a five dollar fine. I believe that the man was only arrested to make a sceen during the riot. However, once the man reached court, and the court system realized that he did nothing wrong they gave him such a pathetic punishment to try and show that they have the power to do whatever they want to do, even if there are no laws to back it up.

credit to:
http://hn.bigchalk.com/hnweb/hn/do/document?set=search&start=1&rendition=x-article-image&inmylist=false&urn=urn%3Aproquest%3AUS%3BPQDOC%3BHNP%3BPQD%3BHNP%3BPROD%3Bx-article-image%3B109785964&mylisturn=urn%3Aproquest%3AUS%3BPQDOC%3BHNP%3BPQD%3BHNP%3BPROD%3Bx-citation%3B109785964

"The Chicago Anarchists" New York Times

The New York Times did something very interesting in there article. One of the main points that the newspaper made sure to make was that the plan by was a complete fail by the anarchists. The article explains that they believe that the throwing of the single bomb was premature and in fact ruined an entire scheme made by the anarchists. The author of this article believes that there was a plan for the whole crowd of anarchists to attack the police. The article also mentions that the police are hard at work cleaning up the streets after the event and gave them way too much credit for ensuring that the streets are safe. The last thing that the article does is use negative words when describing the anarchists. It mentions the anarchists as a "gang". I point this out because by using a word like "gang", to describe the anarchists puts the words "gang", and "anarchists", together. Since the word "gang" has a  negative connotation with it, it then brings a negative connotation to the word anarchists as well. This brings all people against the anarchists very quickly. Just like the article intended to do.

credit to:
http://hn.bigchalk.com/hnweb/hn/do/document?set=search&start=1&rendition=x-article-image&inmylist=false&urn=urn%3Aproquest%3AUS%3BPQDOC%3BHNP%3BPQD%3BHNP%3BPROD%3Bx-article-image%3B103109613&mylisturn=urn%3Aproquest%3AUS%3BPQDOC%3BHNP%3BPQD%3BHNP%3BPROD%3Bx-citation%3B103109613

Research Question

How did the Haymarket Square Riot affect the wealthy citizens' view on the lower working class?

Overview and Main Ideas

The Haymarket riot meant a lot more than just retaliation and death for officers and labor activist. Instead it was a fight for equality for the lowere working class and it was a plea for justice that was so disappointingly shut down in the court room due to many unjust conviction. It is very important to point out that not only were the labor working fighting for 8 hour days, but instead they were fighting for respect from the rich and the law. While eventually this was achieved, the question really is, how much faster could this have been done if the dynamite was never thrown? Or maybe, would the goal have ever been achieved?

The Haymarket Bombing, 1886

Right before all of the chaos occurred a man by the name Sam Fielden, was giving a speech to the crowd of hundreds of about 500 workmen. Fielden preached to the people that the rich were their enemies. He declared that the rich had robbed them because they do all of the rich mens' work and the rich men get all of the workers money. After blaming the rich for these crimes Fielden points for the law and the next offender. He accuses the law of being unjust. He describes the actions as the law as, "Only the day before, they'd attacked the McCormick Reaper Works, and the law had shot them down, but when, he'd asked, when would it shoot McCormick down (Cries of Never!) Have nothing to do with the law, he'd told them: the law had no mercy, it degraded them, it turned them out in the road". Fielden was describing all of the injustices in the law and mostly how the laws are made to put the working class down and so that the upper class may maintain all of its power. As Fielden continued he pushed the idea of "stabbing" the law and "killing" the law. He believed that if the law was fair and equal then the event  at the Haymarket would have been completely avoided. Fielden continued be naming all of the unjust arrests that took place due to the bomb being thrown. he mentions the notorious eight that were arrested out of the crowd for being known anarchist leaders. He also mentions the unjust closure and arrest of two anarchist newspaper companies. Overall Fielden had a feeling of disgusted towards the law and he blames the laws lack of fair for causing the death of many innocent people.

Credit to: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=5&hid=105&sid=5fb59daf-7858-4e3d-ac87-b430f01263dc%40sessionmgr4&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=ofs&AN=502136579

Haymarket Through the Anarchists' Eyes

The Haymarket bombing had an affect on the Labor movement, even more so it was a symbol. In Carl Guarneri's review on the book The Haymarket Tragedy by Paul Avrich it was, "a focal point for the passionate struggles of a generation over radicalism, immigration, urban miseries, and respectable middle-class citizens drew different lesson from the episode, but virtually all realized that they had seen lit in a flash, as it were, the dark side of American's difficult passage to urban-industrial capitalism" (76). Guarneri believes that this event was a lot more than just a strike gone wrong and improper brutal force by the police. he insists that it was a way of showing the working class how corrupt the everything was for the hard working lower class. An example Guarneri gives about the situation is that only one officer was actually killed by the dynamite thrown into the crowd of people men and that the other 6 police casualties were all done by other police officers in cross fire. He uses this point to show how it is unjust to blame all of the death on the thrown bomb because they were actually caused by their own men, but it was easier to blame the explosive to get the offenders in more trouble. Guarneri also talks about the trial and how it was complete unfair. There is no other way to put it other than it was completely tilted in favor of the prosectution and it didn't give these completely innocent men a chance at freedom or justice.
Guarneri continued by saying that anarchist promoted violence as the answer to their problems. Avrich claimed, "that urging workers to arm they were simply warning of inevitable revolution to come; and in any case 'their humanitarian outlook shrank from the methods that in theory they justified and professed'"(175). Guarneri is saying that because the anarchists pushed violence so hard on themselves that there was going to be some kind of revolution in the workforce out of fear by employers and the anarchists would feel justifed when that day would occur.

John Peter Altgeld: Pardon of the Haymarket anarchists (1893)

           The Haymarket riots caused a lot of chaos on May 4^th 1886, but it was even more hectic was when the arrested anarchist were tried in court. The biggest problem that the court faced was that there was never any physical proof that any of the indicted men were guilty. However, this didn’t stop the jury from making the verdict guilty for all of them. When this jury was formed it was made as a packed jury selected to convict. Along with the unfairly stacked jury, “the judge was either so prejudiced against the defendants, or else so determined to win the applause of a certain class in the community, that he could not and did not grant a fair trial.” This fact put the men’s fate to doom before they even walked into the court room. Four of the men were hung right after the trial and the rest of them went to prison. It didn’t go along with any of our country’s laws because these men were being kept in jail for life without any evidence, which should have meant that they were guilty of no crime. Eventually on June 26, 1893, the court system recognized their mistake and released the three prisoners that were left from the incident.

http://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/253886?terms=anarchist

Haymarket Square Riot 1886

Initial Summary:
At the end of April and the beginning of May in 1886 there was an organized labor strike in Chicago. The large crowd of labor activists were striking for the
eight-hour day to become to norm in the workforce. On May 3 police open fired at the crowd of activists at the McCormick Harvesting Machine Company. Four of the non-violent strikers were killed during the shooting. The members of the labor movement were disgusted and outraged by this and came back the next day to continue the rally. The rally remained peaceful until an unknown person threw a bomb into the crowd of nearly 200 police men. Seven officers were killed and over 70 were injured. This caused police retaliation and they strating shooting into the crowd of ralliers killing and injuring many people. Police had a major crackdown on the labor movement after this. There were hundreds of arrests made along with the closing of two activists newspapers being shut down. Eventually four men were hung for the incident. This event was one of the frist "Red Scare", event in our country because a lot of the activists were immigrants. Due to the brutal outcome of the event the public was put in a frenzie of fear. Overall, because the public veiwed this event as negative by the activists it caused a set back for the labor movement. 
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?

CX3401801864&docType=GALE

CX2536601665&docType=GALE

CX3437702095&docType=GALE

Race Relations Continued -Ohio Panel Sticks to 'White Only' Pool Sign Ruling

This article really shocked me as well as surprised me. The 'White Only' on a sign near a pool in Ohio was a huge issue for many reason. First off, out of all of the places in Ohio for the sign to be put up, it was in Cincinnati which has a 45% African American population. The African American population was outraged by the amount of racism that this sign propsed. This completely went against the "Ohio Civil Rights Act". This wasn't the first time an iccident going against this act has happened. In 2001 a riot broke out in the neighborhoods of Cincinnati. Due to this fact I am very surprised that there wasn't a greater reaction to this horrific event. Overall this even was terrible because it took us back to the Jim Crow Laws, which we fought so hard to get rid of.