Thoreau

Thoreau’s attitude of the government was that it was actually more harmful than helpful to people in society, therefore cannot be justified. He felt that civil disobedience of that government was needed by the people governed in order to keep the government from growing too powerful, through the corruption, and deception using expanded powers.  Civil, not meaning, polite or with respect, but rather "relating to citizens and their interrelations with one another or with the state".  

He insisted that instead of serving the people as government should, which he felt would never work, that the inevitable end would always have the people serving the government as a form of slavery. Thoreau spoke out against slavery and indicated through his writings that free thinking and actions of one’s own mind, of what was thought to be right and was far better than the mindless obedience of laws established by a government.

I personally agree with the statement that “the government is best which governs least”, because we all need to be self reliant and responsible for our lives and consequences of our actions. We should turn to ourselves for solutions to our needs, not rely on the government for answers to all our problems.   I believe the government should help in protecting our way of life, meaning freedoms granted by the constitution, but not to feed my family, or provide me with a roof over my head.  

Free land was given by the government in the expansion of the west, which was less expensive than the government building the infrastructure needed for a growing expanding population. The land was given away to those who would by their own means work the land building, creating and growing, through farming, raising livestock and eventually manufacturing. Only those that worked their claims of land and produced a product to assist for the needs of others, would be rewarded the deed to those lands for their efforts. Now presently in our current society, a majority of our population feels that they are entitled to the “free land” because others may have it. Regardless of the fact that the one’s who have received the rewards of their success by means of their own sacrifices and personal risks to achieve it.

Civil War? Reconstruction?

First Reconstruction after the Civil War was the most chaotic time in US history.  Simply put some parts of the country were more of mess than when they were at war. The transformation of the Southern States had New Republicans and Democrats fighting for individual powers, leaving the former slaves being used as pawns, which led to a more Radical Reconstruction.  Many failed Reconstruction policies, some of which included some States giving free land to slaves, led to violent controversy throughout the South over slave’s free rights and the ability to vote. Bitterness like this led to the birth of the Klu Klux Klan, and other white supremacist organization.

Free slaves were never really supported as equals to the whites, they were cast into hard labor jobs, such as building the railroad out west, or coal mining and the lucky ones continued to still live as sharecroppers on their original owners land. But as years passed, many ended up through education, integrating with success finding opportunities running for public office, and acquiring successful land and business ownership.

In some parts of the country it took almost a hundred years after Reconstruction, where the African Americans were treated as equals. Were the freed slaves better off after the Civil War, yes by what was accomplished with humane slavery abolishment. But the immediate freedoms they were given only led to more dependence, and suffering because our country was not facilitated to receive them in society as equals for many generations. Many could not read or write, and these cases they may have been better off still being slaves and cared for by the land owners that had them tending their crops.

African- Americans

Relationships between the treatment of African-Americans during Reconstruction and the United States Civil Rights Movement, were very similar.  In both era’s throughout the South and in many parts of the North, Black–Americans were treated as second class citizens, threatened by violence, and discriminated against for equal rights of where they could work, live and even seek education. It was not until Civil Rights Laws were passed during the Second Reconstruction resulting from the movement in the 1960’s did Black -Americans truly get recognition and protection of their rights that were given to after the Civil War over a hundred years before. 

Connection?

Gaming could connect with learning certainly by making the experience more enjoyable. Gaming is a more fun alternative to learning rather than sitting through lectures and taking notes. Like in Oregon Trail for instance, they give you the options that the travelers had. Some of these options included: what could be purchased at the market, the time of year to leave, the supplies you'd need. It's much easier to think back to the game and what you had chosen, and what the end result was of those decisions, rather than think back to the notes/lecture. Just the fact that gaming is more interactive and keeps you awake, as apposed to notes.

Six Word Story

Their long journey, was cut short.

Why?

I think stereotypes are so widely known throughout our country due to its past. Mainly because of the slavery that we as a country had. For so long, whites were looked upon as a "supreme race" as every other race was seriously looked down on. Since, the whites looked at everyone as a lower level, they began giving the other races names because of their hatred to anyone who was not white, and classifying them a horrid things (that's obviously weren't necessarily true to the race as a whole). That seed had been planted and never really stopped growing causing these bad traits of the other races to been so known and said often.

The Truth

No, I do not think we should change the way we teach younger students about the history of the United States. I think it would truly take the fun out of learning about the history of it, as long as they are learning the basics then it is fine. As they get older, old enough to comprehend what the real underlying truth is, then that is when the truth should be spoken to them.

The events happened, negative or not.

No I do not think countries should leave pieces of their history out, even if they are negative,while documenting the stories. I think that it is important to allow the people of the country to know EVERYTHING that has happened, this is important so history may not repeat itself. For example, if a country lost a war, as embarrassing as that is, it is important to document everything that happened so that in the future if the country were to be in a war again they may take different steps or a different approach to attacking the enemy to prevent another loss from occurring. It is also important to allow the negatives to be written in the history books so we may look at it as "wow, that was a really cruel thing for our country to have done" and realize maybe how much our society has changed for the better, or maybe not even changed at all but to motivate the current citizens to better themselves and the country.