1920’s USA Sources Coursework Essay

(1.) In source A, we correspond a car excessivelyn of Uncle surface-to-air missile, the symbol of the States, look at a turn in of life in the the States from years before. I believe that the surveyist is trying to test how Ameri stub life in the 1920s (when the cartoon was drawn) is so much various to Ameri hobo life in earlier years which is sh ingest in the picture on the wall. We can see that umteen characters that re picture different aspects of 1920s life in the USA surround Uncle surface-to-air missile. For example, on that point be three women with the reciprocations Scandal, Materialism or Divorce pen on their dresses, and the talking to Easy m geniusy in the smoke of Sams cigar.The word scandal refers to the presidency of Warren G. Harding, when m all instances of decadence occurred. For example, Hardings close friend, Charles Forbes, was thought to be responsible for the mirthful slice of $200 million from the Veterans Bureau forecast, of which he was the director. During Hardings term in office, this sideslip of blatant fraud (and separates) was unkn aver to the commonplace public. However, by the time extraction A was drawn in 1925, Calvin Coolidge had sprain president and these scandals were unc everyplaceed to the public.The word materialism refers to quite a littles ever-changing attitude towards their own wealth, in the first place due to the economic boom. After the rootage World War, the USA had gained status as the richest res publica in the world. This was because it had non suffered physically or financially from the war, un kindred its European counterparts. In circumstance, the States was receiving vast amounts of bullion through re- bearments from countries they had given loans to during the conflict. Also, Americas government activity helped to shape the way that flock earned and spent their money. With the Republicans in power, the nation learnt to exercise the policy of laissez-faire, which literally tran slated convey let it be.In other words, people were able to build up their own businesses freely, safe in the companionship that the government would non interfere too much or put up high taxes. In positive fact, taxes were decreased to encourage Americans to spend their wages on luxury goods, such as refrigerators or cars. High tariffs on exported goods from overseas meant people were much(prenominal) likely to buy products do in America, thus boosting the countrys industries. People began to c atomic number 18 more(prenominal) and more ab bug out their own wealth, and imbed that they had more money at their fingertips.This ties in with the words easy money, which refers to the line of business market. With more money in their pockets, Americans were alship canal on the look out for shipway in which they could invest it and purge increase it. The Stock trans do and property market provided the perfect outlet for this. Not only did original stockbrokers play the marke t, but to a fault the normal working public, who found they could draw and quarter easy money, as it says in the cartoon, by simply acquire stocks. However, the people who did this were not loyal to the company they bought them from, as they usually sell them as soon as the prise had risen.another(prenominal) big deviate that occurred in this time was the role of women in society. The fact that the women in the cartoon are flappers, presents how by 1925, women were beginning to become independent and outspoken. They smoked, swore in public, and even rode drivecycles. The woman with the word divorce on her dress emphasises this point as well. In the 1920s, the divorce rate rose as women began to dwell their own lives without depending on men for support.So, what was the cartoonists message? Personally I think that he/she was trying to show how much the USA had changed from the times when pioneers lived dewy-eyed lives in log cabins. The fact that Uncle Sam is gazing at the pi cture and saying, Ah, those were the age is showing that, in effect, America yearns for the way that life utilise to be before everything became so materialistic and money-orientated, even though he himself is session in the seat of luxury.(2.) In source B, we see a motion-picture show of dickens blackamoores hanged from a tree whilst being surrounded and watched by a drive of vacuous people. denotation C is an protract from a newspaper, which describes in detail the kill of another Negro in a separate incident. These two sources are similar in some ways and different in others. on that point are a number of ways that we can see this.Firstly, both sources show a similar reception from the crowd to the actual lynching. B shows the crowd looking up at the bodies overenthusiastically, and even one man pointing to them as if to show to the photographic camera something he is proud of. There does not appear to be anyone looking inconvenience or upset by the incident, with most spectators looking joyous and pleased. both sources show the crowd to be diverse ( manifestly within the same ethnical group), with people of all ages and both sexes. Source C also describes the crowds reaction as being happy at the Negros fate. In fact, the crowd seemed to be even more enthusiastic in the second source than in the first one, . joined reach and danced around while the Negro was burned. But ultimately, both sources show the different crowds to be in approval of the lynchings.However, one difference between the two sources is who actually committed the lynching in each case. In B, we can only see what appears to be normal, white cillivians in the crowd. There does not seem to be any members of the Ku Klux Klan in their usual white uniform. Therefore, independent bigots could project simply done the hanging in the first source, in an almost spontaneous fashion. In comparison, Source C seems to have been a more planned event, organised by the Ku Klux Klan. The f act that the extract says that at that place was more than 500 people present and that people were travelling from other cities by car precisely to see the lynching gives us the impression that it was highly publicised within the racist federation. We can not tell the exact number of people at the hanging in source B, but we can assume that it was credibly not as some as in the second source.Another difference between the two sources is that, obviously, one is a photograph and one is a newspaper extract. If I were to choose, I would probably say that a photograph (source B) gives a more accurate impression of an event than an taradiddle (source C) of some personify who was simply present at the time. This is because a photograph is taken at the time and can not be changed. Whether or not the photographer was racist does not make any difference because, generally, the camera does not lie and is not biased, depending on the context. But the newspaper extract was written after th e event and is therefore less accurate, because the writer could have forgotten important details or even written the sexual conquest in an unfair or biased way.(3.) Source F is a photograph showing a crowd of people demonstrating on the behalf of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, interpreted in April 1927. How multipurpose would it be for a historian who was studying the case of the two imprisoned immigrants?We can see in the photograph that there is quite a large crowd of people, which gives the impression that the majority of Americans back up Sacco and Vanzetti. However, that is not strictly true. Although the two acc utilise men did have many supporters who protested against their impending execution, most normal American people agreed with it.This was mainly due to the American publics fear of Communists or Reds as they were commonly called. Since the Russian Revolution in 1917, people had started to believe that collectivism was spreading and would eventually reach th e USA. This caused the number of immigrants brought to America to be limited, and any that did come were discriminated against. This seems to be case with Sacco and Vanzetti. In hindsight, it appears that the two men were used as scape-goats for a crime they possibly did not commit. Being Italian immigrants made them an easy target, and it was unlikely that the American public would believe their word against the American legal system and police.However, is this shown in the photograph? Without background knowledge of the subject, it would be strenuous to tell by the photograph whether most people were supportive of Sacco and Vanzetti or not. The photograph is quite misleading, as it seems as though the majority of the American public was on their side, which was not the case. Although I can not tell for sure, I believe that the people in the photograph are other immigrants, who were generally the only people that supported the two men. This was because most immigrants felt that th e discrimination against Sacco and Vanzetti could easily happen to them one daylight in the future. But this is not necessarily clear from the photograph. However, it could be useful to a historian as an example of the minority that did support them.(4.) I do not believe that the cartoon in Source E is very useful at all. This is for a number of different reasons. Firstly, Nazis produced the cartoon. This means that it is biased against the USA, and would therefore not provide a fair or accurate view of American life. Even if some aspects of the cartoon were true, they would undoubtedly be used in a misleading way. This is why propaganda can never be used as an accurate impression of something. Secondly, as the cartoon was made during the Second World War, it is intended to show what American life was like during this time (1939-1945). So therefore it does not show what life was like in the 1920s.Also, many of the examples of American life used are loosely true but are used inaccu rately. For example, the body (which is supposedly meant to represent the USA) is shown as having the head of a Ku Klux Klan member. This could be interpreted that the Klan were very dominant throughout the whole of the USA as they are seen as being at the head of it all. This was not true. A accommodation of cars increase. This means that more cars were made because there was a bigger exact for them, and more cars were bought because people had more money to spend. Also the sale of radios greatly increased in this decade. These statistics certainly help to support Hoovers claim that America was winning the battle over poverty. Source J also emphasises the point that during this era, the country began to spend more money on luxury goods, such as big houses and cars.However, the same two sources also show us that the opposite was also true. Not everyone in the USA was making a lot of money, as shown in source I. When compared to the $1246 that Californian fruit farmers made per mon th in 1929, the South Carolinas farmers pay packet of only $129 per month seems very measly. This is one example of how not everybody did well in the 1920s. This was mainly due to overproduction of goods in other words, more food was produced than could be sold. Also, due to the high tariffs put on American exports, the food could not be sold in Europe. Source J also points out that the America people had become so obsessed with making money that it would eventually be the death of themI think the country was in greater danger during the twentiesmore money every year for everyoneSuddenly everybody owned a motor carAll we needed was to make more automobiles and build bigger houses.We must also remember that Hoover made the speech in source H during the Presidential Election campaign. This means that he was obviously going to say something that would encourage the general public to have assent in the Republican government and to help get him in to the sportsmanlike House. Therefore it might be an exaggerated or sugar-coated form of the truth, which most politicians seem to have a talent at expressing.(6.) Source K is a song written in 1971 for an American goggle box show. It is about how much better life in the 1920s was than the present day (i.e. when the song was written). Source L is an extract from a write up textbook about how the majority of Americans in the 1920s did not live the high life and were, in fact, very poor and facing unemployment.At a first glance we can see that source K is not completely accurate about life in the twenties. In the first line it mentions Glenn Miller, a bandleader who is described as playing, Songs that made the hit parade. This is actually incorrect, as Glen Miller was a bandleader in the 1930s and 1940s, not the 1920s. It also mentions Herbert Hoover, which seems quite strange as he was only President for one year of the twenties, 1929. It is examples like these that seem to threaten the accuracy of the source. Also, t he fact that it was written in 1971 makes me believe that it is less tried than something that was written closer to the time.Also, I get the impression that the song is slimly sarcastic and comedic, as opposed to being a accredited account of 1920s American life. It is because of this that it could be easily misinterpreted. For example, the line that says, Freaks were in a circus tent could be referring to the time when people were highly suspicious of immigrants and hence Attorney-General Palmer ordered for many suspected socialists to be deported. But this is not very clear. Also the line that says that everybody was content is not very true. legion(predicate) people were very poor in the twenties, and times were very hard for some people, such as farmers. Also, Negroes were still being treated as third-rate citizens and were often discriminated against. Also, the song is an opinion, so does not represent everybodys views.Source L however seems much more accurate. Because it was written for a history textbook it is more likely to show a reliable viewpoint on 1920s life. Especially since it contains an example of an actual fact, as opposed to an opinion (i.e. that job insecurity was on the increase for the over 35s). It is much more realistic than source K, for example using words such as vast numbers of Americans instead of words like everybody as seen in the first source. So, in my opinion, Source L shows a more reliable impression of 1920s life than source K.(7.) From looking at all the sources, it is very hard to draw a refined conclusion as to whether the 1920s was a golden age for Americans or not. To decide, I will look at all the sources again.Firstly, it is evident that economically, America did extremely well in this decade. In source I we see that within three years (1926-1929) the number of cars produced each year had increased by over 1 million. We also see that within eightsome years (1920-1929) the number of cars registered had been incr eased by nearly three times and that within seven years (1922-1929) the amount of money spent on radios increased by $764.5 million. So what does this tell us? This basically shows us that the 1920s were the beginning of the age of consumer power. People began to have more money to spend on luxury goods, so in turn more were produced. This lead to the growth of industries in the nation.However, the ever-growing capitalism in the USA did not reach everyone. Source L shows us how there was still many people without jobs. Source I supports this fact by showing how there was a wide range of wages all over the country, ranging from just $129 per month to $1246 per month. Also, there was a great deal of intolerance in America. Sources B and C show in great detail how Negroes, in particular, suffered from intolerance.