Part I: Research
Topic: FDR and the Great Depression
Summary: The text is one of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Fireside Chats on the state of the country and how to move forward from the tragedy of the Dust Bowl droughts. He describes the miles of barren cropland that he has seen ruined and evokes the image of hardworking American farmers who cannot be failed by their fellow countrymen in the face of disaster. The speech outlines specific agricultural policies that will be put into place to avoid future dust storms and help both the earth and jobless workers.
Evaluation: FDR's speech describes the very conflict that the Joad family finds themselves in at the beginning of The Grapes of Wrath-- the land is virtually useless, and jobs are hard to come by. Interestingly, in Chapter 17 there is still little mention of the president or the government in DC, although the Joads seem like the very sort of family that the messages of the Fireside Chats would be aimed towards.
Citation:
Roosevelt, Franklin D. "Address of the President Delivered by Radio from the White House." Address. Fireside Chat 8. White House, Washington. 6 Sept. 1936. Mid-Hudson Regional Information Center. Web. 10 Dec. 2013. <http://mhric.org/fdr/chat8.html>.
Part II: Philosophical Questioning
Has modern technology advanced to such a point where we can "fight" or "disregard" nature? What would the implications of such actions be?
Is it safer for an individual to band together with other in times of conflict, or fight solely for his or her own survival? (Does the most strategic option change based on the conflict, e.g., an economic depression vs. a zombie apocalypse?)
In times of conflict or hardship, does everyone in the United States have the same level of freedom?
Part III: Reflection
The most memorable part of my discussion with my dad was our conversation about the differences in social and economic freedoms in the United States. I tied in the question of freedom to a debate round that I was a part of this past weekend, where the other team critiqued our case in favor of an ethic of self-love. At the time I didn't really understand what they meant by self-love, but afterwards I was talking to one of the people on the team and he showed me a video of a young African-American man who is being asked questions about two men that he killed. He expresses no remorse over his murder and tells his interviewer that he hopes he gets the death penalty, because otherwise he will just continue to kill more people. The debater explained to me the social, religious, and economic problems he saw in this way this young man saw himself, the way that he thought that his own life was disposable. He told me that when he talked about self-love, that was what he meant. Having a conversation about this with my dad made me feel a lot better, because I think that his message is one that needs to be spread to as many people as possible. I know that I will never forget the conversation I had with my dad about it, and I especially won't forget the original conversation I had with the debater who showed me the video. I was probably most surprised by our conversation about my question about technology. I thought that it might spur some interesting discussion because it could be slightly controversial, but my dad seemed to think that it was clear that humans can in no way disregard the environment, citing evidence such as global warming and forest fires that we still have a long way to go to be able to combat. I had never really thought about those kind of natural disasters before in terms of human capacity to prevent them, so I was pleasantly surprised by the new perspective my dad gave me. In the future, I think that I still need to improve my questions so that they can lead to more interesting, thought-provoking discussion. I was really only satisfied by the conversation we had about my last question, and we spent most of the discussion time on it. I hope that my questions for the next discussion will be more equally balanced so that we can spend around the same amount of time having in-depth conversations about each one.
Topic: FDR and the Great Depression
Summary: The text is one of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Fireside Chats on the state of the country and how to move forward from the tragedy of the Dust Bowl droughts. He describes the miles of barren cropland that he has seen ruined and evokes the image of hardworking American farmers who cannot be failed by their fellow countrymen in the face of disaster. The speech outlines specific agricultural policies that will be put into place to avoid future dust storms and help both the earth and jobless workers.
Evaluation: FDR's speech describes the very conflict that the Joad family finds themselves in at the beginning of The Grapes of Wrath-- the land is virtually useless, and jobs are hard to come by. Interestingly, in Chapter 17 there is still little mention of the president or the government in DC, although the Joads seem like the very sort of family that the messages of the Fireside Chats would be aimed towards.
Citation:
Roosevelt, Franklin D. "Address of the President Delivered by Radio from the White House." Address. Fireside Chat 8. White House, Washington. 6 Sept. 1936. Mid-Hudson Regional Information Center. Web. 10 Dec. 2013. <http://mhric.org/fdr/chat8.html>.
Part II: Philosophical Questioning
Has modern technology advanced to such a point where we can "fight" or "disregard" nature? What would the implications of such actions be?
Is it safer for an individual to band together with other in times of conflict, or fight solely for his or her own survival? (Does the most strategic option change based on the conflict, e.g., an economic depression vs. a zombie apocalypse?)
In times of conflict or hardship, does everyone in the United States have the same level of freedom?
Part III: Reflection
The most memorable part of my discussion with my dad was our conversation about the differences in social and economic freedoms in the United States. I tied in the question of freedom to a debate round that I was a part of this past weekend, where the other team critiqued our case in favor of an ethic of self-love. At the time I didn't really understand what they meant by self-love, but afterwards I was talking to one of the people on the team and he showed me a video of a young African-American man who is being asked questions about two men that he killed. He expresses no remorse over his murder and tells his interviewer that he hopes he gets the death penalty, because otherwise he will just continue to kill more people. The debater explained to me the social, religious, and economic problems he saw in this way this young man saw himself, the way that he thought that his own life was disposable. He told me that when he talked about self-love, that was what he meant. Having a conversation about this with my dad made me feel a lot better, because I think that his message is one that needs to be spread to as many people as possible. I know that I will never forget the conversation I had with my dad about it, and I especially won't forget the original conversation I had with the debater who showed me the video. I was probably most surprised by our conversation about my question about technology. I thought that it might spur some interesting discussion because it could be slightly controversial, but my dad seemed to think that it was clear that humans can in no way disregard the environment, citing evidence such as global warming and forest fires that we still have a long way to go to be able to combat. I had never really thought about those kind of natural disasters before in terms of human capacity to prevent them, so I was pleasantly surprised by the new perspective my dad gave me. In the future, I think that I still need to improve my questions so that they can lead to more interesting, thought-provoking discussion. I was really only satisfied by the conversation we had about my last question, and we spent most of the discussion time on it. I hope that my questions for the next discussion will be more equally balanced so that we can spend around the same amount of time having in-depth conversations about each one.
