Mississippi Burning

Mississippi Burning is a great film which I watched during the Civil Rights side of my AS course. I watched it again yesterday and so was prompted to blog about it. The film was made in 1988 and is just over 2 hours long. It was rated as an 18 but I personally think it would definitely be a 15 now.

The film is based on fact and loosely follows the FBI investigation into the murder of 3 civil rights activists in 1964. These 3 activists were actually killed during the 1964 'Freedom Summer' which was organised to get African-Americans to register to vote, and to highlight the need for a voting rights act (which would be passed in 1965 following violence in Selma and elsewhere). The three boys were members of the group CORE, or Congress Of Racial Equality. They were shot dead and buried under a muddy dam by members of the KKK. Sadly it would be true to say that one of the key reasons why this case got so much attention at the time and is still remembered today is because two of the boys killed were white. The film highlights this at one point when a character asks the head of the investigation if they would even be there if it weren't for the two white boys. By saying this I do not mean to take away from the tradegy of what happened, neither of the young boys deserved to die and all should be mourned equally. I just wish to point out that many people remember this case (the reason why this film was able to be made) over others.

The film really illustrates the attitudes of most Mississippians at the time and the fear in which African Americans had to live. It is, at times, quite upsetting to watch. Despite the fact that I have studied this period of time for almost a year now, it never ceases to amaze and shock me, the ways in which the human race can treat each other out of  fear and most of all complete and utter ignorance. The film shows the protective nature of those in the South and the continued insistence that the whole case was a hoax until the bodies were actually discovered. I highly recommend the film not just if you are studying this course, but also as a good film for anyone.
Although not everything in this film is true (obviously) it is based on a real incident and, in my opinion these are always the better films as they provide an insight into history for those who, perhaps, would have never thought to look.

Edexcel History Exam 15th May 2012 Part 2

Helloo. Sorry that my last blog was too long, I basically re-wrote my exam answer. =P
I will aim to make this one shorter. I said aim.

So after the civil rights question I turned to the USA in Asia section of Korea or Vietnam.
The choices were either Why did the Korean War last so long? or something about Johnson and the end of the Vietnam war. Haha, can you tell which one I picked yet?

So obviously I did the Korea question. I found this topic much easier to revise as it was a lot shorter and less complicated (in terms of study) than Vietnam, which has many stages.
I saw this question and thought 'double yes' as I had also done a very similar practice essay to this answer.

As far as I can remember I wrote something along the lines of;

Intro
Many factors, such as role of the US, Chinese intervention, issues with POWs, both North and South Korean initial stubborness and influence of Stalin and the encouragement the USSR gave to the wars continuation.

Reason=USA

• Decision to 'rollback' communism in North Korea, rather than sticking to the original stategy of containment.
• General MacArthur insisted he aimed to invade China, all led to Chinese intervention which seriously prolonged war.
• Refused to back down and didn't want to give China a propoganda victory, similarly accepted stalemate but were unwilling to inject more money, troops or weaponry to Korea. Meaning no one could win.

Reason=China

•  Their intervention halted the US advance into North Korea (who had managed to reach as far North as the Yalu River), just when it looked as though the US might win. They pushed the US back over the 38th Parallel but were only powerful enough to keep them there, not defeat them. Contributing to the stalemate and the war lasting so long.
• Like the US they refused to back down and give the opposite side a propoganda victory.
• Very difficult to work with in peace negotiations.

Reason=issues with POWs (prisoners of war)

• The North Koreans and Chinese viewed POWs as their own men and forced them to fight for them. They refused to send them back initially, which broke international law.
• Truman also refused to send back many North Korean and Chinese POWs as he was aware that on their return many were treated as traitors and sent to concentration camps or even shot dead. So he didn't want to be responsible for sending thosands to their deaths.

Reason=North and South Korea

• South initially refused to participate in peace talks although without the US they had no chance of victory, and yet they continued to demand the very unlikely reunification of Korea under one capitalist government.
• Links to North Koreas issues with POWs.

Reason=Influence of Stalin (small factor)

• Stalin secretly supplied the North Korean forced and encouraged them to invade SK.
• He wanted to draw US attention away from Europe and his so-called 'Buffer Zone'.
• After his death in 1953, steps were taken towards peace in Korea.

Could argue war didn't last 'so long' and could have gone on longer (very small section, not a vital point!)

• Only lasted 3 years.
• US or China never deepened involvement to try and win. Bit half-hearted,could have used greater fire power, nuclear bomb etc.

Conclusion
Overall Chinese intervention is the main reason for the war lasting longer than it should have as it meant the US couldn't win and a stalemate was created. This in turn then led to any issues with POWs and peace talks. However the US must also share the blame as it was arguably their decision to promote and pursue 'rollback' over 'containment' which triggered China to intervene and ultimately prolong the war, when it can be seen that their aim was complete a mere few months in.

Overall I thought I answered this question better and more concisely.
But ugh it seems like such a waste all that time I spent revising Vietnam, not to even mention it in my exam!! However I really loved learning about it so no real regret, in fact I wish I had got to write about both Korea and Vietnam. But ultimatally you have to pick the essay you can answer the best.
So top tips for this exam;

• Consider your question choice carefully, as some questions may be on a good topic but then have hidden agendas set to catch you out.
• Plan your essay for about 5 mins before you start writing. Believe me I understand that time is of the essence in exams and there is no time to waste. I never used to plan but in the exam it genuinely does save you time later as it gives you chance to sort your thoughts out and think about what you can actually write. So it's also quite calming as well.
• Try not to write too much (this is total pot calling kettle black on my part but, hey it's still a tip even if I haven't quite grasped it yet myself!!! =D)
• Practice essays as timing is key. Both essays are worth the same so aim to be as equal on both as you possibly can. This is easier said than done of course, but to be honest in an exam you have so much adrenaline that you can surprise yourself, and practice makes perfect!

Hope this has been of some use to someone doing this course!!!! =D

Ooh also the revision guides I bought through my school were great, they're purple and I believe are available for all modules offered, such as Russia etc. You should be able to get them through school or in Smiths or somewhere.

Over and out.

Edexcel History Exam 15th May 2012 Part 1

I just realised I blogged about my more recent exam first. Bit silly.

Anyways as I mentioned in my last post the Edexcel course is split into two parts. The second I studied consisted of American history, including the civil rights in the US 1945-68 and the US in Asia including Korea and Vietnam. I must admit I  preferred this side of the course. Although I enjoyed both sides, I prefer writing essays to analysing sources. Plus the teacher I have is great =D. So to anybody who enjoys modern history this side of the course was great. Having never actually learnt about Vietnam despite it's infamous status, I found this course enlightening to say the least.

This exam was also 1 hour 20 mins long and consisted of 2 essay questions worth 30 marks each I think. I felt more confident going into this exam in that I knew I knew the content. However having looked at past essay questions I was aware of some pretty vile ones in the past. Having said this, you were given a choice of 2 for each essay, so I chose from 2 for civil rights and 2 for the US in Asia.

This blog is about the civil rights essay.

Question 1.
This question was probably the one that looking back I could have answered better. I think my essay stucture may have deteriorated slightly but hopefully this won't be any real issue as I was under a hell of a lot of pressure.
The choice of question was as follows;
To what extent did opportunities/the situation for African Americans improve in the years 45-55?
'The Black Power movement hindered the Civil Rights Movement' to what extent do you agree?
(or they were along these lines at least!)

Having done 2 practice essays on 45 to 55 I was relieved to see it as an option and went straight for it. I also liked Black Power as a topic but thought the essay was more complicated and difficult to actually answer.

So for this answer I tried to split my essay up into how the economic, social, legal, and political situation of African Americans improved throughout the period. I would advise you do this as it gives your essay structure and means you can explore the variations of improvement across seperate areas of life.
I started in my intro by outlining the different factors and a general opinion about improvement to be explored throughout.
I then did a very short paragraph about the situation of African Americans in 1945, to help illistrate any improvements made.
Then I split my essay up as I said before, and will bullet point the sort of things I wrote (or could have written if I had more time =D)
Economic
Improved

• Northern migration continued, decline of Southern plantations, got jobs in defence industry, able to retain higher wages.
• Work of President Truman, FEPC continuation, fair employment laws in place in many cities by 1955.
• Truman issued executive orders to ban discrimination in defence contracts.

Didn't improve/limited improvement

• Congress eventually refused to continue funding the FEPC, plus even when it had been in practice, 2 thirds of 8000 job discriminations had been dismissed by them.
• Truman could only control defence contracts run by government and employers avoided fair employment laws to continue discrimination.
• Only real improvement in the North.
• African Americans were still less economicall priviledged than whites in both North and South, e.g. Northern A.As lived in ghettos.

Social
Improved

• Truman desegregation of the armed forces in 1948, black troops arguably widely praised for their part in the war.
• Work of CORE and the NAACP, also links to legal with cases like the famous 1954 Brown case overturning legal ground for 'seperate but equal'
• Truman promoted black civil rights, e.g. he was the first president to campaign in Harlem (a predominantly black area of New York) and address the NAACP directly.
• Overall attitudes seem to begin to change.

Didn't improve/limited improvement

• In the South black people were still widely mistreated and were by no means equal anywhere in the US.
• In the Deep South a black soldier trying to register to vote was beaten up and a black soldier in a bus was blinded.
• The case of Emmett Till, young black boy killed in Mississippi in 1955 for supposedly 'wolf whistling' at a white woman.
• The case of Autherine Lucy, expelled from her uni for being black in 1955.
• Despite the Brown case, many schools refused to desegregate and there was a white backlash, with the revival of the KKK and the formation of White Citizens Councils.
• Social tensions in the North increased as black and white people fought for the same jobs.
• Generally despite limited examples of improvement, African Americans were still second-class citizens, or even worse.

Legal
Improved

• NAACP had many victories in the Supreme Court, such as Morgan vs. Virginia, Sweatt vs. Painter and the Brown case.
• Plessy vs Ferguson was thus basically overturned and 'seperate but equal eroded'. (see social section)

Didn't improve/limited improvement

• Congress refused to pass any civil rights legislation.
• Jim Crow laws remained intact in the South.
• Backlash caused by Brown case and refusal to desegregate (see social section) and some schools even closed rather than desegregate.
• Hard to enforce Supreme Court rulings nationally, not enough media attention given to them.
• 1955 Brown II ruling said desegregation should happen with 'all deliberate speed' showed even Supreme Court unwilling to commit to a time frame for desegregation.

Political
Improved

• 1947 Truman set up a commision who issued 'To Secure These Rights', a report which arguably put civil rights on the political agenda.
• The number of black people registered to vote increase. (There is a figure but I have forgotten it already-honestly it shows how these tests are mostly bloody memory ones!!!)

Didn't improve/limited improvement

• Black people still under-represented. Although the number registered to vote increased it was not enough. 
• Congress refused to pass voting registration.
• 'To Secure These Rights' was watered down in the end due to Trumans wish to be elected in his own right in 1948.
• There were still measures in place in the South to prevent African Americans from voting, such as the poll tax and voter registration tests with impossible questions.

Conclusion
Overall there was some improvement but it was slow, isolated and extremely limited due to many factors. Economic situation arguably improved the most but only really in the North and even then African Americans were deprived in comparison to whites.

Hope this is useful if you are doing this course too!
I'll blog about the second question on the USA in Asia tommorrow as this post is already too long! =D

Edexcel History Exam 22nd May 2012.

As I mentioned before I have just completed the AS level Edexcel course in history. The course was split into two sections. One was 'Henry VIII: Authority, Nation and Religion, 1509-40'-basically the majority of Henry VIII's reign including the whole palava of the divorce and the reformation etc. This course got more interesting as it progressed, I enjoyed studying the divorce and the reformation but found the parts about Wolsey and his government boring to be honest. This exam was a few weeks ago now, on the 22nd of May. This side of the course was source based, we had to answer 1 question out of 20 on just the sources and then an answer out of 40 using knowledge as well.

Our exam was 1 hour 20 mins long. (just give us the extra 10 mins at least!)
These are the questions that were in my paper (or similar to, I can't really remember)
1. The one with just sources and no knowlegde was on the Pilgrimage of Grace and the question was how far do the sources show that the rebellion of 1536-37 was motivated mainly by religious grievances?
I thought the question was fine really. The sources were good and offered quite of lot to write about. It also helps to revise well even for this question as when you know what the sources are referring to, you are more able to make so-called 'inferences' about what the sources describe. ;)

2. This is where the paper went down hill for me.
You get a choice of two essay titles for this section. The choices were a question on the Break with Rome or Wolsey and his foreign policies. As I've mentioned I disliked the Wolsey section and so saw the Break with Rome and thought YES. But then I got a bit 'trigger' or 'pen' happy and rambled my face off (which is exactly what you shouldn't do).
In hindsight I should have taken the Wolsey question into consideration but I had already gone into the suggested time (50 mins) for section B.
If I remember correctly the question I attempted to answer was; How far was Henry VIII's decision to break with Rome motivated by his desire for a male heir? Use the sources and your knowledge to reach a judgement.
A nice enough question, but in these questions you are supposed to lead with the sources and bring in relevant knowledge. The sources were pants. They made no exclusive mention of a male heir on that Anne Boleyn was pregnant! So then I started spewing whatever I could remember and ugh.
I think I split my answer into;
male heir was main reason
religion was main reason
want of power was main reason

Or at least that's how I wanted to structure it. Basically I found it difficult to lead with the sources and it panicked me. Sad times. But the worst was my conclusion.
You know the saying 'sitting on the fence'? Well I love to sit on the fence in conclusions, but I do it quite well so it looks like I haven't sat on the fence.
In this exam my conclusion was way too long and I sat on the fence, jumped back over the fence, got back on the fence, jumped off the other side and then burnt the fence down. I might as well have built a brick wall.

So the exam wasn't great but as I am predicted to get 4 A's at AS I think my expections are really high and I want an A in history. I wish a percentage of the mark was based on effort and attainment over time because I try so very hard =D. Haha.
However having ranted on for yonkidoodles I cannot judge what I have got in this exam. For when I think I've done badly I tend to do better than expected and vice versa. Anyhoo roll on results day August 16th. =(

So top tips for this exam;
Read the section B questions carefully and consider what you could write for each (maybe do a little plan).
Control your timing and practise with past papers.
Bring in no outside knowledge for section A, but sneak it in as an inference using the sources.
Lead with the source content in section B and come to a PRECISE CONCLUSION.

How I wish I could say I'd done all these.

Ooh finally I found this revision guide helpful.> 'My Revision Notes: Edexcel AS History Henry VIII: Authority, Nation and Religion, 1509-40'
It's not all relevant knowledge but it's all useful and is very source focused. It also had a handy timeline at the back. Plus it was only a few quid on Amazon. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/My-Revision-Notes-Authority-Religion/dp/1444152165)

Hope something has been of some use to someone!!

Welcome!

This is my new history blog. Nothing exciting, just me commenting on things I find interesting which relate to history of course. =D.
History is one of my favourite subjects at school, and it always has been. Ever since we watched 'How We Used To Live' in Y6. Good times indeed. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJeMNxQsipc) -the theme tune on YouTube.
I also hope to study history at a top uni in the UK and particuarly enjoy modern history. As most people who know me are aware of, my all time favourite programme is Horrible Histories on CBBC. It's hilarious. So anyhoo anytime I watch a TV show, read a book, visit a museum or just find out something interesting,  I will blog about it. And you are free to read it should you wish.