Earlier this week, Donald Trump became the first president in U.S. history to be impeached twice. The first time was on December 18, 2019; the articles of impeachment charged him with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress for pressuring Ukraine to smear Mr. Biden. I remember that day very clearly- I was at a concert and everybody was celebrating his impeachment behind the stage. However, most people knew that he wouldn’t actually be impeached due to the Republican Senate majority, who didn’t think it was enough to impeach. This time, it’s a single impeachment charge of “inciting violence against the government of the United States” following the Capitol storming that happened on January 6th. Many Republicans agree that Trump has definitely committed an impeachable offense, but many do not find it necessary to actually vote to impeach, since Trump’s term ends in just a few days. However, actually impeaching him is an actual necessity.

First, if Trump gets impeached, he will lose his chance of ever running for office again- including the 2024 election if he chooses to run. He also loses his security protection and his 200K pension a year after he leaves presidency. Most importantly, it will show that there are dire and serious consequences for a President to commit such offenses, setting a precedent and showing the world that there is punishment. Although impeaching him would not remove him from office (since he’d already be out of office) he loses many benefits and overall respect. So is it worth it to go through with an impeachment trial? Yes. We must show there are consequences for an action this damaging and destructive.

There was a question about whether or not the 25th amendment should be enacted, which states the Vice President takes over if the President is unfit to lead the country. However, Mike Pence did not find this necessary with so few dates in his term left, and he stated he just wanted a smooth transition to the Biden administration. The House quickly moved to impeach the President, voting 232 to 197 to charge Trump with “inciting violence against the government of the United States” and requesting his immediate removal from office and disqualification from ever holding one again. Ten Republicans joined Democrats in voting to impeach: Representatives Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the party’s №3 leader in the House; Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington; John Katko of New York; Adam Kinzinger of Illinois; Fred Upton of Michigan; Dan Newhouse of Washington; Peter Meijer of Michigan; Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio; David Valadao of California; and Tom Rice of South Carolina. This was a remarkable break from the head of the party by Republicans, who voted unanimously against impeaching Mr. Trump just over a year ago. There’s a trend: more and more GOP members are turning against Donald Trump, including his vice president and Mitch McConnell, who are tired of his flagrant lies.

Now that the House has voted to impeach, there must be a Senate trial held. However, Mitch McConnell has refused to reconvene the Senate before the inauguration of Joe Biden, so the impeachment trial will not be held until after the inauguration, which makes sense. The question now is, will more GOP Senators recognize the impeachable offenses Trump committed, or will they pardon him once more? We can’t say for sure. This week, Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock will be sworn into the Senate following their wins from last week, and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) will become Senate Majority leader. Now that the Senate is narrowly Democratic-leaning, there might be a possibility that Trump will be impeached. However, I doubt many Republicans will vote to impeach because they don’t think it’s worth it to impeach trump after his term ends. Mitch McConnell has said he is genuinely undecided and will have to decide. We’ll just have to wait and see. The impeachment is also controversial because the Senate wants to focus on what Joe Biden will bring to the presidency and hold meetings to discuss his agenda.

I hope that the Senate will see that Donald Trump did commit an impeachable offense and needs to be punished for it, even if he isn’t in office anymore. I hope for the smooth inauguration of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, although I fear for their safety after what happened only what two weeks ago. America and the whole world are closely watching everything that is happening in D.C., and no matter what the result is, it will indefinitely go down in history.

January 6th was like any other day for me: school was starting up again after Christmas break, assignmnets and assessments were piling up, and sleepless nights appeared once more. I remember I had an economics test, and I later learned during lunch that it was a very important day politically. Now, I wasn’t aware how many things we actually happening that day- I was too caght up in finishing college applications and studying for tests. Many historical events were happening that day: the Georgia Senate runoffs, Congress confirming Joe Biden’s electoral vote, and of course the Trump rally, where Trump still refused to give up the results of the election. Many Senators also refused to recognize the results of the Arizona election, which resulted in many hours of debate. That night, Vice President Pence was also supposed to concede and wish Joe Biden well (“God Bless America”) but Trump told Pence not to concede. Pence, who has been loyal to Trump for four years, refused to do that, putting the country’s democracy before his own beliefs for once- something every politician should be doing. It seems many previous prominent figures in politics- Pence and even McConnell- who have been loyal to Trump in the past are all fed up with his BS and start to break away from him. I mean, it could be because they’re all losing their jobs because of Trump’s election loss.

Fast forward into the day, and we were striking up a discussion about everything I just talked about in AP Literature, when we got news that Trump protestors made it all of the way to the stairs leading up to the Congress building. By that time, none of us in that class would know what would unfold in the next two hours. By the time my last class, Calculus, ended, pictures of Trump supporters inside of the Congress, ransacking and damaging property, stealing podiums and putting their feet up on Speaker Pelosi’s desk was incredibly horrifying and disrespectful. Five people died that day, four officers and one protestor. It was a very sad, upsetting day for many Americans across the world. In fact, my violin teacher had to cancel our lesson that night because of how upset it made her. That night, I thought back to school that day, and I remembered we were debating the pronounciation of “coup”. How ironic was it that just a few minutes later an actual coup was happening? It is unbelievable that American citizens stormed their government and planned to harm Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi. What kind of delusion is this?

What caused all of this? It was the result of “the big fat lie” repeated over and over again in a truly fascistic manner, perpetrated by President Trump, Republican U.S. Senators and members of the U.S. House of Representatives, that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were illegally and corruptly elected and that the election was stolen! Even now a majority of House Republicans will not say that Biden and Harris were elected in a free, fair, open and legal election. The refusal of Donald Trump to concede to this election is only spurring and egging his supporters on, and charges against Trump are now “inciting violence”. What has happened to our democracy? What have we come to? We are now country so divided that even our President and members of Congress do not abide by our Constitution and respect the outcome of a completely just and fair election.

In the days that passed, I watched videos that uncovered the damage inside the Congress building. Mirrors and windows smashed, doors with huge dents with them, and the ransacking and robbing was indescribable. I saw Speaker Pelosi’s office damaged and video footage taken while the coup was taking place. When I thought about it, the whole event was incredibly hypocritical. During the BlackLivesMatter protests, Trump supporters looked down at protestors ransacking and looting places and not “backing the blue”. They did the same exact thing at the Capitol on January 6th- harming and even killing the men and women in blue they so valiantly defended back in June. If the event was anyone but white people, police would’ve been a lot more violent and would’ve most likely done a lot more to keep the protestors out. The idea of police brutality has been a recurring theme throughout this year, and people can’t help but think how different things would be if the Capitol protestors were BLM protestors.

Although Donald Trump tweeted for his supporters to stop and that violence is not the answer, he clearly didn’t do much to stop them. This led to Twitter permenently suspending his account. Many other organizations have taken action to ban Donald Trump from their platforms, and we see even more GOP figures moving away from Trump.

January 6th will be a day that goes down in history. Like the election, this day showed us that America’s democracy is very fragile, and we are divided more than ever. I hope that nothing like this ever happens again, and that under the Biden administration, we can repair our country to what is was like before 2016, and hope that our democracy will stand.

In recent years, it’s thankfully become more socially acceptable to hold historical and public figures accountable for their racism and bigoted practices. For instance, Thomas Jefferson has been receiving criticism for owning over 600 slaves in his lifetime and even fathering six children with one. Activists have — sometimes successfully — fought vociferously for the removal of Confederate monuments such as the ones commemorating Robert E. Lee. With the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement this past year, many people have been knocking down statues of historical figures who were known to own slaves. This development has been extremely refreshing and long overdue. Should we overlook these people’s life and accomplishments that changed history forever? Definitely not (remember, slave-owning was considered socially acceptable back then), but more light needs to be shed on the injustices they committed, and more of the truth must be taught to others in schools.

But in reality, most historical figures are still not being held to a reasonable standard. We blindly worship far too many “great” men and women who don’t deserve to be lauded without knowing the evil behind the good. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of historical figures who are still lauded as heroes even though they were rabid racists. It’s time to put an end to this. Here are just a few of the many racist historical figures that we, as a society, need to stop idolizing.

1. Winston Churchill

Churchill is hailed by many Westerners as one of World War II’s heroes. He served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom between 1940 and 1945. During that time, he contributed to the defeat of the Nazis and Hitler, which is certainly a noble feat.

However, we shouldn’t let him off the hook for his blatant racism and white supremacist beliefs, which drove many of his policy decisions. There were many instances when he made extremely bigoted comments. On one occasion, he remarked that he despised people with “slit eyes and pigtails.” On another, he claimed that people from India are “the beastliest people in the world next to the Germans.”

He also expressed racist sentiment toward black people, stating that he “did not really think that black people were as capable or as efficient as white people.” And throughout much of his political career, he was a staunch advocate for eugenics and colonialism. He believed that indigenous people were inferior and deserved to be colonized. He made the following statement to the Palestine Royal Commission in 1937:

“I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”

This rhetoric is inexcusable and should not be condoned as simply a “product of the times” he lived in. Even a lot of his contemporaries found his white supremacist views appalling. Those views were just as preposterous and racist back then as they are today.

2. Ronald Reagan

Among many people on the right, Reagan has achieved hero-worship status. Countless conservatives uphold him as a representative of the “respectable right.” Although known for his economic policies- Reaganomics- it can be argued that they were actually more detrimental to the economy than beneficial. In fact, it can also be argued that Reagan was one of America’s worst presidents.

He was not a virtuous person, and he did not advance justice. He was arguably just as racist as Donald Trump — he just wasn’t always vocal about it in public. But that doesn’t necessarily make it any better. Here’s a repulsively racist comment he made on the phone with Richard Nixon in 1971: “Last night, I tell you, to watch that thing on television as I did . . . to see those, those monkeys from those African countries.” He continued, “Damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes.”

This makes it clear as daylight that he perceived white people as more “civilized” than other races. But his racism was evident throughout his presidency even without him saying it explicitly. His policy positions were incredibly racist, classist, and inhumane.

He denounced policies that would disproportionately help impoverished people of color, such as housing benefits, food stamp programs, and aid to impoverished children. Denying these basic human rights is cruel and unacceptable. Additionally, he helped perpetuate the racist concept of the black “welfare queen” by using the derogatory term to dismiss impoverished black women seeking government support. Not to mention his blatant disregard for the members of the LGBTQ+ community during the AIDS epidemic during his presidency makes him (in my opinion) one of our worst presidents.

3. Walt Disney

It shattered my childhood dreams a bit when I learned about some of Walt Disney’s unabashed prejudices — although many of his fans are still in denial about it, there’s evidence that he was both racist and anti-semitic.

In the 1930s, he was involved with a pro-Nazi organization called the German American Bund. Around the same time, he also had close cozy personal ties with Nazis. For example, he hosted Leni Riefenstahl, a well-known film director who specialized in producing Nazi propaganda. He even offered her a tour of Disney Studios.

He was also known to make blatantly racist remarks. In his well-researched biography called Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination, Neal Gabler refers to many instances when Walt used racist slurs. For example, Walt tended to use the offensive word “pickaninny” to describe black children. And at a meeting described in the biography, he used the term “n***er pile” when discussing the seven dwarves from Snow White.

As if that wasn’t enough evidence, there’s also the fact that he gave the green light to the racist elements of Song of the South and other Disney movies that were released during his lifetime. According to Gabler, Walt was aware that Song of the South would be perceived (rightfully) as racist. But he didn’t care enough to do anything about it.

4. John Wayne

There’s a lot of old white people who revere John Wayne as the king of Western films. Wayne was a popular icon and prolific actor from the 1920s all the way through the 1970s.

It’s fitting that many of his fans appear to be racist, because Wayne was a racist himself. He even explicitly advocated for white supremacy.

Here’s what he said when he was asked to give his opinion about anti-Black discrimination:

With a lot of blacks, there’s quite a bit of resentment along with their dissent, and possibly rightfully so. But we can’t all of a sudden get down on our knees and turn everything over to the leadership of the blacks. I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don’t believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people.

In 1971, Playboy Magazine asked him for his thoughts about Native Americans’ portrayal in Western films. This was his response:

“I don’t feel we did wrong in taking this great country away from them, if that’s what you’re asking. Our so-called stealing of this country from them was just a matter of survival. There were great numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves.”

Need I say more?

5. Woodrow Wilson

Wilson, who served as 28th president of the US between 1913 and 1921, is often lauded as one of the greatest presidents in history. He led the country through World War I. He also oversaw the founding of the League of Nations, the predecessor to the United Nations. Those are notable feats, but they’re not the whole story.

“Wilson’s sentiment for self-determination and democracy never had a chance against his three bedrock ‘ism’s: colonialism, racism, and anticommunism.”

When you examine his presidency in its entirety, it becomes obvious that he did immense damage to the causes of racial justice and world peace.

According to a recent article in the Atlantic, aptly titled The Racist Legacy of Woodrow Wilson, “Wilson oversaw unprecedented segregation in federal offices.” And when he was confronted about his racism, he flippantly dismissed concerns about it.

Segregation around the country grew even worse during his presidency, and he blatantly refused to address it. He even once threw prominent civil rights leader William Monroe Trotter out of the Oval Office when Trotter (an ardent supporter of Wilson at the time) visited to discuss the rampant segregation across the US. His policies were also extremely oppressive towards people in other parts of the world.

As Loewen writes in Lies My Teacher Told Me:

“Under Wilson, the United States intervened in Latin America more often
than at any other time in our history. We landed troops in Mexico in 1914,
Haiti in 1915, the Dominican Republic in 1916, Mexico again in 1916 (and
nine more times before the end of Wilson’s presidency), Cuba in 1917, and
Panama in 1918. Throughout his administration Wilson maintained forces in
Nicaragua, using them to determine Nicaragua’s president and to force passage of a treaty preferential to the United States.”

These foreign interventions were highly unpopular, and their effects were devastating and long-lasting.

Sadly, these historical figures are just the tip of the iceberg. Countless other historical figures held similarly bigoted beliefs, but they are unheard of because the American education system only teaches the good bits of these people. The attitudes of these people are evident of past racism that has spread into today’s world.

But we don’t have to dismiss these revelations by saying, “oh well, nobody is perfect!” or “yeah, but all historical figures were flawed!” That does a major disservice to the many historical figures who were not racist or — better yet — who were vocally anti-racist. We don’t have to delude ourselves into admiring these figures as “great men who were flawed.”

No, we don’t have to admire them at all.

We can still discuss their role in history and acknowledge, for instance, that Churchill was instrumental in defeating the Nazis. And we can still enjoy watching Disney movies with our children. But we don’t have to teach our children to look up to these figures as “great.” But if we’re looking for heroes or role models, we deserve much, much better. But remember- we cannot change the past, but we can do better for the future.

Happiness: the state of being happy. It’s a word we all know, and something we all aim to achieve in life. It’s the ultimate goal in life, and many people claim that things such as success, money, family, and friends that all contribute to one’s happiness. But did you know that where you live can affect your happiness levels? There’s a reason that the Scandinavian countries top the world happiness charts every year.

In school, happiness is a popular topic for discussion. In French class, my class recently discussed what makes a country happy (thus sparking my interest in writing this post). In English, I watched a documentary on happiness, and it was actually pretty interesting. The documentary followed people who lived all around the world and gave an insight into their daily lives and their perspective on happiness. The people in Japan- stressed and overworked to the point of death- and the people in Switzerland- who live in close-knitted communities- are drastically different. So what makes a typically happy country, and what makes an unhappy country?

Finland, the happiest country on Earth, boasts a world-class free education system, free healthcare, police that actually help, and quality public services. The government is one that listens to the needs of its people and comes together rather than divide, like in the United States. A solid political system where the government is working with the people rather than against them is ideal in a happy country. On a societal level, Finland’s success can be attributed to its rigid social safety network, culture of trust, high-quality education, and a strong commitment to gender equality. The happiness in Finland stems from a number of policies for welfare, mutual trust, freedom, and equality. In the bottom ten countries on the World Happiness Report are countries in Africa that are currently undergoing political unrest and poverty, which leads me to my second point.

Money. Does it guarantee happiness? Of course not, but it sure makes life a whole lot easier. The wealthiness of a country can also directly correlate with the population’s happiness levels. Factors like GDP produced, number of imports and exports, and economic strength can all affect happiness. In the United States, everyone knows we’re an economic “superpower”, and we are towards the top half of the World Happiness Report. The top ten countries on the report all have very strong economies and economic freedoms.

So why isn’t the U.S. ranked in the top ten? After all, America is known for being the land of the free, the land of hope, the land where anyone can be whoever they want to be. We have a massive population, a booming economy, and some of the world’s greatest universities. But we all know America doesn’t live up to that reputation. First of all, wealth and race inequality are sky-high, with the rich making up over 90% of our “societal pie”. Secondly, there are still gender and race injustices everywhere, healthcare that’s way too expensive, colleges that are way too expensive, and the fact that America’s people are so split. From abortion to the economy to gun rights, Americans can’t seem to agree on anything; they just argue with each other. It can be argued that within the last four years, America has gotten increasingly unhappy under Donald Trump’s presidency, with extremists emerging from both sides. Coupled with the murder of Geroge Floyd and the poor U.S. response to COVID-19, it has been a tumultuous year for Americans. America is supposed to be the “dream” for immigrants, but how can we say that with ICE deporting thousands of people a day, a history of treating women and minority groups poorly, and the flagrant racism that still exists in society today. Yes, we’re getting better at the diversity and inclusion thing, but what do we need to do to make it on the Top 10 Happiest Countries?

We need to become more united and have a government that works with and listens to the people, which will hopefully be achieved through the Biden administration. The day Biden was elected was the happiest and most united I have ever seen America, so I’m keeping my fingers crossed. We also must try and close the wealth gap, a huge problem in society because inequality results in unhappy people. Although nearly impossible, something must be done about outrageous college tuitions and hospital bills. People should not be thousands in debt to get an education and stay healthy. Lastly, the problems surrounding gender and racial problems in the U.S. must be addressed more efficiently. After all, we all are- no matter what gender, race, or background- Americans, and we deserve to be happy.

Literature is an important part of our history. Although books may not have as big of an effect on today’s generation due to the invention of cell phones and the Internet, literature is still present in society. In school, we read famous books in history such as To Kill a Mockingbird and 1984. We analyze the language of Shakespeare and learn about books like The Jungle in history class. I just had the pleasure of finishing Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, and I was able to link together the thematics of literature and connect it to the time period it was written in, an era where Romanticism was at its peak- something I learned in history class. What I’m meaning to say is, literature is directly linked to history because many books contain important ideas prevalent during society at that time. For example, the Catcher in the Rye, written after WWII, demonstrated the alienation of society post World War II. By reading literature, we can piece together the worlds of literature and history and delve into history from a deeper and different perspective, which is a beautiful thing. Famous literature in history usually also had profound effects on society and even changed many people’s mindsets about different issues in society. Although I am only going to cover a few of these influential books, remember there are many more out there.

1. Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe

I first learned about this book in my U.S. History class last year. While sectionalism was increasing and the Civil War loomed upon America, a woman named Harriet Beecher Stowe published a book called Uncle Tom’s Cabin in 1852. It was an anti-slavery novel that depicted the reality of slavery. The book sold over 300,000 copies in just the first year! By showing the reality of slaves and that they were actually people and deserved to be treated better, Stowe managed to increase the sectionalism between the North and South over the issue of slavery. This is due to the fact that many Northerners read the book and they realized how unjust slavery was for the first time. Thus, Northerners started to be increasingly anti-slavery, and, with increasing opposition to slavery, Southern slave owners worked even harder to defend the institution of slavery. Both sides grew more and more radical, and this eventually exploded in the Civil War, the bloodiest war fought on American soil. Although Stowe’s novel didn’t directly cause the war that would abolish slavery and change the course of history, it did play a part in it. Without it, many Northerners wouldn’t realize how inhumane slavery was, and they wouldn’t have been so against it. Perhaps the war wouldn't even have happened had those people’s opinions weren’t influenced. In fact, Abraham Lincoln himself, when he met Stowe in 1962 said to her “So you’re the little lady that started this great war”, demonstrating Stowe’s role in the Civil War.

2. How the Other Half Lives by Jacob Riis

During the early 1900s, America was undergoing its Progressive Era. Many people were bringing forth issues they found with society and attempting to change them. Many of these issues centered around urban cities, big business, and factory regulations. Journalists, called muckrakers, took on the mission to spread just how horrible these issues were by going undercover and publishing their finds. Over the next few years, when people read these publications, they were horrified at what they found, which sparked immediate reform. One of these books was How the Other Half Lives by Jacob Riis. His publication of photojournalism documented the squalid living conditions in New York City slums in the 1880s. An early example of photojournalism as a vehicle for social change, Riis’s book demonstrated to the middle and upper classes of New York City the slum-like conditions of the tenements of the Lower East Side. His photographs depicted homeless children sleeping in the streets, whole families living in a tiny room, and the unhygienic nature of NYC slums. Following the book’s publication and the resulting public uproar, proper sewers, plumbing, and trash collection eventually came to the Lower East Side. Keep in mind that much of America was oblivious to the conditions in slums, factories, and cities because many upper and middle-class families lived better lives. When they heard about these awful conditions, their outroar helped bring about change and reform legislation, which made muckraking extremely effective in social change. Other famous muckraking books include The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, which depicted the disgusting conditions of how America made meat, which brought about the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, and Ida Tarbell’s A History of Standard Oil, which discussed the corruptness of Rockefeller’s oil monopoly, which resulted in the breakup of Standard Oil into smaller companies.

3. The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinback

When the 1930s brought the Great Depression in the United States, it also brought with it the Dust Bowl in the mid-west. Poor agricultural practices, wind erosion, and high temperatures contributed to dust blowing all across the Western and Southern United States. People and livestock were killed and crops failed to thrive. Farmers, already hard-hit from the Great Depression, suffered even more due to the Dust Bowl. During these tumultuous times, thousands of Oklahoma farmers migrated to California in hopes of finding work. They were met with limited success and were hated by the local Californians who were also competing for jobs, and they dubbed the new migrants as “Okies”. Seeing these struggles, a man named John Steinback published the book The Grapes of Wrath, which evoked the harshness of the Great Depression and aroused sympathy for the struggles of migrant farmworkers. The book advocated for major social change by showing the unfair working conditions the migrants faced when they reached California. It was a major success and ignited a movement in Congress to pass laws benefiting farmworkers. When Steinbeck won the Nobel Prize in 1962, the committee specifically cited this novel as one of the main reasons for the award. The Grapes of Wrath also won the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award and is now considered an American classic.

4. Silent Spring by Rachel Carson

Today, the environment continues to be a huge issue on Earth. Although many new sources of renewable energy are being developed, the amount of fossil fuels and trash being produced is deeply hurting our planet, including the plants and animals that live on it. The first environmental movements occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. The spur of this movement can be credited to a woman named Rachel Carson, who in 1962 published her book Silent Spring. Her book drew attention to the adverse effects of pesticides on the environment, especially that of DDT (a pesticide) on bird populations. At a time when technological solutions were the norm, she pointed out that man-made poisons introduced into natural systems can harm not only nature but also humans. Although Silent Spring was met with fierce opposition by chemical companies, it was a major success and due to heightened awareness, it spurred a reversal in national pesticide policy, led to a nationwide ban on DDT for agricultural uses, and inspired an environmental movement that led to the creation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Rachel Carson is also considered a founder of the contemporary environmental protection movement.

5. The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedman

There have been many “waves” of women’s movements in history, and one of the more recent waves has been the 1970s women’s movement. After WWII, the 1950s established a new role for women in society. They were expected to stay at home, raise the kids, provide for her husband, and upkeep the house. Everything they did was to show everyone how perfect her family was. However, this proved difficult because, after WWII, where women held many jobs previously held by men, many women refused to go back to the domestic sphere. Women argued for equal rights and opportunities in the workplace (to break the glass ceilings in workplaces) and greater personal freedoms for women. The feminist movement sought women’s equality on both a political and personal level. A piece of literature that greatly affected this “second wave of feminism” was The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedman. Her book broke new ground by exploring the idea of women finding personal fulfillment outside of their traditional roles, influencing many women in the United States, helping spur the movement. Friedman was also a prominent feminist who helped advance the women’s rights movement as one of the founders of the National Organization for Women (NOW). Due to Friedman’s accomplishments, the women’s movement worked towards dismantling workplace inequality, such as a denial of access to better jobs and salary inequity, via anti-discrimination laws.

Yesterday, millions of Americans celebrated a holiday we know as Thanksgiving. While celebrations may look different this year due to the coronavirus pandemic, Thanksgiving marks a time for family, parades, delicious food, and feeling thankful. Although Thanksgiving is not my favorite holiday, I still appreciate the feeling of being with my loved ones and my stomach stuffed with delicious food. Thanksgiving is a very well-loved holiday in America, and many people cherish it as a very happy time of the year. However, the real history behind Thanksgiving isn’t as happy as people think.

In school, American children are usually taught that Thanksgiving dates back to the Pilgrims, who were English religious dissenters who helped to establish the Plymouth Colony in present-day Massachusetts in 1620. As the story of the “First Thanksgiving” goes, friendly local Native Americans swooped in to teach the struggling colonists how to survive in the New World since many colonists were dying of starvation, cold, and disease. The Pilgrims and Native Americans then got together to celebrate with a feast in 1621, where they celebrated what we now call Thanksgiving.

It is said that attendees included around 90 men from the Wampanoag tribe and the 50 or so surviving Mayflower passengers. The feast lasted three days and featured a menu including deer, fowl, and corn, similar to the traditional Thanksgiving meals that exist today. The truth is, Thanksgiving feasts pre-date the one at Plymouth, and numerous localities have tried to claim the first Thanksgiving for themselves- the first misconception of the original Thanksgiving. Also, the peace brokered at Plymouth didn’t last very long, as demonstrated by later history.

Some pinpoint 1637 as the true origin of Thanksgiving, where the Massachusetts colony governor, John Winthrop, declared a day to celebrate colonial soldiers who had just slaughtered hundreds of Pequot men, women, and children in what is now known as Mystic, Connecticut.

The real story behind Thanksgiving is so dark that some people are rethinking how they celebrate the holiday, or whether they should at all. This beloved holiday has nearly erased what happened between the Wampanoag and the English a few decades after the First Thanksgiving.

Massasoit, the chief, of the Wampanoag tribe, proved to be a crucial ally to the English settlers in the years after the establishment of Plymouth. He set up an exclusive trade pact with the newcomers and allied with them against the French and other local tribes like the Narragansett and Massachusetts. However, the alliance became strained over time as settlers took over more and more of the Wampanoag’s land. Thousands of English colonists poured into the region throughout the 17th century, and authorities in Plymouth began asserting control over “most aspects of Wampanoag life”, making the Wampanoags increasingly unhappy.

By the time Massasoit’s son Metacom — known to the English as “King Philip” — inherited the leadership of the tribe, relations between the two groups had deteriorated. King Phillip’s War was sparked when several of Metacom’s men were executed for the murder of the Christian convert John Sassamon. Wampanoag warriors responded by embarking on a series of raids, and the New England Confederation of Colonies declared war in 1675.

The war was bloody, long, and devastating. It’s considered to be the bloodiest war per capita in U.S. history. Towns were destroyed and burned to the ground and hundreds of people from both sides were brutally murdered. It took decades for the colonists to recover from the loss of life, the property damage, and the huge military expenditures. The war was also devastating for Native Peoples. The Wampanoag tribe was almost entirely wiped out, and entire families were sold into slavery abroad; others were forced to become servants locally. The Wampanoag had to adapt aspects of their culture to survive; their political independence ended.

Metacom, upon his return to his ancestral home at Mount Hope, he was shot and killed in a final battle. The son of the man who had helped and celebrated with the Plymouth Colony at that First Thanksgiving was then beheaded and dismembered. His remaining allies were killed or sold into slavery in the West Indies. The colonists impaled “King Phillip’s” head on a spike and displayed it in Plymouth for 25 years. Now, was this any way to thank the people who had helped our ancestors so selflessly and developed the First Thanksgiving, a holiday we celebrate so differently today?

The war was just one of a series of brutal early wars between Native Americans and colonists in early America; ars that would ultimately wipe out most of the Native American population by the early 1900s. More and more would emerge as settlers continued to take Native American land. Many people largely cling to the innocuous image of a celebratory harvest celebration while ignoring the deadly forces that would ultimately drive apart the descendants of the guests of that very feast forever.

Racial injustice in the U.S. came to the forefront in 2020 with the systemic murder of George Floyd and the BlackLivesMatter movement. With the coronavirus pandemic disproportionally affecting people of color and police brutality drawing attention across the U.S. and the world, some people say it’s time to reevaluate the meaning and celebration of the holiday.

The United American Indians of New England have been mourning on Thanksgiving since 1970. On the National Day of Mourning, Native Americans gather in Plymouth, Massachusetts, for a day of remembrance. Prayers and speeches take place accompanied by beating drums before participants march through the Plymouth Historic District. The day’s plaque says:

NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING
Since 1970, Native Americans have gathered at noon on Cole’s Hill in Plymouth to commemorate a National Day of Mourning on the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday. Many Native Americans do not celebrate the arrival of the Pilgrims and other European settlers. To them, Thanksgiving Day is a reminder of the genocide of millions of their people, the theft of their lands, and the relentless assault on their cultures. Participants in National Day of Mourning honor Native ancestors and the struggles of Native peoples to survive today. It is a day of remembrance and spiritual connection as well as a protest of the racism and oppression which Native Americans continue to experience.
Erected by the Town of Plymouth on behalf of the United American Indians of New England

The holiday may be a celebration of people coming together, but that’s not the whole story when it comes to the history of Thanksgiving. Please, the next Thanksgiving, while sitting with your family enjoying a delicious meal, remember the injustice that was dealt the people who helped create the first Thanksgiving.

As I mentioned many times before, the second half of the 20th century is known for the fight and expansion for the rights of many minorities, women, and other groups who demanded societal change. However, despite these movements and protests, none of the changes enacted as a result would be here today if not for the government. Unfortunately, to bring about landmark changes, the United States government is the only one who can bring about reform. We all learn that there are three branches of government: the legislative branch writes laws, the executive branch carries out laws, and the judicial branch evaluates laws. The judicial branch is perhaps the most influential when enacting social reform, as they have the power to deem laws unconstitutional and even overturn laws already approved. Only after the Court deems a law constitutional or unconstitutional can the law be passed and carried out. Dozens of justices have had the honor of serving on the highest court of the land, but one of the most well-known and influential courts is the Warren Court of the 1950s and 60s.

Before Earl Warren joined the Court, school districts in seventeen American states required black schoolchildren to go to different schools from white children. In twenty-seven states, it was illegal for a black person to marry a white person. Every state in the nation violated the principle of “one person, one vote”. Government officials could sue their critics for ruinous damages for incorrect statements, even if the critics acted in good faith. Members of the Communist Party and other dissenters could be criminally prosecuted for their speech. Married couples could be denied access to contraception. Public school teachers led their classes in overtly religious prayers. Police officers could interrogate suspects without telling them their rights. People were convicted of crimes on the basis of evidence that police officers had seized illegally. And criminal defendants who could not afford a lawyer had no right to a public defender. As you can see, America was unrecognizable just a few decades ago. The Warren Court changed all of that. In all of these ways and others, the Constitution, as we know it today, is very much the work of the Warren Court. It would be unthinkable to return to the world that existed before the Warren Court.

The Warren Court is known for being one of the most liberal and democratic courts in history, and it sure held up to that reputation. Ruling on groundbreaking cases such as Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, which outlawed segregation in schools, and Engel v. Vitale in 1962, which called for the separation of church and state in public schools. They ruled on many cases involving voting fairness and protecting minorities and laid down the groundwork for how we question suspects in the criminal justice system. Warren’s Court ordered lawyers for indigent defendants, in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), and prevented prosecutors from using evidence seized in illegal searches, in Mapp v. Ohio (1961). The famous case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) stated that everyone, even one accused of crimes, still enjoyed constitutionally protected rights, and the police had to respect those rights and issue a specific warning when making an arrest. Without the Warren Court, many aspects of our lives would be drastically different.

Conservative critics attack the Warren Court, calling them “lawless. However, all of these criticisms are mistaken. Critics, who say that the Warren Court “went too far” or was “too activist” should be asked: which of the Warren Court’s decisions would you overturn? Would you say that states should have the power to segregate public schools? Or make it a crime to marry someone of a different race? Or forbid married couples to use contraceptives? Would you really reject the principle of one person, one vote? Do you disagree that the central meaning of the First Amendment is that people must be free to criticize the government? Or that a criminal defendant who can’t afford a lawyer should have one nonetheless? Some of the most conservative Supreme Court justices of the last fifty years have accepted — even celebrated — the warnings required by the Warren Court’s once-controversial decision in Miranda v. Arizona. So what was it about the Warren Court that was so activist, or excessive, or illegitimate?

The Warren Court’s decisions were innovative, of course. They changed the law, and they changed society. Even the Warren Court’s most controversial decisions had deep roots in American law and traditions, and many decisions of the conservative Courts that followed it — were principled, lawful, and consistent with the spirit and fundamental values of the Constitution. The Warren Court’s vision was deeply democratic, and the Warren Court’s most fundamental commitment was to the principles of democracy.

The Warren Court acted on the premise that the role of the Supreme Court is to intervene when American democracy was not truly democratic: when some groups were marginalized or excluded and denied their fair share of democratic political power. Most important, the Warren Court protected the interests of African Americans in the Jim Crow South, who were effectively kept from voting in many places and were utterly excluded, often violently, from positions of influence. The Warren Court protected political dissidents, stating unequivocally that free and open debate is a central commitment of any democratic government. In its “one person, one vote” decisions, the Warren Court put an end to manipulative and unjustified disparities in people’s ability to elect their representatives. The Warren Court acted on behalf of members of minority religious groups whose interests were disregarded by the majority, and of criminal defendants who were often also members of discriminated-against minority groups and who lacked any effective voice in politics.

The Warren Court did the things — fighting race discrimination, making sure that everyone’s vote counted the same, protecting dissidents from a majority that wanted to silence them — that a democracy needs to do and that elected representatives cannot always be trusted to do. They protected all Americans while upholding democratic ideals and made America what it is today. On behalf of everyone who enjoys the rights the Warren Court brought forth, I say thank you to Earl Warren and the Warren Court.

For the past few weeks, tensions have been brewing in the United States regarding the 2020 Presidential Election, one that surely is going down in history books. Political signs for both Trump and Biden have popped up all over my town, and many people, including celebrities, have been urging others to use their voice and vote. However, you may be wondering, how is this any different from another election? People vote every four years, and we determine who our president will be. This year’s election, however, has some unique properties surrounding them.

Let’s talk about the candidates: President Donald Trump of the Republican Party and Former Vice President Joe Biden of the Democratic Party. Trump has always been hated by the Democrats and leftists, but he somehow still managed to secure a win over Hillary Clinton in 2016. That said, earlier this year, Joe Biden didn’t stand a fighting chance to win the election. Most Democrats didn’t like him, and more and more Trump supporters voiced their approval of the President, despite his impeachment in December 2019. However, 2020 has brought many pitfalls: the deadly COVID-19 pandemic, the rise of the Black Lives Matter Movement, countless riots, California wildfires, and so much more. Somehow, politics has entered into these problems, and instead of being scientific, equality, and environmental issues, they have been intertwined into politics. It baffles me that treating all human beings equally and the spread of a very real, potentially deadly virus are considered political issues. President Trump’s poor responses to all of these problems have opened the eyes of many people and changed their minds about supporting him. His approval rate dropped, and many people started using the phrase “Settle for Biden,” meaning that the two candidates are both “bad”, but Biden is the “lesser of two evils”.

Over the next few months, things got even worse for Donald Trump. Many Americans felt that he was ignoring the issues of the killing of innocent black people and coronavirus, even admitting he downplayed it and knew how dangerous it was. Trump has always had a bad track record- multiple recordings and videos have surfaced over the years of him talking crudely about women (including his daughter) and being racist towards many groups of minorities, including African Americans. He also lost the support and respect of many Chinese supporters, after he called the coronavirus the “China virus” and the “Kung-Flu”. Everything he did seemed to lose the support of many, and this is where Joe Biden took his chance to encourage the American people to vote for him. To be honest, if coronavirus and the BLM movement never happened, then Trump would’ve probably won, even if many people don’t like him. His poor responses to these vast issues lost him a lot of support he needed, and his personality and rude comments only got more offensive.

The days leading up to the election were full of tension, many people even saying that no matter who won, there would be a “civil war” in America. It’s crucial to also understand what was happening in the weeks before Election Day: mail-in ballots and early voting. Donald Trump discouraged his supporters to vote by mail-in ballots, saying that they were “undemocratic”. Joe Biden, on the other hand, encouraged his supporters to vote by mail-in ballots because of the threat of the coronavirus. This becomes important later on. On Election Day, at approximately 7 PM EST, the first votes were being counted. I watched for hours, observing what each state was voting. Another big difference in this election is the number of swing states, with Texas, a historically red state, becoming an unsure territory. Others included Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, Wisconsin, etc. To my surprise, Georgia, Florida, and Texas started off blue- even staying blue for quite a while. Sadly, they turned red, but I was still proud to see history in the making. When will you ever see a blue Texas ever again? When I went to bed that night, however, I felt very discouraged- almost every swing state Biden needed to win was red. But when I woke up the next morning, I got a pleasant surprise: Wisconsin and Michigan were blue! I rejoiced, and over the next few hours and days, more and more states started to go blue, including the swing states of Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. Biden was declared President-Elect along with Kamala Harris as Vice President-Elect on Saturday after AP declared Pennsylvania officially blue.

How did this happen? Well, you remember the mail-in ballots that Trump so vehemently opposed? Those were the key to Joe Biden’s victory, as mail-in ballots were being counted last, as they were still coming in from the mail. Trump’s early lead in many states did not include mail-in ballots, almost all of which were for Biden, which eventually brought him to victory. However, there was no “blue wave” that happened during the election. Many swing states remained very close, with Biden only leading by a few thousand votes. Where was this blue wave? I think that social media, such as TikTok, overplayed the number of people voting for Biden. Many Biden supporters are still too young to vote, but they still encourage others to vote. Many people also say they’re voting Biden because it won’t get them “canceled”, but they might vote for Trump anyway. We also can’t forget about the silent majority. The race remained a very close one, right up until the very end.

Now, let’s talk about demographics. What states voted for which party/candidate? There the historically blue states that are always going to be blue no matter what, such as New York and Calfornia. There are also states that are historically red, such as Alabama and Louisiana. Typically, white males who live in more rural areas vote red, and women and POC and people who live in cities tend to vote blue; that’s just the pattern. This election was particularly interesting because many historically red states started to turn blue/close the margin between red and blue. This is because more and more people, typically young people, are moving from historically blue states to cities like Atlanta and Charlotte in historically red states such as North Carolina and Georgia and are bringing their more liberal ideas and political beliefs with them. Young people tend to vote blue, so the cities turn bluer as a result, accounting for Georgia and Arizona turning blue. Arizona turned blue for the first time since 1996, and many people are saying it’s due to the work of Cindy McCain, the widow of well-known Republican Senator John McCain. Shockingly, Cindy McCain publicly endorsed Biden, putting party over country, because she believed Biden was the better choice to lead and represent our country. This could mostly be due to the fact that Trump publicly and very rudely insulted John McCain, a very decorated war hero. Trump’s personality has caused many people to shy away from him and vote blue despite their political parties. Over the next few years, more and more Democrats with liberal beliefs will move to more historically red states either for work or retirement, and they will bring these beliefs with them, which could potentially turn a historically red state such as Texas to turn blue for the first time.

Although I don’t agree with some of Trump’s political and economical ideas, I wouldn’t oppose him so much if it wasn’t for his horrible, misogynistic, homophobic, and racist words. I think many people feel the same as me. The past four years have caused unimaginable division in our country. Instead of Americans, it’s now Republicans vs. Democrats, with both sides opposing the other. In my opinion, President Trump has not been a president for all Americans; he is only a president to his supporters, which is not the entire population. Him refusing to condemn white supremicists in the first presidential debate and him comparing himself to Abraham Lincoln just shows his contradiction of his words and actions, which loses him even more support from Democrats.

The 2020 Election has been one for the books. Joe Biden won over 77 million votes, breaking Barack Obama’s previous record and beating Donald Trump with the popular vote by over 5 million. Kamala Harris is now elected to be the first woman and woman of color to be vice president, and Joe Biden will become the oldest elected president. However, this is a lot of controversy over voter fraud, as President Trump has filed lawsuits in swing states such as Pennsylvania demanding a recount, even though there is no evidence of voter fraud. He just can’t seem to accept the fact he lost. many of his supporters are saying he can still win, but that is a very small possibility. As of now, Joe Biden will become the 46th president of the United States, and I hope that he will do better to unite our country instead of dividing it further. Disregarding his policies, I believe Joe Biden is a President for all groups and will work tirelessly for all Americans, regardless of whether or not they voted for him or not.

George Washington was right to warn us in his Farewell Speech about the dangers of political parties. Today, they’re as ineffective as ever, pitting Americans against each other. We need to remember that even with all of our differences, we are all still Americans, which is the most important thing.

The 1960s are known for the events associated with the Civil Rights Movement- the movement that transformed America and its people forever. We learn in school about Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr., but we rarely learn the actual events that happen, which are just as important as the people who made it possible. One of the key events was the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in Birmingham, Alabama.

Birmingham was a key player in the Civil Rights Movement- it was described as the “most racist town in America” and was heavily racially segregated. In Birmingham, racial tensions were sky-high. Alabama’s Governor, George Wallace, fiercely opposed desegregation, and Birmingham had one of the strongest and most violent chapters of the white supremacist group Ku Klux Klan (KKK). The city’s police commissioner, Eugene “Bull” Connor was notorious for his willingness to use brutality in combating radical demonstrators, union members, and blacks. and Martin Luther King Jr. knew he had to focus there. As a result, civil rights activists made Birmingham a major focus of their efforts to desegregate the Deep South.

Birmingham is also known for Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous work “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, which I had the pleasure of reading this year. In 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. had been arrested in Birmingham while leading supporters of his organization Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) in a nonviolent campaign of demonstrations against segregation. During his time in jail, King wrote a letter to local white ministers justifying his decision not to call off the demonstrations in the face of continued bloodshed at the hands of local law enforcement officials. He pleaded for government officials in Alabama to see how their nonviolent protests were hurting nobody, defended his nonviolent tactics, and called for justice in the city. His letter was eventually published in the national press, along with shocking images of police brutality against protesters in Birmingham that helped build widespread support for the civil rights cause from all over the country. Then the Birmingham church bombing happened.

The bombing occurred on September 15, 1963, when a bomb exploded before Sunday morning services at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, a church with a predominantly black congregation that also served as a meeting place for civil rights leaders. Four young girls, 14-year-old Addie Mae Collins, Cynthia Wesley, and Carole Robertson and 11-year-old Denise McNair, were killed and many other people injured. Outrage over the incident and the violent clash between protesters and police that followed the bombing helped draw national attention to the hard-fought, dangerous struggle for civil rights for African Americans.

By 1963, homemade bombs set off in Birmingham’s black homes and churches were such common occurrences that the city had earned the nickname “Bombingham.” The bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church on September 15 was the third bombing in 11 days after a federal court order had come down mandating the integration of Alabama’s school system.

Many of the civil rights protest marches that took place in Birmingham during the 1960s began at the steps of the 16th Street Baptist Church, which had long been a significant religious center for the city’s black population and a routine meeting place for civil rights organizers like King. When it was bombed, you can see the chaos and outrage that exploded from the tragedy.

In the aftermath of the bombing, thousands of angry black protesters gathered at the scene of the bombing. When Governor Wallace sent police and state troopers to break the protests up, violence broke out across the city; a number of protesters were arrested, and two young African American men were killed (one by police) before the National Guard was called in to restore order. King himself later spoke before 8,000 people at the funeral for three of the girls, fueling the building public outrage now mounting across the country.

Though Birmingham’s white supremacists were immediately suspected in the bombing, repeated calls for the perpetrators to be brought to justice went unanswered for more than a decade. It was later revealed that the FBI had information concerning the identity of the bombers by 1965 and did nothing. In 1977, Alabama Attorney General Bob Baxley reopened the investigation and Klan leader Robert E. Chambliss was brought to trial for the bombings and convicted of murder. Continuing to maintain his innocence, Chambliss died in prison in 1985. The case was again reopened in 1980, 1988 and 1997, when two other former Klan members, Thomas Blanton and Bobby Frank Cherry, were finally brought to trial; Blanton was convicted in 2001 and Cherry in 2002. A fourth suspect, Herman Frank Cash, died in 1994 before he could be brought to trial. To this day, the perpetrators of the bombing still remain a mystery.

Even though the legal system was slow to provide justice, the effect of the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church was immediate and significant. Outrage over the death of the four young girls helped build increased support behind the continuing struggle to end segregation — support that would help lead to the passage of both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In that important sense, the bombing’s impact was exactly the opposite of what its perpetrators had intended.

The 20th century was a rough one: war after war, genocide after genocide, millions of deaths, poverty, topped off with a world depression- people lived a miserable life for much of the 1900s. We all learn in history class about the big human rights violations and war crimes, such as the Holocaust and the imprisonment of Japanese Americans during WWII. However, so much of history’s bad is hidden. One of these hidden topics is a widespread government program that locked people, mostly women, up simply for having sexually transmitted infections — and then forced them to undergo dangerous poisonous “treatments” during 20th century America.

Nearly two dozen women were rounded up by authorities in Sacramento, California in 1919. Margaret Hennessey was one of the women who was apprehended while walking with her sister to the meat market. As the two women walked to the market, they were approached by officers and other members of Sacramento’s “morals squad” — a unit formed that very morning, tasked with cleansing the city of vice and immorality. The police told the two women they were under arrest as “suspicious characters.”

Mrs. Hennessey tried to explain who she was and what she was doing in Sacramento. She offered to show the officers identification. The officers, Hennessey later told the press, “paid no heed, but took my sister and I to the hospital.” The morals squad delivered Hennessey and Bradich to the “Canary Cottage,” the city’s isolation hospital. There, a doctor probed and prodded the two women’s genitalia, examining them for sexually transmitted infections (STIs). “At the hospital, I was forced to submit to an examination just as if I was one of the most degraded women in the world. I want to say I have never been so humiliated in my life,” Mrs. Hennessey told the local newspaper. “My reputation means something to me and I am going to defend it.”

Margaret Hennessey’s experience was far from unusual. She had been detained under a program called the “American Plan.” From the 1910s through the 1950s, tens of thousands — perhaps evenhundreds of thousands — of American women were detained and forcibly examined for STIs. The program was modeled after similar ones in Europe, under which authorities stalked “suspicious” women, arresting, testing, and imprisoning them. A pattern was emerging across the globe.

If the women tested positive, U.S. officials locked them away in penal institutions with no due process. While many records of the program have since been lost or destroyed, women’s internment could range from a few days to many months. Inside these institutions, records show that the women were often injected with mercury and were forced to ingest arsenic-laced drugs, the most common treatments for syphilis back then. If they misbehaved, protested, or failed to be “ladylike”, these women could be beaten, doused with cold water, thrown into solitary confinement, or even sterilized.

The American Plan began during World War I as the result of a federal push to prevent soldiers and sailors from contracting STIs. In 1917, federal officials were horrified to learn that a huge percentage of men in the military were infected with syphilis or gonorrhea. Suddenly these diseases presented not just a health threat , but a national security threat as well. As a result, officials passed a federal law that outlawed sex work within a five-mile radius of every military training camp in the country. When they learned that most infected soldiers and sailors actually contracted their STIs back in their hometowns, they worked to expand this prohibition to cover the entire nation. And when they discovered that most of the women who supposedly infected the men weren’t professional prostitutes, they expanded the program even further.

Beginning in 1918, federal officials began pushing every state in the nation to pass a “model law,” which enabled officials to forcibly examine any person “reasonably suspected” of having an STI. Under this statute, those who tested positive for an STI could be held in detention for as long as it took to render him or her noninfectious. On paper, the law was gender-neutral; in practice, it almost exclusively focused on regulating women and their bodies, a huge violation of both their privacy and their dignity.

The Plan shockingly enjoyed complicity, if not outright support, from highly-ranked officials. New York Mayor Fiorello La Guardia gave speeches lauding the Plan; then-California Governor Earl Warren personally spearheaded its enforcement in his state. In 1918, the attorney general personally sent a letter to every U.S. attorney in the country, assuring them this law was constitutional and he also sent a letter to every U.S. district judge, urging them not to interfere with its enforcement. During World War II, the American Civil Liberties Union not only failed to oppose the Plan- its founder, Roger Baldwin, sent a memorandum encouraging its local branches to cooperate with officials enforcing it.

Governors and state legislatures responded to the federal government’s “model law” with enthusiasm. STIs were a hated epidemic, and sex workers, often incorrectly blamed for spreading most STIs, served as popular scapegoats. By 1921, every state in the union, as well as hundreds of municipalities, had one of these statutes on their books. Cities and states enforced these laws, off and on, for the next half-century.

One such city was Sacramento. Margaret Hennessey and her sister were not

The STI examinations showed that Hennessey had an STI, and officers released her at about 8:00 pm, with orders to appear for court the next morning. At 9:30 a.m., Hennessey stormed into court — ready, she declared to the Sacramento Bee, to “defend myself,” but “I would have no chance.” She was informed the charges had been dismissed. Nonetheless, the arrest left a mark. “I dare not venture on the streets,” she told the Bee later that day, “for fear I will be arrested again.”

In fact, of the 22 women arrested for suspicion of STIs, 16 were released later that day. Six were held overnight, not allowed to speak with or contact anyone. In the end, only one of the 22 women tested positive for STIs. “In other words,” the Bee reported, “out of twenty-two suspects subjected to an examination, the police were justified in arresting but one woman,” showing the hysteria around these accusations and how there was virtually no proof behind how these women were arrested, similar to the Red Scares of the 1920s and 1950s.

It is clear to modern observers that the American Plan was a stunningly sexist program and one that made no sense from a public health perspective. Nearly every person examined and locked up under these laws was a woman. And the vague standard of “reasonable suspicion” enabled officials to pretty much detain any woman they wanted. Records exist in archives that document women being detained and examined for doing normal, everyday things, and often, for no reason at all.

Enforcement of the American Plan ended by the 1970s, amid the rise of the Civil Rights Movement, the women’s liberation movement, and the sex workers-rights movement. It had lasted in many places for half a century; but today, half a century later, few people have ever heard of it. Even fewer are aware that the American Plan laws — the ones passed in the late 1910s, enabling officials to examine people merely “reasonably suspected” of having STIs — are still on the books, in some form, in every state in the nation. Some of these laws have been altered or amended, and some have been absorbed into broader public-health statutes, but each state still has the power to examine “reasonably suspected” people and isolate the infected ones, if health officials deem such isolation necessary.

The American Plan is sadly just another tragedy that has not made it into history books, just like so many others. It angered me greatly to know that this Plan is very widely unknown, as it was terribly unjust and immoral to have women examined with no evidence and have them detained for suspicions fo STIs. Even if it was considered okay back then, it would definitely not be okay in today’s world, as women have become trailblazers in expressing their rights and voices. However, this awful event happened, whether we like it or not. People should know about it, so we can do better for the future and ensure something like the American Plan will never happen in America again. It’s extremely disgusting to know that things like this Plan are covered up and not spoken about in society. The women who were victims of the Plan deserve so much more than what America gave them. We must do better in the future.