Devil in the White City 2

            The main reason that the idea behind the Chicago World’s Fair originated- to completely surpass the Paris World’s Fair of 1889- stemmed from the United States’ desire to declare its predominance in the industrial world of the latter half of the 19^th Century. America’s exhibit at the Paris World’s Fair was a disorganized mess, and the Chicago World’s Fair was intended to make up for that, and surpass the message that the Paris World’s Fair sent- that France had become all powerful.

            America felt slighted at its failure in 1889 and needed to pick the right city to house its very own World’s Fair. New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and even Kansas City all applied for the position. Only true arrogance could assume that Chicago could beat Washington, D.C., the nation’s political capitol, or New York, the nation’s financial capitol. Chicago had just recently beaten out Philadelphia for position of second most populous city. Its industry was only recently recovering from the Fire of 1871, and while its building industry was booming, but there was no indication that this would last. People who visited Chicago at this time viewed it as a dump where only disgusting people lived and whose sewers had no differences to its rivers and whose slums had no difference from its opulent neighborhoods. The elites of Chicago had done much to change this opinion, but no one could find it possible that Chicago would be the site of America’s World’s Fair.

            While Chicago eventually won the position for the site of the World’s Fair, before this, no one could have imagined that the site would be Chicago. New York and Washington held too large of personas as the majestic cities of the East, and Chicago had just blossomed into a major American city. It’s grandeur, its style and its innovative sense of superiority all lend themselves to the conclusion that the Chicago World’s Fair was an exhibition of arrogance. Arrogance that Chicago was somehow better than the cities of the East. Arrogance that the United States was somehow superior to the other industrial giants of the late 19^th Century. And arrogance that Burnham was somehow the best architect in the world- the man to organize the Chicago World’s Fair.

            However, just because the World’s Fair stemmed from the arrogance of Chicago’s aristocracy doesn’t mean it must have been the dark and horrid occasion it became. Large gatherings of people don’t immediately engender themselves to violence and depravity as the World’s Fair did. Plenty of marches occur yearly across the country for Gay Rights or saving our environment; and many cities have huge celebrations for Mardi Gras or the New Year. These gatherings don’t annually breed new serial killers into our society, even though they too represent a kind of arrogance and selfishness.

            The Chicago World’s Fair took place during a time of turmoil in the United States, when the elite robber barons of major industry ruled over the average worker and the government helped destroy any union protests against them. Wealth was gathered in the hands of the few even more so than today, and most people were poor. Visitors to the Fair had no quick means of communication with their loved ones across the country, igniting a melting pot perfect for the proclivities of a serial killer. The Chicago World’s Fair didn’t need to have a serial killer, but the context of the situation engendered itself so that it was easy for one to appear.

Devil in the White City 1

            Both Daniel Burnham and H. H. Holmes gathered their strength and their enthusiasm for their work through their interaction with the city of Chicago and, in particular, the Chicago World’s Fair. Daniel Burnham, the preeminent architect of Chicago and the effective leader of the building of the Fair, worked for the good of his city and for the good of America as a whole- the Chicago World’s Fair reflected on the entire nation. Burnham took this to heart and worked as long and hard as necessary for the Fair to succeed. Burnham wanted the best for Chicago and to show the world the dominance of America- his motives were pure; however, H. H. Holmes took the opposite approach, using the Chicago World’s Fair to further his own financial ends and to satiate his appetite for murder.

            H. H. Holmes began his career in Chicago as a pharmacist, eventually taking the pharmacy he worked at, its owners mysteriously disappearing. Then he proceeded to purchase the block across the street to begin work on his “Castle.” Here, he began to open shops and an apartment upstairs. In the upstairs, guests lived in dark rooms, often visited by Holmes in the night, with gas pumps and incinerators. Holmes had built his hotel with specific specifications for murder. There were useless staircases and hallways to nowhere, but the most important innovations were the gas lines tied to specific rooms intended to forcibly nock guests out so that Holmes could experiment with their bodies.

            After he was done with his victims’ bodies, Holmes would eliminate any and all evidence he could. He had vats of acid and an incinerator designed to burn flesh from bone and destroy all vestiges of individuality on a body that could be identifiable. Furthermore, Holmes decided that, for his effort, he would profit: he cleaned the corpses and sold them to various medical schools.

            This demonstrates the fundamental difference between men like Burnham, dedicated to their community’s well being and concerned with how their efforts would benefit everyone’s lives, and men like Holmes, psychopaths, serial killers, hell bent on destruction and intent on their own selfish gain and profit. Holmes chose to profit off of the vulnerable nature of the men and women who came to visit the World’s Fair, whereas Burnham was the progenitor of the fair, its driving force and the main reason for its success.

Holmes sewed only despair and destruction for the fair, while Burnham ensured its fun and its joy. While both men were shaped and changed drastically by the fair, they differ in their extremely different responses to its creation. Burnham represents the epitome of good, creating this fun and jubilant experience through his amazing planning of its buildings and through his organization of the many disparate men of different professions brought together to ensure the fair’s success. Holmes represents the epitome of evil, creating torture chambers for those visitors to the fair unlucky enough to check into Holmes’ hotel. His murders represent that one person ruining a marvelous event for the masses. Erik Larson describes the differences between good and evil by using these two personas as foils for each other- Holmes and Burnham, complete opposites.

A Modest Proposal Blog

“A Modest Proposal”, the gripping, satirical essay on famine and the poor in 18^th Century England, reveals the struggles and hardships of the poor, and the oblivious response of the rich to their plight. In this essay, Dr. Jonathan Swift denounces the struggles of the poor, stating it is obviously their fault, but also providing a “modest” proposal to relieve the poor’s suffering, and everyone else’s. Swift proposed that the best, most efficient way to rid England and Ireland of the “poor problem” would be to hire out thousands of the over one hundred thousand poor people of the United Kingdom to breed for food. Swift cites many reasons his plan would be a success, namely the increases in food supply, money for the destitute, and gloves or boots for the “thrifty.”                                     While the main goal of “A Modest Proposal” was to change the situation of England and Ireland’s poor and destitute underclass, it conveys a broad message that spans generations- that the rich still undervalue the poor and do little to support them or alleviate their suffering. Swift’s main goal can be spread to other areas of history: how would history be different if the rich in America felt differently than they did when they scoffed at the “deserving poor” during our Industrial Revolution? Our nation’s poor underclass suffered greatly in these years, as the privileged few robber barons succeeded in amassing huge fortunes, which they promptly invested to make themselves more money, rather than giving back to the poor. Many poor people worked in rich men’s factories under deplorable conditions, but weren’t appreciated- workers were often let go if they became injured or couldn’t work because they were sick.

Swift’s essay, while extremely revealing about the struggles during his own time period, also forces us to reflect on how we view the poor, and whether poor people’s lot in life has improved at all over the centuries since Swift wrote this modest proposal. Many times when the track team is running to Alamo Park to practice, we see the same woman over and over. She is obviously poor, but also seems to be either extremely depressed or schizophrenic, and her situation is extremely sad. She wanders the area from about Alamo Park towards the High School every single day, and I’ve never seen her with any friends or family or anyone who could help. It’s made me wonder whether she is homeless because she wants to be, whether or not she can help it, or if she needs a modest proposal of her own.

The Sun Also Rises Blog

Hemingway’s code of ethics for heroism- that a “hero” must maintain composure under pressure, be self reliant and reserved, and to live for themselves, describes completely the character Pedro Romero. Romero is a bullfighter, someone who, as Jake says early on in the book can “live life to the fullest,” and it shows in his character and technique as a bullfighter. He doesn’t maintain the façade of the other fighters for safety- he relies on his own innate skill and ability to keep him safe. This is entirely shown when he dances with the bulls and puts himself in danger for sport. Also extremely important is Hemingway’s placing the mantle of hero on a nineteen-year-old boy. Pedro Romero, a bonafide hero, through and through, displays admirable courage and skill even as a young man, showing heroism is innately ingrained from birth.

            Today, heroism can be difficult to find. With the Internet and phones allowing for instant communication, it is easy to focus on all of the negatives in the world, and none of the heroes. However, it is even more difficult to pinpoint Hemingway’s archetypal hero, because Hemingway’s hero works alone. When you think about what a hero truly is, it is difficult to determine, because situation plays so much into what makes someone a hero. And because the situation surrounding someone’s heroism determines heroism, I believe Hemingway’s archetypal hero character is flawed.

            When I was five, my mom and dad got a divorce. This event didn’t change life too much for me- I still saw my dad, and lived with him part time- but eventually, he moved back, just as we were planning to. But then my mom received a promotion at work, and decided to stay in California, meaning my father and I became separated by a foreboding three thousand miles of open continent.

            We lived this way for a few years. My mom, my sister and I living here in California, while my Dad worked as a successful reporter at the Ohio Capitol building. He even produced and starred in a news show every week. But he really wasn’t happy. He was lost, sort of like the Lost Generation, but with less alcoholism, and he knew his cure- he wanted to see his kids, and two weeks twice a year wouldn’t cut it.

            So he packed everything away and drove for three days from Ohio to Vacaville to move back out to California. He gave up the stability of Ohio, a great job, and all his friends, for us. I remember the day I saw him drive up and get out of his car, and I was elated- I could see my dad again! Ever since that day, my dad has been my hero.

            But, theoretically, he doesn’t fit Hemingway’s description of the archetypal hero. My dad couldn’t live alone, self sufficient- he was miserable during his time alone in Ohio- and he needed to see his kids. Hemingway would likely have denounced my father as weak and rejected his heroism, but I know better. My dad went from a regionally well-regarded reporter in Ohio to card dealer at Cache Creek Casino, until he earned his credentials for teaching, all for the love of his kids.

            Hemingway believed that the true hero is self sufficient, and could stare at the face of adversary and tame it, but I believe a different type of hero exists. My father, unable to live happily so far away from his children, represents this group. For this type of hero, family matters most, along with love. Life isn’t some lonesome trip of solitude that you live by yourself- you live it with others.

            So my real point is that Hemingway can be wrong- heroes are not just the people that work the best alone or can succeed alone. Heroes sacrifice everything for their loved ones and can stare any adversary down and find a solution, even if Hemingway wouldn’t believe in their solution. Today I believe there are more heroes like my father around, rather than Pedro Romero types, so one has to wonder is Hemingway’s type of hero even really important any more, or applicable?

Blog #16

My ultimate image of a cowboy consists of three things: a western ranch, a herd of cattle and a hat. Sure, there are more things than that, but these three images are integral in my imagination's ability to percieve cowboys. How can you be a cowboy if you aren't on a ranch? How can you succeed on a ranch without a massive herd of cattle? And, most importantly, how can you succceed as a cowboy without the perfect cowboy hat to put on your head? These things are necessary.

However, in her essay, "About Men," Elrich destroys all of our traditional ideas of cowboys by portraying the cowboy's soft, tender side, the side that needs a woman's help to get along, the side that no one expected was there. Who could have imagined that cowboys do more than lead cattle from one place to the next? Who could have imagined that cowboys really care for their animals and are really soft-hearted on the inside?

I never knew.

Blog #17

Mitch Albom raised a great question when he presented the O.J. Simpson trial as the most important American event of the past two decades- what was the most important American event of the past two decades? It's hard to imagine the O.J. Simpson trial as the most important American event of the last two decades when you juxtapose it with the fall of the Soviet Union and the break up of the Warsaw Pact, or the Persian Gulf War or the many Presidential elections of the past two decades. However impossible it may seem, I agree with Albom's assertion that the O.J. Simpson trial affected American society the most. The fall of the Soviet Union or the the Persian Gulf War may have been huge news when they occurred, but their lasting affects pale in comparision to the O.J. Simpson trial. I have tried watching traditional news sources such as CNN, Fox, or MSN before, but now I cannot. These stations brodcast such copious amounts of crap that I can no longer trust them. This is a direct result of the O.J. Trial's drastic affects on the media. How can anything else compare?

Blog #15

Luc Sante gives three reasons for the breakdown of secrecy: the fall of the Soviet Union and the KGB, the internet, and what he calls "confessional culture." Bascially, each of these three key points have lead to the breakdown of secrecy in our society today.

The fall of the Soviet Union "opened a tremendous number of lead-lined rooms," leading to a plethora of Soviet State secrets to be revealed, so that everyone knew who was shooting at who, when they were doing this and why. This also lead to a drop in public support for government's keeping secrets from its own people. Now that there was no Cold War, there was less of a need for many state secrets.

The internet also causes many secrets to be leaked every day. Recently, there was a huge uproar when the website WikiLeak leaked thousands and thousands of government documents on the day to day activities of troops in Iraq and Afghanistand. While there were no huge secrets revealed (the American public actually knew about much of this beforehand), this huge leak in security established a disturbing precedent where anyone can leak anything on the Internet.

Confessional culture, as Sante defines it, encourages people to spill our most sacred secrets to others because they are like money burning a hole in our pockets, we have to get them off of our chests. The pressure secrets put on us can only be relieved by telling our secrets to trusted friends, or by posting it on the internet.

I don't agree with Sante's idea that the internet is the nemesis to secrecy. The internet is merely a tool everyone can used to exchange ideas and information, and, while sometimes this tool can be used badly, like the WikiLeak mass leak, the internet is a good thing. The internet is only bad if used badly, and while confessional culture can lead to many secrets being revealed on the internet, it is the people who reveal the secrets' fault.