World War I
The Great War, as it began in Europe, was the result of complex history and alliances. As you review this part of the lecture, you will need a historical map in front of you.
Both sides believed that they had a secret weapon: the machine gun. Why they believed this I don't know, since articles about the machine gun had been published in scientific journals all over Europe. Anyway, both sides had machine guns. But since both sides were new to the technology, they used it in different ways. The machine gun in those days was a huge weapon, mounted on a giant caisson; it looked like a piece of field artillery. So the French gave it to the artillery guys at the back of the battalions, replacing some of their field artillery with machine guns. The Prussians trained a separate machine gun corps, did not replace any field artillery, and put the machine gunners at the front. Understandably, Prussia had an advantage when the two went into battle during the Franco-Prussian War.
After the war, Prussia wanted to humiliate France so that she couldn't threaten the united Germany again. They didn't care much about territory, but they felt they had to take Alsace-Lorraine, the pair of duchies on the Franco-German border. The French had not forgotten the humiliation, or the loss of Alsace-Lorraine, by the year 1914. They had even barricaded the entire area in case Prussia should threaten them further.
So when Franz Ferdinand, the archduke and heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, decided to take his wife on vacation to Sarajevo (the capital of Bosnia), it wasn't just a fun holiday in the Balkans. A political point was being made: that the archduke was on holiday in an area that was part of his empire. He and his wife were shot and killed by a teenage Bosnian revolutionary.
Austria-Hungary's government assumed (probably correctly) that the kid and his co-conspirators had been financed and assisted by the government of Serbia. So they issued an ultimatum: either Serbia took responsibility for the assassination, or Austria-Hungary would declare war on them. Serbia stalled for time, and Austria-Hungary declared war.
Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. Serbia had a secret treaty with her fellow Slavic nation, Russia, that said if anyone attacked Serbia, Russia would enter the war on her side. So Russia declared war on Austria-Hungary.
Austria-Hungary had a secret treaty with Germany, saying if anyone declared war on Austria-Hungary, Germany would come in on her side. So Germany declared war on Russia.
Russia had a secret treaty with France, that said if anyone declared war on Russia (especially Germany), France would come in on her side.
So then it was Austria-Hungary and Germany versus Serbia, Russia and France. Still, Austria-Hungary and Germany (the Central Powers) should have been OK. Germany, in order to avoid fighting on two fronts, could take out France in a jiffy by marching into Paris (as they had done in the Franco-Prussian War). Germany could then turn its full effort against Russia and Serbia, with help from Austria-Hungary.
Germany had the best ground troops in the world. Piece of cake.
But to complete the plan, Germany had to march quickly through Belgium to get to Paris, because the Alsace-Lorraine route had all the French defenses. Belgium did not wish to be marched through, but Germany did it anyway. Turns out that Belgium had a secret treaty with Great Britain, who had the finest navy in the world.
Document: Remember Belgium (poster)
The second reason was that many of the European powers (including Britain, Germany, France, and Belgium) had colonies all over the world. Everywhere a British colony was next to a German colony, there was fighting. The war was fought on several continents because there were colonies on several continents (especially Africa and Asia).
The third reason was that, as you have read, the U.S. became involved.
In order to prevent ground troops getting mowed down by machine guns (all of which were now located at the front, of course), it was necessary to dig trenches. Then the enemy bombards your trench with artillery to try to get you to retreat. You put barbed wire in front of your trench in case they decide to rush your trench. By now you are living in your trench, with beds dug into the dirt, trench foot from it raining all the time, shell shock from the all-night artillery barrage, and dysentery from the lack of sanitation and clean water.
The enemy uses poison gas in the artillery shells, so you need a gas mask and start lobbing poison gas back at their trenches. They get bi-planes and drop bombs on your trenches; you send up balloons to see if they're still in their trench after your last artillery barrage.
When no one can stand not moving anymore (war is supposed to be about taking territory, after all), the generals send you and your pals "over the top" of the trench, through your own barbed wired, and across the "no man's land" on your way to get to the enemy trench. Although your leaders have been bombarding the enemy trench for days, and believe there is no one left there to man the machine guns, one kid gets to one gun and mows you (and 250 of your comrades) down, and you're dead. Along with millions of others. Welcome to death on the Western Front.
What's happened is that a war of attrition has replaced war for territory. Where before, the point of war was to take and hold land (a hill, a battlefield, a town), the point here becomes to kill as many of the enemy as possible. Attrition means "wearing down"; you try to wear down the ability of the enemy to wage war. Most of the young men of a generation will be lost in this bloodbath.
When he ran for reelection in 1916, Wilson was the choice if you were against the U.S. entering the war. While his own position was doubtful, the opposing Republican, Charles Evans Hughes, was a "hawk". He wanted the U.S. to get tough on Germany, and definitely wanted to get into the war. So since Wilson claimed he wanted neutrality, people opposing the war had to vote for Wilson.
Some have called Wilson's ideas on neutrality idealistic, or even unrealistic. He believed that the U.S. could remain neutral, and continue trading with both sides. But circumstances made this impossible, since both sides wanted to block our trade with the other, and both used blockades, ship searches, and other violations of neutrality to prevent the other benefiting from U.S. trade.
One of the hottest issues was Germany's use of unrestricted submarine warfare, which Wilson believed violated international law. Ships at sea were required by international law to fly their colors when they saw each other, so that each party could be identified before conflict followed. For a submarine, surfacing to hoist a flag would be suicide. So Germany had declared the area around the British Isles an unrestricted submarine warfare zone, and published the map in newspapers throughout Europe and America. Having defined the region and declaring they would sink any ship that came within it, Germany believed she was obeying international law. Wilson did not.
Wilson's Secretary of State at this time was William Jennings Bryan (yes, the Populist candidate and Cowardly Lion of the 1890s). Bryan was committed to total neutrality even while Wilson leaned in favor of the Allies. Bryan wanted Wilson to forbid American citizens from sailing on ships entering the unrestricted submarine zone, but Wilson refused. When the Lusitania was sunk in 1915, killing some Americans, Bryan urged that Wilson do nothing. But Wilson sent a harsh letter to the German government, condemning the action. Bryan resigned because Wilson was not being truly neutral. The new Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, was a hawk.
You have read that some Americans opposed the war, and there was a large peace movement in both Europe and America. Socialists in particular felt that the war was both capitalist and imperialist. Rather than being a fight for freedom, socialists believed that it was an imperialistic push for profits. Most of the royal families of Europe were related, at least by marriage, and were in serious competition for trade routes. The U.S. was unable to profit through trade with both sides, since neutrality was continually violated. Thus, the U.S. had to enter the war in order to resume normal trading relations, and preserve profits for American industry. Labor unions in general went along with the war as well. This particularly disgusted the IWW, who were fighting profiteering industrialists to try to gain rights for the workers.
Document: John Reed: Whose War? (1917)
John Reed, journalist, was an American communist, IWW leader, and women's rights advocate who ultimately went to Russia to cover and assist the Bolshevik Revolution. In this clip from the movie Reds (1981), John Reed (played by Warren Beatty) is asked to speak at a meeting of the Liberal Club in his birthplace of Portland, Oregon. This is during the early years of the war, before the U.S. has entered it. As you can see, the head of the Club is fervently patriotic. Reed responds. After the meeting, local feminist and radical Louise Bryant (played by Diane Keaton) gets an interview with Reed. She takes him to her studio. She is in fact married, despite what she implies in this scene. Reed states his views on the war.
Socialist protest also focused on the draft, which forced young men to embark on an adventure that could easily cost them their lives. Socialists saw the draft as a violation of democracy, and equated it to the "involuntary servitude" forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment. Others must have agreed.
The Socialists made major political gains as the U.S. approached the entrance into the war, winning many seats in local and state government. They spoke out against the war, and published pamphlets. Some, like Charles Schenck and Eugene Debs, were arrested under the new Espionage Act (June 1917), an act that was supported by the Supreme Court as being necessary despite its violation of the First Amendment. The Act would be used to dismantle the IWW, and about nine hundred people would go to prison because of it. Anarchist Emma Goldman was one of them; her document is about a rally questioning conscription.
Document: Emma Goldman: Opposing the Conscription of Soldiers audio
|Due to her opposition to the war, Emma Goldman was convicted of anarchism, stripped of her American citizenship and deported in 1919. In this clip from the movie Reds (1981), John Reed says good-bye to Emma Goldman shortly before she is deported. Chase and Sanborn was Goldman's favorite coffee. Louise is Louise Bryant, now Reed's common law wife. Max is Max Eastman, publisher of The Masses magazine.
Also, there is more information about her deportation at The Emma Goldman Papers website.
Wilson' goals were clear; they had been read to Congress in his Fourteen Points.
Document: Woodrow Wilson: The Fourteen Points (1918)
Ultimately, Wilson was forced to compromise. His goals were seen as idealistic and unrealistic, and he himself was not much respected. The U.S. had entered the war very late, said most Europeans, why should Americans determine the European peace? Wilson was even accused of acting like Jesus, coming into Paris to gather a following and tell everyone the new, moral way of things.
Certainly Wilson's policy was in the tradition of American Progressivism. But the biggest problem was that Clemenceau, leader of the only country on the border with Germany, demanded a harsh punishment for Germany. Ultimately, Lloyd-George went along with this, desiring only to preserve the British Empire and not have to enter another continental war. Wilson, who wanted colonial systems subject to his new League of Nations, got no cooperation on this issue from the other two. In fact, Wilson ended up being forced to compromise almost all of his first thirteen points in order to gain the fourteenth (the League of Nations).
Historians of medicine and biology have even suggested that Wilson should have stood firm, but was hampered by encephalitis caused by the massive flu epidemic that swept Europe and America at this time. The influenza killed more people than died during the war, and Wilson definitely became ill, missing several conference meetings. Evidence suggests that the brain inflamation may have caused Wilson to believe he was being more effective than he actually was.
The upshot was that the League of Nations was agreed upon, but that everything else pretty much was determined by Clemenceau and Lloyd-George. Germany was punished harshly, which many believed led to the humiliation that made guys like Hitler so popular. France and Britain divided up Germany's old colonies in Africa and Asia, and gave a tiny piece of one to Italy. The Ottoman Empire was also divided up into colonies, despite the fact that the British government had promised the Arabs a pan-Arab state if they rebelled against the Ottomans and took Turkey out of the war. The Arabs had indeed unified and knocked the Ottoman Empire out of the war, ably organized by British soldier T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia). But at the peace conference, the pan-Arab dream was betrayed, which many feel led to the violence present in that part of the world since 1920.
Wilson's personal enemy and political rival back home, Henry Cabot Lodge, was head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In the end, the Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles. This meant that the United States did not become a member of Wilson's dream, the League of Nations, undermining its effectiveness throughout its short existence.
Document: The Treaty of Versailles (excerpts) 1919
Even before the war, patriotic music became popular, especially with the works of George M. Cohan. The Oxford Companion to Popular Music (bet you were wondering where I get all this stuff) describes Cohan as possessing "typical American vigour, virtuosity, brashness, and patriotic naïveté". He wrote unabashedly patriotic music for vaudeville shows people would later describe as corny. He was an obvious choice for popular music during the WWI years.
"Grand Old Flag" was written in 1906:
You're a grand old flag,
You're a high-flying flag,
And forever in peace may you wave,
You're the emblem of the land I love,
The home of the free and the brave.
Every heart beats true for the red, white and blue,
Where there's never a boast or brag.
Should auld aquaintance be forgot,
Keep your eye on the grand old flag!
Cohan wrote "Over There" in 1917.
Johnnie, get your gun, get your gun, get your gun,
Take it on the run, on the run, on the run,
Hear them calling you and me, ev'ry son of liberty
Hurry right away, no delay, go today
Make your Daddy glad to have had such a lad,
Tell your sweetheart not to pine, to be proud her boy's in line
Over there, over there!
Send the word, send the word, over there!
That the Yanks are coming, the Yanks are coming,
The drums rum-tumming ev'rywhere!
So prepare, say a prayer, send the word, send the word to beware!
We'll be over, we're coming over,
And we won't come back 'til it's over Over There!
Johnnie, get your gun, get your gun, get your gun,
Johnnie show the Hun you're a son of a gun!
Hoist the flag and let her fly,
Yankee Doodle do or die
Pack your little kit, show your grit, do your bit
Yankees to the ranks from the towns and the tanks
Make your mother proud of you and the old Red White and Blue
Over there, over there,
Send the word, send the word, over there!
That the Yanks are coming, the Yanks are coming,
The drums rum-tumming ev'ry where
So prepare, say a prayer, send the word, send the word to beware
We'll be over, we're coming over,
And we won't come back 'til it's over Over There!
Another popular composer, Irving Berlin, wrote "Oh, How I Hate to Get Up in the Morning" in 1918. Note how both the songs here are positive and upbeat.
Oh how I hate to get up in the morning
Oh how I love to remain in bed.
For the heart is full of woe,
Just to hear the bugle call,
You got to get up, you got to get up,
You got to get up this morning.
Some day I'm going to murder the bugler,
Some day they're going to find him dead.
I'll amputate his revelie,
And step upon it heavily,
And spend the rest of my life in bed.
You got to get up, you got to get up,
You got to get up this morning.....
Oh for the minute the battle is over,
Oh for the minute the foe is dead.
I put my uniform away,
I move to Phil-a-del-phia,
And spend the rest of my life in bed.
And spend the rest of my life in bed!
There were also several popular anti-war songs, including "I Didn't Raise My Boy to Be a Soldier". This is an original recording from the Library of Congress.
I Didn't Raise My Boy to Be a Soldier (1915)
Ten millions soldiers to the war have gone
Who may never return again.
Ten million mothers' hearts must break
For the ones who died in vain.
Head bowed down in sorrow, in her lonely years,
I hear a mother murmer thro' her tears:
"I didn't raise my boy to be a soldier
I brought him up to be my pride and joy.
Who dares to place a musket on his shoulder
To shoot some other mother's darling boy?
Let nations arbitrate their future trouble.
It's time to lay the sword and gun away.
There'd be no war today if mothers all would say
I didn't raise my boy to be a soldier."
What victory can cheer a mother's heart
When she looks at her blighted home?
What victory can bring her back
All she cares to call her own?
Let each mother's answer in the years to be,
"Remember that my boy belongs to me."
|Many historians seem interested in promoting World War I as something everyone supported, but it just wasn't so. The first woman in the House of Representatives, Jeannette Rankin, did not respond to the first roll call on the declaration of war. When told by a colleague that she should vote because her vote represented the women of America, she stood and said "I want to stand by my country, but I cannot vote for war. I vote no."
I have created a slide show about this extraordinary woman.
Charlie Chaplin was a genius of cinema during the 20s and 30s. Here's a movie clip from his 1936 film, Modern Times, which parodies labor conditions of the 1920s.
Document: Ad: Stout Women (Lane Bryant, 1924)
The 1920s were quite self-consciously "modern". Although a trend of novelty and abstraction in art and culture had begun in Europe and America prior to the Great War, the 20s saw the bulk of the change. One reason for this was the war itself.
The extraordinary number of deaths in the war, and afterward as a result of the influenza epidemic, cost the U.S. and Europe a whole generation of young men. The surviving members of this Lost Generation felt adrift, and many people were examining society in light of the war. Several literary and scholarly works expressed the view that Western Civilization itself was coming to an end, as represented in the slaughter of millions using modern technology.
Document: next to of course god america i (audio)
Human morality itself was being questioned, and gave the 20's an edge, a feeling of panic or anxiety that came out in the art, music, paintings, and styles of the time. Although it is also the "Roaring Twenties", a time of partying and fun, there was a sense of desperation beneath the surface.
Modernity itself was also questioned. Traditionalists believed that a return to the values of former times might save the morals of the nation. Progressives believed that it was more important than ever to recognize society's wrongs and correct them. Some criticized what society had become, as you can see in this excerpt from Sinclair Lewis' Babbitt. As you read the document, think to yourself:
Document: Babbitt (1922)
Louis Armstrong (1900-1971) was one of the greatest jazz musicians ever, and was the popularizer of the jazz solo (in his case, with the trumpet). His style was unique, but would now be called swing jazz or New Orleans style jazz. Some of his best work was done in the 1920s, right after he left "King" Oliver's band to form his own group. The above selection, "S.O.L. Blues", was recorded in Chicago in 1927.
At the age of 25, composer George Gershwin departed from writing popular music for Broadway shows and created a masterpiece called "Rhapsody in Blue". It was, as were his later concertos, a combination of symphony and jazz. It became popular after its opening in New York in 1924. This selection is a re-creation of that concert.
Lastly, the Charleston itself, which was all the rage for dancing and symbolized the new female independence. The music originated in a black review touring the U.S. in 1923, although the dance itself probably had its origins in Africa, and was well known among southern blacks as early as 1900.
In the U.S., there was instead a divided "middle" class. The upper middle class owned the means of production, and thus much of the wealth. The rest of the middle class made good livings for their families in the professions (medicine, law, scholarship, business). The middle classes both in Europe and America relied on money, the control of cash resources.
The lower class, or working class, existed in both places. These were people who sold their manual labor in order to provide for their families. These class divisions are roughly the same as exist today.
The upper middle class is the U.S. is rarely of interest historically; they spent a lot of money and built beautiful mansions and engaged in conspicuous consumption. But during the 20s, their spending began to focus on partying and pleasure in areas outside their own mansions. Young rich people ventured into the seedier parts of town, especially in New York City, looking for a more interesting thrill. Cocaine was the drug of choice, and Harlem was the place for black entertainment in clubs. Some of these clubs were owned by blacks or whites, staffed only by blacks, and entertained an all-white clientele.
Famous performers like Josephine Baker and many jazz musicians got their start in Harlem nightclubs during the 20s. An entire culture was bankrolled by rich whites looking for a thrill. Certainly the Harlem Renaissance experienced the development of an AfricanAmerican cultural expression, and you'll see that in the web site for the week. But if you wonder why it came to an end, or at least turned into something else, it's because the rich who invested in Harlem pulled all their spending out when the Stock Market crashed in 1929.
The Red Scare of 1919-20 ended when Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer's prediction did not come true. The Communist Internation (Comintern) had been formed in the newly communist Soviet Union in 1919, proclaiming as its goal the international organization of communist revolution. For all the workers of the world, May 1 (May Day) is traditionally a day off, everyone's Labor Day. So Palmer predicted that American communists would try to take over the country on May 1, 1920. When this didn't happen, Palmer was discredited, but the fear of communists, radicals and anarchists continued (oh, and we're the only country on the planet to hold our Labor Day in September!).
Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were anarchist Italian immigrants arrested, tried and executed for a small-town murder and armed robbery. The trial of these obscure guys caught national attention, and has since been used to analyze the effect of nativism and xenophobia on the U.S. during the 1920s.
Many of the details of the investigation did not match the accusation. Fingerprints on the getaway car did not belong to them, one had an alibi for a previous robbery attempt connected with this crime, the money wasn't found among either the suspect's personal effects or those of their anarchist friends, the suspects were identified by eyewitnesses who were shown only the two men. Neither had a criminal record.
On the other hand, both men were armed when they were arrested, and both lied to the police about knowing the owner of the getaway car. Nevertheless, the prosecution had trouble making their case. One witness claimed she could tell Sacco from a 60-foot distance because of the size of his hands, another claimed to have seen it all but was actually hiding under a bench where he couldn't have seen a thing, another identified Sacco (who was dark-haired) as a man she'd asked directions of when all other witnesses said she'd asked a fair-haired boy.
When the defense was able to discredit the witnesses and show that the bullet could not have been fired from Vanzetti's gun, the prosecution focused on the fact that the men had behaved in a guilty manner following the crime. This forced the defense to bring up anarchism, the U.S. government's distaste for which would make any anarchist act in a nervous way. The issue of anarchism became central to the trial, and there is much evidence that the judge and District Attorney were prepared to convict the two because they were radicals.
After their conviction, new evidence emerged, including a prisoner on death row who admitted to the murders and was identified by witnesses. When the District Attorney refused to reopen the case, public sentiment turned against the courts. The appeals were denied by the same judge who had convicted Sacco and Vanzetti originally, and they were sentenced to death by electrocution. There were mass protests the night of their execution. The case is still being discussed. Although in 1977, governor of Massachusetts Michael Dukakis issued a posthumous pardon, recent reanalysis has suggested that Sacco and Vanzetti did commit the crimes.
So for historians, the case best serves as an example of how nativism and anti-immigrant prejudice divided the nation at the time.
You have read how John Scopes, the high school biology teacher, was put on trial for teaching evolution in Tennessee, where doing so was against the law. The trial was quite a show for William Jennings Bryan (prosecution) and Clarence Darrow (defense, hired from the American Civil Liberties Union). The spectacle was extraordinary. At one point, Darrow called Bryan to the stand as a Christian to testify as to the factual content of the Bible. Bryan accepted, considering his role to be defender of religious fundamentalism. Check out the actual transcript of the trial. The University of Missouri at Kansas City has put the whole thing on the web.
Document: Scopes Trial: Examination of Bryan by Darrow (1925)
Scopes was clearly guilty (it was against the law to teach evolution, and he did), but the extremely light sentence clearly indicated that the newer sentiments were in favor of evolution. Darrow's approach was seen by traditionalists as blasphemous, a symbol of the declining morality of America. Bryan's was seen by modernists as archaic. A sad note: the trial was so wearing on Bryan that he died, after a long and brilliant life serving his fellow Americans, shortly thereafter.
They made a very good movie (if not completely historically accurate) about the trial called "Inherit the Wind", with Spencer Tracy as Darrow.
The events are shrouded in mystery. The players themselves discussed taking the money, then winning the series anyway, and this may have been the plan. But the Sox did lose the series. Did they throw it? Lots of historians have analyzed the statistics. It seems as though the eight players (known now as the Black Sox) played better than their innocent teammates. Ultimately, the case went to the Grand Jury, where some of the players confessed; all eight were indicted. Then the trial bagan, and with it the revelation that the confessions they had signed had disappeared.
At the end of the trial, the judge instructed the jury that the ball players had to be guilty of defrauding the public, not just taking money or throwing a ball game. With no way to prove that, the jury brought back a verdict of "not guilty". However, the new commissioner of baseball, Judge Landis, banned all eight from professional baseball (he also banned another player from another team who had made money betting on the Reds).
effect on the country of the
entire incident was devastating.
Baseball had become almost a
religion in the U.S. To have
baseball players engaging in
such underhanded dealings shocked
many people and destroyed the
dreams of many kids who loved
the game. According to Randy
Roberts and James Olson in their
the scandal damaged America's
self-image just at a time when
we were trying to return to "normalcy",
creating disillusionment about
the personal integrity of America's
Audio button for those on iPads or who cannot hear audio from inside slideshow (play button greyed out)
The show was written and performed by Charles Correll and Freeman Gosden, who were both white (hence the analogy to black-face). It was the first program to portray an all-black situation, and has since been heavily analyzed for racism and stereotypes. Even at the time it aired, there was by no means only one view: some saw it as harmful to black self-respect (and white respect for blacks), but others thought that it was a harmless comedy. Certainly it was extremely popular: by 1930, 40 million listeners were tuning in. During the 1950s, it went to television, with a black cast. Transcript
Flappers were women who rejected the image of Victorian womanhood during the 1920s. You may recall that this Victorian image was very modest, and included clothing that covered females to the floor. Hair was long (in fact it was never supposed to be cut) but always worn up -- a woman's long hair was a sight only for her husband, in private. Beginning in the 1870s, however, war in Europe and economic crisis in the U.S. meant that fabric was quite expensive. Skirts became more slender and showing arms was no longer forbidden. There is a theory that as women's independence in society increases, the fashions become less hour-glass shaped, because they aren't emphasizing a woman's fertility. Some historians connect the fashions of the late teens and twenties to the Great War and the achievement of female suffrage in 1919.
|Cinema hearthrob Rudolph Valentino|
By the 1920s the flappers were wearing skirts above the knee, and had cut their hair in a chin-length "bob" that couldn't be tied up. The trend was led by upper class young women, and with the availability of ready-made clothes from catalogs, the style could catch on easily. In addition, there was a new great distributor of pop culture: the motion picture.
Movie stars were glamorous, and the images on the screen seemed very real to people. Movie plots, costumes, and images affected people.
Document: Movie Diary of 22-year-old Female College Senior (1922)
Even more accessible were modern novels, which often told stories of rich and glamorous people. Beginning in 1920, Prohibition was in effect, making it illegal to sell alcohol. For a country founded by Puritans who drank beer for breakfast, a country where individual freedom was a high value, Prohibition seemed like a punishment. Organized crime got its big break, running gin and other beverages around the country, like the drug cartels today. Writers like F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway spent much of the 1920s in Europe, but wrote novels that resonated in America. The Great Gatsby is a perfect example, since it featured with two sets of characters, one lower middle-class and one upper and slightly criminal, the latter spending most of their time drinking and partying.
The text by Lisa M. Lane is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.
The voice audio by Lisa M. Lane is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
|Other materials used in this class may be subject to copyright protection, and are intended for educational and scholarly fair use under the Copyright Act of 1976 and the TEACH Act of 2002. This page has been checked for web accessibility using WAVE.|