The Change of Literature

The world of today is experiencing a historical change in the nature of literacy as digital multi-media resources enter it. Such changes would be do to the creation of the World Wide Web, e-mail, text messaging, and digital encyclopedias, as well as many other resources. Technology, however, is changing faster than our ability to evaluate its impact on literacy. Some have argued that the Internet, itself, is the greatest setback to human communication skills. That is where children were once trained to appreciate language, grammar, etc, today we are pushed toward speed and stylized text. Though our language continues to morphed into a simpler style, may be this is by means a good thing for the more simpler one's sentence is the more people will be able to understand what is being stated.

In addition to helping people understand each other in a simpler way, from these advancements in technology, the public is given the ability to find more information about an even larger variety of subjects to look under. As well as for those who have previously shied away from reading books, have found the Internet to be by means more entertaining way of reading in some cases. Tools, like graphics and hyper text, take reading from a passive to active experience. Clearly, more writers, as well as more perspectives, can be heard by even more people. All of this could also be encouraging interests in reading and writing to a broader segment of the population.

There are however some down sides and concerns. The first that comes to mind would be a loss of depth that one gets from reading classical books. Furthermore, the volume of information that is available tends to change our value systems from quality to quantity. This can result in declining attention spans and the lack of true interpretation of the information refined as we get caught up in an on going search for more information. The graphic nature of digital writing tands to put more emphasis on good looks rather than good writing. The ease of writing along with technological short cuts such as spell check and grammar check result in a lessoning of rereading the original material and can result in an overall decline in quality. Furthermore, there is an inherent erosion of the English language as short forms and digital speaking become more and more prevalent. In addition, E-mail has altered the struture of the letter as a communication tool, and brought with it a whole new set of conventions, even etiquette. As for handwriting, it is becoming a lost art. In short people now write more like they speak. Finally, the emerging technologies that turn text into synthesized speech could even lead to an overall decline in actual reading skills.

Are we experiencing a decline in literacy? Probably not but for sure we are experiencing a redefinition. Traditionally literatacy has been defined as the ability to read, write, and even spell. This definition is not inherently void in the electronic era, but definitely is changing or expanding. The Internet is still textual based, but it is requiring new sets of skills. It combines text, sound, and complex visual aids making it extremely effective in transmitting ideas to a large diverse audience.

Word Count: 541

Muammar al-Gaddafi: Friend or Foe?

Muammar al-Gaddafi, effectively the leader of Libya, is a man who historically has show he is not above using violence and repressive tactics when and if his regime is threatened. He has called for political assassination as a tool and has sent agents out to carry out his wishes. After decades of economic sanctions and diplomatic sanction, he is trying to improve his relationship with the west. This has included his admission his country had had an active weapons of mass destructions programs. Two years prior to September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center, Libya pledged its commitment to fighting Al-Qaeda. Following the attacks of September 11, Gaddafi made one of the strongest accusations of the Al-Qaeda bombers by any Muslim leader. He was even interviewed on ABC by George Stephanopoulos.


"In his four decades as Libya's Brother Leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has gone from being the epitome of revolutionary chic to an eccentric states man with entirely benign relations with the West." ~ David Blair, Diplomatic editor for The Daily Telegraph

• Given Gaddafi's history, should we really trust him? Or can a man really change so dramatically?

Gaddafi from an early age showed his true colors. In 1961 he was expelled for his political activities. From the Serbha prep school in Sidra. Later while attending the Benghazi Military academy, he and his friends organized a secret group that wanted to over throw the pro-western Libyan monarchy. For years the now Colonel Gaddafi, with a few other young officers, staged a coup de'etat, or take over, in Tripoli against the King Idris I. A subsequent power struggle ensued between Gaddafi and his young supporters, and older senior offices and citizens. Gaining support from Egypt, he was able to eliminate this opposition.

Later Gaddafi assumed power and named the country the Libyan Arab Republic. Initially he ruled as president of the Revolutionary Command Council. But later switched to the title of president of the People's General Congress. Later he renounced all official titles but remained in power as head of Libya. A blend of Arab and nationalism in social welfare he described his philosophy as "Islamic Socialism." In 1976, he published his philosophy in a book called the Green Book. When Nasser of Egypt died, Gaddafi tried to assume the role of leader of Arab Nationalism. The Federation of Arab Republic as he called it included Egypt, Libya, and Seria. He subsequently tried to merge Tunisia and Libya once again failing. In face of both these failures he proposed the creation of a Saharan Islamic State.


Gaddafi had provided a general support for any liberation moment that contacted him but is mostly known for his support for the Paletine Liberation Organization (PLO). In the west we see him as the primary source of fund for international terrorism. He has been implicated in black September, the massacre at the 1972 Munich Olympic games and the bombing in 1986 of a Berlin night club. In 1986 under Ronald Regan, the US attacked Libyan patrol boats in the Gulf of Sidra and subsequently bombed targets in Tripoli and Benghazi. Economic sanctions against Libya including diplomatic isolation, followed his refusal to hand over the other two Libyans accused of the Lockerbie Bombings in Scotland.

~ Tony Blair and Muammar Gaddafi

In 2003 following overthrow of Saddam Hussein he announced to the world he had a weapons of mass destructions program. However he did not allow international inspector to dismantle them. This was generally believed to be a move to normalize relationships with the hopes that he could get the sanctions removed. Later international inspectors who hwere finally allowed in, found several tons of chemical weaponry and well as an active nuclear weapons program. Relationships with the western world continued to improve and by March 2004 Prime Minister Tony Blair of the UK visited Libya and publicly met Gaddafi. It had been decades since any other western leader had been there. Blair went as far as to praise Gaddafi's more recent acts and proclaimed that Libya could be a strong ally in the international war on terrorism.


Word Count: 672

POW Camps in the United States

A topic not often brought up about World War II is the POW (Prisoners of War) camps of the Allies. These camps differed from each other in their treatment of prisoners. In America POW camps also varied in their treatment of the prisoners from something approaching luxurious and comfortable to places of brutality where the Geneva Convention was ignored. While there are some examples of prisoner abuse overall my findings would argue that Axis prisoners in U.S. POW camps were for the most part treated well.

~Camp Concordia, Kansas in 1944

When one thinks about World War II and the anguish of people who did not know whether their loved ones were dead or alive, it makes sense that a hatred would develop toward the people of the enemy. When it comes to POW camps on either side, it is not surprising that the people who live near and/or worked at the camp often had feelings of anger and disgust towards the prisoners.

P.O.W.'s captured by American forces were usually sent to the United States for internment. Like the British, the Americans had no intentions of keeping the P.O.W.'s longer than necessary. In fact the Allies realized many men were "conscripted" and had not committed any war crimes, and were ultimately going to be needed to rebuild Germany. The initial approach to treating the prisoners of war was impart "a lead by example" strategy, whereby we hoped by treating the Axis'es prisoners well that our captured soldiers would in turn be treated well.

Treatment in POW camps varied significantly from one camp to the other. While some camps were known to be humane, some went as far as to ignore the Geneva Convention suggesting cruel treatment. In some camps, the POWs were put to work as a way of "restoring" the damage they caused. Typical jobs included the harvesting and processing of crops and building roads and waterways. Work programs were sometimes voluntary, sometimes required and in some cases compensated prisoners for their work. The POW camp in Iowa was an example of a camp that followed the Geneva Convention, and offered work programs. The prisoners were payed a "nominal salary" and were able to purchase items from the "post exchange." The prisoners were also able to watch or perform in plays, and create their own bands. Camps like Iowa even contained libraries, bakeries, and hospitals.

Exercise Programs were typical in POW camps, but usually restricted to non-SS P.O.W.'s. Prisoners in some cases were allowed to create bands, perform plays, and even watch movies. Sometimes to the surprise of the locals who felt the prisoners had more benefits than they did.

This generosity however did not apply to the SS captives, and by the end of the war, fueled by knowledge of the Holocaust, many were advocating much harsher treatment for all prisoners. Even senior leaders like "Eisenhower thought the Germans deserved an experience of the hunger they had imposed on everyone else. Nevertheless, the western commanders set limits to such suffering; they always pressed for enough food to 'prevent disease and unrest.'"

It has been suggested that in some camps, problems of prisoner control angered guards sufficiently to result in the death of prisoners. According to the research of Stephen Ambrose, one third of his interviews with U.S. veterans said they saw "U.S. troops kill German prisoners."

"The Most notorious American POW camps were the so-called Rheinwiesenlager." Here, the Americans allowed "anything up to 40,000 German soldiers to die from hungar and neglect in muddy flats of the Rhine."... "any attempt to feed the prisoners by the German civilian population was pushable by death." ~From the Spring 2009 issue of The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, pp. 95-110

~POW Camp in Iowa

Despite the evidence of some in humane prisoner treatment in the U.S., I believe there is more support that we treated prisoners well. In the U.S. the was an estimated 300,000 plus P.O.W.'s of which as the above suggests only 13% were treated badly enough to result in death. Of these the majority would still have been do to starvation and disease rather than brutality.

Further evidence of overall humane prisoner treatment comes from the Kansas based POW camp Concordia, reporting that: "After the war, some of the former P.O.W.'s emigrated to the United States, some quite close to the site where they had been prisoners during the war. Even today, the old P.O.W. compound and Cloud County Museum are visited by former P.O.W.'s, their children and now grandchildren."

Word Count: 745

The Nazis' Mistake

Throughout history it has been common knowledge that teens have a rebellious nature. However when it comes to the time between the world wars, there seems to be a split between the common rebellions and those taken against the Nazis. Such actions taken against the Nazis were done by the groups known as the Swing Youth (also known as the Swing Kids or Swing Hoppers.)


"From a paper of the 'Youth Guidance' office:"

"The members of the Swing Youth oppose today's Germany and its police, the Party and its policy, the Hilterjugend, work and military service, and are opposed, or at least indifferent, to the ongoing war. They see the mechanisms of National Socialism as a "mass obligation." The greatest adventure of all times leaves them indifferent; much to the contrary, they long for everything that is not German, but English."

When Germany changed their government to fascist ideals they started to ban anything to do with self expression such as jazz, swing dancing, anything that would make a person independent. The reason for this is claimed to be because such things were made by the blacks and Jews, but the truth was they wanted everyone to be just like one another, having the same music, same ideas. In any time period such restriction would most certainly stir up some rebels. The most well known rebellious group were the Swing Youth.

The Swing Youth were a group of people, mainly teenagers, who loved swing dance and jazz music and based their ideal styles off British and American styles. Their lives were for self-expression and they wouldn't allow the Nazis to stop them. One way they continued to be themselves were through secret underground swing clubs where many would come to dance and express themselves.

The Swing Youth chose nonviolent ways to rebel against the Germans. For instance they would say "Swing Heil" instead of "Sieg Heil" or they would continue to have swing dances even after being caught. They would also grow their hair out as a way of defiance.

The Nazis were trying to isolate the people from international movements, as a result, they cracked down even harder on the Swing Youth. Punishment for being caught in the underground swing clubs ranged from having their hair cut and being sent back to school, to being sent to concentration camps where they were beaten and forced to do hard labor. Having their leaders put in concentration camps only made the teens rebel more.

"My judgement is that the whole evil must be radically exterminated now. I cannot but see that we have taken only half measures. All ringleaders (...) are in a concentration camp to be re-educated (...) detention in concentration camp for these youth must be longer, 2-3 years (...) it is only through the utmost brutality that we will be able to avert the dangerous spread of tendencies, in these times where Germany fights for its survival. (Heinrich Himmler [head of Gestapo])"

Rebellion in teens is the natural need to be different and independent. The more a teen is suppressed and controlled the more the teen rebels against the system. At each transition of teenage growth, parents shake their heads at the rebellious actions of their teens. As long as the behavior is not hurtful, parents tend to allow teens to be unique and to express themselves. The Nazis had a powerful need to control people, and the more they fought to control the teens and force them into submission, the more the teens rebelled against the Nazis. It created a battle ground inside their own country. From the Nazi's wanting a tight grip on the Swing Youth, they started a new battle ground that took energy away from the movement of tight control. If the Nazis had taken the time to reason with the Swing Youth and their ideals, they could have come up with a better tactic than force. Thank goodness they failed.