eScriptor X / Fall 2012
E-Scriptor
An On-line Journal of Student Writing
Volume X – Fall 2012
1
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Editors
Joseph Zeppetello
Angela Laflen
Kristen O’Brien
Judges
Tommy Zurhellen
Lyza Zeppetello
Ginny Perrin
Mark Morreale
Cover Art
By Joe Zeppetello
E-Scriptor
Copyright ©2012 by
Marist College
3399 North Road
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
2
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
This journal of student writing is a collection of essays written for
College Writing II classes at Marist College for the 2011-2012 academic
year. Each teacher of College Writing II was asked to submit an
outstanding essay from his/her class. Two editors then reviewed the
essays, and works were chosen from each semester to be included in this
volume.
3
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Contributors
Fall 2011
Kristen Mueller won first place for her essay “Zombies in the 1930s” for
Professor Eileen Curley’s College Writing II class. The writing prompt
for the paper was to analyze an undead creature in a film or book. She is
from New Fairfield, Connecticut and is currently a sophomore pursuing
a dual-major in Psychology and Special Education with a minor in
Spanish. She aspires to be an elementary school teacher upon
graduation. She would like to thank Professor Curley for submitting her
paper to the E-Scriptor Contest and for her help and encouragement
throughout the semester.
Conor Wiggins won second place with his essay “Bats: Into the Light
Come Creatures of the Night,” written for Judith Saunders’ College
Writing II class. Conor is from Kearny, New Jersey and is currently a
freshman at Marist College in the graduating class of 2015. He is a
graduate of Saint Peter’s Preparatory in Jersey City, New Jersey, and is a
History major and an English major with a concentration in literature.
Conor is a member of the Marist Crew Team, and his hobbies include
soccer, frisbee, skiing, and playing guitar.
Dominick Corradi won third place for his essay “The Origins of
Property Rights in America” submitted to Professor Robert Tendy’s
College Writing II class. Dominick is a Business Administration major
with an emphasis in Finance and is exploring prospects for careers in
law. His long standing interest in United States history motivated the
essay topic of constitutional law. He is honored to have his paper entered
in the eScriptor writing contest, and would like to thank his Professor
Tendy for his advice and counsel throughout the semester.
4
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Michelle Crowe is thrilled to have won Fourth Place for her essay, “The
Voice of the People.” She is a sophomore majoring in Digital Media,
and comes from Huntington, New York. She would like to thank her
College Writing II professor, Anne McCabe, for submitting her essay to
the E-Scriptor Writing Contest and for helping her to become a more
sophisticated writer.
5
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Spring 2012
Taylor Grip won first place with her Essay, “Wal-Mart: The Truth
Behind The Yellow Smiley Face” written for Gregory Machacek’s
College Writing II class. Taylor Grip is a sophomore communications
major with a double concentration in public relations and advertising
and hopes to add on a minor in political science this year. On campus
she has an active role in PRSSA, Campus Ministry, The Marist Institute
for Public Opinion and intramural soccer and volleyball. In the future
she hopes to pursue a career with a public relations agency run in the
city. She would like to thank Professor Machacek for submitting her
essay to the eScriptor Writing Contest and for believing in her work’s
potential.
Christopher Ognibene won second place for his essay, “The Shocking
Power of Money,” which was written for Professor Anne McCabe’s
College Writing II class. He is presently a sophomore Applied
Mathematics major with a concentration in Chemistry. He plans on
pursuing a career in data analysis, mathematical modeling, and computer
programming to solve real-world problems. He would like to thank
Professor McCabe for submitting his paper and for giving positive,
helpful critique about his writing throughout the semester.
Lauren Zaknoun won third place for her essay “Racial Profiling at
Airports,” submitted to Professor Joseph Zeppetello’s College Writing II
class. She is currently a double major in Communications and Studio Art
with concentrations in Radio/TV/Film, Journalism, and Illustration. She
hails from West Wareham, Massachusetts, though most of her family
currently resides in Lebanon. With interests rooted in the creative arts,
Lauren aspires to one day become a music photo journalist and to write
and illustrate her own full-length fiction stories and graphic novels.
6
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Catherine Tague won Fourth Place for her essay "Nursing: The Crucial
Role of Women during the Civil War" written for Professor Mark
Morreale's College Writing II class. She would like to greatly thank
Professor Morreale for submitting her essay into this contest and her
parents for always encouraging her to read and write. From Westchester
County, New York, Catherine is currently a sophomore at Marist
majoring in Criminal Justice and minoring in both Psychology and
Spanish. She hopes to make the world a better place.
7
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Contents
FALL 2011
Kristen Mueller
Zombies in the 1930s
9
Conor Wiggins
Into the Light Come the Creatures of the Night
30
Dominick Corradi
The Origins of Property Rights in America
52
Michelle Crowe
The Voice of the People
72
SPRING 2012
Taylor Grip
Wal-Mart: The Truth behind the Yellow Smiley Face
90
Chris Ognibene
The Shocking Power of Money
120
Lauren Zaknoun
Racial Profiling at Airports
137
Catherine Vanden Heuvel Tague
Nursing: The Crucial Role of Women during the Civil War
156
8
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Kristen Mueller
Zombies in the 1930s
When women finally received the right to vote in 1920, it signaled
that positive changes would be made in the lives of women. The strides
feminism attained in the 1920s were, however, largely disregarded in the
1930s. It is widely known that movies and books tend to reflect the ideas
and trends in a specific point in history. Through the portrayal of the
zombified Madeline Parker in the 1932 film White Zombie, it is apparent
that the status and treatment of women did not improve in the 1930s,
despite the success of suffrage.
The 1920s seemed to be a turning point for the treatment of
American women. Women were finally granted the right to vote due to
the Nineteenth Amendment. With this gain came the idealism that since
women now have the same status as men in politics, this equality would
transfer to other areas in their lives. This, unfortunately, was not the
case. Estelle Freedman’s article, “The New Woman: Changing Views of
Women in the 1920s,” focuses on the central question: “What happened
9
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
to feminism the decade after the political goal of suffrage had been
achieved?” (372) When historians examined the status of women to see
their progress after suffrage, many claimed “women have been unable to
contribute fully to American society—even after suffrage—because they
have remained the oppressed victims of history” (Freedman 374). Just as
the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment did not result in AfricanAmerican males being treated equally, the Nineteenth Amendment did
not eliminate gender divisions. Unfortunately, passing a law does not
end discrimination. It takes much more time and a lot of patience for
people to finally treat minority groups equally.
During times of great hardship, people are usually brought together
and do not focus on each other’s differences. However, the Great
Depression was actually a contributing factor to the inferior treatment of
women in the 1930s. Even though the dominance of men in the family
was “undermined by hard times, their lost authority did not necessarily
accrue to women, either temporarily or on a permanent basis” (Ware
16). Instead, it seems that in “most crises and emergencies, women are
called upon to assume extra responsibilities, but rarely do these
10
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
temporary advances become permanent” (Ware 16). Once the economy
improved and men did not feel useless for being unemployed, women
were treated unequally once again. One of the main slogans in the Great
Depression was to “Get the Men Back to Work” (Rothman 221). The
slogan did not mention women because they never had a major role in
the job market and were overlooked yet again.
The position of women during the 1930s can be further uncovered
through the indirect social commentary within films and books. The
portrayal of Madeline in White Zombie has a larger message that
communicates women’s inferior treatment in the 1930s. Her
characterization reflects the idea that “films are one of the great
storehouses of society’s stereotypes about women” (Blewett 12).
Reviewer Frederick Smith from the Liberty magazine said: “[The]
sorcerer seizes upon the pretty sweetheart of an American. The frantic
attempts to save the girl are revealed before a background of ghastly
lock-stepping zombies” (Rhodes 267-268). This review outlines the plot
of the film, revealing it’s also largely sexist nature.
11
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Before discussing the inferiority of women in the 1930s as seen
through the 1932 film, it would be helpful to provide a brief summary of
White Zombie. Victor Halperin directed White Zombie by Edward and
Victor Halperin Productions companies (“White Zombie”). It was
released on August 4, 1932 in the United States (“White Zombie”).
White Zombie opens with a Haitian burial, which sets the tone of the
movie as one that will deal with death. Neil Parker, and his fiancée
Madeline Short, are invited to the home of wealthy plantation owner,
Charles Beaumont, to be married. On the way, their carriage is
momentarily stopped by voodoo master Murder Legendre and his
zombies. It soon becomes apparent that Charles is in love with
Madeline, and, since he was unable to win her affections, he decides to
solicit Murder to persuade her to marry him. Murder told Charles that
the only way to make Madeline his is by turning her into a zombie. After
initially refusing the idea, Charles gives Madeline a rose infused with
the zombie potion before her wedding. Soon after, Madeline appears to
be dead and is buried. Then, Charles and Murder go to the tomb to
12
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
complete the zombification process, and Madeline is taken to Murder’s
castle.
Meanwhile, a depressed Neil notices Madeline’s empty tomb and
goes to missionary Dr. Bruner for help. Neil then takes the dangerous
journey to the castle to rescue Madeline. Charles quickly realizes that it
was a terrible idea to change Madeline into a zombie, and begs Murder
to turn her back. Murder reveals his evil intention to keep Madeline as a
zombie despite Charles’ plea, and then poisons Charles to become a
zombie as well. Once Neil gets to the castle, Murder orders Madeline to
kill Neil, but Charles stops her. In the skirmish that follows, Murder is
knocked out, thus breaking his mind-control over the zombies, and
Charles and Murder topple off the cliff. The movie ends with the happy
couple embracing, as Madeline is no longer a zombie.
In the 1920s and 1930s, if women did not work in offices or
factories, they worked in the “professional job of homemaking”
(Freedman 379). The great differences between men and women in the
1930s are revealed by their attitudes toward homemaking. In this time
period, a male professional homemaker would be ludicrous, but for
13
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
women, it was not only a job, but was the acceptable choice of work,
especially for married women.
The “professional job of homemaking” is especially relevant in
Madeline’s employment, or lack of, in White Zombie. While the movie
does not specifically mention the job Madeline has, it is possible to
deduce what it is, based on the socio-economic level of her situation.
Neil and Madeline are very well off economically, since they are able to
travel to Haiti to get married in the midst of the Great Depression. Their
fine clothes also suggest their wealth. Therefore, Madeline almost
certainly does not have a job and will not likely obtain one in the future.
Because Neil is from a wealthy family and is capable of supporting them
by working, she will not be expected, and especially not encouraged, to
get a job. The movie’s silence on Madeline’s employment reveals more
about women’s status than if it had briefly mentioned that she works in a
business office. Her lack of employment is a characteristic that many
other women in the 1930s would have identified with, and the men
would have approved of it as well.
14
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
In 1932, there were many ideological differences between the two
genders. Women were considered to be the “more civilized, the more
moral, and the more virtuous of the two sexes and at the same time the
victims of precarious health [which] made for an odd duality of traits…”
(Rothman 26). Clearly, “women had better stay very much in their own
sphere… [And] did not belong in the world of men” (Rothman 26). The
general belief held by men of women’s inferior intelligence is seen
throughout Madeline’s interactions.
Not even two minutes into the movie, the men treat Madeline as a
simple-minded and ignorant creature. Their carriage is momentarily
stopped by a group of people burying a body in the middle of the road.
Neil immediately says, “It looks like a burial.” To which Madeline
replies, “In the road?” and proceeds to ask the driver what is going on.
The driver replies, “It’s a funeral mademoiselle” (White Zombie). This
repetition of a fact that Madeline already realized shows how women
were expected not to know much about what was happening around
them, especially when the event involved a gruesome funeral. The script
writers may have been suggesting through the use of repetition that
15
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Madeline, and essentially all women, are simple, and need information
to be repeated to them at least twice for them to comprehend something.
Or even more likely, the script writers may be implying that women do
not have the emotional disposition to handle the burial.
Some sources claim that women’s newfound control over their
sexuality was one of the greatest advancements from the 1920s: “Sexual
independence was merely the most sensational aspect of the generally
altered status of women” (Freedman 373). While some women may have
enjoyed power over their own bodies, this was not the case with
Madeline in White Zombie. If Madeline felt empowered by her control
over her sexuality, she would not have felt “sexually threatened by
Legendre” (Williams 3) when he takes her scarf. When Murder takes her
scarf, Madeline gasps and clasps her hand to her exposed throat,
showing her lack of comfort in the situation. Her reaction is almost
comical to someone watching in the twenty-first century, especially
when examining the film through a feminist perspective. She reacts very
strongly to simply having her scarf stolen, and manifests what her
reaction would be if her virginity was taken away by the evil voodoo
16
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
master. In fact, in the 1920s and 1930s, the “evil woman is marked by
overt and aggressive sexuality” in Hollywood films (Blewett 14). Since
Madeline is certainly not the antagonist in the film, she does not display
sexual freedom.
Madeline did not fit the prototype of the “New Woman,” a term
that originated at the end of the nineteenth century to “describe women
who were pushing against the limits which society imposed on women”
(Melani). Madeline’s role in the film did not portray her as “pushing
against the limits of society” whatsoever. In fact, she was literally
captive to society and the outside forces, namely men, because she was
trapped in an unchanging zombie state for most of the film. Florence
Vidor adds in the story “Old Lives for New” that the New Woman “may
do justice to both a home and a career” (Hallett 191). As established
earlier, Madeline did not have a job, and is not expected to have one;
thus, she does not fit the prototype of the New Woman in this aspect as
well. The New Woman did not follow the Victorian norms and
domesticity of the previous generations and had “greater freedom to
pursue public roles and even flaunt her ‘sex appeal,’ a term coined in the
17
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
1920s and linked with the emergence of the new woman” (“The New
Woman”). Furthermore, Madeline is a flat character because she does
not transform through major character development in the movie. Since
Madeline is such a flat character, she is representative of the entire
female population.
In addition to Madeline’s lack of sexual control, the film places a
large emphasis on beauty. Charles gives a toast to the bride, saying,
“Your beauty is queen.” This is a strange toast to give to a bride at her
wedding; as most toasts share a memorable experience or an admirable
characteristic of the bride, and not simply an appraisal of her
appearance. Since the zombies portrayed in this movie do not have the
ability to think, speak, or perform actions of their own accord, it is a bit
startling that Charles decided to change Madeline into a zombie.
Charles, however, is so enamored by Madeline’s beauty that he thinks
that it would not be a huge problem if she were turned into a zombie,
because then at least he could stare at her beauty all day and not have to
share her with Neil. After only a few minutes of trying to talk to her and
receiving no response, Charles realizes that he is “mad to do this,” and
18
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
says that he cannot bare those “empty, staring eyes” (White Zombie). He
confesses that he thought that “beauty alone would do it” and be able to
satisfy his longing to be with her. The fact that Charles thinks that he
would be unaffected by Madeline’s zombie state shows the pedestal that
he puts her on, and shows that he does not see her as an equal. She is so
beautiful and so pure that she is on a completely different level from the
rest of humankind. Charles thinks that he would be content to simply
stare at her beauty all day, which shows that he is in love with Madeline
purely because of her looks, and not for any intellectual aspect or respect
he has for her values.
It is also interesting to note that zombies do not age in the same
way that humans do, as they are already dead. They are theoretically unaging, and will remain so as long as they stay under the voodoo magic.
The fact that as a zombie Madeline will never age suggests that her
beauty will never fade either. This is yet another reason why her
becoming a zombie appears so attractive to Charles. Madeline is
repeatedly referred to as a “flower” throughout the film (Rhodes 40).
The men in the film fondly refer to Madeline as a flower, while in reality
19
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
it is condescending. Madeline is a flower because she is beautiful, like a
flower, and cannot think—at least as a zombie. Like a flower,
Madeline’s beauty will also eventually fade with time. Now that
Madeline is a zombie, she will theoretically never get older, making her
beauty eternal, similar to when one presses a flower petal.
Madeline’s appearance is opposite of the fashion of the New
Woman. Madeline wore mostly long, flowing white dresses as opposed
to the Gibson girl, who wore blouses and long skirts to allow her to play
tennis or ride a bicycle, and even more different than the “flapper” who
revealed much skin and appeared boyish looking (“The New Woman”).
Madeline’s appearance reflects how she is not part of the New Woman’s
movement, and instead reflects traditional views.
Charles believes Madeline to be of utmost beauty and to have
enchanting eyes. Before Madeline is turned into a zombie, she showed
very little emotion. Her face was very pale, and was accentuated even
more so because it is a black and white film. It looked even more
expressionless with that effect. She wore a confused and almost vacant
expression most of the time, as seen in the picture below. Madeline
20
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
appeared zombie-like even before she was turned into a zombie. This
suggests that women in the 1930s were similar to zombies, blindly
obeying the whims of their husband masters. In Julia Kristeva’s writing
about horror, she points out that “corpses suffer the utmost
abjection…are without a soul, and therefore strange” (Jakobsson 294).
She further points out that “the body becomes the border of order and
disorder” (Jakobsson 294). Because Madeline has no soul, she has no
influence over her own actions. Instead, the men in the film govern her
every move.
(White Zombie)
Madeline had little control over her own life, as seen by Charles’
competition for her affection. Madeline’s dilemma personifies the
powerlessness many women felt in the 1930s, even though they received
21
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
the right to vote a decade earlier. It appears that Madeline had a voice in
selecting her husband; however, Charles does not believe that she has
made the right choice. He believes that he is the best prospect for her,
and so he tries to persuade her to marry him right before she is about to
walk down the aisle with Neil! Clearly, Charles has little faith in
Madeline’s mental abilities since he thought that a quick plea would
cause Madeline to swoon into his arms. On the contrary, Madeline has
thought about the difficult decision of whom she is going to marry.
Since Charles could not persuade her, he decides that he does not need
to take her thoughts into account and would make her his nonetheless.
This reflects the dilemma women in the 1930s were facing as well
because even when women enjoyed a feeling of “comparative economic
independence” when they got a job, this “threatened husbandly and
parental authority” (Freedman 379). Just like Madeline’s ability to
choose her own husband was tested, the ability of women to have
economic independence was also opposed. Women in the 1930s have
similarities to zombies in that they had largely no control over their
22
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
lives. The zombie “is an empty corpse, with no will of its own” and is
used to obey the will of the individual who controls it (Prahlad).
In addition to women’s helplessness in the 1930s, there was a clear
distinction between the realm of the man and that of the female. In
Middletown in Transition, Robert & Helen Lynd observed how:
The worlds of the two sexes constitute something akin to
separate subcultures. Each involves an elaborate assignment
of roles to its members and the development of preferred
personality types emphasizing various ones of the more
significant role attributes. (Ware 14)
A woman’s place was in the home, and as a result, she needed to be able
to perform domestic duties, such as cooking and cleaning, and even
entertaining the family by playing the piano. Accordingly, the first time
the audience sees Madeline as a zombie she is playing the piano in
Murder’s castle. This activity was admired as a proper past time for
women to engage in during the 1930s, so Madeline fits the stereotype of
a woman. Madeline fits this stereotype, and ironically, she is a zombie.
23
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
The link between Madeline and her zombified state further supports the
restrictive position of women in the 1930s.
Women during this time period were heavily reliant on their
husbands. There is large evidence for women’s dependence in Neil and
Charles’ opinions toward Madeline. Charles “wants Madeline, even as a
mindless zombie” (Williams). Not only is this statement sexual, but it
also puts Madeline in the position of being owned. It would be more
understandable for Charles to want to marry Madeline, but the simple
phrase that he “wants” her makes her sound like an object that can be
easily bought. Furthermore, both Neil and Charles “possess Madeline as
living marriage partner and living dead zombie” (Williams). They both
regard her in similar ways as well. When Madeline suddenly dies, Neil
“speaks her name once and articulates her property status twice:
‘Madeline..my wife, my wife’” (Williams). Charles shows his
dominance over Madeline by not caring about her thoughts by turning
her into a zombie so he could be with her. Zombies certainly are the
property of their masters as well. The objectification of zombies is very
similar to the treatment of women in this time period.
24
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
The character of Madeline is also very naïve, similar to how other
middle to upper class white women were in the 1930s. After Charles
confesses his love and entreats her not to marry Neil, Madeline reacts in
a very innocent and inexperienced way. She simply tells Charles not to
“spoil everything” (White Zombie). This would be an appropriate
response if Charles had just told her that he could not resist dipping his
finger in the icing on her wedding cake. Madeline’s mellow response
shows how she is living in a protected dream world, where everything is
supposed to go right. Since the idea of Charles’ loving her did not fit in
with her ideal plan, she believes that she could make his feelings
disappear by telling him not to spoil her wedding. She is too naïve to
realize that his confession, that she took light-heartedly, would have a
drastic effect on her as we see later in the movie. Madeline’s naïveté
does not present her as a well-informed, rational human being who can
make her own decisions. While it may be expected that because she
could vote, her characteristics would change, this is not the case.
Unfortunately, the general population’s attitudes toward women
were not changed instantly by the passage of the Nineteenth
25
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Amendment. Historical accounts tell us about the age-old oppression of
women, and films provide us with a way to see these differences played
out. White Zombie accurately reflects the inferior treatment of women in
the 1930s. It provides us an intimate perspective into Madeline, a flat
character, who does not think for herself. Her male counterparts
dominate her and represent the objectification of women. Just as women
in the 1930s were trapped in a society with specific gender roles,
Madeline too was unable to control her own life. There were not many
noticeable differences between Madeline as a zombie and as a human
capable of thought, a portrait that illustrates how women were expected
to act in the 1930s. This message may have been what the film was
communicating all along.
Works Cited
Blewett, Mary. “Women in American History: A History Through Film
Approach.” Film & History 4.4 (1974): 12-20. EBSCOhost. Web.
12 Nov. 2011.
26
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Freedman, Estelle B. “The New Woman: Changing Views of Women in
the 1920s.” The Journal of American History 61.2 (1974): 372393. JStor. Web. 24 Oct. 2011.
Hallett, Hilary A. “Based on a True Story: New Western Women and the
Birth of Hollywood.” Pacific Historical Review 80.2 (2011): 177210. Academic Search Elite. Web. 12 Nov. 2011.
Jakobsson, Ármann. “Vampires and Watchmen: Categorizing the
Mediaeval Icelandic Undead.” JEGP, Journal of English and
Germanic Philology 110.3 (2011): 281-300. Project MUSE. Web.
28 Sept. 2011.
Melani, Lilia. “The New Woman.” Department of English. 22 Apr.
2009. Web. 08 Dec. 2011.
<http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/cs6/newwoma
n.html>.
Prahlad, Anand. “Zombies.” The Greenwood Encyclopedia of African
American Folklore 3 (2005): 1-2. World Folklore and Folklife.
Web. 29 Sept. 2011.
27
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Rhodes, Gary D. White Zombie: Anatomy of a Horror Film. Jefferson:
McFarland & Company, Inc., 2001. Print.
Rothman, Sheila M. Woman’s Proper Place: a history of changing
ideals and practices, 1870 to the present. New York: Basic Books,
1978. Print.
“The New Woman.” Clash of Cultures in the 1910s and 1920s.
EHistory. Web. 08 Dec. 2011.
<http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/mmh/clash/NewWoman/newwomenpage1.htm>.
Ware, Susan. Holding Their Own: American Women in the 1930s.
Boston: Twayne, 1982. Print.
White Zombie. Dir. Victor Halperin. Perf. Bela Lugosi, Madge Bellamy,
and Joseph Cawthorn. Edward & Victor Halperin Productions,
1932. Hulu.
“White Zombie.” IMDb, INDb.com, Inc., 2011. Web. 28 November
2011.
28
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Williams, Tony. “White Zombie Haitian Horror.” Jump Cut: A Review
of Contemporary Media 28 (1983): 18-20. Google Scholar. Web.
12 Nov. 2011.
29
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Conor Wiggins
Into the Light Come the Creatures of the Night
Since the earliest beings roamed the Earth, night, for mankind, has
been coupled with mystique and the fear of the unknown. Because of
this, bats, who nimbly navigate the night air, have been portrayed as
supernatural, demonic, and disease-riddled. Through word-of-mouth,
novels, poems, plays, and even today’s modern film industry has
supported the world’s belief of the nefariousness of the bat. These
beliefs have only been exacerbated by their coupling with evil and
Satanism. This shroud of misconception has concealed the true nature of
these winged mammals for thousands of years. It is not until the 20th
century that science is uncovering how misunderstood these creatures
are. Scientists are not only discovering that bats and humans can lead a
symbiotic relationship, but in fact, the existence of the bat is essential to
maintaining a properly balanced ecosystem and is quintessential to the
preservation of the human race.
Before the “big picture” of the bat can be understood, one must
first comprehend the genealogy of this species, their diversity, and
30
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
global spread. When thinking of fossils and paleontology, most people
will instantly think of dinosaurs. The discovery of these ancient beasts is
by far the most socially popular form of archeology due to its publicity
in pop culture movies, such as Jurassic Park. Archaeologists, however,
specialize in the discovery of many other creatures other than dinosaurs.
One such creature is the bat. Despite their small and fragile skeletons,
fossil records of bats suggest that the species dates back to the
Cretaceous period. Fossils have been found all over the world from the
United States, Germany, Australia, and even Pakistan (“Chiroptera”
308-309). Through numerous digs and careful carbon dating, scientists
are able to track when and where certain species of bats existed before
documented history. It is believed that by the Eocene epoch, there were
at least ten species of bats, four of which are now extinct. Today, bats
are split into two suborders: the Megachiroptera and the
Microchiroptera. The Megachiroptera have normal ears, claws on their
second finger, and dog-like faces. The Microchiroptera, which are
further divided into eighteen subunits, or “families,” lack claws, do not
have dog-like faces, and have a more complex and detailed ear structure
31
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
(Grizmek 308-309). Within the scientific community, there are two
theories, the monophytetic theory and dipletic theory, which presents
ideas as to how and why the bat genus was split into these two
suborders. These two opposing theories remain a hotly debated topic
within the scientific community to this day (“Chiroptera” 309).
The number of species of bats has grown far beyond the ten of the
Eocene epoch. Today, there are roughly 1,116 different species of bats
worldwide, representing approximately twenty percent of the world’s
entire mammal population (Kunz). Bats inhabit every continent other
than Antarctica. They have been discovered on many oceanic islands
throughout the world, and there are forty-four species of bats on the
North American continent alone (Kunz). “Bats can be found in virtually
every habitat available from rainforests to deserts, mountain forests to
seasides. Bats have two basin habitat requirements: roosts…and places
to feed” (“Chiroptera” 310). Because of their ability to adapt to nearly
every climate in the world, the diversity among the bat species may be
greater than any other known species on Earth. Due to this, very few
generalizations can be made about the bat population as a whole. There
32
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
are, however, a limited number of similarities shared between the
different species of bat.
Two commonalities found amongst all bat species are that they
belong to the mammalian kingdom, and possess the ability to fly. Bats
are mammals, and therefore, warm-blooded creatures. Because it is
unusual for mammals to possess the ability of flight, bats must take extra
care to preserve the energy their abnormally large hearts will require
during the contraction of the nine muscles used to power their flight
(“Chiroptera” 308-310). They perform this task through a process
called thermoregulation, where they roost in the warmest areas they can
find in order to conserve body heat (“Chiroptera” 310). The three major
categories of roosting areas for bats are hollows, crevices, and foliage. In
addition to these common nesting areas, certain species of bats have
been known to create tent-like structures; the means by which these are
created still baffles scientists to this day (“Chiroptera” 310-311).
Beyond these two basic similarities, the different species of bats
and their unique advantages and disadvantages begin to emerge. For
example, the flying style of bats is very similar to birds. Yet unlike
33
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
birds, bat wings are made up of a thick layer of skin containing
connective tissue, nerves, and blood vessels. Some bats are very tiny,
like the Hog-Nosed Bat, which weighs only 1.7 ounces (“Chiroptera”
307-308). The small wingspan of this tiny bat gives it unmatched
maneuverability and the unique ability to hover. The largest species of
bat is the Indian Flying Bat which weighs 52.9 ounces. This bat has a far
greater wingspan, giving it the ability to glide and maintain flight longer
than a smaller bat. However, its large wingspan prevents it from taking
off from the ground, and it must climb a cave wall or tree and then drop
into the air (“Chiroptera” 307).
Another major difference in the many species of bats is hibernation
versus migration. There are many species of bat that adapt to winter
conditions by going into a state of hibernation. The bats will descend
into the deepest and warmest cave they can find, and then bring their
body temperature to levels below fifty degrees Fahrenheit. This allows
them to save enough energy to wait out inclement weather
(“Chiroptera” 310-311). Other species of bats find it preferable to
migrate to more tolerable climates, rather than waiting out unfavorable
34
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
conditions. Two such species are the Indian bat and Daubenton’s bat.
These two determined species will migrate hundreds of miles to warmer
climates each season (“Chiroptera” 310-11).
The global habitation of the bat, and the variety between the many
species within the genus, makes it very difficult to summarize the
creature as a whole. The bat is full of contradictions, oddities, and
special abilities that no other animal possesses. Because of their
peculiarity, diversity, and abundance many myths, legends, and
superstitions have developed regarding these creatures over thousands of
years. The diversity of the species itself corresponds with the many
different views people have of the bat from all over the world. In
Europe, there is an ancient myth that the bat originated from a war that
broke out between birds and beasts. The bat joined the war and worked
as a double agent, fighting on both sides. At the end of the war, the bat
was stripped of its feathers, which would make it a beast; yet, it could
still fly, which would also classify it as a bird. According to this story,
the bat’s mixed attributes resulted from its mixed allegiances to the
35
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
realms of bird and beast (“Bat” 240). From this “creation story” of the
bat stems the many different beliefs about the creature.
The overriding belief amongst the world populace is that bats are
demonic. For example, in the Ivory Coast, bats are believed to be the
risen souls of ancestors, good and bad alike (“Bat” 238). Throughout the
history of Western Europe, bats have been seen as evil and are a form
that witches could take. People were so enthralled in this belief that in
France in 1332, Lady Jacume of Bayonne was burned at the stake
because bats were found in her garden. To the people of France at that
time, this could only mean that their Lady was a witch (McCraken). In
Ireland, the bat is a bad omen, and is seen as a symbol of death
(Cavendish 238). During Medieval European times, it was believed that
Satan could assume the shape of a bat, and use that form to enter and
possess the body of a human. Because of that ancient belief, Sicilians to
this day still burn bats and nail them to their front doors, purging their
lands of these “satanic” creatures (“Bat” 238).
Many works of literature and art have been inspired by the
negative connotations surrounding bats. In William Shakespeare’s
36
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Macbeth, the three witches brew an evil potion and list their ingredients
saying, “Double, double, toil and trouble, Fire burn and cauldron
bubble…In the cauldron boil and bake; Eye of a newt, and toe of a frog,
Wool of a bat, and tongue of a dog…Here’s the blood of a bat” (4.1, 1011, 12-15, 51). The witches in Macbeth are some of the most insidious
characters in the entire play. The main ingredient to their evil potion is
the fur and blood of a bat; clearly Shakespeare was using the evil
mystique surrounding the bat as a way of alerting his audience that the
witches’ brew is a sinister one. Another work of art involving the bat is
the German play Die Fledermaus. Composed by Johann Strauss II, this
musical tells the woeful tale of a man named Einstein, who is deceived
at the Palace of Prince Orlofsky and sent to prison (“Synopsis of Die
Fledermaus”). The play is riddled with disguises, trickery, and
deception. All three of these characteristics are associated with the bat
due to the belief of its demonic shape-shifting abilities. Clearly, the idea
of the bat’s transformative and insidious ways has dominated European
minds, from the lowest peasant to the most brilliant writers and
composers.
37
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Despite the widespread fear of the bat throughout most of Europe,
the entire world hasn’t been infected with this idea of terror and death
surrounding the bat. Mark Twain, one of the United States’ most
beloved writers, wrote a book entitled Mark Twain's Book of Animals.
This book contains many short stories about different animals that
Twain himself had encountered throughout his life and learned to love.
One such creature was the bat. Twain says, “A bat is beautiful soft and
silly; I do not know any creature that is pleasanter to touch, or is more
grateful for caressings, if offered in the right spirit” (135). Twain
continues on in his story, telling how as a boy, he would often pick up a
bat, put it in his pocket, and sneak it into the house looking for some
dinner scraps for his new beloved pet (135). He tells how, “[my mother]
was always cold toward bats, too, and could not bear them; and yet I
think a bat is as friendly a bird as there is” (135). While his mother
shares the opinion of the majority of Western Europe, Twain did not;
and he is not alone in his belief that a bat is a pleasant and
misunderstood creature. For example, in China, a bat is said to fly with
its head down because it has such a large brain. In addition, there can be
38
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
no greater honor than a bat entering a household, because that is a
symbol of good luck (“Bat” 238-239).
Bats are also, in many cultures, associated with the bestowment of
special powers and abilities. In ancient Greece and Rome, citizens
believed that one could prevent sleep by cutting off the head of a bat,
putting it in a black bag, and tying it to one’s left arm (McCracken). The
Roman philosopher, Pliny, believed that a man could arouse a women's
lust for him by secretly slipping a clot of bat blood under her pillow
(McCracken). In the Austrian Tyrol, it was believed that if in possession
of a bat's left eye, one could become invisible at will (“Bat” 239).
Germany produced two very interesting myths surrounding bats. First,
Germans believed that swabbing their ammunition with a bat’s heart
would provide them with perfect aim (McCraken). Second, “among the
Hessians in Germany it was an accepted belief that the heart of a bat
attached to a gambler's arm by a red thread guaranteed him success at
cards” (“Bat” 239). In North American culture, the bat is seen as a
chivalrous savior of mankind in the form of Batman (“Bat” 240).
39
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
It is simply amazing that such a small creature could produce so
many odd myths, legends, and fears. The reason for this, and the core of
the problem, comes from the bat's nocturnal habits. Humanity, as a
whole, fears the unknown. Novels like Twenty-Thousand Leagues Under
the Sea indulge our fear of the deepest depths of the ocean; films like
Close Encounters of the Third Kind play into our fear of the mysteries of
deep space. A recurring theme within the countless number of novels,
plays, and films dealing with the unknown is darkness. The night is
when humans are at their weakest. Due to the lack of refractory light and
the human eye’s inability to adapt to the darkness like an owl, humans
are left blind at night. Bats, by contrast, are masters of the darkness.
They sleep all day in the deepest and darkest caves they can find, and
then emerge in the darkness, hunting, with the speed and agility of a
fighter pilot. It is this unique visual ability of the bat that humans lack,
and it has been the focal point of all the fear and mystique surrounding
them. It wasn’t until the end of the eighteenth-century that the
“enlightenment” of the bat began.
40
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
In 1793, an Italian scientist by the name of Lazzaro Spalanzani
became curious as to how bats could function so well in the dark.
Through experimentation, he knew that even owls, with their large eyes,
could not see in total darkness; they required at least a small amount of
light in order to see. Bats, however, even after Spalanzani physically
blinded them, could still navigate and hunt in the night skies as if it were
bright as day (Griffin 27-28). Still curious as to the cause of this,
Spalanzani experimented with bats several years later and discovered
that if a bat's ears were plugged, its flight pattern became completely
disoriented (Griffin 28). Spalanzani was ridiculed by his fellow
scientists. His results were called “Spalanzani's bat problem” and his
unappreciated scientific breakthrough went unnoticed. However, with
the invention of the electronic apparatus, a highly sensitive auditory
detection device, many years later, the importance of Spalanzani’s
results was finally recognized. This device detected that bats emit a
high-frequency screech while flying. They then use the reverberations
from this noise to detect where obstacles and targets are in their
surroundings, by means of a process known as echolocation (Griffin 29).
41
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Combining Spalanzani's eighteenth-century discoveries with the modern
day electronic apparatus, the veil of mystique had finally been lifted
from the bat. The great fear of the unknown had finally been explained
and proven to have no demonic or satanic affiliation. As Griffin states:
It is the startling strangeness of bats, plus the folklore that
couples them with demons...which makes it so hard to think
of them with anything other than repugnance. But they are
experts in the use of echoes, and if we wish to find out what
can be learned about objects from echoes, we must be
prepared to accept important evidence regardless of our
feeling about its source. (27)
For the general populace, however, this discovery had not cleared the
bat's name. While the great mystery of the bat's ability to navigate the
night skies had finally been resolved, the species of bat, feared more
than any other, still haunted the minds of children and adults alike.
While there are a plethora of myths surrounding the thousands of
species of bats all over the world, no specific species is more infamous
than the Vampire bat. The Vampire bat or Desmodus rotundus, is by far
42
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
the most feared of all bat species, and for good reason. The Vampire bat
is the only species of mammal that feeds solely off of blood (“Common
Vampire Bat”). It is no surprise that ancient peoples were terrified of
these creatures. In addition, the fear of these night stalkers has been
exacerbated by literary works such as Dracula and the countless number
of Hollywood blockbusters involving demonic blood-sucking creatures
of the night. Today, science is discovering more and more about the bat,
mostly how misunderstood these creatures are. The Vampire bat is no
exception. The Desmodus rotundus is native to Peru. They gather in
densely populated colonies and suspend themselves upside down in the
absolute darkness of caves. At night, these nocturnal cave dwellers
emerge from their slumber and begin to feed. A Vampire bat must feed
two to three times daily, and therefore their search for food is constant.
Humans have greatly assisted in the population growth of Vampire bats
because of the introduction of large livestock populations to Peru
(“Common Vampire Bat”). Using heat sensors built into their noses, the
bats detect the flowing blood underneath their victim's skin. The bat will
latch onto its host, bite, and create a flow of blood that is then lapped up
43
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
and prevented from clotting via special saliva (“Common Vampire
Bat”). This quick and nearly painless bite upon the hindquarters of a
sleeping cow should cause no fear to the human population. However, as
deforestation in Peru increases at an alarming rate, the local wildlife and
livestock are diminished, leaving Vampire bats with no other option than
to look to humans as their next potential host (“Common Vampire Bat”).
From this stems all of the horrors that have managed to perpetuate
stories of blood-sucking creatures of the night for hundreds of years. The
tiny incision made by these bats, however, is not what should be feared,
it is the after effects. Vampire bats are effective and deadly transmitters
of the rabies virus. While the strain of the virus is not the same as the
aggressive version a dog might carry, it is just as deadly. Rabies from a
bat first causes aches, followed by stiffness, loss of motor control, and
then rigamortis quickly followed by death (“Common Vampire Bat”).
While the Vampire bat can be potentially dangerous to humans, it
is by no means a shape-shifting demon that preys upon innocent damsels
for their blood. Science has revealed, along with the discovery of
echolocation, that all of the myths surrounding bats are false. For
44
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
millions of years mankind feared the unknown, and much was unknown
about the bat. Yet now is the age of discovery, the age of enlightenment
of the bat, and the common man, not just the scientific community, must
embrace it. The Hollywood fueled misconceptions of the bat must be left
behind if this misunderstood creature is to be further studied,
appreciated, and protected. Just as a child will outgrow the idea that
there are monsters under the bed, so must humanity outgrow the idea
that bats are anything more than a small mammal with sharp teeth. Once
that is done, mankind must realize that its relationship to the bat is not
just a symbiotic one, it is a necessary one for the survival of both
species.
As Robert Corrigan states, “Bats are biologically useful
mammals…People should protect and even encourage bat populations
outside and away from buildings. I would even promote pest control
associations nationwide to join and support bat conservation groups such
as Bat Conservation International (BCI)” (Corrigan). Why, one may ask,
would Corrigan be promoting the conservation and purposeful habitation
of bats in urban areas? Because bats are Mother Nature's pesticide. For
45
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
example, during the spring and summer in the Texas Winter Garden
area, millions of Brazilian Free-Tailed Bats migrate through the region.
The majority of these bats are lactating females that need to eat an
enormous amount of insects in order to consume enough nutrients for
themselves and their offspring (Federico 828). As Kunz states:
[Bats] may eat up to one-half of their own body weight on a
given night. If this level of consumption is extrapolated to a
population of 50,000 bats...this would amount to over 13 tons
of insects eaten in one summer...Thus, in reality bats are
invaluable controllers of insects. (Kunz)
The migration of moths coincides with the migration of the Brazilian
Free-Tailed Bat. Left to their own devices, the moths would lay their
larva in the Texas cotton crop, effectively destroying the year”s harvest.
Counteract the migration of the moths with the migration of thousands
of hungry, lactating bats, however, and the moths’ destructive numbers
are significantly reduced by tens of millions (Frederico 828).
Researching this natural phenomenon, farmers found that planting
“cotton in the presence of a large population of insectivorous bats can
46
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
have a dramatic direct impact on the population dynamics of pest insects
over a single growing season at least on a regional and perhaps even a
transcontinental scale” (Frederico 833). From an economic standpoint,
Texas farmers found that the Brazilian Free-Tailed Bats actually
“enhance the economic value of agricultural systems by reducing the
frequency of required spraying and delaying the ultimate need for new
pesticides” (Frederico 826).
Not only do bats act as a natural and economically inexpensive
pesticide, they are also responsible for the spreading of seeds and
pollination of flowers. Just as bees spread pollen and seeds that becomes
stuck to their fur, bats too perform this necessary task. Kunz is correct in
stating, “Because of their importance in controlling insects, dispersing
seeds, and pollinating flowers, bats should be protected as important
members of natural communities.” Bats are invaluable members of the
circle of life. They are not only financially beneficial to Texas farmers,
they are a necessity. They promote a system of checks and balances
without which, the unregulated population of insects would be harmful,
and possibly fatal, to plant, animal, and human life.
47
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Humanity has always feared the unknown. Since the very first
humans inhabited the earth, the homosapien species has built weapons,
walls, castles, and armies to protect themselves from “what is out there.”
It is only natural that bats, who navigate the night, a time when man is
most vulnerable, to have been treated with distrust and suspicion. Their
grotesque and alien appearance, coupled with their strange nocturnal
habits, has created a fear of the entire genus. Bats are associated with
Satanism, death, and evil. Yet just as the species is physically highly
diverse, so are the myths surrounding the creatures. In other cultures bats
are seen as wise, a sign of good fortune, and responsible for bestowing
supernatural powers. It was not until the discoveries made by modem
science, that the bat’s name has been cleared in the scientific
community. It is now known that the bat to human relationship is not
only a symbiotic one, it is a necessary one. Without the bat, insect
control, pollination, and seed distribution necessary to the perpetuation
of the world’s natural cycle would be compromised. It is exigent that
humanity leaves their ancient myths behind, and works for the
conservation of these mammals that are paramount for the preservation
48
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
of the Earth. Until the day comes when the world no longer looks upon
the bat with fear, scientists will work to bring one of nature’s most
quintessential natural regulators, the creatures of the night, into the light.
Works Cited
“Bat.” Cavendish, Richard, C. A. Burland, and Yvonne Deutch. Man,
Myth & Magic: the Illustrated Encyclopedia of Mythology,
Religion, and the Unknown. Vol. 1. New York: Marshall
Cavendish, 1983. Print.
“Chiroptera.” Grizmek, Bernhard. Grizmek's Animal Life
Encyclopedia. 2nd ed. Vol. 13.
Farmington Hills: Gale Group, 2004. Print.
“Common Vampire Bat.” Animals Nat Geo Wild. National Geographic
Society. Web. 20 Oct. 2011.
Corrigan, Dr. Robert. “Do Bats Control Mosquitoes.” Texas Mosquito
Control Association. Web. 25 May 2010. 25 Oct. 2011.
49
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Federico, Paula, and Thomas G. Hallam, et at. "Brazilian Free-Tailed
Bats As Insect Pest Regulators In Transgenic And Conventional
Cotton Crops." Ecological Applications 18.4 (2008): 826-37. Print.
Griffin, Donald R. Echoes of Bats and Men. Garden City, NY: Anchor,
1959. Print.
Kunz, Dr. Thomas H. “Bat Facts and Folklore.” BU Center for Ecology
& Conservation Biology. Boston University. Web. 14 Nov. 2011.
McCracken, Gary F. "Bats in Magic, Potions, and Medicinal
Preparations." Bat Conservation International, Inc. “Bats
Magazine.” 25 Oct. 2011. Web.
Shakespeare, William. Macbeth. New York: Oxford UP, 1990. Print.
“Synopsis of Die Fledermaus.” Opera News. The Metropolitan Opera.
Web. 15 Nov. 2011.
Twain, Mark, and Shelley Fisher. Fis kin. "A Pocketful of Bat." Mark
Twain's Book of Animals.
Berkeley: University of California, 2010. 135-136. Print.
Vampire Bats Biting People. Video -- Animals, Travel, Kids - National
Geographic. National Geographic Society. Web. 23 Oct. 2011.
50
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
51
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Dominick Corradi
The Origins of Property Rights in America
Until the American Revolution, the isles of Great Britain hosted
the freest society on earth. Imprinted into the very fabric of every
Englishman’s life was a notable history of declarations of rights and
freedoms, contrary to the domination of the King. These documents,
such as the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights, reflect the long
history of bloody conflict and civil strife in the British Isles that
occurred during the search for liberties, such as free speech, property
rights, and religious freedom. Principle among these declarations, were
clauses protecting the private property of individuals in a free society.
Sir William Blackstone, a legal scholar who served as a member of
Parliament and as the Solicitor General of England, was a major
promoter of the rights of Englishmen and common law (Ehrlich ix).
Blackstone’s treatise on English common law, Commentaries on The
Laws of England, denotes the origins of property rights in America. His
ideas represent the summation of the American desire for property
rights, as both he and the Englishmen that settled America were
52
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
influenced by the English system of law. In fact, the American system of
property rights is a modified form of English governing statues and
institutions dating back to the thirteenth century.
In discussing the English power structures that influenced property
rights in America, the roles of the King, the population, and Parliament
are critical aspects to consider. In Medieval England, both the King and
the affected people had rights. In general terms, Gordon S. Wood, a
Professor of History at Brown University, defined two of the most
highly valued rights of Englishmen as “personal liberty and property”
(Wood 2). Even Sir William Blackstone remarked, “This spirit of liberty
is so deeply implanted in our constitution, and rooted even in our very
soil, that a slave…the moment he lands in England, falls under the
protection of laws… [and] becomes a free man” (Ehrlich 44-45).
Blackstone’s statement is strong considering trends regarding slavery
during the 1700s, but this extreme example reveals the extent to which
Englishmen valued their civil liberties.
The “law” (Ehrlich 45) that Blackstone mentions is called
“common law,” and it refers to “[Any] deeply held principle,” that
53
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
addresses what actions are fair and just (Gordon 2). In Book I of Sir
William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, common
law is strictly defined as “General customs… Particular customs… [and]
Certain particular laws,” that correspond with national, regional, and
local governing statues (Blackstone 33). In other words, English
common law reflected centuries of English traditions in which the rights
of the people were protected “from each other and the king” (Gordon 2).
In strict legal terminology, each citizen of England had the same legal
protection that guaranteed three basic liberties being, “the right of
personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right of private
property” (Ehrlich 46). According to Blackstone, any infringement upon
these rights, “[abridges] man’s natural free will,” (46) and in support of
this remark he also proclaims, “…no man’s lands or goods shall be
seized into the kings hands, [as it is] against…the law of the land” (51).
Blackstone speaks for the British people when he places protection of
private property as a primary concern of the population.
The role of the King in English society was drawn from the
traditional reasoning formally known as “the king’s prerogatives” and
54
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
officially defined as the “royal rights to govern the realm” (Wood 2).
The King was supposed to “provide for the safety of the people,” and
providing “justice” was a part of this endeavor (2). However, Sir
William Blackstone draws a distinction between “the king’s
prerogatives” and his main role of ensuring “justice” (2). With regard to
justice the king is supposed to “serve them [the people] respectively
according to…all the laws and statues of this realm, for securing the
established religion, and the rights and liberties of the people” (Ehrlich
64). In other words, the only higher power that the King of England was
responsible to in the eighteenth century was “to God and to the law”
(64). Since the common law protected the “civil liberties” of the people,
the King was legally forbidden to encroach on the rights of his citizens
(65). The “special pre-eminence” (65) which the King has over “all
other persons,” is applicable only in matters concerning the “protection”
(Ehrlich 64) of the nation, and is consequently limited to matters of war,
public safety, and public welfare (Ehrlich 64).
The modern English Parliament was officially formed in 1215
once King John signed the Magna Carta, and its original role was as a
55
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
mediator between the people and the King (Ehrlich 54). England’s
“feudal nobles” formed the House of Lords and “agents from the
boroughs and counties,” made up the House of Commons (Wood 2).
Parliament represented the best interests of the people, for their role was
to protect the rights of the masses. For example, their task included
petitioning the King, “for the redress of popular grievances,” and
“correcting and emending common law” (2). In serving this purpose,
Parliament represents the “legislative” authority of the “supreme power”
of the government of England (Ehrlich 54). In Blackstone’s legal text,
Commentaries on The Laws of England, he admits that it is unlawful to
“entrust the latter [the King] with so large a power, as…the liberty of the
subject[s]” might be threatened (54). Dividing power between the crown
and Parliament was one of the protections initially put in place to limit
the power of the King.
In regards to Parliament, Blackstone ascribes to this governing
body a different legal status than that of the King. He states that, “The
power and jurisdiction of Parliament [is] so transcendent and absolute,
that it cannot be confined… within any bounds. It hath
56
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
sovereign…authority in making, confirming, enlarging, restraining…
laws, concerning matters of all possible denominations…” (55).
Blackstone argues that there is no higher authority to check the
legislative power of Parliament. Since Parliament controls the laws and
is above reprisal, the legislative body indirectly limits the power of the
King. However, the “uncontrollable” and unchecked powers were not
limited in any way following the Glorious Revolution of 1688 (55). For
example, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 forbids the King from
bypassing Parliament in any way by undertaking activities such as,
“suspending the laws or execution of laws by regal authority without
consent of Parliament,” and “levying money for use of the crown by
[pretense] of prerogative, without grant of Parliament” (English Bill of
Rights 1). At approximately the time Parliament became a “sovereign”
and representative body of the English people to limit the King, it was
inconceivable that “the people could tyrannize themselves” indirectly by
electing men to Parliament (Gordon 3). Since “crown authority”
traditionally threatened their “liberties,” the people were not interested
in “codifying and listing their personal rights” (Gordon 3). As a result,
57
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
no checks or limits were placed on Parliament. After the Glorious
Revolution, the institution’s primary role shifted from “adjudication” to
“legislation,” the proposed laws resembled “command[s]” as no statue
existed to protect individual rights from Parliament nor was there any
imperative to create one (3). Initially, Parliament worked primarily to
adjudicate the common law and did not grow into its legislative role
until the early 1700s.
Over the course of early British history, the lords and barons of
England found it necessary to assert their rights in order to address the
injustices of the King’s actions. The first of such declarations was the
Magna Carta of 1215. The document obliged King John to respect
property rights among other liberal clauses. According to the Section 19
of the Magna Carta, a “constable… [or] bailiff,” is not allowed to take
‘corn or other chattels’ from any individual unless he offers ‘money in
payment’ for the goods or property (Magna Carta 2). At face value this
section implies that it is illegal to steal another person’s possessions
because it is his private property. The only way to gain ownership of the
desired object is to pay for it with money or barter for it. In addition, the
58
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
term, “chattels” has a precise legal meaning (2). According to
Blackstone, chattels can be “Real” (Ehrlich 355) or “Personal” (356). He
defines real chattels, “as being interests issuing out of or annexed to, real
estate: of which they have one quality… immobility, which denominates
them real” (355). Personal Chattels are, “…strictly speaking, things
movable,” such as “money, jewels, [and] corn” (Ehrlich 356). This
clause establishes in the law that property is both a plot of land or
private processions, such as currency. It validates the trading of goods
while securing the independent legal status of hospitals, bridges and
other immovable structures. Given the implications, the Magna Carta is
important to the establishment of property rights in America because it
set a precedent for the protection of private property in the future.
The adoption of the English Bill of Rights in 1689 capped off more
than half a century of brutal civil war and changes to the regime. The
English Bill of Rights introduced a different type of protection for
private property that resulted directly from the experience of being at
war. The document forbade “raising and keeping a standing army within
this kingdom in time of peace without the consent of Parliament, and
59
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
quartering soldiers contrary to law” (English Bill of Rights 1689 1).
While the Magna Carta put in place protection for the unlawful seizure
of private property, the English Bill of Rights protected against the
invasion of private property by the King without the consent of
Parliament. While this concept had circulated before the adoption of the
English Bill of Rights, the document validated the concept in a way that
allowed it to be restated in future declarations of rights.
The last component from the English system of property rights that
the American system borrowed is the formation of corporations.
According to English law dating back to the 1700’s, corporations are
formed when multiple individuals pursuing the same concern “are then
consolidated and united” such that “they and their successors are
considered as one person in law” (Ehrlich 101). Corporations could be
formed by either the King or Parliament, but the expressed or implied
consent of the King is necessary for the “erection of any corporation[s]”
(103). For example, the “college of physicians” was founded in 1518 by
an advanced charter granted by the King. Parliament is responsible for
“[permitting] the king to erect corporation” by granting permission
60
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
(104). Parliament can also incorporate individuals into corporations, but
they are liable to approval by the King because Parliament cannot
infringe on the “prerogative of the crown” (Ehrlich 104). Much like the
Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights, the corporation process
described by Blackstone served as a model for property rights in
America.
Once Englishmen established colonies in North America, the
English system of property rights was transplanted to the new world.
The similarities between the English and colonial private property
clauses was most apparent in the concept of “public and private” rights
(Wood 3). For example, the King’s right to rule—his royal
prerogatives— “were as much private as they were public,” because his
“premier rights to govern…grew out of his private position as the
wealthiest of the wealthy and the largest land owner in the society” (3).
Even in Parliament, Blackstone remarked, “The [House of Commons]
consist of all such men of any property in the Kingdom as have not seats
in the [House of Lords]” (Ehrlich 55). These individuals obtained their
public prominence and responsibilities because of their private social
61
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
and economic position in society – because of their ownership of
“property” (Ehrlich 55). For example, government service was “personal
sacrifice required of certain gentlemen because of their talents” (Wood
4). Wood argues in support of this blurred distinction between private
and public spheres by his assertion that “public institutions had private
rights and private persons had public obligations” (Wood 3).
Furthermore, upon the settlement of the colonies this system of property
rights was put into place as a means to organize society. However,
virtually all colonial assemblies acted as Parliament had in the Middle
Ages. According to Wood, the colonial legislatures acted in ways that
were “private, local, and adjudicative” (4). These colonial assembles
spent large quantities of time regulating the “moral and religious
behavior of people” which included acts such as “sexual and religious
offences…use of profanity… [and] drunkenness” rather than “[enacting]
legislative programs” (4). For example, a survey of the Massachusetts
General Court in 1761 revealed that ‘only three acts that were arguably
legislative in the sense that they changed law” (4). Throughout the
62
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
colonial period, the state legislatures acted primarily in a judicial
manner, similar to Parliament at its outset.
The blending of public and private spheres in colonial
governments spread into public matters as well. According to Hendrick
Hartog, a law professor from Princeton University, colonial
governments “did not act so much as they ensured and sanctioned the
actions of others” (qtd. in Wood 4). Hartog implies that “private persons
were enlisted to carry out public ends” (4). For example if a colonial
government acted on a public need to build a college, it would give
“legal rights to private persons to build and run it—in short
creating…corporations” (4). The public funds of the government would
be spared the expense of construction while the “private energy and
private funds” of individuals served the public purpose (4).
While the English system of property rights served as a precursor
to the American system, the effects of the American Revolutionary
period and the shift to the representative republic signified a paradigm
shift in how Americans viewed private property. The colonies’
revolutionary governments eliminated the King’s prerogative from their
63
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
constitutions, henceforth depriving absolute rulers of their “personal
rights to rule” (Wood 4). Thereafter, the “Public and private spheres that
earlier had been mingled were now to be separated” (4). In other words,
the imperative of individuals to assume public services because of their
private economic status was eliminated. Governments took on a strictly
public role and included in their constitutions clauses like, “instituted for
the common benefit, protection, and security of the whole community,
and not for private interests or emolument of any one man…” (qtd. in
Wood 5). In practice, public cities like New York established a taxpayer
funded “public work force to clean its streets…instead of relying on…on
private residents to do [those] tasks” (5).
It is important to note that the separation of public and private
spheres also created new problems regarding private property rights in
America. In the decade after 1776, Americans quickly learned that,
“democracies, when they [run] to excess could only be anarchical and
licentious” (Wood 5). The problem became evident in the 1780s as the
newly established state governments continued to view “legislative acts
as ‘so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of
64
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens”
(Wood 6). The danger to individual rights lies in the possibility of
legislatures becoming both “judges and parties,” because the law reflects
the will of the majority who elected members to the governing body (6).
Individuals who are part of the minority party could be at a
disadvantage, their individual rights subject to infringements by the
majority. Fortunately, the solution to this problem appeared in
“America’s strong independent judiciary,” and particularly the
“disinterested and impartial men [who] exercised power” to protect the
rights of “individuals and minorities” (6). Even William Plummer, the
eventual governor of New Hampshire concluded that the strong
independent judiciary “is the only body of men who will have an
effective check upon a numerous Assembly” (qtd. in Wood 6). The
concept of the people needing protection from their own selves did have
merit and the judicial institution in America served the rights of
individuals in the early republic.
The development of a strong judicial authority in America had a
major impact on property rights. The “powerful independent judiciary”
65
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
was the principle institution for separate public government interests and
private individual interests (Wood 7). According to Wood, the judges of
the early republic determined that the “sphere of private rights…lay
absolutely beyond the authority of the government” (7). This paradigm
shift in American rights theory laid the groundwork for the proliferation
of private property rights within three decades of the signing of the
Constitution. For example, new republican governments, lacking
“administrative…[and] fiscal powers” to enact encompassing legislative
programs started “enlisting private wealth to carry out public ends” (7).
The new American state governments did exactly what the English
crown, Parliament, and all colonial legislatures had done. They granted
“charters of incorporation to private associations… to carry out a wide
variety of endeavors presumably beneficial to the public” (7). As a result
of the need for small governments to provide public services in the most
cost efficient way possible, the states issued twenty-two corporate
charters between 1786 and 1790; 114 between 1791 and 1795; and 1,800
between 1800 and 1817 (7). Corporate charters became “an equal right
66
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
available to virtually everyone,” and the charters themselves became
“species of property” (7).
Once the American courts established that corporate charters were
private property and one of the “vested rights” of individuals, property
rights officially became enshrined in the American experience (Wood
7). The charters of incorporation served as an universal mechanism by
which thousands of Americans gained access to property that solely
belonged to them or an association of people. The right became
ingrained in the society. Consider the convictions of John Locke on the
origins of property. John Locke was a champion of property rights and
an English philosopher who came of age amidst the chaos of the 17th
century English civil wars. His book, The Second Treatise on Civil
Government, is a series of political essays in which he addresses each
individual God given rights. For example, he holds that a man’s “labour”
upon a plot land or property in general determines his ownership of it
(Locke 17). However, an individual who owns property must seek the
“consent of all his fellow-commoners” in order to claim it in civil
society (Locke 17). Since the state legislatures granted permission to
67
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
start an enterprise, it is logical to assume that that individual or group of
individuals could own the “product of, so much is his property,” or the
corporate charter he received (Locke 17). This concept was new to the
people of the colonies, but these revolutionary ideas influenced the
thoughts and beliefs of the American people in a way that made them
seek to protect private property from tampering.
Lastly, the American Bill of Rights guarantees property rights in
American and is derived from its English predecessors. Amendment III
of the Bill of Rights states, “No Soldier shall in time of piece be
quartered in any house…nor in time of war, but in a manner to be
prescribed by law” (The Bill of Rights: A Transcription 1). The Fourth
Amendment protects individuals against “unreasonable searches and
seizures,” and the Fifth Amendment holds that no person shall “be
deprived of life liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation”
(1-2). Amendment III is derived directly from the English Bill of Rights.
The origins of Amendments IV can be traced back to section 19 of the
Magna Carta. The Fifth Amendment introduces the phrase, “due process
68
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
of law,” (1) an expression that has its origins in section 22 of the Magna
Carta. The English statute protects the property “of those convicted of
felony save for a year and a day” (Magna Carta 3). By adding the Bill of
Rights to the Constitution, America’s founding fathers consolidated
previous gains in property rights and set a precedent for future
generations of Americans.
It is not surprising that America and England share many of the
same institutions and policies. In most cases, Americans modeled their
governing institutions after English institutions and governing statues.
With regards to property rights, the correlation is clear. The American
system of property rights originated in England and was transferred to
North America along with the English migrants that settled the colonies.
Although America and Britain have taken slightly different paths since
1776, the similarities between property rights in both countries are not a
coincidence.
69
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Works Cited
Blackstone, Sir William. Commentaries on The Laws of England; In
Four Books. Albany: Banks & Company, 1906. Print.
Ehrilich, J.W. EHRLICH'S Blackstone Part I Rights of Persons Rights of
Things. New York: Capricorn Books, 1959. Print.
"English Bill of Rights 1689." 1689. Yale Law School Lillian Goldman
Library. 27 November 2011 <http://avalon.law.yale.edu/
17_century/england.asp>.
Jefferson, Thomas. "The Bill of Rights." 4 March 1789. The U.S.
National Archives and Records Administration. 17 November
2011
<http://www.archive.gov/exhibits/charters/print_friendly.html>.
Locke, John. The Second Treatise of Civil Government and a Letter
Concerning Toleration. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Oxford, 1948.
Print
70
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
"Magna Carta Translation." 1215. U.S National Archives and Records
Administration. 17 November 2011
<http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featued_documents/magna_cart
a/>.
Wood, Gordon S. "Proquest." October 1999. 13 October 2011
<http://www.lexisnexis.com.online.library.marist.edu/>.
71
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Michelle Crowe
The Voice of the People
The Daily Show, although often considered “fake news” (Delli
Carpini 311) by the host Jon Stewart, allows the frustrations of the
general public to be heard. As stated in Un-Spun: Finding Facts in a
World of Disinformation, “sometimes evidence isn’t nearly as precise as
portrayed” (Jackson 172). Therefore, satirical news becomes an outlet
for those who have questions while it slices through the trickery with a
skeptical knife. Underneath all of the laughs and exaggeration is a show
searching for the truth in the political and media driven country we live
in. Jon Stewart, for example, is not afraid to ask the critical questions on
the typical informed American’s mind.
As the future presses onward, the appeal for traditional journalism
is declining. The ways in which the news is received are now streamed
through multiple means, so newspapers and effective in-depth reporting
are seemingly obsolete. Even the mainstream media on television is
causing a downfall of hard-hitting journalism. Because of society’s lack
of interest in traditional sources, whatever will get the program more
72
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
ratings and attention from its audience is the most important. According
to author William Hatchen, “News on television is becoming packaged
entertainment” (110). For example, the negative stories are usually
blown up to exaggerated proportions, and everyone is interested in what
celebrities are doing in their spare time. This hype may also include an
introduction with flashing visuals or a Facebook fan page that is
specifically advertised while the nightly episode is being broadcast.
The Internet is also a contributing factor to the decline of
traditional journalism. Anyone with access to the Internet can simply
type into a search engine exactly what he or she wants to find out in the
news without ever having to open up a hard copy of a newspaper. The
Internet itself contains vast amounts of information; however, it is
necessary to check the website being used to find the facts. For example,
in satirist Stephen Colbert’s book, I Am America (And So Can You!), he
pokes fun at how today’s society receives its news. He makes a claim
stating that the “tree shrews of the blogosphere” (Colbert 155) are using
the Internet as a means to provide people with news. Next he states, “Do
I have any hard data to back these claims up? No, but I posted this on the
73
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Internet” (156). Underneath that ironic statement is a graph titled “How
People Get Their News” ranging from past to present starting with the
“Town Crier” and ending with the “Internet.” Colbert is using his
satirical methods to warn his readers that anyone can create or post
anything online, and people need to be aware that biases and false
information may be present.
Even though they are witty and entertaining, some regard satiric
news programs such as The Daily Show and the Colbert Report, to be
the least reliable resources for worldly information because they air on
Comedy Central. In 2006, Fox’s Bill O’Reilly of “The O’Reilly Factor”
mentioned that American youth ages 18-24 are ill informed about
politics and world issues, but can easily remember pop culture
references. Also, he announced that millions of Americans are
influenced by the actions of celebrities, and that alone inspires them to
trust information from “bomb-throwing” entertainers like Jon Stewart.
Similarly, often Jon Stewart himself insists his show is pure comedy and
should be regarded as “fake news” (Boler 386). The same view is taken
in I Am America (and So Can You!) when Colbert states, “This book is
74
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
the truth. My Truth. No evidence is necessary which is why I did
absolutely no research” (vix). Therefore, the data he presents is
manipulated in his favor just for a laugh, and everything in the book is
geared toward whatever would peak the interest of his audience.
Sure, the star of his ironic television series can make a joke about
the unreliability of his sources. However, the spoofs are purposely
composed of multiple “levels of irony” (Boler 387). Stewart and Colbert
use this form of satire to make their viewers feel more connected to the
issues in the news. The average person may not like policies being
implemented in the country at the time, but he or she knows that his or
her life alone will not create a change. Thus, this becomes an annoyance
because he or she cannot fully articulate his or her issues, but the
satirists can (391). Furthermore, for the sake of the show’s integrity, Jon
Stewart acts as the “court jester” for his viewers (Boler 391). He is the
“figure who speaks the truth to power in the tradition of political satire”
(391). Four times a week, Stewart employs exaggeration and wit for the
sake of getting a point across. And, Bill O’Reilly’s claim of young
American adults being uninformed because they watch The Daily Show
75
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
has been proven to be false. In fact, as reported by “mediamatters.org,”
in 2004, a survey titled the National Annenberg Election Survey found
that “Daily Show viewers are better informed on campaign issues than
consumers of other late night television programs, newspapers, network
news or cable news.” This is because in order for a viewer to understand
the humor of the programs, a person needs to be at least the slightest bit
aware of what is going on in the world around him.
Therefore, The Daily Show, along with its counterpart the Colbert
Report, has gained a vast number of followers that are updated on the
news. First, the humor draws in the crowd, and quickly afterward they
willingly sit down to watch a show that talks about political, global, and
worldly issues with a satirical and witty approach. However, because the
shows were created for comedic purposes, they are presented on the
Comedy Central network. And according to Time Warner Cable Media,
the target demographic emphasized on that channel are males, ages 1824. That being stated, as reported by the May 2011 survey, 18-29 year
olds make up 95 percent of Internet users (pewinternet.org). From this
76
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
information, it can be inferred that a younger adult demographic
approaches the two parodies.
As a result, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report attempt to
take advantage of their target audience. Thus each has a website that
holds information for the viewers. For example, on “thedailyshow.com”
some of the information surfers of the web can find are full episodes,
videos, details about the show, and a list of guests. Additionally, a forum
is provided for active watchers who would like to talk to other fans
about the episode topics. However, these websites are not the only
online resources for fans. There are Facebook pages of both programs
and even Twitter accounts. For example, The Colbert Report’s Twitter
account has approximately 161,000 followers, and The Daily Show’s
Twitter account has more than 540,000 followers to its name. Ironically,
Stephen Colbert’s private Twitter account, “StephenAtHome,” has
racked up over 2,700,000 people who look for his hilarious updates on
the struggles and life in America. In total there are at least 3,400,000
dedicated fans that go the extra mile when it comes to receiving
notifications about the episodes to come. As a result of being up to date
77
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
with the technological world, both broadcasts have accumulated a large
audience of young people, and they are involved in the shows because
the news is “more relevant to the current generation” (Hatchen 186).
Brian Montropolli of cbsnews.com wrote an article on “The Rally
to Restore Sanity and/or Fear” which was hosted by Stewart and Colbert
in October 2010 at the National Mall in Washington. For this event,
Comedy Central’s permit expected 60,000 people to attend; however, an
overwhelming estimate of 215,000 went. The size completely dominated
Glenn Beck’s previous rally “Restoring Honor” which only had 87,000
turned up. Nytimes.com’s writers Sabrina Tavernise and Brian Stelter
covered the event as well and commented on the support of the
participants. They were all mostly left-winged Americans who waved
flags, wore buttons, held posters, and a handful showed up in costume.
Many felt that the two men were able to expertly convey their
annoyances and frustrations in their antics.
In spite of all of the comedy involved, and Stephen Colbert’s
American flag themed daredevil jumpsuit, at the finale of the rally,
Stewart brought the tone down to a more serious level. He cautiously
78
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
warned his audience about the dangers of the “cable driven news
media.” He goes on to say “the existence of them makes solving the
problems that much harder.” In his speech he compared the press to our
immune system, and he believes “if it overreacts we can actually get
sicker.” Similarly, he is saying the more they focus primarily on onesided issues, and emphasize the negativity, the more we are hurting the
country. He believes that citizens have to be well informed to come to
their own decisions about the issues the media presents.
The Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear was merely one of the
occasions in which these satirists step outside of their usual broadcasts,
drop the act of the funny man, and shock the American public as a
means to get their point across. For instance, in 2004 Jon Stewart’s
book, America: A Citizens Guide to Democracy Inaction, contained a
chapter that focused specifically on the responsibilities and cable news
corporations. “They have violated a trust,” he writes (Stewart 131), and
though the introduction is cleverly satirized, there appears to be a
genuine concern for the media’s role in the country. It spins out of
control as the paragraphs continue, and it is as if Stewart’s voice could
79
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
be heard exclaiming from the page. As a result of this violent tangent,
the next page attempts to make amends for the trouble it may have
caused. Looking eerily similar to the first documented introduction, the
chapter begins again with an editor’s note that apologizes for the
outburst on which they blamed on a “Red Bull binge” (133). Afterward
they assert, “In no way was it meant to portray any sense of anger and/or
disappointment in the behavior and standards of the modern media”
(133). In spite of that statement, a footnote was placed next to “modern
media.” And, at the bottom of the text, while portraying their cleverness,
the editors explain how the specific “modern media” talked about is
directly owned by Warner Books, which is owned by Time Warner Inc.
Ironically, Warner Books and Time Warner Inc. published the book, and
as a result of that footnote, they indiscreetly avoided talking about true
modern media like the broadcasts from examples like Fox News, CBS,
and ABC.
Conjointly, in 2004 Stewart was asked to talk about his book and
his show on an episode of CNN’s Crossfire. Usually there would be two
guests for Carlson and Begala to interview, but that night, only Stewart
80
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
was to appear. Although, instead of letting the hosts asking the
questions, Stewart saw his time on the stage as an opportunity to educate
the viewers as well as the two men of Crossfire. His agenda covered
three major points: the first was “stop hurting Americans,” the second
called for a “responsibility of public discourse,” and the third stressed
the “need for a genuine debate” (Boler 393). Ironically, Stewart was
seated at the middle of the desk with both Carlson and Begala to his
right and left, so from the get-go he is put in the spotlight. Ultimately
under these circumstances, Stewart took over the show. In the first few
minutes, The Daily Show star stayed in his comedian persona
specifically for entertainment purposes. Then, the mood quickly changed
when Stewart gave a more earnest performance: “I made a special effort
to come on the show today because I may have privately, occasionally
with close friends, or on television, mentioned this show as being bad.
Not so much that it’s bad, as it’s hurting America” (Stewart on CNN’s
Crossfire).
Essentially, Stewart’s mission was to complain to Begala and
Carlson about what their show is doing wrong and how they could fix it.
81
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Therefore, he publicly accused them of assisting the politicians through
“partisan hackery” and “knee jerk reactionary talk.” Rebuttals from the
two co-hosts ensued, but Stewart firmly held his ground. Carlson, the
right-winged personality, was clearly growing agitated with his guest’s
tactics and interrupted him by saying, “I thought you were going to be
funny. Come on!” To that Stewart slyly replied, “No, no I’m not going
to be your monkey.” Shortly after, Carlson attempted to take attention
off of the debate by going to commercial. Meanwhile, Stewart could be
clearly heard in the background shouting over him, “Please, please!
Stop.” As the show continued, Begala and Carlson tried to win the
airtime back, but Stewart easily dominated them when he told each man
they were leading their viewers into “Spin Alley” and “Deception Lane”
after they watch their debates with politicians. According to the authors
of UnSpun, “Spin paints a false picture of reality by bending facts,
mischaracterizing the words of others, ignoring or denying crucial
evidence” (Jackson vii). Ironically, in 2005 CNN’s Crossfire was
cancelled.
82
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
If Daily Show host Jon Stewart has as much influence as he
appears to, traditional broadcast news has catching up to do. On his
show, clips are taken from other broadcasts and critiqued with humor.
By doing that, he continually uncovers the flaws in the journalistic
tactics used by the bigger news stations like ABC, CBS, and especially
Fox News, which has had to bear the brunt of most of Stewart’s jokes. It
appears that there is a clash because the Fox News Network has a
rightist ideology; however, unlike the idea of the The Daily Show having
a political agenda that is constantly veering to the left side, the show is
very fair in the way the guests are interviewed. For example, on
thedailyshow.com, there is a link that leads to a list of guests that are
sorted by different categories. One of the categories is strictly set aside
for 57 political figures. Contrary to popular belief of his show being
strictly on the left side, Stewart evenly interviews both Democrats and
Republicans. Most interviewees have appeared on the show multiple
times, including Mike Huckabee, a newscaster from the pseudo rival of
The Daily Show, Fox News. In fact, there have been occurrences in
which the guests are not even from the United States. For example,
83
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Stewart has interviewed former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,
Tony Blair, and Pervez Musharraf, a man who overthrew the Prime
Minister Nawaz Sharif in Pakistan. Since the guests are interviewed
quickly and fairly, watchers get a snippet of their views on a certain
subject they would like to share with them. By the end of the interview,
the audience is left wanting more, so Jon Stewart promotes a piece of
work or website created by his guest where more information on their
topic can be found. In this way, Daily Show fans are getting the
opportunity to uncover and learn about important information.
Moreover, the fans are a highly important aspect of the show as a
whole. Returning to a previous point, if Jon Stewart calls his own show
“fake news” (Delli Carpini 311), why is he so believable? Why does his
show get this much attention? To put it simply, although the show is
entertaining, it is also getting the knowledge out there to the people. As a
comedian, Jon Stewart is only doing his job, but he is doing it well. The
humorous situations he inserts give off a light-hearted vibe, unlike the
devastating stories provided from networks of larger corporations. While
watching the show, the audience is able to laugh at the problems of the
84
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
country while becoming more intuitive about the obstacles America is
going through. On the contrary, mainstream news stations may
contribute to stress in individuals because those watching may become
overwhelmed or feel anxious about the predominantly negative reports.
However, according to stress.about.com, it has been proven that laughter
“reduces the levels of stress hormones like cortisol, epinephrine, and
adrenaline.” In accordance to this, in CBS News article, Jon Stewart
Rallies for Sanity- and Against Cable News, written by Brian
Montropolli, John Maffei, and Rita Maffei, a middle-age couple that
attended the rally was interviewed: “They said they were there simply
for the opportunity to laugh at the media and the political world that
turns them off.” While being questioned, John Maffei also said that he is
“not a fan of politics,” and that it is good to “stop taking ourselves so
seriously.” That being said, generally Jon Stewart’s reporting is
convincing because he portrays himself as a man of the people. This
viewpoint “allows him to occupy the status of hero for truth” (Boler
389).
85
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Overall, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart pokes fun at the
traditional American media sources and attempts to break through all of
their fabrications and biases. Jon Stewart is an outlet for the people. He
expresses their dissatisfactions on national television because they may
not have the same opportunities to be heard and listened to as he does.
Consequently, his influence on the opinion of CNN’s Crossfire is one
instance that demonstrates his power, and he essentially took that debate
show down single-handedly. While journalism continues to fall to
mainstream cable news and the Internet, The Daily Show along with
other satirical sources will be there to comically analyze the situation
and to inform the electorate.
Works Cited
Boler, Megan ed. Digital Media and Democracy. Cambridge,
Massachusetts, The MIT Press, 2008. Print.
Colbert, Steven. I am America: (And So Can You!). New York: Grand
Central Publishing Hachette Book Group USA, 2007. Print.
86
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
---. Web. 26 Nov. 2011 < https://twitter.com/#!/ColbertReport>.
---. Web. 26 Nov. 2011. <https://twitter.com/#!/StephenAtHome>.
Crossfire. Dir. Randy Douthit, Brad Roberts. CNN. 15 Oct. 2004.
Television
Delli Carpini, Michael X, and Bruce A. Williams. “The Daily Show and
The Colbert Report in a Changing Information Environment:
Should ‘Fake News’ Be Held to Real Standards?” Will the Last
Reporter Please Turn Out the Lights: The Collapse of Journalism
and What Can Be Done to Fix It. Ed. Robert W. McChesney. New
York: The New Press, 2011. 306-313. Print.
Hatchen, William A. The Troubles of Journalism: A Critical Look at
What’s Right and Wrong with the Press. Manwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2001. Print.
Jackson, Brooks and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. UnSpun: Finding Facts in
a World of Disinformation. New York: Random House Trade
Paperbacks, 2007. Print.
87
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Javerbaum, David, Ben Karlin and Jon Stewart. America: A Citizen’s
Guide to Democracy Inaction. New York, New York: Time
Warner Book Group, 2004. Print.
M, J. “O’Reilly: Young Americans “Have No Idea What’s Going On”
Because They “Get Their News From Jon Stewart.”
Mediamatters.org 25 May 2006. Web. 6 Dec. 2011.
Montopolli, Brian. “Jon Stewart Rally Attracts Estimated 215,000.”
CBSnews.com 30 Oct. 2010.Web. 26 Nov. 2011.
---. “Jon Stewart Rallies for Sanity – and Against Cable News.”
CBSnews.com 30Oct. 2010. Web. 26 Nov. 2011.
“Networks Men 18-24.” Time Warner Cable Media. 2011.
Cabletelevision Advertising Bureau.Web. 6 Dec. 2011.
Scott, Elizabeth. “The Stress Management and Health Benefits of
Laughter.” About.com 10 Jan. 2011. Web. 8 Dec. 2011.
Stelter, Brian, and Sabrina Tavernise. “At Rally, Thousands- Billions? –
Respond.” NYTimes.com 30 Oct. 2010. Web. 26 Nov. 2011.
Stewart, Jon. Web. 27 Nov. 2011
88
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
“Trend Data: Demographics of Internet Users.” Pew Internet. 2011. The
Pew Charitable Trusts. Web. 6 Dec. 2011.
89
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Spring 2012
Taylor Grip
Wal-Mart: The Truth behind the Yellow Smiley Face
Wal-Mart has left their retail mark in over 15 countries; opening
8,500 stores under 55 different names (Turner). Despite the extensive
range of geographic locations and varying marketing taglines employed,
the cornerstone philosophy behind every store is constant: low prices—
no matter what language it reads in. This 40-plus- year business has
metastasized and transformed into something far greater than even the
late creator Sam Walton could have dreamed of in 1970: a retail
kingdom. The intimidating preponderance of Wal-Mart casts a shadow
over all other businesses. Jennifer Stapleton, assistant director of the
United Food and Commercial Workers’ project sums it up well, “They
(Wal-Mart) set the rules” (Moberg). Wal-Mart’s continued
unprecedented retail success has raised eyebrows, acting as catalyst for
one of the most contentious debates of the twenty-first century. When
90
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
the argument is stripped down and simplified it boils down to a yes or no
answer; is Wal-Mart a boon for America and the economy, or is it
negative for the U.S. economy?
In this paper we will be exploring how Wal-Mart came to be the
powerhouse of the business they are today, and how their unilateral
tactics ultimately hurt everyone from California to China. Global
sourcing, retailer supremacy, ostensibly low-prices, stomping of local
businesses, low compensation/benefits, de-unionization of employees,
excessive litigation, and negative implication on local communities all
conjointly make up the recipe Wal-Mart uses to capture and maintain
their lucrative success in the retail industry and the world. Each
“ingredient” plays an instrumental part in crafting Wal-Mart’s brand and
image to consumers all around the world, both good and bad; however,
the bad often gets masked and outspoken by Wal-Mart’s multi-million
dollar campaigns like “Go-Green” and “The store of the community”
(O’Brien). In this paper we will examine and put Wal-Mart’s success
stories under the microscope. You will find that the facts speak for
themselves and all lead to one overarching and reoccurring theme: Wal91
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Mart is bad for you, your community, your family, and your wallet.
Wal-Mart has made longstanding efforts to conceal the truth, but the bad
inevitably seeps out.
Raking in over $405 billion in for sales this past fiscal year,
employing over 1.3 million people, and maintaining over 8,500 stores
worldwide, it is no surprise that Wal-Mart has stolen the title as the
world’s largest business from other global giants like Exon Mobile,
General Electric, and IBM (Moberg). It now stands as the formidable
bully on the retail playground that picks on weak local businesses,
making its presence both felt and known. Charles Fishman, the author of
The Wal-Mart Effect, a bestseller on the New York Times list, estimated
that in the 1990’s Wal-Mart’s impact alone on prices accounted for
twelve percent of our economy’s productivity gains. Now, this number
has only increased. This means that whether you are a part of the unified
brigade of 100 million Americans that shop weekly at Wal-Mart, or
someone that has never stepped a foot inside the store before, you will
feel the wake of Wal-Mart’s low price regulations. Their low prices
force competing businesses to counteract by involuntarily lowering their
92
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
prices too; this is known as the “indirect effect.” Wal-Mart is so fixated
on cost cutting that their domestic and foreign policy decisions reach far
and wide, across the Atlantic Ocean, impacting not only the U.S.’s
economic standing, but other industrial nations and third world countries
as well (Freeman). This insurmountable goliath has continued to grow
with momentum; their annual sales quadrupled from $55.5 billion in
1993’s fiscal year to over $244.5 billion in 2003 (Freeman). This
steroid-like growth should have been the first indication to big retail
leaders, such as Macy’s and Target, that there would be a new sheriff in
town. Nowadays, for any company that involves retail, hearing the mere
name and seeing the antagonizing smiley face is enough to make anyone
feel uneasy. Most retail companies have turned into nothing more than
obsequious vassals that comply with whatever their master says; WalMart says jump, and they ask, how high?
Some people contend that the success Wal-Mart has experienced
from their use of global expansion and global sourcing not only benefits
Wal-Mart, but allows for consumers to benefit as well. Wal-Mart is
highly dependent on products made from around the world, more
93
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
specifically in China. 80 percent of Wal-Mart’s 6,000 global suppliers
originate in China (Lowhorn). This strong dependency is necessary in
order to provide their “low cost” items to reel in the consumers. Brink
Lindsey, the vice president for research at the CATO institute argues in
favor of Wal-Mart, that Wal-Mart does not in fact push jobs away from
able-American workers and into Chinese workers’ hands. He attempts to
validate this statement by voicing that “we’ve lost millions of jobs to
China… this past decade American employment has gone up by almost
20 million.” He further backs up that the job market is struggling from a
plethora of factors, of which international trade is a small component.
Lindsey, along with loyal Wal-Mart patrons, contends that the remedy in
providing low priced items to millions of people that rely on it every day
is simple: global sourcing.
My opponents here are skipping over the messy trail Wal-Mart
leaves behind in order to provide the shorts on the shelf for $3.50.
America no longer holds the title as a producer, but as a consumer. In
2003 Irish Independent magazine published, “If Wal-Mart were a
country, it would rank ahead of Great Britain and Russia in total imports
94
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
(Freeman). This fact seems fantastic, until you hear that Wal-Mart alone
accounts for 10% of all of America’s total imports from China, and then
you begin to understand the magnitude of the power this company exerts
over the rest of the world. Wal-Mart is one of the leading forces behind
the “mass exodus of U.S. manufacturing capacity and jobs” (Ticknor 1).
Going back to Lindsey’s argument, from 1997 to 2004, Fishman
discloses that retail jobs flourished. The jobs created grew over half as
fast as the population; Wal-Mart was responsible for 70 percent of those
new jobs (Ticknor). However, simultaneously, 3.1 million jobs
vanished; this was the birthday for American retail supremacy. WalMart constructed this mythical formula where they could deliver low
prices and low wages while still appearing to produce high quality items.
What was the solution they conjured? China.
Unfortunately, manufacturing workers, American and foreign,
receive the short end of the stick in this unilateral business plan. Ana
Sanchez, a Mexican immigrant working in Southern California is not
even directly employed by Wal-Mart, yet they still dictate her pay,
hours, and whether or not she can feed her children. She works for a
95
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
temp agency that is operated in a large warehouse on minimum wage
and zero benefits. Her company is essentially the middleman in shipping
the products manufactured in China to Wal-Mart. She said she worked
under “constant pressure.” She later spoke out “ If I killed myself to
make 2,000 labels one day, the next day they’d give me 200
more…constantly raising the quota. The supervisors would say there’s
an urgency for us to do it.” In April 2009, forced to oblige with WalMart’s fast-paced work standards, Sanchez fell and hurt herself. The
agency compiled a story to fire her because of a supposed paperwork
error; however, it was because she was momentarily hurt. Wal-Mart did
not blink twice at her flawless record, positive manager reports, and hard
work ethic when removing her. This corresponds with their high
turnover rate; employees are constantly recycled in and out. She now
lives with her cousin and makes tamales to sell in order to make money
for her children’s education (Moberg).
Another story comes out from Zahir Chowdury, who manages
manufacturing apparel factories in Bangladesh. Their premier client is
Wal-Mart. He shares that his selling price has not fluctuated much over
96
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
the past five years; however, with prices rising for inputs like cotton, he
hopes Wal-Mart will agree to the settlement of paying more for these
items along with finished garments (which is already 5 percent lower
than any other production.) He discloses the constant strain he feels to
meet Wal-Mart’s standards and prices. Because of this constant strain, it
is no shock that worker’s rights are secondary and Wal-Mart tried to
censor and sanitize these violations before reaching the public. The
United States-based Worker Rights Consortium revealed several major
workers’ rights violations in these factories, along with other plants that
are suppliers to Wal-Mart (Moberg). Sure, the use of global expansion
provides low priced items, but at the expense of Ana Sanchez, Zahir
Chowdury, and thousands of other factory workers. Post- presidential
candidate Lyndon LaRouche publically stated his disgust for Wal-Mart
by calling an international boycott, and stated that: “Wal-Mart is
probably one of the major foreign enemies of the United States. And, it’s
based in the United States. Where Wal-Mart strides, communities
collapse” (Freeman).
97
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
John Semmens, a renowned columnist and research fellow at the
Independent Institute contends: “the nature of competition is to produce
winners and losers, and ideologues that despise the free market are
without merit” (Semmens). Semmens believes that Wal-Mart’s lucrative
success should not be looked down upon for trampling on floundering
competitors. He, along with other pro-Wal-Mart competitors, argues that
Wal-Mart’s domineering presence is a boon for the American economy:
Wal-mart helps deliver low priced items in one place. With every dollar
a consumer saves they are able to buy more items, thus stretching their
dollar further. Their philosophy is that when money goes further, more
capitol is collected, more merchandise can be made, and more products
can be sold; everybody wins! Their claim is not without cause. MIT
economics professor Jerry Hausman calculated the “direct effect” of
Wal-Mart in bringing in lower food prices. He used the example of
cereal, costing 17 percent less at a Wal-Mart, opposed to other
competing grocery stores or supermarkets. He also calculated the
“indirect effect” of Wal-Mart speaking to all of the non-Wal-Mart
consumers that do not contribute to their capital. He found that even if
98
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
you don’t enter a Wal-Mart, because supermarkets will competitively try
to counterbalance Wal-Mart’s prices by dropping their own, everyone
reaps the benefits (“MIT News” 1). On the surface these are all great
points: helps deliver low prices, helps manufacturers, helps gain more
capitol, and helps the economy. However, when you vet the decimating
wreckage Wal-Mart inflicts on other businesses and competitors by
delivering these “low prices,” you learn they are individually responsible
for putting the lights out for hundreds of local businesses. What
Semmens fails to realize in his previous assertion is the proper
understanding of economic competition. There is healthy and thriving
capitalistic competition, and then there is one company domineering the
industry, holding competitors financially hostage. However, this is not
competition; it’s a weak economic plan.
The local “mom and pop” stores that communities grew up
supporting and buying from have one by one vanished and been replaced
with commercialization, and a lot of it. They have recreated the old
“push and pull” manufacturer-retailer relationship, where the
manufacturer states what and how much to produce and the retailer
99
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
obliges (Lowhorn 1). In multiple cases Wal-Mart has been sued for
“predatory pricing,” meaning they are intentionally trying to sell a
product at price that is so low to intentionally drive competitors out of
the market completely. In 1995 Wal-Mart was taken to court by
American Drugs Inc. for doing just this. They were taken to court again
in 2000 by the Wisconsin Department of Trade, Agriculture and
Consumer Protection, and once again in 2003 by Mexico’s antitrust
agency, The Federal Competition Commission for “monopolistic
practices” (Wal-Mart Settles Predatory Pricing Charge”). Unfortunately,
in all three cases, Wal-Mart managed an easy way to circumvent
pleading guilty, while businesses continued to crumble.
Wal-Mart’s cloud of destruction swept through hundreds of
communities, wiping out anything, or should I say any competitor, in its
way. In Toledo, Ohio, local resident Author Al Norman tells the story of
the effect Wal-Mart had on his community. He says: “When I went for a
walk in downtown Toledo, I passed the old Lamson dry goods store: 9
stories of empty retail space the size of a football field. The city now
owns it, meaning the taxpayers of Toledo pay for its upkeep.” Similarly
100
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
in Nowata, Oklahoma a Wal-Mart store opened on the outskirts of a
town of 4,000 people. Wal-Mart’s presence caused half of the small
businesses in Nowata to shut down. In Mississippi a study was
conducted to measure the dollar volume of groceries after five years of
Wal-Mart’s opening in small towns. They found that the dollar volume
of grocery store trade had collapsed by 17%. In Vermont, due to a large
campaign casted in favor of restrictions that would terminate Wal-Mart’s
construction plans, Wal-Mart built their stores in neighboring states,
“inadvertently” withdrawing business out of Vermont (Ticknor). The list
only continues.
Along with sucking business out of communities, they were
concurrently pushing production overseas by shutting down hundreds of
American manufacturing plants. At the top of the list are reputable
companies like Newell Rubbermaid, General Electric, Levi Strauss, and
Dial Soap. Newell Rubbermaid is the largest producer of rubber
products in the U.S. since January 2001, and has shut down 69 out of its
400 facilities, erasing 11,000 employees due to accommodating WalMart’s prices. The Director of equity research at Associated Trust & Co.
101
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
states that they will have to “ shift about 50% of production to low-cost
countries,” meaning the closure of 131 other Rubbermaid Facilities, and
the loss of 20,000 additional employees. General Electric, one of the five
largest companies in America, has succumbed to Wal-Mart’s tactics as
well. Wal-Mart is the biggest outlet for GE goods only leading to the
firing of 100,000 over the past five years and outsourcing to countries
like Mexico, China, and other parts of Asia as well. Levi Strauss and
Dial Soap have also reluctantly announced the closure of most of their
American facilities and will be moving overseas in order to compensate
for Wal-Mart (Freeman). The woes of hundreds of fallen competitors
have not rung loud enough in this inimical business’s ears. One of the
most catastrophic impressions Wal-Mart has left on a single community
was in Iowa. Kenneth Stone, an economist, observed Iowa from 1983 to
1993 when 45 stores were opened. Findings concluded that the state lost
“555 grocery stores, 88 department stores, 298 hardware stores, 444
apparel shops, 293 building supply stores and 511 retail stores”
(Moberg). When Wal-Mart displaces local stores, it only further
102
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
diminishes the community’s “social capital,” according to economists
Stephan Goetz.
Moreover, according to David Neumark and his colleagues in a
2007 report, they found “on average, Wal-Mart’s store opening reduce
retail employment about 2.7 percent, implying that each Wal-Mart
employee replaces about 1.4 employees in the rest of the retail sector”
(Moberg). Adam Smith said it best, that competition is what drives an
economy. In a free market economy like the U.S., competition is
conducive to flourishing businesses. Local businesses are what make
economies thrive and prosperous, not authoritarian-like companies that
hold competitors financially hostage.
People that oppose the idea that Wal-Mart is a destructive
company believe that job destruction and global outsourcing can be
good. Additionally, they believe that Wal-Mart employees’ meager
salaries and zero benefits are not bad things either. Opponents argue that
while of course, everyone would like to rake in a profitable salary, WalMart employees are aware that there is nothing binding them to the low
salary. There is a mutual understanding between parties where if it were
103
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
really that bad, they would and could leave. Ray Bracy, Wal-Mart’s
vice-president for federal and international affairs stated that: “there’s
roughly about 20 percent of people that shop at our stores and do not
have a bank account, they go where they might be able to cash their
checks, and shop out of an envelope.” These are the people that depend
on Wal-Mart to conjure these unbeatable low prices, and one way they
are able to do so is by short changing their employees, literally. Current
economic adviser to the President Barrack Obama, Jason Furman,
chimed in that although he advocates for a higher minimum wage, he
acknowledges that even “modestly higher Wal-Mart worker wages
would eliminate the company’s profits or push up prices, thus implicitly
hurting them” (Moberg). Wal-Mart CEO, Lee Scott, addressed the lack
of Wal-Mart’s employee benefits by stating that: “In some of our states,
the public program may actually be a better value” (Bucher). In other
words, he uses this as a copout for providing benefits, or lack thereof to
their employees. Wal-Mart has also publically stated, in response to the
bad press concerning their low wages that their salaries are meant for
supporting the individual, not for supporting families. While opponents
104
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
try to make a case for justifying the unlivable wages and minimal
benefits they distribute, their own record works against them in
weakening their claims.
One of the only measures in which Wal-Mart does not lead the
world is in employee wages and benefits; this is one of the only times
you will find their name at the bottom of the charts. Is this sheer
coincidence or questionably ironic? According to market researcher
IBIS World, workers at large retailers make about 15 percent more than
employees at Wal-Mart. This is at the crux of Wal-Mart’s business
ideology. Along with having low wages, Wal-Mart provides little to no
benefits. In 2005, Wal-Mart’s health insurance insured 44% or 572,000
of all 1.6 million American employees while Wal-Mart’s number one
enemy, Costco, covers 96% of its workers (Bernstein). Despite Jason
Furman’s assertion that you cannot raise or give benefits without hurting
the company, this does not hold true. A team of economists at the
Economic Policy Team criticized these bogus claims by calling them
“implausible.” This team also discovered that providing a higher
minimum wage for big named retailers would result in substantially
105
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
helping retail employees, while only resulting in a minor retail price
increase (Moberg). Disregarding the proven ability to take care of
employees and have competitive prices, this same year Wal-Mart sent
out an internal memo advising the trimming of “$ 1 billion in health care
expenses by 2011 through measures such as attracting a younger,
implicitly healthier workforce by offering education benefits” (“WalMart Memo: Unhealthy Need Not Apply”). Why would Wal-Mart go
out of their way to do this? Don’t get too excited, it’s just another
undercover unilateral business decision. They figured out that by
implementing this idea, along with eliminating other various full-time
positions in place of part-time employees, it would be less money out
their wallet because these employees would not need expensive health
insurance. They purport to provide all of these benefits when in reality
they are just reducing the number of full-time employees. Even the
founder of Wal-Mart, Sam Walton, was noted recognizing that the
company does not compensate well, “I pay low wages. I can take
advantage of that. We’re going to be successful, but the basis is a very
low-wage, low-benefit model of employment” (Is Wal-Mart good for
106
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
America?”). The average Wal-Mart employee and cashier gets paid
between seven to ten dollars and in some cases even reported meager
six-dollar wages (Willing). They are able to avoid paying higher salaries
partly due to their high employee turnover rate that constantly shuffles in
new employees who start off with bottom of the barrel low salaries.
Unlike Sam Walton, Larry Mishel of the liberal Economic Policy
Institute later spoke out countering Walton, stating that these low wages
do not withstand the burden of having and living a stable life: “if people
were only consumers buying things, lower prices would be just good…
[but people] need to earn a decent standard of living… (Wal-Mart) is
undercutting the ability of many to earn decent wages and benefits and
have a stable life” (Lowhorn). On top of stripping their own employees
of livable wages and benefits, this benevolent company also determines
other retail store employees’ wages and benefits. In 2007 a group from
the University of California, Berkeley, found “strong evidence that WalMart entry reduced average and total retail earnings, retail wages, and
health benefits for retail workers over (the 1990s),” negatively impacting
107
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
retail workers everywhere (Bucher). No wonder their employee
turnover rate has run at 70 percent.
The disenfranchisement of unions allows Wal-Mart to escape
shelling out and adhering to worker’s demands. It is a part of the sinews
of Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart states that they are not “anti-union” but are
“pro-associate.” In other words, they should not be responsible for
paying a third party to be a middleman between employees and
management when their “open-door” policy is providing the same effect.
Sam Walton, the late founder of Wal-Mart, hired a “union buster” to
carry out anti-union campaigns in their attempt to show “they have their
best interest at heart” (Dicker). He later consulted a union avoidance
program. Walton made constant efforts to ensure that unions were
constantly barred from forming; however, employees and employers of
Wal-Mart have made longstanding attempts to attain the rights that
which they deserve. In 2000, meat cutters in Texas voted to unionize,
and Wal-Mart took counteractions by removing in-house-meat-cutting
jobs in favor of prepackaged meats saying that “it cut costs”
(Greenhouse). However, it was evident what their real motives were. In
108
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
the documentary Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, they highlight
one successful unionization story in Quebec. Except, this success story
only lasted for five months before the store was closed because they did
not support the “business plan” (Austen). One of the biggest union-based
scandals to come out of Wal-Mart concerned one of their own
executives, Tom Coughlin. He was initially charged with embezzlement,
but Coughlin refuted that the money was paid to him as part of an antiunion project. Cash bribes were given to members of the United Food
and Commercial Workers Union in exchange for a list of Wal-Mart
employee names that had signed union cards (Barbaro). The validity of
the story was never resolved, but it only adds to the magnitude of
ambiguity, manipulation, and secrecy that is lodged into Wal-Mart’s
anatomy.
At this stage Wal-Mart should have reserved seating in
courthouses around the country and world. The nonstop frequency of
their invitations has made them the nation’s “most popular private-sector
target for lawsuits,” accumulating 4,851 jury dates just within the last
109
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
year, or once every two hours (Willing 1). It is safe to say Wal-Mart’s
lawyers do not have to be weary of the recession. Their comprehensive
list of litigation has enabled a new specialization to be born: Wal-Mart.
The list of Wal-Mart’s lawsuits seem to encompass a wide spectrum of
cases including customer falls, parking lot abductions, sex
discrimination, worker’s rights violations, child labor laws, use of illegal
workers, bad working conditions, speculated monopoly, overseas slave
labor, and so on. While the stories that have leaked out from these cases
are unsettling and unnerving, Wal-Mart typically walks out victorious.
Like anything, when you have a lot of practice, you become very good at
what you do; arguing becomes second nature. Bruce Kramer, a Memphis
attorney who is a part of a group of lawyers that specialize in suing WalMart, has picked up on this aspect: “It’s annoying, it’s frustrating, and
I’ve concluded it’s intended to be that way” (Willing). Taking on WalMart may be a long and gruesome battle, but the information that is
revealed during the process is conducive to understanding the reality of
what this company really is. In 2000, The New York Times reported an
internal audit on Wal-Mart to inspect one week’s time-clock records for
110
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
25,000 employees. The Times reported that the audit “pointed to
extensive violations of child-labor laws and state regulations requiring
time for breaks and meals,” comprising 1,371 occurrences of minors
working too late, during school hours, or over the restrictive hours
amount per day. On top of this, there were 60,767 missed breaks and
15,705 lost meal times (Greenhouse). Wal-Mart denounced the charges
by insisting that the measuring tool was “flawed.” Numerous
accusations have also risen concerning workers working overtime. In
reported cases, workers have been locked inside the store to force
overtime work into the night and early mornings, and not compensated.
Thousands of workers have reached out saying that they were not paid
for working overtime, and conveniently Wal-Mart has no record of these
instances. Currently 36 states hold court suits against Wal-Mart solely
for non-paid overtime work. Employing illegal immigrants has been
another hot topic for Wal-Mart. In 2003, federal agents raided 61 WalMart stores in 21 different states only to make 250 arrests of
undocumented nightshift janitors. Again in 2005, 125 undocumented
immigrants were arrested while working on construction of a new Wal111
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Mart center. Federal investigators continue to crack down because of
suspicion Wal-Mart executives are aware of using illegal immigrants
(“250 arrested at Wal-Mart”). There is no shortage of lawsuits when it
comes to Wal-Mart, and they are not unwarranted. Clear themes and
patterns can be extracted from this mess of litigations. First, Wal-Mart
has become too comfortable in the courtroom, and secondly, this
company fails to acknowledge that they can be in the wrong and they
only continue to grow from this copious amount of lawsuits.
Wal-Mart not only plays by its own guidelines, but they make
communities pay for their “rules-don’t-apply” mentality. When WalMart decides to come to town, they bring more with them than just low
prices; they have baggage. Communities are freighted with the price for
additional police/security, roads, and traffic lights. We are often
responsible for taking care of the government benefits that Wal-Mart
employees qualify for, like Medicaid, due to the low compensation.
Without even having a say in the matter, local elected officials decide to
give tax dollars to bring large companies like Wal-Mart into town, and
pay government subsidies or give tax breaks to Wal-Mart as an incentive
112
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
for them to open their stores in their residing community. Good Jobs
First, an economic-development research group, examined local and
state government’s impact on Wal-Mart, and found that Wal-Mart has
collected “more than $1.2 billion in tax breaks and other subsidies from
state and local governments.” So whether you like Wal-Mart or not,
traffic, crime, commercialization, overcrowding, and low-income jobs
are headed your way! While governments try to reel in Wal-Mart’s
business, what they don’t realize is that they lose too. When Wal-Mart
settles in, governments must pick up the shattered pieces left behind;
because Wal-Mart lowers pay, eliminates jobs, and pushes families into
poverty, governments are forced to take care of social welfare programs
like Medicaid, S-CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance), food stamps, and
other forms of aid (Moberg). Wal-Mart employees and their children lie
at the top of the list of Medicaid beneficiaries due to their inability to
provide for themselves and their families. According to the Democratic
staff of the House of Education and Workforce Committee “a 200employee Wal-Mart could cost federal tax payers $420,000 a year.”
With all of this money pouring into Wal-Mart, where does it all go?
113
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Certainly it does not go to the employees. This is one of the biggest
mysteries with Wal-Mart. They are infamous for withholding and
censoring their books, stocks, and purposely leaving out stock
information to purport different holding numbers.
Wal-Mart is an unstoppable powerhouse in the retail industry and a
business that we should all approach with caution. Wal-Mart has been
able to attain its success in various ways using many different types of
methods; however, the list of people that they must trample and abuse in
order to reach this success runs far and wide: taxpayers, towns, local
businesses, competitors, employees, manufacturers, other countries, the
economy, and America. Whether we choose to incorporate Wal-Mart
into our lives or not, they are omnipresent. Consumers are not aware of
the harmful and toxic “behind the scenes” work that Wal-Mart conceals
all too well. Consumers need to be aware that every t-shirt or super
soaker purchased at Wal-Mart has implications that go far beyond what
any low priced item portrays. Every purchase empowers this lethal
company to continue practicing these illegal business tactics that bring
down America, yet boost up their capital. Wal-Mart needs to be exposed
114
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
for what they really are: bad for business, bad for America. In a time
when it matters most, we should be patrons to our local businesses and
chains, thus helping to expand our economy—not feeding the greedy
monster that goes against everything capitalism stands for. In a healthy
economy there are numerous thriving and prospering businesses, not one
business that manipulates competitors to be nothing more than puppets
in their show. America needs to take a collective stand against Wal-Mart
and everything this rapacious company stands for. Next time you see a
Wal-Mart, don’t think of the low priced items that lie on the shelves but
think of the millions of lives they’ve ruined, companies they’ve stepped
on, towns they’ve converted, people they’ve mistreated, and countries
they’ve abused—and then tell me if that $2.70 t-shirt is worth it?
115
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Works Cited
“250 arrested at Walmart.” CNN. October 23, 2003. Online.Retrieved on
February 24, 2007.
Austen, Ian. "Quebec panel rejects Walmart store closing." International
Herald Tribune.
116
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
September 20, 2005. Online. Retrieved on March 2, 2007.Barbaro,
Michael; Abelson, Reed. "Walmart Says Health Plan Is Covering
More Workers." The New York Times. January 11, 2007. Online.
Retrieved on February 24, 2007.
Bernstein, Aaron. "A Stepped-Up Assault on Walmart." Business Week.
October 20, 2005. Online. Retrieved on February 24, 2007.
Bucher, Susan. "Walmart: the $288 billion welfare queen." Tallahassee
Democrat. April 19, 2005. Online.Retrieved on February 24, 2007.
Dicker, John. "Union Blues at Walmart[." The Nation. June 20, 2002.
Online. Retrieved on July 26, 2006. Archived April 17, 2005 at the
Wayback Machine.
Fishman, Charles. "The author." The Wal-Mart Effect. N.p., 2011.
Online. 4 Mar. 2012.
Freeman, Richard. "Wal-Mart Collapses U.S. Cities and Towns."
Executive Intelligence Review. N.p., 2003. Online. 1 Apr. 2012.
Greenhouse, Steven. "Judge Rules Against Walmart On Refusal to Talk
to Workers." The New York Times. June 19, 2003. Online.
Retrieved on March 2, 2007.
117
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
“How Wal-Mart Shapes The World.” American Prospect Vol. 22 .4
(2011): pA3-A6,4p. Academic Search Elite. Online. 1 Apr. 2012.
“Interview Brink Lindsey.” PBS.org. Frontline, 2004. Online. 4
Mar. 2012.
Lowhorn, Alan. "www.RuralJournalism.org ." Special report on 'Is WalMart Good for America?'. N.p., 2004. Online. 4 Apr. 2012.
Moberg, David. "How Wal-Mart Shapes the World." American Prospect
Vol. 22.Issue 4 (May 2011): A3-A6, 4p. Academic Search Elite.
Online. 4 Mar. 2012.
O'Brien, Helene, and Sarita Gupta. "Local Power Can Change WalMart: The ACORN and Jobs with Justice Organizing Strategy."
Social Policy Vol. 36 .Issue 1 (Fall2005): p16-20,5p. Academic
Search Elite. Online. 1 Apr. 2012.
Semmens, John. "Wal-Mart Is Good For America." The Freeman- Ideas
On Liberty. N.p., Oct. 2005. Online. 4 Mar. 2012.
Ticknor, Arthur. “Wal-Mart Is Not a Business, It's an Economic
Disease.” Executive
Intelligence Review . N.p., 2003. Online. 1 Apr. 2012. Turner,
118
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Chris. "How Wal-Mart Is Saving The World." Canadian Business Vol.
83.Issue 20 (2010): p44-48,5p. Academic Search Elite. Online. 4 Mar.
2012.
“Wal-Mart Is Not a Business, It's an Economic Disease.” Executive
Intelligence Review. N.p., 2003. Online. 1 Apr. 2012.“Walmart
memo: Unhealthy need not apply.” CNN. October 26, 2005.
Online. February 24, 2007.
Willing, Richard. "Lawsuits a volume business at Wal-Mart."
USAToday. N.p., 2001. Online. 1 Apr. 2012.
Wright, Sarah H. "IAP: Econ professor illustrates benefits of Wal-Mart."
MIT News. MIT, 20 Jan. 2006. Online. 4 Mar. 2012.
119
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Chris Ognibene
The Shocking Power of Money
It is 2012 and the election primaries for the presidential election
this November are in full swing. Presidential candidates travel to every
part of the country, well-known and obscure places alike, to obtain
support for their campaigns. In addition to physical visits to cities,
candidates thrive on donations and endorsements from corporations,
non-profit organizations, citizens, and government officials.
A third source of funding comes from independent organizations
called political action committees, or PACs, that support or oppose a
candidate. PACs are not the organizations that are controversial today;
the contentious organization is the super PAC, which receives unlimited
amounts of money to produce negative attack ads to draw support away
from a candidate’s opponents. Therefore, super PACs create an uneven
playing field for campaigns.
The unequal funding and spending of super PACs to influence
election outcomes are satirized by comedian Stephen Colbert, host of
The Colbert Report on Comedy Central. He uses his influence in the
120
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
media to strongly criticize the corrupting influence of money on current
political campaigns by creating his own super PAC to unearth the
unequal, undemocratic, elitist nature of 2012 presidential election
spending.
Political action committees have been around since 1944 when
trade unions banded together to raise money for President Franklin
Roosevelt’s reelection campaign. A PAC is officially recognized when it
receives donations or spends amounts of money greater than one
thousand dollars to influence an election outcome (Haq). The PAC
cannot receive more than five thousand dollars from a single donor,
however. This prevents candidates, if they are elected, from favoring
certain donors over others.
In 2010, two Supreme Court rulings dramatically changed the
course of campaign spending. In the first ruling, Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission, the court ruled that because of the First
Amendment, a 100-year old law banning corporations from spending
their own money in election campaigns was unconstitutional because
“independent spending (that is, spending not coordinated with
121
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
candidates) cannot corrupt the political process” (Hasen). Of course, this
reasoning is a farce because according to St. Joseph News-Press
journalist, Richard Hasen, as more money is given to a candidate, the
possibility for bribery and corruption in political office rises. In the
second case, SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, the court
overturned a law that limited donations to a PAC. The justification for
profuse donations was reinforced (Haq).
The new organization that was created took advantage of these two
rulings. The super PAC is “like [a PAC] on steroids” because they can
receive unlimited sums of cash (Haq). The absence of funding limits
creates an uneven competition field, because if a super PAC has more
support from wealthier donors than other super PACs, the former can
influence public opinion more by creating more advertisements. On the
flip side, if a PAC is supported by only a minority of the national
population but has high funding from donors, the PAC can create attack
ads to hurt the popularity of its opponents and can even out the playing
field (McChesney and Nichols 14).
122
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Examples of this unequal funding are shown in the campaigns of
presidential candidates Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Mitt
Romney. Gingrich and Santorum are able to gain support in “traditional
tests,” such as debates or rallies (McChesney and Nichols 14). These
campaigning methods are fair to use for every candidate because they
depend solely on a candidate’s rhetoric and skill at gaining the public’s
approval. Gingrich is a skilled debater, and Santorum is well-liked by
the common citizen because of his conservative core values; however,
their super PACs are not the wealthiest. On the other hand, Romney,
who is a former executive at Bain Capital financial corporation, cannot
relate easily to the lives of the common man. He increases his support
through the use of his super PAC, Restore Our Future, which is run by
former co-workers of his. Romney’s PAC has raised and spent at least
12.2 million dollars, which surpasses Gingrich and Santorum’s by at
least five million dollars. In fact, his PAC has surpassed the competition
by spending money on advertisements that portray him in a favorable
light before he even appears at rallies. When people see Romney in
person, they may feel that they can connect to him better because they
123
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
have seen him so much in the media. Therefore, current campaigns rely
less on candidates having strong persuasion skills at rallies, and more on
funding to create support for one candidate over the others.
As if on cue, to help defend the weaker PACs by calling attention
to the unfairness of the finance rules, Stephen Colbert created his own
PAC. In June 2011, the Federal Election Commission approved, by a 51 vote, Colbert’s PAC called “Americans for a Better Tomorrow,
Tomorrow.” Colbert cried to a crowd outside the FEC, “Thank you for
standing with me for freedom. Today, we put liberty on layaway”
(Catalina). Colbert pretends that he is grateful that he is able to spend
unlimited amounts of money freely. If he does, he restricts the freedom
of less wealthy super PACs from competing as effectively. Colbert
intends to expose the corrupt side of campaign finance laws by saying,
“This is 100 percent legal and at least 10 percent ethical” (Carr). In other
words, the Supreme Court rulings are law, but Colbert does not believe
that the rulings were based on ethical reasoning. By corporations having
immense spending power, they hold a large influence over campaigns
and limit the amount of voting power that individual citizens have.
124
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Another purpose that Colbert’s PAC had was to support candidate
Herman Cain, who dropped out of the race in January due to allegations
about sexual harassment and foreign policy mistakes. This decision was
especially made because there was much confusion over the Libya
conflict. Before that happened, the PAC could be seen as giving Cain
extra support to try to match the power of larger super PACs, for his
own PAC was not the strongest or most prominent. Despite Colbert’s
efforts, Cain’s campaign crumbled because attack ads exploited Cain’s
ignorance of Israel and the Libya conflict, and claims of sexual
harassment. Two super PACs could not even fend off attacks; this
observation highlights the need for restrictions on super PAC spending
for PACs that become disproportionately powerful over others.
In late January at a rally in Colbert’s home state, South Carolina,
Colbert made fun of the Citizens United decision by saying that “‘five
courageous justices’…ruled…that ‘corporations are people,’ that people
are entitled to free speech, that free speech equals money and that
corporations should thus be entitled to dump as much money as they like
into the political water table” (Henneberger). Colbert equated
125
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
corporations to individual citizens by saying that they have a right to
donate as much money as they want, just as citizens can. In actuality,
Colbert believes the opposite because corporations have considerably
more power and money than private citizens, so they have more
influence in elections. He describes super PACs as serving as
“megaphones of cash” (Carr). A megaphone amplifies someone’s voice;
Colbert implies that cash is like a megaphone because if a super PAC
spends heavily, the PAC’s message can be conveyed effectively through
profuse advertisements.
In January, Colbert transferred control of his super PAC to
Comedy Central comedian, Jon Stewart of The Daily Show, to comply
with the rule that super PACs had to be independent of their candidates.
Even though Colbert supported Herman Cain, he himself was also
exploring a mock bid for the presidency, so Colbert was technically also
a candidate. Colbert renamed his PAC the “Definitely Not Co-ordinated
with Stephen Colbert Super Pac” (Wells). According to the journalist,
Matt Wells, of the British newspaper The Guardian, the rule is
ineffective because most super PACs, such as the case with Romney’s
126
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
PAC discussed earlier, are run by political officials who have close
affiliations to the candidates. In Colbert’s case, John Stewart is a fellow
comedian of Colbert, so Stewart is subject to Colbert’s influence.
Despite the increased freedom of super PACs compared to regular
PACs, there is a catch; they have to publicly disclose their donors (Haq).
This measure allows the government to oversee the financial
transactions between PACs and donors. To avoid disclosing donors’
names, super PACs create nonprofit 501(c)(4) groups, which are nonprofit organizations that cannot partake in political campaigns, but can
be connected to the super PACs. For example, Colbert created his own
organization called “‘Colbert Super PAC SHH’ as in hush” (Hasen). At
least 165,000 fans of Colbert, as of August 2011, supported and donated
money to the PAC, but were not disclosed (Carr). These organizations
can fund super PACs without disclosing donors, until, according to
Trevor Potter, the Colbert super PAC lawyer, after an election (The
Colbert Report). As the name of Colbert’s organization implies, super
PACs are able to be even more secretive about their operations; after an
127
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
election, disclosing donors no longer matters because a candidate has
already been elected as President.
Colbert, as hinted at, is a liberal satirist of Republican politics
(Wells). As a democrat, Colbert seeks to make the election campaign
arena more equal for every candidate, such as by setting limits on super
PAC donations. One night, Colbert invited former Speaker of the House
of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, onto his show and agreed to support a
bill in Congress which would require companies to share more
extensively their spending for advertisements for election campaigns. As
an exchange, Pelosi promised to encourage her Democratic colleagues to
appear on Colbert’s show. This disclosure bill sought to counter the
creation of 501(c)(4) organizations.
As Colbert and Pelosi discussed the bill, Colbert remarked
sarcastically in response to her statement that since America is not an
aristocracy, but a democracy, the bill is necessary so that the wealthiest
people in the nation do not control the outcome of our elections: he had
said, “You have a fetish for transparency” (Mascaro). This is the attitude
of super PACs because they want to keep all of their donors private at all
128
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
costs in order to prevent the government from finding out whom the
extremely wealthy donors behind the PAC’s funding are, and to hide the
possibility that money is coming from the actual candidate. Super PACs
should disclose their donors because there are incredible amounts of
money being exchanged, which creates chances for bribery. Since super
PACs can receive unlimited amounts of money from any one donor,
logically, there must be some check on this increase in power. This
policy is in contrast to the one regarding regular PACs, because the latter
does not have to disclose their donors and they cannot receive more than
five thousand dollars from any single person. Therefore, if donors are
known, then restrictions can be placed on the strong PACs in order to
ensure fairer competition between large and small super PACs.
Campaign finance reform is not just a partisan issue, but has
received support from 2008 presidential Republican nominee and
current senator of Arizona, John McCain, who called the Citizens United
ruling “ignorant” and “naïve” (Wells). Prior to 2010, there were not
nearly as many attack ads and as much spending as there is now.
Reining in super PACs feels like a losing battle, because they are
129
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
becoming increasingly more powerful, and they are always trying to find
new ways to evade the law. Advocates for finance reform seek, in
essence, an overturn and reversal of the Citizens United ruling. Super
PACs would argue that the ban on funding had restricted their freedom
of expression concerning their support for candidates and their choice of
how much money to donate. If super PACs had spent money
moderately, there would not have been any need for reform; however,
because the PACs create negative ads to hurt the popularity of their
opponents and control the outcome of an election, regulations are
necessary to protect our democracy, which is a rule by the people, not by
a few super PACs.
In March 2012, the governor of Rhode Island and representatives
from both houses of the state Congress backed a campaign finance
disclosure bill. This bill would ensure that super PACs disclose their
donors and would close the loopholes in previous legislations.
According to the Providence Journal article, “Bill would shine light on
sources of ‘dark money,’” the Citizens United decision was what it was
because the “[Supreme] court thought people would start spending
130
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
money by themselves or through organizations that were transparent.”
Like John McCain’s comments that the decision was “naïve,” the
Supreme Court entrusted too much responsibility to the PACs. The court
did not envision PACs finding ways to keep their donors private; if it
did, then the Citizens United decision may not have been what it came to
be. There would not be an issue concerning exorbitant campaign
spending. Even though Rhode Island has not seen tremendous influence
from super PACs, this bill would forestall many of the inevitable actions
that super PACs will use to try to keep their donors private. Hopefully,
the bill will compel the federal government to propose similar legislation
of their own. By disclosing donors, we as voters will be able to assess
the validity of the news conveyed by super PACs.
Secondly, according to a Los Angeles Times article, “The trouble
with super PACs,” opponents of the Citizens United decision are trying
to create support for a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision.
However, a quicker and more plausible option is for the Federal Election
Commission and Congress to ban any contact whatsoever between
campaigns and super PACs, instead of leaving the level of coordination
131
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
referred to in the rules vague. There needs to be clearly written rules
indicating who is and is not supposed to communicate with the super
PAC. Still, the issue remains as to how these options will be enforced.
In the New York Times article, “Comic’s PAC is More than a Gag,”
by journalist David Carr, super PACs in the 2010 congressional
elections spent more than 60 million dollars. This amount is most
certainly going to surge higher, especially now that there is a contentious
battle for control of Congress and the presidency between highly
partisan Democrats and Republicans. Fortunately, officials are
beginning to recognize the efforts of finance reformists like Colbert. For
instance, Sheila Krumholz, the executive director of the Center for
Responsive Politics, said that Colbert uses satire and humor to take “on a
serious subject that many Americans find deadly dull and is educating
the broader public on why it matters and what is at stake…it’s all fun
and games until somebody gets hurt, like a specific campaign or the
electoral system” (Carr). Colbert’s intervention in the presidential race
could be seen as an attempt to save America’s political system from
corruption and domination by a small minority of wealthy individuals.
132
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
America’s idea of free enterprise in the marketplace applies to the
election world too. Anyone has the right to run for office and to
campaign, but regulations also are crucial to the point that they control
stampeding campaign organizations and do not complicate the campaign
process.
Fast forward until after an election, or at least until a candidate
suspends his or her campaign: a struggle between the candidate and the
super PAC could result. When Colbert suspended his campaign for
Herman Cain when he dropped out in late January, Colbert also ended
his exploratory bid for president. Therefore, Colbert no longer was a
candidate, so he wanted to take control of the PAC again. However, Jon
Stewart did not relinquish it until after several verbal battles on each
other’s comedy shows. Colbert was then in control of the PAC’s money:
one million dollars. According to law official Jan Witold Baran of Wiley
Rein Law Firm, Colbert, a former candidate, did not “have any legal
right to possess that money at all” (Hudson). The money usually goes to
the treasurer of the PAC, or the owner of the PAC, whoever is identified
in the FEC filing. The situation was complicated because Colbert was
133
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
the original filer but he transferred control to Stewart, so Stewart
technically still had control. The repulsive aspect of this policy is that
super PACs can use the money for personal affairs, compared to
campaign funds which cannot be used personally (super PACs are not
supposed to interact with campaigns). Much of this donated money from
businesses was probably taxpayer money. That money should be
returned to the citizens, or be used for the citizens’ benefit.
The run-up to the presidential election in November is
characterized by cash. With money comes the possibility for bribery
from elected officials to grant supporters certain exemptions from laws.
Therefore, as intelligent, aware members of American society, we must
choose the candidate best suited for office, independent of super PAC
influences on us. We can influence our lawmakers to pass stricter
regulations on super PAC spending, but there is no effective way to
enforce them, so the job of maintaining a balanced, realistic view of the
candidates and choosing the right one is up to us.
134
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Works Cited
“Bill would shine light on sources of ‘dark money.’” The Providence
Journal (2012): A4. ProQuest. Web. 25 Mar. 2012.
Carr, David. “Comic’s PAC is more than a Gag.” NYTimes.com. 21
August 2011. Web. 21 March 2012.
Catalina, Camia and USA Today. “Colbert takes his politics
seriously.”USA Today (2011). EBSCOhost. Web. 21 Mar. 2012.
Haq, Husna. “Election 101: Five basics about ‘super PACs’ and 2012
campaign money.” The Christian Science Monitor (2011).
ProQuest. Web. 25 Mar. 2012.
Hasen, Richard L. “The Biggest Danger Of Super PACs.” St. Joseph
News-Press (2012). ProQuest. Web. 25 Mar. 2012.
Henneberger, Melinda. “Super PAC man.” The Washington Post
(2012): C.1. ProQuest. Web. 25 Mar. 2012.
Hudson, John. “Zombie Super PACs: What Happens to the Money After
a Candidate Drops Out?” National Journal (2012). ProQuest. 2
Feb. 2012.
135
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Mascaro, Lisa. “Nation, here’s Nancy Pelosi; Ex-House speaker goes on
Colbert’s show, strikes deal.” Chicago Tribune (2012). ProQuest.
Web. 25 Mar. 2012.
McChesney, Robert W and Nichols, John. “The Assault of the Super
Pacs.” Nation 294.6 (2012): 11-17. The Nation Archive. Web. 25
Mar. 2012.
“The Colbert Report: Tuesday, April 3, 2012.” The Colbert Report.
Comedian Stephen Colbert. Comedy Central. New York City. 3
April 2012. Internet.
“The trouble with ‘super PACs’; In theory, they’re independent of
candidates and their campaigns. But what’s the reality?” Los
Angeles Times (2012): A14. Lexis-Nexis Academic. Web. 25 Mar.
2012.
Wells, Matt. “International: ‘I’m doing it!’ TV comic Colbert enters
race.” The Guardian (2012): 37. ProQuest. Web. 23 Mar.
2012.
136
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Lauren Zaknoun
Racial Profiling at Airports
Throughout history, countless races, religions, and ethnic groups
have been scapegoated by society. Black people and Jews are two
pertinent groups that often come to mind when thinking of persecution;
however, during the eras when the harassment and degradation of these
respective groups was rampant, very few perceived it as unethical.
Because slavery was popular in the US in the 1800s, because Jews have
always been easily targeted by the larger facets of society, this inherent
hate was not identified as racism; it was simply logical to hate these
groups because of some (untrue) belief that they hinder society. People
today often like to think that society, for the most part, has moved past
such small-mindedness; however, it does still exist and it can easily be
seen today in airports across the U.S. Arabs and Muslims are often
harassed in airports across the nation simply because they appear to fit
the mold of a potential terrorist. Based on little more than appearance
and ignorance, airport security maintains the right to detain these people
137
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
simply because, based on their ethnic or religious background, they may
be threatening. This is a gross infringement upon basic American rights.
Thus, racial profiling of Arabs, Arab-Americans, and Muslims at
airports is extremely unethical, as well ineffective.
According to Dina Jadallah and Laura el-Khoury in their essay
“State Power and the Constitution of the Individual: Racial Profiling of
Arab Americans,” “Racial profiling describes the reliance by law
enforcement officials and agencies on race or ethnicity or national
origin, as opposed to behavior, in considering whether or not a person is
likely to commit a crime or illegal act…" (219). The racial profiling of
Arabs began as a result of the attacks on September 11, 2001 when the
terrorist group, Al-Qaeda, hijacked and crashed planes into the World
Trade Centers in New York, and into the Pentagon. A fourth attack in
Washington D.C. was also intended but failed when the passengers took
control of the plane. The causalities passed 3,000 people (New York).
As an Islamic extremist group, Al-Qaeda set the stage for unjust
condemnation of Muslims, Arabs, Arab-Americans, and even those who
simply appear Middle Eastern. Detainment of passengers at airports is
138
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
supposed to be based upon suspicious behaviors observed by security or
other travelers. However, where racial profiling is concerned, suspicious
behavior is no longer requisite; innocent Arab or Muslim travelers are
detained simply because they look like they may pose a threat to security
based on past events
My entire family is of Lebanese descent. For this reason, when
traveling, we are often detained at airports. My father, who is very
ethnic-looking and has an accent, is detained most often at airports. He’s
even more likely to be stopped if he has a beard, so he is now very
careful not to travel without shaving first. My father looks more ethnic
than my mother does, so she doesn’t arouse suspicion as often as him.
Though incidents of being detained have lessened in recent years,
particularly when my little brother and I accompany my parents, it is
frustrating and humiliating beyond measure to be harassed for no reason.
However, we must submit to such persecution in order to avoid more
trouble down the line.
Racial profiling is highly unethical because it alienates and even
dehumanizes those under suspicion for no reason. Additionally, it
139
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
infringes upon our Fourteenth Amendment rights as Americans. The
Fourteenth Amendment states that it is unlawful to “deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Racial profiling
is based upon unequal protection where it values the lives and wellbeing of traditionally white Americans and places those of ethniclooking people lower on the totem pole. “[Racial profiling]’s purpose is
primarily control and submission of anyone who has the smallest
potential of having an affiliation...with groups or states who do not
conform or subscribe to US global strategic aims” (Jadallah, el-Khoury
219). Thus, racial profiling is not only an exercise in racism; it is also a
political move to keep yet another minority submissive to higher powers.
In addition, racial profiling breaches the Fourth Amendment which
protects citizens against unreasonable search and seizure (Baker 1382).
When is it considered reasonable to search a person? It is considered
reasonable when he or she is guilty of suspicious behavior that warrants
investigation. Conversely, it is “unreasonable” to assume that ethnicity
or religion automatically equates to “terrorist” and thus warrants a
search. Although the Fourth Amendment does assert that unreasonable
140
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
searches are unconstitutional, this right is slightly overshadowed by
permission to conduct routine searches (bag checks, etc.) in the interest
of safe travel at airports. This is permissible in light of Whren v. United
States, in which the Supreme Court ruled that “any traffic offense
committed by a driver was a legitimate legal basis for a stop” (Baker
1383, Drake). This precaution does not trigger the Fourth Amendment
and thus makes it easier to detain Arabs and Muslims (Baker 1383).
According to the American Civil Liberties Union, “The Obama
administration has inherited a shameful legacy of racial profiling
codified in official FBI guidelines and a notorious registration program
that treats Arabs and Muslims as suspects and denies them the
presumption of innocence and equal protection under the law” (Racial
Profiling). This infringement thus dehumanizes the individual by
reducing them to nothing more than an object to be feared. Racial
profiling reduces Arabs and Muslims to second class citizens that are
valued less that those deemed to be safer members of society.
Racial profiling is also unethical because it spurs fear within the
Arab and Muslim communities. They live in constant fear of harassment
141
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
and unjust treatment, particularly by law enforcers. Additionally, it
incites unwarranted hate, suspicion, and paranoia of these groups. In
light of the NYPD's spying on Muslim-Americans, Muslim people have
felt so oppressed and alienated that they find it's easier to remain silent if
it means they will be left alone (Dann). They're even terrified that
undercover police sit in on classes at universities to observe their
behavior (Dann). When under such suspicion, these people often find it
easier to remain silent and to simply submit to such treatment in hopes
that it will not lead to any drastic measures on the part of authorities; this
is particularly disheartening because these people are innocent while law
enforcers are the ones infringing upon their rights as citizens. Racial
discrimination also allows the general public to believe that there is a
valid reason to fear these groups. When authorities partake in such
unethical measures, it encourages paranoia within society that manifests
itself in hateful, cruel, and callous actions. Racial profiling allows these
people to feel justified in their fear because the police are actively
encouraging it by partaking in such witch hunts.
142
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Most studies conducted on the effects of racial profiling of Arabs
and Muslims show that it is an ineffective safety measure and is even
considered “counter-productive,” according to Jadallah and el-Khoury.
This counter-productivity is caused by the alienation of a vast spectrum
of people whose aid the U.S could undoubtedly benefit from (220).
Rather than building alliances between the U.S and the Middle East, U.S
officials only concern themselves with senselessly harassing and
isolating Arabs and Muslims, effectively snuffing any desire for
cooperation. Not only is racial profiling ineffective, but according to
Jadallah and el-Khoury: “While most US policies target Arabs and
Muslims, especially when travelling, any review of the list of individuals
who were actually convicted of terrorism-related crimes after 9-11 will
notice that most were not Arab. Richard Reid is British; Zacaria
Moussaoui is French; and John Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla are
American” (220). This evidence indicates that ethnicity or religion
create a deficient justification for racial profiling, as an Arab is no more
likely to attempt to carry explosives on a plane than a white man.
143
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
According to a study conducted by William Press, racial profiling
is no more effective at exposing terrorists than random screening. He
observed that established racial profiles are idealized compilations of
traits based on a small sample of perpetrators. Once a person is
identified as a potential risk, they cannot be re-screened because they
managed to raise a flag in the system. This creates a problem because
inaccuracies and inconsistencies are not filtered out, thus fortifying an
imperfect profile that worsens throughout each screening. These
imperfect profiles reflect a “finite chance that the screening process [will
miss] a likely security risk” (Timmer). According to Press, “The reason
that this strong profiling strategy is inefficient is that, on average, it
keeps retesting the same innocent individuals who happen to have large
[risk profile match values]” (Timmer). The risk profile matches become
increasingly skewed but are regarded as accurate because 9/11, one of
the most catastrophic and unforgettable events in American history,
established a solid reference point for the profile. This is how
stereotypes are created and perpetuated; the system refuses to look at the
factors beyond those presented by one incident. It instead chooses to
144
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
fixate upon visible characteristics that have been deemed suspicious.
Because they are suspicious, the public must be informed of them. When
it is informed, the public adopts an air of paranoia that is not easily
dissolved. This fear then perpetuates the alleged “need” for such
processes as racial profiling, thus creating a vicious cycle of fear that
fuels itself endlessly.
Because the 19 suicide bombers responsible for the hijackings on
September 11 were primarily Muslim Arabs, most people need little
more motivation to discriminate beyond ethnicity or religion. The fact
that Al-Qaeda was an extremist group, though mentioned frequently in
media coverage, receives little consideration when such discriminatory
mindsets are being adapted. Much of society is convinced that all Arabs
and Muslims are little more than subhuman killers who live like animals
in the desert and mindlessly dedicate themselves to “Allah,” when, in
fact, this characterization is more or less accurate (if not a little
overblown) in the context of any extremist group. The Westboro Baptist
Church is based in Kansas and is notorious for its stringently anti-gay
stance and has been known to picket the funerals of American soldiers in
145
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
the name of their god. The Ku Klux Klan, a white supremacy group,
expresses its hateful views toward Catholics, blacks, and immigrants
primarily through terrorism. The Army of God is a Christian terrorist
group that primarily combats abortion through violence. Clearly,
terrorism does not strictly have roots in either Islam or the Middle East
respectively.
Another issue that is overlooked is that airport security is
insufficient. According to USA Today, about 25,000 security breaches
have occurred in airports in the US since 9/11, averaging at about seven
infractions per day (Stoller). Though the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) has spent $795 million for the optimization of
screening technologies since 2002, the TSA is still unsure if any of the
various new systems developed can actually address the greatest threats
to security (Lax airport security). The Government Accountability
Office (GAO) evaluated the TSA and found that it didn’t perform any
preliminary studies or analyses to see whether these new technologies
would actually benefit air travel. In a test conducted by the TSA in 2006,
security at Los Angeles International Airport and O’Hare International
146
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Airport failed to find the fake bombs carried by undercover agents in
more than 60% of the tests. Other statistics include 6,000 unscreened or
improperly screened security breaches, 2,616 security breaches in
unauthorized areas, 1,318 incidents where individuals gained access to
airplanes or security identification areas while under constant
surveillance, and various other shocking incidents (Stoller). The
department of Homeland Security’s inspector general has found that
passengers and baggage alike are insufficiently screened and that airport
security and personnel are not aptly monitored at unauthorized areas
(Lax airport security). In 2009, more than 50% of screeners failed the
GAO’s skill test, though the screener’s union insists that the problem
was the test and not the aptitude of the screeners (Lax airport security).
These appalling mishaps coupled with ineffective racial profiling
techniques allow many security risks to fall through the cracks while
simultaneously harassing innocent people.
Despite the ineffectiveness and unfairness of racial profiling, the
majority of Americans support using it to attempt to weed out potential
terrorists. A Gallup poll found that 71% of blacks supported the
147
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
intensive racial profiling of Arabs and Arab-Americans at airports. This
statistic is particularly troubling because not only does it exceed the 57%
of whites that agree, but because it comes from the minority group that
is most traditionally discriminated against (Baker 1395-1396).
Apparently, little solidarity exists between these oppressed groups.
American officials seem to agree that racial profiling is necessary
because in 2003, the U.S Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division
issued the “Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law
Enforcement Agencies,” which states that racial profiling is acceptable
“to the extent permitted by our laws and the Constitution” because, in
light of the 9/11 attacks, all precautionary measures available must be
taken advantage of (Should racial). Scott W. Johnson argues in his
article, “Better Unsafe Than (Occasionally) Sorry?” that the reason for
racial profiling stems from a disparity in crime rates and that more
crimes are committed by ethnic people and that law enforcers do a good
job of handling these law breakers (Should racial). This is a grossly
inaccurate assertion; while crime rates among ethnic people are
generally higher, this does not accurately reflect true statistics, because
148
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
police are more likely to investigate suspicious activity if it is conducted
by someone who is not white. Therefore, these statistics are skewed and
Johnson’s statement is unsound.
Some argue that because racial profiling has worked in the past, it
can still be a powerful tool in apprehending terrorists. In her paper,
“Why We Need Racial Profiling,” Debbie Schlussel argues that racial
profiling is a necessary evil and that without it, a terrorist plot conducted
by a few Muslims (paid off by Al-Qaeda) in 1995 would have succeeded
(Should racial). While it was fortunate that this plot, known as “Project
Bojinka,” or “chaos in the sky” did not come to fruition, it was not
because racial profiling managed to weed them out. Rather, several test
bombs were planted in various locations and successfully detonated;
there were a few casualties. However, the perpetrators were apprehended
by law enforcers before they could execute the second phase of their
plan which involved bombing 12 planes and assassinating the pope.
These terrorists were apprehended when chemical fire broke out at the
apartment of Ramzi Yousef, the leader of this operation. This chance
event spared the lives of the estimated 4,000 casualties that would have
149
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
occurred if the 12 American airplanes had been detonated (Project
Bojinka, Mazzetti 2). Therefore, Schlussel’s argument is completely
unfounded because this event had nothing to do with racial profiling.
Another justification for racial profiling is the false belief that
Arabs and Muslims are more likely to partake in terrorist activity than
any other ethnic group. However, as mentioned earlier, they are no more
likely than a white or black man to be at the heart of a terrorist ploy; the
2011 bombings in Oslo, Norway were perpetrated by Anders Behring
Breivik, a white Christian; Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistan-born American,
was responsible for the attempted car bombing of Times Square in 2010;
Jared Lee Loughner, a white man, was responsible for the 2011 Tucson
shooting that claimed the lives of six people, including nine-year-old
Christina-Taylor Green. It’s clear that terrorism does not have stronger
roots in different ethnicities and cannot be treated as a biological trait
that can be logistically detected.
Though many Arabs and Muslims remain silent in the face of
discrimination for fear of greater harassment, many are beginning to
rally against the government officials who continue to allow Arabs to be
150
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
discriminated against. In the wake of Trayvon Martin’s murder, the
death of Shaima Alwadi has gone widely unpublicized. An Iraqi
immigrant, Awadi was beaten to death in her home after her family
reportedly received a threatening letter reading “Go back to your
country, you terrorist” (Tonova). This event coupled with the NYPD’s
unethical infiltration of Muslim communities, has caused the Arab and
Muslim communities to demand the same liberties they deserve as
Americans. Arab-Americans across the country are traveling to
Washington this month to call on the Obama Administration to end
racial profiling, the root of most of the injustices committed against the
Arab community.
In conclusion, the racial profiling of Arabs and Muslims at airports
as a means to prevent terrorism is unethical and ineffective, and thus
should not be utilized. Racial profiling reduces Arab-Americans and
Muslims to second class citizens whose belittlement and silence are
traded when it comes to preventing terrorism. Additionally, racial
profiling is no more effective than random screening, and the greater
risk to security appears to be presented by the numerous security
151
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
breaches of varying severity that have occurred in the years following
9/11. The “better safe than sorry” mindset that most Americans have
adopted seems to be the most prevalent justification for racial profiling.
Most people believe that if they have the means to weed out possible
terrorists, then they must be taken advantage of, even at the cost of the
individual rights of an extremely large community of people. In theory,
this precaution sounds semi-acceptable, but when millions of people
become estranged from their other fellow countrymen, it should become
apparent that something is amiss. Greater security is not something that
can be achieved through distancing minority groups. Rather, it can be
bettered if alliance between Americans, Arabs, and Muslims can be
formed.
Works Cited
“American Civil Liberties Union.” American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU). Web. 24 Apr. 2012. <http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/racial-profiling>.
152
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Baker, Ellen. “Flying While Arab--Racial Profiling and Air Travel
Security.” Journal of Air Law and Commerce. 1376-405. Web. 5
Apr. 2012.
Drake, Mark. "HR 118 Continued..." Civil Liberties Monitoring Project.
Web. 24 Apr. 2012.
<http://www.civilliberties.org/win98hr118.html>.
“EDITORIAL: Lax Airport Security.” The Washingtion Times. 4 Nov.
2009. Web. 24 Apr. 2012.
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/04/lax-airportsecurity/>.
Elizabeth Dann. "Singling Us Out: NYPD's Spying on Muslim
Americans Creates Fear and Distrust." American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU). 19 Apr. 2012. Web. 24 Apr. 2012.
<http://www.aclu.org/blog/racial-justice-national-security-religionbelief/singling-us-out-nypds-spying-muslim-americans>.
Jadallah, Dinah, and Laura El-Khoury. "State Power and the
Constitution of the Individual: Racial Profiling and Arab
Americans." Arab Studies Quarterly. 218-37. Web. 24 Apr. 2012.
153
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Mazzetti, Mark. "Portrait of 9/11 ‘Jackal’ Emerges as He Awaits Trial."
NYTimes.com. New York Times, 14 Nov. 2009. Web. 24 Apr.
2012.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/15ksm.html?_r=1>.
“New York Reduces 9/11 Death Toll by 40.” CNN. 29 Oct. 2003. Web.
24 Apr. 2012. <http://articles.cnn.com/2003-1029/us/wtc.deaths_1_death-toll-world-trade-centernames?_s=PM:US>.
“Project Bojinka.” Homeland Security. Web. 24 Apr. 2012.
<http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/project_bojinka.ht
m>.
“Racial Profiling, Airport Security, and a Mad, Mad World.”
WeOpEd.com. 28 Feb. 2008. Web. 24 Apr. 2012.
<http://weoped.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=2002717%3ATopi
c%3A401>.
“Should Racial Profiling Be Accepted as a Law Enforcement Practice?”
Is the ACLU Good for America? Web. 24 Apr. 2012.
<http://aclu.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000698>.
154
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Stoller, Gary. "Airport Security Breaches since 2001 Raise Alarms."
USATODAY.COM. 13 July 2011. Web. 24 Apr. 2012.
<http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/story/2011/07/Airport-securitybreaches-since-2001-raise-alarms/49326312/1>.
Timmer, John. "Study: Racial Profiling No More Effective than Random
Screen." Ars Technica. Feb. 2009. Web. 24 Apr. 2012.
<http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/02/study-racialprofiling-no-more-effective-than-random-screen.ars>.
Tonova, Nadia. "Arab-Americans: End Racial Profiling." ArabAmericans: End Racial Profiling. 5 Apr. 2012. Web. 24 Apr. 2012.
<http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/146281845.ht
ml>.
155
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Catherine Vanden Heuvel Tague
Nursing:
The Crucial Role of Women during the Civil War
Nursing in the mid-nineteenth century was a challenging
profession. Medicine was in its infancy and doctors’ knowledge of
medicine was limited. During the Civil War, which lasted from 1861 to
1865, nurses played a crucial role in helping doctors care for the
thousands of gravely injured soldiers brought into hospitals in both the
North and the South. Nurses faced unsanitary conditions, gruesome
injuries, and distressed soldiers on a daily basis, all the while working
hard to ensure the swift recovery of the soldiers in their care.
Prior to the Civil War, women, as well as men, had specific,
distinct gender roles. Gender roles are the characteristics or qualities that
society expects a person to have based on the sex of the individual. Due
to the concept of “gender roles,” men and women should behave the way
society expects them to behave. Any man or woman who branched out
of that specified gender role was deemed to be “strange” or “weird.” For
most of our nation’s history, it has been the man’s job to provide for the
156
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
family while the woman’s was to stay at home and tend to the children
and household duties. During the Civil War, only men were allowed to
serve as soldiers. The Civil War, however, did change the lives of a lot
of women. Victoria L. Holder, in her article “From Hand Maiden to
Right Hand—The Birth of Nursing in America,” published in the AORN
Journal, states:
For the first time in US history, women were asked to come
out of their homes and serve as suppliers and caregivers for
the armies. They could no longer abide by societal norms that
said their place was in the home. They were needed, and they
suddenly found themselves in situations that required real
strength, stamina and fortitude. (Holder 618)
Before women were called out to help the war effort through the role of
nursing, the wounded were treated by surgeons and other soldiers who
were in the process of recuperating from their own wounds. There were
not enough surgeons available to treat the large numbers of wounded
soldiers in both the North and the South. Robert Sattelmeyer, in his
article “Miss Alcott Goes to War”, printed in the Civil War Times,
157
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
reports that “Despite resistance from the military medical establishment,
by August 1861 women could be officially mustered as nurses, ‘to
receive forty cents a day and one ration’” (Sattelmeyer 46). For the
amount of effort and work put in by these nurses, these wages were not
adequate for the services they provided, but for the most part women
were content with being able to assist surgeons and soldiers during the
Civil War and to break out of the societal norms of staying home.
Some upper-class families did not support or encourage the
decision of their daughters to serve as Civil War nurses, claiming that
war hospitals, rampant with both men and disease, were not appropriate
places for their daughters to be; however, despite these discouragements,
some women felt it was their duty to serve and treat the wounded during
the war. A poignant quote said by Mary Stinebaugh, a nurse who served
in the North during the Civil War, to her father in 1863, exemplifies how
strongly some women felt about being able to serve as nurses and do
their part in contributing to the war effort. Stinebaugh says: “You have
given your boys to die for their country; now you can give your girls to
nurse them” (Arendt).
158
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Family members were not the only ones who did not support the
role of women as nurses in the Civil War. Society in general held
preconceived notions about women who served as Civil War nurses.
Gerald D. Evans, author of “Clara Barton: Teacher, Nurse, Civil War
Heroine, Founder of the American Red Cross,” affirms that “there were,
however, strong prejudices against women serving as nurses in the army,
especially near the battlefield. Women who tried to get to the front were
generally thought to be ‘camp followers’ or prostitutes” (Evan 77).
There were certain requirements and qualifications necessary for a
woman to possess in order for her to be deemed qualified to be a nurse
during the Civil War. Sattelmeyer not only outlines Louisa May Alcott’s
experience of being a volunteer nurse, but he also includes the necessary
criteria for being a nurse during the Civil War, as stated in Circular No.
7 issued by Surgeon General William Hammond. Sattelmeyer states
that:
Only ‘matronly’ women between 35 (quickly lowered to 30)
and 50 who could furnish character references would be
accepted, and they must agree to dress plainly in ‘brown,
159
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
gray, or black…without ornaments of any sort.’ No formal
training was required since none was available, only ‘a
capacity to care for the sick.’ (Sattelmeyer 46)
The thought of being treated by an individual who has had little or no
medical training would normally frighten anyone, but during the Civil
War, surgeons and wounded soldiers needed all of the help that they
could receive, especially given the large number of casualties, injuries,
and diseases soldiers experienced during the Civil War.
Holder also examines and outlines the varied roles nurses played
during the Civil War. In army hospitals during the Civil War, nurses had
three main duties. The first duty was to assist surgeons with the special
diets of patients, ensuring that each patient received the right meal
specified by the surgeon. A full diet consisted of meats, fish, and
vegetables, whereas a lighter meal consisted of solely liquids and bread.
It was also up to the nurses to secure and distribute medicinal alcohol
when the situation deemed it to be necessary (Holder 619).
The second duty was to tend to the physical needs of wounded
soldiers. This task involved washing patients, changing used and soiled
160
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
linens and clothes, and replacing them with new fresh ones, and
dispensing medicines and provisions to the wounded. The third duty was
to tend to the emotional needs of the patients. The emotional needs of
the patients were just as important as their physical needs, since serving
as a soldier in any war and being in combat can be traumatic and can
take an immense toll on the emotions and psyches of the soldiers. Nurses
functioned as temporary substitutes of the patient’s family members,
including wives, mothers, and sisters. It was important for nurses to have
a motherly, nurturing attitude toward the men in their care. Also, due to
the extent of some injuries, nurses also wrote letters dictated by the
soldiers to be sent back home to their families. Nurses were there for the
soldiers, even during a soldier’s last dying breath (Holder 619).
The following is an excerpt from a letter written to the Foote
family by Miss E.F. Morris, a nurse at the Washington Park Hospital in
Cincinnati, dated March 29th 1864, in which she informs the family of
their son James’ condition. She writes:
I saw him about 6 o clock last evening and he seemed about
the same as when I wrote. I hoped to find him better this
161
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
morning, but the little lock of hair which I cut from his head
for his mother today will tell the sad story that her, and your,
dear little boy has gone to return no more. The nurse who
watched him, told me he died about 2 o clock last night [.]
She said he was calling all the time for his father and mother
and sister. (Morris to Foote)
Letters written by nurses to the families of badly injured and dying
soldiers are incredibly sad. It must have been difficult for these nurses to
deliver such distressing news to the loved ones of these soldiers. To
inform a family member that their son, husband, or brother was not
returning home had to be heartbreaking for these nurses. It must have
also been unfathomable to see these young men dying, oftentimes in
excruciating agony, especially since some of these soldiers were as
young as fifteen years old. Their whole lives were cut short due to
disease or a wound from the battlefield.
Louisa May Alcott, best known for her novel Little Women, served
as a volunteer nurse at Washington Hospital, an army hospital, from late
1862 to early 1863. Louisa May Alcott’s narrative Civil War Hospital
162
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Sketches was taken from the diary that she kept during her tour of duty
which lasted six long weeks. Alcott’s narrative discusses the tasks she
was assigned and what it was truly like to be a Civil War nurse. She
does not romanticize her account so Civil War Hospital Sketches gives
the reader a historically accurate, true account of Civil War army
hospitals and the struggles and pain nurses were forced to endure. Alcott
recalls how difficult it was to witness these young lives being taken
when she says, “The night whose events I have a fancy to record, opened
with a little comedy, and closed with a great tragedy; for a virtuous and
useful life untimely ended is always tragical to those who see not as God
sees” (Alcott 34).
The atmosphere of military and field hospitals in which nurses had
to work had to have been incredibly disturbing. Evans describes the
environment of a typical hospital during the Civil War. He states:
Amidst a background of blood and filth, there were limbs
blown away, gaping lacerations with organs and intestines
hanging out and faces mauled and disfigured. Surgeons
amputated limbs, which were then tossed into gruesome
163
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
piles. The victims of amputation often received only a shot of
whiskey or a belt to bite down on. Ether and chloroform were
frequently lacking. (Evans 77)
Amputations during the Civil War were brutal and very common.
Surgeons were performing multiple procedures daily, rarely ever taking
the time to clean or wash the instruments being used, such as the
hacksaw which would cut through the patient’s bone. Surgeons also did
not seemingly take the time to try and calm the fears of the wounded
soldiers. This task became the responsibility of the nurses. Since
medicine for the treatment of these types of wounds, both physical and
emotional, had not really been developed at this point in history, having
to see these men suffer in pain while essentially unable to do anything
for them must have been difficult for these women. Witnessing these
men endure excruciating amputations without anesthesia must have
weighed heavily on the minds and hearts of these Civil War nurses.
With regards to the issue of amputation, Alcott’s writing focuses
less on the procedure but more on her reaction to witnessing the
164
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
unbelievable pain soldiers undergoing amputations had to endure. She
affirms that:
The amputations were reserved till the morrow, and the
merciful magic of ether was not thought necessary that day,
so the poor souls had to bear their pains as best they might. It
is all very well to talk of the patience of woman; and far be it
from me to pluck that feather from her cap, for, heaven
knows, she isn’t allowed to wear many; but the patient
endurance of these men, under trials of the flesh, was truly
wonderful; their fortitude seemed contagious, and scarcely a
cry escaped them, though I often longed to groan for them,
when pride kept their white lips shut, while great drops stood
upon their foreheads, and the bed shook with the irrepressible
tremor of their tortured bodies. (Alcott 28)
A large majority of the casualties suffered during the Civil War
were actually caused by disease. By working long, hard hours in
hospitals, nurses also risked contracting diseases from the soldiers, some
of which were life threatening. In fact, during the Civil War, the greatest
165
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
threat to the lives of soldiers, surgeons, and nurses was the risk of
disease. While serving as a volunteer nurse at a Washington D.C.
hospital in 1863, Louisa May Alcott contracted typhoid pneumonia, a
life-threatening disease (Sattelmeyer 47). In fact, it has been reported
that 55% to 60% of the deaths in the Civil War were caused by disease.
Field hospitals, constructed near battlefields to treat soldiers, were
often extremely overcrowded which is the reason why diseases spread so
rapidly. In addition, not only did the wounded soldiers greatly suffer
from their injuries, but they also did not have the benefit of any shelter.
Field hospitals sometimes used tents to house the wounded and sick, but
the tents were not sufficient to protect them and as a result the soldiers
were constantly exposed to the elements such as the sun, rain, and wind.
There were high rates of mortality not only from their wounds, but also
from the elements and a lack of care and attention, since the number of
wounded far exceeded the number of surgeons and nurses available to
treat them (“Civil War Medicine”).
Field hospitals were not very safe environments for soldiers,
surgeons, and nurses, especially since the hospitals were often
166
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
constructed near or on battlefields (“Hospitals of the Civil War”). Holder
discusses the risk of disease and dangers nurses faced by having to treat
and care for patients near the battlefields. She states that “many nurses
came under fire and were wounded or killed. One quarter suffered
serious illness, and there was a constant risk from typhoid fever,
dysentery, and measles” (Holder 632).
Being a nurse during the Civil War required bravery,
determination, and a willingness to deal with intense, disturbing
situations. One example of a heroic Civil War nurse is Clara Barton,
who would later find the American Red Cross. During a battle of the
Civil War, Barton exhibited remarkable bravery. Although she had
contracted a fever, she risked her life by surgically removing a bullet
from the neck of a wounded soldier on the very battlefield, amongst
bullets and cannons. While other soldiers were running and trying to
find some type of shelter or cover, Barton stayed on the battlefield,
determined to assist and aid the wounded soldiers (Evans 78). This is a
compelling story of heroism and determination since Clara Barton was
not only in danger of being killed or severely injured, but she was also
167
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
overcome with a fever which, during the Civil War, was oftentimes just
as deadly since effective medicines for fevers were not yet discovered.
However, it was not common for nurses to be on the battlefields,
especially while a battle was taking place. Holder affirms that “with the
exception of Barton and her assistants, few were allowed on the
battlefields, but their efforts to provide care extended to any arena that
afforded them the opportunity” (Holder 632).
Nurses, women thrown into the action of the Civil War, were
determined to aid the surgeons and soldiers who greatly needed them.
Facing many challenges and obstacles, these nurses risked their lives on
a daily basis to ensure the health and safety of these men. In the face of
death by injury or disease, nurses stayed by these men in the hopes that
they could make a difference. Civil War nurses are truly an inspiration,
always embodying courage and bravery in the face of darkness.
Works Cited
168
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Alcott, Louisa May. Civil War Hospital Sketches. New York: Dover
Pub., 2006. Print.
Arendt, Britta. “Female Nurses of the Civil War.” Taylor’s Battery.
Taylor’s Battery, Inc., n.d. Web. 2 May 2012.
<http://www.virginiafairfax.com/Female nurses of the civil
war.htm>.
“Civil War Medicine.” 2003. Web. 24 Apr 2012.
<http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-warmedicine.htm>.
Evans, Gerald D. “Clara Barton: Teacher, nurse, Civil War heroine,
founder of the American Red Cross.” International History of
Nursing Journal 7.3 (2003): 75-83. ProQuest. Database. 18 Mar
2012.
Holder, Victoria L. “From hand maiden to right hand--the birth of
nursing in America.” AORN Journal Oct. 2003: 618+. Academic
OneFile. Web. 15 Mar 2012.
“Hospitals of the Civil War.” Kidport Home Page. 1998. Web. 02 May
2012.
169
eScriptor X / Fall 2012
Miss E.F. Morris to Mr. E.G. Foote. March 29th 1864. Washington Park
Hospital. Cincinnati. Barbara Haight Private Collection.
Sattelmeyer, Robert. “Miss Alcott Goes to War.” Civil War Times. Apr
2012: ProQuest Central, ProQuest. Web 15 Mar 2012.
170