Source B says that prohibition was introduced because it was unpatriotic because of the fact that many of the people who sold alcohol were immigrants, mainly with German backgrounds. This was said because at the time the USA was at war with the Germans. Whereas source C says that prohibition was introduced for other reasons such as white people were afraid of drunken black people and that employers wanted to have sober employees. Also it says that they used people’s fear of God and fights between races because they said that it was protection from God and the country. I think the reason for the difference in the two articles is that source B is taken from a book called, “success in the 20th century world affairs,” which suggests that the book is not specifically talking about one period in time whereas source C was taken from a book that is entitled, “the culture in the USA in the 1920’s,” which suggests that the book specifically looks at one decade in detail so it has more information on the 1920’s and because it is about culture, prohibition would be quite a large part in culture.
I think that the two sources can be quite reliable because they are both secondary evidence so the authors of both books would not gain much by writing a biased opinion and that the sources would show two sides.
I conclusion I think that the two sources differ so much because source B is taken forma book that looks at the whole of the 20th century and has general information about the whole century whereas source C has been taken from a book which has been written about a certain decade which means that it would focus on the events of that century in more detail.
- How useful are sources D and E for learning about the events during prohibition?
Both sources are pictures of a raid on a “speak easy” which were the illegal bars that supplied alcohol to the public, however Source D is a picture taken in 1920, which would mean that it is primary evidence so you can question its reliability, but source E is a drawing of a raid on a “speak easy” drawn in 1964 by Michael Duffy for a text book called, “the twentieth century”
Source D is a picture taken in 1920, for a newspaper or magazine made during the 1920’s. So it can be useful because we know that it is real and shows some information about what happened. The photo can be useful to show the how the problem of illegal liquor was being handled. It is useful to show how raid happened in the 1920’s. But because the photo is primary evidence you can question the reliability because the photo could have had something to gain by showing a biased photo. And also because we don’t know who the photographer was, he could have been a gangster himself. Also we don’t know what is happening to the side of the picture there could be an agent being bribed by a gangster to pose his men there. This would have a good effect on the people in the USA during the 20’s because I know there was a lot of illegal alcohol in the USA and his could boost the people’s belief in the government and it shows they are handling the problem. Also because I know there were many corrupt cops and agents, so it is most likely to be a setup to show the government are handling the problem. But source E was produced after the end of prohibition so this would suggest that the artist of the photo would not have anything to gain by drawing a biased picture. It can be useful for showing what happened in a raid on a “speak easy” but because the artist never saw a raid he can only guess at what would happen in a raid but if he had researched it then maybe he could have based it on a few pictures, then it would make the picture quite useful. Also this picture shows the agents destroying the illegal alcohol, which is completely different to source D where they are just standing by the seized alcohol.
I think that source D was produced for show in a magazine or newspaper to show that the government is handling the problem, as I know that there was a big problem with illegal alcohol. So it would have been produced to show the public. But I think that source E has been produced to give a GCSE student a rough idea about a raid or it could be produced to fill space in the textbook or as a cover.
In conclusion I think that both pictures are useful in some way, because source D can how corrupt the police were or how the government used propaganda to strengthen their support, and source E shows that a completely different picture although the setting looks familiar. So it can be seen as a contrasting picture.
- Source F gives very precise information. Does this mean that it must be reliable in evidence about the way that prohibition laws were enforced in the 1920’s?
Source F is a description about the amount of cases involving alcohol and prohibition, it is not from the time of prohibition so it is secondary evidence, there fore Hugh Brogan, the author of this piece of information would have nothing to gain for showing a biased opinion or evidence by altering the information or removing some pieces. This shows that the evidence should be quite reliable for the person who is using this. However it is taken from a book called, “history of the Untied States,” which shows that the book has looked at the whole of the USA during a long time, not just on prohibition or just during the 1920’s. So the author would not have looked at it in much depth but it is more useful to show how much corruption there was in the USA at the time of prohibition because it says that “514 arrests were made on raids on speak easies from 1926-27” but only a small minority of these arrests were ever taken further. Also one other thing that makes it less reliable is the fact that several years are missing. As it only shows the arrests during 1926-27 and has nothing for the years 1919-1925 and 1928-1933 (when prohibition was ended) so this makes it less reliable.
I think this was produced for students to find general information on the USA while they are studying GCSE as it contains some precise evidence.
In conclusion I think that it is less reliable for a student studying the whole of the prohibition period in school.
- Source G is from a gangster movie. Does the source prove that the police forces in the United States were ineffective in dealing with the gangsters during this period?
Source G on its own does prove anything about how police dealt with prohibition and gangsters but it can help prove how they dealt with it by giving one side of the events, which happened during prohibition. The movie was produced in 1932 which was during the time of prohibition so it could have been biased, but also it could show that the illegal alcohol and gangsters were a big deal, because it would have been unlikely for someone to make a film about gangsters during the time it happened. The source shows many different incidents, which had supposedly happened. This can prove how police dealt with prohibition but it still only shows one side of the story. I think the film suggests that the police were ineffective because in one incident one man was arrested for suspicion of murder and released almost immediately. This can help prove the police to be useless but not its own. Also because this was a Hollywood film produce for entertainment and making money, the facts could have been exaggerated or dramatised. In one scene of Scar face there was a shooting and a gang leader was shot dead by a rival gang member, and the following scene showed a newspaper title saying that this was the beginning of gang warfare. This suggests that gang warfare was a big problem in the USA so it can help to prove that the police had not done enough to solve the problem. But this cannot prove entirely that the police were ineffective on its own as it only shows one side of the story. The film was produced during the prohibition so the director would gain something by showing a biased opinion and this is what s/he has done. It shows that the police were ineffective so it could have been made by a gangster to make fun of the government and law enforcers.
I think the film was aimed at anybody in the public, as it is a film. It has been made for money and so some facts may be distorted. I don’t think it is very reliable to prove anything about how the police handled things during prohibition because it is very biased and maybe inaccurate. I think it may be useful to a student who wants more information on top of what they have already but to be used on its own is not very useful.
In conclusion I think that the film is good for showing one side of the events that happened during prohibition but it cannot prove anything on its own.
- Prohibition caused huge arguments in the 1920’s and massive corruption. Yet today it seems less important then growth in the US economy in the 1920’s. How important was prohibition during the 1920’s?
Prohibition was important to the USA during the 1920’s because it was a huge problem.
Source A does not help to tell us how important prohibition was during the 1920’s as it only shows us what happened in the USA until 1915 which is 5 years before the 1920’s. But what it does imply is that prohibition was popular before it became a law, as it shows us which states were entirely “dry” by 1915 and also that it must have been a big problem because it shows us that the majority of states were dry by 1915 on the East coast. Yet it still doesn’t tell us how important it was in the 920’s.
Source B tells us one of the reasons why prohibition was introduced. The book it was taken from does not focus on the 1920’s so it doesn’t tell us how important it was during the 1920’s also it does not tell how the people were affected by prohibition, but I know that it bought massive corruption in the law enforcements agencies. It does suggest that prohibition was a good/patriotic thing.
Source C is a small extract from a book about the culture in America during the 1920’s. It suggests that it was a debated issue and is relevant because it specifically looks at the 1920’s. The source shows that prohibition did have some importance because of the number of reasons it gives to the introduction of it.
Source D is a picture of agents with illegal alcohol after a raid on a speakeasy. It suggests that there was an issue because it was taken probably to show the public that the police and the government were able to handle the problem of illegal alcohol. But because it is the only source that is pro prohibition it may imply that there was corruption. The source suggests that corruption was a big problem because if the agents had made any arrests and convicted anybody, there would have been a decrease in the number of speakeasies around. Also the source is relevant to show how important prohibition was because it was taken in 1920.
Source E shows a different picture of a raid on a speakeasy, because it shows the agents smashing the illegal alcohol on the walls and on the street. It is not very relevant because it is only one mans interpretation of the events and I am not sure whether it was about the 1920’s.
Source F shows how huge the problem was with the amount of arrests but also implies how big the problem of corruption was. It is very relevant because all the arrests are in the 1920’s and they are linked to illegal alcohol.
Source G was made in 1932 in Hollywood and implies that corruption took over the police force. It shows this because when one guy was arrested for murder he was released almost straight away. But it is not that relevant because it is not about the 1920’s and only shows one side of the story.
So in conclusion I think that prohibition was a big problem because most of the relevant sources are against prohibition and there is one pro prohibition, so this could imply that there was a problem with prohibition and corruption.