The US economy Essay Example for Free

The US economy Essay Nuclear warfare loomed large at this time and international fear of the plutonium and uranium bombs which had been dropped in Japan were escalated, this historians clear aim here was to give the impression that America was instigating this sort of warfare and as such is clearly writing to turn popular opinion and weaken American support worldwide. In understandable contrast James Byrnes shares a completely different view. He demonstrates condolence towards the usage of the bomb. We first have to establish who relayed this source, the then, US Secretary of State, Byrnes. He would have wanted his beliefs at the time of the droppings to appear in a positive light and be seen as fairly thought out strategic move. Patriotism will have played a part in this, Byrnes re-enforces Trumans final word to go ahead with the raids. In a similar fashion to Nekrasov, Byrnes attempts to provoke dislike for the opposition by stating And we are talking about people who hadnt hesitated at Pearl Harbor to make a sneak attack. Comments such as this almost morally justify the actions of America in the minds of its citizens who had lost loved ones in the Pearl Harbor attack but, frankly the 2,403 military peoples lives sacrificed at pearl harbor doesnt compare with the hundreds of thousands lost in Japan due to the bombs. Byrnes comparison is hyperbolic and his obvious reckoning is that Japan deserved the attack and got what was coming to them. His exaggeration is heightened when he refers to the soldiers as boys who would be losing their lives, where in actual fact they were mentally formidable, highly skilled and trained killing machines, just as desperate for their lives as the Japanese were for their. Byrnes would have had to have upheld this point of view and couldnt possibly condemn these attacks as he had played a major part in them and the Japanese sacrifices were so hard to comprehend he had to maintain the attacks were full justified. I believe this memoir is very much designed to affirm this in public minds. I believed the atomic bomb would be successful and would force the Japanese to surrender on our terms furthers this point. The views of Nekrasov and Byrnes are almost incomparable due to the circumstances they were written/relayed. I would argue that they are both written mainly for the respective authors countries to induce sympathy in the minds of their readers for their cause. Censorship will have played a large part in the writing of Source F while Source G would have needed to justify the bombings. Question Five What are the Strengths and weaknesses of Source H as an interpretation on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Source H is a video episode produced by the BBC for the World at War Series, produced in 1973 it is somewhat outdated for modern reference but offers a fantastic insight into the period and how the bomb affected some of those involved. I feel the video was produced from an impartial standing, the BBC are renowned for making solid documentaries and historical references and presenting the argument as fairly as possible, using all the resources they have to their disposal. I dont believe that we can rely on the reputation of the BBC completely. They perhaps would have produced the video with the intentions of being broad minded and covering every aspect but of course some factors prevented this from taking place. The video is, at times slightly biased towards the US and how they went about the events of 1945. A viewer sees a great deal of the American perspective while watching the video, some Japanese perspective and no Russian perspective. The lack of Russias involvement in the making of the video is of course due to the cold war, such was the censorship in the country at the time. This is a major weakness in the video as a viewer would not be able to assimilate the controversy over the dropping of the bomb. The Americans interviewed on the video could be seen as quite arrogant, they seem to speak in statistics rather than about the inhumane events, mass loss of life and Japanese devastation. This in many ways is a strength of the video, it perhaps shows that the attitude of the Americans was still quite bitter and suggest they have few regrets about dropping the bomb. I feel that the Japanese people interviewed were not as comprehensively portrayed as the Americans. The Americans, especially one of the pilots talking about the bombing, were very militant, seeming to forget about the repercussions of the dropping of the bomb affecting the Japanese. The pilot being interviewed was quite casual and came across as quite scientific. The Japanese interviewed seemed to be surprisingly calm about the attack, they described this physical effects but perhaps didnt highlight the political issues from their point of view. This is a weakness of the video as it means again the viewers cannot get the full picture of the exact scenario. The purpose of the video is to give a good account, this I believe it does. I feel at some points it focuses too much on the strengths of America. I suppose that it is, being a British video, going to compliment their ally and support them in order to project a positive view to the British public. This can be seen as a weakness but in some ways a strength revealing British perception of America, 1945 in general and the decision to drop the bomb. The BBC can be criticized for being selective when relaying facts and figures, they make America look more powerful and portray them in a better light by giving detailed factual analysis while not exploring the true implications of the bombing. The video, overall, is a strong source of study, it isnt overly biased but at times it lacks a rounded viewpoint. I feel that given the time it was produced the BBC couldnt have possibly make the video impartial as Russia were engaged in the Cold War. Being allies with America the BBC have hinted on the US being a very powerful nation and were in the right. Perhaps the biggest thing we can take from this video is the British opinion of the raids over anything else. Dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary to end the war quickly. Do Sources A to H prove that this interpretation is correct? Explain your answer using all the sources and your own knowledge. Yes the Sources A to H do support this statement. The sources tend to agree that the war would end after the dropping of the bombs, though some refer to conventional warfare and its ability to end the war just as quickly. Although some of the sources say that it wasnt necessary to drop the bombs to end the war. Of course the eventual outcome of the dropping of the bomb proved that it was in fact, a means to end the war immediately. I have discussed the resilience of the Japanese people and Source A clearly gives the impression that the Americans felt that the Japanese could not be broken down without substantial loss of troops and in turn a lot of wasted time. It states that the atom bomb contains the equivalent power of 2000 of their super fortress bombs, a sizeable figure which reflects the power of this bomb compared to conventional warfare. By this account, the dropping of the bomb was time effective, and would end the war immediately. This leaflet, dropped after the first raid would have been alarming to the Japanese but even then they did not carry out the wishes of the leaflet and petition their emperor to a great enough extent. This re-enforces how morally determined the Japanese were collectively and the extent of conventional warfare that would have been needed to finally end the war and allow the US to turn their attentions back to the area of Europe and combating the Soviet Union. There is little to take from Source B, apart from the fact that the dropping of the bomb was perhaps not as co-ordinated as it should have been. The dropping of the bomb should and could have been more focussed on military targets and it is clear to see that civilian establishments in this instance have suffered. This source therefore suggests to me that perhaps the use of the atomic bombs was not completely necessary as military targets could have been dealt with on a smaller scale. Source B definitively shows that the atomic bomb was a complete solution, furthermore it was one that encompassed the wiping out of the Japanese public around these areas and the loss of innocent lives. The results of the bomb depicted by Source B show that, inevitably, it would have ended the war, but counter arguments can be raised from this as to how crucial destruction on this scale was in ending the war. I have previously mentioned how Source C contradicts Source B and that it has been written under the pretence of a diary which could lead to untruths. Source C gives us a good impression of how Truman wanted to be presented, and we can take from this that he wanted to make it absolutely clear that it was necessary to drop these powerful bombs over Japan. The source, a good representation of what Truman actually thought or not clearly takes the stance that America have persisted enough and that the Japanese were unlikely to surrender even after having received a warning. Truman makes out that America have been lenient in giving the Japanese a chance to surrender, showing some remorse. His sympathy demonstrated within this source at times points towards him believing that dropping the bomb is completely necessary under the circumstances and the sacrifices Japan would incur are inevitable but ultimately for the best. His closing statement is certainly very interesting as far as this question goes. Not only does it make him out to be an intelligent man but also suggests that he is using the bombs for entirely the right reasons and not the wrong reasons, It is certainly a good thing fro the world that Hitlers crowd or Stalins did not discover this atomic bomb. Source D, in contrast is evidently anti the dropping of the bomb and indicates that the dropping was perhaps not a necessary move to end the war immediately. The Source starts off by saying, In Hiroshima 70 000 Japanese died. Hundreds more died from radiation sickness in the years which followed immediately condemning the raids and highlighting the devastation experienced by Japan. Source D is objective in saying that the immediacy of the end of the war was Trumans man reason for dropping the bomb, however. To counter this argument, Culpin has said that Truman was criticized because it was merely to test the bomb and justify its vast expense to the US economy. Although the impression Source D gives is objective I, on reading it got the feeling that Culpin felt the dropping of the bomb was unnecessary. Source E is one of the strongest sources against the idea that the dropping of the bomb is necessary to end the war quickly. The bottom caption Dont you see, they had to find out if it worked overrules the reasoning Truman had for using the bomb and suggests that the raids were purely scientific and completely inhumane. The picture is a very strong image provoking controversy in the minds of the public but it has to be considered that this is specifically drawn for a newspaper and that the situation will have been over exaggerated. It was also produced at the time documents were leaked about the bombing and this would have meant that the picture was reflecting the feeling at that time and had a slightly limited and condensed view of the reasoning for dropping the bomb. Taken at face value, Source F is the strongest source to disagree with the statement Dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary to end the war quickly. This is obviously because of the conditions under which it was written, a censored viewpoint, definitively against America and geared towards provoking dislike for the US nation as a whole. We cannot therefore take Source F seriously but it does have some elements of truth about it. Diplomatic issues, as stated have been explained by some of the other sources, The purpose of the bombing was to frighten other countries, above all the Soviet Union. While this statement isnt entirely true its foundations point towards America having other intentions than wanting to end the war quickly. Written from the opposite side of the fence is Byrnes contribution, memoirs which had been taken some years later. His words tend to agree with the necessity of the raids. Again, this is from a heavily biased perspective and cannot be trusted. This source neither proves or disproves to a historian if the bomb was required in this case. Subjective opinions are hard to use when questioning such issues. We can take something quite significant from this though and that is the fact that this was written by the Secretary of State at the time. He would have had the advantage of considerably more knowledge than the general public and perhaps his view that the raid was a necessity is completely justified. While the previous source was only written by a Russian historian with limited access to information, only relying on public resources. Therefore, I feel the benefit of the doubt should be given to Byrnes, and his account to be considered more reliable. In turn the dropping of the bomb was a necessity. The World at War video is probably the most objective source out of all of them, it is the only one which allows several people from different backgrounds to contribute to the source. I feel it demonstrates that the dropping of the bombs was a necessary action to end the war immediately, it depicts how harsh the fighting had been in other confrontation areas between US and Japan and the sheer determination shown by Japan. From this the video demonstrates the amount of time it would have taken to prepare and implement conventional invasion and traditional air raids. The interviews give detailed reasoning from both sides of the spectrum which point to the might and ferocity of the Japanese and the pressures being put on America. It can be argued that as Source H includes the views of many different people, combined with cinematic hard evidence to prove several points. My interpretation of the video is that it proves the atomic raids were necessary to end the war and should be trusted due to its reliable producers and broadness of views. Each source has different factors to consider about whether it disproves or proves the statement Dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary to end the war quickly and these have to be taken in the context in which they were written.

Alaska Drillings :: essays papers

Alaska Drillings Drilling for oil in Alaska’s Arctic Wildlife refuge will not solve our nation’s energy crisis, but it will destroy one of the worlds most unique animal habitats. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would satisfy only six months' worth of the nation's oil needs while oil drilling would "destroy" a wilderness that is home to the 150,000 animals of the Porcupine animal group. Our nations natural refuges should not be turned to destruction when a solution to a problem can be found else where. In addition to not being economically productive, drilling for oil will do nothing to help energy shortages experienced throughout the United States, while still destroying one of the only habitats of its kind in the world. Despite common thought, the Alaskan refuge is not a snow covered desert. It is important to what exactly would be destroyed if the United States decides to drill for oil. The Arctic Refuge is among the most complete and undisturbed ecosystems on earth. The Arctic Refuge contains an impressive variety of arctic wildlife. The rich variety of wildlife found within the Refuge includes more than 160 bird species, 36 kinds of land mammals, 9 marine mammal species, and 36 types of fish. The reality is that opening the Arctic refuge to drilling will accomplish little except destroying one of the last pure preserves of its kind in the world. Another reason why it would be unwise to drill is because it is just not cost efficient. For the oil industry to invest, the Refuge must hold a lot of oil, and the oil must sell for a high enough price for long enough to recover costs and earn profits. We need to think of a solution that will affect us today and will alleviate our problems. In exchange for this short-term return, we would have to pay a very high long-term price, threatening one of the planet's most unique animal and plant habitats. Scientific analyses by the US Fish & Wildlife Service have concluded that drilling would severely harm the refuge's abundant populations of caribou, polar bears, musk oxen, and snow geese. Alaska Drillings :: essays papers Alaska Drillings Drilling for oil in Alaska’s Arctic Wildlife refuge will not solve our nation’s energy crisis, but it will destroy one of the worlds most unique animal habitats. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would satisfy only six months' worth of the nation's oil needs while oil drilling would "destroy" a wilderness that is home to the 150,000 animals of the Porcupine animal group. Our nations natural refuges should not be turned to destruction when a solution to a problem can be found else where. In addition to not being economically productive, drilling for oil will do nothing to help energy shortages experienced throughout the United States, while still destroying one of the only habitats of its kind in the world. Despite common thought, the Alaskan refuge is not a snow covered desert. It is important to what exactly would be destroyed if the United States decides to drill for oil. The Arctic Refuge is among the most complete and undisturbed ecosystems on earth. The Arctic Refuge contains an impressive variety of arctic wildlife. The rich variety of wildlife found within the Refuge includes more than 160 bird species, 36 kinds of land mammals, 9 marine mammal species, and 36 types of fish. The reality is that opening the Arctic refuge to drilling will accomplish little except destroying one of the last pure preserves of its kind in the world. Another reason why it would be unwise to drill is because it is just not cost efficient. For the oil industry to invest, the Refuge must hold a lot of oil, and the oil must sell for a high enough price for long enough to recover costs and earn profits. We need to think of a solution that will affect us today and will alleviate our problems. In exchange for this short-term return, we would have to pay a very high long-term price, threatening one of the planet's most unique animal and plant habitats. Scientific analyses by the US Fish & Wildlife Service have concluded that drilling would severely harm the refuge's abundant populations of caribou, polar bears, musk oxen, and snow geese.

Environmental Effects of Vegetarianism Essay

The world is currently in crisis. The consequences of man’s actions had began to resurface as the environment becomes seriously threatened. Global warming is the immediate concern, as the earth continues to warm up and cause severe changes in climate. There are also other environmental issues to be spoken of: the possible scarcity of land and water, deforestation, pollution and the like. The awareness of these problems have prompted many individuals to do their part: this includes using alternative energy and hybrid cars. However, it seems that the best way to help the environment can be done through the modification of one’s diet. Apparently, the consumption of meat does more damage to the environment than vegetarianism. This research paper aims to discuss the environmental implications of animal agriculture, such as raising animals like cattle, as opposed to growing soybeans. According to the United Nations, â€Å"The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global† (qtd. in Freston 1). Raising cattle is part of this sector, along with chickens and pigs (Freston 1). From the statement given by the United Nations, it is affirmed that indeed meat production has many environmental repercussions. So how is raising cattle, or animal agriculture in general, detrimental to the environment? To begin with, animal agriculture utilizes large areas of land. According to the Keith Akers of the Vegetarian Society of Colorado (VSC). in the United States â€Å"over 90% of all agricultural land is used for livestock agriculture. † In a global scale, of all the agricultural areas throughout the world, â€Å"about 69% is used to as pasture† (Ethical Vegetarian Alternative [EVA]). Therefore, a significant percentage of all the Earth’s surface is used for the purpose of breeding animals for meat consumption (EVA). The demand of land that comes with animal agriculture also results in deforestation (EVA). Because meat production requires more land area, forests have to be converted as agricultural areas. The forests are converted into agricultural land through a slash and burn technique which damages the forest (Freston). These forests are known to absorb the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but when the trees are burnt, the absorbed carbon dioxide will be released back in the air. The amount of carbon dioxide released through the slash and burn technique outweighs the emission from fossil fuels (Freston). The rain forests transformed into animal agricultural areas also experiences a decrease in the quality of the soil (EVA). Due to the slash and burn method, the nutrients in the soil will eventually be lost and instead of grass, weeds will grow. Regeneration may prove difficult, while fertilizers can only serve as an initial remedy. Because of deforestation, half of all the Amazon meadows have been rendered infertile (EVA). Rain forests are destroyed to accommodate more cattle for grazing (EVA; Akers). It is said that the area of land damaged for this purpose is of the same size as â€Å"seven football fields† (â€Å"Meat†). From the year 1950, millions of hectares of forest land had vanished (EVA). In China, pine forests have been destroyed to accommodate animals and their crop food (â€Å"Meat†). However, the most distinguished damage of rain forests can be found in South America and Central America (EVA). In Brazil alone, land areas equal to the size of 5,000 soccer fields are disappearing at a daily rate. Again, this is because of deforestation to accommodate cattle grazing. As for Central America, the number of cows had increased just as the area for pasture had expanded from 1950 to 1995 (EVA). It is therefore no surprise that the prices for wood products had increased all over the world (Akers). It is merely the result of the growing demand of commodities from a resource that is slowly running out due to deforestation (Akers). Other environmental effects of animal agriculture are soil erosion and desertification (EVA). Animal agriculture is again responsible for soil erosion, which is directly caused by overgrazing of livestock (â€Å"Meat†). Over the last couple of years, numerous mouths and hooves have changed the landscape in more ways than man-made infrastructure such as freeways and strip mines ever did. Grazing per se is not harmful to the environment. In fact, it even has a positive effect on the landscape. However, overgrazing can cause intense erosion which can turn meadows into deserts (EVA). Cattle consumes a significant percentage of the vegetation; in doing so, the soil is damaged because of weight of the cattle. This, along with other factors to consider, enable erosion to occur in which the topsoil is removed. The topsoil is the most fertile layer which was made from rocks and created in a long period of time. It takes many years for the topsoil to be created again. Due to livestock grazing and crop production for livestock, a significant amount of topsoil is lost annually (VSC). As a result of extensive soil erosion, many lands all over the globe is currently undergoing desertification (EVA). Pastures from all over the world have been extremely eroded, which threatens the quantity of existing agricultural land. This posits a problem in a time when the population is continuously growing and food supplies are decreasing (EVA). Animal agriculture also causes the greenhouse effect, which in turn results in global warming (EVA). Gases, which are known as greenhouse gases, retain all the heat the earth accepts from the sun and sends it back to the atmosphere. This is essentially a natural occurrence. However, when the atmospheric levels of those gases increase, the heat will be trapped and the earth will warm up. The high temperature of the earth has negative effects in water levels, ecosystems, agriculture, and most specially, the climate (EVA). Four gases is known to contribute to global warming (EVA). Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas; other gases include â€Å"methane, halogenic compounds and nitrogen oxide† (EVA). Animal agriculture is responsible for most of the greenhouse emissions; this is because cows, among other animals, release methane in the air (EVA; Akers). Methane is derived from ruminants, such as buffaloes, goats, sheep and of course cows when they digest their food. Also, animal manure contribute to global warming as well (EVA). According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, 16% of global methane emissions come from animal agriculture (qtd. in EVA). Another environmental hazard that animal agriculture presents is eutrophication (EVA). It is characterized by the excessive amount of gases such as potassium, nitrogen and phosphur in the environment; as a result, ecosystems are affected. It posits a danger to biodiversity, water sources, and even soil development. The prime source of eutrophication is animal manure. Manure has metals in it, such as zinc and copper; these metals are added to fodder to enhance growth. The aforementioned elements are then transferred to land through manure, but it can also end up through residue in food intended for humans (EVA). Generally, animal manure is not harmful to the environment (EVA). It can actually used as fertilizers for the soil. However, at present, there is an excess of animal manure that it already presents a dilemma worldwide. Millions of kilograms of manure is created annually, but the space available cannot accommodate that excessive quantity. In Belgium, every kilogram of pork is equal to 16 kilograms of manure. That amount means that tons of both nitrogen and phosphor are released on Belgian soil every year. Such excess cannot be absorbed by the soil, making the heavy metal level in the country particularly high (EVA). Europe is not the only place in the world dealing with such problem. The global pig and poultry industries creates millions of tons of nitrogen yearly (EVA). In the United States, the manure produced by animals exceed that of people. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, 200 milk-cows create the same quantity of nitrates found in the village sewers which is occupied by 5,000 to 10, 000 citizens (qtd. in EVA). Consequently, 22, 000 hens can produce manure which releases an amount of phosphor equal to the manure of 6,000 individuals (EVA). Yet another environmental hazard that is caused by animal agriculture is acidification (EVA). It is caused by excessive amounts of sulfur and nitrogen in land, water, and the atmosphere. Acidification threatens ecosystems; trees die, forests struggle to survive and the quality of plants decreases. Lakes and other bodies of water suffer from this phenomena as well, posing danger to fishes and polluting the water sources. Acidification is best distinguished through acid rain (EVA). Again, animal agriculture plays a crucial part in acidification (EVA). It is the primary cause for such phenomena. So how does raising animals for food cause acid rain? Animal manure emits high levels of ammonia in the atmosphere. Two main contributors of ammonia are cows and pigs. Both animals produce 97% of all the ammonia in the atmosphere. Excessive amounts of ammonia is detrimental to the environment, as it is extremely toxic. Organisms such as reptiles, butterflies, even lichens are threatened by this compound (EVA). Ammonia is derived from the nitrates found in animal manure (EVA). The compound is mostly emitted to the atmosphere, but it can also affect both soil and water. This presents a danger to the human population, as the potable water supply may be contaminated with ammonia. Humans are not the only ones threatened by possible contamination. The fish population is also at risk, as the phosphates and nitrates can contaminate and decrease the quality of their habitat. Hence, manure derived from animal agriculture is responsible for acidification and water pollution due to the compounds found in the manure. If meat consumption is reduced, the methane will also be reduced as it only stays in the atmosphere for about ten years (Freston 2). This reduction will cause the planet to cool (Freston 2). Not only does animal agriculture pollute the waters, it also uses large amounts of it (EVA). In fact, it is the main consumer of sweet water. Water is actually used and abused by the meat industry (Akers). The consumption begins with watering the fodder crops (EVA; â€Å"Meat†). It is followed by the large amounts of water that animals need to drink. Then there is the need for water to maintain the factory farms, the trucks that transport the meat as well as the slaughterhouses (â€Å"Meat†). However, much water, approximately 80%, is also utilized for the creation of meat products (Akers; EVA). Meat processing also consumes too much water. In fact, for a single pound of meat to be produced, 5,000 gallons of water is used. Such great amount of water for such a small piece of meat is proof that the meat industry is wasting such a valuable resource. Compared to meat production, how does vegetarianism affect the environment? In essence, vegetarianism actually does not present any harm to the environment; in fact, it positively affects it. Vegetarianism works in this formula: â€Å" Land + Water = Crops† (Rutherford). There is limited land to be used, just as there is a limited water supply (Rutherford). A small area of land and a ample amount of water could produce a decent amount of crops. Planting of crops can be done in a small farmland; this endeavor does not need extensive territories for production, unlike meat consumption. The water to be used is also not wasted, as it will only be utilized to water the crops. In fact, 1 kilogram of meat uses 100 times the amount of water needed for 1 kilogram of vegetables (EVA). Hence, with limited resources, vegetarianism can be sustained and not endanger the environment. Not only does vegetarianism consider the limitations of natural resources but also it does not add waste that could be detrimental to ecosystems. In addition, the vegetarian lifestyle can actually help the environment. The crops will absorb the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and turns in into oxygen (Rutherford). Animal agriculture presents more disadvantages in the environment than vegetarianism. To begin with, meat production consumes limited resources that could be utilized for other endeavors. It also releases harmful elements and compounds in the air, soil and water. In the long run, the environment will suffer if this is continued. Therefore, compared to vegetarianism, animal agriculture is more detrimental to the environment. Works Cited Akers, Keith. â€Å"The Most Important Thing You Can Do For the Environment. † Vegetarian Society of Colorado. 14 May 2008 . Freston, Kathy. â€Å"Vegetarian is the New Prius. † Alternet. org. 7 Feb. 2007. 14 May 2008 . â€Å"Meat and the Environment. † Goveg. com. 14 May 2008 . Rutherford, Timothy. â€Å"Logical Environmental Reasoning for a Vegetarian Lifestyle. † Enviroveggie. com. 14 May 2008 . â€Å"Vegetarianism and the Environment. † Ethical Vegetarian Alternative. 14 May 2008 .

Understanding the Bible Belt in the United States

When American geographers map rates of religious belief and regular attendance at places of worship, a distinct region of religiosity appears on the map of the United States. This region is known as the Bible Belt, and while it can be measured in a variety of ways, it tends to include much of the American South.   First Use of Bible Belt The term Bible Belt was first used by the American writer and satirist H.L. Mencken  in 1925 when he was reporting on the Scopes Monkey Trial which took place in Dayton, Tennessee. Mencken was writing for the Baltimore Sun  and used the term in a derogatory way, referring to the region in subsequent pieces with such quotes as the Bible and Hookworm Belt and Jackson, Mississippi in the heart of the Bible and Lynching Belt.   Defining The Bible Belt The term gained popularity and began to be used to name the region of the southern U.S. states in the popular media and in academia. In 1948, the Saturday Evening Post  named Oklahoma City the capital of the Bible Belt. In 1961, geographer Wilbur Zelinsky, a student of Carl Sauer, defined the region of the Bible Belt as one in which Southern Baptists, Methodists, and evangelical Christians were the predominant religious group. Thus, Zelinsky defined the Bible Belt as a region stretching from West Virginia and southern Virginia to southern Missouri in the north to Texas and northern Florida in the south. The region that Zelinsky outlined did not include Southern Louisiana due to its preponderance of Catholics, nor central and southern Florida due to its diverse demographics, nor South Texas with its large Hispanic (and thus Catholic or Protestant) population.   History of the Bible Belt The region known as the Bible Belt today was in the 17th and 18th centuries a center of Anglican (or Episcopalian) beliefs. In the late 18th century and into the 19th century, Baptist denominations, especially Southern Baptist, began to gain in popularity. By the 20th century, evangelical Protestantism could be the defining belief system in the region known as the Bible Belt.   In 1978, geographer Stephen Tweedie of Oklahoma State University published the definitive article about the Bible Belt, Viewing the Bible Belt, in the  Journal of Popular Culture.  In that article, Tweedie mapped Sunday television watching habits for five leading evangelical religious television programs. His map of the Bible Belt expanded the region defined by Zelinsky and included a region that encompassed the Dakotas, Nebraska, and Kansas. But his research also broke the Bible Belt into two core regions, a western region and an eastern region. Tweedies western Bible Belt was focused on a core that extended from Little Rock, Arkansas to Tulsa, Oklahoma. His eastern Bible Belt was focused on a core that included the major population centers of Virginia and North Carolina. Tweedie identified secondary core regions surrounding Dallas and Wichita Falls, Kansas to Lawton, Oklahoma.   Tweedie suggested that Oklahoma City was the buckle or capital of the Bible Belt but many other commentators and researchers have suggested other locations. It was H.L. Mencken who first suggested that Jackson, Mississippi was the capital of the Bible Belt. Other suggested capitals or buckles (in addition to the cores identified by Tweedie) include Abilene, Texas; Lynchburg, Virginia; Nashville, Tennessee; Memphis, Tennessee; Springfield, Missouri; and Charlotte, North Carolina.   The Bible Belt Today Studies of religious identity in the United States continually point to the southern states as an enduring Bible Belt. In a 2011 survey by Gallup, the organization found Mississippi to be the state containing the highest percentage of very religious Americans. In Mississippi, 59 percent of residents were identified as being very religious. With the exception of number two Utah, all of the states in the top ten are states commonly identified as being part of the Bible Belt. (The top 10 were: Mississippi, Utah, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia, and Oklahoma.)   The Un-Bible Belts On the other hand, Gallup and others have pointed out that the opposite of the Bible Belt, perhaps an Unchurched Belt or a Secular Belt, exists in the Pacific Northwest and the northeastern United States. Gallups survey found that a mere 23 percent of Vermont residents are considered to be very religious. The 11 states (due to the tie for tenth place) that are home for the least religious Americans are Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Alaska, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Connecticut, New York, and Rhode Island.   Politics and Society in the Bible Belt Many commentators have pointed out that while religious observance in the Bible Belt is high, it is a region of a variety of social issues. Educational attainment and college graduation rates in the Bible Belt are among the lowest in the United States. Cardiovascular and heart disease, obesity, homicide, teenage pregnancy, and sexually transmitted infections are among the highest rates in the nation.   At the same time, the region is known for its conservative values, and the region is often considered to be a politically conservative region. The red states within the Bible Belt traditionally support Republican candidates for state and federal office. Alabama, Mississippi, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas have consistently pledged their electoral college votes to the Republican candidate for president in each presidential election since 1980. Other Bible Belt states usually vote Republican, but candidates such as Bill Clinton from Arkansas have sometimes swayed the votes in Bible Belt states.   In 2010,  Matthew Zook and Mark Graham utilized online place name data to identify the preponderance of the word church locally. What resulted is a map that is a good approximation of the Bible Belt as defined by Tweedie and extending into the Dakotas. Other Belts in America Other Bible Belt-style regions have been named in the United States. The Rust Belt of the former industrial heartland of America is one such region. Other belts include the Corn Belt, Snow Belt, and Sunbelt.