Question 1. (250 words) How does Western settlement from 1860 – 1890 impact Native Americans? Info for Question 2 below (200 words) When we examine the past, we must place ourselves in the right frame of mind. It is impossible to adequately understand an historical event using a 21st century mind-set. As an example, when the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth, they discovered a vacated village. The land “hath been planted with corn three or four years ago, and there is a very sweet brook runs under the hillside.”[1]Bolstered by their religious conviction, these early settlers firmly believed that God had set them here, and cleared the land for their taking. We know today, that Native-Americans did not have the necessary immunities to fight-off European diseases, and died in great numbers. In Europe, these same diseases had existed for centuries, and had become endemic. Fishermen, and traders, had long plied the waters of the New England coast, and passed these diseases to the local inhabitants. Now take a moment, and place yourself in the mind of the local people. If you were a Native-American, you saw your people dying in great numbers, yet Europeans remained healthy. There are a number of scenarios that could have developed here, but in most cases, what do you think Native-Americans must have thought of this situation? If you placed yourself in their situation, does it not stand to reason that you would begin to think that your “spirits” had failed you, and perhaps the God of the settlers protected them? Based on our assumptions, we would think that as a result, Native-Americans, then, converted in large numbers. What is necessary is a clear understanding of early-contact Native-American culture. For indigenous Americans, it centered on spiritual power. Power could be increased through addition, not subtraction. Instead of giving-up their ancient spiritual practices, they instead, simply added the Christian God. What we gain, by examining the past through a lens focused on that point in history, is a deeper understanding of the dynamics at play, and empathy for all participants. Today, some things are just unacceptable. We cringe at the thought of slavery, child labor, no rights for women, and segregation, to name a few, but they all existed at one point in time. More remarkably, a strong justification existed for each of these that prevailed to the point where they proved to be generally accepted. In 1898, the United States went to war with Spain. Generally speaking, Americans cringed at the thought of Imperialism because of their earlier relationship with Britain that resulted in the American Revolution. By the end of the 19th century, industrial overproduction increasingly required new sources of raw materials, and more importantly, external markets to sell American goods. While this need softened America’s disdain for Imperialism, the nation still sought the moral high-ground by passing the Teller Amendment that restricted the US from annexing Cuba. Following the Spanish-American War, the Treaty of Paris granted Cuban independence, but ceded Puerto Rico and Guam, and sold the Philippines to the US for $20 million. Congress also annexed Hawaii. Numerous reasons for Imperialism soon surfaced, but none validated the subjugation of foreign peoples more than the moral justification as expressed in Rudyard Kipling’s “A White Man’s Burden.” Take up the White Man’s burden– Send forth the best ye breed– Go bind your sons to exile To serve your captives’ need; To wait in heavy harness, On fluttered folk and wild– Your new-caught, sullen peoples, Half-devil and half-child. Take up the White Man’s burden– In patience to abide, To veil the threat of terror And check the show of pride; By open speech and simple, An hundred times made plain To seek another’s profit, And work another’s gain. Take up the White Man’s burden– The savage wars of peace– Fill full the mouth of Famine And bid the sickness cease; And when your goal is nearest The end for others sought, Watch sloth and heathen Folly Bring all your hopes to nought. Take up the White Man’s burden– No tawdry rule of kings, But toil of serf and sweeper– The tale of common things. The ports ye shall not enter, The roads ye shall not tread, Go mark them with your living, And mark them with your dead. Take up the White Man’s burden– And reap his old reward: The blame of those ye better, The hate of those ye guard– The cry of hosts ye humour (Ah, slowly!) toward the light:–” Take up the White Man’s burden– Ye dare not stoop to less– Nor call too loud on Freedom To cloke your weariness; By all ye cry or whisper, By all ye leave or do, The silent, sullen peoples Shall weigh your gods and you. Take up the White Man’s burden– Have done with childish days– The lightly proferred laurel, The easy, ungrudged praise. Comes now, to search your manhood Through all the thankless years Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom, The judgment of your peers![2] GROUP A For this forum, Group A will assume the role of an individual opposed to Imperialism In response to Kipling’s poem, each of you should post a statement in support, or in opposition to the idea of Imperialism. You do not need to restrict yourself to the moral justification. The arguments for, and against, expansion took many avenues. Your submission should be a minimum of 200 words in length. Try not to make assumptions. Instead, assume the historical role of someone who lived in the United States near the turn of the century. You could be a manufacturer, a pastor, or a politician. Conversely, you can be a laborer, a pacifist, or a housewife. Be creative. Question 3 (250 words) Looking ahead, in what ways do the programs in the Great Society continue the legacy of the New Deal programs? Or, are they completely different from each other? Question 4 (250 words) How does “The Iron Curtain speech” by Winston Churchill reflect the fear or concern, not just of the United States, regarding the spread of communism? Information for Question 5 is below (200 words) On September 30, 1938, the League of Nations passed a unanimous resolution for the “Protection of Civilian Populations Against Bombing from the Air in Case of War.” In that resolution, the League noted that “the Intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal,” and that “any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighborhood are not bombed through negligence.”[1] The Manhattan Project began modestly in 1939 with a budget of $167,000 to explore the feasibility of a nuclear chain reaction. By October 1941, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt officially approved the atomic program, and established a committee to oversee it. On July 16, 1945, the US tested its first nuclear explosion. Less than a month later, on August 6, 1945 the US dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, and three days later, a second bomb on Nagasaki. On June 27, 1945, the Undersecretary of the Navy, Ralph A. Bard sent a memo to Secretary of War Henry Stimson. “Ever since I have been in touch with this program I have had a feeling that before the bomb is actually used against Japan that Japan should have some preliminary warning for say two or three days in advance of use. The position of the United States as a great humanitarian nation and the fair play attitude of our people generally is responsible in the main for this feeling. During recent weeks I have also had the feeling very definitely that the Japanese government may be searching for some opportunity which they could use as a medium of surrender.”[2] In his combat memoir With the Old Breed, Eugene Sledge would write that “We received the news with quiet disbelief coupled with an indescribable sense of relief. We thought the Japanese would never surrender. Many refused to believe it. Sitting around in stunned silence, we remembered our dead. So many dead. So many maimed. So many bright futures consigned to the ashes of the past. So many dreams lost in the madness that had engulfed us.”[3] Clearly, some sought a different solution from the bomb, while others, and especially those who had fought in the Pacific, found great relief that they would not have to endure another minute of combat. Justification for dropping the bomb, and opposition to it came from many quarters. For this debate, you are not limited to the months prior to August 6, 1945. The argument concerning theh use of nuclear power raged on for years to come. You have been divided into two groups. For this forum, Group A will assume the role of an individual who supported the use of the bomb, while Group B will argue against. Each of you should post a statement in support, or in opposition to the idea of using nuclear power in World War II. Your submission should be a minimum of 200 words in length. Try not to make assumptions. Instead, assume the historical role of someone who lived in the United States at this point in history. Be creative. After your initial submission, you are then required to continue the debate by responding to three of your classmates. Your responses should be a minimum of 100 words, and should contribute to the dialogue. Your initial response is due by 11:55pm, ET, Friday and your responses to 3 other students by 11:55pm, ET, Sunday. [1] http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html#D [2] http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/ManhattanProject/Bardmemo.shtml [3] http://www.authentichistory.com/1939-1945/1-war/4-Pacific/4-abombdecision/2-support/index.html On September 30, 1938, the League of Nations passed a unanimous resolution for the “Protection of Civilian Populations Against Bombing from the Air in Case of War.” In that resolution, the League noted that “the Intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal,” and that “any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighborhood are not bombed through negligence.”[1] The Manhattan Project began modestly in 1939 with a budget of $167,000 to explore the feasibility of a nuclear chain reaction. By October 1941, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt officially approved the atomic program, and established a committee to oversee it. On July 16, 1945, the US tested its first nuclear explosion. Less than a month later, on August 6, 1945 the US dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, and three days later, a second bomb on Nagasaki. On June 27, 1945, the Undersecretary of the Navy, Ralph A. Bard sent a memo to Secretary of War Henry Stimson. “Ever since I have been in touch with this program I have had a feeling that before the bomb is actually used against Japan that Japan should have some preliminary warning for say two or three days in advance of use. The position of the United States as a great humanitarian nation and the fair play attitude of our people generally is responsible in the main for this feeling. During recent weeks I have also had the feeling very definitely that the Japanese government may be searching for some opportunity which they could use as a medium of surrender.”[2] In his combat memoir With the Old Breed, Eugene Sledge would write that “We received the news with quiet disbelief coupled with an indescribable sense of relief. We thought the Japanese would never surrender. Many refused to believe it. Sitting around in stunned silence, we remembered our dead. So many dead. So many maimed. So many bright futures consigned to the ashes of the past. So many dreams lost in the madness that had engulfed us.”[3] Clearly, some sought a different solution from the bomb, while others, and especially those who had fought in the Pacific, found great relief that they would not have to endure another minute of combat. Justification for dropping the bomb, and opposition to it came from many quarters. For this debate, you are not limited to the months prior to August 6, 1945. The argument concerning theh use of nuclear power raged on for years to come. For this debate, you will be part of the same groups you were assigned for the debate in Week 3. For this forum, Group A will assume the role of an individual who supported the use of the bomb. Each of you should post a statement in support, or in opposition to the idea of using nuclear power in World War II. Your submission should be a minimum of 200 words in length. Try not to make assumptions. Instead, assume the historical role of someone who lived in the United States at this point in history. Be creative. Question 6 (250 words) . What were the sources of the American economic recovery of the 1980s and 1990s? Who benefited from it and who did not, and why was that the case? Question 7 (200 words) Summarize in 250 words or less the American Reconstruction after the 1865’s and how it affected Black Empowerment.

 
 

Question 1. (250 words)

How does Western settlement from 1860 – 1890 impact Native Americans?

 

Info for Question 2 below (200 words)

When we examine the past, we must place ourselves in the right frame of mind. It is impossible to adequately understand an historical event using a 21st century mind-set. As an example, when the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth, they discovered a vacated village. The land “hath been planted with corn three or four years ago, and there is a very sweet brook runs under the hillside.”[1]Bolstered by their religious conviction, these early settlers firmly believed that God had set them here, and cleared the land for their taking. We know today, that Native-Americans did not have the necessary immunities to fight-off European diseases, and died in great numbers. In Europe, these same diseases had existed for centuries, and had become endemic. Fishermen, and traders, had long plied the waters of the New England coast, and passed these diseases to the local inhabitants.

Now take a moment, and place yourself in the mind of the local people. If you were a Native-American, you saw your people dying in great numbers, yet Europeans remained healthy. There are a number of scenarios that could have developed here, but in most cases, what do you think Native-Americans must have thought of this situation? If you placed yourself in their situation, does it not stand to reason that you would begin to think that your “spirits” had failed you, and perhaps the God of the settlers protected them? Based on our assumptions, we would think that as a result, Native-Americans, then, converted in large numbers. What is necessary is a clear understanding of early-contact Native-American culture. For indigenous Americans, it centered on spiritual power. Power could be increased through addition, not subtraction. Instead of giving-up their ancient spiritual practices, they instead, simply added the Christian God.

What we gain, by examining the past through a lens focused on that point in history, is a deeper understanding of the dynamics at play, and empathy for all participants. Today, some things are just unacceptable. We cringe at the thought of slavery, child labor, no rights for women, and segregation, to name a few, but they all existed at one point in time. More remarkably, a strong justification existed for each of these that prevailed to the point where they proved to be generally accepted.  In 1898, the United States went to war with Spain.  Generally speaking, Americans cringed at the thought of Imperialism because of their earlier relationship with Britain that resulted in the American Revolution. By the end of the 19th century, industrial overproduction increasingly required new sources of raw materials, and more importantly, external markets to sell American goods.  While this need softened America’s disdain for Imperialism, the nation still sought the moral high-ground by passing the Teller Amendment that restricted the US from annexing Cuba.  Following the Spanish-American War, the Treaty of Paris granted Cuban independence, but ceded Puerto Rico and Guam, and sold the Philippines to the US for $20 million.  Congress also annexed Hawaii.

Numerous reasons for Imperialism soon surfaced, but none validated the subjugation of foreign peoples more than the moral justification as expressed in Rudyard Kipling’s “A White Man’s Burden.”

Take up the White Man’s burden–

Send forth the best ye breed–

Go bind your sons to exile

To serve your captives’ need;

To wait in heavy harness,

On fluttered folk and wild–

Your new-caught, sullen peoples,

Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man’s burden–

In patience to abide,

To veil the threat of terror

And check the show of pride;

By open speech and simple,

An hundred times made plain

To seek another’s profit,

And work another’s gain.

Take up the White Man’s burden–

The savage wars of peace–

Fill full the mouth of Famine

And bid the sickness cease;

And when your goal is nearest

The end for others sought,

Watch sloth and heathen Folly

Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man’s burden–

No tawdry rule of kings,

But toil of serf and sweeper–

The tale of common things.

The ports ye shall not enter,

The roads ye shall not tread,

Go mark them with your living,

And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man’s burden–

And reap his old reward:

The blame of those ye better,

The hate of those ye guard–

The cry of hosts ye humour

(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:–”

Take up the White Man’s burden–

Ye dare not stoop to less–

Nor call too loud on Freedom

To cloke your weariness;

By all ye cry or whisper,

By all ye leave or do,

The silent, sullen peoples

Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the White Man’s burden–

Have done with childish days–

The lightly proferred laurel,

The easy, ungrudged praise.

Comes now, to search your manhood

Through all the thankless years

Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,

The judgment of your peers![2]

GROUP A

For this forum, Group A  will assume the role of an individual opposed to Imperialism

 

In response to Kipling’s poem, each of you should post a statement in support, or in opposition to the idea of Imperialism. You do not need to restrict yourself to the moral justification. The arguments for, and against, expansion took many avenues.  Your submission should be a minimum of 200 words in length. Try not to make assumptions. Instead, assume the historical role of someone who lived in the United States near the turn of the century. You could be a manufacturer, a pastor, or a politician. Conversely, you can be a laborer, a pacifist, or a housewife. Be creative.

 

Question 3 (250 words)

Looking ahead, in what ways do the programs in the Great Society continue the legacy of the New Deal programs? Or, are they completely different from each other?

 

Question 4 (250 words)

How does “The Iron Curtain speech” by Winston Churchill reflect the fear or concern, not just of the United States, regarding the spread of communism?

 

Information for Question 5 is below (200 words)

 

On September 30, 1938, the League of Nations passed a unanimous resolution for the “Protection of Civilian Populations Against Bombing from the Air in Case of War.” In that resolution, the League noted that “the Intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal,” and that “any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighborhood are not bombed through negligence.”[1]

The Manhattan Project began modestly in 1939 with a budget of $167,000 to explore the feasibility of a nuclear chain reaction.  By October 1941, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt officially approved the atomic program, and established a committee to oversee it.  On July 16, 1945, the US tested its first nuclear explosion.  Less than a month later, on August 6, 1945 the US dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, and three days later, a second bomb on Nagasaki.

On June 27, 1945, the Undersecretary of the Navy, Ralph A. Bard sent a memo to Secretary of War Henry Stimson.  “Ever since I have been in touch with this program I have had a feeling that before the bomb is actually used against Japan that Japan should have some preliminary warning for say two or three days in advance of use. The position of the United States as a great humanitarian nation and the fair play attitude of our people generally is responsible in the main for this feeling.

During recent weeks I have also had the feeling very definitely that the Japanese government may be searching for some opportunity which they could use as a medium of surrender.”[2]

In his combat memoir With the Old Breed, Eugene Sledge would write that “We received the news with quiet disbelief coupled with an indescribable sense of relief.  We thought the Japanese would never surrender.  Many refused to believe it.  Sitting around in stunned silence, we remembered our dead.  So many dead.  So many maimed.  So many bright futures consigned to the ashes of the past.  So many dreams lost in the madness that had engulfed us.”[3]

Clearly, some sought a different solution from the bomb, while others, and especially those who had fought in the Pacific, found great relief that they would not have to endure another minute of combat.  Justification for dropping the bomb, and opposition to it came from many quarters.  For this debate, you are not limited to the months prior to August 6, 1945.  The argument concerning theh use of nuclear power raged on for years to come.

You have been divided into two groups. For this forum, Group A will assume the role of an individual who supported the use of the bomb, while Group B will argue against. Each of you should post a statement in support, or in opposition to the idea of using nuclear power in World War II. Your submission should be a minimum of 200 words in length. Try not to make assumptions. Instead, assume the historical role of someone who lived in the United States at this point in history. Be creative.

After your initial submission, you are then required to continue the debate by responding to three of your classmates. Your responses should be a minimum of 100 words, and should contribute to the dialogue. Your initial response is due by 11:55pm, ET, Friday and your responses to 3 other students by 11:55pm, ET, Sunday.

 

 


[3] http://www.authentichistory.com/1939-1945/1-war/4-Pacific/4-abombdecision/2-support/index.html

 

On September 30, 1938, the League of Nations passed a unanimous resolution for the “Protection of Civilian Populations Against Bombing from the Air in Case of War.” In that resolution, the League noted that “the Intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal,” and that “any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighborhood are not bombed through negligence.”[1]

The Manhattan Project began modestly in 1939 with a budget of $167,000 to explore the feasibility of a nuclear chain reaction.  By October 1941, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt officially approved the atomic program, and established a committee to oversee it.  On July 16, 1945, the US tested its first nuclear explosion.  Less than a month later, on August 6, 1945 the US dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, and three days later, a second bomb on Nagasaki.

On June 27, 1945, the Undersecretary of the Navy, Ralph A. Bard sent a memo to Secretary of War Henry Stimson.  “Ever since I have been in touch with this program I have had a feeling that before the bomb is actually used against Japan that Japan should have some preliminary warning for say two or three days in advance of use. The position of the United States as a great humanitarian nation and the fair play attitude of our people generally is responsible in the main for this feeling.

During recent weeks I have also had the feeling very definitely that the Japanese government may be searching for some opportunity which they could use as a medium of surrender.”[2]

In his combat memoir With the Old Breed, Eugene Sledge would write that “We received the news with quiet disbelief coupled with an indescribable sense of relief.  We thought the Japanese would never surrender.  Many refused to believe it.  Sitting around in stunned silence, we remembered our dead.  So many dead.  So many maimed.  So many bright futures consigned to the ashes of the past.  So many dreams lost in the madness that had engulfed us.”[3]

Clearly, some sought a different solution from the bomb, while others, and especially those who had fought in the Pacific, found great relief that they would not have to endure another minute of combat.  Justification for dropping the bomb, and opposition to it came from many quarters.  For this debate, you are not limited to the months prior to August 6, 1945.  The argument concerning theh use of nuclear power raged on for years to come.

For this debate, you will be part of the same groups you were assigned for the debate in Week 3. For this forum, Group A will assume the role of an individual who supported the use of the bomb. Each of you should post a statement in support, or in opposition to the idea of using nuclear power in World War II. Your submission should be a minimum of 200 words in length. Try not to make assumptions. Instead, assume the historical role of someone who lived in the United States at this point in history. Be creative.

 

Question 6 (250 words)

. What were the sources of the American economic recovery of the 1980s and 1990s? Who benefited from it and who did not, and why was that the case?

 

 

Question 7 (200 words)

Summarize in 250 words or less the American Reconstruction after the 1865’s and how it affected Black Empowerment.

order btn