http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/suez.htm
This is a historical account of the Suez Crisis based on military accounts and published by globalsecurity.org. It connects to what we're studying about the Arab-Israeli crisis and the war over the Suez Canal in Egypt. It adds to what we learned because it's a more detailed explanation of the events in the crisis and the specific actions/contributions of the USA to the war in military terms (e.g. the fleets that were sent to the Middle East), but a limitation is because of the focus on American standpoint/involvement on/in the war and perhaps some ambiguity in the records, it is not made clear why the Anglo-French Attack on Egypt occurred/how it was justified.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
SGQ # 12
Crisis in the Middle East p. 3-9
What was the Jewish claim to Palestine?
They had lived there from about 1500 B.C. and they called it the "Promised Land" of their forefather Abraham, and had historical and religious ties to Jerusalem, the city of Christ's birth.
What was the importance of the Balfour Declaration?
This was a statement that Britain would support the Jews in establishing a homeland in Palestine, and the British had only meant it as a tool to gain American support in the war (American Jews would move their government, Britain believed), but the Jews took it as a promise from Britain to help them set up a Jewish State.
What was the Arab claim to Palestine?
In the 600s the Arabs (mostly Muslims by now) swept through the Middle East and north Africa including Palestine and took over with their religion and language until the Ottoman Turks took over in the sixteenth century.
To what extent was WWI a turning point in the struggle for Arab independence?
Because the British were scared of having their oil supplies cut off by the Turks in the first world war, the Brits wanted to support the Arabs' independence in return for their rebelling/fighting against the Turks. But because the Brits were more worried about their agreements with France than with the Arabs, instead of putting Kind Feisal as king of Syria as Lawrence suggested, Britain let France take over Syria, and put Feisal as King of Iraq and his older brother as ruler of Transjordan, but both territories were still British mandates. So, WWI was only partially a turning point in the struggle for Arab independence.
Why did Britain and France want mandates in the Middle East?
They agreed to split them in the Sykes-Picot Agreement; there were probably oil reserves and ports on the Mediterranean Sea and stuff that appealed to Britain and France, and of course the expansion of their empire and power.
What was the Jewish claim to Palestine?
They had lived there from about 1500 B.C. and they called it the "Promised Land" of their forefather Abraham, and had historical and religious ties to Jerusalem, the city of Christ's birth.
What was the importance of the Balfour Declaration?
This was a statement that Britain would support the Jews in establishing a homeland in Palestine, and the British had only meant it as a tool to gain American support in the war (American Jews would move their government, Britain believed), but the Jews took it as a promise from Britain to help them set up a Jewish State.
What was the Arab claim to Palestine?
In the 600s the Arabs (mostly Muslims by now) swept through the Middle East and north Africa including Palestine and took over with their religion and language until the Ottoman Turks took over in the sixteenth century.
To what extent was WWI a turning point in the struggle for Arab independence?
Because the British were scared of having their oil supplies cut off by the Turks in the first world war, the Brits wanted to support the Arabs' independence in return for their rebelling/fighting against the Turks. But because the Brits were more worried about their agreements with France than with the Arabs, instead of putting Kind Feisal as king of Syria as Lawrence suggested, Britain let France take over Syria, and put Feisal as King of Iraq and his older brother as ruler of Transjordan, but both territories were still British mandates. So, WWI was only partially a turning point in the struggle for Arab independence.
Why did Britain and France want mandates in the Middle East?
They agreed to split them in the Sykes-Picot Agreement; there were probably oil reserves and ports on the Mediterranean Sea and stuff that appealed to Britain and France, and of course the expansion of their empire and power.
Monday, March 22, 2010
IRL #16
http://beta.thehindu.com/news/international/article267855.ece
This is a news article, published by the [online] newspaper "The Hindu". It connects to what we just started studying about the Arab-Israeli conflict because it discusses the current relations, peace talks, and actions between the US, Israel, and Palestine. It enhances what we've learned by providing a clear example of the current (still existing) issues over land in the US, with the debate over Israel's construction of a big housing settlement in Jerusalem. A limitation faced when using this source is that I read the article on March 22, 2010, but the date at the top of the article says "March 23, 2010", suggesting that the source does not hold much validity for accuracy, or at least creates some confusion. Another limitation is the seemingly anti-Israeli commentary slanting the article through descriptions of Israeli actions such as "seemed timed to embarrass the United States and perhaps to smother the new talks". This is probably do to the pro-arab/hindu nature of a newspaper titled The Hindu.
This is a news article, published by the [online] newspaper "The Hindu". It connects to what we just started studying about the Arab-Israeli conflict because it discusses the current relations, peace talks, and actions between the US, Israel, and Palestine. It enhances what we've learned by providing a clear example of the current (still existing) issues over land in the US, with the debate over Israel's construction of a big housing settlement in Jerusalem. A limitation faced when using this source is that I read the article on March 22, 2010, but the date at the top of the article says "March 23, 2010", suggesting that the source does not hold much validity for accuracy, or at least creates some confusion. Another limitation is the seemingly anti-Israeli commentary slanting the article through descriptions of Israeli actions such as "seemed timed to embarrass the United States and perhaps to smother the new talks". This is probably do to the pro-arab/hindu nature of a newspaper titled The Hindu.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Sino-US Relations (Group work question)
GROUP QUESTION (#5 ON PAPER ABOUT SINO-US RELATIONS sources A-C)
There is some evidence in Sources A-C to support the concept that the change in relations between the USA and the PRC was less fundamental than is sometimes supposed.
Source A says that "China's attitude toward foreign countries retains elements of aloofness, suspicion and hostility."
Source B says that China and the US were friendly but didn't like each other's foreign policies; the nationalists still think that they are right in choosing their nationalistic views...
Sources C (ii) and (iii) do not offer any specific evidence to support the fundamentality of the change in relations between the USA and the PRC; the supposed quote 'today our two peoples hold in their hand the future of the whole world' has no real power or plan behind it, it's just a nice-sounding statement, and if the change in relations had been that drastic and meaningful, there would be specific planning going on between them.
or
There is some evidence in sources A-C that the changes in relations between USA and the PRC in 1971 were less fundamental than is sometimes supposed. In source A, it is mentioned that China's foreign policy is still very hostile towards other countries. It is said that they are booth aloof and suspicious. Source B initially seems to support the idea that the change in Sino-US relations was great, but later on it goes on to mention that the relationships between the countries had been suspended for twenty years. Source C mentions that three-corner diplomacy was advantageous to the United States, showing that the US is still sticking to their own ways. There is façade of agreement, but really every country is still looking out for their own interests.
There is some evidence in Sources A-C to support the concept that the change in relations between the USA and the PRC was less fundamental than is sometimes supposed.
Source A says that "China's attitude toward foreign countries retains elements of aloofness, suspicion and hostility."
Source B says that China and the US were friendly but didn't like each other's foreign policies; the nationalists still think that they are right in choosing their nationalistic views...
Sources C (ii) and (iii) do not offer any specific evidence to support the fundamentality of the change in relations between the USA and the PRC; the supposed quote 'today our two peoples hold in their hand the future of the whole world' has no real power or plan behind it, it's just a nice-sounding statement, and if the change in relations had been that drastic and meaningful, there would be specific planning going on between them.
or
There is some evidence in sources A-C that the changes in relations between USA and the PRC in 1971 were less fundamental than is sometimes supposed. In source A, it is mentioned that China's foreign policy is still very hostile towards other countries. It is said that they are booth aloof and suspicious. Source B initially seems to support the idea that the change in Sino-US relations was great, but later on it goes on to mention that the relationships between the countries had been suspended for twenty years. Source C mentions that three-corner diplomacy was advantageous to the United States, showing that the US is still sticking to their own ways. There is façade of agreement, but really every country is still looking out for their own interests.
Monday, March 15, 2010
'Media' Group essay
By examining sources A through E, it quickly becomes clear that there's an intimate relationship between dictators and their media. All of the sources demonstrate how the dictator ship will use its media in order to sway popular opinion. In fact, it is often essential for dictatorships to do this to gain support for their policies and administer them in both foreign and domestic affairs.
Source A demonstrates a situation in which the media is used to replace a dictator smoothly and effectively in an authoritarian state. The first part of the source is an excerpt from Nikita Khrushchev's speech to the CCC. Khrushchev attacked the cult of personality that surrounded Stalin and was the first communist in a long time to criticize a leader and his policies. After this speech, part two of source A demonstrates how the media praises Khrushchev for his willingness to attack a cult of personality and likely impacted Khrushchev's rise to power by increasing his notoriety and authority.
Source B shows the medial reaction from two different dictatorships of the Bucharest conference. These sources illustrate how the media was used to paint conferences and other political happenings in the light of the government by which it was produced.
Source C is the first of the five sources to demonstrate the relationship between the dictatorship, the media, and the state's foreign policy. Part one of the source is an excerpt from the Chinese press, accusing the Soviets of ransacking their borders and converting their people to Soviet Communism. Part two of source C is a reactionary article from Pravda, which, in short, accuses the Chinese government of fabricating the entire incident. In both cases, the government use the media to turn the people against each other and maintain a foreign policy of tension between the two states while still keeping the approval of the public.
Source D is the people's daily on the resignation of Khrushchev and it talks about China's view and how they disagree with what Khrushchev did, and how they support the Soviets for causing him to resign. They say that Khrushchev betrayed Leninism and the proletariat and the interests of the soviet people.
Source E stands in the aftermath of the Czechoslovakian Prague Spring, which began the process of throwing off the mantle of communism in Eastern Europe. The Soviet Union paints its reaction to the incident as a staunch but at the same time compassionate attempt at pacifying the anti-soviet feelings and by doing so spreading socialist internationalism. And also, they made use of Lenin's Centinary as propaganda supporting nationalism. By contrast, the Chinese, who are at the time at odds with the Soviets paint the issue as a weakening of Soviet resolve. The Chinese, who are rather bold in their view of spreading communism around the world portray the Czech incident as a softening of Soviet doctrines in order to make themselves as the true bearers of the Communist philosophy.
In every one of these sources it is clear that authoritarian dictatorships rely on the media. Like all government types, authoritarian states need public approval to stay in power, so the media is often implemented to improve public relations and ensure the welfare of the state while simultaneously enabling them to carry out their various policies.
Source A demonstrates a situation in which the media is used to replace a dictator smoothly and effectively in an authoritarian state. The first part of the source is an excerpt from Nikita Khrushchev's speech to the CCC. Khrushchev attacked the cult of personality that surrounded Stalin and was the first communist in a long time to criticize a leader and his policies. After this speech, part two of source A demonstrates how the media praises Khrushchev for his willingness to attack a cult of personality and likely impacted Khrushchev's rise to power by increasing his notoriety and authority.
Source B shows the medial reaction from two different dictatorships of the Bucharest conference. These sources illustrate how the media was used to paint conferences and other political happenings in the light of the government by which it was produced.
Source C is the first of the five sources to demonstrate the relationship between the dictatorship, the media, and the state's foreign policy. Part one of the source is an excerpt from the Chinese press, accusing the Soviets of ransacking their borders and converting their people to Soviet Communism. Part two of source C is a reactionary article from Pravda, which, in short, accuses the Chinese government of fabricating the entire incident. In both cases, the government use the media to turn the people against each other and maintain a foreign policy of tension between the two states while still keeping the approval of the public.
Source D is the people's daily on the resignation of Khrushchev and it talks about China's view and how they disagree with what Khrushchev did, and how they support the Soviets for causing him to resign. They say that Khrushchev betrayed Leninism and the proletariat and the interests of the soviet people.
Source E stands in the aftermath of the Czechoslovakian Prague Spring, which began the process of throwing off the mantle of communism in Eastern Europe. The Soviet Union paints its reaction to the incident as a staunch but at the same time compassionate attempt at pacifying the anti-soviet feelings and by doing so spreading socialist internationalism. And also, they made use of Lenin's Centinary as propaganda supporting nationalism. By contrast, the Chinese, who are at the time at odds with the Soviets paint the issue as a weakening of Soviet resolve. The Chinese, who are rather bold in their view of spreading communism around the world portray the Czech incident as a softening of Soviet doctrines in order to make themselves as the true bearers of the Communist philosophy.
In every one of these sources it is clear that authoritarian dictatorships rely on the media. Like all government types, authoritarian states need public approval to stay in power, so the media is often implemented to improve public relations and ensure the welfare of the state while simultaneously enabling them to carry out their various policies.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
IRL #15
http://www.mediaed.org/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=106
This is the URL to an article and a video clip from the documentary Constructing Public Opinion (Executive Producer: Sut Jhally; Director/Editor: Susan Ericsson, Speaker Professor Justin Lewis). The clip relates to what we're studying in class because we are talking about the influence of mass media in the formation of public opinion in authoritarian states, and this video brings that down to a level we live at today - in America, not even an authoritarian state, but where we still have corporately-controlled mass media greatly influencing public opinion, via use of "public polls" formulated and reflected by the Media, etc. It adds value by providing examples of this common occurrence such as with the campaign of Bush and Algore that show us how relevant this issues is in today's world, and the video obviously also uses visual and audio techniques to drive across the message. Limitations when using this source could be that: if you were trying to learn about authoritarian states in particular, the US is not one; the documentary was published in 2001 and does include more recent and relevant examples such as the Obama campaign; and because this was a presentation by a form of media itself, there could have been existing motivations to play even more with the viewers' minds... How do we know the polls They presented were accurate?
This is the URL to an article and a video clip from the documentary Constructing Public Opinion (Executive Producer: Sut Jhally; Director/Editor: Susan Ericsson, Speaker Professor Justin Lewis). The clip relates to what we're studying in class because we are talking about the influence of mass media in the formation of public opinion in authoritarian states, and this video brings that down to a level we live at today - in America, not even an authoritarian state, but where we still have corporately-controlled mass media greatly influencing public opinion, via use of "public polls" formulated and reflected by the Media, etc. It adds value by providing examples of this common occurrence such as with the campaign of Bush and Algore that show us how relevant this issues is in today's world, and the video obviously also uses visual and audio techniques to drive across the message. Limitations when using this source could be that: if you were trying to learn about authoritarian states in particular, the US is not one; the documentary was published in 2001 and does include more recent and relevant examples such as the Obama campaign; and because this was a presentation by a form of media itself, there could have been existing motivations to play even more with the viewers' minds... How do we know the polls They presented were accurate?
Monday, March 1, 2010
IRL #14
http://unimaps.com/cuba-crisis/mainmap.gif
This is a site with a map that explains the location, events, and some of the implications of the Cuban Missile Crisis (how far the missiles could reach and what US cities could have been wiped out etc.). Unimaps.com is a site with no guarantees on accuracy, which is a definite limitation when using the source, but all the information provided in the image, except for the perimeter of the missiles' range (which is supposed to represent "medium range missiles", so maybe the full-range ones would have reached closer to california). They claim all the text below the image is from the Marxist Internet Archive.
It connects to what we're studying because it relates to the role of the Cuban Missile Crisis in the development of the Cold War (such close missiles increased tension, etc.). It enhances what we've learned by providing visual geographical context and a summary for/of the Crisis.
Another limitation besides the uncertainty of the source is that the map is cut off and the whole extent of the possible damage to the US that the missiles could have done cannot be seen with this image.
This is a site with a map that explains the location, events, and some of the implications of the Cuban Missile Crisis (how far the missiles could reach and what US cities could have been wiped out etc.). Unimaps.com is a site with no guarantees on accuracy, which is a definite limitation when using the source, but all the information provided in the image, except for the perimeter of the missiles' range (which is supposed to represent "medium range missiles", so maybe the full-range ones would have reached closer to california). They claim all the text below the image is from the Marxist Internet Archive.
It connects to what we're studying because it relates to the role of the Cuban Missile Crisis in the development of the Cold War (such close missiles increased tension, etc.). It enhances what we've learned by providing visual geographical context and a summary for/of the Crisis.
Another limitation besides the uncertainty of the source is that the map is cut off and the whole extent of the possible damage to the US that the missiles could have done cannot be seen with this image.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)