Blog #13 - Choose one of these questions

With this imperialism / Great War unit, I decided to have you make up your own higher order thinking questions.


1. Why didn't Vicar tell the other guys (Trench, Willoughby, Jack) that he thought he saw Harry ride off after a spy?


2. Why would soldiers countinue to fight after they've what horror and damage that war can do? - Karen, Maddie, Eric


3. Why did King Leopold mistreat the people of the Congo if that might cause a rebellion? - Braxton


4. Why didn't any of the soldiers in the Great War rebel earlier because of the awful living conditions?

5. Do you think Vicar thought it was all right to kill a man if he prayed to God while doing it? -Kelly

6. Do you think there was a deeper meaning behind why Ethne decided to marry Jack? Maybe she felt bad for him becuase he was blind? Or maybe he was a last resort because Harry was surely gone by then? - Kelly

7. What was your first impression of shell shock? Did you think it was this severe? What were your reactions to it? Do you think stuff like this still happens today and did you ever know about such a thing until now? - Jithmi, Larry G., Maddie

8. Towards the end of Four Feathers, Jack and Ethne are outside talking by a carriage after Harry's visit to his house. It is thought that Jack broke up with Ethne at that point. Why would he decide to do that? - Nona

9. What influence do you think Siegfried Sassoon had on Wilfred Owen and his writing? Do you think Sassoon was liked or disliked by generals? Why? - Jithmi

10. What do you think America should have done during the Armenian Genocide in 1915? Was what they did a good response or could it have been better? Why? - Reanna

11. What would happen if the Turks were to take responsibility for the Armenian Genocide? - Andrea K.

12. Why would the British continue to drop so many shells at the Battle of the Somme when they had made so little progress? - Andrea K.

13. Why were nations like Germany so obsessed with gaining land in Europe when they already had overseas colonies in Africa? Did being a smaller nation have something to do with this? - Larry G.

14. Why couldn't soldiers speak their minds about how the war was going without getting punished? - Karen DLR

15. Why did soldiers like Sassoon go back to the war after being injured? - Maddie

16. Why do you think, even after the war had begun, secret agreements were being made, just like there had been at the beginning when countries tried to gain allies? - Lizzie

17. What do you think would of happened if America had been involved in World War 1 from the start, instead of trying to stay out of it? Do you think peace would of come faster? Or did America’s timing have to do more with it than the country itself? - Lizzie

18. Why might some countries be in favor for the treaties made during World War I and why might some countries be against them? - Emily H.

19. Why do you think that Serbia would choose to not agree to all the demands that Austria sent them, even if it meant avoiding a war and also saving lives and resources? - Emily H.

20. Why was the idea of imperialism so more influential then the idea of Enlightenment? - Eric

21. “ You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye,
who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you’ll never know
The hell where the youth and laughter go.” –Siegfried Sassoon, “Suicide in the Trenches”.
What do you think Siegfried poem has to say about the war in this poem? Why? - Alesha

22. Even though women couldn’t fight in the Great War, do you think women are valuable as soldiers now? Support your answer. - Alesha

23.

Please pick one of the questions above (that isn't your own) and answer it to the best of your ability in 150 words. Due Friday, Jan. 29, 2010.

Blog 12 - Armenian Genocide and Turkey's continual denial

We've been reading about the Armenian genocide and Turkey's continual denial of their complicity in that genocide. The Ottoman government, at war with Russia at the time, saw the Armenians as an internal threat, spies, and sabotuers. Once the majority of the Armenians were exiled to Syria or killed by the end of 1915, the Young Turk officials began their official denials.

Some of the major issues at stake (BBC Online http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6045182.stm):

1. The number of Armenians killed: Armenians say that 1.5 million had perished in the sands of Syria while the Turks say that only 300,000 died between 1915-1923.

2. Were the killings systematic? Many governments, historians and the Armenians believe that the massacres were part of an organized plot done by the Turkish government during WW1, however, Turkey contends that many Muslims died in the "turmoil of war" as well.

3. The trials after WW1 ended up with one Turkish official hanged and another thrown in jail, but the big 3 Young Turks tried "in absentia" - not present -since they had run away to Germany.

For the U.S.'s part, we read about Ambassador Henry Morgenthau's efforts to persuade President Wilson to pressure the Ottomans/Young Turks to end the massacres or to get the Germans to stop the Turks. Wilson would do neither. In 1916, both the House and Senate passed resolutions saying that they were disturbed by the reports of mass Armenian killings and wanted to have a day where Americans should show their solidarity with the Armenian people and work to raise relief funds. Of course, in America, 1916 was an election year, and in a tough economy, Wilson campaigned to keep America out of that European mess.

At least 20 countries around the world since this time period have passed resolutions to express sorrow and sympathy (Argentina, Belgium, Canada, France, Italy, Russia and Uruguay), held prayer days and have officially recognized the Armenian genocide, yet America hasn't. In 1984, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution that called for the President to recognize a National Day of Remembrance of Man's Inhumanity to Man with specific reference to the Armenian genocide. The day was April 24th, the day that the Turkish gov't. arrested 50 Armenian intellectuals and leaders who were then later executed - a day that the Armenians recognize as the offical start of the Armenian genocide.

In recent years, Turkey has denied the U.S. any use of its bases for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Also, Turkey has urged the U.S. gov't. to block a Congressional vote in 2007 that would recognize the Armenian genocide, and so the House Foreign Relations Committee stalled the bill.

So, why would Turkey continue to deny responsibility for the genocide? 150 words minimum. Due Monday, January 25.

Read the websites at the bottom of this Wikipedia page for links to pages that explain Turkey's point of view.

Copy of the genocide map from the Armenian National Institute: http://www.armenian-genocide.org/map-full.html

Blog #11 - Four Feathers - Reaction / Question

Pick one of the following questions and answer it by Friday, 1/15/10.

150 words minimum.

1. Who was the more genuine friend to Harry: Abou, Vicar or Jack? Before you answer, consider:

- Abou saved Jack in the desert when he lost his camel and ran out of water, and he also got him out of the Omdurman prison.

- Vicar was the only one of Harry's mates who recognized him (2x!) when Harry had come to Sudan, plus he didn't send Harry a feather and is an all-around good guy.

- Jack was the only friend who defended Harry when the charges of cowardice started flying around at the beginning of the movie, and I think he gave up his chance to marry the love of his life (Ethne) so that his friend would be happy.

2. What do you think is the greater fear as a soldier in war - the fear of dying or the fear of having to kill another person? Why? Which do you think was what Harry suffered from? Why?

3. How would this story have been different if it was told from Abou's point of view? We don't know much about his background, family, or life before "God put Harry in his path." Make some backstory up for Abou.

4. "You British walk the land too proudly." Give a few examples from the film where the characters acted just a bit too proud. Why do you think they have this swagger?

###There may be more questions later tonight or tomorrow morning. Thanks.

Blog #10 - White King, Red Rubber, Black Death

So far, you guys have studied how Africa had grown as a multi-ethnic continent with different tribes and thousands of languages before the Europeans came to become the crossroads for trade and commerce like it is today.


The northern African countries, the ones that have had the most interaction with Europe (good and bad) like Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Tunisia and Egypt are more economically advanced than their sub-Saharan brethren. Those countries that lie South of the Equator are the ones that we will focus on for most of our imperialism unit in Chapter 24 and revisit before the end of the semester.


The British and the French were the two biggest colonizers of sub-Saharan Africa, but the Belgians, Germans, Dutch and Portuguese also carved up the continent after 1800. This period is known as the "new imperialism" - as if the time period of slavery when up to possibly 20 million Africans were stolen from the continent and shipped over to the Americas was somehow "old" imperialism and this was more "enlightened" because the Euros didn't sell humans and instead sold the resources? Yeah, right.


Some of the worst abuses of Africans were done by the Belgians in the resource-rich Congo. The Belgians extracted tons of rubber (this is where the title of our blog comes from), copper and ivory. Those villages who didn't harvest enough rubber would have children or sometimes women lose a hand. This was when the king himself, Leopold II, owned the Congo, until 1908 when the outrages over such treatment forced him to give it up. To quote a BBC documentary with the same name as our blog, "Until Adolf Hitler arrived on the scene, the European standard cruelty was set by a king."

Link to King Leopold's genocide: http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/king-leopold-ii-congo
A BBC news link that traces the current state of the region to the mess from the 19th Century: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3516965.stm

One thing that is included in your history book that was never included in the stuff that I learned was info from the Africans' points of view. The best examples are in Ch. 24, sec. 2, on p. 754-5 and p. 759-761. I had seen a movie about Shaka Zulu but it really was more about the brave whites who had to take on the Zulus in the scary war in southern Africans. I never got to learn the "other side" of the story or the Africans' side of the story unless I watched Roots which came out when I was 9 (in 1977, I think) or read stuff on my own.

As Americans, we can't claim any kind of moral superiority over the Europeans because of the U.S.'s genocidal policies enacted towards our Native Americans.

Your questions:
1. Why did Europeans colonize Africa in the 1800s?
2. Why do you think America stayed away from Africa and Asia during the 19th Century?
3. Do you think that the current economic and political state that many sub-Saharan countries are in today might have anything to do with their previous colonization? Why or why not?

200 words minimum. Due Wednesday, January 13.

Blog #9 - If France Sneezes, Europe Catches a Cold

From what we saw in Chapter 20 (and even earlier with the French Revolution), France was incredibly influential in politics during the 19th Century not only in Europe but also in Latin America as well. Though the 26 years of Revolution and Napoleonic Rule (1789-1815) had destroyed the country and its economy, the ideas of natural rights (life, liberty and property) and democracy were ones that caught fire across the world.

We saw how European dictators / monarchs tried to re-establish the Old Order with the Congress of Vienna in 1816 and fix the problems that Napoleon had created (by overthrowing the old stodgy system that wouldn't change - though the ironic thing was that Napoleon (painting at the left) had become an Emperor himself and put all of the power of the French government in his own hands).

My questions for you:

If you were a monarch of old Europe at this time (mid 19th Century) and the Revolutions of 1848 were flaring up, which of the following would you do and why?

1. Would you crush these revolts in your empire so as to not let them not occur again?

2. Would you listen to the revolutionaries' demands and use only the ones that didn't demand too much of your power or empire's resources?

3. Would you completely agree to all of the revolutionaries' requests and allow their region to become semi-independent?

4. Would you examine the geography of the rebellious region and let them go if they weren't important or keep them if they were but let them have some form of liberties to make them happy (think Bismarck and realpolitik)?

Pick one of the four options and explain why you chose your option.

150 words minimum, due Tuesday, January 5th.