1. Senator McCarthy used fear tactics to frighten his listeners into thinking that although it may have been the case that communists outnumbered non-communists by a startling amount, it wasn't as extreme as he made it out to be.
McCarthy might have been considered a populist because he claimed to support "the people" over the elite.
2. Eisenhower said that even though military is costly to maintain, it is absolutely necessary to keep it built up. He warned against letting the high costs be discouraging. These costs were a result of the Cold War because it became important to keep the army ready to be used if the time came.
3. The Supreme Court said that "separate but equal" was not equal because the feeling of inferiority felt by black students who were separated from their white peers gave them no motivation to work.
4. The author was blaming the conformity on generations of inheriting wealth, and since the cycle wasn't being broken and the wealthy stayed wealthy, nothing changed.
5. The document which subject most correlates with the effects of the Cold War is the first document about Senator McCarthy. The "red scare" prompted a nationwide fear and hatred of communists and everything they stood for. McCarthy's fear tactics in his speeches were widely criticized for the notions they put in people's heads. Now, Senator McCarthy was not the only one who was fueling the tension between the capitalist West and the communist East, but he didn't ease it either.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Ch. 26 DBQ's
1. The "Long Telegram" helped contribute to the Cold War because it fueled further anxiety that the West had about the future of the communist East. By reflecting the views of the Russian rulers, their insecurity, and their fear, the telegram made the tensions that were already there, public. Kennan was very clear that the Russian people were going to employ any means necessary to keep the outside from interfering.
2. The Truman speech confirmed that the US would fully support the free people of other nations who were having totalitarian regimes assume control of their government.
3. The idea that the US wanted to further split Europe for their own interests was, in retrospect, propaganda, but worry that the continued interference of the US would result from direct economic aid was a legitimate concern.
4. As far as militaristic reasons, Lippmann doesn't believe that a stationary, defensive strategy will be effective considering America's greatest strength lies in being mobile. Politically, Lippmann doesn't think that the Soviets will be able to "yield on...a diplomatic front."
2. The Truman speech confirmed that the US would fully support the free people of other nations who were having totalitarian regimes assume control of their government.
3. The idea that the US wanted to further split Europe for their own interests was, in retrospect, propaganda, but worry that the continued interference of the US would result from direct economic aid was a legitimate concern.
4. As far as militaristic reasons, Lippmann doesn't believe that a stationary, defensive strategy will be effective considering America's greatest strength lies in being mobile. Politically, Lippmann doesn't think that the Soviets will be able to "yield on...a diplomatic front."
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Review book vs. Textbook
Western Expansion
Since the assignment was to find both positive and negative aspects of the westward expansion of the country, that became the main criteria of the book criticism.
It seemed that both books had a negative swing, focusing mostly on the displacement of the Indians onto reservations, the depletion of the buffalo population, and the environmental damage (i.e., soil erosion, deforestation, etc). When reading both chapters, I found myself having to search for positive effects whereas the unfortunate things were talked about for pages.
The decision of which book was better (which, in my opinion, was the review book) was an easy one because the review book was significantly shorter. Any book that can condense several decades of information into a few pages while still covering all the bases is well worth the read. I found almost all of the information I was looking for in the assignment before I even opened the textbook.
Why, oh why, did the textbook have to go on for thirty pages? Also, if it’s necessary to go on for thirty pages, at least throw a few pictures in there. The chapter in the review book took me about twenty minutes to read, but the textbook pages took me a couple study halls plus a while at home, too. Obviously, whether the textbook was really long isn’t the reason the review book happened to discuss the topic better. The textbook seemed way too hung up on details than just focusing on the main ideas. In history, the main ideas are the most important things. The details, for the most part, just get in the way of the most important things. The “who, what, when, where, and why” of the assigned topic is what I was looking for, and interested in, when it came to the reading. I wasn’t so concerned with, for example, how each Indian tribe went about dealing with the frontiersmen.
By no means am I trying to say that details aren’t important. If this critique had been about which book had more information, then the textbook would totally win. The critique, if I’m not mistaken, was about which chapter had a better grasp on the topic at hand. In this case, if I can read for either twenty minutes or three hours and get the same information, I’m going to read for twenty minutes.
Since the assignment was to find both positive and negative aspects of the westward expansion of the country, that became the main criteria of the book criticism.
It seemed that both books had a negative swing, focusing mostly on the displacement of the Indians onto reservations, the depletion of the buffalo population, and the environmental damage (i.e., soil erosion, deforestation, etc). When reading both chapters, I found myself having to search for positive effects whereas the unfortunate things were talked about for pages.
The decision of which book was better (which, in my opinion, was the review book) was an easy one because the review book was significantly shorter. Any book that can condense several decades of information into a few pages while still covering all the bases is well worth the read. I found almost all of the information I was looking for in the assignment before I even opened the textbook.
Why, oh why, did the textbook have to go on for thirty pages? Also, if it’s necessary to go on for thirty pages, at least throw a few pictures in there. The chapter in the review book took me about twenty minutes to read, but the textbook pages took me a couple study halls plus a while at home, too. Obviously, whether the textbook was really long isn’t the reason the review book happened to discuss the topic better. The textbook seemed way too hung up on details than just focusing on the main ideas. In history, the main ideas are the most important things. The details, for the most part, just get in the way of the most important things. The “who, what, when, where, and why” of the assigned topic is what I was looking for, and interested in, when it came to the reading. I wasn’t so concerned with, for example, how each Indian tribe went about dealing with the frontiersmen.
By no means am I trying to say that details aren’t important. If this critique had been about which book had more information, then the textbook would totally win. The critique, if I’m not mistaken, was about which chapter had a better grasp on the topic at hand. In this case, if I can read for either twenty minutes or three hours and get the same information, I’m going to read for twenty minutes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
