Name: ______________________________WHAP 101Key Concept 6.2 Global Conflicts and Their ConsequenceStandards 4.0 3.5 3.0 Not a 3.0 yet

3.10.2 Create a system of organization to sequence ideas, concepts, and information to make important connections and distinctions

60 – 53.5 points

53- 46.5 Points

46 – 40 points

Under 40 points

Take notes of this packet _______/20 points4 SAQs for your test ______/32 points5th SAQ for your test ______8 points

Part I- World War II – 1914 – 1918

SAQ- #1

“The next great European war will probably come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans.”Otto von Bismarck, German statesman, 1888

a. Provide ONE Piece of historical evidence (Not specifically mentioned in the passage) that would support Bismark’s prediction about the origins of World War I.

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website- Total War: Definition & Examples- http://study.com/academy/lesson/total-war-definition-examples.html

Take good notes of what total war is, this will be important because both World War I and II are total wars, along other wars of this time period- just take notes until the video runs out!

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website- M-A-I-N Causes of World War I- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO9rnkmObIc&nohtml5=False

1

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website - The Great War episode 1 Exposion- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRtdSoeYQYk&list=PLvSzCTVndaIe_DgELjTaQSzh8tfLdyewH

Watch from 12:50 – 15:16, - How was the system of alliances used to keep peace by Kaiser Bismarck before World War I? What did Kaiser Wilhelm II do when he came to power and who became his only ally left?

Background- Serbia is a province or state in the large but weakening and dying Austria-Hungary Empire. May people in Serbia want to break away from the Austrian-Hungarian Empire- “The Black Hand” is a group that is fighting for Serbian independence from Austria Hungary, Gavrilo Princip is a member of “The Black Hand”. Archduke Franz Ferdinand is royalty visiting Serbia. Shit is about to go down….

39:40 – 43:40 – Explain the events that led to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, make sure to include the Serbian secret society “The Black Hand” and Gavrilo Princip. What was the reaction by Austria-Hungary and its emperor Franz Joseph? What “trap” was set by the alliance system?

Ok let’s keep score here pause the video at 43:08 and put the red countries from the video on the Central Powers side (that is what they are called for the war) and the blue countries on the allies or triple entente side (there official war name)

Central Powers Allies or Triple Entente

47:05- 48:35- What happen when Czar Nicholas mobilized his army? Why did all of the countries go to war? Why did Germany, Russia and France all mobilize their militaries? (Mobilization means they are moving their armies into fighting position)

2

 Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website The Great War episode 2 Stalemate - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gflb_jSYTV0&index=2&list=PLvSzCTVndaIe_DgELjTaQSzh8tfLdyewH%204:35-%205:30

4:35- 5:30 - What was the German Plan for war (The Schlieffen Plan)?

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website - Prof. Robert Weiner: The Nature & Impact of WWI- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CwA_3Oo7qc16:40- 27:30 - What actually happened when the Germans invaded using The Schlieffen Plan after they were stopped by the French at The Battle of the Marne in the west?

How was the fighting different for the Germans in the East with Russia?

What was the plan to win for both groups after The Battle of the Marne? What does this result in and why does the war continue to go on for years?

What was the purpose of the Battle of Verdun and The Battle of the Somme?

Give some examples of the destruction that occurred from World War I?

3

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website - GREAT SCENE - Paths of Glory- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPtVNDvwGMo

Take 5-6 notes on what your observe from the Trench Warfare in World War I

Gallipoli CampaignFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gallipoli Campaign, also known as the Dardanelles Campaign, the Battle of Gallipoli, or the Battle of Çanakkale(Turkish: Çanakkale Savaşı), was a campaign of the First World War that took place on the Gallipoli peninsula (Gelibolu in modern Turkey) in the Ottoman Empire between 17 February 1915 and 9 January 1916. The peninsula forms the northern bank of the Dardanelles, a strait that provided a sea route to the Russian Empire, one of the Allied powers during the war. Intending to secure it, Russia's allies, Britain and France, launched a naval attack followed by an amphibious landing on the peninsula, with the aim of capturing the Ottoman capital of Constantinople (modern Istanbul).[12] The naval attack was repelled and after eight months' fighting, with many casualties on both sides, the land campaign was abandoned and the invasion force was withdrawn to Egypt.

The campaign was the only major Ottoman victory of the war. In Turkey, it is regarded as a defining moment in the nation's history, a final surge in the defence of the motherland as the Ottoman Empire crumbled. The struggle formed the basis for the Turkish War of Independence and the declaration of the Republic of Turkey eight years later, with Mustafa Kemal (Kemal Atatürk) as President, who rose to prominence as a commander at Gallipoli. The campaign is often considered to be the beginning of Australian and New Zealand national consciousness; 25 April, the anniversary of the landings, is known as "ANZAC Day", the most significant commemoration of military casualties and veterans in the two countries, surpassing Remembrance Day (Armistice Day).[13][14][15]

Legacy[edit]

The significance of the Gallipoli Campaign is felt strongly in both New Zealand and Australia, despite their being only a portion of the Allied forces; the campaign is regarded in both nations as a "baptism of fire" and had been linked to their emergence as independent states.[280]Approximately 50,000 Australians served at Gallipoli and from 14,000 to 17,000 New Zealanders.[281][282][283] It has been argued that the campaign proved significant in the emergence of a unique Australian identity following the war, which has been closely linked to popular conceptualisations of the qualities of the soldiers that fought during the campaign, which became embodied in the notion of an "Anzac spirit".[284]

The landing on 25 April is commemorated every year in both countries as "Anzac Day". The first iteration was celebrated unofficially in 1916, at churches in Melbourne, Brisbane and London, before being officially recognised as a public holiday in all Australian states in 1923.[256]The day also became a national holiday in New Zealand in the 1920s.[285] Organised marches by veterans began in 1925, in the same year a service was held on the beach at Gallipoli; two years later the first official dawn service took place at the Sydney Cenotaph. During the 1980s, it became popular for Australian and New Zealand tourists to visit Gallipoli to attend the dawn service there and since then thousands have attended. [256] Over 10,000 people attended the 75th anniversary along with political leaders from Turkey, New Zealand, Britain and Australia.[286] Dawn services are also held in Australia; in New Zealand, dawn services are the most popular form of observance of this day.[287] Anzac Day remains the most significant commemoration of military casualties and veterans in Australia and New Zealand, surpassing Remembrance Day (Armistice Day).[288]

4

Along with memorials and monuments established in towns and cities, many streets, public places and buildings were named after aspects of the campaign, especially in Australia and New Zealand.[289] Some examples include Gallipoli Barracks at Enoggera in Queensland,[290] and the Armed Forces Armoury in Corner Brook, Newfoundland which is named the Gallipoli Armouries.[291] Gallipoli also had a significant impact on popular culture, including in film, television and song.[292] In 1971, Scottish-born Australian folk singer-songwriter Eric Bogle wrote a song called And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda which consisted of an account from a young Australian soldier who was maimed during the Gallipoli Campaign. The song has been praised for its imagery, evoking the devastation at the Gallipoli landings. It remains widely popular and is considered by some to be the iconic anti-war song.[293][294]

In Turkey, the battle is thought of as a significant event in the state's emergence, although it is primarily remembered for the fighting that took place around the port of Çanakkale, where the Royal Navy was repulsed in March 1915.[295] For the Turks, 18 March has a similar significance as 25 April to Australians and New Zealanders, it is not a public holiday but is commemorated with special ceremonies.[296] The campaign's main significance to the Turkish people lies in the role it played in the emergence of Mustafa Kemal, who became the first president of the Republic of Turkey after the war.[297] "Çanakkale geçilmez" (Çanakkale is impassable) became a common phrase to express the state's pride at repulsing the attack and the song "Çanakkale içinde" (A Ballad for Chanakkale) commemorates the Turkish youth who fell during the battle.[298] Turkish filmmaker Sinan Cetin, created a movie called "Children of Canakkale".[299]

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website Gallipoli Landings - Anzac Day- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPcOqX-IVJQ

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website -The Great War episode 6 Collapse https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KnONdlDU1c&list=PLvSzCTVndaIe_DgELjTaQSzh8tfLdyewH&index=6

9:20 – 9:50 How was World War I good for the United States?

12:57- 15:00 How did most of America and President Woodrow Wilson feel about entering the war?

How did the sinking of the Lusitania and the Zimmerman Telegraph lead the United States into war?

5

Quick Historical Footnote- The United States entering the war helps turn the tide. The USA joins the Allies or Triple entente and this allows them to win the war.

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website- World War I - Treaty of Versailles-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKzZ1OwPXgk

Treaty of Versailles- https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/treaty-of-versailles/print

Introduction

World War I officially ended with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles on June 28, 1919. Negotiated among the Allied powers with little participation by Germany, its 15 parts and 440 articles reassigned German boundaries and assigned liability for reparations. After strict enforcement for five years, the French assented to the modification of important provisions. Germany agreed to pay reparations under the Dawes Plan and the Young Plan, but those plans were cancelled in 1932, and Hitler’s rise to power and subsequent actions rendered moot the remaining terms of the treaty.

The treaty, negotiated between January and June 1919 in Paris, was written by the Allies with almost no participation by the Germans. The negotiations revealed a split between the French, who wanted to dismember Germany to make it impossible for it to renew war with France, and the British and Americans, who did not want to create pretexts for a new war. The eventual treaty included fifteen parts and 440 articles. Part I created the Covenant of the New League of Nations, which Germany was not allowed to join until 1926. Part II specified Germany’s new boundaries, giving Eupen-Malm[eacute]dy to Belgium, Alsace-Lorraine back to France, substantial eastern districts to Poland, Memel to Lithuania, and large portions of Schleswig to Denmark. Part III stipulated a demilitarized zone and separated the Saar from Germany for fifteen years. Part IV stripped Germany of all its colonies, and Part V reduced Germany’s armed forces to very low levels and prohibited Germany from possessing certain classes of weapons, while committing the Allies to eventual disarmament as well. Part VIII established Germany’s liability for reparations without stating a specific figure and began with Article 231, in which Germany accepted the responsibility of itself and its allies for the losses and damages of the Allies “as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.” Part IX imposed numerous other financial obligations upon Germany.

The German government signed the treaty under protest. Right-wing German parties attacked it as a betrayal, and terrorists assassinated several politicians whom they considered responsible. The U.S. Senaterefused to ratify the treaty, and the U.S. government took no responsibility for most of its provisions.

6

For five years the French and the Belgians tried to enforce the treaty quite rigorously, leading in 1922 to their occupation of the Ruhr. In 1924, however, Anglo-American financial pressure compelled France to scale down its goals and end the occupation, and the French, assented to modifying important provisions of the treaty in a series of new agreements. Germany in 1924 and 1929 agreed to pay reparations under the Dawes Plan and the Young Plan, but the depression led to the cancellation of reparations in 1932. The Allies evacuated the Rhineland in 1930. Germany violated many disarmament provisions of Part V during the 1920s, and Hitler denounced the treaty altogether in 1935. From March 1937 through March 1939, Hitler overturned the territorial provisions of the treaty with respect to Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Memel, with at least the tacit consent of the western powers. On September 1, 1939, he attacked Poland to alter that frontier, as well.

One can never know whether either rigorous Franco-British enforcement of the original treaty or a more generous treaty would have avoided a new war. Certainly the British and American governments after 1945 sought to avoid many of the problems that had been raised by the Treaty of Versailles, especially regarding reparations, and the division of Germany and the Cold War enabled them generously to rebuild the western zones and to integrate them into a western alliance without renewing fears of German aggression. Meanwhile, they deferred certain fundamental issues for so long that no formal peace treaty was ever written to end World War II.

Part II- Fall of Large Land and Maritime Empires Around 1900- 1930

SAQ #2

a. Identify one Similarity in the decline and fall of two empires in the period of 1900- present

Or

b. Identify one Difference in the decline and fall of two empires in the period of 1900- present

Fall of the Ottoman Empire, establishment of Modern Day Turkey

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website- THE HISTORY OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE - Discovery History Science (full documentary) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZmnvsopIUgWatch from 110:40- 116:00

What were the Sultans that followed Suleiman the Magnificent like after 1566?

What happened to the Janissaries like in the Ottoman Empire at the end of the empire?

What happened to the empire as it stopped growing or how did it become the “Sick man of Europe”?

7

What was the Dolmabahçe Palace like and how did it make the financial situation worse?

Describe what happened to the Armenians beginning in 1915 (This has been called the Armenian Genocide).

Describe Mustafa Kemal’s rise to power (He will later be called Ataturk).

What happened at the end of World War I for the Ottomans after 1918?

Describe what Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) did after the war that created the modern nation of Turkey.

Fall of the Qing, The Chinese

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website- 1911: The Fall of the Qing Dynasty- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7oQrpk6_wkExplain how the effect the first Japanese-Sino War had on the Qing Dynasty.

Explain how Empress Cixi ruled Qing China.

How did Sun Yat-Sen try to reform and then become a revolutionary and lead the Wuchang Uprising ?

8

What happened on January 1st 1912, with the 15 provinces (large states)?

What happened with Yuan Chiki come to power?

How did China become Communist?

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website- Overview of Chinese History from 1911 – 1949- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9QtIfPIQl4Focus on the main names and timeline used in this lecture

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website- The Chinese Civil War - Blood for Unity l HISTORY OF CHINA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klAjaujdE6M

Focus on the following – Chiang Kai-Shek, Nationalist Guomingdang Party (these are the “Nationalists” or GMD), Mao Zedong, Nationalists vs Communists (they fight each other in the Civil War – Nationalists led by Chiang Kai-Shek and Nationalists led by Mao Zedong), Three armies marching north (“The Long March), Japan’s role in China- 2nd Japanese-Sino War/World War II, Why China got more support from the poor peasants in the country, 1949 – what happened to Mao and Chiang Kai Shek and the “Nationalists”.

9

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website The Great War episode 5 Mutiny- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6haP4AQfhQ&index=5&list=PLSKgrjbsMkLME7pijn7u9u4WDv-yuU-tA\

37:55 – 53:30- How did the Russian Revolution actually happen during World War I? What mistakes did Czar Nicholas make during the war and what was he blamed for? What happened on and after International Women’s day?

What happened when Czar Nicholas’s train was stopped?

What kind of government did Russian have at first during the revolution?

What was Vladimir Lenin’s goal after the revolution?

How did Kerensky mistake of having Russia stay in the war lead to Lenin’s rise and the Bolshevik takeover of Russia ? (Make sure to write about the Women’s brigade)

What was the result of The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk?

10

Fall of the Russian Empire, Rise of The Soviet Union (1922- 1991)

History of Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union (1917–27)From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The history of Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union reflects a period of change for both Russia and the world. Though the terms Soviet Russia and Soviet Union are synonymous in everyday vocabulary, when we talk about the foundations of the Soviet Union, Soviet Russia refers to the few years after the abdication of the crown of the Russian Empire by Tsar Nicholas II (in 1917), but before the creation of the Soviet Union in 1922. Early in its conception, the Soviet Union strived to achieve harmony among all peoples of all countries. The original ideology of the state was primarily based on the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. In its essence, Marx's theory stated that economic and political systems went through an inevitable evolution in form, by which the current capitalist system would be replaced by a socialist state before achieving international cooperation and peace in a "Workers' Paradise," creating a system directed by what Marx called "Pure Communism."

Displeased by the relatively few changes made by the Tsar after the Revolution of 1905, Russia became a hotbed of anarchism, socialism and other radical political systems. The dominant socialist party, the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP), subscribed to Marxist ideology. Starting in 1903, a series of splits in the party between two main leaders was escalating: the Bolsheviks (meaning "majority") led by Vladimir Lenin, and the Mensheviks (meaning "minority") led by Julius Martov. Up until 1912, both groups continued to stay united under the name "RSDLP," but significant and irreconcilable differences between Lenin and Martov led the party to eventually split. A struggle for political dominance subsequently began between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks. Not only did these groups fight with each other, but they also had common enemies, notably, those trying to bring the Tsar back to power. Following the February Revolution in 1917, the Mensheviks gained control of Russia and established a provisional government, but this lasted only until the Bolsheviks took power in the October Revolution (also called the Bolshevik Revolution) later in the year. To distinguish themselves from other socialist parties, the Bolshevik party was renamed the Russian Communist Party (RCP).

Under the control of the party, all politics and attitudes that were not strictly RCP were suppressed, under the premise that the RCP represented the proletariat and all activities contrary to the party's beliefs were "counterrevolutionary" or "anti-socialist." During the years between 1917 and 1923, the Soviet Union achieved peace with the Central Powers, their enemies in World War I, but also fought the Russian Civil War against the White Army and foreign armies from the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, among others. This resulted in large territorial changes, albeit temporarily for some of these. Eventually crushing all opponents, the RCP spread Soviet style rule quickly and established itself through all of Russia. Following Lenin's death in 1924, Joseph Stalin, General Secretary of the RCP, became Lenin's successor and continued as leader of the Soviet Union until the 1950s.

The Russian Revolution of 1917[edit]Main article: Russian Revolution

During World War I, Tsarist Russia experienced famine and economic collapse. The demoralized Russian Army suffered severe military setbacks, and many captured soldiers deserted the front lines. Dissatisfaction with the monarchy and its policy of continuing the war grew among the Russian people. Tsar Nicholas II abdicated the throne following the February Revolution of 1917 (March 1917 N.S. See: Soviet calendar.), causing widespread rioting in Petrograd and other major Russian cities.

11

The Russian Provisional Government was installed immediately following the fall of the Tsar by the Provisional Committee of the State Duma in early March 1917 and received conditional support of the Mensheviks. Led first by Prince Georgy Lvov, then Alexander Kerensky the Provisional Government consisted mainly of the parliamentarians most recently elected to the State Duma of the Russian Empire, which had been overthrown alongside Tsar Nicholas II. The new Provisional Government maintained its commitment to the war, joining the Triple Entente which the Bolsheviks opposed. The Provisional Government also postponed the land reforms demanded by the Bolsheviks.

Lenin, embodying the Bolshevik ideology, viewed alliance with the capitalist countries of Western Europe and the United States as involuntary servitude of the proletariat, who was forced to fight the imperialists' war. As seen by Lenin, Russia was reverting to the rule of the Tsar, and it was the job of Marxist revolutionaries, who truly represented socialism and the proletariat, to oppose such counter-socialistic ideas and support socialist revolutions in other countries.

Within the military, mutiny and desertion were pervasive among conscripts, though being AWOL (Absent Without Leave) was not uncommon throughout all ranks. The intelligentsia was dissatisfied over the slow pace of social reforms; poverty was worsening, income disparities and inequality were becoming out of control while the Provisional Government grew increasingly autocratic and inefficient. The government appeared to be on the verge of succumbing to a military junta. Deserting soldiers returned to the cities and gave their weapons to angry, and extremely hostile, socialist factory workers. The deplorable and inhumane poverty and starvation of major Russian centers produced optimum conditions for revolutionaries.

During the months between February and October 1917, the power of the Provisional Government was consistently questioned by nearly all political parties. A system of 'dual power' emerged, in which the Provisional Government held nominal power, though increasingly opposed by the Petrograd Soviet, their chief adversary, controlled by the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries (both democratic socialist parties politically to the right of the Bolsheviks). The Soviet chose not to force further changes in government due to the belief that the February Revolution was Russia's "crowing" overthrow of the bourgeois. The Soviet also believed that the new Provisional Government would be tasked with implementing democratic reforms and pave the way for a proletarian revolution. Though the creation of a government not based on the dictatorship of the proletariat in any form, was viewed as a "retrograde step" in Vladmir Lenin's April Theses. However, the Provisional Government still remained an overwhelmingly powerful governing body.

Failed military offensives in summer 1917 and large scale protesting and riots in major Russian cities (as advocated by Lenin in his Theses, known as the July Days) led to the deployment of troops in late August to restore order. The July Days were suppressed and blamed on the Bolsheviks, forcing Lenin into hiding. Still, rather than use force, many of the deployed soldiers and military personnel joined the rioters, disgracing the government and military at-large. It was during this time that support for the Bolsheviks grew and another of its leading figures, Leon Trotsky, was elected chair of the Petrograd Soviet, which had complete control over the defenses of the city, mainly, the city's military force. On October 24, in early days of the October Revolution, the Provisional Government moved against the Bolsheviks, arresting activists and destroying pro-Communist propaganda. The Bolsheviks were able to portray this as an attack against the People's Soviet and garnered support for the Red Guard of Petrograd to take over the Provisional Government. The administrative offices and government buildings were taken with little opposition or bloodshed. The generally accepted end of this transitional revolutionary period, which will lead to the creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) lies with the assault and capture of the poorly defended Winter Palace (the traditional home and symbol of power of the Tsar) on the evening of October 26, 1917.

12

The Mensheviks and the right-wing of the Socialist Revolutionaries, outraged by the abusive and coercive acts carried out by the Red Guard and Bolsheviks, fled Petrograd, leaving control in the hands of the Bolsheviks and remaining Left Socialist Revolutionaries. On October 25, 1917, the Sovnarkom was established by the Russian Constitution of 1918 as the administrative arm of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets. By January 6, 1918, the VTsIK, supported by the Bolsheviks, ratified the dissolution of the Russian Constituent Assembly, which intended to establish the non-Bolshevik Russian Democratic Federative Republic as the permanent form of government established at its Petrograd session held January 5 and January 6, 1918.

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website - Vladimir Lenin Biography- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxHUeHhdYz0

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website - USSR- the Rise the Fall the Legacy- AP Human Geography- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b9haR_OM9gWatch from the beginning until 3:15

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website Joseph Stalin Biography- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_2of8pmHYU

Part III - The Great Depression, Interwar Period and World War II (1920 – 1945)13

The battlefront disappeared, and with it the illusion that there had even been a battlefront. For this was no war of occupation, but a war of quick penetration and obliteration”

- Unknown TIME Magazine Reporter

a. Provide ONE Piece of historical evidence (Not specifically mentioned in the passage) that would support the author’s argument about effect the total war in World War II.

Interwar Period- Period between World War I and World War II- we will focus on two events, the global great depression of the 1930’s and the Spanish Civil War, which many historians call the preview World War II.

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website Global Impact of the great depression- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3mFvwLRjc0

World War II From around (1933 – 1945)

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website - World War II Documentary- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfRq-JeUCSM2:09- 8:27 - How were The Nazis and Japan similar in the actions in the 1930’s? - Include Japanese aggression in Manchuria + Nanking

Part I- War in Europe9:50- 14:10, 15:10- 16:50 - Describe the response to Germany’s aggression and what were the consequences.Make sure to include both of the following:

- Munich Conference- Treaty of Non-Aggression

14

Describe Germany’s advances in both Britain and The Soviet Union 24:50 – 26:30 – The Blitz

27:55 – 29:48 – Operation Barbarossa

58:22 – 101:00 Stalingrad

116:00 – 121:20 , 123:50 – 125:17 - D-Day- Ally invasion form Britain to France

147:00 – 150:30 – into the interior of Germany

157:45 - 159:45 End of the War

War in Asia

15

Pearl Harbor – 29:48- 32:04, 34:40 – 36:50

46:55 - 50:15 Midway Island

140:00 – 141:40, 145:00 – 146:25 – Iwo Jima

203:20 – 208:05- Kamikaze, Okinawa + the Atomic Bomb –Hiroshima + Nagasaki

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website - USSR- the Rise the Fall the Legacy- AP Human Geography- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b9haR_OM9gWatch from 3:15 until the end (you saw the beginning of this video before, now you will finish it!)

Part IV- The Post-World War World and The Cold War (1945- 1992)

SAQ #3

“[Communism] has never come to power in a country that was not disrupted by war or internal corruption or both.”John F. Kennedy, July 1963

a. Provide ONE Piece of historical evidence (Not specifically mentioned in the passage) that would support the Kennedy’s argument about the development of Communism.

16

Chairman Mao and Communism in China

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website- Mao Zedong - The life of Chairman Mao Declassified History Documentary- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5u8LjN66uo&nohtml5=False

Begin watching at 3:00

3:00- 4:50 What were the strengths of Mao Zedong?

4:50 - 6:05 What happened when Mao Zedong went to the Soviet Union for help and why did their relationship fall?

6:05 - 7:10- Describe what was the Great Leap Forward and what was the result of The Great Leap Forward.

13:25 – 32:30 How did Mao Zedong use the Cultural Revolution to take back power, what was Jiang Qing’s (Mao Zedong’s wife) and describe the effects of the Cultural Revolution – (be sure to include The Little Red Book, struggle sessions and The Red Guard).

36:00 – 40:30 How did the Cultural Revolution end? What role did the United States play in it?

Take notes, either by highlighting the Freemanpedia reading- Qing Downfall to People’s Republic of China

17

Deng Xiaoping Biography(1904–1997) - http://www.biography.com/people/deng-xiaoping-9271644

Revolutionary OrganizerDeng Xiaoping joined China’s burgeoning communist revolution, led by Mao Zedong, as a political and military organizer. He cut his revolutionary teeth on the fabled “Long March” of 1934-35 when the fledgling Chinese Communist movement escaped capture by the Nationalist Chinese Army. War broke out against Japan in 1937 and Deng served as educational leader of the Chinese Revolutionary Army, helping it grow into a large military machine during the Communist Revolution, 1946-49.Mao initially praised Deng Xiaoping for his organizational skills, but he fell out of favor in the 1960s during the Cultural Revolution. Deng’s emphasis on individual self-interest did not sit well with Mao’s egalitarian policies. Deng was eventually stripped of all his posts and, with his family, exiled to the rural Jiangxi province to undergo reeducation.

A Fall from Grace and a Return to PowerIn 1973, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai felt China needed Deng’s organization skills to improve the economy. Deng was reinstated and carried out a major reorganization of the government. He was soon elevated to the Politburo. Deng was widely considered to be Zhou’s successor. However, upon Zhou’s death, the Gang of Four managed to purge Deng from leadership.After Mao’s death in 1977, the Gang of Four itself was purged and Deng Xiaoping made a political comeback. He downgraded Mao’s legacy, destroyed his opponents and banned “unofficial” organizations. As his power solidified, Deng quickly instituted new economic policies opening China to international trade and investment. This led to a peace treaty with Japan, improved relations with the USSR, official recognition by the United States, and return of control over the British Colony of Hong Kong.

Economic ReformerBy the mid-1980s, Deng had introduced economic reforms in agriculture and industry, providing for more local management, and instituted the radical “one child per couple” policy to control China’s burgeoning population. In all these reforms, Deng insisted China remain a socialist nation with central control. Reforms improved the quality of life for all but also created a huge inequality gap between the classes."Poverty is not socialism. To be rich is glorious." In the mid-1980s, the democracy movement gained momentum and by 1989, Deng Xiaoping’s authoritarian leadership faced opposition. A series of widespread demonstrations at Tiananmen Square shut down the government during a visit by Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev. After some hesitation, Deng supported removing the protesters by force. On June 3-4, 1989, the military moved in under the cover of darkness and in a few hours it was all over. Though the international media was present for the Gorbachev visit, they were banned from the Square. It is believed that hundreds if not thousands of demonstrators were killed that night.

Final YearsThough Deng Xiaoping faced major worldwide criticism for the Tiananmen Square massacre, he continued to stay in power. With further changes implemented, China’s economy grew and standards of living increased under an

18

authoritarian government committed to one-party rule. Deng carefully handpicked his successors and in his last years became more removed from his duties. On February 19, 1997, Deng died in Beijing at age 92.

Take notes on this video on Deng Xiaoping: The Man Who Changed China- Deng Xiaoping (Maria Ren History Fair Project)” (watch from 3:00-8:48) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-jQle5Irxg

- Focus on the changes that Deng Xiaoping made, especially his reforms and “socialism with Chinese Characteristics”

The Cold War 1945- 1992

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website America in the 20th Century The Cold War- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWgiy3p2w-0

Watch from 2:55 – 3:40- What was threatening peace in Europe after World War II? How did Britain and the US have differences from the Soviet Union?

13:20 – 17:10 – How did Joseph Stalin take over land and create their Soviet sphere of influence after World War II in Eastern Europe? What did Joseph Stain want and what was the policy of containment? How did the US President Truman respond? What was the Truman Doctrine?

17:10 –19:40 - What was the Marshall Plan? What would it cost and what was its purpose? How did events in Czechoslovakia push the Marshall Plan to pass? How was it successful?

19

19:45- 22:55- How was Germany divided after the Potsdam Conference after World War II? How were Western Germany and Eastern Germany different? Explain what the Berlin Blockade was and also what happened with the Berlin Airlift? What were the final results for Germany?

22:55- 23:28- Explain what NATO is and why it was created. Also, what was the Warsaw Pact?

23:28 – 24:35- Why was 1949 an explosive year for Communism?

Proxy wars- These were wars were the United States and the Soviet Union did not fit head to head, but instead fought though other countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa. Many countries around the world took sides with Captialist United States and NATO and Communist Soviet Union, China and The Warsaw Pact.

- Here is one example- The Korean War

26:00- 36:00 What happened in the Korean War in 1950? How were the Soviet Union, China and the United states involved?

20

36:00- 37:00- How did the Korean War change America? What do you think Eisenhower meant by “military industrial complex?”

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website NHD 2008 NJ Winner- Anti-Nuclear Movement- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W-Xaoe_fvI

Fall of the Soviet Union – 1979 - 1992

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website- Gorbachev, Glasnost, Perestroika, Arms Agreement - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=595W4JJHa2U&nohtml5=False

Focus on: Stalin, Five Year Plan, Cold War, Détente, Ronald Regan (Pres. of USA most of 1980’s), Soviet War in Afghanistan

Big focus on Mikhail Gorbachev’s Reforms – Glasnost and Perestroika

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website- Glasnost and Perestroika: The Failed Reforms that Sparked a Revolution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_l19PrZC2o&nohtml5=False

Focus on Glasnost, Perestroika, Mikhail Gorbachev , how Communism fell (The Coup- or attempted overthrow in August of 1991 in Moscow and what happened), and Boris Yeltsin

21

Take notes, either by highlighting the Freemanpedia reading- Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Part V Independence Movements and Decolonization- Recovering from Imperialism- 1947 – Pre s ent

a. Identify one Similarity in two movements for independence or separation in the period of 1900- present

Or

b. Identify one Difference in two movements for independence or separation in the period of 1900- present

Resisting British Imperial Rule in India (Against the Raj government)

The Indian National Congress- http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/independence1947_01.shtml

The foundation of the Indian National Congress in 1885 as an all India, secular political party, is widely regarded as a key turning point in formalising opposition to the Raj.

It developed from its elite intellectual middle-class confines, and a moderate, loyalist agenda, to become by the inter-war years, a mass organisation.

It was an organisation which, despite the tremendous diversity of the sub-continent, was remarkable in achieving broad consensus over the decades.

Yet it was not a homogenous organisation and was often dominated by factionalism and opposing political strategies. This was exemplified by its splintering in 1907 into the so-called 'moderate' and 'extremist' wings, which reunited 10 years later.

22

Another example were the 'pro-changers' (who believed working the constitutional structures to weaken it from within) and 'no-changers' (who wanted to distance themselves from the Raj) during the 1920s.

There was also a split within Congress between those who believed that violence was a justifiable weapon in the fight against imperial oppression (whose most iconic figure was Subhas Chandra Bose, who went on to form the Indian National Army), and those who stressed non-violence.

The towering figure in this latter group was Mahatma Gandhi, who introduced a seismic new idiom of opposition in the shape of non-violent non-cooperation or 'satyagraha' (meaning 'truth' or 'soul' force').

Gandhi oversaw three major nationwide movements which achieved varying degrees of success in 1920-1922, 1930-1934 and in 1942. These mobilised the masses on the one hand, while provoking the authorities into draconian repression. Much to Gandhi's distress, self-restraint among supporters often gave way to violence.

Reasons for independence

The British Raj unravelled quickly in the 1940s, perhaps surprising after the empire in the east had so recently survived its greatest challenge in the shape of Japanese expansionism.The reasons for independence were multifaceted and the result of both long and short term factors.The pressure from the rising tide of nationalism made running the empire politically and economically very challenging and increasingly not cost effective. This pressure was embodied as much in the activities of large pan-national organisations like the Congress as in pressure from below - from the 'subalterns' through the acts of peasant and tribal resistance and revolt, trade union strikes and individual acts of subversion and violence.With US foreign policy pressurising the end of western imperialism, it seemed only a matter of time before India gaiThere were further symptoms of the disengagement from empire. European capital investment declined in the inter-war years and India went from a debtor country in World War One to a creditor in World War Two. Applications to the Indian Civil Service (ICS) declined dramatically from the end of the Great War.Britain's strategy of a gradual devolution of power, its representation to Indians through successive constitutional acts and a deliberate 'Indianisation' of the administration, gathered a momentum of its own. As a result, India moved inexorably towards self-government.The actual timing of independence owed a great deal to World War Two and the demands it put on the British government and people.The Labour party had a tradition of supporting Indian claims for self-rule, and was elected to power in 1945 after a debilitating war which had reduced Britain to her knees.Furthermore, with US foreign policy pressurising the end of western subjugation and imperialism, it seemed only a matter of time before India gained its freedom.

23

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website- The Indian Independence Movement (Guest Teacher: Mr. Guilford) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnGZ4MyNlLA&nohtml5=False

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website- Mahatma Gandhi Biographyhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ept8hwPQQNg

Decolonisation of AfricaFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

During the Scramble for Africa in the late nineteenth century, Western European powers divided Africa and its resources into colonies at the Berlin Conference of 1884-85.[2][3] By 1905, control of almost all African soil was claimed by Western European governments, with the only exceptions being Liberia (which had been settled by African-American former slaves) and Ethiopia (which had successfully resisted colonisation by Italy).[4] Britain and France had the largest holdings, but Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, and Portugal also had colonies. As a result of colonialism and imperialism, a majority of Africa lost sovereignty and control of natural resources such as gold and rubber. The land filled with a very rich sense in diversity and resources was stripped away by the European colonization; this invasion lead to and introduction of new exploiting European features into Africa. The introduction of imperial polices surfacing around local economies into cheap labor, exploitation of resources, while leading local economies to fail.[5] Following the concept of Rudyard Kipling's poem "The White Man's Burden", some Europeans who benefited from colonisation felt that colonialism was needed to civilise Africans.[6][7]

Causes[edit]

24

On February 12th, 1941, United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill met to discuss the postwar world. The result was the Atlantic Charter.[8] It was not a treaty and was not submitted to the British Parliament or the Senate of the United States for ratification, but it turned to be a widely acclaimed document.[9] One of the provisions, introduced by Roosevelt, was the autonomy of imperial colonies. After World War II, the US and the African colonies put pressure on Britain to abide by the terms of the Atlantic Charter. After the war, some British considered African colonies to be childish and immature; British colonisers introduced democratic government at local levels in the colonies.

By the 1930s, the colonial powers had cultivated, sometimes inadvertently, a small elite of leaders educated in Western universities and familiar with ideas such as self-determination. In some cases where the road to independence was fought, settled arrangements with the colonial powers were also being placed.[5] These leaders came to lead the struggles for independence, and included leading nationalists such as Jomo Kenyatta (Kenya), Kwame Nkrumah (Gold Coast, now Ghana), Julius Nyerere (Tanganyika, now Tanzania), Léopold Sédar Senghor (Senegal), Nnamdi Azikiwe (Nigeria), and Félix Houphouët-Boigny (Côte d'Ivoire).[citation needed]

One of the leaders Nkrumah strived towards independence and pan Africanism. Under British colonization and influence from indigenous elites Nkrumah endured innumerable amount of challenges towards full liberation. [10] In 1947 the elites established United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC) with the influence of British government. Through the UGCC, Nkrumah revealed his opposition towards the British by setting up newspapers, schools, and youth organizations in order to gain support from the community. After verbal and political attack from the UGCC, Nkrumah created his own movement known as the Convention Peoples Party (CCP). Through his nonviolent movement and his legislative victory in 1951, the British soon realized that Nkrumah will continue to fight towards full decolonization. Through the issues of neocolonialism, the United States suggest for Ghana and other independent states to align with them economically and politically in order to suppress colonialism.[11] Although Nkrumah efforts towards black unity, economic and political success was his goal, different views from fellow elites, a large amount of debt, and armed forces against decolonization became evident issues constructed from the European nations. In 1972, Nkrumah died of cancer and his plot towards Ghana's full independence withered away as well during his passing.[12]

Take notes from the following website Decolonization in Africa- https://apworldhistorywiki.wikispaces.com/Decolonization+in+Africa

Growth of African Nationalism and African IndependenceA nationalist movement called "blackness" moved throughout Africa, emerging from the United States and Caribbean movements. With this came a protest against European rule. The cold war allowed imperial powers to justify oppressive power through "rooting out communist presence." Sub-Saharan Africa was the first to start gaining independence creating a domino effect of inspiration. At different paces, both peaceful and violent Africa became independent. Ghana in 1957, Angola 1975, and Zimbabwe 1980. Problems after independence include civil war, economic instability, and political and ethnic divisions. Many African nations changed there names to symbolize African pastime.

25

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website- Decolonization of Africa- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pLwrvt82HU

Independence Movements Through Armed Struggle

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website- The Angolan War of Independence- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJFkB58p57cBeginning to – 1:50- How did Portugal colonize Angola over many years from the 1400’s by 1917 and what did Portugal do that made them very unpopular to the population of Angola?

1:50 – 3:30 did Angola seek their independence through revolutionary parties? (Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola, The National Front for the Liberation of Angola, National Movement for the Total Independence of Angola). You do not need many details on each party, just know there were parties that were working for independence in different ways. 3-4 details total is ok.

3:30 – 4:00 - How did other nations get involved in the Angola War (think Cold War)?

4:00 – 6:50 - Take 4-5 notes on the events that led to protests, riots and Portugal’s response which led to Angola’s independence.

26

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s Algerian War of Independence 1954-62- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-dlw_nzKgIWatch and take notes from the key points of the lecture/PowerPoint from 1:35- until the end

1962- French-Algerian truceOn March 18, 1962, France and the leaders of the Front de Liberation Nationale (FLN) sign a peace agreement to end the seven-year Algerian War, signaling the end of 130 years of colonial French rule in Algeria.In late October 1954, a faction of young Algerian Muslims established the Front de Liberation Nationale (FLN) as a guerrilla organization dedicated to winning independence from France. They staged several bloody uprisings during the next year, and by 1956 the FLN was threatening to overrun the colonial cities, home to Algeria’s sizable European settler population. In France, a new administration, led by Guy Mollet, promised to quell the Muslim rebellion and sent 500,000 French troops to Algeria to crush the FLN.

To isolate the rebels and their area of operations, France granted Tunisia and Morocco independence, and their borders with Algeria were militarized with barbed wire and electric fencing. When FLN leaders attempted to travel to Tunisia in October 1956 to discuss the Algerian War, French forces diverted their plane and jailed the men. In response, the FLN launched a new campaign of terrorism in the colonial capital of Algiers. General Jacques Massu, head of France’s crack parachute unit, was given extraordinary powers to act in the city, and through torture and assassination the FLN presence in Algiers was destroyed. By the end of 1957, the rebels had been pushed back into rural areas, and it seemed the tide had turned in the Algerian War.However, in May 1958, a new crisis began when European Algerians launched massive demonstrations calling for the integration of Algeria with France and for the return of Charles de Gaulle to power. In France, the Algerian War had seriously polarized public opinion, and many feared the country was on the brink of army revolt or civil war. On June 1, de Gaulle, who had served as leader of France after World War II, was appointed prime minister by the National Assembly and authorized to write a new national constitution.Days after returning to power, de Gaulle visited Algiers, and though he was warmly welcomed by the European Algerians he did not share their enthusiasm for Algerian integration. Instead, he granted Muslims the full rights of French citizenship and in 1959 declared publicly that Algerians had the right to determine their own future. During the next two years, the worst violence in Algeria was perpetrated by European Algerians rather than the FLN, but scattered revolts and terrorism did not prevent the opening of peace negotiations between France and the FLN-led provisional government of the Algerian Republic in 1961.

27

On March 16, 1962, a peace agreement was signed at Evian-les-Bains, France, promising independence for Algeria pending a national referendum on the issue. French aid would continue, and Europeans could return to their native countries, remain as foreigners in Algeria, or take Algerian citizenship. On July 1, 1962, Algerians overwhelmingly approved the agreement, and most of the one million Europeans in Algeria poured out of the country. More than 100,000 Muslim and 10,000 French soldiers were killed in the seven-year Algerian War, along with thousands of Muslim civilians and hundreds of European colonists.

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s Veterans: The French in Algeriahttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOPfoaTaINU&nohtml5=False

1:35- 2:30 - How did the French see the territory of Algeria? What was the difference between French and Native and Muslim residents?

2:30 – 4:40 - What happened in 1954 as the conflict began (make sure to focus the FLN)? Why did France not want to call this a war?

6:40 –11:50 - Explain how the violence in the war increased, especially in what was known as “The Battle of Algiers? How was torture used by the French? What was the end result of the The Battle of Algiers? What was happening with opinions about the independence movement?

12:50 – 13:20 - What happened on July 5th 1962? What was the cost of this battle of independence?

16:50 – 18:35- What happened to the 150,000 Algerian Muslims who fought for France after Algeria became independent?

28

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website- Vietnam: A Television History (Part 1) - Roots of a War (1945-1953) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UMTL-zQSYw

11:35- 14:00- What happened when the French came in to Vietnam in the 1800’s and early 1900’s?

14:00- 15:30- Describe Ho Chi Minh and how fought for Vietnamese Independence. Thought question – Why do you think that Ho Chi Minh became Communist?

15:30 – 16:50 - How did France view their “Colonial Record?” How did this end in 1940 and how did the Japanese impact the Vietnamese?

18:30 – 20:00- What was life in 1945 in Vietnam? Who did the people blame? How did he Viet Minh, an independence group led by Ho Chi Minh gain support from the people at this time?

20:00 – 22:50- How did he Viet Minh and Ho Chi Minh and the United States in World War II work together fighting against Japan?

22:50 – 26:30 - What happened after the war with Vietnam Independence? (Uncle Ho is Ho Chi Minh)

29

26:30 -34:20 What was the response form the United States, Britain and especially France in Vietnam and to Ho Chi Minh and what happened to South Vietnam and what did this lead to?

34:20 –36:35 Describe what happened in the fighting of the “1st Vietnam War” with the French and the Viet Minh led by Ho Ci Minh.

36:35- 41:45- Describe what happened when the French created the State of Vietnam with Bao Dai in charge. What side did Mao Zedong and China and also the Soviet Union take in the war? What side did he United States take? What happened because of this?

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website- Vietnam: A Television History (Part 2) - The First Vietnam War (1945-54) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yd7tnJAEGEWatch from the beginning to 0:30 – What did the French expect to happen in the First Vietnam War? What was the result?

Nationalist Leaders That Challenge Imperial Rule – 1940’s – 1970’s

30

Kwame Nkrumah in the Gold Coast

Take notes from the following website Decolonization in Africa-

https://apworldhistorywiki.wikispaces.com/Decolonization+in+Africa

Freedom and Conflict in Sub-Saharan AfricaGhana’s success in gaining freedom from British power in 1957 served as the end to the African empire. Under the leadership of Kwame Nkrumah (1909-1972), political parties took place. Although the British put Nkrumah and other nationalists in jail and had control over them, gradually they allowed reforms and negotiated the transfer of power in their Gold Coast colony. Ghana’s independence in 1957 inspired other African nationalist movements. Nkrumah, as a leader of the first sub-Saharan African nation to gain independence from colonial rule, became a spokesperson for African unity. His ideas symbolized changing times in Africa. When preparing for the visit of Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II (1926-present), the people of Ghana created huge side-by-side posters of the queen and their leader, Nkrumah. These posters showed a vision of new-found equality and distinctiveness. Ex-colonial rulers dressed in royal regalia, while new African leaders wore traditional African fabrics.

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website- The World Before Us - Dr Kwame Nkrumah (History Channel)- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIr09k_LMo E How does Kwame Kkrumah have both a positive and negative legacy? (What are the good and bad aspects about him)

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website- Faces Of Africa- Kwame Nkrumah- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMY0iTcspNA

4:10 – 6:45- Where was Kwame Nkrumah born and what was his early life like? What happened when he went to study in the United States and what is the idea of Pan-Africanism?

6:45- 8:30 - What happened to Nkrumah when he returned to Africa? – focus on what happened in 1948 and the UGCC.

8:30 – 12:25 - Describe Nkrumah rise in the 1950’s and the independence of both Ghana and other African countries.

31

14:35 – 17:40- What were the results of Nkrumah establishing Ghana as a one-party state?

19:25- 20:40 - What happened to the economy of Ghana and what was Ghana doing for other countries in Africa like Guinea?

20:40 – 24:35 How did Kwame Nkrumah lose power?

HO CHI MINH- HTTP://WWW.HISTORY.COM/TOPICS/VIETNAM-WAR/HO-CHI-MINH

Ho Chi Minh first emerged as an outspoken voice for Vietnamese independence while living as a young man in France during World War I. Inspired by the Bolshevik Revolution, he joined the Communist Party and traveled to the Soviet Union. He helped found the Indochinese Communist Party in 1930 and the League for the Independence of Vietnam, or Viet Minh, in 1941. At World War II’s end, Viet Minh forces seized the northern Vietnamese city of Hanoi and declared a Democratic State of Vietnam (or North Vietnam) with Ho as president. Known as “Uncle Ho,” he would serve in that position for the next 25 years, becoming a symbol of Vietnam’s struggle for unification during a long and costly conflict with the strongly anti-Communist regime in South Vietnam and its powerful ally, the United States.

O CHI MINH: EARLY LIFEHo Chi Minh was born Nguyen Sinh Cung on May 19, 1890, in a village in central Vietnam (then part of French Indochina). In 1911, he found work as a cook on a French steamer and spent the next several years at sea, traveling to Africa, the United States and Britain, among other locations. By 1919, he was living in France, where he organized a group of Vietnamese immigrants and petitioned delegates at the Versailles Peace Conference to demand that the French colonial government in Indochina grant the same rights to its subjects as it did to its rulers.DID YOU KNOW?In February 1967, Ho Chi Minh responded to a personal message from U.S. President Lyndon Johnson by announcing that the North Vietnamese would never negotiate under the threat of bombing.

32

Inspired by the success of Vladimir Lenin’s Bolshevik Revolution, he joined the new French Communist Party in 1920 and traveled to Moscow three years later. He soon began recruiting members of a Vietnamese nationalist movement that would form the basis of the Indochinese Communist Party (founded in Hong Kong in 1930) and traveled the world, including Brussels, Paris and Siam (now Thailand), where he worked as a representative of the Communist International organization.

HO CHI MINH: FOUNDING OF THE VIET MINH AND NORTH VIETNAMWhen Germany defeated France in 1940, during World War II, Ho saw it as an opportunity for the Vietnamese nationalist cause. Around this time, he began to use the name Ho Chi Minh (roughly translated as “Bringer of Light”). With his lieutenants Vo Nguyen Giap and Pham Van Dong, Ho returned to Vietnam in January 1941 and organized the Viet Minh, or League for the Independence of Vietnam. Forced to seek China’s aid for the new organization, Ho was imprisoned for 18 months by Chiang Kai-Shek’s anti-Communist government.With the Allied victory in 1945, Japanese forces withdrew from Vietnam, leaving the French-educated Emperor Bao Dai in control of an independent Vietnam. Led by Vo Nguyen Giap, Viet Minh forces seized the northern city of Hanoi and declared a Democratic State of Vietnam (known commonly as North Vietnam) with Ho as president. Bao Dai abdicated in favor of the revolution, but French military troops gained control of southern Vietnam, including Saigon, and Chiang Kai-Shek’s Chinese forces moved into the north according to the terms of an Allied agreement. Ho began negotiations with the French in efforts to achieve a Chinese withdrawal as well as eventual French recognition of Vietnam’s independence and reunification of North and South Vietnam. But in October 1946, a French cruiser opened fire on the town of Haiphong after a clash between French and Vietnamese soldiers. Despite Ho’s best efforts to maintain peace, his more militant followers called for war, which broke out that December.

HO CHI MINH: TOWARD WAR WITH THE UNITED STATESDuring the First Indochina War, the French returned Bao Dai to power and set up the state of Vietnam (South Vietnam) in July 1949, with Saigon as its capital. Armed conflict between the two states continued until a decisive battle at Dien Bien Phu ended in French defeat by Viet Minh forces. The subsequent treaty negotiations at Geneva (at which Ho was represented by his associate Pham Van Dong) partitioned Indochina and called for elections for reunification in 1956.Backed by the United States, the strongly anti-Communist South Vietnamese government of Ngo Dinh Diem refused to support the Geneva accords, and put off elections indefinitely. In 1959, armed conflict broke out again, as Communist guerrillas known as the Viet Cong began launching attacks on targets (including U.S. military installations) in South Vietnam. The Viet Cong appealed to North Vietnam for help, and that July the central committee of Ho’s Lao Dong (Worker’s Party) voted to link the establishment of socialism in the North to the cause of unification with the South.

HO CHI MINH AND THE VIETNAM WARAt this same meeting, Ho ceded his position as party secretary-general to Le Duan. He would remain nominally as North Vietnam’s head of state during the Vietnam War, but would take a more behind-the-scenes role. To his people, “Uncle Ho” also remained an important symbol of Vietnam’s unification. The U.S. continued to increase its support of South Vietnam, sending economic aid and–beginning in December 1961–military troops. American air strikes against North Vietnam began in 1965, and in July 1966, Ho sent a message to the country’s people that “nothing is as dear to the heart of the Vietnamese as independence and liberation.” This became the motto of the North Vietnamese cause.On the heels of North Vietnam’s Tet Offensive in early 1968, U.S. President Lyndon Johnson made the decision to halt escalation of the war and called for peace talks to begin. The conflict was still ongoing by September 2, 1969, when Ho Chi Minh died in Hanoi at the age of 79. The last U.S. troops left Vietnam in March 1973, and in April 1975 Communist forces seized control of Saigon, renaming it Ho Chi Minh City.

33

Regional, Religious and Ethnic Movements that Challenged Borders 1947- Present

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website- Pakistan And India Partition 1947 - The Day India Burned - by roothmens- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppMJGxcFACg

Beginning to 1:30 – Overview- What happens when Britain leaves India and India becomes two countries, India and Pakistan?

2:40 – 5:10- What was the population like in India before it became independent with religions (Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs)- Focus on what was Lahore like as a city?

6:20 – 7:20 What has the independence movement like by 1946 and what effect did World War II have on the British controlling India?

9:50 – 10:40 - Why was there a demand for a separate Muslim homeland? What role did Muhammad Ali Jinnah have in this?

12:40 – 18:30 - What happened in Calcutta in August 16, 1946? What did this lead to?

18:30 – 21:55 How did Mahatma Gandhi try to bring India back together? Did this work? Why or why not?

34

39:00- 42:35 What deal did Jawaharlal (Pandit) Nehru and Muhammad Ali Jinnah agree to with Partition? What did the British do after this deal and what did this do to the pace of partition?

45:10- 48:45, 56:40- 102:10- What happened in Lahore, which was in the Punjab region before partition and was uncertain whether it would be in India or Pakistan?

102:10 – 106:30- What happened on August 14, 1947? What happened the next day?

106:30 – 126:30 What happened when the borders where drawn for India and Pakistan?

35

Watch the following video/lecture from Mr. Wood’s website The Reasons Behind Quebec's Sovereignty Movement- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnBb_X4fcpYYou do not need too many notes- Focus on how close Quebec came to becoming an independent country from the rest of Canada.

The Biafra Secessionist Movement- Nigeria, West Africa

BiafraFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biafra, officially the Republic of Biafra, was a secessionist state in eastern Nigeria that existed from 30 May 1967 to January 1970. It took its name from the Bight of Biafra, the Atlantic bay to its south. The inhabitants were mostly the Igbo people who led the secession due to economic, ethnic, cultural and religious tensions among the various peoples of Nigeria. Other ethnic groups that constituted the republic were the Efik, Ibibio, Annang, Ejagham, Eket, Ibeno and the Ijaw among others.

The secession of the Biafran region was the primary cause of the Nigerian Civil War, also known as the Biafran War. The state was formally recognised by Gabon, Haiti, Ivory Coast, Tanzania and Zambia.[2] Other nations which did not give official recognition, but provided support and assistance to Biafra included Israel, France, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Rhodesia, South Africa and the Vatican City.[3][4][unreliable source?] Biafra also received aid from non-state actors, including Joint Church Aid, Holy Ghost Fathers of Ireland, Caritas International, MarkPress and U.S. Catholic Relief Services.[4][unreliable source?]

After two-and-a-half years of war, during which over three million Biafran civilians died from starvation caused by the total blockade of the region by the Nigerian government, Biafran forces under the motto of "No-victor, No-vanquished" surrendered to the Nigerian Federal Military Government (FMG), and Biafra was reintegrated into Nigeria.[5]

WHAT IS BIAFRA AND WHY ARE SOME NIGERIANS CALLING FOR INDEPENDENCE?- http://www.newsweek.com/what-biafra-and-why-are-some-nigerians-calling-independence-401164

More than 45 years ago, Nigeria was nearly divided by a bloody civil war that led to the deaths of over a million people. Now, a revival in secessionist sentiment in southeastern Nigeria, among supporters of the historical state of Biafra,

36

threatens to undermine President Muhammadu Buhari’s vision of a united Nigeria and spill over into regional violence.Thousands of protesters have taken to the streets of southern Nigeria in recent weeks following the arrest of a prominent pro-Biafran activist, who has been accused by Nigerian authorities of hate speech and treason. As well as demanding their colleague’s release, some protesters are calling for the establishment of an independent Biafra once again.The protests have resulted in several deaths and Nigerian authorities have warned that anyone sowing discontent or inciting public disorder will be dealt with firmly. As tensions continue to flare, Newsweek looks at the demands of the protesters and the response of the Nigerian government.What is Biafra?

In 1967, Nigerian military officer Odumegwu Ojukwu declared the republic of Biafra, an area mainly populated by the Igbo ethnic group, as independent in southeastern Nigeria. The Nigerian military consequently entered into civil war with the Biafrans, encircling the region and blockading supplies from reaching the population. As a result, more than one million people died, many due to starvation.

What has led to the recent protests?Nigeria’s Department of State Services arrested Nnamdi Kanu, a prominent Biafran spokesperson and activist, on October 19, according to the International Crisis Group (ICG). Kanu lives in London but often travels to Nigeria and was reportedly apprehended in Lagos. He is the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), a secessionist groupsupporting the revival of the Biafran state and independence from Nigeria. Kanu is also the director of Radio Biafra, it broadcasts pro-Biafran material from London but the Nigerian government seek to ban it. Since his arrest, pro-Biafran protesters have conducted marches in southeastern Nigeria, demanding Kanu’s release. On December 2, eight protesters and two policemen were killed in clashes during a protest at the Niger Bridge in Onitsha, Anambra state, according to the ICG.

Nic Cheeseman, associate professor in African politics at the African Studies Centre at the University of Oxford, says Kanu’s arrest has acted as a “short-term trigger” to the resurgence in pro-Biafran sentiment. Cheeseman adds that the protests are a result of similar factors that led to the original Biafran uprising, in particular, a sense of political disenfranchisement among the Igbo people. “Some of the wounds of the civil war have not healed,” says Cheeseman.

What do pro-Biafran protesters want?

As well as the release of Kanu and other Biafran activists, pro-Biafrans want the Nigerian government to put a date on an independence referendum, according to Nnabuike Nnadede, editor of pro-Biafran media outlet Voice of Biafra. “We want them to release all the Biafran activists first. Then...we want them to debate about the time for a referendum,” says Nnadede, who is based in London and is part of a disparate pro-Biafran group.

Nnadede says that the Igbo people of the region that was previously Biafra still suffer from a lack of resources and investment by the central government. He claims there is a dearth of hospitals and that women are forced to give birth in the streets. “The suffering is too much, and that is why we’ve decided to say, ‘Look, we cannot continue to be in Nigeria. We have suffered enough, we want the opportunity to vote to have an independence referendum,’” says Nnadede.

37

He claims that the movement is entirely peaceful, however, and says that if the Igbo people voted against the secession of Biafra, he and his colleagues would accept the result and be “proud Nigerian citizens.”

Other activists, including Kanu, are not known to be as peaceful. At a meeting of the World Igbo Congress in Los Angeles in September, Kanu presented his audience with a call for arms. “We need guns and bullets from you people in America,” he said, according to the BBC, adding that the occurrence of a blood moon in September was a sign of the liberation of Biafra. During pro-Biafran marches in support of Kanu, protesters have also been seen to carry flags with threatening messages such as “Biafra or death.”How has the Nigerian government responded?Nigeria’s security forces have told protesters they will be uncompromising in dealing with acts of rebellion. Major-General Hassan Umaru, a Nigerian Army officer, said that the army “would like to send an unequivocal warning to all those threatening and agitating for the dismemberment of the country, committing treasonable felony and arson as well as wanton destruction of lives and property.” Umaru warned that soldiers would fulfil their obligation to “ensure the enforcement of law and order… to avoid a breakdown in peace and stability,” making it clear that this could include the use of armed force. Governors of Nigeria’s northern states have also said it is “really sad that any Nigerian can contemplate violence” in light of the Boko Haram insurgency in northeast Nigeria. “We thought that the existence of Boko Haram should have been enough to make all Nigerians fuse into one and fight a common enemy,” the governors said.

Cheeseman says that the Nigerian government tends to deal with such protests in “fairly heavy handed ways” and fears that an escalation in tensions between both sides could lead to further bloodshed. “There genuinely is a possibility that, if both sides mishandle it and both sides exacerbate and ratchet up rather than ratcheting down, the situation could get significantly worse,” says Cheeseman.

What does the future hold for pro-Biafrans?

According to Manji Cheto, sub-Saharan Africa political risk analyst at global consultancy Teneo Intelligence, the protests are at risk of escalating into full-blown militancy in southern Nigeria if the government continues to not listen to the grievances of the Igbo people. Cheto says that Igbos remain isolated from powerful positions in government, “2015 looks like 1960s Nigeria from the Biafran perspective. If you’re looking at the political map and political dominance, nothing’s changed.”

Nnadede, however, maintains that the protests will remain peaceful, and that the pro-Biafran movement is simply requesting a degree of self-determination that its supporters believe is currently being denied to the Igbo people. “Our movement has remained peaceful. Over 99 percent of our people are peaceful,” says Nnadede. “We want a Biafra where we will choose our own leaders, not somebody from Sokoto or Kano imposing people on us.”

38

Separation and conflict in the Middle East, especially Israel and Palestine

Division of the Middle East into Mandatory States- https://prezi.com/96uahof0ogvz/division-of-the-middle-east-into-mandatory-states/

The Israel-Palestine conflict: a brief, simple history- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRYZjOuUnlU

Israeli Palestinian conflict explained: an animated introduction to Israel and Palestine- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y58njT2oXfE

Watch from the beginning to 5:10

39

Part VI –Atrocities against common people in the Contemporary Era (1900 – 2016)

SAQ- #6

I think future generations will say the late 20th century and the early 21st century was a time of great convulsions and upheavals.

-N. T. Wright

a. Provide ONE Piece of historical evidence that would support Wright’s argument about conflicts in the 20th and early 21st Century.

The Buildup of Military dictatorships and Terrorist Organizations in the Contemporary Era (1900 – 2016)Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website - Francisco Franco and the Spanish Civil War- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYke_R9_ar8

Allende and Pinochet in Chile | The 20th century | World history | Khan Academy- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um92GZLCQ_Q

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website The Most Evil Men In History - Idi Amin-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyaTWKv44Hs

Begin watching at 1:40 –4:00 - How did Idi Amin grow up? What were in strengths?

40

6:53- end How did Idi Amin come to power and what did he promise the people of Uganda? What did he do to people who were against him? Why was he relationship like with Britain? How did he use humor and jokes to get what he wanted? How did his rule have a pattern of corruption and violence and ruin the economy of Uganda?

20:15- end - How did Idi Amin after he invaded Tanzania? Where did he end up? (He did die in 2003, the film is a bit old)

Separatist and Terrorist Organizations Basque Country- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYwUUDdYi9I

Watch from 1:15 – 3:10

Who are ETA? – Truthloader- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aboLGG4eyc8

41

ETA (separatist group)From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the Basque organization. For other uses, see ETA (disambiguation).

ETA (Basque: [eta], Spanish: [ˈeta]), an acronym for Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (Basque pronunciation: [eus̺kaði ta as̺katas̺una]; "Basque Country and Freedom")[1] was an armed Basque nationalist and separatist organization in the Basque Country (in northern Spain and southwestern France). The group was founded in 1959 and later evolved from a group promoting traditional Basque culture to a paramilitary group engaged in a violent campaign of bombing, assassinations and kidnappings in the Spanish Basque country and throughout Spanish territory. Its goal was gaining independence for the Basque Country.[2][3] ETA is the main group within the Basque National Liberation Movement and is the most important Basque participant in the Basque conflict.

Since 1968, it has killed over 820 people including 340 civilians and injured thousands more. [4][5][6][7] ETA is proscribed as a terrorist group by Spain, the United Kingdom,[8] France,[9] the United States,[10] and the European Union.[11] This convention is followed by a plurality of domestic and international media, which also refer to the group as "terrorists".[12][13][14][15] There are more than 300 imprisoned members of the group in Spain, France, and other countries.[16]

ETA declared ceasefires in 1989, 1996, 1998 and 2006. On 5 September 2010, ETA declared a new ceasefire[17] that is still in force, and on 20 October 2011, ETA announced a "definitive cessation of its armed activity".[18] On 24 November 2012, it was reported that the group was ready to negotiate a "definitive end" to its operations and disband completely.[19]

ETA's motto is Bietan jarrai ("Keep up on both"), referring to the two figures in its symbol, a snake (representing politics) wrapped around an axe (representing armed struggle).[20][21][22]

Historical Footnote- Britain had taken over and colonized Ireland, Britain is mostly protestant and Ireland is mostly Catholic. In 1921 Ireland became an independent country, expect for Northern Ireland which is part of the United Kingdom- where England is the dominant country. The IRA has been fighting for Northern Ireland to become part of Ireland.

What Is The Irish Republican Army (IRA)? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utWe4Pb6eqw

42

Take notes on this video from Mr. Wood’s website – the life of Osama Bin Laden https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icX6FjyV-p0

9/11 ATTACKS- HTTP://WWW.HISTORY.COM/TOPICS/9-11-ATTACKS

On September 11, 2001, 19 militants associated with the Islamic extremist group al-Qaeda hijacked four airliners and carried out suicide attacks against targets in the United States. Two of the planes were flown into the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, a third plane hit the Pentagon just outside Washington, D.C., and the fourth plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. Often referred to as 9/11, the attacks resulted in extensive death and destruction, triggering major U.S. initiatives to combat terrorism and defining the presidency of George W. Bush. Over 3,000 people were killed during the attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C., including more than 400 police officers and firefighters.On September 11, 2001, at 8:45 a.m. on a clear Tuesday morning, an American Airlines Boeing 767 loaded with 20,000 gallons of jet fuel crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. The impact left a gaping, burning hole near the 80th floor of the 110-story skyscraper, instantly killing hundreds of people and trapping hundreds more in higher floors. As the evacuation of the tower and its twin got underway, television cameras broadcasted live images of what initially appeared to be a freak accident. Then, 18 minutes after the first plane hit, a second Boeing 767–United Airlines Flight 175–appeared out of the sky, turned sharply toward the World Trade Center and sliced into the south tower near the 60th floor. The collision caused a massive explosion that showered burning debris over surrounding buildings and the streets below. America was under attack.The attackers were Islamic terrorists from Saudi Arabia and several other Arab nations. Reportedly financed by Saudi fugitive Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terrorist organization, they were allegedly acting in retaliation for America’s support of Israel, its involvement in the Persian Gulf War and its continued military presence in the Middle East. Some of the terrorists had lived in the United States for more than a year and had taken flying lessons at American commercial flight schools. Others had slipped into the country in the months before September 11 and acted as the “muscle” in the operation. The 19 terrorists easily smuggled box-cutters and knives through security at three East Coast airports and boarded four flights bound for California, chosen because the planes were loaded

43

with fuel for the long transcontinental journey. Soon after takeoff, the terrorists commandeered the four planes and took the controls, transforming ordinary commuter jets into guided missiles.

As millions watched the events unfolding in New York, American Airlines Flight 77 circled over downtown Washington, D.C., and slammed into the west side of the Pentagon military headquarters at 9:45 a.m. Jet fuel from the Boeing 757 caused a devastating inferno that led to the structural collapse of a portion of the giant concrete building. All told, 125 military personnel and civilians were killed in the Pentagon, along with all 64 people aboard the airliner.Less than 15 minutes after the terrorists struck the nerve center of the U.S. military, the horror in New York took a catastrophic turn for the worse when the south tower of the World Trade Center collapsed in a massive cloud of dust and smoke. The structural steel of the skyscraper, built to withstand winds in excess of 200 miles per hour and a large conventional fire, could not withstand the tremendous heat generated by the burning jet fuel. At 10:30 a.m., the other Trade Center tower collapsed. Close to 3,000 people died in the World Trade Center and its vicinity, including a staggering 343 firefighters and paramedics, 23 New York City police officers and 37 Port Authority police officers who were struggling to complete an evacuation of the buildings and save the office workers trapped on higher floors. Only six people in the World Trade Center towers at the time of their collapse survived. Almost 10,000 others were treated for injuries, many severe.

Meanwhile, a fourth California-bound plane–United Flight 93–was hijacked about 40 minutes after leaving Newark International Airport in New Jersey. Because the plane had been delayed in taking off, passengers on board learned of events in New York and Washington via cell phone and Airfone calls to the ground. Knowing that the aircraft was not returning to an airport as the hijackers claimed, a group of passengers and flight attendants planned an insurrection. One of the passengers, Thomas Burnett Jr., told his wife over the phone that “I know we’re all going to die. There’s three of us who are going to do something about it. I love you, honey.” Another passenger–Todd Beamer–was heard saying “Are you guys ready? Let’s roll” over an open line. Sandy Bradshaw, a flight attendant, called her husband and explained that she had slipped into a galley and was filling pitchers with boiling water. Her last words to him were “Everyone’s running to first class. I’ve got to go. Bye.”The passengers fought the four hijackers and are suspected to have attacked the cockpit with a fire extinguisher. The plane then flipped over and sped toward the ground at upwards of 500 miles per hour, crashing in a rural field in western Pennsylvania at 10:10 a.m. All 45 people aboard were killed. Its intended target is not known, but theories include the White House, the U.S. Capitol, the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland or one of several nuclear power plants along the eastern seaboard.At 7 p.m., President George W. Bush, who had spent the day being shuttled around the country because of security concerns, returned to the White House. At 9 p.m., he delivered a televised address from the Oval Office, declaring, “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.” In a reference to the eventual U.S. military response he declared, “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”

Operation Enduring Freedom, the American-led international effort to oust the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and destroy Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network based there, began on October 7. Within two months, U.S. forces had effectively removed the Taliban from operational power, but the war continued, as U.S. and coalition forces attempted to defeat a Taliban insurgency campaign based in neighboring Pakistan. Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind the September 11th attacks, remained at large until May 2, 2011, when he was finally tracked down and killed by U.S. forces at a hideout in Abbottabad, Pakistan. In June 2011, President Barack Obama announced the beginning of large-scale troop withdrawals from Afghanistan.

44

Genocide and Ethnic violence in the Contemporary Era

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE - HTTP://WWW.HISTORY.COM/TOPICS/ARMENIAN-GENOCIDE/PRINT

In 1915, leaders of the Turkish government set in motion a plan to expel and massacre Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire. Though reports vary, most sources agree that there were about 2 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire at the time of the massacre. By the early 1920s, when the massacres and deportations finally ended, some 1.5 million of Turkey’s Armenians were dead, with many more forcibly removed from the country. Today, most historians call this event a genocide–a premeditated and systematic campaign to exterminate an entire people. However, the Turkish government does not acknowledge the enormity or scope of these events. Despite pressure from Armenians and social justice advocates throughout the world, it is still illegal in Turkey to talk about what happened to Armenians during this era.

THE ROOTS OF GENOCIDE: THE OTTOMAN EMPIREThe Armenian people have made their home in the Caucasus region of Eurasia for some 3,000 years. For some of that time, the kingdom of Armenia was an independent entity–at the beginning of the 4th century AD, for instance, it became the first nation in the world to make Christianity its official religion–but for the most part, control of the region shifted from one empire to another. During the 15th century, Armenia was absorbed into the mighty Ottoman Empire.The Ottoman rulers, like most of their subjects, were Muslim. They permitted religious minorities like the Armenians to maintain some autonomy, but they also subjected Armenians, who they viewed as “infidels,” to unequal and unjust treatment. Christians had to pay higher taxes than Muslims, for example, and they had very few political and legal rights.In spite of these obstacles, the Armenian community thrived under Ottoman rule. They tended to be better educated and wealthier than their Turkish neighbors, who in turn tended to resent their success. This resentment was compounded by suspicions that the Christian Armenians would be more loyal to Christian governments (that of the Russians, for example, who shared an unstable border with Turkey) than they were to the Ottoman caliphate.These suspicions grew more acute as the Ottoman Empire crumbled. At the end of the 19th century, the despotic Turkish Sultan Abdul Hamid II–obsessed with loyalty above all, and infuriated by the nascent Armenian campaign to win basic civil rights–declared that he would solve the “Armenian question” once and for all. “I will soon settle those Armenians,” he told a reporter in 1890. “I will give them a box on the ear which will make them…relinquish their revolutionary ambitions.”

THE FIRST ARMENIAN MASSACREBetween 1894 and 1896, this “box on the ear” took the form of a state-sanctioned pogrom. In response to large scale protests by Armenians, Turkish military officials, soldiers and ordinary men sacked Armenian villages and cities and massacred their citizens. Hundreds of thousands of Armenians were murdered.THE RISE OF THE YOUNG TURKSIn 1908, a new government came to power in Turkey. A group of reformers who called themselves the “Young Turks” overthrew Sultan Abdul Hamid and established a more modern constitutional government. At first, the Armenians were hopeful that they would have an equal place in this new state, but they soon learned that what the nationalistic Young Turks wanted most of all was to “Turkify” the empire. According to this way of thinking, non-Turks–and especially Christian non-Turks–were a grave threat to the new state

45

WORLD WAR IIn 1914, the Turks entered World War I on the side of Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. (At the same time, Ottoman religious authorities declared jihad, or holy war, against all Christians except their allies.) Military leaders began to argue that the Armenians were traitors: If they thought they could win independence if the Allies were victorious, this argument went, the Armenians would be eager to fight for the enemy. As the war intensified, Armenians organized volunteer battalions to help the Russian army fight against the Turks in the Caucasus region. These events, and general Turkish suspicion of the Armenian people, led the Turkish government to push for the “removal” of the Armenians from the war zones along the Eastern Front.GENOCIDE BEGINSOn April 24, 1915, the Armenian genocide began. That day, the Turkish government arrested and executed several hundred Armenian intellectuals. After that, ordinary Armenians were turned out of their homes and sent on death marches through the Mesopotamian desert without food or water. Frequently, the marchers were stripped naked and forced to walk under the scorching sun until they dropped dead. People who stopped to rest were shot.At the same time, the Young Turks created a “Special Organization,” which in turn organized “killing squads” or “butcher battalions” to carry out, as one officer put it, “the liquidation of the Christian elements.” These killing squads were often made up of murderers and other ex-convicts. They drowned people in rivers, threw them off cliffs, crucified them and burned them alive. In short order, the Turkish countryside was littered with Armenian corpses.

Records show that during this “Turkification”campaign government squads also kidnapped children, converted them to Islam and gave them to Turkish families. In some places, they raped women and forced them to join Turkish “harems” or serve as slaves. Muslim families moved into the homes of deported Armenians and seized their property.In 1922, when the genocide was over, there were just 388,000 Armenians remaining in the Ottoman Empire.THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE TODAYAfter the Ottomans surrendered in 1918, the leaders of the Young Turks fled to Germany, which promised not to prosecute them for the genocide. (However, a group of Armenian nationalists devised a plan, known as Operation Nemesis, to track down and assassinate the leaders of the genocide.) Ever since then, the Turkish government has denied that a genocide took place. The Armenians were an enemy force, they argue, and their slaughter was a necessary war measure. Today, Turkey is an important ally of the U.S. and other Western nations, and so their governments have likewise been reluctant to condemn the long-ago killings. In March 2010, a U.S. Congressional panel at last voted to recognize the genocide.

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website- Battle Over History - A Genocide- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlrlwFmG7-w&t=54sTake notes on the view of the Armenian Genocide

46

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website - World War II Documentary- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfRq-JeUCSM37:23 – 38:18 - establishing “The Final Solution”

159:45 – 201:10 –Results of the Holocaust

THE HOLOCAUST- HTTP://WWW.HISTORY.COM/TOPICS/WORLD-WAR-II/THE-HOLOCAUST

TOWARDS THE “FINAL SOLUTION” , 1940-1941Throughout the spring and summer of 1940, the German army expanded Hitler’s empire in Europe, conquering Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and France. Beginning in 1941, Jews from all over the continent, as well as hundreds of thousands of European Gypsies, were transported to the Polish ghettoes. The German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 marked a new level of brutality in warfare. Mobile killing units called Einsatzgruppen would murder more than 500,000 Soviet Jews and others (usually by shooting) over the course of the German occupation.

A memorandum dated July 31, 1941, from Hitler’s top commander Hermann Goering to Reinhard Heydrich, chief of the SD (the security service of the SS), referred to the need for an Endlösung (final solution) to “the Jewish question.” Beginning in September 1941, every person designated as a Jew in German-held territory was marked with a yellow star, making them open targets. Tens of thousands were soon being deported to the Polish ghettoes and German-occupied cities in the USSR. Since June 1941, experiments with mass killing methods had been ongoing at the concentration camp of Auschwitz, near Krakow. That August, 500 officials gassed 500 Soviet POWs to death with the pesticide Zyklon-B. The SS soon placed a huge order for the gas with a German pest-control firm, an ominous indicator of the comingHolocaust.

HOLOCAUST DEATH CAMPS, 1941-1945Beginning in late 1941, the Germans began mass transports from the ghettoes in Poland to the concentration camps, starting with those people viewed as the least useful: the sick, old and weak and the very young. The

47

first mass gassings began at the camp of Belzec, near Lublin, on March 17, 1942. Five more mass killing centers were built at camps in occupied Poland, including Chelmno, Sobibor, Treblinka, Majdanek and the largest of all, Auschwitz-Birkenau. From 1942 to 1945, Jews were deported to the camps from all over Europe, including German-controlled territory as well as those countries allied with Germany. The heaviest deportations took place during the summer and fall of 1942, when more than 300,000 people were deported from the Warsaw ghetto alone.Though the Nazis tried to keep operation of camps secret, the scale of the killing made this virtually impossible. Eyewitnesses brought reports of Nazi atrocities in Poland to the Allied governments, who were harshly criticized after the war for their failure to respond, or to publicize news of the mass slaughter. This lack of action was likely mostly due to the Allied focus on winning the war at hand, but was also a result of the general incomprehension with which news of the Holocaust was met and the denial and disbelief that such atrocities could be occurring on such a scale. At Auschwitz alone, more than 2 million people were murdered in a process resembling a large-scale industrial operation. A large population of Jewish and non-Jewish inmates worked in the labor camp there; though only Jews were gassed, thousands of others died of starvation or disease. During the summer of 1944, even as the events of D-Day (June 6, 1944) and a Soviet offensive the same month spelled the beginning of the end for Germany in the war, a large proportion of Hungary’s Jewish population was deported to Auschwitz, and as many as 12,000 Jews were killed every day.

Historical Footnote- Cambodia is a neighboring country of Vietnam and also close to China in Asia. Pol Pot follows Communism to an extreme and take power during and after the Vietnam War.

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website The Most Evil Men In History - Pol Pot- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My5p4vk1sog

Begin watching at 1:10 – 4:00

How did Pol Pot grow up and what was his education and beliefs?

Around 4:00- 5:00 - How did he gain power?

Around 5:20 – 10:00, 12:10 -17:00- What did he do to the society? What kind of violence took place? What were the results of his decisions that were carried out by is party the Khmer Rouge?

48

Around 19:30 – End What ended up happening to Pol Pot?

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website Rwandan Genocide Documentary- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgYpMcbvUVA

THE RWANDAN GENOCIDE- HTTP://WWW.HISTORY.COM/TOPICS/RWANDAN-GENOCIDE/PRINT

From April to July 1994, members of the Hutu ethnic majority in the east-central African nation of Rwanda murdered as many as 800,000 people, mostly of the Tutsi minority. Begun by extreme Hutu nationalists in the capital of Kigali, the genocide spread throughout the country with staggering speed and brutality, as ordinary citizens were incited by local officials and the Hutu Power government to take up arms against their neighbors. By the time the Tutsi-led Rwandese Patriotic Front gained control of the country through a military offensive in early July, hundreds of thousands of Rwandans were dead and many more displaced from their homes. The RPF victory created 2 million more refugees (mainly Hutus) from Rwanda, exacerbating what had already become a full-blown humanitarian crisis.BACKGROUND: ETHNIC TENSIONS IN RWANDABy the early 1990s, Rwanda, a small country with an overwhelmingly agricultural economy, had one of the highest population densities in Africa. About 85 percent of its population is Hutu; the rest is Tutsi, along with a small number of Twa, a Pygmy group who were the original inhabitants of Rwanda. Part of German East Africa from 1894 to 1918, Rwanda came under the League of Nations mandate of Belgium after World War I, along with neighboring Burundi. Rwanda’s colonial period, during which the ruling Belgians favored the minority Tutsis over the Hutus, exacerbated the

49

tendency of the few to oppress the many, creating a legacy of tension that exploded into violence even before Rwanda gained its independence. A Hutu revolution in 1959 forced as many as 300,000 Tutsis to flee the country, making them an even smaller minority. By early 1961, victorious Hutus had forced Rwanda’s Tutsi monarch into exile and declared the country a republic. After a U.N. referendum that same year, Belgium officially granted independence to Rwanda in July 1962.

Ethnically motivated violence continued in the years following independence. In 1973, a military group installed Major General Juvenal Habyarimana, a moderate Hutu, in power. The sole leader of Rwandan government for the next two decades, Habyarimana founded a new political party, the National Revolutionary Movement for Development (NRMD). He was elected president under a new constitution ratified in 1978 and reelected in 1983 and 1988, when he was the sole candidate. In 1990, forces of the Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF), consisting mostly of Tutsi refugees, invaded Rwanda from Uganda. A ceasefire in these hostilities led to negotiations between the government and the RPF in 1992. In August 1993, Habyarimana signed an agreement at Arusha, Tanzania, calling for the creation of a transition government that would include the RPF. This power-sharing agreement angered Hutu extremists, who would soon take swift and horrible action to prevent it.

GENOCIDEOn April 6, 1994, a plane carrying Habyarimana and Burundi’s president Cyprien Ntaryamira was shot down over Kigali, leaving no survivors. (It has never been conclusively determined who the culprits were. Some have blamed Hutu extremists, while others blamed leaders of the RPF.) Within an hour of the plane crash, the Presidential Guard together with members of the Rwandan armed forces (FAR) and Hutu militia groups known as the Interahamwe (“Those Who Attack Together”) and Impuzamugambi (“Those Who Have the Same Goal”) set up roadblocks and barricades and began slaughtering Tutsis and moderate Hutus with impunity. Among the first victims of the genocide were the moderate Hutu Prime Minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana and her 10 Belgian bodyguards, killed on April 7. This violence created a political vacuum, into which an interim government of extremist Hutu Power leaders from the military high command stepped on April 9.The mass killings in Rwanda quickly spread from Kigali to the rest of the country, with some 800,000 people slaughtered over the next three months. During this period, local officials and government-sponsored radio stations called on ordinary Rwandan civilians to murder their neighbors. Meanwhile, the RPF resumed fighting, and civil war raged alongside the genocide. By early July, RPF forces had gained control over most of country, including Kigali. In response, more than 2 million people, nearly all Hutus, fled Rwanda, crowding into refugee camps in the Congo (then called Zaire) and other neighboring countries.

After its victory, the RPF established a coalition government similar to that agreed upon at Arusha, with Pasteur Bizimungu, a Hutu, as president and Paul Kagame, a Tutsi, as vice president and defense minister. Habyarimana’s NRMD party, which had played a key role in organizing the genocide, was outlawed, and a new constitution adopted in 2003 eliminated reference to ethnicity. The new constitution was followed by Kagame’s election to a 10-year term as Rwanda’s president and the country’s first-ever legislative elections.

50

INTERNATIONAL RESPONSEAs in the case of atrocities committed in the former Yugoslavia around the same time, the international community largely remained on the sidelines during the Rwandan genocide. A U.N. Security Council vote in April 1994 led to the withdrawal of most of a U.N. peacekeeping operation (UNAMIR) created the previous fall to aid with governmental transition under the Arusha accord. As reports of the genocide spread, the Security Council voted in mid-May to supply a more robust force, including more than 5,000 troops. By the time that force arrived in full, however, the genocide had been over for months. In a separate French intervention approved by the U.N., French troops entered Rwanda from Zaire in late June. In the face of the RPF’s rapid advance, they limited their intervention to a “humanitarian zone” set up in southwestern Rwanda, saving tens of thousands of Tutsi lives but also helping some of the genocide’s plotters–allies of the French during the Habyarimana administration–to escape.

In the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide, many prominent figures in the international community lamented the outside world’s general obliviousness to the situation and its failure to act in order to prevent the atrocities from taking place. As former U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali told the PBS news program “Frontline”: “The failure of Rwanda is 10 times greater than the failure of Yugoslavia. Because in Yugoslavia the international community was interested, was involved. In Rwanda nobody was interested.” Attempts were later made to rectify this passivity. After the RFP victory, the UNAMIR operation was brought back up to strength; it remained in Rwanda until March 1996, as one of the largest humanitarian relief efforts in history.In October 1994, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), located in Tanzania, was established as an extension of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) at The Hague, the first international tribunal since the Nuremburg Trials of 1945-46 and the first with the mandate to prosecute the crime of genocide. In 1995, the ICTR began indicting and trying a number of higher-ranking people for their role in the Rwandan genocide; the process was made more difficult because the whereabouts of many suspects were unknown. The trials continued over the next decade and a half, including the 2008 conviction of three former senior Rwandan defense and military officials for organizing the genocide.

SAQ - Change and Continuity Over Time

a. Give one specific example of major change that occurred with the protest movements of the time period 1900- present.

Part VII Protest Movements

The Global uprisings of 1968

Everyone to the barricades- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jan/20/1968theyearofrevolt.features

One brick thrown in Paris... and its crash was heard around the world. In Berlin, Prague, Chicago, Rome, Mexico City and even London, protesters took to the streets. Here Sean O'Hagan connects the worldwide uprisings of that explosive year and examines their legacy

51

Sean O'HaganSaturday 19 January 2008 19.05 EST First published on Saturday 19 January 2008 19.05 ESTOn New Year's Eve 1967, Charles De Gaulle, the 78-year-old president of France, broadcast his annual message to the nation. 'I greet the year 1968 with serenity,' he announced, brimming with self-satisfaction. 'It is impossible to see how France today could be paralysed by crisis as she has been in the past.' Little did he know. Six months later, De Gaulle was fighting for his political life and the French capital was paralysed after weeks of student riots followed by a sudden general strike. France's journey from 'serenity' to near revolution in the first few weeks of May is the defining event of '1968', a year in which mass protest erupted across the globe, from Paris to Prague, Mexico City to Madrid, Chicago to London.

'There has never been a year like 1968, and it is unlikely there will ever be again', writes Mark Kurlansky in his illuminating book, 1968: The Year That Rocked the World. 'At a time when nations and cultures were still very different there occurred a spontaneous combustion of rebellious spirits around the world.'

These rebellions were not planned in advance, nor did the rebels share an ideology or goal. The one cause many had in common was opposition to America's war in Vietnam but they were driven above all by a youthful desire to rebel against all that was outmoded, rigid and authoritarian. At times, they gained a momentum that took even the protagonists by surprise. Such was the case in Paris, which is still regarded as the most mythic near-revolutionary moment of that tumultuous year, but also in Mexico City, Berlin and Rome.

In these cases, what began as a relatively small and contained protest against a university administration - a protest by the young and impatient against the old and unbending - burgeoned into a mass movement against the government. In other countries - like Spain, where the Fascist General Franco was still in power, and Brazil, where a military dictatorship was in place - the protests were directed from the start against the state. In Warsaw and Prague, the freedom movements rose up briefly against the monolithic communist ideology of the USSR. And in America, capitalism was the ultimate enemy, and Vietnam the prime catalyst.

'There was not one '68, as popular myth would have it,' says the historian Dominic Sandbrook, author of White Heat: A History of Britain in the Swinging Sixties. 'The riots in Chicago were different to the protests in Mexico, which in turn differed from the events in Paris in May. In each case the causes were different.'

And yet the protesters in each country had much in common, including an often instinctive espousal of radical leftist politics, a shared sense of idealism that often bordered on naivety and

52

had its roots in the previous year's hippy Summer of Love, and a distrust of all forms of established authority including parents, police, college administrations and government. Above all they shared what Sandbrook calls 'the common spirit of youthful rebellion'. 'Youth was a new thing in the Fifties, and by the Sixties you had young people who, for the first time, were self-consciously generational,' he says. 'In America, Britain and Europe the growth of education and affluence meant that young people were suddenly defining themselves as separate from, and indeed, against the beliefs and values of their parents.'

With a historian's level head, Sandbrook refutes the common notion that this generation gap was widespread, stressing that most young people did not attend university and it was 'only well-educated kids that tended to get involved in protests'. Nevertheless, the Sixties were the decade when the student population in America, Europe and Britain expanded dramatically, and by 1968, when the words youth and protest became synonymous, the difference in attitudes between the educated and increasingly emancipated young and their parents became a political as well as a cultural rift.

From 1963 the culture and economy of youth burgeoned, says Jon Savage, pop-culture historian and author of the recent book Teenage: The Creation of Youth Culture: 'Pop music is always incredibly prescient and you can hear an increasing ambition and invention in the pop music made in those years, a sense of limitless possibility, but also of immense frustration and edginess. And then, in 1968, it all exploded into something totally unforeseen. In the five years from the emergence of the Beatles in 1963 to the upheaval of 1968 the economic enfranchisement of a generation turned into mass political action, if not fantasy.'

Paris was the place where political action and utopian fantasy came together in the most spectacular fashion. The 'Enragés' (angry ones), as the Paris protesters came to be known, were emblematic of the spirit of that year. They initially comprised a small bunch of student activists, 25 at most, at Nanterre University. Protests began in January against the lack of facilities on their bleak suburban campus. On 26 January the authorities summoned the French riot police to quell a relatively small demonstration - and dozens of angry and suddenly politicised students joined the rebels. On 22 March, in sympathy with four students arrested during an anti-Vietnam War rally in the centre of Paris, 500 demonstrators stormed the Nanterre faculty building. Suddenly, the Enragés had a name: the March 22nd Movement.

They also had a leader, though he shunned the title. His name was Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a young German soon to be rechristened Danny the Red by the media, a reference to his ginger hair as much as his politics. Cohn-Bendit's ready grin, easy humour and non-dogmatic radicalism made him the antithesis of the dour theoretical Marxist. 'I slowly stepped in,' he said later, 'because I was saying something at the right moment and in the right place.'

53

In April, after another occupation at Nanterre, the Ministry of Education shut down the university and ordered Cohn-Bendit to appear before a disciplinary board on 6 May at the Sorbonne. Thus the protests shifted to the centre of Paris where media crews from all over the globe were assembling to cover the imminent Vietnam peace talks. The students were now becoming an embarrassment to De Gaulle. He sent police into the Sorbonne to arrest supposed ringleaders. In the end, 600 students were arrested and, in a desperate attempt to defuse the situation, the administrators ordered the closure of the Sorbonne. While the left argued over the meaning of the unrest, Cohn-Bendit, like many of his generation, simply went with the flow. 'Everyone asked me, "How will it end?" he later admitted. 'And I would say, "I don't know".'

It ended in near-revolution. The government banned all demonstrations on 6 May, when Cohn-Bendit was due to be disciplined. Nevertheless 1,000 students accompanied their ever-smiling leader to the Sorbonne, where they passed through ranks of the CRS, French riot police armed with shields and clubs. The cameras followed in their wake.

In Rue Saint-Jacques the tension broke and police charged the chanting students, swinging batons and leaving several students unconscious on the cobbled street. To the amazement of the CRS the students regrouped and fought back, overturning cars, building barricades and digging up cobblestones to use as ammunition. The battle between police and the demonstrators continued for several hours as the streets around the Sorbonne filled with smoke and tear gas.

'I was completely surprised by 1968,' recalls Francois Cerutti, an old-school Marxist and radical bookstore owner quoted in Kurlansky's book. 'I had an idea of the revolutionary process and it was nothing like this. I saw students building barricades, but these were people who knew nothing of revolution. They were not even political. There was no organisation, no planning.'

As news of the uprising spread, young people from all over Paris arrived to support the students. Petrol bombs and Molotov cocktails lit up the streets as night fell. Over 600 protesters were injured on that single day and about half as many police. The rioting continued for another week. Images of the clashes with police were broadcast across the world.

Something else happened on the streets of Paris in those few weeks, though, something no one had foreseen. People from different backgrounds came out in support of the students. Groups of animated Parisians gathered around the barricades and at impromptu meeting places to talk, argue, organise and agitate. Posters appeared across the Left Bank and beyond. The two main Parisian art schools had combined to form the Atelier Populaire, producing hundreds of silk-

54

screened images in what Kurlanksy describes as 'one of the most impressive outpourings of political graphic art ever accomplished'.

Across Paris a poster featuring de Gaulle's face appeared alongside the words: 'Be young and shut up'. On the walls graffiti proclaimed a new poetry of protest. 'Be realistic, demand the impossible' ran one slogan. 'Under the cobblestones, the beach' ran another. A third summed up both the euphoria of the demonstrators and the bafflement of the establishment: 'The revolution is unbelievable because it's real.'

Kurlansky quotes a veteran of the Paris uprising, Radith Geismar, who remembers not the violence of the barricades but the sense of community they brought. 'The real sense of '68 was a tremendous sense of liberation, of freedom,' she says, 'of people talking on the street, in the universities, in theatres. It was much more than throwing stones. A whole system of order and authority and tradition was swept aside. Much of the freedom of today began in '68.'

In just a few weeks, Cohn-Bendit, who was soon to receive a deportation order from the French government for his role in the ferment, had gone from local student activist to an international figurehead for revolution. 'There I was,' he said, 'the leader of a little university, and in three weeks I was famous all over the world as Danny the Red.'

The catalyst for his fame was television. In 1968 two technological innovations transformed the nightly news reports: the use of videotape, which was cheap and reusable, instead of film, and the same-day broadcast, which meant that often unedited images of rebellion were disseminated across continents almost as they happened. Student protesters in Berkeley and Columbia cheered their TV sets as footage from the Paris barricades made the American news in May, while French students took heart from images of the huge anti-war demonstrations now occurring across Europe and America.

'We met through television,' Cohn-Bendit later said of his counterparts in other countries. 'We were the first television generation.' Indeed, the radicals had a much better grasp of the galvanising power of television than the politicians they were trying to overthrow. 'A modern revolutionary group headed for the television, not for the factory,' quipped the late Abbie Hoffman, one of the great political pranksters of 1968who helped provoke a bloody battle between anti-war protesters and the Chicago police force at the Chicago Democratic convention. As the police attacked them, the protesters chanted: 'The whole world is watching!' And, for the first time, it was.

It often seemed like the whole world was watching the Vietnam war. The year dawned with an escalation of the conflict that had already claimed nearly 16,000 young American lives in the previous three years. On 30 January the Tet Offensive began with a suicide attack by Viet Cong guerrillas on the US embassy in Saigon. Images of the frantic battle were broadcast almost instantly to a nation who were not used to seeing their soldiers looking frightened and confused in a conflict that, as many Americans were reluctantly realising, they could not win.

55

Vietnam became the first war beamed into the living rooms of America, and the images were as raw and visceral as today's are diluted and controlled. 'In the Sixties, television turned up the intensity of what was going on in the world,' says Sandbrook. 'We had all seen war footage but this was the first time we had seen it almost as it happened. People had a sense of the sheer disproportionate force involved. The carpet bombing, the Napalm, the scale of the American operation shocked viewers and then angered them. Vietnam was the first TV war, and, as a direct result of that, it spawned the first global anti-war movement.'

The anti-war movement began on the campuses of America. It took as its example the Sixties Civil Rights campaign led by Martin Luther King, and many of its leading activists came of age protesting against segregation in the south. 'The first thing you learned in the Civil Rights movement was that fear was the enemy, and overcoming fear was the very purpose of the struggle,' says Tom Hayden, one of the most prominent anti-war campaigners. 'That carried over into the protests against the Vietnam war. And the draft had a way of focusing the mind of a young person. It was not just that you were fighting for an abstract cause, you were fighting for something all too real, something that thousands of your fellow citizens were dying senselessly for.'

As the body count in Vietnam escalated, the anti-war movement grew in strength and authority. Though originally dismissed by the Right as a bunch of long-hairs, peaceniks and cowards, it had been steadily growing in numbers and in the breadth of its constituency since its inception in 1965. In that year Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) organised a peace march in Washington that drew 20,000 people. In 1967 over 70 anti-war protests were held on student campuses in October and November alone. By the spring of 1968, some 30 colleges a month were protesting with sit-ins, occupations and marches, and the anti-war movement had moved to the streets, and from America all around the world.

In Germany a strong anti-Vietnam war movement had grown on campuses in 1967. April 1968 brought highly organised rioting in Berlin following the attempted assassination of left-wing figurehead Rudi Dutschke by a right-wing loner. Students and activists directed their ire at the right-wing Springer Press organisation, laying siege to the main building in Berlin on 11 April, and fighting with police on the streets outside.

Elsewhere in Europe the protests were spreading fast. In Warsaw the government closed down eight university departments, and imprisoned nearly 1,000 students after protests against state censorship. In Italy the University of Rome was shut down for two weeks after violent demonstrations against police brutality. In Spain students marched against the Fascist regime of General Franco, who closed down Madrid University for a month. In Brazil three protesters were killed during marches against the military junta. In France on 14 February, just as the Nanterre protests began to gather momentum, thousands marched against the war in Paris. A few days later, 10,000 German protesters gathered in West Berlin.

56

... While Britain simmered America raged. On 4 April Martin Luther King was killed by a sniper's bullet in Memphis. His murder shocked an already traumatised America and provoked two nights of rioting in several major cities. The National Guard were mobilised, and Chicago's infamous Mayor Daley issued a 'shoot to kill' order as fires raged. Twelve black people were killed during riots in Washington DC. Stokely Carmichael, founder of the Black Panthers, a black power militia which preached violent revolution, grabbed headlines when he said: 'Now they've taken Dr King off, it's time to end this non-violence bullshit.'

Two days later, Bobby Hutton, a 17- year-old member of the Black Panthers, was killed in a shoot-out with police in Oakland, California. And still the demonstrations continued. Students at Columbia University in Harlem, New York, took over the campus and shut down the university. On 30 April, 200 policemen stormed the site and beat both those who resisted and those who did not. Over 700 students were arrested, 150 were admitted to hospital for their injuries and, later, 120 charges of brutality were brought against the police. One year on from the so-called Summer of Love, America was gearing up for a summer of violence and fear.

It began on 5 June with another assassination, that of Senator Robert Kennedy, the Democratic heir apparent to the presidency, and the younger brother of the late President John F Kennedy. A traumatised nation headed towards the imminent Republican and Democratic conventions with an increasing sense of dread. In Miami in mid-August, Richard Nixon became the Republican candidate before the media circus moved on to Chicago for the Democratic Convention. Leading antiwar activists, including Tom Hayden, had planned a demonstration that would 'close down the city' of Chicago during the convention. Mayor Daley refused the organisers a permit to demonstrate, and only a few thousand demonstrators descended on the city…..

…By then, the spirit of 1968 had dimmed in France, too. On 13 May, to the astonishment of both students and government, the French trade unions had called for a general strike for more pay and better working hours and conditions. France ground to a halt to the horror of the beleaguered De Gaulle. It looked for a moment like France was about to undergo another revolution... but the unlikely alliance of students and workers was an illusion.

'The workers and the students were never together,' Cohn-Bendit admitted years later. 'The workers wanted a radical reform of the factories. Students wanted a radical change in life.'

That youthful idealism, unplanned and ill-defined, carried for a while by a momentum that took everyone by surprise, ran aground almost as quickly as it had flared up. For all the revolutionary ferment of May '68, the year ended with De Gaulle still in power, Nixon elected to the White House, and the Vietnam war escalating beyond all predictions as the Americans rained bombs on Laos.

57

… Yet 40 years on from 1968 the meaning and the legacy of that volatile year is still being contested. Many on the Right still view it as the epitome of all that was irresponsible, idiotic and dangerous about the Sixties, while many on the terminally fractured Left still mourn 1968 as the last great moment of revolutionary possibility. The truth probably lies somewhere in between, but there is no doubting that something unique and potentially revolutionary happened around the world, something that continues to shape the present in ways that those involved in the protests could not have not foreseen, and that the majority of today's globally-connected younger generation are probably utterly unaware of.

'In history it is always imprecise to attribute fundamental shifts to one moment,' writes Kurlansky. 'But 1968 was the epicentre of a shift, of a fundamental change, the birth of our post-modern media-driven world... It was the beginning of the end of the Cold War and the dawn of a new geopolitical order.'

It was also the beginning of modern protest, and of the many struggles that have followed - from feminism to ecological awareness. Cohn-Bendit, the face of May 1968, is now a Green Party leader in the European parliament. Out of the activism of 1968 came the Women's Liberation movement, which hit the headlines in September 1968 when 100 demonstrators gathered outside the Miss America pageant in Atlantic city and, borrowing from the Yippie handbook, crowned a sheep, and threw bras, make-up and beauty products into a 'freedom trash can'.

Feminism entered a new phase. '1968 deepened the politics of the Sixties,' says Professor Lynne Segal of Birkbeck College. 'Women had been involved in all the struggles, Vietnam, anti-colonialism, Civil Rights. Everyone's liberation was suddenly on the table in 1968. By 1969 women had found a way to articulate it that resounds to this day. Women's Liberation became inevitable because of the radical politics of the Sixties but specifically because of the huge surge towards self-empowerment that happened in 1968.'

Dominic Sandbrook agrees: 'The Women's Liberation movement turned out to be the most influential of all the late-Sixties movements. It has had an abiding influence that no other cause from that time has had.'

And yet, the spirit of '68 endures, perhaps mythical, perhaps as a lingering sense of the possibilities that mass activism once had. 'If '68 does not matter, as the Right claim,' says Tom Hayden, one of the Chicago activists, 'then why does it remain so symbolic? People ask me why did it happen when it happened. My emphasis would be on consciousness. It was entirely possible that the American people would have accepted the Vietnam war with all its casualties and all its taxes, just as they supported the Korean war. So, you have to conclude that it was a shift in consciousness that helped bring about its end. That's what happened when people marched for Civil Rights and against the war, that's what happened in 1968 when people united in activism: the consciousness of America shifted.' Perhaps that, in itself, is legacy enough.

58

MAY 16, 1968 : PROTESTS MOUNT IN FRANCE- HTTP://WWW.HISTORY.COM/THIS-DAY-IN-HISTORY/PROTESTS-MOUNT-IN-FRANCE/PRINT

In France, the May 1968 crisis escalates as a general strike spreads to factories and industries across the country, shutting down newspaper distribution, air transport, and two major railroads. By the end of the month, millions of workers were on strike, and France seemed to be on the brink of radical leftist revolution.After the Algerian crisis of the l950s, France entered a period of stability in the 1960s. The French empire was abolished, the economy improved, and President Charles de Gaulle was a popular ruler. Discontent lay just beneath the surface, however, especially among young students, who were critical of France’s outdated university system and the scarcity of employment opportunity for university graduates. Sporadic student demonstrations for education reform began in 1968, and on May 3 a protest at the Sorbonne (the most celebrated college of the University of Paris) was broken up by police. Several hundred students were arrested and dozens were injured.In the aftermath of the incident, courses at the Sorbonne were suspended, and students took to the streets of the Latin Quarter (the university district of Paris) to continue their protests. On May 6, battles between the police and students in the Latin Quarter led to hundreds of injuries. On the night of May 10, students set up barricades and rioted in the Latin Quarter. Nearly 400 people were hospitalized, more than half of them police. Leftist students began calling for radical economic and political change in France, and union leaders planned strikes in support of the students. In an effort to defuse the crisis by returning the students to school, Prime Minister Georges Pompidou announced that the Sorbonne would be reopened on May 13.

On that day, students occupied the Sorbonne buildings, converting it into a commune, and striking workers and students protested in the Paris streets. During the next few days, the unrest spread to other French universities, and labor strikes rolled across the country, eventually involving several million workers and paralyzing France. On the evening of May 24, the worst fighting of the May crisis occurred in Paris. Revolutionary students temporarily seized the Bourse (Paris Stock Exchange), raised a communist red flag over the building, and then tried to set it on fire. One policeman was killed in the night’s violence.During the next few days, Prime Minister Pompidou negotiated with union leaders, making a number of concessions, but failed to end the strike. Radical students openly called for revolution but lost the support of mainstream communist and trade union leaders, who feared that they, like the Gaullist establishment, would be swept away in a revolution led by anarchists and Trotskyites. On May 30, President de Gaulle went on the radio and announced that he was dissolving the National Assembly and calling national elections. He appealed for law and order and implied that he would use military force to return order to France if necessary. Loyal Gaullists and middle-class citizens rallied around him, and the labor strikes were gradually abandoned. Student protests continued until June 12, when they were banned. Two days later, the students were evicted from the Sorbonne.In the two rounds of voting on June 23 and 30, the Gaullists won a commanding majority in the National Assembly. In the aftermath of the May events, de Gaulle’s government made a series of concessions to the protesting groups, including higher wages and improved working conditions for workers, and passed a major education reform bill intended

59

to modernize higher education. After 11 years of rule, Charles de Gaulle resigned the presidency in 1969 and was succeeded by Pompidou. He died the next year just before his 80th birthday

Challenging War Through Non-Violent means

Pablo Picasso and Guernica- Protest in the Spanish Civil War

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website - Guernica 3D- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc1Nfx4c5LQ&feature=youtu.beHistorical note- Pablo Picasso made this painting of Guernica after the Fascists in Spain bombed the city of Guernica. When the asked him why he made this painting he reaction was, “No, you created this.”

Probably Picasso's most famous work, Guernica is certainly the his most powerful political statement, painted as an immediate reaction to the Nazi's devastating casual bombing practice on the Basque town of Guernica during Spanish Civil War.

Guernica shows the tragedies of war and the suffering it inflicts upon individuals, particularly innocent civilians. This work has gained a monumental status, becoming a perpetual reminder of the tragedies of war, an anti-war symbol, and an embodiment of peace. On completion Guernica was displayed around the world in a brief tour, becoming famous and widely acclaimed. This tour helped bring the Spanish Civil War to the world's attention.

This work is seen as an amalgmation of pastoral and epic styles. The discarding of color intensifis the drama, producing a reportage quality as in a photographic record. Guernica is blue, black and white, 3.5 metre (11 ft) tall and 7.8 metre (25.6 ft) wide, a mural-size canvas painted in oil. This painting can be seen in the Museo Reina Sofia in Madrid.

Interpretations of Guernica vary widely and contradict one another. This extends, for example, to the mural's two dominant elements: the bull and the horse. Art historian Patricia Failing said, "The bull and the horse are important characters in Spanish culture. Picasso himself certainly used these characters to play many different roles over time. This has made the task of interpreting the specific meaning of the bull and the horse very tough. Their relationship is a kind of ballet that was conceived in a variety of ways throughout Picasso's career."

Some critics warn against trusting the polital message in Guernica. For instance the rampaging bull, a major motif of destruction here, has previouse figured, whether as a bull or Minotaur, as Picasso' ego. However, in this instance the bull probably represents the onslaught of Fascism. Picasso said it meant brutality and darkness, presumably reminiscent of his prophetic. He also stated that the horse represented the people of Guernica.

Historical context

Guernica is a town in the province of Biscay in Basque Country. During the Spanish Civil War, it was regarded as the northern bastion of the Republican resistance movement and the epicenter of Basque culture, adding to its significance as a target.

The Republican forces were made up of assorted factions (Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, to name a few) with wildly differing approaches to government and eventual aims, but a common opposition to the Nationalists. The Nationalists, led by General Francisco Franco, were also factionalized but to a lesser extent. They sought a return to the golden days of Spain, based on law, order, and traditional Catholic family values.

At about 16:30 on Monday, 26 April 1937, warplanes of the German Condor Legion, commanded by Colonel Wolfram von Richthofen, bombed Guernica for about two hours. Germany, at this time led by Hitler, had lent material support to the Nationalists and were using the war as an opportunity to test out new weapons and tactics. Later, intense aerial bombardment became a crucial preliminary step in the Blitzkrieg tactic.

60

After the bombing, Picasso was made aware of what had gone on in his country of origin. At the time, he was working on a mural for the Paris Exhibition to be held in the summer of 1937, commissioned by the Spanish Republican government. He deserted his original idea and on 1 May 1937, began on Guernica. This captivated his imagination unlike his previous idea, on which he had been working somewhat dispassionately, for a couple of months. It is interesting to note, however, that at its unveiling at the Paris Exhibition that summer, it garnered little attention. It would later attain its power as such a potent symbol of the destruction of war on innocent lives.

Understanding Picasso, How To Read Guernica? - Smart Art History #5 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0YiuOI1lcg

Watch from 2:30 until 8:15 (this is Mr. Wood’s favorite painting, could also be on a MC question)

Thích Quảng ĐứcFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thích Quảng Đức (1897—11 June 1963, born Lâm Văn Túc), was a Vietnamese Mahayana Buddhist monk who burned himself to death at a busy Saigon road intersection on 11 June 1963.[1] Quang Duc was protesting the persecution of Buddhists by the South Vietnamese government led by Ngô Đình Diệm. Photographs of his self-immolation were circulated widely across the world and brought attention to the policies of the Diệm government. John F. Kennedy said in reference to a photograph of Đức on fire, "No news picture in history has generated so much emotion around the world as that one."[2] Malcolm Browne won a Pulitzer Prize for his photograph of the monk's death.[3][4]

Quảng Đức's act increased international pressure on Diệm and led him to announce reforms with the intention of mollifying the Buddhists. However, the promised reforms were not implemented, leading to a deterioration in the dispute. With protests continuing, the ARVN Special Forces loyal to Diệm's brother, Ngô Đình Nhu, launched nationwide raids on Buddhist pagodas, seizing Quảng Đức's heart and causing deaths and widespread damage. Several Buddhist monks followed Quảng Đức's example, also immolating themselves. Eventually, an Army coup toppled Diệm, who was assassinated on 2 November 1963.

Self-immolation[edit]

61

Religious background[edit]Main article: Huế Phật Đản shootings

In a country where surveys of the religious composition at the time estimated the Buddhist majority to be between 70 and 90 percent,[9][10][11][12]President Diệm was a member of the Catholic minority, and pursued discriminatory policies favoring Catholics for public service and military promotions, as well as in the allocation of land, business arrangements and tax concessions.[13] Diệm once told a high-ranking officer, forgetting that the officer was from a Buddhist family, "Put your Catholic officers in sensitive places. They can be trusted." [14] Many officers in the Army of the Republic of Vietnam converted to Roman Catholicism as their military prospects depended on it. [14] Additionally, the distribution of firearms to village self-defense militias saw weapons given only to Roman Catholics, with some Buddhists in the army being denied promotion if they refused to convert to Roman Catholicism. [15]

Some Roman Catholic priests ran their own private armies,[16] and there were forced conversions and looting, shelling, and demolition of pagodas in some areas, to which the government turned a blind eye. [17] Some Buddhist villages converted en masse to receive aid or avoid being forcibly resettled by Diệm's regime.[18] The "private" status that was imposed on Buddhism by the French, which required official permission to be obtained by those wishing to conduct public Buddhist activities, was not repealed by Diệm.[19] Catholics were also de facto exempt from corvée labor, which the government obliged all citizens to perform, and United States aid was distributed disproportionately to Catholic majority villages by Diệm's regime.[20]

The Roman Catholic Church was the largest landowner in the country and enjoyed special exemptions in property acquisition, and land owned by the Roman Catholic Church was exempt from land reform.[21] The white and gold Vatican flag was regularly flown at all major public events in South Vietnam,[22] and Diệm dedicated his country to the Virgin Mary in 1959.[20]

Buddhist discontent erupted following a ban in early May on flying the Buddhist flag in Huế on Vesak, the birthday of Gautama Buddha. Just days before, Catholics had been encouraged to fly the Vatican flag at a celebration for Archbishop Ngô Đình Thục of Huế, Diệm's elder brother. A large crowd of Buddhists protested the ban, defying the government by flying Buddhist flags on the Buddhist holy day of Vesak and marching on the government broadcasting station. Government forces fired into the crowd of protesters, killing nine people. Diệm's refusal to take responsibility — he blamed the Viet Cong for the deaths — led to further Buddhist protests and calls for religious equality.[23]As Diem remained unwilling to comply with Buddhist demands, the frequency of protests increased.

Thích Quảng Đức had formed a suicide pact with a colleague in North Vietnam who subsequently carried out his pledge in protest of North Vietnamese mistreatment of Buddhists. Once the South Vietnamese Buddhist crisis began, Đức was urged by several fellow monks and the leaders of the Buddhist protests to fulfill his part of the pact.[24]

62

Day of the act[edit]

Journalist Malcolm Browne's photograph of Quảng Đức during his self-immolation; a similar photograph won the 1963 World

Press Photo of the Year.[25]

On 10 June 1963, U.S. correspondents were informed that "something important" would happen the following morning on the road outside the Cambodian embassy in Saigon.[26] Most of the reporters disregarded the message, since the Buddhist crisis had at that point been going on for more than a month, and the next day only a few journalists turned up, including David Halberstam of The New York Times and Malcolm Browne, the Saigon bureau chief for the Associated Press.[26] Đức arrived as part of a procession that had begun at a nearby pagoda. Around 350 monks and nuns marched in two phalanxes, preceded by an Austin Westminster sedan, carrying banners printed in both English and Vietnamese. They denounced the Diệm government and its policy towards Buddhists, demanding that it fulfill its promises of religious equality.[26] Another monk offered himself, but Đức's seniority prevailed.[3]

The act occurred at the intersection[b] of Phan Đình Phùng Boulevard (now Nguyễn Đình Chiểu Street) and Lê Văn Duyệt Street (now Cách Mạng Tháng Tám Street) a few blocks Southwest of the Presidential Palace (now the Reunification Palace). Đức emerged from the car along with two other monks. One placed a cushion on the road while the second opened the trunk and took out a five-gallon petrol can. As the marchers formed a circle around him, Đức calmly sat down in the traditional Buddhist meditative lotus position on the cushion. A colleague emptied the contents of the petrol container over Đức's head. Đức rotated a string of wooden prayer beads and recited the words Nam mô A Di Đà Phật ("Homage to Amitābha Buddha") before the colleague struck a match and dropped it on the petrol trail leading to Đức. Flames consumed his robes and flesh, and black oily smoke emanated from his burning body.[26][27]

Đức's last words before his self-immolation were documented in a letter he had left:

Before closing my eyes and moving towards the vision of the Buddha, I respectfully plead to President Ngô Đình Diệm to take a mind of compassion towards the people of the nation and implement religious equality to maintain the strength of the homeland eternally. I call the venerables, reverends, members of the sangha and the lay Buddhists to organize in solidarity to make sacrifices to protect Buddhism. [6]

David Halberstam wrote:

I was to see that sight again, but once was enough. Flames were coming from a human being; his body was slowly withering and shriveling up, his head blackening and charring. In the air was the smell of burning human flesh; human beings burn surprisingly quickly. Behind me I could hear the sobbing of the Vietnamese who were now gathering. I was too shocked to cry, too confused to take notes or ask questions, too bewildered to even think ... As

63

he burned he never moved a muscle, never uttered a sound, his outward composure in sharp contrast to the wailing people around him.[28]

The spectators were mostly stunned into silence, but some wailed and several began praying. Many of the monks and nuns, as well as some shocked passersby, prostrated themselves before the burning monk. Even some of the policemen, who had orders to control the gathered crowd, prostrated before him. [3]

In English and Vietnamese, a monk repeated into a microphone, "A Buddhist priest burns himself to death. A Buddhist priest becomes a martyr." After approximately ten minutes, Đức's body was fully immolated and it eventually toppled backwards onto its back. Once the fire subsided, a group of monks covered the smoking corpse with yellow robes, picked it up and tried to fit it into a coffin, but the limbs could not be straightened and one of the arms protruded from the wooden box as he was carried to the nearby Xá Lợi Pagoda in central Saigon. Outside the pagoda, students unfurled bilingual banners which read: "A Buddhist priest burns himself for our five requests."[26]

By 1:30 pm, around one thousand monks had congregated inside to hold a meeting while outside a large crowd of pro-Buddhist students had formed a human barrier around it. The meeting soon ended and all but a hundred monks slowly left the compound. Nearly one thousand monks, accompanied by laypeople, returned to the cremation site. The police lingered nearby. At around 6:00 pm, thirty nuns and six monks were arrested for holding a prayer meeting on the street outside Xá Lợi. The police encircled the pagoda, blocking public passage and giving observers the impression that an armed siege was imminent by donning riot gear. [29]

Thich Quang Duc Self-Immolation- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCEWSSVjrTw

This is incredibly hard to watch, if you do not want to or feel like stopping it I understand.

Nelson Mandela and the Anti-Apartheid Movement

Watch the following video/lecture from Mr. Wood’s website Apartheid Explained- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7yvnUz2PLE

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website Nelson Mandela - Mini Biography- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqoYmx_L-Xs

64

Nelson Mandela Biography- http://www.biography.com/people/nelson-mandela-9397017

Nelson Mandela became the first black president of South Africa in 1994, serving until 1999. A symbol of global peacemaking, he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993.

QUOTES

“I hate race discrimination most intensely and in all its manifestations. I have fought it all during my life; I fight it now, and will do so until the end of my days.” —Nelson Mandela

Mandela's Imprisonment

A few weeks after Mandela returned home, Regent Jongintaba announced that he had arranged a marriage for his adopted son. The regent wanted to make sure that Mandela's life was properly planned, and the arrangement was within his right, as tribal custom dictated. Shocked by the news, feeling trapped and believing that he had no other option than to follow this recent order, Mandela ran away from home. He settled in Johannesburg, where he worked a variety of jobs, including as a guard and a clerk, while completing his bachelor's degree via correspondence courses. He then enrolled at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg to study law.

Mandela soon became actively involved in the anti-apartheid movement, joining the African National Congress in 1942. Within the ANC, a small group of young Africans banded together, calling themselves the African National Congress Youth League. Their goal was to transform the ANC into a mass grassroots movement, deriving strength from millions of rural peasants and working people who had no voice under the current regime. Specifically, the group believed that the ANC's old tactics of polite petitioning were ineffective. In 1949, the ANC officially adopted the Youth League's methods of boycott, strike, civil disobedience and non-cooperation, with policy goals of full citizenship, redistribution of land, trade union rights, and free and compulsory education for all children.

For 20 years, Mandela directed peaceful, nonviolent acts of defiance against the South African government and its racist policies, including the 1952 Defiance Campaign and the 1955 Congress of the People. He founded the law firm Mandela and Tambo, partnering with Oliver Tambo, a brilliant student he'd met while attending Fort Hare. The law firm provided free and low-cost legal counsel to unrepresented blacks.

In 1956, Mandela and 150 others were arrested and charged with treason for their political advocacy (they were eventually acquitted). Meanwhile, the ANC was being challenged by Africanists, a new breed of black activists who believed that the pacifist method of the ANC was ineffective. Africanists soon broke away to form the Pan-Africanist Congress, which negatively affected the ANC; by 1959, the movement had lost much of its militant support.

In 1961, Mandela, who was formerly committed to nonviolent protest, began to believe that armed struggle was the only way to achieve change. He subsequently co-founded Umkhonto we Sizwe, also known as MK, an armed offshoot of the ANC dedicated to sabotage and guerilla war tactics to end apartheid. In 1961, Mandela orchestrated a three-day national workers' strike. He was arrested

65

for leading the strike the following year, and was sentenced to five years in prison. In 1963, Mandela was brought to trial again. This time, he and 10 other ANC leaders were sentenced to life imprisonment for political offenses, including sabotage.

Nelson Mandela was incarcerated on Robben Island for 18 of his 27 years in prison. During this time, he contracted tuberculosis and, as a black political prisoner, received the lowest level of treatment from prison workers. However, while incarcerated, Mandela was able to earn a Bachelor of Law degree through a University of London correspondence program.

A 1981 memoir by South African intelligence agent Gordon Winter described a plot by the South African government to arrange for Mandela's escape so as to shoot him during the recapture; the plot was foiled by British intelligence. Mandela continued to be such a potent symbol of black resistance that a coordinated international campaign for his release was launched, and this international groundswell of support exemplified the power and esteem that Mandela had in the global political community.

In 1982, Mandela and other ANC leaders were moved to Pollsmoor Prison, allegedly to enable contact between them and the South African government. In 1985, President P.W. Botha offered Mandela's release in exchange for renouncing armed struggle; the prisoner flatly rejected the offer. With increasing local and international pressure for his release, the government participated in several talks with Mandela over the ensuing years, but no deal was made. It wasn't until Botha suffered a stroke and was replaced by Frederik Willem de Klerk that Mandela's release was finally announced—on February 11, 1990. De Klerk also unbanned the ANC, removed restrictions on political groups and suspended executions.

Prison Release and Presidency

Upon his release from prison, Nelson Mandela immediately urged foreign powers not to reduce their pressure on the South African government for constitutional reform. While he stated that he was committed to working toward peace, he declared that the ANC's armed struggle would continue until the black majority received the right to vote.

In 1991, Mandela was elected president of the African National Congress, with lifelong friend and colleague Oliver Tambo serving as national chairperson. Mandela continued to negotiate with President F.W. de Klerk toward the country's first multiracial elections. White South Africans were willing to share power, but many black South Africans wanted a complete transfer of power. The negotiations were often strained and news of violent eruptions, including the assassination of ANC leader Chris Hani, continued throughout the country. Mandela had to keep a delicate balance of political pressure and intense negotiations amid the demonstrations and armed resistance.

In 1993, Mandela and President de Klerk were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their work toward dismantling apartheid. And due in no small part to their work, negotiations between black and white South Africans prevailed: On April 27, 1994, South Africa held its first democratic elections. Nelson Mandela was inaugurated as the country's first black president on May 10, 1994, at the age of 77, with de Klerk as his first deputy.

Also in 1994, Mandela published an autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom, much of which he had secretly written while in prison. The following year, he was awarded the Order of Merit.

66

From 1994 until June 1999, Mandela worked to bring about the transition from minority rule and apartheid to black majority rule. He used the nation's enthusiasm for sports as a pivot point to promote reconciliation between whites and blacks, encouraging black South Africans to support the once-hated national rugby team. In 1995, South Africa came to the world stage by hosting the Rugby World Cup, which brought further recognition and prestige to the young republic.

Mandela also worked to protect South Africa's economy from collapse during his presidency. Through his Reconstruction and Development Plan, the South African government funded the creation of jobs, housing and basic health care. In 1996, Mandela signed into law a new constitution for the nation, establishing a strong central government based on majority rule, and guaranteeing both the rights of minorities and the freedom of expression.

Retirement and Later Career

By the 1999 general election, Nelson Mandela had retired from active politics. He continued to maintain a busy schedule, however, raising money to build schools and clinics in South Africa's rural heartland through his foundation, and serving as a mediator in Burundi's civil war. He also published a number of books on his life and struggles, among them No Easy Walk to Freedom; Nelson Mandela: The Struggle is my Life; and Nelson Mandela's Favorite African Folktales.

On July 18, 2007, Mandela convened a group of world leaders, including Graca Machel (whom Mandela wed in 1998), Desmond Tutu, Kofi Annan, Ela Bhatt, Gro Harlem Brundtland, Jimmy Carter, Li Zhaoxing, Mary Robinson and Muhammad Yunus, to address some of the world's toughest issues. Aiming to work both publicly and privately to find solutions to problems around the globe, the group was aptly named "The Elders." The Elders' impact has spanned Asia, the Middle East and Africa, and their actions have included promoting peace and women's equality, demanding an end to atrocities, and supporting initiatives to address humanitarian crises and promote democracy.

In addition to advocating for peace and equality on both a national and global scale, in his later years, Mandela remained committed to the fight against AIDS—a disease that killed Mandela's son, Makgatho, in 2005.

Resistance to Racial Prejudice in the Untied States

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website - Martin Luther King, Jr. - Mini Bio- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ank52Zi_S0

67

Martin Luther King Jr. Biography- http://www.biography.com/people/martin-luther-king-jr-9365086

Civil Rights Activist, Minister(1929–1968)

Martin Luther King Jr. was a Baptist minister and social activist, who led the Civil Rights Movement in the United States from the mid-1950s until his death by assassination in 1968.

Montgomery Bus Boycott

On March 2, 1955, a 15-year-old girl refused to give up her seat to a white man on a Montgomery city bus in violation of local law. Claudette Colvin was arrested and taken to jail. At first, the local chapter of the NAACP felt they had an excellent test case to challenge Montgomery's segregated bus policy. But then it was revealed that she was pregnant and civil rights leaders feared this would scandalize the deeply religious black community and make Colvin (and, thus the group's efforts) less credible in the eyes of sympathetic whites.

On December 1, 1955, they got another chance to make their case. That evening, 42-year-old Rosa Parks boarded the Cleveland Avenue bus to go home from an exhausting day at work. She sat in the first row of the "colored" section in the middle of the bus. As the bus traveled its route, all the seats it the white section filled up, then several more white passengers boarded the bus. The bus driver noted that there were several white men standing and demanded that Parks and several other African Americans give up their seats. Three other African American passengers reluctantly gave up their places, but Parks remained seated. The driver asked her again to give up her seat and again she refused. Parks was arrested and booked for violating the Montgomery City Code. At her trial a week later, in a 30-minute hearing, Parks was found guilty and fined $10 and assessed $4 court fee.

On the night that Rosa Parks was arrested, E.D. Nixon, head of the local NAACP chapter met with Martin Luther King Jr. and other local civil rights leaders to plan a citywide bus boycott. King was elected to lead the boycott because he was young, well-trained with solid family connections and had professional standing. But he was also new to the community and had few enemies, so it was felt he would have strong credibility with the black community.

In his first speech as the group's president, King declared, "We have no alternative but to protest. For many years we have shown an amazing patience. We have sometimes given our white brothers the feeling that we liked the way we were being treated. But we come here tonight to be saved from that patience that makes us patient with anything less than freedom and justice."

Martin Luther King Jr.'s fresh and skillful rhetoric put a new energy into the civil rights struggle in Alabama. The bus boycott would be 382 days of walking to work, harassment, violence and intimidation for the Montgomery's African-American community. Both King's and E.D. Nixon's homes were attacked. But the African-American community also took legal action against the city ordinance arguing that it was unconstitutional based on the Supreme Court's "separate is never equal" decision in Brown v. Board of Education. After being defeated in several lower court rulings and suffering large financial losses, the city of Montgomery lifted the law mandating segregated public transportation.

68

The Southern Christian Leadership Conference

Flush with victory, African-American civil rights leaders recognized the need for a national organization to help coordinate their efforts. In January 1957, Martin Luther King Jr., Ralph Abernathy, and 60 ministers and civil rights activists founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference to harness the moral authority and organizing power of black churches. They would help conduct non-violent protests to promote civil rights reform. King's participation in the organization gave him a base of operation throughout the South, as well as a national platform. The organization felt the best place to start to give African Americans a voice was to enfranchise them in the voting process. In February 1958, the SCLC sponsored more than 20 mass meetings in key southern cities to register black voters in the South. King met with religious and civil rights leaders and lectured all over the country on race-related issues.

In 1959, with the help of the American Friends Service Committee, and inspired by Gandhi's success with non-violent activism, Martin Luther King visited Gandhi's birthplace in India. The trip affected him in a deeply profound way, increasing his commitment to America's civil rights struggle. African-American civil rights activist Bayard Rustin, who had studied Gandhi's teachings, became one of King's associates and counseled him to dedicate himself to the principles of non-violence. Rustin served as King's mentor and advisor throughout his early activism and was the main organizer of the 1963 March on Washington. But Rustin was also a controversial figure at the time, being a homosexual with alleged ties to the Communist Party, USA. Though his counsel was invaluable to King, many of his other supporters urged him to distance himself from Rustin.

In February 1960, a group of African-American students began what became known as the "sit-in" movement in Greensboro, North Carolina. The students would sit at racially segregated lunch counters in the city's stores. When asked to leave or sit in the colored section, they just remained seated, subjecting themselves to verbal and sometimes physical abuse. The movement quickly gained traction in several other cities. In April 1960, the SCLC held a conference at Shaw University in Raleigh, North Carolina with local sit-in leaders. Martin Luther King Jr. encouraged students to continue to use nonviolent methods during their protests. Out of this meeting, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee formed and for a time, worked closely with the SCLC. By August of 1960, the sit-ins had been successful in ending segregation at lunch counters in 27 southern cities.

By 1960, Martin Luther King Jr. was gaining national notoriety. He returned to Atlanta to become co-pastor with his father at Ebenezer Baptist Church, but also continued his civil rights efforts. On October 19, 1960, King and 75 students entered a local department store and requested lunch-counter service but were denied. When they refused to leave the counter area, King and 36 others were arrested. Realizing the incident would hurt the city's reputation, Atlanta's mayor negotiated a truce and charges were eventually dropped. But soon after, King was imprisoned for violating his probation on a traffic conviction. The news of his imprisonment entered the 1960 presidential campaign, when candidate John F. Kennedy made a phone call to Coretta Scott King. Kennedy expressed his concern for King's harsh treatment for the traffic ticket and political pressure was quickly set in motion. King was soon released.

69

'I Have a Dream'

In the spring of 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. organized a demonstration in downtown Birmingham, Alabama. Entire families attended. City police turned dogs and fire hoses on demonstrators. Martin Luther King was jailed along with large numbers of his supporters, but the event drew nationwide attention. However, King was personally criticized by black and white clergy alike for taking risks and endangering the children who attended the demonstration. From the jail in Birmingham, King eloquently spelled out his theory of non-violence: "Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community, which has constantly refused to negotiate, is forced to confront the issue."

By the end of the Birmingham campaign, Martin Luther King Jr. and his supporters were making plans for a massive demonstration on the nation's capital composed of multiple organizations, all asking for peaceful change. On August 28, 1963, the historic March on Washington drew more than 200,000 people in the shadow of the Lincoln Memorial. It was here that King made his famous "I Have a Dream" speech, emphasizing his belief that someday all men could be brothers.

"I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."  — Martin Luther King, Jr. / "I Have A Dream" speech, August 28, 1963

The rising tide of civil rights agitation produced a strong effect on public opinion. Many people in cities not experiencing racial tension began to question the nation's Jim Crow laws and the near century second class treatment of African-American citizens. This resulted in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 authorizing the federal government to enforce desegregation of public accommodations and outlawing discrimination in publicly owned facilities. This also led to Martin Luther King receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for 1964.

King's struggle continued throughout the 1960s. Often, it seemed as though the pattern of progress was two steps forward and one step back. On March 7, 1965, a civil rights march, planned from Selma to Alabama's capital in Montgomery, turned violent as police with nightsticks and tear gas met the demonstrators as they tried to cross the Edmond Pettus Bridge. King was not in the march, however the attack was televised showing horrifying images of marchers being bloodied and severely injured. Seventeen demonstrators were hospitalized leading to the naming the event "Bloody Sunday." A second march was cancelled due to a restraining order to prevent the march from taking place. A third march was planned and this time King made sure he was on it. Not wanting to alienate southern judges by violating the restraining order, a different tact was taken. On March 9, 1965, a procession of 2,500 marchers, both black and white, set out once again to cross the Pettus Bridge and confronted barricades and state troopers. Instead of forcing a confrontation, King led his followers to kneel in prayer and they then turned back. The event caused King the loss of support among some younger African-American leaders, but it nonetheless aroused support for the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

From late 1965 through 1967, Martin Luther King Jr. expanded his Civil Rights Movement into other larger American cities, including Chicago and Los Angeles. But he met with increasing criticism and public challenges from young black-power leaders. King's patient, non-violent approach and appeal to white middle-class citizens alienated many black militants who considered his methods too weak and too late. In the eyes of the sharp-tongued, blue jean young urban

70

black, King's manner was irresponsibly passive and deemed non-effective. To address this criticism King began making a link between discrimination and poverty. He expanded his civil rights efforts to the Vietnam War. He felt that America's involvement in Vietnam was politically untenable and the government's conduct of the war discriminatory to the poor. He sought to broaden his base by forming a multi-race coalition to address economic and unemployment problems of all disadvantaged people.

Assassination and Legacy

By 1968, the years of demonstrations and confrontations were beginning to wear on Martin Luther King Jr. He had grown tired of marches, going to jail, and living under the constant threat of death. He was becoming discouraged at the slow progress civil rights in America and the increasing criticism from other African-American leaders. Plans were in the works for another march on Washington to revive his movement and bring attention to a widening range of issues. In the spring of 1968, a labor strike by Memphis sanitation workers drew King to one last crusade. On April 3, in what proved to be an eerily prophetic speech, he told supporters, "I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight that we, as a people, will get to the promised land." The next day, while standing on a balcony outside his room at the Lorraine Motel, Martin Luther King Jr. was struck by a sniper's bullet. The shooter, a malcontent drifter and former convict named James Earl Ray, was eventually apprehended after a two-month, international manhunt. The killing sparked riots and demonstrations in more than 100 cities across the country. In 1969, Ray pleaded guilty to assassinating King and was sentenced to 99 years in prison. He died in prison on April 23, 1998.

Martin Luther King Jr.'s life had a seismic impact on race relations in the United States. Years after his death, he is the most widely known African-American leader of his era. His life and work have been honored with a national holiday, schools and public buildings named after him, and a memorial on Independence Mall in Washington, D.C. But his life remains controversial as well. In the 1970s, FBI files, released under the Freedom of Information Act, revealed that he was under government surveillance, and suggested his involvement in adulterous relationships and communist influences. Over the years, extensive archival studies have led to a more balanced and comprehensive assessment of his life, portraying him as a complex figure: flawed, fallible and limited in his control over the mass movements with which he was associated, yet a visionary leader who was deeply committed to achieving social justice through nonviolent means.

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website- Mahatma Gandhi Biographyh https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ept8hwPQQNg You have seen this before- I put his here because Gandhi also fits with Non-Violent, peaceful resistance

71

Tiananmen Square Protests in ChinaWatch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website- What Happened in Tiananmen Square?- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdhVe2MmPbE

Watch the following video from Mr. Wood’s website- Tank Man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEd86ino9aIBegin taking note at 4:00- 11:30

What happened in June of 1989 at Tiananmen Square?

What happened on June 5th 1989 with the “Tank Man?”

- What effect did this man have?

11:30- 14:30- How did these protest begin and what were people protesting against and what did they want?

72

14:30- 15:35 -Why was it such a big deal when workers got more involved in the protest, instead of just being student led?

15:50- 19:40- What happened when troops were first brought in to Tiananmen Square?

19:40 – 32:40 - How did the Chinese army come in the second time in Tiananmen Square on June 3rd, 1989 and what was the result?

32:40- 35:30 What happened the next day on June 4th, 1989?

35:30 –36:50- What were the results of the Tiananmen massacre?

73

SAQ #

The world is getting more connected through technology and travel. Cuisines are evolving. Some people are scared of globalization, but I think people will always take pride in cultural heritage.

-John Mackey

a. a. Provide ONE Piece of historical evidence that would support Mackey’s argument about culture and globalization in the 20th and early 21st Century.

Part VIII- Transnational movements of Unity

Pan-AfricanismFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pan-Africanism is a worldwide intellectual movement that aims to encourage and strengthen bonds of solidarity between all people of African descent. Based upon a common fate going back to the Atlantic slave trade, the movement extends beyond continental Africans, with a substantial support base amongst the African diaspora in the Caribbean and the United States.[1] It is based on the belief that unity is vital to economic, social, and political progress and aims to "unify and uplift" people of African descent.[2] The ideology asserts that the fate of all African peoples and countries are intertwined. At its core Pan-Africanism is "a belief that African peoples, both on the continent and in the diaspora, share not merely a common history, but a common destiny".[3]

The Organization of African Unity (now the African Union) was established in 1963 to safeguard the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its Member States and to promote global relations within the framework of the United Nations.[4] The African Union Commission has its seat in Addis Ababa and the Pan-African Parliament has its seat in Johannesburg and Midrand.

Pan-Africanism stresses the need for "collective self-reliance".[5] Pan-Africanism exists as a governmental and grassroots objective. Pan-African advocates include leaders such as Haile Selassie, Julius Nyerere, Ahmed Sekou Toure, Kwame Nkrumah and Muammar Gaddafi, grassroots organizers such as Marcus Garvey and Malcolm X, academics such as W. E. B. Du Bois, and others in the diaspora.[6][7][8]Solidarity will enable self-reliance, allowing the continent's potential to independently provide for its people to be fulfilled. Crucially, an all-African alliance would empower African people globally.

The realization of the Pan-African objective would lead to "power consolidation in Africa", which "would compel a reallocation of global resources, as well as unleashing a fiercer psychological energy and political assertion...that would unsettle social and political (power) structures...in the Americas".[9][page needed] United, African nations will have the economic, political and social clout to act and compete on the world stage as do other large entities, such as the European Union and the United States.

Advocates of Pan-Africanism—i.e. "Pan-Africans" or "Pan-Africanists"—often champion socialist principles and tend to be opposed to external political and economic involvement on the continent. Critics accuse the ideology of homogenizing the experience of people of African descent. They also point to the difficulties of reconciling current divisions within countries on the continent and within communities in the diaspora. [9][page needed]

As a philosophy, Pan-Africanism represents the aggregation of the historical, cultural, spiritual, artistic, scientific, and philosophical legacies of Africans from past times to the present. Pan-Africanism as an ethical system traces its

74

origins from ancient times, and promotes values that are the product of the African civilizations and the struggles against slavery, racism, colonialism, and neo-colonialism.[6]

…Modern Pan-Africanism began around the start of the 20th century. The African Association, later renamed the Pan-African Association, was established around 1897 by Henry Sylvester-Williams, who organized the First Pan-African Conference in London in 1900.[11][12][13]

With the independence of Ghana in March 1957, Kwame Nkrumah was elected as the first Prime Minister and President of the State [14]. Nkrumah emerged as a major advocate for the unity of Independent Africa. The Ghanaian President embodied a political activist approach to pan-Africanism as he championed the “quest for regional integration of the whole of the African continent” [15]. This period represented a “Golden Age of high pan-African ambitions”; the Continent had experienced revolution and decolonization from Western powers and the narrative of rebirth and solidarity had gained momentum within the pan-African movement [16]. Nkrumah’s pan-African principles, intended for a union between the Independent African states, upon a recognition their commonality; suppression under imperialism. Pan-Africanism under Nkrumah evolved past the assumptions of a racially exclusive movement, associated with black Africa and had adopted a political discourse, of regional unity [17]

In April 1958, Nkrumah hosts, the first All-African People’s Conference (AAPC) in Accra, Ghana. The Conference invited delegates of political movements and major political leaders. With the exception of South Africa, all Independent States of the Continent attended: Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Liberia, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia and Sudan [18]. The Conference signified a monumental event in the pan-African movement, as it revealed a political and social union between the those considered Arabic states and the black African regions. Further, the Conference espoused a common African Nationalist identity, among the States, of unity and anti-Imperialism. Frantz Fanon, journalist, freedom fighter and a member of the Algerian, FLN Party attended the conference as a delegate for Algeria [19]. Considering the armed struggle of the FLN against French colonial rule, the attendees of the Conference agreed to support the struggle of those States under colonial oppression. This encouraged the commitment of direct involvement in the “emancipation of the Continent; thus, a fight against colonial pressures on South Africa was declared and the full support of the FLN struggle in Algeria, against French colonial rule” [20]. The years following 1958, Accra Conference also marked the establishment of a new foreign policy of non-alignment as between the US and USSR and the will to found an “African Identity” in global affairs by advocating a unity between the African States on international relations. “This would be based on the Bandung Declaration, the Charter of the UN and on loyalty to UN decisions” [21].

In 1959, Nkrumah, President Sékou Touré of Guinea and President William Tubman of Liberia met at Sanniquellie and signed the Sanniquellie Declaration outlining the principles for the achievement of the unity of Independent African States whilst maintaining a national identity and autonomous constitutional structure [22] [23]. The Declaration called for a revised understanding of pan-Africanism and the uniting of the Independent States. In 1960, the second All-African People’s Conference was held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia [24]. The membership of the All-African People’s Organisation (AAPO) had increased with the inclusion of the “Algerian Provisional Government (as they had not yet won independence), Cameroun, Guinea, Nigeria, Somalia and the United Arab Republic” [25]. The Conference highlighted diverging ideologies within the movement, as Nkrumah’s call for a political and economic union between the Independent African States gained little agreement. The disagreements following 1960 gave rise to two rival factions within the pan-African movement: the Casablanca Bloc and the Brazzaville Bloc [26].

In 1962, Algeria gained independence from French colonial rule and Ahmed Ben Bella assumed Presidency. Ben Bella was a strong advocate for pan-Africanism and an African Unity. Following the FLN’s armed struggle for liberation, Ben Bella spoke at the UN and espoused for Independent Africa’s role in providing military and financial support to the African liberation movements opposing apartheid and fighting Portuguese colonialism [27]. In search of a united voice, in 1963 at an African Summit conference in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 32 African States met and established the Organisation of African Unity (OAU). The creation of the OAU Charter took place at this Summit and

75

defines a coordinated “effort to raise the standard of living of member States and defend their sovereignty” by supporting freedom fighters and decolonisation [28]. Thus, was the formation of the African Liberation Committee (ALC), during the 1963 Summit. Championing the support of liberation movements, was Algeria’s President Ben Bella, immediately “donated 100 million francs to its finances and was one of the first countries, of the Organisation to boycott Portuguese and South African goods” [29].

In 1969, Algiers hosted the first Pan-African Cultural Festival, on July 21st and it continued for 10 days [30]. The festival attracted thousands from African states and the African Diaspora, including the Black Panthers. It symbolised the new pan-African identity, of regions with a shared experience of colonisation. The Festival further strengthened Algeria’s President, Boumediene’s standing in Africa and the Third World [31].

After the death of Kwame Nkrumah in 1972, Muammar Qaddafi assumed the mantle of leader of the Pan-Africanist movement and became the most outspoken advocate of African Unity, consistently calling – like Nkrumah before him – for the advent of a "United States of Africa".[32]

In the United States, the term is closely associated with Afrocentrism, an ideology of African-American identity politics that emerged during the civil rights movement of the 1960s to 1970s.[33]

MARCUS GARVEY- HTTP://WWW.HISTORY.COM/TOPICS/BLACK-HISTORY/MARCUS-GARVEY/PRINT

Born in Jamaica, Marcus Garvey (1887-1940) became a leader in the black nationalist movement by applying the economic ideas of Pan-Africanists to the immense resources available in urban centers. After arriving in New York in 1916, he founded the Negro World newspaper, an international shipping company called Black Star Line and the Negro Factories Corporation. During the 1920s, his Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) was the largest secular organization in African-American history. Indicted for mail fraud by the U.S. Justice Department in 1923, he spent two years in prison before being deported to Jamaica, and later died in London.

Born in Jamaica, Garvey aimed to organize blacks everywhere but achieved his greatest impact in the United States, where he tapped into and enhanced the growing black aspirations for justice, wealth, and a sense of community. During World War I and the 1920s, his Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) was the largest black secular organization in African-American history. Possibly a million men and women from the United States, the Caribbean, and Africa belonged to it.

Garvey came to New York in 1916 and concluded that the growing black communities in northern cities could provide the wealth and unity to end both imperialism in Africa and discrimination in the United States. He combined the economic nationalist ideas of Booker T. Washington and Pan-Africanists with the political possibilities and urban style of men and women living outside of plantation and colonial societies. Garvey’s ideas gestated amid the social upheavals, anticolonial movements, and revolutions of World War I, which demonstrated the power of popular mobilization to change entrenched structures of power.

Garvey’s goals were modern and urban. He sought to end imperialist rule and create modern societies in Africa, not, as his critics charged, to transport blacks ‘back to Africa.’ He knitted black communities on three continents with his newspaper the Negro World and in 1919 formed the Black Star Line, an international shipping company to provide transportation and encourage trade among the black businesses of Africa and the Americas. In the same year, he founded the Negro Factories Corporation to establish such businesses. In 1920 he presided over the first of several international conventions of the UNIA. Garvey sought to channel the new black militancy into one organization that could overcome class and national divisions.

76

Although local UNIA chapters provided many social and economic benefits for their members, Garvey’s main efforts failed: the Black Star Line suspended operations in 1922 and the other enterprises fared no better. Garvey’s ambition and determination to lead inevitably collided with associates and black leaders in other organizations. His verbal talent and flair for the dramatic attracted thousands, but his faltering projects only augmented ideological and personality conflicts. In the end, he could neither unite blacks nor accumulate enough power to significantly alter the societies the unia functioned in.

Finally, the Justice Department, animated by J. Edgar Hoover’s Federal Bureau of Investigation and sensing his growing weakness, indicted Garvey for mail fraud. He was convicted in 1923, imprisoned in 1925, and deported to Jamaica in 1927. Unable to resurrect the unia, he moved to London, where he died in 1940.

Garvey’s movement was the first black attempt to join modern urban goals and mass organization. Although most subsequent leaders did not try to create black economic institutions as he had, Garvey had demonstrated to them that the urban masses were a potentially powerful force in the struggle for black freedom.

The History of Pan Africanism - http://www.padeap.net/the-history-of-pan-africanism “Pan Africanism can be said to have its origins in the struggles of the African people against enslavement and colonisation” Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem (Pan Africanism: Politics, Economy and Social Change in the Twenty-first Century) And this struggle may be traced back to the first resistance on slave ships – rebellions and suicides – through the constant plantation and colonial uprisings and the “Back to Africa” movements of the nineteenth century.

However, it was in the twentieth century that Pan Africanism emerged as a distinct political movement initially formed and led by people from the Diaspora (people of African heritage living outside of the Continent). In 1900, the Trinindadian barrister – Henry Sylvester Williams – called a conference that took place in Westminster Hall, London to “protest stealing of lands in the colonies, racial discrimination and deal with other issues of interest to Blacks”.

This conference drafted a letter to the Queen of England and other European rulers appealing to them to fight racism and grant independence to their colonies. It was the African American scholar and writer, Dr W.E.B. Du Bois who convened the first Pan African Congress in 1919, in Paris, France. Again it demanded independence for African nations. Further congresses – essentially extended meetings of like-minded Africans searching for a way forward - were held in 1921 (London, Brussels, Paris), 1923 (London and Lisbon), 1927 (New York).

Each reiterated and refined the demands for rights and freedom and built support for the cause. However, perhaps the most significant was the 5th Congress held in Manchester in 1945. For the first time, a large number of Africans from the Continent were present and the meeting provided impetus and momentum for the numerous post-war independence movements.

This Congress also reserved the right of the colonised, once peaceful methods had been exhausted, to use force to take forward their struggle for self-determination. Just over a decade later in 1958, Kwame Nkrumah, first leader of independent Ghana called a meeting in the capital city, Accra, of all the independent African states – Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Tunisia, Liberia, Morocco and Ethiopia – in order that they should recommit themselves to supporting independence for the rest of the Continent.

By 1963, there were 31 independent nations. Some were agitating for immediate Continental political union while others favoured slower steps towards unity.

Emerging from the exchanges between the two camps, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) was formed in May, 1963. Throughout the twentieth century, cultural Pan Africanism weaved through the politcal narrative – the Harlem

77

Renaissance, Francophone philosophies of Negritude, Afrocentrism, Rastafarianism and Hip Hop. Artists of African origin and heritage have found inspiration in and been drawn to exploring and communicating their connections with the Continent.

Post-independence, a new generation of African writers – such as Chinua Achebe, Wole Soyinka, Bessie Head gave voice to issues that could be recognised throughout the Continent (links to other pages from the key words here). The 6th Pan African Congress in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania in 1974 took place fuelled by the radical Black movements sweeping the Diaspora espousing militant Black pride and fighting white domination with Black separatist organisation.

The Congress was attended by 52 delegations from Africa, the Caribbean, the Americas, Britain and the Pacific. Disappointed by the OAU's lack of engagement with the Diaspora, this Congress restated the global unity of Black peoples struggling for liberation.

Inspired by the principles of self-reliance being instituted by the Tanzanian president Julius Nyerere, many hoped also to give concrete support to the new wave of independence movements in Angola, Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau, Zimbabwe and South Africa – but the Congress was unable to create clear structures to enable such action.

The 7th and last Congress in Kampala, Uganda in 1994 sort to rectify this by setting up a permanent organisational structure to carry forward decisions taken at the Congress meetings. Still, divisions and debates remained – was Pan Africanism a movement of the people or had it now been taken over by governments, were Black Africans of Sub-Saharan origin the only true Africans? Pan Africanism is no different from any other broad based and passionate political movement.

It contains diverse and sometimes opposing opinions about the best way to fulfill the common objective of the self-determination of Africa and African peoples around the world. The 7th Congress aimed to reconcile differences and create a wide and open coalition of all citizens of African countries and Diasporic people of African heritage who wished to commit themselves to the liberation of the Continent and the Diaspora.

There have been no further congresses but Pan Africanism remains a vital force in Continental and Diasporic culture and politics.

Read and take notes from the following site- Pan-Arabism http://www.britannica.com/topic/Pan-Arabism

Pan-Arabism, Nationalist notion of cultural and political unity among Arab countries. Its origins lie in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when increased literacy led to a cultural and literary renaissance among Arabs of the Middle East. This contributed to political agitation and led to the independence of most Arab states from the Ottoman Empire (1918) and from the European powers (by the mid-20th century). An important event was the founding in 1943 of the Baʿth Party, which formed branches in several countries and became the ruling party in Syria and Iraq. Another was the founding of the Arab League in 1945. Pan-Arabism’s most charismatic and effective proponent was Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser. After Nasser’s death, Syria’s Ḥāfiẓ al-Assad, Iraq’s Ṣaddām Ḥussein, and Libya’s Muammar al-Qaddafi tried to assume the mantle of Arab leadership.

78

Migration of Former Colonial Subjects to major cities of Former Imperial Powers

Post 1947 migration to the UK - from India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri LankaSouth Asian migrants to the UK after 1947 come from different countries and for different reasons - to escape civil war, to seek better economic opportunities and to join family members already settled here. In spite of facing discrimination in Britain, these migrants have settled in the UK, and  through their struggles for workers’ rights and civil rights many have contributed to the political, economic and social life of the UK.

Migration to the UK from Punjab, India

The ties between the British and the Punjab region of India go back a long way. From 1857 onwards many Punjabis served in the British army.  Sikh soldiers who served in elite regiments, were often sent to other colonies of the British Empire, and saw active service in both world wars. There is a memorial in Sussex which honours the Sikh soldiers who died in WW1.

Britain’s labour shortages shaped the post-war migration patterns from the subcontinent. It was primarily men from middle-ranking peasant families in Punjab, particularly those who had been previously employed in the colonial army or the police force and their relatives, who took up this opportunity.

These Punjabi migrants found work in the manufacturing, textile and the service sectors, including a significant number at Heathrow Airport in West London. After the Commonwealth Immigrants Act was passed in 1962 which restricted the free movement of workers from the Commonwealth, most workers from South Asia  decided to settle in the UK and were eventually joined by  their families.

Migration to the UK from Mirpur, Pakistan

A large majority of Pakistani migrants in the UK originate from Mirpur in Kashmir, which has a long history of out-migration. Sailors from Mirpur found work as engine-room stokers on British ships sailing out of Bombay and Karachi, some of whom settled in the UK in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Pakistani migrants  who came to Britain after the war found employment in the textile industries of Lancashire, Yorkshire, Manchester and Bradford, cars and engineering factories in the  West Midlands, and Birmingham, and  growing light industrial estates in places like Luton and Slough.  After the Mangla dam was building 1966 which submerged large parts of the Mirpur district, emigration from that area accelerated.

Other groups who migrated from Pakistan in the 1960s include Punjabis who mainly settled in

79

Glasgow, Birmingham and Southall in London, and migrants from urban areas who were more likely to be professionals and who worked for the NHS.

Migration to the UK from Sylhet, Bangladesh

Bangladeshi migration to the UK also has a long history.  Sailors (lascars) from the Sylhet region in Bangladesh arrived on ships through the 18th and 19th century, some of whom settled in the UK. However, large scale Bangladeshi settlement in the UK is a more recent phenomenon compared to that of other South Asian communities.

When India gained its independence from British rule, the country was partitioned creating a new state of Pakistan. Pakistan comprised of two territories divided by a thousand miles - the present day Pakistan, which was then known as East Pakistan, and the present day Bangladesh, which was then West Pakistan. There was a civil war between East and West in 1970-71, which resulted in the creation of Bangladesh in 1971.

Most Bangladeshi families in the UK in the present time are the result of large scale migration in the early 1970s from the Sylhet region of Bangladesh, as people fled from the civil unrest in their homeland, to seek a better life in Britain. They settled in the East London boroughs, which had previously been home to waves of immigrants such as Jewish migrants from Eastern Europe escaping persecution before WWI, and others who fled Nazi Germany and Austria in the 1930s.  Bangladeshi men initially found work in the steel and textile mills across England, but when these industries collapsed, they turned to small businesses including tailoring and catering.  Many found work in the growing number of “Indian” restaurants and takeaways in the UK, most of which are actually owned by Bangladeshis.

Migration from Sri Lanka

During the 1960s and 70s, small numbers of professionals emigrated to the UK from Sri Lanka (known as Ceylon till 1972), and found work in the NHS and other white-collar occupations. These early migrants came from affluent backgrounds, were well-educated and have become established in British society.

The next distinctive phase of Sri Lankan migration to the UK occurred from the 1980s onwards, during the civil war in Sri Lanka. A large number of Tamil Sri Lankans sought asylum in the UK. These migrants were from less affluent backgrounds, but like most who make a journey to the West, they were by no means from the poorest sections of their society.  Many Tamils from

80

poor backgrounds sought refuge in neighbouring India to escape state persecution. 70% of people of Sri Lankan origin live in London, 20% in the Midlands and the rest in other parts of the UK. Many Tamils in the UK have found employment in small businesses, including grocery shops and newsagents, with increasing numbers setting up their own business.

Take notes on the following Prezi- Algeria to France Migration - https://prezi.com/yvyn7auxwfiq/algeria-to-france-migration/

Filipino Immigrants in the United States- http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/filipino-immigrants-united-states

JULY 21, 2015

SPOTLIGHT

By Keith McNamara and Jeanne Batalova

The Philippines was the fourth largest country of origin of immigrants in the United States in 2013. (Photo: Marianne Masculino)

Filipino immigrants constitute one of the largest foreign-born groups in the United States. Since 1990, the Philippines has been consistently among the top five countries of origin, and was the fourth largest in 2013, accounting for 4.5 percent of the 41.3 million total immigrant population in the United States.

81

Three major waves characterize the history of Filipino immigration to the United States. Following the U.S. annexation of the Philippines in 1899, the United States began sponsoring select Filipino students to study at U.S. colleges and universities. Over the next three decades, increasing numbers of Filipinos migrated to the western part of the country, largely California and Hawaii (then a U.S. territory), to fill agricultural labor shortages once occupied by Chinese and Japanese laborers. Filipino migration was made easier by their status as U.S. nationals, as they were not subject to the restrictions faced by other non-European groups in the early 20th century.By 1934, Filipino migration to the United States slowed dramatically due to both the Great Depression and the passing of the Tydings-McDuffie Act. The act, which committed the U.S. to grant Philippine independence by 1945, also placed unprecedented quotas on immigration from the islands to only 50 per year. By 1945, many in the United States viewed Filipinos as loyal allies in World War II, and the quotas were doubled in 1946 (to 100 per year).

The second wave of Filipino immigration began in the aftermath of World War II. Many more than 100 Filipinos arrived annually outside the quota, primarily as “war brides” to U.S. servicemen and as recruits into the U.S. armed forces, particularly the U.S. Navy. In addition, an increasing number of Filipinos arrived in the United States to train as nurses and other health-care workers. While the postwar period saw a modest influx of Filipinos, particularly higher-educated professionals, their numbers grew considerably in the third major wave of immigration after 1965.

The Filipino immigrant community in the United States jumped from 105,000 in 1960 (1.1 percent of all immigrants) to 1,844,000 in 2013 (4.5 percent). Some of this increase is a direct result of the Immigration and Nationality Act’s removal of the national-origin system in 1965, but some is also related to long-established governmental and business relationships between the two countries, economic and educational opportunities in the United States, and a general culture of migration in the Philippines that encourages and helps facilitate both labor migration to and remittances from the United States and elsewhere. While the number of Filipino immigrants has risen alongside other Asian groups since 1965, their unique historical experience as former nationals, close historic ties to the U.S. military, and prevalence in health-care professions sets Filipino immigrants apart from the other top five immigrant groups: Mexicans, Indians, Chinese, and Vietnamese.Figure 1. Filipino Immigrant Population, 1980-2013

82

Source: Data from U.S. Census Bureau 2006, 2010, and 2013 American Community Survey (ACS), and Campbell J. Gibson and Emily Lennon, “Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-born Population of the United States: 1850-2000” (Working Paper no. 29, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, February 1999), www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/twps0029.html. 

The Filipino immigrant population is the third largest foreign-born population from Asia, after India and China. Click here to view how the number of immigrants from the Philippines has changed over time.Although most Filipino migrants settle in the United States, others reside in Saudi Arabia (1,029,000), the United Arab Emirates (477,000), Canada (364,000), and Japan (226,000). Click here to see where migrants from the Philippines have settled worldwide.Today, most Filipino immigrants in the United States obtain lawful permanent residence (LPR)—also known as receiving a “green card”—through family reunification channels, either as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens or as other family-sponsored immigrants. Many also receive LPR status through employment-based channels.

Compared to the total foreign-born population in the United States, Filipino immigrants were more likely to have strong English-language skills and be college educated. They were also more likely to be naturalized U.S. citizens, have higher income and lower poverty rates, and were less likely to be uninsured.

Using the most recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS), the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, and the World Bank’s Annual Remittance Data, this Spotlight provides information on the Filipino immigrant population in the United States, focusing on the size, geographic distribution, and socioeconomic characteristics of the population.

83

Globalization of Music and Sports

The Cultural Significance of Reggae- http://www.units.miamioh.edu/ath175/student/petersle/culture.html

Reggae is an important form of music for Jamaica.   Culturally, reggae plays many roles and is a way in which many Jamaicans tend to define themselves.   The social impact of reggae music has largely impacted life in Jamaica.   It has also created an understanding of Jamaican lifestyle and culture for the rest of the world.   It is a form of music for the masses in which their word can be heard and spoken.   It is a way to celebrate their nationalism and life.   �For as long as there's been Jamaican music it's remained inseparable to the people and the environment responsible for it� (Chang and Chen 1998c:6).Reggae means �regular� in that Jamaicans are regular people who are suffering.   These are people who do not have what they want (Davis and Simon 1979).   Songs that use to be about love and sex began to change in focus.   The songs started to include political, social, and spiritual notions in the lyrics.   At this point, the �reggae musicians became Jamaica's prophets, social commentators, and shamans� (Davis and Simon 1979c:17).   To the lower social classes, this was a way to get their voice heard, and to be able to express their true feelings about conditions affecting them and the rest of the country.Music has always played an essential role in the lives of the Jamaican people.   This is predominantly true for the poor majority of the country.   Before Jamaica began in the recording industry, these Jamaicans were able to maintain their traditions from one generation to the next through music.   Music could be heard at funerals, work, religious occasions, and any social events.   These folk songs were not recorded, but they have significantly affected the reggae forms heard today (Barrow and Dalton 1997).  

Reggae's roots stem from the historical conditions of both Jamaican slavery and colonialism by different nations.   Most Jamaicans are descendants from Africa, brought by the English to Jamaica to work as slaves.   The plantations on which the slaves worked made Jamaica a valuable colony to conquer.   Slavery was eventually abolished in the 1830s, and it wasn't until the 1930s that Jamaicans began to gain some of their own control.   The history of Jamaica shows �one long tale of sad intrigue, human suffering, lawlessness, and immoral profit, at the center of which were the African slaves-the ancestors of the present-day Jamaicans� (King et al. 2002c:xii).   Reggae has reflected this heritage in their folk music from the beginning.   Not only does the music mirror what the people have retained from their homelands in Africa, but the music also reflects the cultural aspects that Jamaicans have learned from the different countries that transcend their history (Barrow and Dalton 1997).   The reggae music form deals with the racial and social issues that were encountered during Jamaica's history (Chang and Chen 1998).   The music was principally concerned with �truths and rights� and the �legacies of colonialism (Barrow and Dalton).Jamaican reggae has undergone many transformations, both in style and themes, during its history.   Yet, the masses still use the music to express resistance to oppression and poverty.   For many Jamaicans, music is one of the few ways in which the poor are able to create a distinct, black, Jamaican identity for themselves.   It is through the music that these Jamaicans are able to �vent years of pent-up suffering, dehumanization and frustration under the white man's hegemony� (King et al. 2002c:xiii).   Throughout the years, reggae music and lyrics have increased in nature both politically and revolutionary.   In the 1970s, reggae was viewed by many as �the very expression of the historical experience of the Jamaican working class, unemployed and peasants� (King et al. 2002c:xiii).   Lyrics discussed such themes as oppression, crime, economic shortages, racial discrimination, political violence, and homelessness (Davis and Simon 1979).

The Rastafari influence also contributed to the cultural significance of reggae music.   This is the period in which the theme of repatriation to Africa began to be the focus.   It was a symbol for both identity and pride among the people.   Rastafari's most significant impact was on the narrative personas used by the singers of reggae music.   It was apparent in the lives, lyrics, and performances of the musicians (Prahlad 2001).   The music became more than just entertainment.   It became one the main mediums for political and social remarks.   Reggae music became a threat to the Jamaican government (King et al. 2002).   This period awakened the Jamaican people to a �new age of consciousness� in which many people would experience �a fundamental transformation of identity� (Prahlad 2001c:6).   This period allowed for African Jamaicans to have black pride and

84

to speak out against the injustice in their country.   Along with the new identity came a new voice for the masses, new forms of self-presentation, and a new relationship between the African and Jamaican culture (Prahlad 2001).   Changes were also made in nature of audiences and the role of music in Jamaican society.   Songs continued to discuss the social problems of the country, but the singers would compose the songs to be in the tongue of the ghetto.   The music addressed the people living at the lower ends of the social rankings, which included such people as the masses in the ghetto, shantytowns, and even the rural parishes (Prahlad 2001).   Many musicians used reggae music as a form of protest music, examining the results of social and political injustices occurring during the time period (King et al. 2002).  The Jamaican government has used reggae music to promote their own social and political goals.   Many have used this music form during campaign periods and political rallies.   The government has also used reggae music to revitalize the dying economy by attracting tourists to Jamaica.   Reggae music and the Rastafarian culture have been depicted as the �official culture of the island� (King et al. 2002).

Take notes on this video: “ The Globalization of Reggae Music - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMoqHH21Tu0&nohtml5=False

Take notes on and watch up to 3:46 of this video: “Globalization of Pop Music” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zus58D9CMI4&nohtml5=False

What is Bollywood https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WikpP_WC7eQ

85

BollywoodFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bollywood is the sobriquet for India's Hindi language film industry, based in the city of Mumbai, Maharashtra.[3] It is more formally referred to as Hindi cinema.[4] The term "Bollywood" is often used by non-Indians as a synecdoche to refer to the whole of Indian cinema; however, Bollywood proper is only a part of the larger Indian film industry, which includes other production centres producing films in many other Indian languages. [5][6]

Bollywood is one of the largest film producers in India, representing 43% of the net box office revenue, while Tamil and Telugu cinema represent 36%, and the rest of the regional cinema constitutes 21% as of 2014.[7] Bollywood is also one of the largest centers of film production in the world.[8][9][10] Furthermore, Bollywood is one of the biggest film industries in the world in terms of the number of people employed and the number of films produced.[11] According to Matusitz, J., & Payano, P., In 2011, over 3.5 billion tickets were sold across the globe which in comparison is 900,000 tickets more than Hollywood.[12] Bollywood produced 252 films in 2014 out of a total of 1969 films produced in Indian cinema.

Popularity and appealSee also: List of highest-grossing Bollywood films

Besides being popular among the India diaspora, such far off locations as Nigeria to Egypt to Senegal and to Russia generations of non-Indian fans have grown up with Bollywood during the years, bearing witness to the cross-cultural appeal of Indian movies.[106] Over the last years of the 20th century and beyond, Bollywood progressed in its popularity as it entered the consciousness of Western audiences and producers, [47][107] with Western actors now actively seeking roles in Bollywood movies.[108]

AfricaHistorically, Hindi films have been distributed to some parts of Africa, largely by Lebanese businessmen. Mother India (1957), for example, continued to be played in Nigeria decades after its release. Indian movies have also gained ground so as to alter the style of Hausa fashions, songs have also been copied by Hausa singers and stories have influenced the writings of Nigerian novelists. Stickers of Indian films and stars decorate taxis and buses in Northern Nigeria, while posters of Indian films adorn the walls of tailor shops and mechanics' garages in the country. Unlike in Europe and North America where Indian films largely cater to the expatriate Indian market yearning to keep in touch with their homeland, in West Africa, as in many other parts of the world, such movies rose in popularity despite the lack of a significant Indian audience, where movies are about an alien culture, based on a religion wholly different, and, for the most part, a language that is unintelligible to the viewers….

86

South Asia

Bollywood films are widely watched in other South Asian countries, including Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

Many Pakistanis watch Bollywood films, as they understand Hindi (due to its linguistic similarity to Urdu).[115] Pakistan banned the legal import of Bollywood movies in 1965. However, trade in unlicensed DVDs [116] and illegal cable broadcasts ensured the continued popularity of Bollywood releases in Pakistan. Exceptions were made for a few films, such as the 2006 colorised re-release of the classic Mughal-e-Azam or the 2006 film Taj Mahal. Early in 2008, the Pakistani government eased the ban and allowed the import of even more movies; 16 were screened in 2008.[117] Continued easing followed in 2009 and 2010. The new policy is opposed by nationalists and representatives of Pakistan's small film industry but is embraced by cinema owners, who are making profits after years of low receipts.[118] Bollywood movies are so much popular in Nepal that, Bollywood movies earn more than Nepali movies. Actors like Salman Khan, Akshay Kumar and Shah Rukh Khan are most popular in Nepal and their movies sees the audience full pack all over the Cinema halls and also are so popular in Afghanistan due to the country's proximity to the Indian subcontinent and cultural perspectives present in the movies. [119] A number of Bollywood movies were filmed inside Afghanistan while some dealt with the country, including Dharmatma, Kabul Express, Khuda Gawah and Escape From Taliban.[120][121]

 

Q &A: Soccer Globalization- https://goal.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/q-a-soccer-globalization/

By JEFFREY MARCUS

 SEPTEMBER 19, 2007 7:36 AMSeptember 19, 2007 7:36 am

The globalization of the beautiful game continues, unabated. …

Three headlines yesterday emphasized this point:

Russian billionaire Alisher Usmanov has increased his stake in Arsenal  to become the club’s second-largest shareholder.

Uli Hesse-Lichtenberger  wrote how German Bundesliga games are now being broadcast in more countries than ever — 142 last weekend.

A certain English global superstar who moved from Madrid to Los Angeles wants to play in an exhibition game in New Zealand.

And today Reuters reported that UEFA president Michel Platini called foreign owners a “serious threat” to European soccer.We know soccer is an international sport. We are intimately familiar with globalization. We are pretty sure you are, too. But we also know that this is not a static or episodic force, but one that is evolving and mutating. That is why we think it is worthwhile to step back and look critically at these changes from time to time to better understand them.

87

Franklin Foer, the editor of The New Republic, wrote “How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization,” published in 2004. We caught up with Foer on the phone Tuesday and asked him about the current state of international soccer and some of the theories he discussed in his book.

To say that soccer is a global sport, and that the world is becoming increasingly interdependent, seems almost tautological these days. Does the case really still need to be made?

Not really. I think after David Beckham has traveled through Spain and Los Angeles, and Russian oligarchs and N.F.L. owners have taken over teams in the English Premier League, not to mention Arsenal playing in Emirates Stadium, any casual observer understands the extent of globalization.

How has the global face of soccer changed since your book came out in 2004?

I think everything has been accelerated. The influx of foreign capital into the English Premier League certainly has accelerated since my book. We’re now experiencing this kind of almost 1970s-like push to take the game to the United States.

Players have been traversing borders to play for different teams for decades. But now we see more and more businessmen — owners — going across borders to find their next acquisition. How does this affect the game?

It means that payrolls become even more robust and teams like Chelsea or Liverpool can horde huge amounts of talent without really sending their owners into bankruptcy. It’s unclear what sort of effect that will have ultimately on trophy cases. But I’m guessing that a game that was already pretty concentrated in the hands of a few winners will only grow more concentrated.

That said, I think it’s pretty encouraging that you still have a fair number of teams that are still in this second tier of the English Premier League and La Liga in Spain that manage to remain highly competitive, if not for league titles, than for slots in the Champions League.

What about the lower-level teams and competition over all?

For now, it’s a pretty amazingly competitive game, even with the payroll of Chelsea and Man United; you still have really compelling games when these teams play Reading or other bottom-tier teams. There are only a few teams in the English Premier League that are totally noncompetitive.

How has the competition among the richest teams changed?

The nice part about globalization, you have these old events that transcend borders that become the focus of a lot more attention. A team like Juventus or A.C. Milan may play a decent number of no-account teams at home, but whatever growing gaps there are at home are compensated for by the increased important of Champions League trophies.

There are German clubs stocked with Italian strikers, Brazilian midfielders and Dutch fullbacks. How has the internationalization of professional teams changed the style of play we see on the field?

I used think that national play would withstand all of these changes. I think it kind of does if you look at the English national team. Despite all the improvements to the English Premier League thanks to globalization, the England team, for whatever reason, doesn’t play like an E.P.L. team. It plays like a good old-fashioned English club. When it gets in trouble, it reverts to the long ball, and there is something inescapably English about the game that seems to persist despite all the South Americans and Frenchmen and other foreign players in the English Premier League.

88

We’ve discussed racism in soccer here on this blog before and you addressed it in your book. How would you assess the situation now?

Since I wrote the book, one of the interesting developments has been the way corporations have joined the crusade against racism. Nike is constantly touting its antiracism bonafides. I think it’s because markets don’t really have any patience for racism; it gets in the way of selling shoes. Racism manages to persist, especially in Southern and Eastern Europe, where it’s never been a terribly high priority of the authorities who run the game to get rid of it. In England, it has been a priority and I think they’ve done a pretty effective job of stamping it out.

What have you seen in the game that has caused you to reconsider any theories you offered in your book?

I have a chapter about soccer and Islam. I spoke about the football revolution in Iran with my tongue partially implanted in my cheek, but in retrospect it had a kind of gee-whiz tone about globalization. Soccer is a force for connecting people in the Islamic world to the West, but it’s not a terribly strong or significant connection at the end of the day.

Take notes on this video about the history of World Cup Football – “The History of FIFA World Cup Trophies” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEZFxPyOnhs

Take notes on this video about the Olympics: History of the Olympic Games” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccDFpoF5tZw

89

You have now completed the AP World History Curriculum! Give yourself a well-deserved pat on the back.

90