ToK/IRL II

-Can one talk meaningfully of a historical fact? How far can we speak with certainty about anything in the past?

History can be spoken with certainty to a certain point in the past. We can say that we generally understood what happened, but we may not have all the information, and some information may be ignored. For example, the biography of John Marshall at http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1953/marshall-bio.html shows him to be a very peaceful man. However, if we look at other evidence he created the Marshall Plan.

Another example is Kruschev's so-called secret speech. Many thought that this speech was intended to reach a larger audience. However, the information at http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/history_workshop_journal/v062/62.1rettie.html shows that Kruschev never wanted the speech to be secret, and took special steps so that it wouldn't be.

A third example is the biography of David Ben-Gurion, listed at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/ben_gurion.html. It gives the impression of a peaceful leader. But it was later proved that Ben Gurion's men started many of the wars in the middle east.

These sources show how we should be cautious in being certain about history.

In-Class Work 4/15/10

1. What were the results of the six day war?
Israel completely defeated the Arabs, winning the West Bank, Gaza, Sinai and the Golan Heights. They kept these territories. They also now had air superiority.
2. Why did Egypt and Syria attack Israel in 1973?
They wanted their land back, and now they had enough support from oil-bearing states and the USSR, as well as USSR surface-to-air missiles. They also had a perfect attack plan.
3. What happened in the early stages of the war?
At first, the Israelis were completely defenseless. Because of the perfect planning of the attack and the fact that it was on a holy day, it took 3 days to mobilize their troops.
4. What steps led to an Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty?
The US helped the Saudis get back on their feet so they would sell the US oil again. President Sadat and the Israeli Prime Minister agreed to peace.
5. What were the results of the Camp David meeting?
A treaty was made to withdraw Israeli troops from Sinai, to give Egypt Sinai over three years, and to give Israelis passage through the Suez canal.

IRL 17

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/ben_gurion.html

The link above is a biography of David Ben Gurion. It relates to what we've learned because Ben Gurion was the leader of the struggle for an Israeli state as well as the Prime minister for a number of years. It adds information about other parts of his life as well as his policies. For example, he tried to re-establish trade with West Germany despite criticism. He left his post as Prime Minister just a few years before the 6 day war and many other conflicts. He was also involved in one of the first farmer's communes. This source is valuable because it comes from an Israeli-American cooperation for a virtual library. However, Israel's political views may have hidden some of Ben Gurion's involvment in wars, limiting him.

SGQ12

Crisis in the Middle East p. 3-9

What was the Jewish claim to Palestine?

That is was given to them by God and they had lived in it for thousands of years.

What was the importance of the Balfour Declaration?

It gave land from the Palestine to Jewish settlers, but the Arabs didn't want the Jews there and did not think the Jews deserved the land.

What was the Arab claim to Palestine?

They had lived there ever since the Jews had left and made up the majority of the people. The Arabs also wanted the land because it was holy to them.

To what extent was WWI a turning point in the struggle for Arab independence?

The Arabs thought of it as a turning point. They felt they would gain their independence, but in reality the land was technically owned by the British and French, although the government was Arabic.

Why did Britain and France want mandates in the Middle East?

They wanted the natural resources and land that resided there. They also wanted to overthrow the Turks.

IRL 16

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/history_workshop_journal/v062/62.1rettie.html

The article at the above link speaks about Kruschev's secret speech. We have briefly mentioned Kruschev's speech as a reason that the Chinese were angry at the USSR. The link shows how Kruschev's speech was not really meant to be secret, and also shows the reactions of the Georgians to his speech. The Georgians, like the Chinese, were angry at him for denouncing Stalin. The source is from an article from a journal published in 2006, which gives it the advantage of having more sources to work from. It is also from a .edu site, which are generally reputable and are concerning education. However, it does not show its sources for the observation of events in 1956.

Sino-US cooperation? (Question #5)

There is some evidence in sources A-C that the changes in relations between USA and the PRC in 1971 were less fundamental than is sometimes supposed. In source A, it is mentioned that China's foreign policy is still very hostile towards other countries. It is said that they are booth aloof and suspicious. Source B initially seems to support the idea that the change in Sino-US relations was great, but later on it goes on to mention that the relationships between the countries had been suspended for twenty years. Source C mentions that three-corner diplomacy was advantageous to the United States, showing that the US is still sticking to their own ways. There is façade of agreement, but really every country is still looking out for their own interests.

Sino-Russian Collaboration Activity

How might the sources A-E be used to illustrate the importance in an authoritarain state of the media in the process of molding public opinion?

When considering the origin, content, and purpose of these sources, the importance of the media in the process of moulding public opinion in an authoritarian state can be seen. The first part of source A is an excerpt from a Chinese book, the other part is an open letter from the CPSU. The Chinese source intends to denounce Russian actions. It is very evident that this sentiment towards Russia is carried through China as well. The other Chinese sources reflect the same ideas. China’s media in source B exposes a similar sentiment from Khruschchev. Because the purpose of this article is to incite anti-Russian feelings in China, we do not know if this is an accurate The Russian part of source A is denouncing Chinese actions, showing that both countries viewed each other equally. Source B caries the same ideas about China from the Soviet Central Committee. Source C conveys similar sentiments back and forth between Russia and China. Russian media paints the Chinese as the aggressor blowing the boarder dispute out of proportion. The Chinese say similar things about the Russians. Source D was a Chinese newspaper article posted with the purpose to mar the reputation of Khrushchev, calling him a traitor to the communist cause. This shows us the tension between China and Russia, the media influences the public opinion about Russia. Source E consists of two speeches, one from Brezhnev. This source shows a change in mood from the other four sources. Brezhnev wanted to unite the socialist countries. However, the Chinese speech states that they do not want to be united with the USSR. All five sources reflect the social climate of that time. All but Brezhnev’s speech in source E convey the tension between China and Russia at this time. We can see how the media can mould the public opinion through their origin, content, and purpose.