I am going to argue that sources 10 & 11 agree that the Amritsar Massacre created widespread and long-lasting hostility among Indians towards British rule. In contrast, I will argue that source 12 disagrees and that the Indian people appreciated British rule. Source 11 strongly highlights widespread hostility towards the British. The source uses words such as ‘dishonest’ and ‘evilly manned’[1]. This shows the lack of respect the Indian people were beginning to progress against the British Government.
The idea of Nationalism between the British North American colonies did not seem logical in the ninetieth century due to the vast cultural differences spanning from east to west. John A. MacDonald, leader of the Tories, thought otherwise. With a great understand of sociology and seeing the “bigger picture”, he was able to convince the colonies to come together. The illegal Alabama and Trent Affairs, as well as the raids by the angry American-Irishmen proved to be some of the external pressure for confederation. Political Deadlock initiated internal pressure resulting in multiple conferences to discuss this great coalition.
The country was splitting up, with some people thinking and believing this and other people disagreeing and believing that. On one hand, you have to people who could benefit from expansion and pushed for it to be done as soon as possible, but on the other hand you have this war that was distancing Americans from their country. I don’t think there was any great compromise that could have been made to appease everybody, and so concludes another episode of America’s stubborn nature. This impacted my thinking in that I came to realize how difficult this war with Spain was making things. I also took special notice in how hardly anybody could get along, which is still an underlying theme in society, and I don’t think it will
However, as America gained significant power during the preceding years, the U.S underwent a period of isolationism, in oppose to imperialism, to protect their territorial gains. America’s isolationist beliefs stem back to the country’s colonial days. Thomas Paine expressed isolationist notions in his work “Common Sense”, which presented numerous arguments for rejecting alliances. Paine's works caused so much political influence that the Continental Congress denied an alliance with France and only required one, when it appeared probable that America necessitated one. George Washington and his Farewell Address also expressed America’s isolationism.
The enforcers of this league condemned the policy of imperialism and were against much of what it stood for. Also the league does not agree with the sacrificing of soldiers for the purpose of this policy. The outcome of this foreign policy going into the twentieth century was that of success the United States was able to make their empire very strong. Although they did get into some conflicts along the way but nothing that they could not handed. The weak countries were easily commanded while other less persuaded countries were forced into submission or aggressive agreements by use of military force or economic
The ‘peaceful’ methods used by the moderate leaders were not effective in making the British Government accept their demands. As a result a number of politically conscious people became frustrated and disillusioned. At the end of the 19th century, a strong feeling arose among the people that more radical political action was needed to force the British to accept popular demands. Indian National Congress The Indian national Congress was established to provide a platform where leaders from different parts of the country could come and discuss issues concerning India. The body would act as the loudspeaker of the demands of the people of the country.
Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love?" - Paragraph 3. Henry asks each and every one of the audience members what role have they done in this revolution, what drastic thing have they done to force the British to intervene in their home? Have they not compromised enough with the British and have they have used physical force to restrain them? To me, this quote was extremely sarcastic because Henry wants revolution, but he almost seems to be blaming it on the Americans.
The American Revolution did not satisfy the colonial goals for civil, political, social, and economic rights; however the Constitution did. All the American Revolution did was drive the British out of America. With the British gone the Americans had the ability to strive for civil, political, social, and economic rights, but the Articles of Confederation became an obstacle in their path to their rightful goals. During the American Revolution the American people wrote a lot about what they wanted to accomplish and attain. In Document A, the Declaration of the Causes and Necessities of Taking Up Arms, it is written that the American people feel they have been wronged by England because their rights are restricted and wish for these basic rights to happiness and such.
1. Many problems with American neutrality arose between 1914 and 1917. For instance when Woodrow Wilson travelled down Pennsylvania Avenue to ask Congress for a declaration of war against Germany, he “did so with the full realization that many Americans vehemently opposed the war” (Gardner, Module 8). Many individuals were pacifists, while others simply wanted to avoid aiding the Allies. Asking Congress for a declaration of war, President Wilson found the Emergency Peace Federation (EPF) lobbied Congress against entry into World War I.
The reluctance by the UN to commit to the genocide narrative was fuelled by a number of reasons and its belief that the West would be reluctant to provide resources due to their ongoing commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. China and Russia who had financial interests in both supplying Sudan with arms and its oil industry became key actors within the indecisiveness of the UN, as they Vetoed “Security Council” (Jentlson.2007:277) measures. However it was the United States and its unambiguous self orientated actions who were the preeminent international actors in the UN indecisiveness. On election into office the Bush Administration were highly critical of its predecessor’s record of priorities in humanitarian intervention. The new administration believed that more priority should be placed in states with growing global authority such as China and Russia and in major conflicts such as the Israel, Palestine dispute.