For decades, scholars have insisted that what most of us know instinctively to be true -- is false. Mocking the belief that individuals such as Julius Caesar, Adolf Hitler or Winston Churchill make history, experts focus on social forces. They explain the past with statistical studies and abstract theories, dismissing stories about individual initiative or heroism. While powerful economic, social and ideological movements dwarfing any individual do shape history, be it the high-tech boom, feminism or the rise of conservatism, we cannot underestimate the way a leader's action and inaction can change the world. Especially when assessing the American presidency and modern America, individual character -- and contingency -- count.
Although, she does admit even she was shocked when listening to the speech, as she explains “the line was not believable”. From this I can conclude that source one doesn’t wholly hold Churchill responsible for the 1945 election defeat, however the reliability of the source is questionable as it is bias towards the conservative party. Source two, an extract from Lord Butler’s memoirs, clearly shows opposition to not only Churchill but also the conservative party, Lord Butler for example describes Churchill’s speech as a “negative attack on the labour party” and believed that he should have instead focused on “post-war policies”. By describing Churchill’s use of the word “Gestapo” as a “strategic blunder” shows that Butler is blaming Churchill in having played a role in the defeat of the 1945 election. Although both members of the conservative party, Butler and Churchill were political enemies, this is evident when looking at the extract: “a poor third place to the concentrated exploitation of Churchill’s personality” – this is a personal attack on Churchill’s actions.
When Keynes rejected the scale of reparations placed on Germany and resigned from his post at the Treasury, he lead the way for what many leading politicians were to understand later on. Keynes supported the approach of Lloyd George that for economic and political reasons, Europe needed a successful Germany, which would be seriously difficult to achieve whilst the excessive reparations were placed on them. Furthermore, his book The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919), was successful in influencing the view of Britain that a weak Germany would only make the recovery of Europe after the war, a lot more difficult. On the other hand, from taking this view, politicians were criticised for being 'too lenient' towards Germany. Even Lloyd George, who took a much tougher political approach towards the reparations, received criticism.
What is “event history” or “history from above?” What is “history from below?” Compare/contrast the two and discuss how this may affect one’s perspective of history. Event history is a record of the specific dates and times an event took place; this involves no theories, just facts. History from above is where the rich and powerful only were taken an interest to; everything they did was recorded and the stories and events associated with the lower class were deemed insignificant accordingly. History from below is the exact opposite; the lower class demanded to get recognized and recorded into history for what they were doing and what was happening to them as well. If one was to only read the history from above they would most likely think that everything was great in the world back then with just a few mishaps and that everyone was happy; were you to just read the
Censorship is the idea of not revealing ideas and text in order to benefit society. But in many ways, censoring items causes the world to create biased thoughts based on the limited information released. In some cases the world is blinded because they are told nothing to begin with. Historical events such as the holocaust can prove this true. To this day society continues to be censored from ideas by the government and companies that impact our ways of life and learning.
Written In Stone After reading the article “Some Moral Minima” by Lenn Goodman, I must admit that I agree that there are certain things that are flat line wrong. Living in today’s society with so many different cultures, religious and political beliefs we are bound to view some aspects of life differently. I must say however, some should never fall in that category. Genocide seeks to destroy a race, a culture even a class. Slavery allows one man to imprison another man that is his equal, to a life he doesn’t choose.
Why We Study History I believe that we should study history, not for the fact of knowing what mistakes we made in the past so we don’t repeat them, but because I believe it is unjust for someone to go through life knowing nothing about the past or any sort of education pertaining to the building blocks of the world we live in today. History is all around us, take politics for example, without any knowledge of the branches of the social sciences, how would someone be able to understand how a country is run? How the government works? how can someone go through life not knowing who the first president of the united states was or have any information on the American Revolution, WW1, or the Great Depression. History even influences our social lives, maybe not to the average teenager but when we grow older and stop thinking like immature kids that only care/talk about ”Twitter” , “Instagram” or “Facebook”.
I now look at the outsiders as "city slickers" or I call them lazy and tell them that they have no discipline. The labels that were put on my group made me angry, and honestly at one point they made me want to join the outside group that was putting these labels on me. Although I did not join these groups, I just joined what they were doing to me. The stereotypes that I applied to these other groups were not completely true but neither were the ones that they put on me so therefore I thought it was
Of course they did. When they extended their reach and explored the surfaces of the world, the Europeans looked down upon the cultures and peoples that they imagined were incapable of the same progress that Europe had achieved. These ideas of assuming a person was inable of using no more than sticks and stones for tools was scientific fact, until Boas spoke, saying this was not the case. Boas describes why cultures and ways of being are not specified by race, by classifying the difference between the organic abilities we naturally have, and the cultural ways of using these abilities. The faculty to be able to walk, to speak, to eat and breathe comes to us instinctively as an ability we are born with.
I am interested in why the powerful state decided to abandon any potential benefits they could have enjoyed if they did ally with the weaker state. In investigating this, Great Britain-Czechoslovakia relations, and Georgia-NATO relations are helpful examples. Question: Since not a lot of people focus on why states do not ally, I believed focusing on this side of an alliance, or lack thereof, could help me better understand about what factors most strongly influence a state’s refusal to ally with another state. I wanted to address the question: When do powerful states choose not to ally with a weaker state? Because the denial of a state joining an alliance has not occurred often I would like to clarify the critical reasons why powerful states make the decision to refrain from allying with a weaker state.