Reilly Questions

Reaad

20 cards   |   Total Attempts: 188
  

Cards In This Set

Front Back
VON LAUE: What, according to von Laue, are these Western ideas that spread throughout the world during the nineteenth century?

Did these ideas spread peacefully or were they forced on non-Western peoples?



What does von Laue mean when he says that "as a result of their Westernization they became anti-Western nationalists.
Education, better rights for women "the most remarkable of all the Western customs...the relations between the men and the women", hospitals, medicines( that relieved pain and saved lives), western goods such as stronger liquor, gaudier textiles, faster transport. Liberal equality.

They spread peacefully, the non-westerners desired much of the western goods etc, the westerners ie missionaries were backed by Western arms.

They hated everything that had to do with the west but only resisted because of the ideals learned. They would not have known how to rebel without modern ideas.
FUKUZAWA YUKICHI: Does Fukuzawa believe that Westernization is both inevitable and desirable?
He does believe that Westernization is inevitable, he believes that the spread of western civilization is like the spread of disease. There are many damages from it, but the benefits far outweigh them.
MOHANDAS K. GANDHI: What are his thoughts concerning Hindus and Muslims living together?
There should be no enmity between them because their quarrels are in the past. If one is conscious of nation, then one won’t interfere with religion. Nation over religion. Need to live in unity of nation.
JOSE MARTI: Compare and contrast his views of the United States and Latin America. In what ways is he both a nationalist and a globalist?
Jose views the United States as being a large nation of great comfort and privilege. The people go about their lives greatly unaware of how blessed they are. Industry, technology, and luxury are in abundance. There is order and government in the US. In Latin America the people are unaware of the world around them. There is little order and government. the uncultured rule. He is a nationalist because he believes that countries should raise themselves up (he directed and died in an independence movement for Cuba). He is a globalist because he believes that nations should come together and progress. " should clasps hands and become one...We can no longer be a people of leaves, living in the air...It is the time of mobilization, of marching together."
NEHRU: How does Nehru's vision compare and contrast with that of Gandhi? What would have happened, do you believe, if only one had been the main voice of the independence movement?
Gandhi loved the simple and impoverished life. He detested modern conveniences and technologies. Nehru disagreed. He, and he believed that India also wanted technology and advancement in the world. If Gandhi would have been the main voice then India would have been come weak and vulnerable. If Nehru would have been the sole voice then the country would have been much like before with the British, only under some other power's rule.
MARKS: (1)What were the secondary causes of World War I, if Germany bears primary responsibility for the conflict?

(2)In studying the causes of major historical events, historians distinguish between structural or long-term causes, direct or immediate causes, and contingent events or accidents. Which events and circumstances leading up to the First World War would you place in each of these categories?
1)The Colonization days were over so powers began to bump into each other. The Alliances sucked everyone in to make it a world war (RUS, FR, GB vs. GERM, AUST, TURK).
Structural:
Long term:Direct:Immediate:Contingent:Accidents:
REMARQUE: What does this selection suggest about the types of people recruited to serve in the army? How does Remarque view friendship, authority, and discipline in the army?
The people that were recruited were young, impressionable men who had no idea what they were getting into. They were more fearful of being cowards than death. Friendship is very important, but at the same time expendable. Friends die all the time, but while they are around you take care of each other the best that you can. Authority is tolerated but not respected when it doesnt have to be. discipline is important in battle, but they all still drink, smoke, cuss, steal, and get away with as much as they can.
WILSON: What are the 14 points? Why do you think there was such a gap between Wilson's ideals and the actual treaty?
1. Open Covenants of peace must be made public.2. Freedom of navigation in the seas.3. Equality of trade conditions among all nations4. national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety5. lowest poen minded, and aboslutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims6. Help Russia so that they can rebuild their government.7. Belgium needs to be evacuated and restored8.All french territory should be freed and the invaded portions rritory , and wrongs with prussia should be made right9. readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality.10.Austria-Hungary should be safeguarded and assured and be accorded the freest opportunity of autonomous development.11.Rumania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated; occupied territories restored12.The Turkish portions of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalired a sich are now under turkish rule should be assured and have security and have opportunity for autonomous development13.An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations and should be given free access to the sea14.A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.
LUXEMBURG and LENIN: How do these two declarations in relation to World War I compare and contrast? Do you sense any difference between the Socialist and Leninist approach to the conflict?
Luxemburg sees war as a horrible atrocity that should never happen in any society. Lenin sees it as a mechanism used by capitalists to use the Russians. Lenin seems to think conflict is necessary while Luxemburg is totally against it
CHANG: The author asks how Japanese soldiers were capable of such offenses (as the Nanking Massacre). What is her answer? Once they had killed one prisoner, why did they find it easier to kill another? Did they eventually enjoy it, feel pride, or think it insignificant?
The author explains that the Japanese military set up various games and exercises to numb its men to the human instinct against killing people who are not attacking. They set up massacres like sporting events even having their men compete to see who could kill 100 people the quickest. The soldiers were desensitized to killing, and under the emperor they were taught that human life was valueless so it made killing easier. They believed the greatest achievement they could accomplish in war was to come back dead. They began to find killing easy and sometimes fun.
MAMDANI: How, according to the author, was the Hutu genocide different from that of the Nazi's? What is the significance of that difference? Does it matter?
Unlike the Nazi holocaust, the Rwandan genocide was not carried out from a distance, in remote concentration camps beyond national borders, in industrial killing camps operated by agents who often diial kiore than than drop Zyklon B crystals into gas chambers from above. The Rwandan genocide was executed with all the gruesome detail of of a street murder than the bureaucratic efficiency of a mass extermination. The difference in technology is indicative of a mire significant social difference. The technology of the holocaust allowed a few to kill many, but the machete had to be wielded by a single pair of hands. Whereas Nazis made every attempt to separate victims from perpetrators, the Rwandan genocide was very much an intimate affair. It was carried out by hundreds of thousands, perhaps even more, and witnessed by million...
GARVIN and HEGSTROM: Using the categories on genocide suggested by Mahmood Mamdani in the previous selection, what kind of genocide was committed in Guatemala? What responsibility, if any, does the US bare for this case?
It depends on who is talking to define the kind of genocide committed in Guatemala. The US says it was Guatemalans against Guatemalans, so native genocide and Guatemalans claim it was settler genocide because of US pressure. The US does bare responsibility for the real support they gave key actors, but that is only a portion of the overall blame Guatemala bears.
HERZL: What reasons did he give for forming a Jewish state?
How "religious" was this state to be?
What did he see as the potential problems of a Jewish state and how did he propose to solve those problems?
main reason: to escape persecution abroad. Jews were being shut out of society in many places, and a new state would give them sovereignty.
The state will not be ruled by a theocracy. They will be tolerant of each others' religions and even of different nationalities, Their past persectuion causes them to not persecute others, because they know what it's like, and can find no justification.

potential problems: 1) location-Palestine or Argentina? solution: which ever region would give them land.2) language-what language will the people speak? solution: every man will keep his native language, but there will be a national language. This language was to be decided by national teachers. Whatever language provides the greatest utility will be the national language.3) theocracy-will the state be governed by a theocracy? solution: no, they will not be governed by a theocracy. they will be untied by faith and freed by knowledge.4) army-will they need an army? solution: establish a professional army to protect and preseve order internally, and externallly5) national flag? solution: get a flag. they need a symbol to fly over their heads.
FROMKIN: What were the reasons for the British and American support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine? What did the British government expect to gain? Were they successful?

The British hoped to gain " a bridge between Africa, Asia, and Europe on the road to India"

The government expected to gain

THE ZIONIST AND ARAB CASES: What were the arguments of both sides in 1946? Were the two sides reconcilable? Why did some Jews object to Zionism?