HIST 140 Midterm Exam

What was the response of Fanon to the colonizer who lives in the colonized individual's head?

*Fanon's general response to the colonizer in the colonized's head, is that colonialism is created and enforced and maintained through violence, and that the only way to overcome it is through violence by the colonized against the colonizer. The colonized must realize what's been done to them, and must overthrow the colonizer through violence!* --Like Gandhi, *Fanon engaged with and also challenged major Western thinkers and critics,* namely Marx and Freud. Was from a French colony/protectorate (Martinique), was educated in France. And that experience led him to become an anti-colonialist leader. --Challenges Marx's assumption that colonialism is a necessary prelude to socialist revolution and the end of oppression. Instead believes that this oppression is not necessary to eventual revolution, and that it must be overthrown. --------Also believes in the power and righteousness of the Lumpenproletariat, who are not destitute by nature, but have been placed where they are by the economic system. They can be used to overthrow. --Challenges Freud's ideas of violence as something internal and psychological as opposed to tangible -- it's a real and important part of the lives of colonized peoples. Is contrasted to Gandhi's ideas of nonviolence, but in reality both wanted radical overthrow of colonialist rulers, both were influenced by critical Western thought, and both became leaders of anti-colonial struggles.

What does neocolonialism mean when applied to the nations of India and the Philippines in the decades after they achieved their independence? Is it an appropriate term in each case?

*India*: neocolonialism can be seen in the way that the colonial elites that led the push for independence maintained power and continued to work through the British-imposed power structure after the country's independence had been won. --------Both Gandhi and Nehru, as well as the other colonial elites that led the National Congress Party, were wealthy and were educated in England. Went on to influence their push for independence, and surely their methods of rule afterwards. Nehru writes in his autobiographical text that he was fond of the English people, not antagonistic toward them. He just wanted a free India. --------Hunt also argues that after independence was won, much of the way India was run remained unchanged, and pre-independence pushes for reduced poverty and materialism were not carried out. The country went on operating in the same ways. Rather than supporting Gandhi's populist reforms and benefiting the peasants, the government served the industrialist, well-educated party members and their allies. --------The state's backbone was army & bureaucracy trained by the British. The economic policy was influenced by British Labour party (controlled capitalism), and the policies of the Congress Party left the country looking like it had before independence: a land with great inequality. *Philippines*: had been a colony of Spain since the 1500s, and was in the process of fighting for independence when the Americans took over around 1899 after the Spanish-American War. Here again, the independence movement (against the Spanish) was led by Western-educated Filipinos. --Following a period of famine / turmoil, US government saw that it was compromising its ideals by trying to enforce brutal colonialist regime here. *Makes bargain with the Filipino elite--gradual accession of independence in exchange for their help with "social and economic modernization" + increasing role in governance* --After WWII, *US neocolonialism continued with maintenance of military bases on the islands and continued influence because of fear of communism* --------Also see that the US is not afraid to get really involved when there's a threat of socialist-leaning self-determination in the form of the Huks. --Finally, Magsaysay, "America's Boy," becomes president and works closely with the Americans. Pushes back against some of their inroads, but definitely cooperates with them. *Continuing American influences* Overall, neocolonialist idea is valid in both the Indian and the Filipino situations, though with some slightly different lilts.

What was the response of Gandhi to the colonizer who lives in the colonized individual's head?

*Gandhi believed that the way to respond to the colonizer in the colonized's head was to establish the power of the colonized through nonviolent protest and civil disobedience!* Refuse to acquiesce! Because of his law education in England, Gandhi was introduced to several ideas of Western critical thought. --He was introduced to Thoreau, Tolstoy, the Sermon on the Mount, and other writers/works that caused him to develop a mentality of resistance to imperialist rule through non-violent civil disobedience, as well as traditional Indian works read in English, which helped him to come to better understand and appreciate India. --Developed strong ideas of the West as basing its dominance of other peoples in materialism and individualism, which were not good things in his mind. Gandhi demonstrates this idea of nonviolent civil disobedience in his Salt March in 1930. --Marched 240 miles to the sea to boil water to make salt to protest British laws regulating and taxing salt production, which were exploitative of the Indian people. --Set an example of boycott and peaceful protest, which was then used by many Indians to further protest British rule. --*interesting* because he also used this as an opportunity to speak out for reform of not only the British imperial system, but also some cultural practices that came from pre-British times. *Gandhi was influenced by time and study in the West, and wasn't advocating for a full return to old ways* All together, *Gandhi challenged the power of the British by calling for an end to acquiescence, which he claimed allowed them to rule.* --He believed, as he was influenced by the West to believe, that the people could overcome imperial rule through civil disobedience. --Also advocated against "might makes right," challenging that the British were morally right because of the all of the power they had.

How did the Chinese Communist Party establish its power?

--A small CCP, inspired by the Bolshevik Revolution, initially allies with the KMT to try to make sure that China's economy will be built up to the point that Communist revolution can successfully take place. --Because of issues with the KMT in 1927, the parties split and the CCP goes on the long march --> IMPORTANT because a very loyal party core develops, Mao learns of importance of peasants to revolution, and CCP becomes almost a guerilla army. --------Gain support of the peasants by pushing out oppressive landlords, redistributing land. --Because KMT weakened by Japanese domination in the cities and corruption within the party, the Communists are able to take power in 1947-49 Civil War, largely without the support of the Soviet Union. *Following rise to power, CCP consolidates its control by taking a very grass-roots approach, and requiring the dedication of the people to the cause of Chinese Communist Revolution* --CCP consolidates its power in the new PRC by punishing connections to the KMT/Old Regime, repressing dissidents (esp to Korean War) --use of the *Mass Line* model of rule: each person is expected to fully devote themselves to the regime. Break down any structure that could've challenged the power of the Party -- patriarchy by giving power to women, landlords by humiliating and persecuting them, encouraged distrust between family members, required criticism and self-criticism. --force people in the countryside to personally confront landlords so they can't be prevented from joining the communist cause out of fear of landlords. --maintained a neocolonial relationship with the USSR to build up economy, but goal was eventually to overcome subservient rel. **Mao wanted to maintain Civil War period enthusiasm**

What did Milovan Djilas say gave the "new class" its power and what was Khrushchev's appeal this this group?

--Djilas, as a Yugoslavian, removed from the direct influence of the USSR, was able to criticize the Soviet communist system. --------Argued that in place of the class system of the capitalists, in which there develops a powerful and exploitative class of people who collect power in the form of money from capital ventures etc, the communist system's new ruling class *gained power from complete control over the administration of the state, and came to see and use the state's and people's property as their own property.* They would do anything to protect and spread that absolute power, and therefore are very unstable and oppressive, even more so than is the capitalist bourgeoisie. --Khrushchev appealed to the "new class" by ending the reign of terror of Stalin, and making it clear to the people of the Party (who formed the new class) that their positions of power and privilege would not be accompanied with constant fear of being attacked for perceived missteps or attacks on the leader. Also wanted to increase the standard of living in the USSR, which would necessarily lead to access to goods for the new class more so than for the non-new class members.

Why did Khrushchev criticize Stalin? Did Khrushchev save the project of building socialism in the USSR and the world or hurt it?

--Khrushchev criticized Stalin for the way he enforced a cult of personality in the Soviet Union, requiring complete dedication from those under him and regularly accusing anyone who challenged him or who he even thought looked badly at him of treason (and then punishing that treason). --K believed, essentially, that Stalin had been pushing too hard. He persecuted his own people, and he required them to give up everything for the cause of bettering the USSR's international image (with the end goal of spreading communism). --------But , selon K, the people of the USSR needed a break. Their dedication and energy had been tested too much, and continuing to run things like this was neither the best way to achieve success of Communism, nor to improve the lives of the Russian/Soviet people. --In contrast, Khrushchev pursued more peaceful international relations / peaceful coexistence with the USA. Reduced military spending and channeled it into more "productive" areas, like ICBMs and submarines. Also lessened the number of hours in the work week and invested in improving the Soviet consumerist economy, with the goal of improving the standard of living of the people. *moves toward making the USSR the "worker's paradise" it was supposed to be* --Given Hunt's evidence, it appears that Khrushchev saved the project of building socialism in the USSR. Stalin's model of leadership could only have persisted for so long before falling apart -- see: Djilas' argument that the new class is destined to fail... --------He also really believed that what he was doing would improve the USSR and also make socialism more likely to spread.

What were the relations between Mao and the Chinese Communist Party after 1949?

After 1949 and the establishment of the PRC, Mao's relationship with the rest of the Chinese Communist Party began to deteriorate to a large degree. --Mao's ways of dealing with the Party and the people of China were very reflective of his general conceptualization of the almost "magical" pervasiveness and persistence of capitalists and the bourgeoisie. He was forever trying to prevent them from rising up again and sabotaging Chinese communism-- *completely threw the former bourgeoisie out of the coalition of government, accused people of being counter-revolutionaries* --Almost analogous to Stalin, Mao was very suspicious of anyone who he saw as not fully dedicated to the Chinese revolutionary cause. --------He regularly disposed of anyone he saw as not revolutionary enough, and wanted to maintain the fervor of revolution that had marked the Civil War period. --Mao also wanted to drive the PRC toward economic development and the establishment of a fully socialist/communist state as quickly as possible. --------*Took full decision making power, ignoring the contributions of other party members and refusing to accept their ideas or their criticisms of his decisions* --------Instituted reforms like the collectivization of agriculture *against the recommendations of his advisors/subordinates* (and they often didn't work) --Furthermore, could see this obsession with revolution in the way he demanded dedication to the cause, and mistrusted the Party if they weren't as rev as him. Cultural Revolution too -- put trust in the youth instead of in the Party.

How could détente and MAD coexist as American policies toward the Soviet Union in the decade after the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Detente and MAD not only could coexist, but had to coexist as American policies toward the USSR following the Cuban Missile Crisis. Before the Crisis, there were essentially constantly escalating tensions between the USSR and the USA: --USSR tests first atomic bomb, 1949 - necessarily creates greater tension as there are now two world nuclear powers. --Korean War, 1951-1953 - first armed conflict of the Cold War! --Change from rather non-conflict-oriented "containment" policy under Truman, to "rolling back" policy under Eisenhower, through Dulles, which uses more aggressive rhetoric in talking about forcing the spread of communism back. *Even here, though, there's a tacit acknowledgement that all-out fighting the Communists would be a bad idea for everyone* --Also, Khrushchev attempts to act like a normal world power, and gets into US spheres of influence, pissing them off even though he's trying to advocate for peaceful coexistence. BUT, once all of this culminates in the Cuban Missile Crisis, all involved become aware of the true danger of waging this kind of war -- if it gets hot, everyone's done for. --US therefore has to take an approach that relaxes tensions, because *it's clear that if things were allowed to continue to escalate in the same way, there would be serious ramifications for the world.* --------Shift in the way the US views the USSR, from suspicious and dangerous country to one that will benefit from relaxation too. -------Viet Nam conflict weakens US prestige and wallet, requiring it to relax. --------*Nixon Doctrine* replaces Truman Doctrine, working with allies to prevent communist spread, rather than acting unilaterally. Also start *trading with USSR* --STILL THOUGH, needed MAD to continue, because the USSR and the US were still at odds with each other, and each had nuclear weapons. *This necessity is reflected in the fact that the "Second Cold War" comes up 1976-1985, once the USSR has enough power and money to do away with peaceful coexistence.

Was the United States or the Soviet Union more responsible for initiating the Cold War? Choose one nation and make a case with reference to information Hunt provides.

Given the evidence that Hunt puts forward, the US was more responsible for initiation of the Cold War. --Can see the beginnings of anti-USSR sentiment in the US going back to before the end of WWII. *Roosevelt makes a conscious decision to delay the opening of the front in Normandy, according to Hunt, prolonging the time before the US got involved so that Russia would handle the fighting while the US geared up for conflict.* Not necessarily as malicious as Stalin believed, but definitely indicative of an antagonistic outlook on the Russians even before the Cold War really begins. --The US is also the first of the two countries to announce that there was a major competition between them. *Truman announces aid to Greece and Turkey, and with it the importance of combatting the spread of antagonistic way of life of communism* --------US officials are not afraid to say that communism is an active threat to freedom and must be quashed --------Further reinforced by the announcement of the Marshall Plan --------Contrast to outlook of Stalin & the USSR: capitalist countries are done for from the start, so don't need to worry about them. Informs their actions differently.

Hunt makes the case that understanding the personalities of Truman and Stalin is crucial to understanding the decisions they made in international relations. Assess this argument. Though you may agree with Hunt's analysis, identify a decision that either Truman or Stalin made which does not fit with the psychological profile that Hunt gives these leaders.

Hunt's analysis of Truman and Stalin's personalities, and how they affected their leadership styles, is very convincing and valid. --Truman, as a politician with little international affairs experience, origins in the "heartland" of Missouri, and limited involvement WWII decision making under Roosevelt certainly seems likely to have been the type to fall back on his deeper values of an American politician in his dealings with the USSR moving forward. As someone influenced by a Wilsonian view of the role of the United States in the world, he would certainly see his place as doing all possible to expand the American way of life (democracy, capitalist freedom) to the rest of the world. And his actions reflect that assumption, with the announcement of containment policy / the Truman doctrine / the Marshall Plan. --Stalin characterized as a provincial and unsophisticated man who was not well-educated or well-traveled. These characteristics would certainly play into the way he ruled, through paranoia and a strong arm. He was not well connected to the peasantry around the country, and therefore did not do a good job of developing effective agricultural policies. His actions were furthermore indicative of a poor understanding of the international implications of his actions, like his determination to restore former Russian territories without regard for consequences. BUT, Truman's actions can certainly be interpreted in a different way. After all, unlike Stalin, he was to a much lesser degree in complete power in his country. Truman's decisions were necessarily informed by his advisors and other decision-makers. If we consider that advisors like Kennan were telling Truman that the USSR was a hostile nation whose utmost purpose was to alter the American way of life, Truman's foreign policy decisions make a lot of sense. He announced the Truman Doctrine, advocated containment and the Marshall Plan because he wanted to be sure he was protecting his country from this apparently very real and dangerous threat. He wasn't just an inexperienced belligerent with an inflated view of American exceptionalism, but a policy maker depending on the advising he was able to receive.

Why was East Germany so sure that fascism could not appear in their nation?

In East Germany, the memory of World War II was similar to that in the USSR. The Nazis were very anti-communist, interned and attacked communists, and overall Nazi fascism was based in the evils of *capitalism* as a whole, not in something inherent to German identity. *The first people sent to the concentration camps were communists! And the entire issue of WWII came from the warlike nature of capitalist countries!* Therefore, the East Germans didn't view the legacy of Nazi atrocities in WWII as their responsibility to atone for, nor as something that could happen again in the DDR. In contrast, the people of West Germany were heavily influenced by the way they were forced to take collective national responsibility for the atrocities of WWII, and atoning for the events became a part of their national identity and the currents of their politics.

What difference did it make if the French and other nations accepted that France was a "people in resistance" during WWII?

It was important for the French to see and to present themselves as a "people in resistance during WWII" for several reasons. --Needed to show that *France was not a nation to which it would be dangerous to return power following the War.* They were in resistance to the Nazis during the War, and they could therefore place themselves in opposition to the fascist ways of that regime. If the French were a people in resistance, then there was no reason for the US to legitimately occupy the country after the War. --------De Gaulle recognized this and pushed it as a way of viewing the French!! It worked! --Along similar lines, the French idea of being in resistance allowed them to maintain their *legitimacy to power within their own country.* They weren't weak, and they didn't submit to Nazi invasion. --Finally, the French needed to have a *positive vision of themselves.* In the face of Nazi atrocities, it was necessary to the psyche of the people to be able to say that they were not complicit in the deportation of Jews, etc. *Note* that the French definitely played up this resistance as a central piece of their cultural master narrative. In reality, only a *very small percentage* of the French people were actually involved in resistance effort. And many of them were members of the Communist Party, which played a part in politics after the War, but obviously was not allowed to take a whole lot of power.

What could the leaders of anti-colonial movements and newly independent countries find appealing in the stories and ideologies of Lenin and Stalin?

Like the leaders of anti-colonial movements, Lenin and Stalin both based their actions and ideologies in the idea that the world was controlled by a deeply immoral and unfair system based on EXPLOITATION : capitalism. --This belief was reflected in the way that many anti-colonial and post-colonial leaders viewed the situations in which they found themselves; they were the victims of a system based in capitalist exploitation of the colonized peoples so that capitalist, colonizing nations could build themselves up. ******Also example of overcoming repressive czarist regime!! Russia was not historically a large colonial power, and therefore USSR looked much more appealing than systems that had been oppressing these peoples. Russia's history as a largely agricultural country also important, because it did not reflect what Marx believed was necessary for a Communist proletarian revolution. But nonetheless, Lenin and Stalin both believed that the very agricultural country could still be built up through rapid heavy industry and economic expansion, creating a state that could support socialism and a high standard of living. Lenin thinks USSR communism will just trigger changes in other countries, but Stalin wants to build up huge Soviet industry to make impressive example. --Looks a lot like the state of colonized countries - are v agricultural because colonizers didn't invest in their industrial development. But still hope for them to follow Russia's example of nothing -> superpower v quick. ***Also, USSR provided an example of how to build self up without going into debt to the West!*** Stalin, especially, ran the Communist Party through a system of discipline. Lenin also believed, looking at Western European workers, that the workers needed the party to act for them to achieve communism, which is in their best interest. --Anti-colonial leaders looked at this kind of disciplined approach to Communist leadership in a positive light, because they were in / coming out of a time of turmoil, social unrest. Needed that discipline to be able to achieve economic build-up and independence.

What idea does the book "Babar" present of the colonized elite and their relations with Europe?

Overall, the way "Babar" presents the relationship between the Europeans and the peoples they colonize is very messed up, and reflects the way the Europeans *saw* what they were doing, rather than what they were actually inflicting on the colonized peoples. The French saw themselves as helping (some) of the colonized peoples -- the colonial bourgeoisie -- by providing them with clothing, (European) culture, and an education. The colonized people wanted this. Also, conveniently, the colonial bourgeoisie doesn't want to stay in France, and goes back to the colonies to rule where they're needed, because the non-Europeanized colonized people are too dumb to rule themselves. All together its' a very paternalistic relationship, which the Europeans understand as very beneficial for the colonial bourgeoisie and for the colonized people in general. Interesting, though, that the story does reflect some of harsh the reality of the European treatment of indigenous peoples -- after all, the story starts with the very symbolic murder of Babar's mother.

After Mao Zedong's death, the Chinese Communist Party graded his performance as leader of the party and gave him 70%. Grade Nasser's regime (1952-1970) and explain.

Overall, would give Nasser's regime about a 75%. He set out with very large goals of strengthening the Egyptians' government and economy -- making it a "strong and liberated Egypt" after a very long history of European meddling in North Africa/Middle Eastern affairs. --Economically, Nasser as fairly successful. He managed to avoid economic stagnation, building up the Egyptian economy by pursuing a left-leaning combination of socialism and capitalism. --------He ran the Suez Canal well, making it a great source of income for Egypt. --------Per capita income double during his tenure --------He combatted rural poverty by redistributing a great deal of land to the 95% of the population that had previously held only 5% of it. *BUT* these reforms only benefitted a portion of middle peasants, largely not the super poor peasants that really needed it. --But his other social and development projects were not quite as successful. --------The Aswan High Dam, which was supposed to harness the Nile, make life better for Egyptians, and expand arable land, as well as be an example of the country's modernity, was kind of a disaster. It was very expensive and ended up poisoning land. --------He failed to deliver on his attempt to unite Arab peoples in a political union to a large degree. The United Arab Republic experiment collapsed, and his attempts to fight Israel ended in defeat and wasted Egyptian resources --------He did manage to increase literacy, but gender gaps remained a huge problem as he refused to challenge Islamic ideologies underlying gendered traditions. His fairly radical policies did succeed in redistributing land to some degree, and in avoiding the economic stagnation of the beginning of the 20th century, and in leading Egypt in being a progressive MENA nation. But he did have major failures, especially the Dam, the inability to unite Arab world / destroy Israel, and to some degree his attempts to redistribute land and promote social justice.

Discuss the relation of ideas of national independence and radical social change in China or Vietnam and India or the Philippines. Is one possible without the other?

Talking about: China & India --China: Because of its own long history as a major empire, and that it was for the most part not a direct colony, but was still subjugated to influence and interference by foreign powers -- particularly GB and Japan -- Chinese leaders like Mao developed a very distinct sense that their country needed to radically overthrow the foreign influences that were trying to control it. --------Furthermore, the extremity of peasant desperation, coupled with the additional negative effects of these foreign encroachments, helped to convince Mao and other communist leaders that in order for China to achieve full independence from foreign influence, radical social change was necessary to support a new, powerful socialist state. --------They go on to overthrow the KMT, which was associated with the USSR, and start radical re-education of the masses and the destruction of the former leading landlord classes. --India: Situation was similar to that in China in that there was great rural/peasant poverty. But different in that the colonial influences of foreign powers (GB) were much greater. --------Because of the existing colonial bureaucracy/administration and also the heavy influence of the colonial-educated bourgeoisie, independence in India, while driven by desires for greater social change and equality, did not necessitate those changes. --------Gandhi called for great changes in society to end poverty and illiteracy and support the peasantry, as well as to get away from Western materialist way of life. But the real goal of many of those leading (Nehru included) was to develop India as a modern power *within* the existing world system, not as a radically changed nation. --------Therefore, the country was able to convince Britain to give it independence through peaceful means, rather than having to fight violently for it, and without having to radically change their social fabric.

How did Europe rule colonies through the enforcement of alien categories?

The Europeans introduced and enforced a number of alien ideas into areas under their colonial rule, and used those ideas to rule and control the indigenous peoples. --The Europeans brought the idea of national and other administrative *boundaries* to areas where such boundaries previously had not existed or had been more fluid. They categorized different people into the areas that these boundaries contained, and in the process split up or lumped together different groups of people. They sometimes used this splitting or amalgamation as a means of controlling the native peoples by weakening them or forcing them to confront each other. --Europeans also introduced the idea of *tribes* as a means of categorizing peoples, where earlier "tribal" differences were much more fluid and more difficult to define (inter-movement, intermarriage). They used these tribal assignments as a way to deal with and interact with indigenous peoples, as well as a way to control them by forcing them to identify in ways that Europeans wanted, and as groups from which resources could be extracted. --*Race* was also a European concept that was introduced in the colonies, where it had previously not been found. They caused the native peoples to conceive of race as a way of demarcating differences between peoples, and then used those perceived differences to control peoples. *example:* in Rwanda, the Belgians created the racial difference between Hutus and Tutsis, the placed Tutsis on the top of the racial hierarchy within the society, and used them as a tool through which to rule. *LEADS TO BIG ISSUES, LIKE THE RWANDA GENOCIDE, LATER ON!!* --Also introduced ways of categorizing *private property and conceptualizing labor,* which they used to administrate, legitimize their presence, and extract labor from the colonies.

How does the resolution of the Greek Civil War help us think about the divisions between nation-states during the Cold War?

The Greek Civil War was a kind of preview of the way the superpowers of the Cold War would go on to interact throughout the period. The war happened just after the end of WWII (1946-1949) and the withdrawal of the Germans, at which point the Greek Communist Party fought Greek monarchs for control of the country. --The US replaced Great Britain as the main supporters of the Greek monarchs, because GB couldn't handle the conflict. Illustrates to us and the US that the new position of the United States in the world order is definitely to become the new world police. They will do whatever necessary to avoid APPEASEMENT of USSR and international communists. --USSR doesn't super care about Greece, but wants to expand its influence in Eastern Europe. Example of the USSR trying to expand and maintain its international influence in the face of US opposition. **Both nations will go on to fight such proxy wars as they clash in attempts to expand their international influence. --Conflict also shows that there is not just one form of communism, and that all nation-states are not entirely subordinate to either the US or the USSR. Yugoslavs accept support from the US in exchange for ending their own support of Greek communists. **Shows us that nation-states in the Cold War, particularly the US and the USSR, will work to expand their spheres of influence and the reaches of their ideologies, often by working through other countries, and that these interactions will be complicated as they begin to bring in other states.

Hunt draws attention to the domestic and international elements operating on both sides of the Cold War during the decade and one half after 1953. Were the societies of the US and USSR converging in nature?

The US and the USSR faced similar issues in the 15 years after 1953, which did lead to the development of at least some degree of similarity between their societies. --Both nations recognized the dangers of nuclear conflict, and especially after the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, had to shift their foreign policies in order to avoid such conflict. --In the USSR, Khrushchev recognized that the straitjacket of Stalinism was not a sustainable way to continue to run the country going forward. --------Thawed Soviet foreign policy with the policy of peaceful coexistence. --------Worked to allow more freedom of expression within the country, and a greater degree of consumerism which mirrored Western trends and way of life. --In the USA, similar economic factors began to affect the way the country carried itself internationally. --------Given the many conflicts of the Cold War, the US began to strain as it continued to attempt to enforce its international prestige and preventing the spread of communism. --------For example, LBJ had to debate whether to get involved in Viet Nam or to push his own Great Society social programs at home. Like the USSR, the US was starting to come up against trying to support its international goals of promoting its way of life, or supporting the standard of living its people expected as a result of the ideology it maintained. ---------------Have to decide between "guns and butter"

If the US had not had economic interests in Guatemala & Cuba, could it have tolerated or even supported the regimes of Arbenz and Castro?

The US could not have tolerated the regimes of Arbenz or Castro, even if the country had not had economic interests to worry about in those countries. --Dating back to the Monroe Doctrine (and despite Roosevelt's less extreme Good Neighbor Policy), the US saw the American continents as its domain. --------This was especially true in Cuba, where the US had had a very direct influence and interest since the Spanish-American War in 1898. Though Cuba was technically independent, the US saw it as a place that it had the right to influence, and expansionists even wanted to eventually see Cuba become a US state. --------The US also maintained its right to military bases in Cuba (Guantanamo) and wielded a great deal of power in the Cuban political system. --The US was also, because of its strong anti-communist stance (and maybe somewhat hysteria??) very determined to prevent the establishment of anything resembling a leftist or socialist-leaning regime in the vicinity of the US mainland. --------Can see from the way the socialist-leaning government develops in Guatemala that the US has a vested interested in preventing this political system. --------Hunt notes that US ambassador to Guatemala is very aware of the actions of the government there -- uses the idea of the "duck test" to decide if there is reason to intervene. Are they communists or even communist-like? --------General US policy toward the spread of international communism in the form of Truman Doctrine/containment and rolling back both indicate that the US would not tolerate the rise of any kind of socialist regime in the Americas.

Was the USSR or the US more responsible for the continuation of the Cold War in the decade and a half after the change in leadership in the two nations in 1953? Evidence? Why?

The US was more responsible for the continuation of the Cold War in 1.5 decades after 1953. --With the rise of Khrushchev in the USSR, the country shifted to the policy of "peaceful coexistence" because it was very necessary to the country's continuing status as a superpower that it not waste all of its money on international conflict with the US, instead funneling it into building up its own consumer and industrial economies. --------Wanted de-escalation of nuclear arms race as well, because his nuclear advisors made it clear what would happen if it were to spin out of control. --------At the same time, K was willing to wield some influence internationally through aid to "third world" countries, which did exacerbate the US. Also maintained USSR influence in Eastern Bloc and created Warsaw Pact to compete with NATO. --In contrast, the United States under Eisenhower, Kennedy, and LBJ was not willing to accept a great deal of cooperation with the USSR. --------Stems from worries over APPEASEMENT following WWII--they didn't want to make the mistake of giving up too much power to the Soviets and having to deal with them. --------Eisenhower wasn't willing to agree to nuclear arms agreements without extreme oversight of USSR facilities, because didn't trust them. --------Kennedy was determined to build up US arms with the belief that they were falling behind the Soviets, even though this wasn't true. --------LBJ continues the the US schema of getting involved in international conflicts, escalating US involvement in Viet Nam despite a good deal of advising against it. *Americans continue to be dedicated to the idea of containing communism and refusing to back down* Overall, the US was more responsible for the continuation of Cold War conflict after 1953, especially in terms of military conflict. *Khrushchev's USSR was not nobly supporting nonaggression, but was instead following self-interested policies to build itself up without sinking too much money/energy in conflict*

How did the development of an economy based on export crops change power relations in the society of Ghana?

The colonial-imposed focus on the development of export crops had serious implications for the state of power dynamics in Ghana. --Required a shift away from communal lands on which all produce for the community was grown. --------This changed the power dynamic, shifting society away from concerns about shared resources of ways of living. --------Took control over communal land which was previously used by chiefs to provide for the common welfare, and instead encouraged individuals to fend for themselves and compete in the export economy. *People learned to care only for themselves, rather than depending on each other* --Women lost their places of power as community decision makers and leaders, as the colonial administrations excluded them from the new power structures developed to support the colony and the export economy. --------European gender norms, which were often very different from those of the indigenous peoples, were enforced and prevented women from holding power. --------Without communal land, the contributions of women to agriculture and chores could be disregarded as unimportant. --Profound *inequality between cities and the countryside* developed as the Europeans cultivated cities as centers of administration and trade. --------The cities acted parasitically toward the countryside, pulling away and using their resources to make money, because everything had to be routed through the for trade. BUT they gave basically nothing back. --------The Europeans wanted to build up cities because it was necessary to the colonial cause, but didn't want to spend a ton of money building up costly countryside administration. Instead, taxed countryside to support cities, but then didn't reinvest in the country.

Hunt dismisses the "coca-colonization" concerns of postwar Europeans, saying that their societies were moving in this direction on their own, and that critics were projecting their concerns about developments with roots in their own culture on to American culture. And, of course, the fear among colonial powers like France that they were being colonized can be interpreted in this light. That said, how can the colonization metaphor used to describe Americanization help us understand the nature of "colonization" as a phenomenon not limited to a form of governance?

The colonization metaphor applied to the phenomenon of Americanization of Europe and other parts of the world, especially after World War II, illustrates the fact that colonization can be carried out through economic and social means, not just governmental interference. --After WWII, the US was not afraid to state very publicly that it saw its place in the world as promoting a way of life that matched its own: freedom of economic choice within the capitalist system, and the halting of the spread of communism. --------Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan / containment of communism: the US wanted to be absolutely sure to internationally support regimes that would be friendly to it, and that would not support communism. As a result of these economic moves by the US government, motivated by their ideological beliefs, much of the world (especially Western Europe) came to be economically linked to, and even dependent on, the US. --Marshall plan funds could be used to build up torn apart countries, but had to be used to buy US goods. --As a result, American goods and culture were taken up by the European and other areas. So even though the US government wasn't, for the most part, actively in charge of the countries politically, its cultural and economic influences came to guide the way the countries developed, much in the same ways colonial power guided their colonies.

What did it mean to say that Harlem or Watts was a colony, and how did this affect MLK's, Malcolm X's, or the Black Panthers' (choose one) ideas about the nature and practice of liberation?

The idea that Harlem, Watts, and even the minds of all Black Americans were parallel to or were in fact colonies is based in the conceptualization of colonialism as exploitation. The way the US government, and white Americans in general, treat(ed) Black Americans is based in economic and social exploitation, and in control of the lives of "inferior" peoples through violence. This means of controlling people is very clearly parallel to the way in which the Europeans maintained control over people all over the colonized world. The Black Panthers use this framework to understand their situation, and that of all Black people in the United States. They are a colonized, exploited, controlled community of people existing within the social fabric of the US. Working from this conceptualization of their struggle, they use operate as a group working for independence from a colonial power, even drafting a Declaration of Independence. --Fanon's anti-colonialist ideas are very clearly reflected in the way the Black Panthers structure their fight against the White/US colonialist forces. --------They hope to liberate themselves through the exercise of violence. For instance, open-carrying and attempting to challenge rampant police brutality against Black communities. --------Black Panthers also integrate women into their ranks, reflecting Fanon's ideas on the liberation of women through participation in anti-colonial efforts. --------Align themselves with anti-oppression movements around the world; the struggle against the oppressor is shared!

What can the experience of Dr. Sirzawa in the film "Gojira" tell us about Japan's understanding of its place in the world in the 1950s?

The story of Dr. Sirazawa: Godzilla is threatening to really mess up Japan and kill many people. Dr. Sirazawa designs an extremely powerful weapon that could destroy the world, but uses it to kill Godzilla and in the process kills himself. This story reflects the Japanese self-image following WWII. Because the occupying force, the US, was preoccupied with the rise of the Cold War at the end of WWII and didn't want to end up pushing Japan too far and cause it to pick up Communism, they didn't force Japan to deal with the many atrocities it committed during WWII in the same way it forced Germany to. Though Japan did commit atrocities, it wasn't forced to come to terms with them. Furthermore, Hiroshima and Nagasaki helped to show the Japanese people that they were the victims of a mass atrocity. Therefore, the Japanese national identity and collective memory came to be based in the idea that the Japanese people were victims of atrocity, not conscious committers of it, and that they had a duty to be pacifists and point out the atrocities of other countries. This ideology is reflected in the noble way that Dr. Sirazawa uses his knowledge, bravery, and strength of character to save the the world from a violent evil.

Evaluate Hunt's comparison of the "ideological straitjackets" of McCarthyism and Stalinism. Are they comparable? In Hunt's presentation, the "straitjacket" of which nation appears more restrictive? What is your evidence from the text?

The two ideological straitjackets are definitely similar, and are motivated by the extremely nationalist concerns that stemmed from the conflict of the Cold War. Both the US and the USSR as themselves as countries fighting to maintain a way of life in the face of an immoral and dangerous opponent. --In the US, the McCarthyist inquisition was fueled by fears of any kind of invasion of the US government or culture by Soviet or Communist influence. Thousands were accused of communist sympathizing, and were stripped of government jobs. *Government employees could be punished for something as simple as having a family member with old ties to the Communist Party, and having "communist" art in their homes* A few people were even executed for treason against the US, including the Rosenbergs. --------All in all, the McCarthyist methods and drive were very contradictory. They claimed to be protecting freedom, but in the process infringed on the free speech and other rights of many leftists, liberals, and even LGBT people. *Also used anti-communist rhetoric to call into question any movement that might question traditional "American values"* --In the Soviet Union, the regime was obviously similar in that it required strict adherence to the Soviet way of life, and punished American/capitalist-leaning people. But in the USSR, the degree to which people were persecuted and punished for their political choices was much more severe. --------Millions were killed, put in jail, or assigned to forced labor for even being perceived as not respecting and showing devotion to the will of the party. --------Furthermore, Stalin's cult of personality required utmost devotion to the leader of the USSR himself, and he maintained absolute power by punishing anyone who even thought might be trying to question him. *So as a whole* both nations practiced oppressive policies with a similar goal: to ensure adherence to the way of life they were trying to promote in the face of perceived aggression from an antagonistic power. But the USSR led by Stalin was incredibly brutal and orchestrated killings, jailings, and internment on a large scale. Meanwhile, the US persecuted many of its own citizens, but not on the scale of sheer numbers or of extremity as the USSR.

How do Soviet and American explanations of the origins of WWII help us to explain their actions afterward?

USSR overall sees WWII as a product of warlike capitalist nations a) fighting amongst themselves, as capitalist nations necessarily do and b) attacking communism and the communist USSR as well. Essentially, the war was fueled by general anti-Communist sentiments and related issues, showing the USSR that all capitalist powers are against them. --Anti-communist Nazis come to power in 1933 and begin interning German communists. Also USSR believes they are funded by capitalists. --USSR sees the Munich Conference of 1939, in which Germany is allowed to annex Sudetenland, as an attempt by GB/France/Italy to direct the aggression of the Germans to the East, so they'll attack the Russians instead. --France and GB reluctant to align with Russia in this war, even though Russia just wants to re-form the alliance that protected everyone from Germany in WWI. --Even once alliance is functioning during the War, the Allies are slow to help the USSR repel the invasion by the Germans after Nazis break non-aggression pact. Russians (STALIN) see the delay in the invasion of Normandy/Second Front as the capitalists trying to weaken the USSR / let the War take it down. What's to stop the Allies from deciding to let the Germans just destroy the USSR? --All of this goes on to influence the USSR's enduring view of itself as a lone power in a world of capitalists bent on destroying it. US sees the WWII as originating in the Munich Conference and APPEASEMENT - a very bad way to deal with an aggressor (contrast to the USSR seeing the Conference as a direct attack on themselves). Also sees an economic cause, in the economic protectionism that was practiced by countries in the interwar period. Essentially, the US takes these "lessons" of the causes of WWII as an impetus to expand its world influence, seeing itself as a country with no real responsibility for the cause, but a part in the resolution. --The appeasement idea goes on to inform the Truman Doctrine and the idea that the US has a responsibility to protect the world from the spread of communist by USSR as aggressor. GB and France are no longer the world police; the US is. --US enacts the Marshall plan in order to try to build up Western European economies so that they'll be likely to be healthy and work together, not resort to the protectionism that caused the WWII problem in the first place.