https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvhKeJ6m3rY

watch the video then analysis with this format.

 

1.            Name of film: 

 

2.            Main point of the film:

 

3.            What is the point of view of the film?  Was it overly favorable or critical of a particular group or individual

 

 

4.            What inferences were made in the film?  Were there parts of the film that filmmakers must have made up because they couldn’t have known this from the available evidence?

 

 

5.            What Techniques are used in the film to persuade the audience to the filmmakers point of view?  Note music, camera angle, character portrayal, etc.

 

 

6.            What evidence is included to support the point of view put forth in the film? What is the source of that evidence? How strong is it?

 

 

7.            What relevant information do I know?  Does it contradict or support the story presented in the film?

 

 

 

8.            Overall, how strong are the historical arguments in this film?  Is it historically accurate?

Friendly and Professional

Prepare: Read Chapters 1, 2, and 3 of your textbook and explore the Alien Menace article thoroughly, viewing all of the links. You are not required to answer the questions on the website, only to consider them.

 

THE TOPIC WILL BE IMMIGRANTS

 

Write: Based on the chapters in your textbook and the required exhibit, answer the following:

  • Why was the last half of the 1800s a time of conflict over the meanings of citizenship in relation to race, ethnicity, and gender?
  • Explain the challenges faced by your chosen group.
  • How did your chosen group work to secure their places in the social and political hierarchy?

Write: Based on the chapters in your textbook and the required exhibit, answer the following:

  • Why was the last half of the 1800s a time of conflict over the meanings of citizenship in relation to race, ethnicity, and gender?
  • Explain the challenges faced by your chosen group.
  • How did your chosen group work to secure their places in the social and political hierarchy?
  • Reflect: Reflect on the discrimination based on race, gender, and ethnicity that was common in American society during the last half of the 1800s. Think about how this discrimination was justified. Consider the particular challenges and opportunities that each group confronted during this period and the strategies they used to navigate them. Focus specifically on the group that you chose for your Final Project. How did your group fit into the dynamics of this period?
  • Write: Based on the chapters in your textbook and the required exhibit, answer the following:                    
    • Why was the last half of the 1800s a time of conflict over the meanings of citizenship in relation to race, ethnicity, and gender?
    • Explain the challenges faced by your chosen group.
    • How did your chosen group work to secure their places in the social and political hierarchy?

    Your initial post should be at least 250 words in length. Be sure to mention your chosen group in the subject line of your post. Provide specific examples to support your points. Your references and citations must be formatted according to APA style as outlined by the Ashford Writing Center.

History Homework

What the video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgW0o-Ui94k and answer the questions below based upon your understanding of the war and the content of the video.

 

 

1.       Why did the French request assistance from the United States in Southeast Asia?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.       How is the Domino Theory related to the containment policy?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.       How did President Kennedy attempt to stop the expansion of communism into Vietnam?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.       After which event did President Johnson dramatically increase the number of US troops deployed to Vietnam?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a.       Why do historians call into questions President Johnson’s justification for sending more troops to Vietman?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.       Who advocated the policy of Vietnamization?  Why did this policy fail?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.       How did the Vietnam conflict end?

The Cold War in Vietnam

 

Vietnam Before US Intervention Previous

 

Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia had been a French colony since the late 19th century. During World War II, however, Japan occupied French Indochina. After Japan’s defeat, France tried to re-establish control, but met opposition from the Viet Minh.

 

After World War II, neither France nor England wanted to see the end of their colonial empires. England was anxious to control Burma, Malaya, and India. France wanted to rule Indochina. Under Franklin Roosevelt, the United States sought to bring an end to European colonialism. As he put it, condescendingly: “There are 1.1 billion brown people. In many Eastern countries they are ruled by a handful of whites and they resent it. Our goal must be to help them achieve independence. 1.1 billion potential enemies are dangerous.”

 

But under Harry Truman, the United States was concerned about its naval and air bases in Asia. The U.S. decided to permit France into Indochina to re-assert its authority in Southeast Asia. The result: the French Indochina War began.

From the beginning, American intelligence officers knew that France would find it difficult to re-assert its authority in Indochina. The French refused to listen to American intelligence. To them, the idea of Asian rebels standing up to a powerful Western nation was preposterous.

Although Truman allowed the French to return to Indochina, he was not yet prepared to give the French arms, transportation, and economic assistance. It was not until anti-communism became a major issue that the United States would take an active role supporting the French. The fall of China, the Korean War, and the coming of Joe McCarthy would lead policymakers to see the French War in Vietnam, not as a colonial war, but as a war against international communism.

Beginning in 1950, the United States started to underwrite the French war effort. For four years, the United States provided $2 billion; however, this had little effect on the war. The French command, frustrated by a hit-and-run guerrilla war, devised a trap. The idea was to use a French garrison as bait, have the enemy surround it, and mass their forces. Then, the French would strike and crush the enemy and gain a major political and psychological victory.

 

The French built their positions in a valley and left the high ground to their adversaries. An American asked what would happen if the enemy had artillery. A French officer assured him that they had no artillery, and even if they did, they would not know how to use it. Yet, as the journalist David Halberstam noted, “They did have artillery and they did know how to use it.”

Into the Quagmire Previous

 

On May 7, 1954, a ragtag army of 50,000 Vietnamese Communists defeated the remnants of an elite French force at a network of bases at Dien Bien Phu in northwestern Vietnam. The French, fighting to restore their Indochinese empire, planned to strike at their adversaries from a network of eight bases (surrounded by barbed wire and minefields) that they had built at Dien Bien Phu.

The Viet Minh, Vietnamese Nationalists led by Ho Chi Minh, bombarded these bases with artillery from the surrounding hillsides. Heavy rains made it impossible to bomb the rebel Vietnamese installations or to supply the garrisons. The French, trapped, were reduced to eating rats and pleaded for American air support. President Eisenhower decided to stay out.

 

Despite American financial supports, amounting to about three-quarters of France’s war costs, 250,000 veteran French troops were unable to crush the Viet Minh. Altogether, France had 100,000 men dead, wounded, or missing trying to re-establish its colonial empire. In 1954, after French forces were defeated at the battle of Dien Bien Phu, a peace conference was held in Geneva Switzerland. At the conference, the French and the Vietnamese agreed to divide Vietnam temporarily into a non-Communist South and a Communist North, pending re-unification following elections scheduled for 1956.

 

Those elections never took place. South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem, with U.S. backing, refused to participate in the elections for fear of an overwhelming victory by Ho Chi Minh. The failure of the South to fulfill the terms of the Geneva Accord led the North Vietnamese to distrust diplomacy as a way to achieve a settlement.

 

In 1955, the first U.S. military advisers arrived in Vietnam. President Dwight D. Eisenhower justified this decision on the basis of the domino theory–that the loss of a strategic ally in Southeast Asia would result in the loss of others. “You have a row of dominoes set up,” he said, “you knock the first one, and others will fall.” President Eisenhower felt that with U.S. help, South Vietnam could maintain its independence.

In 1957, South Vietnamese rebels known as the Viet Cong began attacks on the South Vietnamese government of Ngo Dinh Diem. In 1959, Hanoi approved armed struggle against Ngo Dinh Diem’s regime in Saigon.  President Kennedy supported the South Vietnamese government with weapons, supplies and 18,000 military advisors. 

LBJ and Vietnam Previous

 

President Lyndon Johnson was reluctant to commit the United States to fight in South Vietnam. “I just don’t think it’s worth fighting for,” he told McGeorge Bundy, his national security adviser. The president feared looking like a weakling, and he was convinced that his dream of a Great Society would be destroyed if he backed down on the communist challenge in Asia. Each step in deepening U.S. involvement in Vietnam made it harder to admit failure and reverse direction.
President Johnson campaigned in the 1964 election with the promise not to escalate the war. “We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10,000 miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves,” he said. But following reports that the North Vietnamese had attacked an American destroyer (which was engaged in a clandestine intelligence mission) off the Vietnamese coast, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, giving President Lyndon Johnson power to “take all necessary measures.”

In February 1965, Viet Cong units operating autonomously attacked a South Vietnamese garrison near Pleiku, killing eight Americans. Convinced that the communists were escalating the war, Johnson began the bombing campaign against North Vietnam that would last for 2 ½ years. He also sent the first U.S. ground combat troops to Vietnam.

Johnson believed he had five options. One was to blast North Vietnam off the map using bombers. Another was to pack up and go home. A third choice was to stay as we were and gradually lose territory and suffer more casualties. A fourth option was to go on a wartime footing and call up the reserves. The last choice–which Johnson viewed as the middle ground–was to expand the war without going on a wartime footing. Johnson announced that the lessons of history dictated that the United States use its might to resist aggression. “We did not choose to be the guardians at the gate, but there is no one else,” Johnson said. He ordered 210,000 American ground troops to Vietnam.

Johnson justified the use of ground forces by stating that it would be brief, just six months. But the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese were able to match our troop build-up and neutralize the American soldiers. In North Vietnam, 200,000 young men came of draft age each year. It was very easy for our enemy to replenish its manpower. By April 1967, we had a force of 470,000 men in Vietnam. We were learning that there was no light at the end of the tunnel.

The Johnson administration’s strategy–which included search and destroy missions in the South and calibrated bombings in the North–proved ineffective, though highly destructive. Despite the presence of 549,000 American troops, the United States had failed to cut supply lines from the North along the so-called Ho Chi Minh Trail, which ran along the border through Laos and Cambodia. By 1967, the U.S. goal was less about saving South Vietnam and more about avoiding a humiliating defeat.
Then, everything fell apart for the United States. We suddenly learned the patience, durability, and resilience of our enemy. In the past, our enemy had fought in distant jungles. During the Tet Offensive of early 1968, however, they fought in the cities.

The size and strength of the 1968 Tet Offensive undercut the optimistic claims by American commanders that their strategy was succeeding. Communist guerrillas and North Vietnamese army regulars blew up a Saigon radio station and attacked the American Embassy, the presidential palace, police stations, and army barracks. Tet, in which more than 100 cities and villages in the South were overrun, convinced many policymakers that the cost of winning the war, was too great. The former Secretary of State Dean Rusk, who had assured Johnson in 1965 that he was “entirely right” on Vietnam, now stated, “I do not think we can do what we wish to do in Vietnam.” Two months after the Tet Offensive, Johnson halted American bombing in most of North Vietnam and called for negotiations.
As a result of the Tet Offensive, Lyndon Johnson lost it all. Senator Eugene McCarthy, who picked up more than 40 percent of the vote, challenged Johnson in the Democratic presidential primary.  President Johnson decided not to run for re-election and Richard Nixon won the election of 1968.

 

Nixon and Vietnam

In the 1968 election, Republican Richard Nixon claimed to have a plan to end the war in Vietnam, but, in fact, it took him five years to disengage the United States from Vietnam. Indeed, Richard Nixon presided over as many years of war in Indochina as did Johnson. About a third of the Americans who died in combat were killed during the Nixon presidency.

 

Nixon’s plan to bring “peace with honor,” mainly involved reducing American casualties by having South Vietnamese soldiers bear more of the ground fighting–a process he called “Vietnamization”–and defusing anti-war protests by ending the military draft. Nixon provided the South Vietnamese army with new training and improved weapons and tried to frighten the North Vietnamese to the peace table by demonstrating his willingness to bomb urban areas and mine harbors. He also hoped to orchestrate Soviet and Chinese pressure on North Vietnam.

 

The most controversial aspect of his strategy was an effort to cut the Ho Chi Minh supply trail by secretly bombing North Vietnamese sanctuaries in Cambodia and invading that country and Laos. The U.S. and South Vietnamese incursion into Cambodia in April 1970 helped destabilize the country, provoking a bloody civil war and bringing to power the murderous Khmer Rouge, a Communist group that evacuated Cambodia’s cities and threw thousands into re-education (concentration) camps.

Following his election, President Nixon began to withdraw American troops from Vietnam in June 1969 and replaced the military draft with a lottery in December of that year. In December 1972, the United States began large-scale bombing of North Vietnam after peace talks reach an impasse. The so-called Christmas bombings led Congressional Democrats to call for an end of U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia.

 

In late January 1973, the United States, South Vietnam, the Viet Cong, and North Vietnam signed a cease-fire agreement, under which the United States agreed to withdraw from South Vietnam without any comparable commitment from North Vietnam. Historians still do not agree whether President Nixon believed that the accords gave South Vietnam a real chance to survive as an independent nation, or whether he viewed the agreement as a face-saving device that gave the United States a way to withdraw from the war “with honor.”

 

The Final Collapse Previous

 

On the morning of April 30, 1975, a column of seven North Vietnamese tanks rolled down Saigon’s deserted streets and crashed through the gates of South Vietnam’s presidential palace. A soldier leapt from the lead tank and raised a red, blue, and yellow flag. The Vietnam War was over.

Tens of thousands of South Vietnamese massed at the dock of Saigon harbor, crowding into fishing boats.

In the fall of 1974, President Nguyen Van Thieu of South Vietnam abruptly ordered his commanders to pull out of the central highlands and northern coast. His intention was to consolidate his forces in a more defensible territory. However, the order was given so hastily, with so little preparation or planning, that the retreat turned into an uncontrollable panic. Consequently, North Vietnamese forces were able to advance against little resistance. On April 30, 1975, North Vietnamese soldiers captured Saigon, bringing the Vietnam War to an end.

The Cold War in Vietnam Guiding Questions

 

Vietnam Before US Intervention & Into the Quagmire


1. Why did FDR want to end France and Britain’s colonial empires?

2. Why did the US decide to help the French maintain their control over Indochina?

3. What happened to the French in 1954 at Dien Bien Phu? 

4. What did France and Ho Chi Minh decide in Geneva in 1954?

5. What was the Domino Theory and how did it guide President Eisenhower’s actions in Vietnam?

6. According to the reading, why did North Vietnam invade South Vietnam in 1957?

 

LBJ and Vietnam

7. How did President Johnson feel about US involvement in Vietnam prior to the Presidential election of 1964?

8. How did the Gulf of Tonkin incident change LBJ’s approach to Vietnam?

9. Describe President Johnson’s strategy for winning the war in Vietnam?  Why did it fail?

10. What was the Tet Offensive and when did it occur?

11. How did it change American goals for the Vietnam war?

Nixon and the Final Collapse
12.  Describe President Nixon’s plan for ending US involvement in the Vietnam war?

13. What was the most controversial part of Nixon’s plan to end the war?  How did this plan impact Cambodia?

14. What happened to South Vietnam in April 1975?  How did President Nixon’s action in January of 1973 contribute to this outcome?

 

 

El Professori

You will compare and contrast one aspect of two civilizations that we discuss in this course. You will choose any two civilizations. They can be from any chapter that we are discussing. After you choose the civilizations, look at their social, political, scientific, technological, economic, religious, or military characteristics. Choose one of these features, research how each of your civilizations developed the specific topic you are researching further. You will then compare and contrast them. To do this, you will look at the ways they are similar, and then discuss how they differ and why. Remember, for a compare and contrast paper, you must address the same elements and characteristics of each civilization and discuss them from each side.

 

Your introduction must have a strong thesis statement. I like what the Writing Center at the University of North Carolina has to say on this:  http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/thesis-statements/

Example Topic:
You could compare the scientific capabilities of the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. To create a successful paper, you would discuss the significance placed on science within each of these cultures, leading practitioners, relevant success and failures, the overall respective contributions of science to each of these nations, and the impact of science on the Cold War itself.


For any topic you choose, think critically about what you are discussing and the role it played in these nations, and choose accordingly.

Technical and Formatting Requirements:
With this assignment, you will learn how to do proper and adequate research and write a short paper with a central thesis statement.

This paper is at least FIVE double-spaced pages of text (Times New Roman, font size 12), not including bibliography or title page, and you must consult a minimum of FIVE sources. These sources breakdown as follows:

a. TWO primary sources which include one for each of the civilizations/nations you are comparing and contrasting. As a reminder, a primary source “is a document or physical object which was written or created during the time under study. These sources were present during an experience or time period and offer an inside view of a particular event.” http://www.princeton.edu/~refdesk/primary2.html.
b. TWO scholarly secondary sources which include one for each of the civilizations you are comparing and contrasting. This means peer reviewed journals or books from reputable publishers as found in the APUS library. What is a secondary source? “A secondary source interprets and analyzes primary sources. These sources are one or more steps removed from the event.”
http://www.princeton.edu/~refdesk/primary2.html. This means peer reviewed journals or books from reputable publishers as found in the APUS library. Like the JSTOR database. This DOES NOT mean web sites.
c. Our class readings should be used to supplement these sources, but they should not be the main focus of your work, and they are not counted in the two primary and secondary sources you need to research.

To use our example from above, if you wanted primary sources you might use the article by Don K. Price on “The Deficiencies on the National Science Foundation Bill” as published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in October 1947. This can be found: http://goo.gl/mtVcx  

 

Secondary sources would be recent journal articles by historians analyzing science in the Cold War. This means peer reviewed journals or books from reputable publishers as found in the APUS library. One example is Alexander Vucinich’s 2001 book entitled Einstein and Soviet Ideology. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/apus/Doc?id=10042890. Another example is Jessica Wang’s 199 book, American Science in an Age of Anxiety: Scientists, Anticommunism, and the Cold War. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/apus/Doc?id=2001287 


Bibliographies and citations will be in the format followed by your school, such as Chicago Manual of Style, APA, or MLA format.

The short paper needs to be turned in through the Assignment section for grading. If you use any of the information from your sources word-for-word, you must cite the source by using endnotes or footnotes. If you read the information and write it in your own words and it is not common knowledge, then you must cite the source because you are paraphrasing someone’s information. The paper must include a cover page with your name, course number and course title, instructor’s name, and date. You must also include a bibliography at the end of your paper. While composing your paper, use proper English. Do not use abbreviations, contractions, passive voice, or first/ second person (I, you, we, our, etc). Before submitting your paper, check your grammar and use spell check. Remember, the way you talk is not the way you write a paper.

How does Douglass usethe ideals proclaimed by white Americans on the Fourth of July to critique slavery?

write at least a 300 words answer combining the answer of the question you got from the article and also response to other people’s discussion that I will put below this instrucstion. Please add extra information that you got from the article that I will upload that the other person does not have and are related to the question.

 

Other people’s discussion: (response to this discussion below while answering the question and also adding new information)

Frederick Douglass was a fugitive slave who was a political leader in the abolitionist movement. Finally in 1847, his freedom was bought by his friends, and he continued to be active in the political movement to eradicate slavery. On July 4th, 1852, Douglass gave a speech in his home town of Rochester, New York. He spoke about how slaves feel on Independence Day, and his voice was filled with passion and a seething anger, which only empowered the message. He begins by speaking on the fact that on this day, white men are are the only ones celebrating independence, and for slaves it is only a reminder of their shackles. “Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us…The sunlight that brought life and healing to you has brought stripes and death to me. The Fourth of July is yours, not mine.You may rejoice, I must mourn.” (What to the Slave is the Fourth of July p. 1). Douglass brings up the fact it is a smack in the face to slaves to be celebrating a day of independence when not all men are free. Douglass also brings up the point of many slaves following Christianity, not only do they share the same God, but an important reason to note this is because one of the reasons Pilgrims came to the United States was to be able to practice their branch of this religion freely. Another argument that Douglass makes is that the government is allowing this persecution of blacks. “The slave-holders themselves acknowledge it in the enactment of laws for their government. They acknowledge it when they punish disobedience on the part of the slave.There are seventy-two crimes in the State of Virginia, which, if committed by a black man (no matter how ignorant he be), subject him to the punishment of death; while only two of these same crimes will subject a white man to like punishment.” (What to the Slave is Fourth of July p. 2). Which mirrors the way Parliament was allowing the unfair and brutal treatment of the colonists. I personally found this to be such a very intelligent and compelling way to mirror the situations. Douglass also says a line that is very reminiscent to propaganda and writings that were very popular during the time of the revolution “Am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their masters?” (What to the slave is Fourth of July p. 3). It reminds me a lot of the propaganda that was being circulated at the time of the revolution because it touches on how, first off, how dehumanizing their ‘masters’ are, the complete disregard for the victim’s opinion and well-being, how their liberty was stripped from them, but also he talks of money and the ability to form relations with other people. Economics and money were one of the most pivotal reasons behind the revolution, the colonists felt that they weren’t being treated fair economically, as did the slaves for unpaid labor. Also the mention of relations with other people. Although I interpreted Douglass to be talking on a smaller scale, domestic relations with other citizens, it’s reminiscent of how Parliament refused the colonies their own say in foreign relations. This speech made by Frederick Douglass is one of my favorites in history, his passion, intelligence shine through with subtle nuances and compelling arguments.”