Category: History

THE BOOK IS BELOW The era from 1916 to 1920 changed America’s relations with the world forever as well as reshaping American domestic economic and racial relations. First World War, or the Great War as it was called, represented a pivotal era in American and World History. Understanding the American involvement in the war, as well as its origins and outcomes is essential to undestanding the world today. For your textbook, chapter 19; answer the following questions in a 200 word essay: 75 points.
1. Explain the role fo the United States in the global economy by 1920.
2. What were the goals and methods of the Committee on Public Information during World War 1?
3. Identify the goals of those pressing fro global change and thise opposing the, in 1919?
For the Reader American Perspectives, answer the folloing questions: 25 points. chapter 7
How does the original reading from the article “Revolution in Texas” cover unrest and political revolution that occurred in Texas during these years.

The final essay is a comprehensive essay reflecting what you have learned from the course about the history of Black Cinema. It should have a clear thesis and argument, and provide specific examples and thoughtful analysis. Essays should written in Chicago Manual Style. Textbook used is Colorization, One Hundred Years of Black Films in A White World
ISBN: 9780525656876

This assignment will be submitted to Turnitin™.
Instructions
We have all lived through some of the subjects covered in Unit III. Living through historical events is easily more visceral and likely interesting than reading about a distant past in a History textbook. With this in mind, I would like you to answer the following two questions for this final Understanding History assignment:
1) In your opinion, what has been the most significant event(s) in American History within your OWN lifetime? How has your life been shaped by this event?
2) One hundred years from now, students in a history class will be studying this material through a very different lense. What do you think/hope will be the biggest historical theme(s) that will emerge from these decades and your lifetime?
Please make your responses at least one substantial paragraph long (5 complete sentences) for each of these questions.

The Research Paper needs to be at least 1,000 words, in your own words, with citations and a Bibliography.
The Research Paper is a standard research paper on a topic connected to immigration/migration history. It must include the answers to the following questions: What happened? Who was involved? What effect did the event(s) have on the individuals, or group/groups involved, or group(s) in question? What was the significance of the event or issue on immigration during the period you are discussing? Did it have any repercussions or effects? What were/are they? What is your opinion on the matter? Explain. Make sure to provide historic data/information to back up your opinion. What is one thing that you learned about your Paper topic that surprised you? The Paper must have a central thesis which is backed by the information you provide.
Use both primary and secondary materials. Do not forget to cite your sources, especially when using quotations or paraphrasing. Up to 25% of your Research Paper can consist of cited quotes, and, or, cited paraphrases.
Provide a Bibliography or a Works Cited page (the Bibliography/Works Cited Page does not count towards the minimum number of words for your Paper).
I will attach the possible topics that can be used. if two topics are used reasons/an argument needs to be given as to why the topics goes along.

THIS IS FOR HUMANITIES COURSE ON THE HOLOCAUST 
PLEASE FOLLOW INSTRUCTION BELOW CAREFULLY!
Personal Histories Project
12 – 15 slide presentation (not including title slide or
works cited slide MLA format)
It must contain six separate sources. Two sources
must be primary sources (of these primary sources, one must be a testimony).
Three sources must be scholarly secondary sources. One source may be a general
information source.
USHMM – great for primary sources and general information
sources but NOT for scholarly source.
USHMM may be used to count for one source towards the source
requirement (may also be used for sources beyond the six minimum). Any visuals
used must include appropriate citations BUT cited visuals don’t count towards
the minimum required sources.
·        
Set objectives for the presentation stating what
we will learn about the Holocaust presentation; Should not simply state that we
will learn about the life of person x, y, or z.
·        
General biographical information on selected
individual:
1)     
Information about their prewar experience (pre –
1939}
2)     
Information about their experiences from 1939 –
1945
3)     
Information about what ultimately became of the
selected individual (circumstances under which the individual perished,
survived, was liberated, etc).
·        
Information can be fund on the selected ID cards
and through general internet searches; many survivors personal websites,
recorded testimonies, etc. As much as possible go beyond the minimal outline
provided by the ID card.
·        
The general point is to provide enough
background information / context/ research to make the personal history being
presented understandable to someone who has not taken this course. If you
cannot fit the information into the actual slide, use the notes section to
provide relevant explanatory notes, details, research leads, etc.
·        
The presentation must include research on
relevant concepts/terms/people/places that hold significance for the selected
personal history. For instance, if the personal history includes references
to euthanasia program then include a reference slide to the T4 program (perhaps
even information on eugenics). An ID card with an individual who survived
Theresienstadt necessitates a presentation slide or two on this most unusual of
concentration camps. An individual who spent time in the Kovno ghetto would
necessitate a presentation slide on the ghetto system in general and an
additional slide on Kovno.

reply to each post with 100 words as if you are me and reply hello (person name)
no generic replies. Each reply should have seprate references 
post 1
Toni Hatcher posted Jun 18, 2024 9:42 AM
Professor and Classmates,
Economic challenges play roles in many countries. Every empire, state power and citizen go through their own economic pitfalls. The industrial revolution and wars played pivotal roles in the way economies prospered or failed. The continuous shift in European powers and colonial land put pressure on non-western societies to adapt their economies in hopes to remain viable in the always changing global economy.
The reforms of the 19th century were influenced both externally and internally. Social unrest among citizens and laborers caused concern within the government. The reforms were implemented in hopes of preventing revolts. As new ideas further emerged, and Nationalism took form, political, social and economic changes began to be inspired. Nationalism became a driving force behind many reform movements, influencing political and social transformations across various regions.1 Outside the country, colonialism and imperialism was still dominating the world. It pushed many countries to modernize themselves, becoming a part of the industrial revolution trends, whether it be politically or economically. 
Mixed signals of success of the reforms can be seen in some aspects. The Tanzimat Reforms of the Ottoman Empire, were created to modernize the army, administration and legal system, but not everyone saw that as something that was helping their country, but did lay the groundwork for further modernization. In the end, The Tanzimat reforms, despite their shortcomings, represented a significant effort by the Ottoman leadership to bring about modernization and centralization.2
With the ideas of reforms came challenges. For the Ottoman Empire implementing the new ideas seemed impossible. Change is always resisted even if it is beneficial in the long run. The empire’s diverse and multi-ethnic composition complicated reform efforts, as different groups had varying interests and levels of resistance. Economic resources hindered the ability to keep reforms afloat, especially as many needed investments. Furthermore, European powers had conflicting interests, sometimes supporting reforms to weaken the empire and other times opposing them to maintain a balance of power. There was no true balance. The Tanzimat reforms were an attempt to modernize the Ottoman Empire and fend off external pressures, but the deep-seated internal divisions and lack of cohesive support made sustained progress difficult.3
Toni
1 John Breuilly. Nationalism and the State, (Manchester, England: Manchester University Press, 1993).
2 Erik J. Zurcher. Turkey: A Modern History, (London, United Kingdom: I.B. Tauris, 2017).
3 Stanford J. Shaw. History of Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1977).
Post 2
Timothy Harshfield posted Jun 18, 2024 6:02 PM
Throughout the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire grappled with the economic challenges discussed in previous weeks forums which fostered attempts to reform elements of the Ottoman government.  The most notable of these reforms were the “New Order” military reforms of Sultan Selim III in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, and the major reforms of the Tanzimat reforms of the following generation.  
The decline of the Ottoman Empire was in full force by the turn of the 19th century.  The traditional economic system remained heavily reliant on agriculture and inefficient taxation, and was drastically outpaced by the growing industrial economies of Europe.  In the years after the Napoleonic era, Ottoman lands became an important market for a variety of European manufacturers, which resulted in drastic trade deficits.[1]  Economic pressure was not the only aggression faced from Europe either, since the turn of the century was marked by Napoleon’s advances, and this was quickly followed by war with Russia.  Internally, the need to put down internal dissent and uprisings were also significant motivators for reform.  Greek and Serbian nationalist movements were inspired by the American and French Revolutions of the late 18th century and sought similar individual rights and freedoms.[2]  This was the status of the Ottoman Empire at the ascension of Selim III.
The main reform effort of Selim III at the end of the 18th and early 19th century was the “New Order” (Nizam-i Cedid) military reforms which sought to restructure the army along the tactics and training methods of Europe.  This new force proved an immediate success in their first action, in the victory against Napoleon Bonaparte at Acre in Syria in 1799.[3]  Despite this early success, the power of the janissaries was clearly threatened and rather than accept their own status as obsolete the janissaries revolted and forced Selim III to abdicate.[4]  Selim III’s military reforms were abandoned immediately in favor of a return to an army similar to that of Suleiman I three centuries before.  The janissaries proved themselves to be more focused on their own power than the security of the empire.
Internal dissent only continued to grow from this point.  In addition to the janissary revolts, 1821 brought the nationalism movements to a new peak with the Greek War of Independence.  The British, French, Habsburgs, Russians, and even the Ottomans had previously armed and trained Greek forces for use as irregular soldiers in their army, and in 1821 these trained men joined the rebellion against the sultan.[5]  By the 1830’s, with growing concerns over Russian advancements into Ottoman territory, the sultan agreed to a peace treaty “which gave autonomy to Serbia and Greece,” but the immediate result was growing independence movements by Bulgarians, Macedonians, and others.[6]
The Tanzimat, or “re-ordering” marked a much more deliberate attempt at reforms throughout all elements of the Ottoman government, rather than simply within the military, during the final years of the Greek War of Independence and later.  In 1837, Sultan Mahmud II established the ministries of the interior, foreign ministry, and justice, and although these new branches proved to be short-lived the “set an important precedent for the future.”[7]  In 1839, Mahmud II was succeeded by Sultan Abdulmecid who continued down the same path with the Gulhane Edict, “a public pronouncement that the old ways had failed to fit the empire for the modern age.”[8]  A key element of the reforms was the “promise of equality for all before the law,” but this would prove nearly impossible to enforce considering Islam itself codifies significant inequalities along lines religious, gender, and social class.[9]  The Tanzimat was far from a failure, but was unable to fully achieve its lofty goals.  Imperfections in the tax reforms resulted in an inability to equally apply all reforms across the vast empire.  Additionally, conservative elements within the empire constantly applied pressure for a return to more traditional views.  Finally, European powers continued their efforts to speak on behalf of Ottoman citizens of different religions:  Russians on behalf of Orthodox Christians, the French on behalf of the Ottoman Catholics, and even the British on behalf of Ottoman Jews.[10]
The “New Order” military reforms were a step in the right direction, but the janissary revolt and the premature end of Selim III’s reign negated the positive effects.  A generation later, the Tanzimatreforms, while ambitious, did not fully achieve their goals and the Ottoman Empire ultimately proved to be beyond saving.  The attempts at reform highlighted the difficult balance between innovation and tradition in a transitionary period of world history.  For the Ottoman Empire, the conservative elements focused on tradition proved too strong to overcome.
– Tim
[1] Edward C. Clark, “The Ottoman Industrial Revolution,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 5, no. 1 (1974): 65-76, https://www.jstor.org/stable/162344, 65.
[2] Marc David Baer, The Ottomans: Khans, Caesars, and Caliphs (New York: Basic Books, 2021), 329.
[3] Caroline Finkel, Osman’s Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1923 (New York, New York: Basic Books, 2007), 393.
[4] Finkel, Osman’s Dream, 423-4.
[5] Baer, The Ottomans, 336.
[6] Baer, The Ottomans, 342.
[7] Finkel, Osman’s Dream, 441.
[8] Finkel, Osman’s Dream, 447.
[9] Finkel, Osman’s Dream, 450.
[10] Finkel, Osman’s Dream, 451.

The siege and fall of Masada in 73 CE provides us with an almost unparalleled opportunity to draw on both literary and archaeological information to understand one of the best-known events in ancient Jewish history. In 5-7 double-spaced pages(Times New Roman, size 12 font), analyze the following two readings in light of the below instructions.
Yigael Yadin, Masada: Herod’s Fortress and the Zealots’ Last Stand. Translated by Moshe Pearlman; New York: Random House, 1966.
Yadin, Masada (1).pdfDownload Yadin, Masada (1).pdf
*Important: The file contains excerpts from different parts of Yadin’s book, and as such, the flow is sometimes interrupted. Even so, you should be able to follow the flow and logic of his argumentation.  Read the following pages: pp. 54, 96-100, 193-201, 209-37. Note that pages 209-25 (the long section on the Roman camps) may be skimmed.
Shaye Cohen, “Masada: Literary Tradition, Archaeological Remains, and the Credibility of Josephus,” Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982): 385-405.
Cohen, Masada, Literary Tradition, Archaeological Remains, and the Credibility of Josephus_rotated.pdfDownload Cohen, Masada, Literary Tradition, Archaeological Remains, and the Credibility of Josephus_rotated.pdf
The assignment: Scholars often disagree about how to interpret evidence. Although this may seem obvious, it is not so easy to master two divergent points of view and present a fair case for both. With this paper you will try to weigh differing and at times contradictory analyses of historical evidence. Write a detailed account of the dispute encountered in the readings (listed above and provided on Canvas). It is up to you to decide how best to organize your essay. Do not write as if I already know the contents of the readings and the subject of the debate. The goal is to distill and analyze the main points related to the debate at hand (do not summarize or recount the readings at length). When relevant, you should not shy away from discussing nitty-gritty details (such as the nature and location of the discovery of skeletal remains). Explain the problem and present the essential evidence at stake. Make sure that you understand what positions are held, and at what specific point(s) the writers agree and disagree. Observe the particular patterns in the discussion, such as:
– who wrote first/second, and the effect of the statement/response (are they talking exactly about the same thing)?
– what is their approach and the logic of their argument?
– what evidence do they use and what evidence do they omit?
– do they categorize the evidence in the same manner?
– what is considered decisive by each writer?
Do not choose sides. For this paper, I am more concerned that you show a detailed and fair understanding of each position. It is sometimes said that one cannot begin a fair rebuttal of any position until one can present that position in terms that its own advocate would accept as accurate. Apply your critical thinking to the way(s) in which the writers develop their cases. In addition to the fulfillment of the above instructions, your paper will be graded on the basis of the following criteria: 
coherent organization, and clear, grammatical writing that is free of spelling errors.
Warning: You may encounter in these readings names of places and people as well as technical terms and foreign words that are unfamiliar to you. The fact that you do not know these will represent initial barriers to understanding the readings, but this is very much part of the point to this paper. Your job is to read for the structure of thinking, to follow the flow of an argument, and then to figure out each category of information and how it fits into the larger purpose of the reading. The significance of most of the evidence can be figured out this way. You should look up unfamiliar words in a dictionary. Most other technical information (such as references to other scholars’ articles or books and foreign words) can be figured out from context. Despite such features regularly found in scholarly literature, it should still be possible to follow the reasoning of the reading.
HERE IS THE ESSAY I HAVE RIGHT NOW:
The Siege and Fall of Masada: Differing Scholarly Perspectives
The Masada siege and the fall of the same in 73 CE are one of the most important events in the history of ancient Jews. Thanks to the preservation of both literary and archaeological materials, this event is a rare opportunity to have a multidimensional view of this event. Two leading exponents such as Yigael Yadin and Shaye Cohen have analyzed it in a very profound way with this article on Masada each alternatively giving certain facts. In this work, Yadin indicates that the details of the excavation carried out at the palace of Masada are his main revelation in the book “Masada: Herod’s Fortress and the Zealots’ Last Stand.” On the other hand, Cohen’s essay, “Masada: Literary Tradition, Archaeological Remains, and the Credibility of Josephus,” deals with the analysis of the truthfulness of Josephus’s information in comparison with the archaeological material. This essay seeks to discuss the most important arguments and to contrast the views of Yigael Yadin with those of Shaye Cohen and others in order to explain their propositions and the reasons they have come to.
Yadin’s book is such a notable work that in addition to historical data, it also includes the story of Masada in a very interesting and true way. Another point worth mentioning is that Yadin headed the dig at the site plus he utilized the evidence from the site to support the historical context Josephus develops in his work. Much of the work is based on a solid steadiness of the material uncovered at Masada including the defense walls, the Roman camps, and the dead people. He goes into a lot of specifics to outline the discoveries at Masada. These contributed to the proof of Josephus’s depictions of the siege and the conditions at the hilltop fortress.
What Yadin is actually saying is that the skeletal remains found are the evidence of mass suicide as described in Josephus, which he insists on. These are typically enclosed in the text with the heading “Before the Summary.” Outlining these meta-rules is the main purpose of this chapter. Yadin insists that it is the particular arrangement and construction of the camps both inside and outside Masada that are definite evidence that Masada was a concentration camp. He aims to show that they are one of the essential pieces of the puzzle that would help us to comprehend the catastrophic structure of the Zealots’ last stand.
Shaye Cohen presents an article that is more on the doubtful side on whether Josephus was a reliable historical narrator. Cohen directly implies that the credibility of the oral tradition is the main issue by opposing it with the archaeological evidence and the dubious nature of Josephus’ account. Cohen, too, points out the literary style and objectives of Josephus, claiming that the historian might be subjective or melodramatic. He stresses the necessity of an unprejudiced approach to Josephus as a Jewish writer who wrote ancient works which were sponsored by the Romans.
⁤Masada is viewed by scholars as a place of great historical and symbolic significance and the center of Jewish rebellion against the Roman authority. ⁤⁤Both include the significance of archaeological finds in reconstructing the events at Masada, though their emphases on its interpretation of them is different. ⁤⁤In contrast to Cohen, who is more dubious about the accuracy of Josephus’s account, Yadin embraces it and uses the findings to back up the narrative of the ancient historian. ⁤⁤On the other hand, Cohen is not so easy and suggests to others to be cautious when they read the ancient text of Josephus. ⁤⁤Yadin decodes these bones as evidence of the mass suicide recounted by Josephus. ⁤⁤Cohen opposes this conclusion and gives his versions, pointing out that some parts of the evidence are ambiguous. ⁤⁤Yadin relies mainly on the archaeological evidence and the physical finds to validate his historical account. ⁤⁤Cohen’s way of proceeding is very critical and comparative, the researcher explores the credibility of the written sources as well as their possible influences on the historical descriptions. ⁤
⁤The method of Yadin is seen to be linked directly to the findings of the archaeological phase he has conducted at Masada. ⁤⁤The settlement he puts forward stems from the material traces he has discovered which he uses to retell the events in such a way as Josephus had reported them at the time. ⁤⁤His consecutive logic is commonsense and backed up by the concrete evidence found by the researchers. ⁤⁤On the other hand, Cohen is more inclined towards an analytical and skeptical approach. ⁤⁤He goes into the literary aspects of Josephus’s writings, juxtaposing them with archaeological evidence in order to identify any discrepancies. ⁤⁤Cohen’s method, one of questioning the known aspects and challenging them, is a way to recognize the history behind it or potential reasons for writing it. ⁤
⁤Yadin and Cohen’s disagreement about the events at Masada draws attention to the intricacies of historical evidence interpretation. ⁤⁤Yadin is certain that the results of the excavations greatly support what Josephus says but Cohen is very skeptical and critically analyzes the literature and the hard evidence. ⁤⁤The chasm between the two is rooted in the imperativeness of the multifaceted and methodological approach established in historical research. ⁤⁤Through dissecting the areas where Yadin and Cohen converge and diverge in their discussions, we come to fathom more deeply the pitfalls in creating the past and the subjective essence of historical sources. ⁤
IT NEEDS MAJOR EDITING. I AM HAVING TROUBLE GETTING THE SOURCES ADDED IM WORKING ON IT. DO NOT USE ANY AI
⁤

book BELOW
The Roaring 20s. the term itself brings up vision s of gangsters and flappers, radio and film. One of my favorite decades to read and think bout is the 1920s.
In Chapter 20 of your textbook, answet the following questions in a 200 word essay: 75 points.
1. How did consumerism and the and the idea of the “American way of life” affect people’s understanding of American values in the 1920s, including the meaning of freedom?
2. Which groups did not share in the prosperity of the 1920s and why?
3. What issues were of particular interests to “religious fundamentalists” during this period and why?
From the book: Only Yesterday: an Informal History of the 1920s, anser the following questions?
1. what were the major cultural ashifts during this area in regards to women, sexuality, consumerism, greed, and cultural anxieties during the 1920s? How does Frederick Lewis Allen present these forces in a readable and literary manner?

The Postwar Era (1945-1965) was a period of prolonged economic prosperity. The United States entered World War II still mired in a decade-long depression, but exited the war not only having achieved a double victory over Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan but poised to enter a new period of economic prosperity. The US economy experienced a handful of recession. during the Postwar Era, including one right before and after the conclusion of the war, but most of the recessions of the postwar era lasted less than a year. Two key socio-cultural features of the Postwar Era were suburbanization and consumerism. Neither of these key features of modern American life began in the 1950s but both underwent explosive growth during the 1950s. Just as important, economic growth during the Postwar Era was directly tied to the explosive growth of the the suburbs and American consumer culture during the Postwar Era. The 1957 promotional film In the Suburbs (see the lecture PowerPoint) highlights many of the key features—as well as junction—of suburbia and consumerism during the fifties. Write a 400-word paragraph that answers the question: How does the film In the Suburb highlight/illustrate the importance of suburbanization and consumerism during the 1950s?
Referring to the lecture PowerPoint and The American Yawp “The Affluent Society” (pp.
288-313), describe how and why the suburbs and consumer culture expanded during the Postwar Era. Analyze In the Suburbs by briefly describing the content and context of the film (i.e. why the film was made) and explaining how the film illustrates the expansion of suburbia and consumer culture during the 1950s. PLEASE NOTE: Take care to connect the dots between the film (B) and the aspects of suburbanization and consumerism you describe before the film (A). To do this, you must describe two segments of the film in detail and then explain how those segments illustrate, or link back to, the major themes for this assignment: suburbanization and consumerism.
Finally, include one short quotation from The American Yawp “The Affluent Society” (pp.
288-313) and corresponding citation.

Write your answers in a Word document
-Do not print the images from the PowerPoint with your answers.
-Be sure to identify works fully by title, time period/culture, and place if it is significant.
The questions are attached in the PDF File. Please answer all the questions!