Decolonization on Film

The subject of decolonization is not one that is oftentimes addressed in film. However, there are two films that, in my opinion, do indeed get it right. One is the popular 1982 biopic by Richard Attenborough, Gandhi. The other is a lesser known film in the French language from 1966 entitled The Battle of Algiers. While Gandhi focuses on Gandhi's methods of nonviolence in the face of attack, The Battle of Algiers focuses in on the terrorist methods used to defeat the French in Algeria. Both are excellent films, and you can view the trailers for each of them below. Over spring break, I would highly recommend viewing one or both of these films. If you have already seen Gandhi, The Battle of Algiers is certainly worth your time, as it is shot in a gritty 1960s style of film making that is quite rare now. Enjoy both trailers below...

White Rule and African Families in South Africa

Few groups in Africa were affected more by colonialism than women. In the pre-colonial African village, a division of labor between men and women had existed in which women were responsible for planting, weeding, and harvesting in addition to food preparation and child care, while men cleared the land, built houses, herded cattle, and sometimes helped with field work. Such arrangements broke down in western Africa when cash-crop agriculture was introduced. Men took over the farming of cotton and cocoa, leaving the responsibility for growing food for domestic consumption exclusively to women. Worse disruption took place in southern and eastern Africa, where men left their villages for wage-paying jobs in mines or cities. This meant long absences of husbands from their families, greater work and domestic responsibilities for women, and frequently the breakdown of family life altogether.

All these changes troubled the South African woman Charlotte Maxeke, the founder of the African National Congress (ANC) Women’s League, social worker, teacher, and leader in the African Methodist Episcopal Church. Born Charlotte Makgomo Manye in 1874, she received her primary and secondary education in South Africa; in her early twenties she toured England, Canada, and the United States with an African choir. She remained in the United States to study at Wilberforce College in Ohio, where she received her Bachelor of Science degree and met and married another South African, Reverend Marshall Maxeke. On her return to South Africa, she co-founded a secondary school with her husband and remained active in ANC and denominational affairs until her death in 1939.

In 1930 she presented her views on the plight of black women and families in a speech delivered to a rally attended by white and black Christian youth. You can read parts of the speech by clicking here.

After reading the speech, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: What, according to Maxeke, are the reasons for the Bantu exodus from the countryside to the cities. What special challenges and difficulties confront newly arrived blacks in urban areas? How do the problems of men and women in such circumstances differ? What seems to have been the effect of the changes Maxeke describes on children and young people? What solutions does Maxeke propose to solve the problems confronting African women and their families? Your thoughts…

The Literature of Hope and Oppression

Africans found colonialism dispiriting and repugnant because so much of it was predicated on the assumption of black inferiority. Colonialism’s message, stated or unstated, was that Africans were incapable of governing themselves, or at least incapable of governing themselves effectively; nor were they capable of managing a modern economy or even creating a viable culture and social order. For all these tasks they needed Europeans, who justified their authority by asserting their moral and intellectual superiority. Furthermore, Africans were told that in order to succeed under colonialism—to become clerks or civil servants in the colonial administration or to become “assimilated” (an evolué, or “evolved one”) in French Africa—they would have to shed their African identity and adopt the ideas, views, work habits, dress, and customs of Europeans. This was the price Africans would have to pay to overcome their backwardness.

When organized African nationalist movements finally began to take shape after World War II, many African political leaders denounced the corrosive effect of colonialism on African tradition and on the Africans’ sense of identity. Well before then, however, African poets, novelists, and short story writers, as well as black authors living outside of Africa, had explored these issues with great power and insight. These authors were for the most part European educated, wrote mainly in English or French, and brought to their work a familiarity with contemporary European literary trends. Their themes and emotions, however, centered on what it meant to be black after centuries of enslavement and years of colonial rule. Many French-language writers came to be identified with the Paris-centered literary movement known as Négritude, which, beginning in the 1930s, affirmed the worth of African tradition, emphasized the spiritual unity black people everywhere, and explored black people’s unique historical experience. English-speaking writers tended to focus less on the commonalities of blacks’ oppression and more on ways colonialism affected specific groups and individuals. Both groups expressed pride in Africa’s spiritual, physical, and cultural heritage and mourned the wounds inflicted on it by slavery, colonialism, underdevelopment, and prejudice.

I would like you to read four short documents (by clicking here) that each offer a different African perspective on the experience of colonialism. “Parable of the Eagle” was written by James Aggrey, who was born in 1875 in the Gold Coast, a British colony. Educated in a Protestant mission school and a convert to Christianity, at age twenty-three he traveled to the United States to study for the ministry. He remained in the United States for twenty years, studying economics and agriculture, speaking out against racial prejudice, and working among poor African-Americans in South Carolina. He returned to Africa in 1918 and died in 1927.

The author of the second work, “Limbo,” is Léon G. Damas, one of several black writers of the 1930s and 1940s who was born outside of Africa but who nonetheless identified with Africa and wrote eloquently about the damage caused by colonialism. Born in 1912 in French Guyana, a colony in South America, Damas was educated in Martinique, a French Caribbean island, before beginning studies at the University of Paris. At Paris, Damas, with fellow students Léopold Senghor from Senegal and Aimé Césaire from Martinique, founded the literary journal L’étudiant noir (The Black Student), which many see as the beginning of the Négritude movement. Damas’ poem “Limbo” was one of thirty-one poems published in the anthology Pigments in 1937. According to Christian tradition, Limbo refers to the abode of souls who are barred from Heaven because they have been unbaptized, hence a place of neglect and oblivion. After World War II, in which Damas fought for the French, he worked for the United Nations in Africa and then emigrated to the United States, where he taught black literature at Federal City University and Howard University in Washington, D.C.

The second poem, “Prayer for Peace,” is the work of Léopold Sédar Senghor, the most famous French-speaking poet of Africa. Born in Senegal, Senghor was raised a Catholic and educated in Catholic schools. At age twenty-two he went to Paris, where he studied and taught literature and helped inspire the Négritude movement. After World War II, in which he fought for France and was taken prisoner by the Germans, he entered politics and was elected to the French Chamber of Deputies. When Senegal became an independent state in 1960, he was elected president, an office held until he retired in 1981. His “Prayer for Peace” was the concluding poem of his collection Hosties Noires, which can be translated either as Black Victims or Black Hosts. It is set in January 1945, after France had been liberated and the final defeat of the Nazis was imminent. In the poem he enumerates the sins of colonialism but combines his condemnation with a plea for forgiveness and universal brotherhood. It is a powerful expression of the poet’s ambivalence toward France, both the oppressor of Africa and a beacon of enlightenment.

The final poem, “Vultures,” is by David Diop, who flourished as a poet at the end of the colonial period. Born in France to a Senegalese father and a Cameroonian mother, in his twenties he left medical school to study literature and write poetry. Acclaimed in French-speaking Africa for his denunciations of colonialism, he moved to Senegal in 1958 after French rule ended. He died in 1960 in a plane crash. “Vultures” was published in 1956 in the anthology Coups de Pilon, or Hammer Blows.

After reading the documents, I would like you to reflect on and discuss the following: What specific features of colonialism does each author condemn? How are their views of colonialism similar? How are they different? How do the four authors view Africans and African culture? In what ways do they find positive value in African practices and traditions? What specific criticisms do the authors make of European values and characteristics? In what ways do they believe that African ways are superior to those of Europe? To what degree do the four works offer a message of hope to Africa? Your thoughts…

African Nationalism

Nationalism was one of the crucial, though unintended, products of European imperialism. Local leaders—particularly aspiring newcomers often exposed to European education—saw the importance of nationalism in Western society and used it as a vehicle for protesting colonial controls and demanding independence. Nationalism could also be mobilized to elicit loyalty to a newly free state, especially when appeals to tradition could not suffice because the nation combined different cultural groups. Thus nationalism had the merit of appealing both to past values and to the idea of progress, although the combination could sometimes be uncomfortable.

Nationalism began to blossom in Africa between the world wars. It had several facets, as indicated in the three documents that I would like you to read (you can read all three by clicking here). One nationalist source stemmed from black leaders in the United States and West Indies sincerely concerned about Africa but also eager for the liberation of their own people. Marcus Garvey’s black nationalist movement won loyalty on both sides of the Atlantic in the 1920s and helped define a positive spirit. Jomo Kenyatta, a British-educated Kenyan—ultimately the first president of Kenya after many jail terms as a nationalist agitator under the colonial government—represents African nationalism directly. Writing in 1938, Kenyatta used traditional kinds of allegory to blast European greed and also defined a special African agenda of combining tradition with change plus very selective borrowing from the West.

The final document is postcolonial and invites comparison with the earlier nationalist expression: How was nationalism maintained once independence had been achieved, and what changes resulted in tone and purpose? Written by Kwame Nkrumah, an American-educated leader and the first president of Ghana, this nationalist statement reflects a turn away from Africa-in-general to a specific new nation. It also shows some shifts in goals. Once independence was achieved, what targets did African nationalists have? Nkrumah’s own career illustrates some of the nationalist dilemma. A brilliant agitator, he proved less successful in running an independent Ghana. The economic problems he defined as next on the nationalist agenda proved more elusive than earlier goals of independence. Yet nationalism remained a factor in Africa, a guide to policy and a popular rallying point in the new nations. These three documents, from different decades as well as different inspirations, give a flavor of African nationalism and some indication of its power. They also permit comparison of African with Indian or Arab nationalism. Is nationalism always the same movement?

After reading the documents, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What are Marcus Garvey’s goals for Africa? How does he justify them? Does he indentify crucial African values? Does he suggest what Africa will become once it is free? How does Jomo Kenyatta describe European imperialism—and is it a fair characterization? What does he see as the goals of African nationalism? What methods does he suggest? What is Kenyatta’s attitude to Western achievements? What aspects of African tradition does he seek to protect or restore? How do Nkrumah’s concerns as a nationalist compare with those of pre-independence leaders like Kenyatta? What problems is he referring to under the heading of neocolonialism? What are his main solutions? Do they fit under the heading of nationalism? What are the similarities and differences between African and Turkish nationalism? Between African and Gandhi’s Indian nationalism? Your thoughts…

Kashmir: A Major Global Flashpoint

Although Jawaharlal Nehru was fully convinced that India and Pakistan would both settle their tensions immediately after the largest voluntary migration in human history, tensions quickly flared over the Kashmir region of northern India. The problem is that upon independence, Kashmir was claimed by both India and Pakistan because the state had a Muslim majority, but the leader of the state was Hindu. India would win the initial war, but the conflict continues to rage on, even resulting in both countries going nuclear by 2000. At this very moment, Kashmir remains a hot-button issue that keeps India and Pakistan on the brink of war at any given time. With the latest terrorist attacks in Mumbai in November of 2008, blame has been thrown at Pakistan for supporting the attack, and tensions have reignited. The BBC (as always) has excellent ongoing coverage of the Kashmir situation, and you can enlighten yourself further on the issue by clicking here.

Great Britain Lets Go of India

A turning point in the dismantling of Europe’s Asian and African empires took place in August 1947 when the Indian people gained independence from Great Britain and the new states of India and Pakistan were created. After the greatest imperial power released its hold on the “jewel in the crown” of its empire, nationalist leaders throughout Asia and Africa demanded equal treatment and European politicians found it more difficult to justify colonial rule.

British and Indian leaders had debated the timing and framework of Indian independence for decades, but World War II brought the issue to a head. Many Indians, still embittered by the meager benefits they had received for their sacrifices in World War I, showed little enthusiasm for the British cause in World War II, especially after the British viceroy announced that India was at war with Germany in September 1939 without even consulting Indian leaders. In 1942, after Japan’s lightning conquest of Southeast Asia, the British government sent Sir Stafford Cripps to Delhi to offer India dominion status after the war if India would support the war against Japan. Negotiations broke down, however, leading Gandhi to launch the “Quit India” movement, his last nationwide passive resistance campaign against British rule. Anti-British feeling intensified in 1943 when a disastrous famine took between 1 million and 3 million lives, and the pro-Japanese Indian National Army was organized by Subhas Bose and declared war on Great Britain.

A shift in postwar British politics also affected India’s future. The 1945 elections initiated six years of rule by the Labour Party, which had less enthusiasm for the idea of empire than the Conservatives. In the face of mounting restiveness in India, Prime Minister Clement Attlee dispatched a three-person cabinet mission to India in early 1946 charged with preserving Indian unity in the face of Hindu-Muslim enmity and arranging for India’s independence as soon as possible. Although the Hindus and Muslims could never reconcile their differences, on February 20, 1947, the Labour government went ahead and announced British rule would end in India no later than June 1948.

This led to an emotional two-day debate in Parliament in which Churchill’s Conservatives and some Liberals argued that independence should be delayed. The Labour Party had a strong majority, however, and in March 1947 Parliament approved its plan. At midnight on August 14-15, 1947, predominately Hindu India and predominately Muslim Pakistan became independent states.

The excerpts I would like you to read are from the parliamentary debates of March 4 and 5, 1947 (you can read them by clicking here). All the speakers are opposing a proposal of John Anderson, a Liberal representing the Scottish universities, that Great Britain should promise independence by June 1948 but withdraw the offer and require further negotiations if a suitable Hindu-Muslim agreement could not be achieved.

After reading the document, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What were the points of disagreement among members of Parliament about the benefits and harm of British colonial rule in India? Some speakers who believed British colonialism had benefited India still supported independence. Why? The critics of British rule in India supported immediate independence. What was their line of argument? According to the speakers, what military and economic realities make it impractical to continue British rule in India? How do the speakers view developments in India as part of broader historical trends? Most of the speakers were members of the Labour Party and thus sympathetic to socialism. What examples of socialist perspectives can you find in their speeches? Your thoughts…

Unit 13 Test Discussion Board

Feel free to bounce questions off of each other in preparation for the test tomorrow. There is only more unit test this year after this one, so study well...

Where is Russia Now?

After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia entered a new world of uncertainty. Boris Yeltsin pushed for economic reform, fought against economic inequality, and he fought against corruption. Sadly though, Russia continues to struggle with major problems of corruption and an unstable economy. Such struggles have led many to ask, is Russia's transition to capitalism and "democracy" the same Russian story of too much too fast? The other problem that Russia faces is the existence of Vladimir Putin, and his position as Prime Minister even after he can no longer constitutionally serve as President. So where is Russia now? Who even runs Russia? The BBC had an excellent article drop some months ago that addresses just that, and you can read it by clicking here. Also, you may remember that back at the beginning of the school year, Russia and Georgia got into a bit of a conflict. It was at that time that the current Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, outlined his Five Principles of a New Russian World Order. Interestingly, I posted this same article at the beginning of the school year on this blog, but I'd like you to read it again with almost an entire year of AP World History under your belt (you can read it by clicking here). I'm quite sure you'll get more out of it the second time around. What are your thoughts and opinions on what seems to be the latest Russia emerging? Also, for comparison purposes, you may also want to check out the EU Special Report that the BBC has as an ongoing feature by clicking here. How are the two regions going in different directions? What similarities do they share? What do you think of the prospect of a United States of Europe? Your thoughts...

The Collapse of the Soviet Union

The Soviet system collapsed between 1985 and 1991, and part of the even older Russian empire fell apart as well. This was one of the signal developments of the late 20th century. It had repercussions that will almost surely persist for decades in terms of the future political and economic systems of Russia and other successor states and world diplomatic alignments give the end of Soviet-United States Cold War rivalries.

Change began when Mikhail Gorbachev was named to the top leadership position in the Soviet Union, as first secretary of the Communist Party. Gorbachev was the first leader selected of his generation, and he had a different vantage point from older Bolsheviks. More important, he faced a number of crucial economic problems, after several post-World War II decades in which Soviet industrial growth had seemed quite strong. Workers’ motivation was weakening, in part because of the absence of satisfactory consumer goods. Growing alcoholism and massive environmental problems were damaging health. Military expenditures, part of the Cold War competition, were consuming up to a third of the total national product, limiting other kinds of investment and output. Gorbachev was firmly wedded to a socialist vision, but he argued that the Soviet version of this vision required massive transformation. Greater freedom for criticism and commentary was essential—what Gorbachev called glasnost—along with a restructuring of management to provide greater flexibility and motivation (perestroika), including more participation in the international economy.

Gorbachev’s reforms unleashed a massive process of change, although political results accelerated more rapidly than economic shifts. New parties began to compete in elections. Eastern European countries in the Soviet empire began to insist on greater autonomy and then, by 1989, on abolition of the communist system. Hungary and Poland installed noncommunist governments in 1989, and other countries followed. Then in 1990 and 1991 regions within the Soviet Union began to press for independence, led by the Baltic States—Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia—which headed a parade that soon included key areas in Central Asia as well.

Many Soviet leaders were appalled at this process, and in August 1991, several organized a coup that imprisoned Gorbachev in his summer home. Led by a self-styled leader of democracy, Boris Yeltsin, the coup was thwarted; but Gorbachev resigned his position, now as president under a new constitution, at the end of the year. The process of change continued, both in Russia and in the newly independent nations. Market economies gained ground, although often with considerable disruption and hardship, against the old state-run operations. Efforts to revise international relations and internal political arrangements continued as well, with many uncertainties about ultimate outcomes.

The three documents I would like you to read illustrate key aspects of the Soviet crisis (you can read all three documents by clicking here). In the first document, from 1986, Gorbachev explains his initial reform policies to a regional Communist Party meeting in the Asian city of Khabarovsk. In the second document, Vladimir Kryuchov, head of the KGB (the secret police), outlines pressing concerns about Soviet stability in a secret memo to Gorbachev in 1991, as the Soviet Union had already begun to break apart. Kryuchov was at this point a communist conservative, hoping to stem the tide of reform; he would later be a leader of the anti-Gorbachev coup and was arrested and expelled from the KGB after the plot failed. Finally, the third document stems from Gorbachev’s resignation speech on December 25, 1991. Following his resignation the heads of the component Soviet Republics voted to dissolve the USSR and form the much looser Commonwealth of Independent States in its stead, and Boris Yeltsin assumed the leadership of the new Russian state.

The end of the Soviet system was as dramatic as its beginning in the 1917 revolution, and as significant in terms of larger world history. Seldom does a structure seemingly so well-established unravel so completely. Documents provide crucial insight into how reforms turned into collapse, and why the tide could not be turned back. Additionally, because we are celebrating the 20th anniversary of 1989 this year, the BBC has excellent coverage of perestroika, and you can read some of the coverage by clicking here. An awesome map of the fall of communism can also be accessed by clicking here.

After reading the documents, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What kinds of reforms did Gorbachev envision in 1986? What problems was he trying to address? What did he mean by “restructuring” and “public openness?” What kinds of threats did the Secret Police highlight in 1991? How does the view of Soviet society implied here compare with Gorbachev’s reform intentions? Does the report suggest the basis for Kryuchov’s later attempted coup? What kind of state and society does Kryuchov seem to want? What does Gorbachev say caused him to resign? What, by 1991, were his goals for Russian society, and how did they compare with the goals of 1986? How had his outlook toward the West changed? For these documents, how much can be determined about the nature of and reasons for the collapse of the Soviet system? What kinds of disagreements persisted into the 1990s about the appropriate directions for Russian political and economic systems? Your thoughts…

Good Bye, Lenin! (Reflections on the Dawn of a New Era)

11/9/1989 signaled a new beginning for the world. The world had changed, and everyone knew it. After almost an entire century of non-stop war in the West, Gorbachev's Sinatra Doctrine finally paid off. I still find it hard to believe that after looking at the footage so many times, and having this discussion numerous times, it still leads me to tears every year. Harmony is a beautiful concept. To think that so many had been separated from family and friends for so many years, only to finally unite and hug and kiss and cry sweet tears of joy. I will always think of the man standing on top of the wall in a shadow, and you can see his gestures and you hear him say "Which side is which? I can't tell the difference?" Wouldn't it be beautiful to literally wake up to a day when we could all look at the world and say: "Which side is which? I can't tell the difference." Wouldn't a day when we put hatred, fear, paranoia, and prejudice aside and traded it in for appreciation for diversity, harmony, peace, and security be a wonderful day? One night in Berlin proved that, even if only for a few hours in time, we have it in us. We truly made the impossible possible! We entered a new world that night, a night when the West could breathe just a little bit easier, and we would breathe easier from 11/9 to 9/11. If you have enjoyed our discussion of these events, you will definitely enjoy the 2003 German film, Good Bye, Lenin! For my money, it's the best film I have ever seen in the German language, and it's one of the best films of the decade. You can check out the trailer below. Also below, you can check out one more time the 1989 music video for Nena's Wunder Geschehen (meaning in English "miracles happen"). To think that just six years before, the same band was predicting doom with the song 99 Luftballoons (which be can be viewed by pulling up my post from yesterday). Enjoy both the trailer and the video, and just remember that it is possible to be good again. Congratulations Germany! Welcome back! What are your thoughts on these events?

An Editorial on the Removal of the Berlin Wall

For more than 40 years, the Cold War had divided much of the world into two opposing camps. In Europe, the division was along the “iron curtain” boundary separating the communist East, under Soviet influence, from the capitalistic West, under American influence. Even Germany and its old capital of Berlin were divided along these lines. In 1985, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev began policies called perestroika (economic restructuring) and glasnost (openness) to revitalize the Soviet Union’s sagging economy and to achieve better relations—especially trade—with the West. These policies triggered dissent and then growing demands for more rapid reforms both within the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe. When Gorbachev agreed not to intervene in the affairs of East-bloc countries in 1989, popular uprisings ended Communist party rule and new governments were formed. As we near the 20th anniversary of these momentous events, you may find it enlightening to look at the BBC’s excellent coverage of the 20th anniversary of the monumental year that was 1989 by clicking here (including first-hand accounts you can read by clicking here). George Mason University also has an entire website that is dedicated to the year 1989 that you will enjoy (you can access it by clicking here) Perhaps the most sensational incident of this collapse came in November 1989, when the Berlin Wall—the symbol of the Cold War since its erection in 1961—was removed and the borders between the two Germanys opened. I would like you to read a New York Times editorial, which places the removal of the Berlin Wall in a historical perspective (you can read it by clicking here).

After reading the editorial, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: The New York Times editorial argues that the destruction of the Berlin ended 75 years of European catastrophes. Is this true? What else did destruction of the Berlin Wall signify? How did the United States react to the creation of “a European house?” What is the significance of this event? Your thoughts…

A Plan to Save Communism in the Soviet Union

Throughout the 1970s and early 1980s the Soviet Union was one of the world’s two superpowers, with an enormous army, a huge industrial establishment, an impressive record of technological achievement, and a seemingly unshakable authoritarian government. No one saw any reason why it would not continue as the United States’ great rival in world affairs. In reality, industrial and agricultural production was stagnating, the people’s morale was plummeting, and the fossilized bureaucracy was mired in old politics and theories that no longer worked. Against this background Mikhail Gorbachev became general secretary of the Communist Party in March 1985 and began the task of rejuvenating Soviet communism by introducing policies based on glasnost, or openness, and perestroika, or restructuring.
Gorbachev, who was fifty-four years old when he took power, was born of peasant parents and had studied law and agricultural economics. After filling a variety of positions in the Communist Party, he became a member of the politburo in 1979. After serving as Soviet leader for two years, he published a book, Perestroika, from which the document excerpt I would like you to read is taken (you can read it by clicking here). In it he describes his goals for Soviet communism. To his sorrow and the world’s shock he fell from power in 1991, with his reforms having led not to communism’s reform but its demise and not to the Soviet Union’s revival but its dismemberment.

After reading the document, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What developments in the Soviet Union led Gorbachev to the conclusion that Soviet society and government were in need of reform? In Gorbachev’s analysis, what caused Soviet society to “lose its momentum?” In Gorbachev’s view, how will the “individual” in Soviet society be affected by his reforms? To what extent is perestroika democratic? Your thoughts…

Pop Music of the Late Cold War

Music is an EXCELLENT primary document source. I especially like pop music as a source because it is a great indicator of the mood of the general public. Much of the music of the 1980s was centered on the theme of destruction during the early Reagan era. In fact, one of the most popular music videos of the early MTV era was Nena’s 99 Luftballoons. The German song hit it big on both sides of the Atlantic in 1983. The story the song tells is of 99 balloons that are released which subsequently fly over the Berlin Wall, therefore triggering an apocalyptic overreaction by the military which results in destruction. In fact, the video itself takes place in a barren wasteland that was once Germany after the military action. Another popular song and video of the time was the Athens, Georgia band REM’s 1985 hit It’s the End of the World as We Know It (and I Feel Fine) [you can watch the video by clicking here, unfortunately YouTube would not let me embed this one]. It is quite obvious what the theme of this song is. The video is interesting as well, as we watch a young man sifting through the memories of what is left after the destruction. If you pay close attention to the lyrics (or better yet read them since the song moves so quickly), you can still feel the fear of the time. You can view the music videos of both of the songs discussed here below.

Ronald Reagan and the “Evil Empire” Speech

Convinced that détente and the Vietnam War had eroded American military strength and international prestige, Ronald Reagan took office determined to reverse these trends. He called for huge increases in defense spending and aggressively combated communism. Under a policy eventually known as the Reagan Doctrine, the United States began challenging communist insurgencies throughout the developing world, regardless of whether or not the Soviets were directly aiding these leftists. The policy led to a significant expansion of U.S. activism abroad, especially in Latin America. In the 1980s, the United States supported anti-communists in El Salvador and Nicaragua and deployed troops to oust the left government of Grenada.

During Reagan’s first term, his militant anticommunism and Soviet aggression markedly increased Cold War tensions. In December 1981, the Soviets forced the communist government of Poland to impose martial law in order to quash the independent labor movement Solidarity. In September 1983, the Soviets destroyed a Korean airliner that strayed over Sakhalin Island. All 269 passengers, including 61 Americans, perished. At the same time, the Reagan administration began the most massive peacetime military build-up in history. Armed with secret intelligence showing grave weaknesses in the Soviet economy, U.S. officials concluded that the Soviets could not afford a renewed arms race.

Reagan’s strategy terrified and enraged his opponents. Critics howled when defense spending reached $40 million an hour at its peak. A massive anti-nuclear movement arose in Europe and the United States. In 1982, approximately one million protestors gathered for a “nuclear freeze” rally in New York’s Central Park, perhaps the largest demonstration ever.

Soviet-American relations were particularly bleak in March 1983. On March 8, Reagan gave a harshly anti-communist speech (that you can read or see by clicking here) before the National Association of Evangelicals. His uncompromising rhetoric received worldwide attention. Three weeks later, Reagan called for the development of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI or “Star Wars”), a system of lasers and satellites designed to prevent a nuclear missile strike. Although critics denounced the costs and technological flaws of Reagan’s proposal, the Soviets later identified SDI as a key factor in the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union. SDI, the explained, highlighted their economic and technological challenges.

During Reagan’s second term, Soviet-American relations dramatically improved. In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev became Soviet premier and ushered in a remarkable array of political and economic reforms. Tempering their initial suspicions of one another, Gorbachev and Reagan came extremely close to abolishing half of their nuclear arsenals at a 1986 nuclear summit in Reykjavik, Iceland. Although Reagan’s refusal to abandon SDI ended those discussions, they signed a sweeping arms agreement the following year. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty removed all intermediate-range nuclear missiles from Europe. By late 1991, the Iron Curtain would fall and the Soviet Union would cease to exist. While experts continue to debate Reagan’s role in ending the Cold War, his foreign policy was undoubtedly bold.

After reading Reagan’s “Evil Empire” speech, I would like you all to think about and discuss the following: How does Reagan characterize the Soviet Union? What does he believe is the proper response to communism? What are Reagan’s opinions of the nuclear arms race and the nuclear freeze movement? This speech drew heated criticism from some U.S. commentators. Anthony Lewis of the New York Times called it “primitive.” The renowned historian Henry Steele Commanger declared, “It was the worst presidential speech in American history, and I’ve read them all.” Do you agree or disagree with these remarks? Why? Your thoughts…

“We Support the Mujahidin”

The last of the major Cold War conflicts took place in Afghanistan starting in 1979. After Islamic leaders took control of the country in response to a pro-Soviet coup the previous year in this formally non-aligned state, Soviet forces swept in to restore the communist government in Afghanistan. What the Soviet Union thought would be an easy battle became a 9 year long bloodbath that the Soviet government would consider, by 1986, too costly and unwinnable. Because the U.S. was still on a Cold War footing, even at this very late date, it lent its support to the mujahidin (literally, “Islamic warriors”) fighting against the Soviets, including a certain Saudi member by the name of Osama bin Laden. Although the U.S. did not send any of its troops into Afghanistan, the mujahidin would be supplied with state of the art training and weapons (including U.S. Stinger missiles). Along with the support, the U.S. promised support in rebuilding Afghanistan after war’s end. Sadly, such support never came because the U.S. quickly lost interest in Afghanistan after the Cold War had run its course, and the U.S. become vilified in the eyes of the mujahidin, a vilification that would eventually culminate in the attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001.

Although the U.S. generally kept quiet about its support for the mujahidin, there is an excess of documents that exist that prove that such support indeed took place. You can read a Soviet intelligence report from 09/01/80 by clicking here, as well as a report from 09/01/81 by clicking here, which describes the type of training that counterrevolutionaries were receiving from U.S. military personnel. In fact, by 1988, even President Ronald Reagan was open about U.S. support for the Mujahidin in his State of the Union Address (you can read that by clicking here; you don't have to read the whole thing, but please read his comments on the Mujahidin near the end of his speech).

You may also find it interesting to look at the BBC’s timeline of the war in Afghanistan by clicking here. You may also find it enlightening to read a BBC news article about the Taliban that was written in 1998 (by clicking here) and the dangerous threat the BBC reported Osama bin Laden to be as early as 1999 (by clicking here).

After reading the documents, I would like you all to think about and discuss the following: In what way are Afghan counterrevolutionaries being trained according to Soviet intelligence reports? What type of warfare are they being taught? What kinds of weapons are being used? What types of characters are being trained by U.S. forces? Is the U.S. responsible for training terrorists during the Cold War? By 1988, was the U.S. any longer secretive of its support of the mujahidin in Afghanistan? What does Reagan specifically state in the latter part of his State of the Union Address? What is your opinion of U.S. support of the mujahidin during the war? Do you feel that our Cold War policies there backfired in the end? Why or why not? Has U.S. Cold War foreign policy caused foreign policy issues for the country in the early part of the 21st century? Your thoughts…

Dr. Strangelove Discussion Board

Thanks to all who came out to the film today. As many times as I've seen it now, it still remains just as fresh, just as hilarious, just as disturbing, and just as shocking as the first time I saw it. For those of you that saw it today, what did you think? Feel free to discuss...

Also if you enjoyed today's film, and you are enjoying our discussion regarding the Cold War, I highly recommend George Clooney's 2005 masterpiece Good Night, and Good Luck. The film takes place during the early Cold War as McCarthy's Red Scare is sweeping the country. You can check out the trailer below.

The Feminine Mystique

During the early 1960s, several events exposed the disjuncture between the images and realities of American women’s lives. As popular culture enthusiastically celebrated marriage and motherhood, women who expressed dissatisfaction with childrearing or homemaking were often dismissed as neurotic or communist. Nonetheless, increasing numbers of women were working outside the home and attaining college degrees. Many of these women encountered job discrimination. The airlines, for example, routinely fired women who were older than thirty-two or who got married. In most industries, wage disparities between men and women were commonplace. The few feminist organizations that remained active were weak.

Women’s issues gained renewed visibility with the election of John F. Kennedy. In 1961, he formed the Presidential Commission on the Status of Women. After the committee documented widespread pay inequities between the sexes, Congress passed the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which required equal wages for men and women in the same jobs. But the law’s effect was limited since few women held such “male” jobs.

Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique had a much larger impact. Born in Peoria, Illinois in 1921, Betty Goldstein graduated with a psychology degree from Smith College in 1942. After spending a year at the University of California-Berkeley, she moved to New York City. In 1947, she married Carl Friedan (they divorced in 1969). While working as a free-lance magazine writer, Friedan raised three children and lived as a suburban housewife. When she attended her college reunion in 1957, she circulated a questionnaire to her former classmates. Their answers revealed deep frustration and unhappiness. Struck by these results, Friedan interviewed dozens of women, psychologists, and other experts. She published her conclusions in The Feminine Mystique (you can read excerpts from it by clicking here). The book became an immediate and controversial bestseller. Friedan received thousands of letters from grateful women. In 1966, she helped to found the National Organization for Women (NOW). She remains an active writer and women’s activist.

After reading portions of Friedan’s words, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: According to Friedan, what is the “problem that has no name?” Why are so many women dissatisfied? What solutions does Friedan propose? Describe the social and political impact of The Feminine Mystique. Who do you think found Friedan’s message most compelling? Who do you think found it most objectionable? Your thoughts…

Video Footage of the Fall of Saigon and US Retreat

Vietnam was a major blow against the United States during the Cold War, as it in no way was even a draw. The United States suffered an embarrassing defeat in Vietnam, resulting in a communist takeover of the entire country. The final moments of the Vietnam conflict can be seen quite candidly in the news footage below.

“I Made Promises to Dead People”

The Domino Theory, which warned that communism must be halted before it spread, led U.S. policy makers to begin sending large numbers of U.S. troops to Vietnam in 1965. To many Americans, the Vietnam conflict seemed part of America’s altruistic effort to make the world a better place, but increasingly, the war in Vietnam frustrated Americans. By 1968, more than 500,000 Americans were deployed in Southeast Asia, and the United States’ efforts to use its colossal military firepower and resources to defeat the communist Vietcong were ineffective. The war soon came to represent a hopeless cause that led to personal alienation and deep distrust of American institutions among many young Americans. The document that I would like you to read (you can read it by clicking here) records the insights of Jack McCloskey, an Army medic who served in Vietnam in 1967-68. [PLEASE BE ADVISED: THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT CONTAINS STRONG LANGUAGE].

After reading McCloskey’s candid comments, I would like you to reflect on and discuss the following: Why do you suppose that nonwhites and poor whites seem to account for most of the soldiers in Vietnam? According to Jack McCloskey, why did Vietnam veterans become so alienated? How did returning veterans cope with this alienation? What is the difference between McCloskey’s war in Vietnam as perceived by his father and uncles? After reading this document, how would you define patriotism? Your thoughts…

“The Incredible War”

In the initial stages of the U.S. military build-up in Vietnam, a large majority of Americans supported the Johnson administration’s actions. But as the war dragged on and casualties mounted, popular opposition surged. By 1967, tens of thousands of Americans from all walks of life were joining anti-war demonstrations.

College professors and students were among the first to protest. In March 1965, the University of Michigan hosted a teach-in to foster awareness of U.S. policies. Others colleges held similar events. The following month, 25,000 people, mostly students, gathered for the March on Washington to End the War in Vietnam, an event organized by Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Paul Potter, SDS president, gave a speech, which I would like you to read, at the rally (you can read it by clicking here). SDS became the leading anti-war group among leftists and college students. In 1966, as the government called up more draftees, resistance escalated. Opponents of the draft criticized the system’s impact on the poor and minorities as well as loopholes that enabled the affluent to escape military service. As the war’s costs reached $20 billion a year, many Americans were outraged when Congress instituted new taxes and cut Great Society programs. Liberal intellectuals, pacifists, clergy, business leaders, and politicians joined those criticizing the war. By 1969, Americans were polarized in their views on Vietnam.

After reading Potter’s speech, I would like you to reflect on and discuss the following: Why is Potter so opposed to the Vietnam War? How does Potter claim that the war is affecting American society? What does Potter believe is necessary to stop the war? Are his recommendations practical? What impact did anti-war demonstrations have on U.S. policies in Vietnam? Would you have joined the anti-war movement? Explain. Your thoughts…