Tag Archives: United States

US Exclusionary Policy Post-1989

Posted on by

As the Berlin Wall fell, historian Mary Sarotte argues that the then exclusionist US Policy in Europe formed an ‘ordering point’ upon which the excluded Soviet Union forms its foreign policy to this day. The ‘ordering point’, according to Sarotte, is “the historical evidence now available from both Eastern and Western countries shows what alternatives ‘seemed real at the time’, and what chances they had of becoming actual outcomes of the upheaval of 1989.” What we can now see was not clear to individuals at the time, but the way in which these events played out now shapes our understanding of European-US and US-Russian relations. President George H.W. Bush’s mentality of trying to secure the US’ Cold War victory and failure to identify the long-term issues between Russia and the West provided much context for Sarotte to then justify actions for individuals such as Vladimir Putin. She believes that one can trace all of his actions involving Eastern Europe and the West back to Bush’s policies in the early 90s. With our current inability to reason with and control Putin, politicians and political pundits need to revisit the United States’ decisions during the H.W. Bush Administration and rediscover how the US’ exclusionist policies have more or less back the Russians into a corner. As ‘Baby’, their corner position has forced some of their aggressive actions, all in the name of trying to be seen and included in the world’s superpowers.

Sarotte, M. E.  “In Victory, Magnanimity: US Foreign Policy, 1989-1991, and the Legacy of Prefabricated Multilateralism”. International Politics, 48(4-5), 482-495. doi:http://envoy.dickinson.edu:2077/10.1057/ip.2011.21

Sarotte, Mary. “A Broken Promise?”  Foreign Affairs, Sep/Oct2014, Vol. 93, Issue 5, 90-97

European Common Market (1957)

Posted on by

This document is a press statement written from the United States’ perspective that described a potential European Common Market and free rade area. This common market was to be comprised of Belgium, France, the German Federal Republic, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. The intent of these negotiations was to eliminate trade barriers between member countries and to establish a common external tariff towards outside countries. Both the United States and Great Britain favored this initiative because it would further the political and economic strength of Western Europe by unifying this market. It would also be aligned with the U.S.’s vision of having freer, nondiscriminatory multilateral trade, as well as further increase the prevalence of convertible currencies. This trade relationship would also be in the U.S.’s interest because it would continue a positive trend by further liberalizing imports from the dollar area.

Do you believe that, although not mentioned, the U.S. vehemently supports this treaty because it will halt the spread of communism in Europe by creating a strong, economically expanding, western Europe?

At the end of the document, is the use of the words “welfare of the entire free world,” meant to include every free country, even if it was a freely elected socialist or communist government?

European Progress

Posted on by

Much like Europe in the mid-nineteenth century, the United States believed that women should continue to be confined to managing the household in the mid-twentieth century.  In response, the National Organization for Women developed in 1966 and spoke out against these injustices and  lack of progress made in the United States.  In their mission statement, the National Organization for Women compared the lives and opportunities of American women to European women, claiming, “We believe that this nation has a capacity at least as great as other nations, to innovate new social institutions which enable women to enjoy true equality of opportunity and responsibility in society, without conflict with their responsibilities as mothers and homemakers.  In such innovations, America does not lead the Western world, but lags by decades behind many European countries,” (3). It is clear, through this excerpt of their mission statement, that opportunities for European women had increased dramatically since Sanford and Beeton wrote their pieces on the ideal middle-class woman in the mid-nineteenth century.  Moreover, because European women were not confined to their households like they had been, the National Organization of Women took note and believed that the United States lagged “decades behind many European countries.”  Furthermore, this organization rejected, “the current assumptions that a man must carry the sole burden of supporting himself, his wife, and family, and that a woman is automatically entitled to lifelong support by a man upon her marriage…” (3)  As indicated, more European women became less dependent on their husbands in the mid-twentieth century, as they were encouraged to join the workforce and step outside the confines of their household.

The progress made by European nations in regards to women and their newfound role in society can be boiled down to two aspects: the golden era of socialism in Europe and constant warfare amongst European nations.  Before the start of World War I, many European nations produced socialist thinkers who argued for the rights of European women and workers.  Due to the success of these socialist thinkers, “new social institutions” were formed throughout Europe, allowing “women to enjoy true equality” and become more than household managers.  Secondly, European nations constantly fought with one another during the early twentieth century; these wars included the Morrocan Crisis, Bosnian Crisis, World War I and World War II.  Due to these wars, European men were constantly gone, leaving women without the “lifelong support by a man upon her marriage.”  In fact, due to their constant absence, women were the one’s carrying “the sole burden,” for they had to support themselves as well as their children financially and domestically during times of war.  In these times, European women proved themselves to European men; for they displayed their ability to manage a household while maintaining an everyday job typically reserved for men.  In conclusion, European nations progressed more quickly than the United States in regards to gender roles because of the success of socialism and the constant involvement in warfare; which allowed women to prove that they carried more value than simply being domestic workers.

Statement of Purpose

Posted on by

The National Organization for Women Statement of Purpose was written with the intention of making women to be seen as equals in the United States. New anti-discrimination laws were not being enforced as efficiently as some would have liked, with women still being discriminated against throughout the hiring process and not receiving equal pay. Some of the statistics displayed in the document are shocking. Facts such as, “Women comprise less than 1% of federal judges; less than 4% of all lawyers; 7% of doctors. Yet women represent 51% of the U.S. population,” are alarming. Obviously, women of this time were underutilized and oppressed, which most definitely limited production in the US as a whole. The National Organization for Women clearly points out flaws in the United State‘s system when it comes to women; even referencing the U.S. constitution. This topic has been an ongoing problem throughout the world for years. Although it is now much better, people still fight for their rights when it comes to discrimination.

A New Cold War Narrative: The Superpower Quest for Empire

Posted on by

Spies. The Space Race. The Cuban Missile Crisis. The Iron Curtain. These are all aspects that the general public closely associate with the era of the Cold War. Save for the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, people do not immediately associate the conflict between capitalist United States and communist Soviet Union with hostilities in the Middle East, Latin America, or South Asia. However, in his article, “The Superpower Quest for Empire: The Cold War and Soviet Support for ‘Wars of National Liberation,’” Roger Kanet focuses strictly on the affect the Cold War had on the developing countries in these regions. Kanet argues that the superpowers, America and the Soviet Union, drew their attentions away from Europe and towards the developing world after the mid-late 1950s in an effort to establish their economic and political dominance.

He supports his main argument through an analysis of the increase in Soviet involvement in support of “progressive forces” across developing nations in their campaigns against Israeli and American imperialism. He also explores the United States’ response to these efforts by providing its own support to countries in the Third World against Soviet expansion. All of which led to military conflicts spread out throughout West Asia, Africa, and Central America. Kanet cites various treaties made during the Cold War to illustrate the new alliances that formed during this period between Third World countries and either the United States or Soviet Union. However, he relies heavily on secondary sources with few primary texts mostly in the form of memoirs of American political leaders such as Henry Kissinger. The lack of primary documents detailing either superpower’s decisions to enter into conflicts in the Third World as a way of attacking the other’s authority and power is surprising. Even with their biases, one would expect to see newspaper articles mentioned throughout the essay or even in the bibliography. Certainly, government documents should be included in a discussion regarding a nation’s military campaigns.

Regardless, the narrative Kanet presents in his article is one that few Americans know or understand. Americans generally associate the conflicts in Korea, Egypt, or the Middle East during this period as individual isolated occurrences not as the larger Cold War. Therefore, Kanet’s article is important to furthering the United States’ understanding of the Cold War.

Circus

Posted on by

The Soviet film, Circus, made in 1936, was about an American Circus artist who was performing in the Soviet Union.  She had left the United States in favor of the Soviet Union because of the racial intolerance towards her and her black son.   The aim of the film, Circus, was to demonize the west, particularly the United States and Nazi Germany, for their inequality and racism.

One of the most vivid scenes came at the end of film when a man looking like Hitler stopped the Circus and attempted to demonize the American circus artist for giving birth to a black child.  He stated that it was “a racial crime! She should be banished from civilized society!” ((Film: Circus)) This part demonized Nazi Germany because it showed how Hitler and Nazi Germany did not tolerate variations from what they wanted in a pure ‘Arian’ race.  The line struck me in that it sounded a lot like Hitlers views toward the Jews.  During the 1930s, Hitler and the Nazis goals were to banish the Jews from Germany.  By the end of World War II, they were exterminating them.  At the same time Nazi Germany was being demonized, the United States and its capitalist system was also demonized for its racism and inequality.  During the first half of the 20th century, racism in the United States had been wide spread.  Black people in particular, were demonized for being different.  As a result, they were segregated for being different.  In the Soviet Union, these differences and intolerances were not supposed to exist.  During the last scene of the film, the black child was taken away from the man looking like Hitler by the crowd.  The crowd then took in this child as someone who was no different than them.  They celebrated the fact that he was someone who could become a great Soviet worker.  They did not care whether he was white or black.  The child, according to the Soviet Union, could experience all the benefits of working in a classless society.

On a different note, what do you think the idea of a circus represents in the Soviet Union?  Does it try to emphasis the importance of a Soviet worker being fit for work?  Or does the circus represent something vastly different?

Power Struggles Present in the Declaration of Independence and The Third Estate

Posted on by

The Declaration of Independence clearly establishes the kind power the United States is looking for through a representation of Britain’s tight control. The Declaration of Independence exemplifies how the king caused “repeated injuries and usurpations” (Blaisdell 64) as well as acted in every way “which may define a tyrant” (Blaisdell 66). The United States is looking for a government that allows power to be given to the people. The authors of this document believe that men are born with certain rights, and in order to protect those rights, the people should have a say in the government. The Declaration of Independence goes on to state that is the “Right of the People” to alter the government if the government were not working or becomes “destructive” in any way (Blaisdell 64). The main intent behind this document is to stray away from the “absolute tyranny,” and create an inclusive government where the people’s voices are heard (Blaisdell 64).

Sieyès argues over power among classes in his What is the Third Estate? He argues that the privileged have set limits to the third estate, stating, “you can go so far and no further” (Blaisdell 72). However, Sieyès points out that it is the third estate that occupies certain jobs that keep society running as it should, therefore, the third state is everything and should have more rights. Sieyès goes on to claim that the privileged do not help society because of its “idleness,” but are granted certain rights because of their place in society (Blaisdell 73). Sieyès continues, stating that nobility has special rights making them “a people apart in the great nation” which forms the separation of powers between the third estate and the nobility (Blaisdell 73). Sieyès believed the nation would be better off without the nobility because the third state held society together.

The Declaration of Independence and the Third Estate

Posted on by

The Declaration of Independence discusses the reasons why the United States decided to break off from England and become its own nation. This document discusses how it is a government’s responsibility to protect certain rights of the citizens: “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” (Blaisdell 64). If a government does not protect these rights, then it is the rights of the governed people to “abolish it, and to institute new Government” (Blaisdell 64). The British government did not protect and uphold these rights of the people; rather, it caused a series of “repeated injuries” and established “absolute Tyranny over these States” (Blaisdell 64). The writers of the Declaration were clearly not satisfied with the government and how it protected its people. Therefore, they intended to create their own new form of government, which would do a better job in helping its citizens instead of merely ignoring their concerns. In this case, political power is created through a new form of government with different branches, such as a Representative House, Legislature, and Judiciary powers.

In France, the citizens also were not satisfied with their government. The Third Estate of France is described as “everything;” the people of the Third Estate are the commoners (Blaisdell 70). Emmanuel Joseph Sieyes, author of What is the Third Estate? describes how the Third Estate is a complete nation by itself. In order to be considered a nation, it must provide “private activities and public services” (Blasdell 71), which the Third Estate does provide. For example, it must provide public services such as “the army, the law, the Church, and the bureaucracy” and private activities such as merchants, families who work on land, and the sale of goods (Blaisdell 71-72). France cannot run without the Third Estate and would ultimately do much better without the first two estates. The French are concerned with establishing their own rights: “Liberty, Prosperity, Security, and Resistance of Oppression” (Blaisdell 80). The French were less interested than the Americans establishing a new form of government that protected the rights of the citizens; rather, they concentrated on establishing a government that kept part of their old form of government and bashing the rest of their government.

Public Works vs. Nature and the Back to the Land Movement

Posted on by

The Great Depression ravaged the economies of the United States and Germany. In an attempt to recover the United States and Germany implemented public works projects to improve not only unemployment rates, but also industry levels and infrastructure. These projects were also used as forms of government propaganda to revive national pride. In Schivelbusch’s chapter on public works he highlights public projects of the United States and Germany as well as the less successful public works attempts of the Soviet Union and Fascist Italy.

 
In 1933, FDR signed a legislative act that created the Tennessee Valley Authority. The goal of the TVA was to promote regional development in Tennessee, North Carolina, Kentucky as well as other disenfranchised portions of the South. (( Wolfgang Schivelbusch. “Public Works” in Three New Deals. (New York: Picador, 2006) 153.)). This project sought to integrate technology and agriculture to develop water resources, such as building dams, and to promote land reform that focused on reforesting areas and improving soil quality. ((Wolfgang Schivelbusch. “Public Works” in Three New Deals, 156)).

 
One of Germany’s public works project was the construction of the Autobahn. Like the United States this construction project also implemented newly-developed technology aimed at modernizing the country. Soon after Hitler rose to power, he planned the construction of a network of highways throughout Germany, with portions to be completed by 1935. ((Wolfgang Schivelbusch. “Public Works” in Three New Deals, 172)). The planners of the Autobahn placed great emphasis on the road’s relationship to the surrounding landscape. They seemed to endorse that the road should emphasize the uniqueness of the landscape and fit in seamlessly with the road’s surrounding terrain, however whether this goal was propaganda or represented actual intentions is something historians debate. ((Wolfgang Schivelbusch. “Public Works” in Three New Deals, 174-175.)). The use of such vague vocabulary by head planners, such as Todt, led to misunderstandings between the differences of “landscape creation” verses landscape preservation. For example, people who protested the construction of the Autobahn for conservation reasons were characterized by the Autobahn planning committee as “faint-hearted nature lovers”. ((Wolfgang Schivelbusch.  “Public Works” in Three New Deals, 176-177.)).

 
Do you think that Todt’s definition of “landscape creation” (pgs 176-177) contradicted the aims of the back-to-the-land movement as Schivelbusch discusses in chapter 4?