Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Is the paper expository in nature (descriptive/book reportish) or do you need to argue a thesis? Five pages is really brief, so if I were you I would narrow the topic down more. So rather than something like "Detroit's automobile industry in the 20th century", I would pick something like "The rise of Ford in Detroit's automobile industry in the early 20th century", or "Detroit's automobile industry before WWI". You could actually write a book on one of these topics as well, but at least they are not quite so broad.Basically, if the paper topic is too broad you'll run into the problem of writing a paper which skips over important historical developments because there's simply too much to fit in. In the Ford topic (above), questions I would be interested in answering might be: how did Henry Ford's business model differ from his competitors? Did he engage in business practices that would be illegal or considered unethical today? What was his personality like in terms of how it affected his business? What was the public reception of his automobiles like?In my opinion, the best way to approach your paper is by thinking of the right questions you want to ask before you start, so this can lead you in your work. These are questions you probably won't know the answer to until you start researching, but this is where the fun is. Perhaps you already have resources, but here is a good guide to creating an outline:How to Write an A+ Research Paper
Thank you all for the suggestions, and especially Phidippides for the link to the outline, it was very helpful. I admit I asked in haste, and you are correct it does need to present a thesis. I chose a subject that the professor recommended, 'The influence of the automobile on North American cities', which I feel needs to be much more specific. I am not sure how to approach it but so far I am considering taking a case study like Mexico DF or a US city and talking about how that city accommodated the automobile as well as how those cities were changed by it, and then maybe relate that to overall changes across the US for example.
I think it being Christmastime makes a big difference also, as I remember being in Portland, OR last year when the underwear dude caused that big scare. I'm traveling to see my family out east this year and am so angered by TSA body scanners and “enhanced” pat-downs equally that I am not opting out simply of one or the other, I am opting out of flying altogether. Unfortunately it's going to take 3 days longer though lol.
We can ration all we want, but one Indonesian volcano eruption will wipe out 100 years of self-imposed rationing.
That is true but then the GW folks apparently think that man controls everything about the climate and if they could just get us all to get with the program everything else is manageable. Simple things like nature actually irritate them I think. I really laugh as I sit here typing this in the middle of a snowstorm at the beginning of what many German meteorologists are predicting will be a 1000 year winter; I already have over 8 inches of a snow on the ground and we are supposed to get 7 more tonight and another 10-15 over the weekend. For some reason, I have a hard time taking GW seriously. :-
QFE. I believe in climate changing naturally but a lot of the inconvenient-truth-lemmings I simply cannot take seriously (no offense if you like that movie, I bought into it when it came out but have since changed beliefs).
Good essay, Notch. I just wonder how many people in China understand the mistakes they made during the boxer rebellion. Desperate people turn to unreasonable options, but some of what the boxers did to persuade the population to join them leaves a lot of questions. They told the population that they, the boxers, were immune to western weapons, and used blanks to prove it. They spread rumors about having members with supernatural powers to help them. In the end, they only harmed their people, making a bad situation worse. I hope the people in China have learned from this.
Their actions, I think, were justifiable at the time, but in retrospect some of their claims are just silly. "Let the various Foreign Devils all be killed. May the whole Elegant Empire of the Great Qing Dynasty be ever prosperous!" Sounds a lot like a strong rallying cry to me, and I think many in China at this time probably felt this way towards the emerging imperial European powers that were present in China. I think this rebellion taught China a strong lesson in that they were an emasculated world power (can't think of another description, maybe there is something more effective here), powerless to remove the English whom they greatly outnumbered. I suspect this strongly influenced their actions in the years to come to reform their nation and identity.
The unity point is a very good one. The enemies of America probably have more to fear from the million moderate march than they do from vociferous extremists. The people who are weakening America most are likely to be the ones that are accusing Obama of being a communist or denigrating Bush as a half wit.
Shouldn't your last point say strengthening instead of weakening? Questioning the government is paramount to American independence and politicians should always be held 'up to the flame' to remind them of their role in representing the people. If everybody just relaxed and let the government do as they pleased the 13 colonies would still be under the British crown. I don't much care for Obama now nor did I when he was elected, not because I think he's a "communist" but because he failed to bring about positive change that everybody was hyping.Furthermore the xenophobia I would certainly say is fabricated. How many times does the mass media tell people about the 'Axis of Evil' and the enemies are real and 'among us', yet all that happens as a result is the post-9/11 paranoia like the alleged terrorists in the suburbs of Buffalo, NY. I, for one, strongly believe that 'terrorism' is the new Red Scare. See the works of Leo Strauss if you want to see some of the reasons why.I am convinced that there are many similarities between modern U.S. and the Roman Empire but there are far more differences. I think there is a danger in correlating the two too strongly and drawing conclusions as a result, but it's fine to make allegories all day long just so long as you don't fall into the habit of creating 'whiggish' history because you are convinced that the similarities might be too strong.
Thanks, garbanzo. Yes, I suppose if Spain had put more emphasis on agriculture, and also on the industrial revolution, their colonies would have been more inclined to stay with them. Instead, they chose to mine precious metals so they could buy what they needed. The reason I say that the British fared better is because some of their colonies willingly chose to stay with them. Even a place like Hong Kong, which had a tiny British population, wasn't eager to break ties. I would even say that if Puerto Rico and Guam were offered the choice of returning to Spain they would choose to stay with the US, which makes me believe that Spain did not provide growth opportunities for their colonies. skiguy, I'm not sure I quite follow? I'll look into the readings garbanzo suggested and maybe I'll understand, but I just think that the colonies were places to make profits from. Sure, investments needed to be made, but the advantages to be had made them worthwhile.
No problem jake, I think it's an interesting question with many possible explanations. One reason why I feel that some places might have wanted to remain under the sovereignty of the British Empire (like here in Canada up until WWII mostly, with the exception of Quebec) was because of the belief that British subjects were the 'free-est men on earth' and enjoyed the trade benefits with which it could bring. I would definitely put British North America under this category even during the eve of the Revolution, where the first congress would still toast to George III. But this is not to say that Spanish colonialists would have said or done differently, this is the area of which I am uncertain. I am convinced, however, that the major motivation for settling from both nations differed greatly despite having some similarities, but the major difference that comes to my mind is that of religion. Spain, being officially a Roman Catholic state and having just expulsed its Jews and Muslims prior to settling the Americas did not have its settlers coming over as a result of religious strife (at least to my knowledge) whereas for many English settlers this was certainly a cause.
Their reasons for colonising were different throughout the Americas. England sent settlers to found colonies, but these new colonies in turn provided through indentured servitude a means for the displaced populations in England or those suffering from the continuous wars of religion to turn over a new leaf. Spain, on the other hand, had been fortunate enough to find those lands rich in natural resources and so their colonies centred around large urban centres like Mexico and Bogota with the purpose of administering the extraction of gold and other resources for shipping back to Spain. This is a very broad sweeping generalisation but I think it's fairly accurate. As for what went wrong in the colonies in the 19th century, see the American Revolutionary War and then Simon Bolivar and Latin American independence. Its other colonies of the Philippines and Guam were lost at the end of the 19th century in the Spanish-American War. There are many factors for why Spain lost control of its colonies and it would be inappropriate to only say that they followed what the American colonies did.As for how they treated the natives, they were labelled as "Black Spain" perhaps for a valid reason, but to say that England's colonies treated them better would not be true. Many native tribes likely got along very well with English settlers, like in early Pennsylvania, but they would always be pushed westwards eventually, and very often were the victims of massacre by the settlers.Also you can argue that England did not fare as well as Spain since they lost control of the Americas and India, which had a large population and fed directly into the British mercantilism system, not to mention vast territories, meaning that their losses were proportionally larger than Spain's. Spain lost essentially all of South America, but they had already shipped most of its gold to the mother country, and although they lost almost an entire continent they had not populated it and had not turned to agricultural cash crops like in British America to make it as valuable.
I heard that one of the most important reasons Caesar was assassinated was because he vowed to put an end to the constant inflation of their currency, and many aristocrats were dissatisfied with this.Nice article btw.
My favorites, despite a lot of bad things done during their presidencies, are definitely Jefferson and probably Andrew Jackson. As for the 'best' I don't think it's an exact science.
Facing the US in a war, China would try to draw North Korea and Russia into the conflict. This could easily turn into east vs west. The whole thing could become the most historically significant war ever fought.
What do you base this on
In an armed conflict between the US and China, the US would win hands down. The only question is whether the war would last weeks or months.
I'm not so sure about that... if anything I would imagine it being the other way around. Furthermore, I wouldn't want to see such a war in my lifetime.The US has had bases perpetually in Japan since WWII, notably Okinawa; proposals for upgrading the bases have always been a hot topic there and elsewhere in Japan and lately with the new president who is anti-US base along with probably much of the Okinawans will make it difficult in the future. Right now this base is key to the US pacific because it is within striking distance of many places around mainland Asia, and the proposed upgrades are to accommodate VTOL aircraft with nuclear capability and ~3,000km striking distance iirc. If the Japanese government is successful in defying the US the balance of power can shift very quickly.My opinion is that the US technically CAN defend Japan if a war were to break out with China (which I don't find very likely at all in the first place). Whether it would or would not I think the answer would be yes.
Democrats pipe fear out to the masses to keep their vote.
And isn't it ironic that Obama is saying the Republicans are the party of fear, all the while saying if we don't do Cap&Trade we'll all burn, if we priviatize SS there'll be no money, if we don't tax the rich we'll all go bankrupt, etc. etc. Each one of these Democrat campaign stunts are total lies. Sometimes I think it might be good strategy for the Conservatives to just sit back and watch the destruction, but then again, part of me wishes they would just come out IN FULL FORCE exposing the lies and fallacies once and for all.
quoted for emphasis
