The article I will be discussing is “The Myth of American Isolationism” by Bear Braumoeller. The article addresses the mistaken belief that America was a highly isolationist state during the interwar period. Braumoeller argues the exact opposite, that America was involved in European affairs and the rest of the world. The article effectively argues that American isolationism in this period is a misconception. It is important because understanding the truth behind the false belief allows for a better understanding of the era as a whole and its relevance to current policy.
His father named Mohammad Taqi Shariati was a reform minded cleric and lived his life by doing lecture in his own religious hall (Bayat, a: 1990). His father strong advocacy for reforms in Iran had influenced Shariati’s intellectual mind the most. Despite their family including his father being shiites, the conservative Ulama of Iran accused his father as a Sunni Muslim and a Wahhabi (Abrahamian, 1982). Wahabbi the ideologue of Sunni Saudi Arabia, is Iran’s enemy in terms of propagation of religion due to some differences although both are Muslims. The major difference between Sunni and Shi’a is the issue of who succeeds Prophet Muhammad.
He was open to innovation and influenced by the Western thoughts. He was living at a time of Ottoman Empire in which the Empire had lost its supremacy over the Europeans. At that time Katib Chelebi noticed the inadequacy of the traditional education of the Empire. His work; “The Balance of Truth”,Mizanü’l-Hakk fi ihtiyari’l-ahakk in Arabic, gives us significant informations about the religious, political, and cultural debates in the Ottoman Empire in the seventeenth century. “The Balance of Truth” was the Katib Chelebi’s last work which he completed in 1656.
Continuing, it could be inferred that Ben Franklin is using Pathos by acting as if he naturally hates the Americans and desires to ruin them. Throughout the letter, Ben Franklin sounds like a patriot of Great Britain by insulting Americans and giving them ideas of what to do to them. Although, as Franklin includes ideas in his letter, he additionally incorporates counterpoints that would make him sound like he is trying to help. For example, Franklin claims that the laws of the conqueror are just; however, it is possible that such laws could be contrary to the laws of mankind, ultimately contradicting what he first claimed. Towards the end of the letter, Ben Franklin includes a paradox by claiming that Britain should massacre the Americans as they can bring in citizens from Britain so there wouldn’t be any rebellious acts.
The assigned reading for chapter 6, Testimony by Sonny Singh is a firsthand account of the author as he fell victim to the prejudice towards certain racial and ethnic groups that followed the events of September 11,2001. Sonny Singh belongs to an ethnic group called Sikhs which are very identifiable because of their appearances. Most Sikh men wear a turban and have beards. This is a religious requirement for them and they consider it a matter of faith and prestige. In this article, the author has mentioned various instances where he has faced prejudice by strangers even years after the 9/11 attack and how it affects his everyday life as an educator and musician.
The Declaration of Independence was considered a biased propaganda. The reason the Declaration of Independence was considered a bias propaganda were because of the exaggerated statements of the truth. However, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence to notify America and King George III of England about the new freedom of the world. Thomas Jefferson used several examples of propaganda towards King George III in The Declaration of Independence. Jefferson used propaganda against King George III to portray him as a sinful tyranny King who wanted absolute control over each colony.
In the work by Howard Zinn, “Columbus, The Indians, and Human Progress”; and, Dinesh D’Souza’s, “Two Cheers for Colonialism”, there is a difference between the two authors perspectives of the subject. The subject being, how far is too far when it comes to the progress of the human race; and, what justifies it. Bother differing in intended audience, though with the purpose of educating. While, both pieces were written around the same time, in the late 20th century. Howard Zinn’s work is directed towards a more conservative audience; at the time, his work was very controversial for its content around the arrival of Columbus in America.
Spanish philosopher, George Santayana, is attributed with one of the most famous quotes in all of history. “Those who do not learn from their past are condemned to repeat it.” During the Puritan era and McCarthyism periods Americans let greed and fear get the best of them. These times were the inspiration that Arthur Miller used to write The Crucible. Puritanism is a dark time in American history because of the events that happened. There is nothing we can do to change the past but, we can learn from history and not let it repeat itself.
Reading this novel, the author suggests that people will always see things in their own way, as if it’s part of human nature. For example, many questioned why Hitler hated the Jews so much when he was partly Jewish himself. In the story, Rabbi Bengelsdorf, who is Jewish, believed that "the development of American ideals" was to the upmost importance (Roth, 34). He shared similar views as Charles Lindbergh, believing that those who cling on to their Jewish background must be repressed and “Americanized”. Philip Roth rewrites history, depicting the actions of human nature and how is effected not only the Roth family, but the whole American
“What began as propaganda,” says Kishlansky, “has been transmuted into seeming fact.” Kishlansky’s argument pushes one to exceed the greatly studied Civil War as being chalked up to King Charles unfortunate behaviour. Although it is difficult to not fault Charles for his tyranny, it is important to look at Kishlansky’s argument as an invitation to study kings Charles from the perspective of a young king with poor education. Removing King Charles I character from the equation also sparks the question of whether or not the Civil War in England was Inevitable and to what extent was King Charles I