"I was within the circle: so that I neither saw nor heard as those without might see and hear." (Frederick Douglass) What was the significance of the slave narratives and their authorship? Anti-slavery writings and slave narratives were undeniably significant and helpful in the abolitionists' fight against slavery. Many called them "the abolitionist movement's voice of reality." As they were first hand accounts of slavery from the African American slaves themselves. They depicted life as a slave and life after, and disproved the opinion that life as a slave was a happy one. They showed the "reality" of what was happening to slaves, and the mistreatment they were suffering at the hands of their masters. William Lloyd Garrison, David Walker, Harriet Jacobs and Frederick Douglass were some of the most important abolitionist writers. Each of these writers had different experiences with slavery, but they all had one thing in common: they tell of the abominable institution of slavery and how greatly it affected their lives. Frederick Douglass wrote his own slave narrative - Narrative in the life of Frederick Douglass, (which went on to become the biggest and best selling slave narrative still today) to give north Americans a closer account of slavery, it told about sexual, physical and mental abuse, the horrors of family separation and the inhuman workload at the hands of his
"In its intervention in South East Asia in the years 1950-1964, the USA was more concerned with defending its economic, than its ideological, interests"
"In its intervention in South East Asia in the years 1950-1964, the USA was more concerned with defending its economic, than its ideological, interests" The Cold War is infamous as an ideological battle ground, in relation to American beliefs, the clashes of ideology could be seen to an extent as economic in nature; communism Vs capitalism and thus the two reasons are inextricably linked. Yet as America's longest war, it follows that the conflict was a complicated one. The contributing factors of American involvement changed as the war progressed. The initial reasons the U.S.A became involved were not the reasons that kept them there over 15 years later and thus the reasons America entered Vietnam changed over time. America primarily became involved out of fear of communism and the domino effect, having 'lost' china to communism, and observing the U.S.S.R as a monolithic threat, the U.S believed they could not afford to allow another area in the region to turn communist. It seems then that the intervention was ideologically motivated. However, interest in the region was not only due to the desire to protect 'freedom', it was also an economically important region. Japan has been described as the 'corner stone' of American involvement in South East Asia and thus it was important to protect it. The Vietnam War was based on assumptions by the U.S.A. The initial and most cited
"Alfred the Great strikes back" By: Philip F. Cala III Michael Carr's article "Alfred the Great strikes back" gives a lot of information on the life of Alfred the Great. It gives a good bit of information about his back ground and the way he ruled. In 878, he was a king without a kingdom, hunted in the marshes of Somerset. In the year 878, Danish forces had conquered most of England and driven the Saxon king of Wessex, Alfred, westward into the Somerset marshes. The second Danish army landed on the southwestern English coast and besieged a small Saxon force at Countisbury Hill. Then Alfred the Great planned to strike back with fellow Saxons who greeted him as if he had returned from the dead.1 If defeated, the remaining Saxons would be absorbed into the Danelaw. Alfred, with most of his allies having surrendered or fled to continental Europe, would be hunted down like a fugitive, and the history of the English would end. Alfred gathered his remaining forces and began a brilliant campaign that would enable him to reconquer his lands and resurrect a single English kingdom from the ashes of the old Anglo-Saxon nations2. Alfred the Great was a ruler that was not only a good one, but he was a well respected one. Alfred rebuilt towns and forts and gathered an army for the coming war. But a force of Danes secretly crept into Wessex late in 875. Before Alfred could rally his
"Both Yohannis IV and Menelik II failed in the objectives they had set out to achieve." How far do you agree with this assessment?
"Both Yohannis IV and Menelik II failed in the objectives they had set out to achieve." How far do you agree with this assessment? I would say that Yohannis IV failed, but not Menelik. Yohannis IV was only put in as King of Kings after Tewodros because the British had left him a vast arsenal of arms and ammunition, and therefore pressured every other province king into electing him. His politics where weak, it seemed that he did want Ethiopia to be united, but did not do anything because he did not want to upset some provincial kings. The only thing these provincial kings had to do was to recognize him as King of Kings, and pay him an annual tribute. It was when Yohannis was in power that the first foreign Colonies came and wanted to take over Ethiopia. He had the Egyptians from the north, and the Italians on the coast line. Khedive Ismael, was the king of Egypt at this time and wanted more land. Yohannis would not let this happen so they went into war. Yohannis and his troops won the battle against the Egyptians and signed the treaty of Adowa. The Italians had taken over the port of Massawa, and where now threatening to go inland and take Ethiopia as their colony. At the same time, the Mahdist of Sudan where attacking and wanted to take over Ethiopia as well. The Mahdist launched a Jihad on Ethiopia , they invaded Ethiopia. They attacked some of the local kings and
The slave triangle worked like this. Firstly the people in Britain made goods like guns, alcohol, and iron bars, which were made very cheaply. All the goods were then carried to the docs in Glasgow, Liverpool or Bristol. All these goods were then boarded on to the ships and were taken to West Africa to be traded for slaves. The people bought only the strong looking slaves, both men and women. They took them to a market and placed them into chains, and were marched to the coast. They slaves were once again examined to see whether they were healthy, and if they were they were usually branded high up on the shoulder or high up on their backs. The branded slaves were taken to the barraoon and were placed on the ships. Men were separated from the women. The ships were packed with 600 or ore slaves. They were tightly packed in the warm, dark airless holds below the deck. They were placed there for the entire voyage across the Atlantic Ocean, which lasted for several weeks. Not surprisingly, many slaves died during this time. The slaves who survived were taken to South Africa, West Indies or North America depending on where the slaves were needed. The slaves were traded for sugar, rum, tobacco or cotton. Europe then bought the goods from the countries and the slave trade continued working like this. People in Britain were in involved in many ways, example of people who were
Karl Jasulavic Mrs. Neuhaus Eng 111 4 September 2004 The Effects of European Imperialism on the Current Day Democratic Republic of the Congo It is a well known fact that the areas of central Africa have long suffered from poverty, death, disease, and lack of technology, but what is responsible for this? No one can say for sure what the cause of the areas misfortune is, but one possible explanation can be linked all the way back to King Leopold's time. Specifically, European imperialism lead by King Leopold in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. King Leopold planted seeds in Central Africa that in turn lead to these long-term hardships that plague the area to this day. Before exploring the notion that European imperialism is the reason for Central Africa's strife the word imperialism needs to be discussed. Imperialism is a tricky subject with no real definition; however there are ideas and social phenomena that can be used for explanation. Depending on what the situation is imperialism can mean several different things. For the most part, in modern times, imperialism has included the aggressive establishment of political control by one state over another through different methods. Colonies and protectorates are two major means by which states take force upon other states, this is also known as "formal imperialism." Not only is brute force used
History coursework: Part A What in your view was the short term significance of Malcolm X? Malcolm X was much different from any other civil rights activists who were participating in the civil rights movement. His violent policies often led him into trouble, none more so when he was assassinated by members of his own organisation at the age of 39. Before his assassination he was well known for being a strong speaker and for his attempts at raising the awareness of the situation blacks faced in the ghettos of the USA. This led to X becoming a significant figure within the civil rights movement in the short term. A primary source taken from a quote from The New York Times newspaper states how Malcolm X 'had the ingredients for leadership', although his 'ruthless and fanatical belief in violence' prevented X from becoming the sort of leader which he had hoped. However the source is from around X's time and therefore the relevant information has not been yet gathered to perhaps evaluate his leadership skills, it does prove to be a rather accurate take on X's leadership. Malcolm firstly did take a violent approach within the civil rights movement, and as the source goes on to comment he was then met by 'a violent end'. Malcolm's end came at the hands of his own people, which proves that he was perhaps too far involved with the violent side of the civil rights movement, and his
"Even after he asked Congress for a declaration of war, President Wilson could argue that his foreign policy was still committed to peace." Assess the validity of this statement. Wilson's Peace Conquest President Wilson's foreign policy was committed to peace throughout WW1, even after he requested a declaration of war from Congress. Although some might argue that the very action of asking for a declaration of war opposes the argument that Wilson was steadfast in his search for peace, such is not the case. For one, it took a combination of repeated offences for the United States to formally break off relations with Germany and proclaim that the United States had entered the war. Furthermore, idealist President Wilson hoped for a uniform peace, one without the winning country punishing the defeated, and made a list of "Fourteen Points" that he believed would help in creating an everlasting peace in the world. Contrary to the belief that he was all talk, Wilson valiantly lobbied for the inclusion of his "peace without victory" ideals and his "Fourteen Points" in the Treaty of Versailles. Before the United States joined WW1, President Wilson's policies leaned toward peace. He did everything in his power to try and prevent the United States from entering the First World War. Wilson did not support Germans interference with the right of American merchants to sell goods not
Throughout his presidency (1912 " 1920) Woodrow Wilson(TM)s foreign policy was a failure Explain why you agree or disagree with this opinion
"Throughout his presidency (1912 - 1920) Woodrow Wilson's foreign policy was a failure" Explain why you agree or disagree with this opinion Wilson faced many big events in his time in office. He had to deal with a Mexican civil war, the first world war and the peace talk after this. In my opinion the statement is partially correct as he failed to complete many of his aims. In 1913, Mexico fell into a bloody revolution when Mexican general Victoriano Huerta overthrew the nation's government and declared himself its military dictator. Wilson immediately denounced Huerta, declaring that the United States could not and should not recognise violent dictators. The President attempted to initiate peaceful negotiations between Huerta and the old government, but both sides refused to submit to his proposal. Unsure how to proceed, Wilson permitted Huerta's enemies, the Constitutionalists, to purchase military equipment and arms in the U.S. in order to stage a counterrevolution. With America's help, the conflict was eventually resolved. Huerta fled the country, and a new government was established in 1915 under the leadership of Constitutionalist President Venustiano Carranza. Soon after Carranza was instated as Mexico's new president, one of his chief generals, Pancho Villa, led a second revolution to depose Carranza. A second bloody civil war erupted in Mexico barely after the first
Per. 2 American History 5/22/2011 "If you will call your troubles experiences, and remember that every experience develops some latent force within you, you will grow vigorous and happy, however adverse your circumstances may seem to be." ~John Heywood The Civil War was a culmination of over four decades of intense sectional conflicts between the north (Union) and south (Confederacy) regarding economic, social, and political issues. A widespread Civil War broke out when eleven southern states seceded from the Union. Although the South ceded from the Union to stand up for their economic and political independences, the individuals who fervently fought in the war had drastically different motives which drew them to war. This is the driving question which led Jeffrey Shaara to write the book Gods and Generals, a historically accurate account of four highly influential men: General Robert E. Lee, General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, Officer Winfield Hancock, and Colonel Joshua Chamberlain. Shaara delves deep into the personal lives of these four men, showing how their personal lives greatly influenced their moral and philosophical positions in the war.motifs which drove each of these men in the course of war. Robert E. Lee's deep-seated duty to God and duty to Virginia are the reasons why Lee fought and pushed so fervently in time of war. Robert E. Lee returns home, a