Make a Question Based on Two Readings, history homework help

User Generated

zvxrznapqp23

Humanities

Description

Hey there just need you to follow the rubrics in the word document. The two pdfs are the readings. You will need to make a question based on those two readings. The question should be at least two paragraphs.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Gregory Shafer, “The Common Currents of Imperialism” (2003) "We are there to reach out to love them and to save them, and as a Christian I do this in the name of Jesus Christ."--Franklin Graham "There was nothing left for us to do but to take them all and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize, and Christianize them...."-President McKinley Imperialism is a pesky thing. No matter how ardently one tries to adorn it in the garb of democracy and liberation, it seems always to look the same. One hundred years ago, the United States fought Spain with the pretense of liberating the Philippines and other "possessions" from subjugation. "A splendid little war," mused John Hay, the U.S. ambassador to England, in pondering the windfall it would mean for U.S. citizens. For the Filipino people, however, the occupation of their nation was anything but splendid. As a subjugated people, they fought the U.S. oppressors and their exploitive plans as heroically as they had the Spanish. While Mark Twain and others castigated American icons like President Theodore Roosevelt for their genocidal cleansing of the Filipino people, too many others remained mute, unwilling or unaware of how the United States had used the ruse of liberty and democracy to establish a pacific base in the Philippines. Much of the same has also occurred in Iraq, where searches for weapons of mass destruction have been overshadowed by a growing Iraqi chorus for U.S. troops to leave their country. Whether President George W. Bush ever had any desire to do anything hut give contracts to his favorite oil companies is questionable, but one thing is rather clear: the Iraqi people, both Shiite and Sunni, don't want Americans in their country and have asked them to leave in daily protests and orchestrated demonstrations: through marches, through civil disobedience, and in talks with U.S. officials. "Iraq cannot be ruled except by Iraqis," said Sheikh Hussein Sadr, dean of the Islamic Council in London, on April 28, 2003, as reported by USA Today. Just two days alter a disquieting 60 Minutes special revealed the sweetheart deals that were going to Haliburton--Dick Cheney's former oil company--Bush tried to remind the nation that the mission in Iraq was noble. "America has no intention of imposing our form of government or our culture," USA Today quoted Bush in a speech to Iraqi-Americans in Michigan on April 28. Interestingly, Bush omitted any discussion about intentions to develop the reservoir of Iraqi oil or the contracts that had been doled out to U.S. companies with ties to the White House. Not surprisingly, many also wondered about the people who weren't being invited to talk about the rebuilding of Iraq. Many were concerned about the exclusion of certain Iraqi groups that might want U.S. troops expelled and an end to U.S. rapacity in their nation. Others wondered why nobody was finding connections to terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, as that was the pretext for invading the country in the first place. As an American student asked, "Can someone remind me why we invaded Iraq? If it was to rid the world of a deluded and dangerous dictator, shouldn't we have pursued Kim Jong in North Korea? Is this about freedom or Americanization?" Actually, the phrase often used for this kind of colonialism is benevolent assimilation, an insidious process in which the aggressor nation prostrates the victim nation and then begins to absorb it by plundering its resources and inculcating its people to believe that the usurpation was all done to liberate them and extricate them from an evil force. This lesson of imperialism, as has been played out in Iraq, amazingly and horrifyingly parallels the actions in the Philippines one century earlier. When the United States first occupied the Philippines, the same mantra of liberating the people and bringing civilization to the land was espoused. Roosevelt referred to the Filipino people as childlike and suggested that they were too barbaric, too savage, to be left to their own devices. This eruption of manifest destiny seemed to justify the carnage, the plundering, and the abject disregard for human rights. In writing about the terror in his piece, "The Philippine-American War: Friendship and Forgetting," Reynaldo Ileto reminds us that the United States had an Axis of Evil one century ago as well, where one was either an American or an official villain. In trying to conquer the Filipino rebels, the U.S. military resorted to a policy that abandoned "amigo warfare" for an approach that was eerily similar to Bush's "shock and awe." "Henceforth," announced General Franklin Bell, in dealing with incorrigible Filipinoes, "no one will be permitted to be neutral.... The towns of Tiaong, Dolores, and Candelaria will probably be destroyed unless the insurgents who take refuge in them are destroyed." Colonel Cornelius Gardener, the first governor of Tayabas, recalled the irony of the violence. The United States was supposed to be the emancipator, but instead it simply lorded over a people for whom it had little regard. In speaking of the U.S. troops and their actions, Gardener lamented, "Of course the best houses in every town were occupied by them and every hidden place ransacked in hope of the booty of Eastern lands, so often read of in novels." Mark Twain, the celebrated author and humorist, was never deluded by the patriotic fervor. In his essay "To the Person Sitting in the Darkness," he refers to the deception and perfidy of the American cause: We knew they supposed we were also fighting in their worthy cause--just as we had helped the Cubans fight for Cuban independence--and we allowed them to go on thinking so. Until Manila was ours and we could get along without them. In the process, thousands of Filipino people were killed and dispossessed. It was all trumpeted as a crusade to emancipate. In reality, it was the absorption of one country by another that was more powerful--replete with domination, occupation, and propaganda. April 27, 2003, presented the world with some of the first rumblings of what occupation is like in Iraq and how uneasy the relationship is between colonizer and colonized. After an acrimonious demonstration against U.S. presence in the area, sixteen Iraqi citizens were gunned down by U.S. soldiers, and seventy-five more were injured. According to the Detroit Free Press, Dr. Ahmed Ghanim al-Ali, director of the Fallujah General Hospital, reported that three of the thirteen dead were boys no older than ten. And he added later that his "medical crews were shot at when they went to retrieve the injured, which he said numbered 75 people." May 1, 2003, brought more of the same. The Detroit Free Press reported that U.S. soldiers fired on anti-American demonstrators massed outside a U.S. compound--killing two and wounding eighteen-when unidentified attackers lobbed two grenades into the compound. Such escalating violence--the daily ritual of challenging U.S. presence on Iraqi soil--is emblematic of the imperialist's struggle. With citizens ardently opposed to a cultural interloper, and with the taste of real freedom resonating through their systems, they have little patience for the invading force. And so the real conflict begins. With former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein--the designated villain--removed from power, Bush is continually forced to dance around the prickly issue of imperialism. Much like the situation in the Philippines, the Iraqi situation is no longer about amigo warfare but the subjugation of an intractable people--people who refuse to let the United States absorb their culture and appropriate their resources. Indeed, if Iraqi autonomy were the goal, wouldn't it be good for the United States to abdicate power to a United Nations team, so that questions about the surreptitious interests of the United States wouldn't be raised? If democracy and self-government were the endeavor, wouldn't it be wise to step to the side and permit Iraqis--in conjunction with an international team--to construct a democracy from the rubble of another U.S. attack? In late June the United Nations called for the establishment of a representative Iraqi interim authority to help in rebuilding the country that was ravaged by U.S. bombs. "A fundamental precursor to any process is the establishment of a representative Iraqi interim administration to lead the reconstruction process," said Ramiro Lopez da Silva, the UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq in speaking to the Associated Press. To this end, an inaugural meeting of the Iraqi governing council met for the first time on July 13 in order to delegate more responsibility to Iraqi officials over local municipalities. Such questions were made more provocative by the enduring and rather shadowy place of oil companies in Iraq. Curiously, the nation with only "altruistic designs" gave contracts to oil companies six months before the war even started. Even more unsettling, Haliburton, the oil company once directed by Dick Cheney, was chosen to develop this energy, which will generate incredible profits. Again, imperialism suggests that one nation exploit a less powerful nation for its human and natural resources, perceiving its people as inferior and unable to govern itself. The dominating nation sees its role as paternalistic, as charitable to a population incapable of self-rule. It exploits its superior status to take what it wants under the presumption that it is doing the victim nation a favor. "The Bush administration is marinated in oil," argued consumer advocate Ralph Nader while speaking on a February 26, 2003, National Public Radio program. Forty-one of the top administration officials were on boards of directors, including Condoleezza Rice, of course Cheney was head of Haliburton, George Bush came out of Harken Energy. There are enormous ties. Added Arianna Huffington in a revealing March 19 essay entitled "Corporate America Divvies Up the Post-Saddam Spoils": The Bush Administration is currently in the process of doling out over $1.5 billion in government contracts to American companies lining up to cash in on the rebuilding of postwar Iraq. So bombs away. The more the better--at least for the lucky few in the rebuilding business. Imperialism is founded in media distortion and national fear. Because the aggression is clearly unjustified, the imperialist must weave a fabric of accusations, persuading its citizens that attacking and subjugating the victim nation is in their self-interest. In 2003 this was accomplished with the assistance of the events of September 11, 2001. With many U.S. citizens reeling from the unforgettable carnage, the soil was fertile for action--action that would make easy scapegoats of any country the president already wanted to attack. From that point it was easy. The goal of the Bush team--which had long eyed the untapped oil fields of Iraq--was to make a case for terrorism. With Osama bin Laden seemingly on an extended vacation, why not pursue the world's second largest oil fields? Within weeks after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the White House was whipping up fear and blending it with hatred--all in hopes of justifying aggression against oil-rich Iraq. Nobody liked Hussein anyway, and his use as a puppet of the United States had long since passed. The temptation was just too great, and the frenzy of fear was an irresistible tonic for violence. And so the political machine went into action. While no credible evidence linked Hussein to 9/11, the administration fomented a string of provocative allegations, sending Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell around the country with dire predictions for U.S. safety. By fall 2002, the Pew Research Center reported that two-thirds of the U.S. citizenry believed that Hussein "helped the terrorists in the September 11 attacks." Fascinatingly, this was despite the fact that, according to Norman Solomon in his book Target Iraq, there was unanimous agreement among U.S. spy agencies that "evidence linking Baghdad with the September 11 attacks, or any attacks against Western targets since 1993, is simply non-existent." Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk was laconic in adding, "Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 11 September. If the United States attacks Iraq, we should remember that." In the Philippines and the larger war with Spain, the propaganda war was also predicated upon lust for expansion and driven by a compliant media. Indeed, journalist William Randolph Hearst clearly wanted war and used his New York Journal to generate turbulence whenever he could. As in Iraq, war was simply good business. As Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States reveals, Roosevelt wrote to a friend in 1897, "In strict confidence, I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one." On the eve of the Spanish American War, the Washington Post wrote: A new consciousness seems to have come upon us--the consciousness of strength--and with it a new appetite, the yearning to show our strength.... Ambition, interest, land hunger, pride, the mere joy of fighting, whatever it may be, we are animated by a new sensation. We are face to face with a strange destiny. The taste of the Empire is in the mouth of the people even as the taste of blood in the jungle. Today, many only know of a Spanish-American war in which the Philippines was extricated from imperialistic Spain. We hear quixotic tales about rough riders and intrepid marches. Few schools in either the Philippines or the United States discuss the disquieting details of how U.S. troops blazed a trail of destruction, killing women and children and labeling the casualties uncivilized niggers. Zinn recounts that a volunteer soldier from the state of Washington wrote, "our fighting blood was up, and we all wanted to kill niggers ... This shooting human beings beats rabbit hunting all to pieces." What do the words of imperialism sound like? Consider the excerpts from Senator Albert Beveridge in January 1900. In recalling the carnage of Filipinos and the laments from some that the war was rapacious and cruel, Beveridge reveals the hubris of a people who are inebriated on nationalistic fervor-a people who believe, like Bush, that Americanization is synonymous with civilization: My own belief is that there are not 100 men among them who comprehend what Anglo-Saxon self-government even means, and there are over 5,000,000 people to be governed. It has been charged that our conduct of the war has been cruel. Senators, it has been the reverse.... Senators must remember that we are not dealing with Americans or Europeans. We are dealing with Orientals. In Iraq the mantra has been along the same racist and Eurocentric lines and has included talk of the inherently violent character of Islamic people. As Bush supposedly tries to placate critics and assure citizens of his altruistic mission, others wonder about his ties to conservative Christians who have spoken in monolithic terms about Islam. The Reverend Billy Graham's son Franklin is infamous for his depiction of Islam as intrinsically evil. The man who offered prayers at Bush's inauguration was quoted in the December 12, 2001, issue of Christian Century depicting Islam as "wicked, violent, and not of the same God." He continued, "It wasn't Methodists flying into those buildings, and it wasn't Lutherans." And of course, conservatives have been unabashed in their agenda to develop the oil fields that make Iraq a treasured conquest. In 1899, the United States sought the coal, sugar, coffee, hemp, and tobacco of the Philippines. Earlier it had opened the natural resources of Cuba and annexed Guam as a base for meddling in the affairs of Japan. Why not plunder the nation you are civilizing? Iraq has oil--lots of it. What better solution for a nation that drives gas-guzzling SUVs and thrives under the assumption that it has a celestial mission to bring capitalism and increased opportunity so as to benefit its corporate friends. In the end, imperialism has a very distinctive look: it is arrayed in corporate money, driven by jingoism, and sprinkled with whiffs of patriotism and egocentricism. It looks the same today as it did a century ago--and smells just as bad. Gregory Shafer is an assistant professor of English at Mott College in Flint, Michigan. COPYRIGHT 2003 American Humanist Association Discussion  Board  Instructions     As  part  of  the  requirements  for  this  course,  you  must  post  to  the  course  Discussion   Boards  on  a  weekly  basis,  as  specified  on  the  Course  Syllabus.     General  Guidelines     The  comments  that  you  make  on  the  Discussion  Boards  should  be  both  insightful   and  original.    Superficial  or  simplistic  postings  such  as  “I  really  liked  this  reading   because  I  learned  a  lot  about  China”  or  “Very  interesting  points,  you  have  some   really  good  ideas”  will  not  receive  credit,  nor  will  postings  that  simply  repeat   observations,  ideas,  or  questions  that  have  already  been  made  by  other  students.         Posts  should:   • Add  additional  thoughts,  information,  or  ideas  that  were  not  raised  in   previous  posts,  and/or  engage  in  active  debate  with  previous  posts  by   providing  new  perspectives  and  evidence.   • Demonstrate  that  you  have  understood  and  thought  critically  about  the   readings  and  their  significance.   • Always  support  any  opinions  or  claims  with  specific  examples/evidence   from  course  materials  or  other  sources.   • Cite  (either  by  mentioning  the  author  or  title  of  texts  or  by  formal  in-­‐text   citation)  any  readings  or  other  sources  used  for  the  post.   • Not  all  refer  to  the  same  reading.    In  other  words,  all  of  your  posts  on  a   Discussion  Board  may  not  be  focused  on  the  same  reading  (ie.  If  you  ask  a   question  that  deals  only  with  one  reading,  you  must  respond  to  a  question   that  focuses  on  a  different  reading).   • Reference/draw  upon  “Required”  readings  &  materials.    You  are  welcome  &   encouraged  to  integrate  outside  information,  information  from  course   lectures,  and  information  from  “Recommended”  course  materials;  however,   you  should  do  so  on  in  conjunction/addition  to  drawing  on  “Required”   readings  and  materials  (posts  that  do  not  reference/draw  upon  “Required”   materials  cannot  receive  full  credit).   • If/when  appropriate,  draw  connections  to  other  course  readings  &  themes   (posts  do  not  have  to  make  such  connections,  but  you  should  try  to  get  into   the  habit  of  thinking  comparatively  when  you  consider  course  material).     When  posting  comments,  please  keep  in  mind  that  you  are  partaking  in  a  formal   academic  discussion,  and  your  comments  should  be  clearly  written  with  proper   spelling  &  grammar,  typed  in  black  font,  and  both  appropriate  and  respectful  to  your   peers.    I  encourage  you  to  question,  critique,  disagree  with,  and  debate  the   comments  and  questions  raised  on  the  Discussion  Boards,  but  remember  to  do  so   constructively  and  with  respect  for  you  classmates  and  their  opinions.    I  will   monitor  the  Discussion  Boards,  contribute  comments  when  appropriate,  and   contact  you  personally  if  your  conduct  is  inappropriate.     Posting  Requirements     For  our  Discussion  Boards,  you  are  usually  required  to  post  one  question  and   respond  to  two  questions  that  are  posted  by  other  students.    In  order  to  post  your   question,  you  should  begin  a  new  thread;  in  order  to  post  your  response(s),  you   should  find  a  thread  started  by  another  student  and  “reply”  on  that  thread.     The  point  of  the  question  posts  is  to  provide  an  opportunity  for  you  to  shape  the   way  that  the  class  considers  and  examines  the  course  material  by  initiating  an   exchange/discussion  among  your  classmates  about  the  issues  &  topics  that  you  find   most  compelling.    Accordingly,  there  are  few  specific  rules  about  what  your   questions  must  include  or  not  include.    Generally  speaking,  a  question  post  should   demonstrate  that  you  have  thought  deeply  and  critically  about  the  assigned   readings  and  formulated  an  insightful  and  thought-­‐provoking  question  about  an   aspect  of  the  readings  that  you  found  particularly  significant,  problematic,   controversial,  or  poignant.     When  you  post  your  question,  you  must  begin  with  some  background  information   or  discussion  to  lead  into  the  question  itself.    Such  information  might  include  (but  is   not  limited  to):  a)  historical  background/context  for  your  question  (you  might  draw   on  course  readings,  course  lectures,  or  outside  sources  for  such   background/context—if  you  use  outside  sources,  be  sure  to  cite  them  in  your  post);   b)  an  explanation  of  why  you  feel  this  question  is  important  or  how  it  relates  to   broader  course  themes;  c)  an  explanation  of  how/why  you  came  up  with  this   particular  question;  and/or  d)  some  of  your  own  thoughts  in  response  to  the   question.     The  question  itself  should  relate  to  the  currently  assigned  readings  and  should   provoke  critical  analysis  and  discussion  among  your  classmates.    Generally   speaking,  good  questions  are  those  that  demand  interpretive  or  opinion-­‐based   responses,  not  those  that  ask  for  basic  historical  facts  or  can  be  answered  with  a   simple  “yes”  or  “no”.    Question  posts  should  be  a  minimum  of  125  words  in  length   [Note:  125  words  is  the  absolute  minimum  number  of  words  necessary  for  your   question  post  to  be  considered  for  the  minimum  passing  grade;  strong  posts   generally  will  utilize  significantly  more  than  the  bear  minimum  number  of  words].     You  can  find  an  example  of  a  good  question  post  and  a  good  answer  post  at  the  end   of  this  document.     Your  answer  post(s)  should  respond  to  another  student’s  question  with  a  clear   theory,  argument,  or  opinion  that  is  supported  by  specific  and  appropriate   examples/data  from  course  materials  or  other  sources.    Your  answers  should   demonstrate  thoughtful  engagement  with  course  materials  and  a  strong   understanding  of  course  concepts  &  texts.    Answer  posts  they  should  be  a  minimum   of  150  words.    [Note:  150  words  is  the  absolute  minimum  number  of  words   necessary  for  your  question  post  to  be  considered  for  the  minimum  passing  grade;   strong  posts  generally  will  utilize  significantly  more  than  the  bear  minimum  number   of  words].       Answer  posts  also  must  adhere  to  the  following  rules:     1.    There  can  be  no  more  than  three  answers  to  each  question   2.  If  another  student  has  already  posted  a  response  to  a  question,  your   response  must  provide  information  and/or  opinions  that  are  significantly   different  than  the  first  response   3.  You  may  not  respond  to  a  question  posed  by  the  same  student  during  two   consecutive  weeks  (eg.  if  you  respond  to  John’s  question  during  week  two,   you  may  not  respond  to  John’s  question  during  week  three).   4.  If  you  use  outside  sources  to  provide  information  for  your  question  post  or   your  answer  post,  you  must  cite  those  sources  in  your  post.       Discussion  Board  Evaluation  &  Grades     Each  of  your  posts  on  both  Discussion  Boards  will  receive  a  grade  of  10,  20,  30,  40,   or  50.    Please  note  that  you  are  graded  based  on  the  content  only  of  the  number  of   required  posts  (in  other  words,  if  three  posts  are  required  for  a  Discussion  Board,   you  will  only  receive  points  for  three  posts).    Accordingly,  in  order  to  receive  high   marks,  you  should  focus  on  making  in-­‐depth  posts  of  the  number  required  for  a   given  Discussion  Board,  not  on  making  numerous  short  or  superficial  posts.     Discussion  Board  grades  will  be  posted  in  the  Blackboard  grade  center  on  a  weekly   basis.    For  further  information  about  how  your  posts  are  graded  and  what  these   numerical  grades  mean,  see  the  Discussion  Boards  Grading  Rubric  posted  in  the   Information  section  of  Blackboard.     After  each  Discussion  Board  is  closed,  I  will  make  brief  comments  on  many  of  the   threads  as  a  means  of  providing  basic  feedback  on  the  posts  and  of  adding  some   specific  questions  or  ideas  to  the  conversations.    I  will  also  post  my  general   comments  about  the  Discussion  Boards  &  their  associated  readings  in  a  “Post-­‐ Discussion  Comments  and  Observations”  thread.     Because  the  Discussion  Boards  are  our  forum  for  analyzing  and  debating  the  course   readings,  you  should  read  through  the  discussions  that  took  place  on  all  the  threads   (not  just  those  to  which  you  posted)  along  with  my  Post-­‐Discussion  Comments  and   Observations  after  we  have  finished  with  each  Discussion  Board.     Frequently  Asked  Questions  about  Discussion  Boards  (FAQs)     • My  grade  for  one  of  the  Questions  Discussion  Board  is  much  lower  than  I   think  it  should  have  been.    What  should  I  do  about  this?   o I  am  often  reading,  responding  to,  evaluating,  and  recording  points  for   Discussion  Board  postings  at  the  same  time.    Accordingly,  I  do   occasionally  miss  a  comment  on  the  Discussion  Board.    So,  if  your   Discussion  Board  grade  seems  to  be  far  below  what  you  would  have   expected  (eg.  you  expected  12  points  and  received  4  or  0  points),  you   should  contact  me  and  ask  me  to  double-­‐check  your  score.    If  your   score  is  just  off  by  a  point  or  two,  chances  are  that  you  were  not   awarded  full  points  for  your  posts,  and  you  should  review  the   guidelines/expectations  for  posts  on  the  course  syllabus  (or  see  the   sample  posts  in  the  Frequently  Asked  Questions  (FAQ)  document).     • The  current  discussion  boards  are  not  yet  posted.  I  wanted  to  make  sure  that   it  wasn't  my  computer  or  blackboard  having  technical  difficulties.   o If  you  cannot  see  materials  on  Blackboard  that  should  be  there,  there   are  two  possible  explanations.    The  first  possibility  is  that  I  have  not   yet  posted  the  materials.    The  second  possibility  is  that  your  computer   is  having  difficulty  with  Blackboard.    If  the  second  issue  is  the   problem,  you  should  first  try  using  a  different  browser  (even  if  the   browser  that  you  have  used  in  the  past  has  never  had  trouble  before)-­‐ -­‐I  suggest  trying  Google  Chrome  and  Safari  in  particular.    If  changing   browsers  doesn’t  work,  you  should  also  check  to  make  sure  that  you   have  an  updated  version  of  Java.    If  you  still  can’t  solve  the  problem,   you  should  contact  Backboard’s  24-­‐hour  student  tech  support  chat   service.   • Could  you  please  provide  an  example  of  a  good  question  and  a  good  response   for  the  Questions  Discussion  Board?   o Yes.    Please  keep  in  mind  that  your  question  posts  should  include   some  background  information,  discussion,  and  or  personal  thoughts   as  part  of  your  question  post  (not  just  a  question).    Also  keep  in  mind   that  your  responses  should  be  detailed  and  analytical—a  good   response  must  take  a  position  and  then  support  &  explain  that   position  with  specific  examples  &  analysis  from  the  readings  (or  other   sources,  as  appropriate).    Simply  stating  your  answer  without   providing  any  support  for  it  is  not  sufficient;  you  might  think  of  your   responses  as  mini-­‐essays  in  which  you  assert  an  option  and  then   prove  it  through  specific  analysis  and  examples.    Here  is  an  example  of   a  good  question  and  a  good  response  from  one  of  my  other  history   courses:       Example  Posts:     [Note:  Your  posts  do  not  need  to  be  as  lengthy  or  comprehensive  as  these  examples,   but  these  posts  are  good  representations  of  the  type  of  thoughtful  analysis,  engaged   discussion,  drawing  of  connections  between  course  themes/materials,  and  well-­‐ supported  claims  that  you  want  to  strive  for  in  your  posts]     Question:     One  of  the  most  overlooked  aspects  of  Frida  Kahlo’s  life  in  film,  Frida,  is  her   communism,  in  particular,  her  fascination  with  Stalinism.  As  Stephanie  Mencimer   states  in  her  article  about  Kahlo,  Kahlo  was  a  “devout  Stalinist”  (Mencimer,  1).  Kahlo   never  deviated  from  this  fascination  despite  the  fact  that  Stalin  was  a  well-­‐known   mass  murderer  responsible  for  the  deaths  of  millions.  Kahlo  featured  the  Soviet   ruler  in  one  of  her  last  paintings,  wrote  poems  about  him,  and  practically   worshipped  him  as  evidenced  by  many  references  to  him  in  her  journal  (Mencimer,   2).  In  the  film,  none  of  this  is  referenced  and  Stalin  is  only  mentioned  once  by   Trotsky  when  he  calls  Stalin  a  “bureaucrat”.  Although  Kahlo  does  not  respond  to  the   comment,  she  also  does  not  seem  to  disagree  with  Trotsky’s  assessment  of  Stalin.   This  depiction  paints  a  picture  of  Frida  Kahlo  that  is  either  incomplete  or  not   entirely  truthful.   The  one  that  takes  a  stand  based  on  his  politics  in  the  film  is  actually  her   husband,  Diego  Rivera,  who  paints  Vladimir  Lenin  on  one  of  his  murals  at  the   Rockefeller  Center  in  New  York.  Nelson  Rockefeller  asks  him  to  remove  Lenin  and   Rivera  refuses,  unwilling  to  compromise  his  beliefs.  But,  we  never  see  Frida  make  a   political  stand  like  this  in  the  movie.    Instead  the  film  showcases  her  independence   and  self-­‐determination  to  become  a  revered  painter,  while  rendering  her  leftist   political  views  as  a  footnote.   Do  you  view  the  film  as  an  act  of  historical  revisionism  meant  to  show  Kahlo   in  the  most  positive  light  while  completely  ignoring  essential  facts  about  Kahlo  and   Mexico  during  her  time?    Is  this  simply  a  biopic  love  letter  to  Frida  Kahlo  rather  than   an  accurate  and  well-­‐balanced  representation  of  who  she  was  and  what  she   believed?    If  so,  why  do  you  believe  that  Frida  Kahlo’s  story  is  told  in  this  fashion?     Response:     I  completely  agree  with  your  assessment.  The  director's  and  the  filmmakers  had  a   specific  agenda  and  message  that  they  wanted  to  communicate  about  Kahlo,  and  this   agenda  and  message  did  not  necessarily  fit  with  the  reality  of  the  person  that  they   were  portraying.    As  a  result,  the  film  focuses  on  Kahlo’s  struggles,  self-­‐ determination  and  successes  without  exploring  her  political  views  sufficiently.     It  should  be  noted  however,  that  much  of  the  crimes  of  Stalin  was  obscured  by  a  vast   network  of  censorship  and  terror  within  the  boundaries  of  the  Soviet  Union,  and   was  rationalized  by  propagandaists  like  Walter  Duranty  (Stalin’s  Apologist  by  S.J.   Taylor).  Many  of  the  intellectuals  of  the  time  were  caught  up  in  the  idealism  of   communist  ideology.  Mostly  secular  humanists  who  desired  social  justice,  they   believed  that  communism  was  the  key  to  solving  all  of  the  problems  of  the  world.   They  thought  it  would  end  oppression,  inequality,  and  even  human  self  interest  and   greed!    Stalin's  Soviet  Union  was  the  only  functioning  communist  nation  at  the  time,   and  the  majority  of  foreign  communists  (like  Rivera  and  Kahlo)  looked  at  his   country  with  a  pseudo-­‐religious  devotion,  as  a  perfect  model  for  civilization.       The  film  accepts  Frida  was  communist,  but  ignores  her  Stalinism.  Instead  it   promotes  the  idea  (through  the  characters  of  Trotsky  and  Rivera)  that  Stalinism  was   fundamentally  different  than  Communism  (at  least  the  Soviet  version).  This  position   is  supported  by  many  contemporary  Communists  (they  still  do  exist),  and  could  be   an  attempt  by  the  filmmakers  to  make  Frida's  beliefs  more  palatable  to  audiences.     To  be  fair  to  Rivera  and  Kahlo,  they  did  not  always  support  Stalin.  In  the  "About   Frida  Kahlo's  Art"  reading,  both  she  and  her  husband  actually  left  the  Mexican   Communist  Party  in  1929  due  to  its  Stalinist  support.  Their  views  changed  later  on,   she  rejoined  the  party,  and  even  attempted  to  create  a  self  portrait  of  herself   alongside  Stalin  prior  to  her  death.  Nevertheless,  their  early  rejection  of  Stalin   shows  that  they  were  not  rigid  ideologues  like  many  other  communists,  and  might   not  necessarily  support  it  if  conflicted  with  their  personal  values.       None  of  this  removes  the  moral  culpability  of  supporting  Stalin,  but  it  does  put  it  in  a   less  black  and  white  context.      
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Running head: IMPERIALISM DISCUSSION

Imperialism Discussion
Name:
Class:
Tutor:
Date of submission:

1

IMPERIALISM DISCUSSION

2
Imperialism Discussion

Gregory Shafer (2003) in his article talks about the dominance of the United States over
other less powerful nations. The basic ideology is that the U.S dominated and conquered other
nations in the name of protecting them from evil forces. The occurrences that happened in th...


Anonymous
I use Studypool every time I need help studying, and it never disappoints.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags