Skip to main content Skip to navigation
Clif Stratton – Summer 2017 History 305

Deforestation of the Amazon RA3

Download PDF

For the talks of Global Warming, or more recently Climate Change, fossil fuels have always taken the role of the main nemesis for keeping carbon emissions low and greenhouse gasses under control. But there is also another side to the story: there will always be carbon emissions as life on Earth emits carbon, but where does it go and how is it dealt with? Nature’s biggest answer are trees, namely rainforests, and while Climate Change is increasingly becoming more of an issue, everyone seems focused on carbon emission. While that is still a problem, another issue that could solve many more problems is decreasing deforestation; Since the 1970’s “… the Brazilian Amazon has lost nearly a fifth of its forest cover already…”[1] The Amazon rainforest accounts for half of all the carbon tropical rainforests store and “recent estimates suggest a third of climate emissions (or even more) could be offset by stopping deforestation and restoring forest land”[2] and starting with the Brazilian Amazon would be a huge step in reversing the negative trend that we are currently on. Even in the face of this possible solution, or at least turning point, the Brazilian government have made a proposal to allow further cutting and clearing of the tropical rainforest to make room for raising more crops or livestock. How has the importance of agricultural expansion been placed above nature? What steps have been taken to cause deforestation on such an alarming scale and how has it been stemmed in the recent years?

Paragraph 2: The economic side that drove deep into the ecology of the Brazilian Amazon. [3]

Paragraph 3: analysis of programs and policies through the late 20th century that have made rates of deforestation incredibly high [4]

Paragraph 4: analysis of the noticeable results of deforestation have caused an increase in temperatures and a decrease in precipitation over a 12 month period. [5]

Paragraph 5: efforts at halting deforestation have begun on both government and societal fronts. [6]

Paragraph 6: Sympathizing to the economic desires of the locals, Eliot Marshall covers the impact in this article of overfishing of just one species: the tambaqui. This fish thrives during the flooding season as it feeds off of the nuts from rubber trees- another at risk organism- but is desired among locals due to its fruity taste and has become victim to being raised in captivity to supply the demand. Deforestation has pushed back and reduced the area inhabited by these unique fish and 1995, the year this article was published, was one of the worst years on record for forest area loss. If the locals that hunt this fish continue to overfish them and then destroy their habitats then eventually there will be no more of this species that is unique to the rainforest. Sadly, people of the area are not phased by his words due to the high demand of this savory fish and continue this trend despite his knowledge and research in this field. [7]

Paragraph 7: It can be hard for some people to allow an outsider to come and make assumptions about their way of life; a San Francisco man writing articles about environmental happenings of the Amazon rainforest can be a tough sell to get across. Frederic Golden’s newspaper article of new policies from Brazil praises them for their piggybacking off of the United State’s technology to further analyze and understand the trends of their own rainforest and now they have begun to produce their own means of sending 4 satellites into space to monitor the vast rainforest. The annual loss of the rainforest around this time was some of the worst it has been and it only got worse, Golden’s analysis of the new steps taken by the Brazilians commends them on how, compared to previous governments, they have taken the approach that can help them save their natural resources and forests instead of exploiting them for quick economic gain. [8]

Conclusion: Why deforestation was at such alarming rates pre-2000 and how policy has changed this negative trend.

[1] Mooney, C. (2016, Feb 27). Finding the crucial carbon sink; rather than cuts to fossil fuels, future of earth may hinge on saving the amazon’s rainforests. The Vancouver Sun Retrieved from

[2] The Vancouver Sun, Feb 27, 2016

[3] Rucker, Richard. Insatiable Appetite: the US and the Ecological Degradation of the Tropical World. University of California Press. Accessed July 13, 2017.

[4] Dijck, Pitou Van. The Impact of the IIRSA Road Infrastructure Programme on Amazonia. Taylor and Francis. Accessed July 13, 2017.

[5]Hecht, Susanna B., and Cockburn, Alexander. 2014. The Fate of the Forest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pages 142-179. Accessed July 5, 2017.

[6] Nepstad, Daniel, David McGrath, Claudia Stickler, and Et Al. “Slowing Amazon Deforestation through Public Policy and Interventions in Beef and Soy Supply Chains.” Science. June 6, 2014. Accessed July 13, 2017.

[7] Marshall, Eliot. “Homely Fish Draws Attention to Amazon Deforestation.” February 10, 1995. Accessed July 13, 2017.

[8] Golden, Frederic. “A Catbird’s Seat on Amazon Destruction.” American Association for the Advancement of Science. October 13, 1989. Accessed July 13, 2017.

Search terms: Deforestation, Amazon, Brazil, South America, Industr*


RA #3

Download PDF

Sample RA #2

Title: The Origins of Irelands ‘Terrorism’ against the Great Britain

In 2016 Security officials in Ireland searched the woodlands in rural south Devon for bombs or weapons that may have been smuggled from arms stores in Ulster. The officials worked on stopping Irish terrorists from staging or performing attacks against Britain or Northern Ireland, and they believed a current serving member of the Royal Marines was a part of it. [2] The man was arrested for questioning and holding at the end of August of 2016 hoping they were able to bring an end to yet another terrorist attack. Ireland especially the northern part of the country has experienced terrorist attacks or suspicious ones since the early 1900’s, but luckily officials have always been able to protect it. In the middle of 2016 they yet again stopped another attack when bombs and assault rifles along with ammunition were found in the county of Antrim. After arresting Ciaran Maxwell, police made the statement that the days “arrest was planned and intelligence-led as part of an investigation into Northern Ireland-related terrorism being led by SO15 [Met’s counter-terrorism command] in collaboration with Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) and the south west counter-terrorism intelligence unit.” [1] The threat to British mainland by Irish terrorism is being raised substantially and officers continually race to end the staged attacks. Threats from dissident republican terrorism are becoming increasingly potent and they are getting increasingly more potent with every staged attack against Britain and the Northern part of Ireland. When Britain took its force onto Ireland chocking all the peace and unity, what were the reactions from the country that caused Ireland to put terrorism upon Britain to this day?


Early Thesis: The British government came into Ireland antagonizing the North and South parts of Ireland, and one of the main reasons was the Government Ireland Act of 1920. The two sides split with their differences and became not so fond of the British country, and the IRA brought their anger onto Britain by starting the terrorist attacks and showing what fear is to the people, it was revenge and a way of saying to stay out of other countries’ business.


Paragraph #3: Irelands relationship to the imperial power of Britain, and its own ‘Victorian’ era, and how there was stability between the north and south of Ireland and they were united with Britain. [3]


Paragraph #4: Assessing what happened to Ireland after the First World War and its changed connection with the British Empire along with what Northern Ireland faces as consequences after splitting up from the Southern part of Ireland. [4]


Paragraph #5: Explain the political, economic, and social developments in Ireland for north and south after the treaty around 1920. Also explain the troubles and tensions that led to the violence after the civil peace and rising prosperity. [5]


Paragraph #6: Discuss the Irish nation and if it is bordered by religion, ethnicity, language, or civic commitment. The history and todays connection between Britain, U.S., and Ireland. [6]


Paragraph #7: Prior to being elected President Bill Clinton made an announcement that “Senator Gore and I share the same goal of all Irish Americans for peace in Northern Ireland,” [7] and yet ten years before this quote was said it was believed by Ireland that no U.S. President supported Irish independence. President Clinton believed it to be important that he involves himself in trying to appease both Northern Ireland and Britain, but there is fear because there is memory of when Britain believed it to be right for them to include themselves in Ireland and try to help them that really created a conflict. The relationship that the U.S. had with Ireland may not have been affected but the one had with Britain was punctured until their President Blair had made ties with Clinton and he promised them he was interested in what Britain wants to do for Ireland. This provides some clarity as to what happened when other countries got involved such as the U.S. and how those relationships were affected. It seemed however as if a repay moment for when Britain supported the U.S. when they went into Iraq and now if the U.S. ever hopes to continue that connection they must support Britain for going into Ireland and trying to add their advice and force to the government. During the twentieth century the relationship between the two countries became stronger as they ‘bonded’ one could say over how to control Ireland; this did after time affect the relationship in turn between U.S. and Ireland.


Paragraph #8(Most likely going to put this between paragraph 4 and 5): After 1921 when Ireland is beginning to strengthen in its Independence, its relationship with Britain begins to crumble. Irish people would move to Britain to only be treated as aliens and not as welcomed guests, but this was more of the people’s actions than the government’s treatment as this time. Not that the government did not care about the treatment of its people and the emigration but that there was a war going on at the time and that was of the main concern which being that it was, just let the problem get worse because there was no one to control it or watch over it. Perhaps this could serve as a warning to the future of the countries to keep a close eye on its people and continue to grow relationships instead of letting them crumble because once this is done its people may be in danger such as Britain’s people with the terrorist attacks from Ireland. It all begins somewhere and when others do not welcome emigrants very kindly problems begin to arise and with the government distracted it strengthens.






[1] Vikram Dodd and Jamie Grierson, “Royal Marine arrested over suspected Northern Ireland terror plot,” The Guardian, August 25, 2016, (accessed June 30, 2015).

[2] The Guardian, August 25, 2016.

[3] Hilary Larkin, A History of Ireland, 1800–1922 (Anthem Press, 2001), PP

[4] Thomas Hennessey, Dividing Ireland (Taylor and Francis, 2014), PP

[5] T.G. Fraser, Ireland in Conflict 1922-1998 (Taylor and Francis, 2005), PP

[6] Hugh F. Kearney, Ireland, Contested Ideas of Nationalism and History (NYU Press, 2001), PP

[7] Karen McElrath, Unsafe Haven, (Pluto Press, 2000) 12-103.

[8] Enda Delaney and Frank Neal, Demography, state and society: Irish migration to Britain, 1921-1971, (Labour, 2002) 327-329.









Search Terms: (Ireland AND Terrorism), AND Britain, AND terror*, OR politics, OR counter-terrorism, OR histor*, OR Northern Ireland, OR United Nations, OR United Kingdom, OR attacks, OR IRA.

Digital History 3- The Rise of Radical Islam by U.S. Cold War Policies

Download PDF

The Rise of Radical Islam by U.S. Cold War Policies

On January 27, 2017, President Trump introduced a travel ban that included seven majority-Muslim countries. The move sparked outrage and was labeled a “Muslim Ban” by many. Recently, the Supreme court ruled to uphold an altered version of the ban. Previously, those who even held valid visas in any of the banned countries were not permitted to enter the U.S., and with the Supreme Court revision, they can. However, new visa applicants residing in any of the banned countries will not be permitted entry for 90 days if they cannot prove they have a “bona fide relationship” with close relatives or a business in the United States.” [1] This also applies to Syrian refugees who will be banned for 120 days if they cannot prove the relationship exists, excluding those  refugees “already vetted and approved for travel through July 6.”[2] Additionally, Iraq is no longer a banned country. With this ban in mind, how has U.S. intervention economically and militarily in the Middle East during the Cold War era affected the rise of radical Islam? Specifically, how has the United States’ oil/gas obtainment efforts and the strategic positioning of troops/bases contributed to the rise?

Early thesis: The United States’ international expansion efforts in the Middle East during the Cold War era, with regards to obtaining natural resources and a strategic advantage, is partly responsible for the rise of radical Islam.

A journal titled “Revisionists, Oil and Cold War Democracy” by Justus D. Doenecke broadly but accurately depicts America’s aggressive scavenger hunt for oil and other natural resources in the Middle East during the cold war era. The Iranian journal aims to inform college students taking Iranian studies on America’s middle eastern oil politics, and with the journal being written in 1970, it’s contemporary relevance and Doenecke’s credibility as a professor likely caused it to have a lasting impact. Doenecke asserts that “Petroleum has historically played a larger part in the external relations of the United States than any other commodity,” and that “…America was indeed insisting that Anglo and Soviet pipelines, constructed with her lend-lease aid, be made available to her own companies after the war.” Here we can see that America apparently forcefully inserted itself into the Middle East, and Doenecke includes the keyword “insisting” to suggest that America was met with opposition in this regard. Doenecke’s points support my claim that America’s efforts to obtain oil and natural resources in this period contributed to the rise in radical Islam due to the fact that America’s aggressive and frankly invasive approach gave radical Islamicists at the time a recruiting tool of sorts.

Moving on, professor Paul Thomas Chamberlin wrote to University of Kentucky students about America in his journal “America’s Great Game: The CIA’s Secret Arabists and the Shaping of the Modern Middle East, Nixon, Kissinger, and the Shah: The United States and Iran in the Cold War,” saying “…they ended up replicating much of the British imperial experience in the Middle East.” With this quote, Chamberlin is referring to the enormous increase in U.S. military presence in the Middle East during the Cold War era, and America’s new image as the “colonizer” which resulted in radical Islamicists yet again using that to run on a sort of rebellion campaign. Just like Doenecke, Chamberlin’s authoritative position as a professor establishes some common ground between him and the United States government in the scenario he wrote about.

Paragraph #5: Acknowledging the statement that Islamic terrorists targeting America was “inevitable” while discussing how America’s cold war activities accelerated the process.

[1] Bangkok, “United States: Travel Ban, First On, Then Off, Is Back – But It’s Different.” Asia News Monitor, July 3, 2017, (accessed July 30, 2017).

[2] Asia News Monitor, July 3, 2017.

[3] Rashid Khalidi, Sowing Crisis (Boston: Beacon Press, 2009), 308.

[4] Roby C. Barrett, Greater Middle East and the Cold War (New York City: I.B. Tauris, 2014), 521.

[5] Jeffrey James Byrne, “The Middle Eastern Cold War: Unique Dynamics in a Questionable Regional Framework,” Cambridge University Press, Volume 43, Issue 2 (May, 2011): 2

[6] Vassilas K. Fouskas, Zones of Conflict (London: Pluto Press, 2003), 184.

[7] Justus D. Doenecke, “Revisionists, Oil and Cold War Democracy,” Iranian Studies Volume 3, Issue 1 (Winter 1970): 10.

[8] Paul Thomas Chamberlin, “America’s Great Game: The CIA’s Secret Arabists and the Shaping of the Modern Middle East, Nixon, Kissinger, and the Shah: The United States and Iran in the Cold War,” Cold War History Volume 15, Issue 4 (November, 2015): 3.

Search terms: travel*, ban*, Muslim*, cold*, war*, America*, middle, east*, milita*, oil*


Research Assignment #3

Download PDF


Governmental Instability, Drugs and Violence Lead to the Immigration “Crisis”


There is a renewed call to stem the tide of illegal immigration from Central America. Many people in the country, largely led by the current administration, blame illegal immigration for a number of problems in the United States. Illegal immigration is said to be responsible for an increase in crime, a drain on governmental resources, and the loss of jobs that should go to citizens. As a real and symbolic gesture to the governments’ desire to rid the country of illegals, and prevent others from coming, a wall running along the U.S. and Mexico border, towering thirty feet high has been proposed. Despite the negative rhetoric and the tendency to blame immigrants for the cause of America’s ills, immigrants continue to make their way to the U.S. Why are conditions so bad in these countries that immigrants continue to come to the United States despite the admitted and obvious dangers? The violence can be traced, in part, to the United State’s long record of interfering in the affairs of Latin American countries and the long standing exploitation and profit made off the backs of Latin American citizens. The U.S. established brutal dictatorships in both Guatemala and El Salvador in the 1950’s. The extreme inequality in both countries economies, and the lack of the possibility of political dissent, led to guerilla movements in both places in the 1960’s. The result was civil war and violence. [1] In a 2014 Wall Street Journal article, Mary Anastasia O’Grady suggested that we consider the imperial role of the United States in fomenting the immigration “crisis” of today. O’Grady argues that the United States’ appetite for drugs is a cause of the violence that made life unbearable in much of Latin America. [1] It is estimated that the homicide rate in Honduras is 90 per 100,000, and 40 per 100,000 in Guatemala. [2] As the United State’s immigration policy becomes more strident and immigrants are deported and turned away at the border many questions arise. How did the U.S. contribute to the governmental instabilities and drug culture that contributed to the current immigration “crisis”?


Early thesis: The U.S. contributed to the current immigration “crisis” by causing destabilization in Latin America’s political system by supporting dictatorships, leading the guerilla movements and civil war, which gave rise to the drug trade spurred on by U.S. demand.


Paragraph 3: Colonel Castillo Armas was an unlikely Guatemalan leader given his shameful exile. According to Paul Kennedy writing for the New York Times on July 4, 1954, “Exactly two years ago from the day he landed in Bogota, Columbia, a political refugee with a price on his head, he came back to the capital of his country here and received a thunderous welcome.” Propped up and supported by the U.S. government Armas referred to the works of the previous regime led by president Jacobo Arbenz as “the farce that has been taking place here.” Continuing the tradition of violence common in Guatemala Armas’ military government immediately executed enemies of the state that included prior Communist leaders and supporters. Backed by the U.S. government Armas marched into the country accompanied by U.S. Ambassador John E. Peurifoy. But the violence did not end as the military junta eliminated Communist enemies by firing squad and other lethal methods. Armas was a leader that was welcomed with open arms by Guatemalans who, through the support of the U.S. in the United Nations, was the symbolic and actual end of communism with hope of brining stability, wealth and relief to a weary people.


Paragraph 4: It would be difficult to exaggerate the misery of the mainly-Indian peasants and urban poor of Guatemala who made up three quarters of the population. By the early 1960’s income inequality had taken hold in the country and a few hundred families possessed almost all the arable land, public health services were virtually non-existence, thousands of families were without work, jammed together in communities of cardboard and tin houses with no running water or electricity. Against this backdrop the guerrilla movement was organized writes New York Times Norman Gall in 1971. The guerillas were organizing peasant support in the countryside, attacking and army outpost to gather arms, staging a kidnapping or bank robbery to raise money, while trying to avoid clashes with the Guatemalan military. Recruitment of the peasants was slow and difficult because people were simply struggling to stay alive much less able to muster the courage to fight back. The guerillas were factious groups with no real ideology except for the desire for a more equitable society and nationalist pride.  The American military mission stationed in Guatemala viewed the movement as a “communist threat” and took steps to eradicate it by establishing a base designed for counter insurgency training. To encourage the peasants to abandon the guerrilla movement the U.S. provided some benefits like built wells, distributed medicines, and provided school lunches. However, no real reform was undertaken by the U.S. leading to increased insecurity and instability.


Paragraph 5: analysis of the development of the drug trade leading to further instability, inequality and violence


Paragraph 6: description of the consequences of violence and the citizens’ attempts to flee from it.


[1] Haussamen, Heath. We Must Treat Central American Immigrants Humanly. Las Cruces Sun News; Las Cruces N.M. July 14, 2014. (accessed June 30, 2017).


[2] O’Grady, Mary Anastasia. What Really Drove the Children North? Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. July 21, 2014, http://ntserver1.wsulibs.wsu.wdu:2090/sfx_local?url_ver=Z39.88 (accessed June 30, 2017).



[3] Paul P. Kennedy, Special to the New York Times. (1954, July 04). “Guatemala Gives Leader of Revolt Rousing Welcome.” New York Times (1923-Current File).



[4] Norman Gall, Special to the New York Times. (1971, March 28). “Guerrilla Movements in Latin America.” New Yopk Times (1923-Current file).


Howard, David, Hume Mo, Oslender Ulrich. Violence, Fear, and Development in Latin America: A Critical Overview. Development in Practice, Vol. 17, No.6 (Nov., 2007) pp. 713-724.



[5] Henry Giniger. Special to The New,York Times. 1966. “GUATEMALA FEARS REVIVED VIOLENCE.” New York Times (1923-Current File), Jan 17, 1.


Godsell, Geoffrey. 1980. “Central America Caught in Wave of Violence.” The Christian Science Monitor, Aug 18.


Gootenberg, Paul. Cocaine’s Long March North, 1900-2010. Latin American Politics and Society, Vol 54, No.1 (Spring 2012),


[6] “11 in Family Slain in Guatemala.” 1980.New York Times (1923-Current File), Nov 18, 1.


O’Grady, Mary Anastasia. What Really Drove the Children North? Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. July 21, 2014, http://ntserver1.wsulibs.wsu.wdu:2090/sfx_local?url_ver=Z39.88 (accessed June 30, 2017).



McPherson, Alan L. “Intimate Ties, Bitter Struggles: the United States and Latin America since 1945.” Washington, D.C.: Potomac Books, 2006. Print. pp.


Search words; “banana wars”, Latin America, United States, immigra*, foreign policy, US intervention.

The Cruel North Korean Dictatorship

Download PDF

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, aka DPRK, aka North Korea, is located in east Asia on the northern half of the Korean peninsula. It is a country some refer to as a “Hermit Kingdom”, based upon its attempts at self sufficiency, communist totalitarian government, and the lengths its regime goes to in order to shut in its people and block-out outside influences. Today North Korea and its estimated 24.9 million in population is lead by Kim Jong-Un, a totalitarian dictator with nominal communist tendencies. The way in which Kim Jong-Un, aka The Supreme Leader, governs his people is so cruel that words, written and/or said, can not even come close to clarifying the daily realities of suffering for a majority of the current North Korean population. For many years now the North Korean government has systematically starved, tortured, brutalized, and brainwashed its citizens into utter submission and it does not take kindly to any sort of resistance from anyone under its rule. The North Korean people have little to no access to medical care, electricity, nutritional foods, and if the North Korean Regime even suspects the slightest infringements of insubordination by any of its citizens, they can be easily found guilty and sentenced to many years of forced labor in their labor camps, (which have been compared to the Holocaust camps), or even publicly executed [1]. This regime has a general disgust for any democracy and humanitarian ideologies and does not back down to any global factions, including the U.N. (United Nations Committee.) In 2014 the U.N. made a declaration of trying the North Korean regime with crimes against humanity, but with the global balances afraid of exasperating an already difficult line between peace and war, nothing has yet come of these declarations [2]. With the way things are sitting right now in east Asia begs the question, how did the balance of power end up this way for North Korea? And how did the cold war contribute to North Korea’s increasing international isolation and totalitarianism?

(Thesis Statement– Not yet complete, but definitely coming into perspective.)

[1.] Paragraph entertains basic-modern day hearsay-hook of North Korea’s oppressive state of being.

[2.] Paragraph is a historical tour of the pre-Stalin Korea that was once governed by the Choson Dynasty which was built on Confucian philosophy. – Also gives a little build into the Japenese/ Soviet/ Stalin influence which gripped the whole Korean peninsula.

[3.] Paragraph delivers transformations of Stalin-Soviet-Kim Il song’s grasps of power and the makings of the North Korean territory as a result.

[4.] Paragraph looks to historical evidence to the begin and end of the Korean War and how it’s results evolved the border between North Korea and South Korea.

[Paragraph 4. – Two Historical primary sources where both paragraphs become one big paragraph.]

The Korean War, which officially was announced/commenced on June 25th 1950, was stated to the American public in such a manner, ” The Soviet puppets in North Korea have set the match to the powder train.” With this metaphorical match being lit acknowledges the transgressions on the 38th parallel, (which is the global latitude line that separates North from South Korea,) which was established originally by American forces to push out the surrendering Japanese forces that once held military occupation in the Korea’s. Now being the front line distinction between the North and South Korea’s (38th parallel) the North Korean soviet-red army supplied, allied, force begins a power move over the the newly created front-line into the democracy of South Korea (ROK). With this clear action of war the United States frantically gathers an immediate meeting with the United Nations to contend to the soviet military action upon South Korea. With the absence of Russia to the United Nations gatherings on the subject, the U.N. disapproves of soviet engagements past the 38th parallel and the Korean War begins [4]. As U.S. president Harry S. Truman proclaimed the Korean War thirty-seven months in the previous, so president Dwight D. Eisenhower proclaims its end with the signing of the Armistice Treaty on July 27th, 1953. With the signing of the Armistice treaty by all nations involved with the Korean War conflict brings about a peaceful cease-fire and an end to the brutal and futile battle between the soviet-socialized factions of the northern part of Korea and the U.S./U.N. democratize- backed part of southern Korea. Though the war has ended on the fighting front which was once called (the 38th parallel), which has since been reinstated and renamed to, the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), president Eisenhower on a public broadcasting on radio and on television warns that the war on a political and diplomatic scale is far from over. Eisenhower reassures the U.S industrial defense-complex and its government labor-equipment funded markets, that it will not be lessened or going away anytime soon as the Korean conflict is still a problem in non-war engagement and that the U.S. and the United Nations needs to be cautious and vigilant towards its potential soviet aggressors [5]. With the Cold War already in effect the stakes between soviet based aggression’s and the U.S./U.N. declarations against it, things in North Korea on the political/economic scale begin to weigh in, and heavy lies the crown.

[5.] Paragraph analyzes the 3 evolutionary stages of North Korean communist politics and how those systems created the failing progressions to the North Korean regime we see today.

[6.] Paragraph lists and entertains the social systems that North Korean citizens must take to support modern DPRK family/social life as well as its country strength all in part to the strict regiments created out of Kim Il song’s Juche policy.

[7.] The conclusions to this analysis on The Cruel North Korean Dictatorship.

(Such proclamations towards the above are still in thought-rigor and may be/are subject to change with the folding’s and approval of current sources and the incorporation’s of newly awesome sources, which have yet to be found and will possibly be used. – All is still subject to change, but in good works for the time being.)


[1].    Park, Yeonmi, and Thor Halvossen. “Focus on the Suffering of North Koreans.” The Wall Street Journal Asia; Hong Kong, 10 May 2017. Web. 30 June 2017. <>.

[2]. “Focus on the Suffering of North Koreans” Published by: The Wall Street Journal Asia; Hong Kong Date Published: 10 May, 2017.

[3]. Cumings, Bruce. Korea’s Place In The Sun: Updated Edition. New York: W.W. Norton, 2005. Print.

[4]. WAR IN KOREA.” New York Times, 26 June 1950. Web. <>.

[5]. Sass, Fred J. “PRESIDENT IS HAPPY: But Warns in Broadcast That Global Peace Is Yet to Be Achieved EISENHOWER URGES U.S. STAY ON GUARD.” New York Times, 27 July 1953. Web. <>.

[6]. Cumings, Bruce. North Korea: Another Country. New York: W.W. Norton, 2004. Print.

[7]. Lipyong, Kim J. Communist Politics in North Korea. New York: Praeger, 1975. Print.\

[8].  Lankov, Andrei. The Real North Korea “Life and Politics in the Failed Stalinist Utopia”. New York: Oxford UP, 2013. Print.

[9].Hunter, Helen-Louise. Kim Il-song’s North Korea. Westport, CT and London: Praeger, 1999. Print.

[10]. French, Paul. North Korea: The Paranoid Peninsula – A Modern History. London and New York: Zed, 2007. Print.

[11]. Burns, John F. “The Kim Dynasty’s North Korea: A Nation Centered On One Family.” New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast), 09 July 1985. Web. <>.

( All sources are subject to change as more are to be found and previous sources become discarded and/or implemented in a more in-depth focus for this analysis completion.)


Search Words: North Korea* / Atrocities* / History* / Kim Dynasty*/ Korean War* / Armistice Treaty* /

Great Depression Impact British India

Download PDF
The 1929 great depression had severe impacts on British India. The British India government
adopted a protective policy trade, which caused a great damage to Indian economy even if it was
beneficial to United Kingdom. Throughout the period of 1929-1937, imports and exports fell
extremely crippling seaborne international trade. What lesson can the 21st century generation
learn from the 1929 great depression and what does it reveal about our future?
Although the overall standpoint of India’s frugality seemed to be heavily jeopardized by the self
centered rule of the British whose prime focus was on strengthening London’s financial
stability  British India momentously soared economically in the years leading up to the war, i.e.
the late 1930s. This was primarily due to an aggravated and laboriously fuelled focus on
improving the anti-imperialist-designated manufacturing sector, which then created a setoff for
post-war industrial leverage. Trade balancing was during the Great Depression a question of
incentive between the British Raj and British India owing to the unprecedented overturns that
happened in the trade market advantage for both dynasties. Initially, trade stability had stagnated
in favor of the British Raj in the earlier years during the Depression, but British India regained
trade in their favor in the latter years (1936/37 and beyond).
India, being the at the helm of nations that suffered badly as a result of Great Depression, the fall
in price commodity was a bit higher as compared to importations from the United Kingdom.
Farmers had shifted in large numbers from food crops farming to cash crops farming in order to
meet the high demand of mills in United Kingdom [2]. They were now crippled since they were
not able to sell their commodities in India as a result of high prices. Nevertheless, they could not
also export products to United Kingdom since the nation had already adopted a protective policy,
which prohibited Indian imports.
There was deficiency of money all over India, which caused widespread poverty. This was
caused by cash crops such as wheat and rice, which they cultivated, could not be used for private
consumption [1]. Since there were limited exports and little sale of indigenous manufacturers,
their products accumulated and cash flow was restricted. Great depression also had an impact on
the Indian government policies, which resulted to widespread protest in the entire country. As the
struggle of the nation deepened, the Indian government approved a number of nationalists’
economic demands such as establishing a central bank. Consequently, Reserve Bank of India Act
was passed and in 1935, the central bank of India came into being. Business in India was a
hyperbole of segregation there was an uncoordinated and far-dispersed strategy of doing
business and promoting commerce in India. Perhaps the most implicative proof was on the
period of creation of an organizational body that protected commercial and industrial activities
it was only established in 1929, upon realization of the effects of the increasing economic
instability due to the Great Depression.
A conference convened by member countries of the British Empire earmarked the worsening of
the economic status of India, especially targeting the Indian entrepreneurs and commercialists. In
the meeting, named the Imperial Economic Conference, it was passed that an admittance would
be sanctioned to have some of the commodities shipped from Britain admitted into Indian
borders free of duty, staking between 7.5 and 10% more duty evasion for Britain than for India.
The conference, held in Ottawa, spurred hope for most Indians as it was expected that the more
pressing matter of discussion, which was about the currency policy would make the main
agenda, but this was not even mentioned, let alone addressed [3]. Knight points out that the 1932
Ottawa conference brewed strong discontent, prompting businessmen in British India to turn to
Congress for financial equity owing to the lacking “point of pressure” with the Indian
The fall in income in British India did not necessarily occur because of a fall in production or
total output, but it was mainly because of the looming fall in commodity prices. For agricultural
crops produced in India, the price dropped from approximately Rs. 1021 crores in the 1928-29
periods, to a lowly Rs. 474 crores circa 1933-34 this induced a worrisome burden of debts at
the regional and national levels. It had been reported that the debt of the agriculturalist in India
was Rs. 900 crores in the year 1929 this was according to the Royal Commission on
Agriculture. This debt increased by about 50p.c. over the next two years [4]. The scourge of
currency depression was banished about 4 years later in 1938 leading up to the end of the
Depression in 1939.
The financial policy posed by the British on the Indian economy was another of the British
beneficial tools aimed at disadvantaging the Indian economy at the gains of the British Empire.
This policy was created to give the British currency some edge over the Indian Rupee through a
high exchange rate. Rothermund holds that this policy agreement had already been created even
before the great depression at a time when the Indian Rupee was confined to the gold standard in
which case it had a fixed exchange rate at any level (660) [5]. The most definitive move by the
Indian government was to contract its currency from Rs. 185 crore to around Rs. 148 in 1931
(661) [5]. The effects of the dwindling currency were perceived countrywide and the economic
stability of the country during this time was at jeopardy. The efforts of activists such as
Jawaharlal Nehru were denied fruition as the British frontier was very strong and rigid.
Simmons posits that one of the aftermaths of the Great depression especially in the third world
nations was economic slowdown. In India, particularly, there was an imminent collapse in the
levels of occurrence of effective “growthmanship” i.e. the lack of proper strategizing needed to
effect a raise in the per capita income and product as a lead towards sustainable and consistent
economic development (589) [6]. According to Simmons, there is, indeed, evidence of economic
deteriorations occurring in the pre-independence era (including the Great Depression) and the
period amidst war, and these were in the form of a drop in product exports as well as adversities
associated to trade movements (590). The scourge of dropping commodity prices in the late 20s
and early 30s was associated to the discourse of despotism, as was highlighted by other scholars
such as Sir Arthur Lewis and John Latham. Simmons reasserts that the effects of economic
dissension in India led to the impactful pushing of the several financial policies as well as
preambles meant to wage revolt politics in India Quit India notwithstanding (589).
In the proceedings from the Ottawa Conference in 1932, Indian government held that even
though the country (India) was prepared to welcome any plans that would lead to sustainable
development, India was not prepared to embrace any tariff impositions from the British Empire.
Speaking at the conference on behalf of India’s governance was Sir Padamji P. Ginwala,
previously president of the Indian Tariff Board. The conference had been attended by select
members of the tariff board of India, alongside other representatives from the four countries to
have been discussed in the conference that were under the British rule. The previous year, it was
written that the national government of India had abandoned the Free Trade Agreement, but that
in this conference, it was passed that India had agreed to get into a Trade Agreement with the
UK in August of 1932 [7]. The author of this paper was an economic in national matters in India
and at the forefront for addressing sustainable economic development in British India. The
underlying assumption here was that there had not been adversities in the agricultural sector in
India at the time of signature of the said agreement. The adversity of the Great Depression
intensified greatly, such that by 1933, over one third of the mills in Bombay alone had been
rendered defunct, a situation that prompted farmers to strike a contract with Lancashire, it was
dabbed the Lees-Mody Pact. Inasmuch as the beneficial nature of this pact was split between
India and the British Raj in the latter’s favor, regions like Ahmadabad failed to approve of the
pact on the basis of its fascistic nature. No substantial gains were realized by British India upon
signature of this pact, as the British had no particular interests in the Indian business.
In August of 1942, a statement was published in the New York Times as released by the
government of India and forwarded to the All-India Congress Working Committee in April of
1942. This was one of two “Quit India” resolution drafts that had been brought forward with the
intent of garnering approval from the committee. Quit India was a resolution first enacted in
August 8 of 1942 as a call for the immediate termination of the British rule on India for the sake
of the nation’s prosperity, and for the allowance of successful United Nations endeavors. In the
draft, the working committee disdains the emperorship of the British while bringing forward the
point that it was not at war with Japan as it had been apparent in the years leading up to 1942. It
was also a sympathetic request to the British to let go of India’s government, and an appeal to the
Japanese government to brush off the impression that they were at war with India. The context of
the text was a peace entreaty extended to the Japanese government by India, and also an appeal
to the British Empire to abandon all its efforts on governing India [8]. The reviewed draft was
written by Mohandas K. Gandhi, insurgency frontrunner and leader of the Indian Independence
Movement, a nonconformist group created to rebel against the British rule. He was known to be
aggressive in rebellion of the British rule and up to this day, he remains a historical figure for his
efforts. The source operates on the assumption that the expanse and severity of the British rule in
India had subsided enough for India to be in a position to contest for its rights as a country.
Knight extrapolates two lessons that can be deduced from the Great Depression in India first is
the outcomes of the British rule on India in the wake of the Great Depression. Indian governance
functioned under the idea that it was the British rule that amplified the effect of the Great
Depression, hence anti movements, including the Quit India resolution. Although the effect of
the Great Depression could not have been directly felt in India were it not for British existence,
the economic gamut of British India could not have performed much either. Second, the price
that British Empire had to pay ahead of the looming Second World War was indispensable.
Knight ascertains that the British Army, as at 1938, “was unfit to take the field against land or air
forces equipped with up-to-date weapons” The resort was to grant retraining to its army and
expand its army size as was recommended by the Chatfield Committee in the year 1939 [9].
End Notes
[1] Trader, “Black Thursday: Stock market crash causes chaos and panic in 1929,” New York
Daily News, October 23, 2015,
[2] Trader, October, 2015.
[3] Manikumar, K. A. A Colonial Economy in the Great Depression, Madras (1929-
1937).(Orient Blackswan, 2003), pp. 163
[4] Singh, Kanti. The great depression and agrarian economy: a study of an underdeveloped
region of India. (Mittal Publications, 1987), pp. 32
1930s.” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 41 (1980): 657-669
[6]Simmons, Colin. “The great depression and Indian industry: Changing interpretations and
changing perceptions.” Modern Asian Studies 21, no. 3 (1987): 585-623.
[7] Ginwala, Padamji P. “India and the Ottawa Conference.” Journal of the Royal Society of Arts81, no. 4175 (1932): 41-58.
[9] Knight, Lionel. Britain in India, 18581947. Anthem Press, 2012.

RA#3. Humans, Agriculture, and Environment: The fuel for an ever-changing landscape in Brazil. H.White-Matlock

Download PDF


Title: Humans, Agriculture, and Environment:

The fuel for an ever-changing landscape in Brazil.


Humans are the social underpinning of change upon the environment. The landscape will change depending on the many human focused agendas, according to our values, and beliefs. “On the social plane, technological progress is closely interconnected with the common problems of the society.” [1] Land use changes are relative to human consumption including agriculture, resource use, development, profit, and politics. Humans have historically fueled changing landscapes. Was the institution of monoculture agricultural practices a major contribution to an ever-changing environmental and social landscape in Brazil?

Paragraph 2: Information on the country of Brazil. Why Brazil’s geographic location, ecosystem, and ecological habitat are important. [3]

Paragraph 3: Historical data on human interaction with the ecosystem of indigenous tribes, colonial, and neo-colonial/capitalist land use. How native cultures’ land use differed from colonial rule land use, and also neo-colonial/capitalist land use. [4]


This artifact is a map of Brazil possibly in the year 1902, labeling imperialistic colonial railroads throughout the country from coastal ports to the interior country, including the Amazon rainforest. Native Brazilians did not build these railroads; they were built by the colonial rulers in order to siphon Brazil’s rich resources into the pockets of the colonists. The natives did not have the infrastructure or education of the colonial powers. They instead relied on local resources to produce and trade local goods and services. This railroad system was an intrusion on the natives by way of being stripped of their land and labor. This map is historical evidence of early deforestation by imperialists for mining, timber, and agricultural use. The natives didn’t have sovereignty to their land anymore; they didn’t even own the map.

Paragraph 4: Colonial rule and environmental degradation. How colonial powers devastated the environmental and social landscape using intensive invasive methods. [5]

The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations was founded in 1945. The FAO conducts global forest resource assessments through country reports done by National Correspondents, on forested points of interest around the globe. Their first report commenced in 1946 and published in 1948. This is the year that Norris Dodd, the Director-General provided a statement of conservation regarding tropical forestlands in South America including Brazil. His idea of conservation included the possibility of the abundance form agricultural means in on this tropical fertile land in the form of deforestation. He cited that from the harvest of these lands that, “a comprehensive and unified program of conservation designed to replace scarcity with abundance” and that this land, “may provide a continuing flow of products to satisfy human wants”. [7] This statement of conservation was cited from the introduction of a section titled Unsustainable Yield: American Foresters and Tropical Resources from a book entitled Insatiable Appetite. The era was colonial and the idea was based on imperialism turned neo-colonial/capitalism. This type of ideology and practice may very well also explain the ideology and practice of racism and slavery under the themed agenda of entitlement and superiority, affecting not only the environmental landscape, by the social landscape as well. This report was one of European land grabbing for resource use.

Paragraph 5: Capitalism and agriculture expansion. Land clearing, deforestation, cash crop, mono-crop agriculture practices, bio-fuels, conservation, and the current state of the Brazilian landscape. How Neo-colonial/capitalist cash crop ventures caused deforestation of Earth’s most important ecosystem. [6]


[1] Author Unknown, “Influence of humans on environment”, The Assam Tribune June 05, 2013, (accessed July 1, 2017)

[2] Assam Tribune Assam, June 5, 2013

[3] Meade, Teresa A. A Brief History of Brazil. 2nd ed. New York: Facts On File, 2010.

[4] McNeill, J. R., Stewart Mauldin, Erin, and Mauldin, Erin Stewart, eds. Companion to Global Environmental History. Somerset: Wiley, 2012. Accessed July 5, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central.

[5] Rogers, Thomas D. The Deepest Wounds : A Labor and Environmental History of Sugar in Northeast Brazil. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2010.

[6] Moraes, Mello, and Toppa. “Protected Areas and Agricultural Expansion: Biodiversity Conservation versus Economic Growth in the Southeast of Brazil.” Journal of Environmental Management 188 (2017): 73-84.

[7] Norris Dodd, Introduction to Unsustainable Yield: American Foresters and Tropical Timber Resources; or Insatiable Appetite The United States and the Ecological Degradation of the Tropical World, by Richard P. Tucker. Berkeley, California; London: University of California Press, 2000.

[8] S.l. Lith: do Imperial Instituto Artistico, “Brazil Provincial Railroads”. 1902? via Accessed July 11, 2017.

Women in the sporting world: A long-lasting fight for worth that isn’t over yet

Download PDF

The 2012 Olympics in London were the first to showcase women in every sport and the first time that every nation involved sent women to compete [1], but modern female athletes still face some of the same inequalities they have been facing for several years. The first modern Games in Athens in 1896 did not include female athletes at all, as founder Pierre de Coubertin felt the inclusion of women would be “impractical, uninteresting, unaesthetic and incorrect” [2]. Still in the 21st century there have been arguments against allowing female athletes to compete, with women’s pole vault not added to the Summer Olympics until 2000 and ski jumping only being added to the Winter Olympics program in 2014 [3]. Women’s boxing was also excluded from the Summer Games until 2012, and even with the addition of the sport the boxers had to fight to not have to wear skirts during their competitions [4]. A Swiss doctor in the 1950s advised the International Olympic Committee against these and other sports for women – and the antiquated claims against women’s abilities was still being upheld by the International Ski Foundation as recently as 2005 [5]. Even as the athletic women of the world gain international competition rights with several national teams signing their first full-time female athletes, male athletes are still significantly ahead where it counts – as of 2016, women’s sport still only receives about 5% of media coverage and less than 1% of corporate sponsorship money [6].

Primary question: What challenges have women in sport faced and/or overcome across history? How has access and support of women’s sports changed in modern times?

Preliminary geographic focus: UK/Europe

Paragraph 2: Earliest female athletes during the Han Dynasty in China and continued into the Chinese Middle Ages (AD 25 and on) – including Mongol woman Aiyaruk, the daughter of a King, who was extremely strong in combat and used this in her search for a suitor in the 1200s AD [7]. Exclusion of women from ancient Greek Olympic Games but availability and recognition of other competitions [8].

Paragraph 3: Development of female sport/exercise coinciding with the advancement of education for women in the UK [9]. Overall general acceptance of public female sporting events in the late 19th/early 20th century [10]

Paragraph 4: Ideals for the Modern Olympics including the exclusion of women by founder Pierre de Coubertin [11]. Women competing in modern Olympics through non-IOC inclusion [12]. U.S. female swimmers set a 400-meter relay record at the 1920 Olympics, and the women also won all springboard diving events (Newspaper, unknown author but informative article tone) [13] Development of the Women’s Olympics (aka the Women’s World Games), held every two years. 77 women competed in the first competition in Paris in 1922 which included several track and field events (Newspaper, unknown author but informative article tone) [14]. Addition of women’s sports to the 1928 Olympic Games, decided on by the International Amateur Athletic Federation Congress [15]. Vote in 1929 for women to not compete in 1932 Olympics, proposed by Miss Ethel Perrin, chairman of the executive committee and staff associate of the American Child Health Association. The argument was because of the specialization required, opportunity for exploitation of the athletes, and the setting and breaking of records taking away from “play for play’s sake” [16]. The plan was to instead have women compete in separate and “less strenuous” competition alongside the Games [17].

Paragraph 5: Modern issues facing female athletes: sex/gender testing at the Olympics [18], the struggle for resources even after the establishment of professional/national leagues [19], outdated science restricting participation [20], Title IX inequalities [21]. But also successes in professional leagues and representation [22], and appreciation of women’s sports and women athletes [23].

[1] “Sporting chance; In dress, sponsorship and travel, gender equality still eludes Olympic women,” Calgary Herald, August 1, 2016, (Accessed July 1, 2017).

[2] Calgary Herald, August 1, 2016.

[3] Anna Kessel, “’We’ve come a long way but the job isn’t finished’: In its 30 years the Women’s Sport and Fitness Foundation has fought many battles but, as its founders and luminaries recall, progress has never been easy,” The Guardian, October 25, 2014, (Accessed July 1, 2017).

[4] Calgary Herald, August 1, 2016.

[5] The Guardian, October 25, 2014.

[6] Susan Egelstaff, “Equality in sport still work in progress,” Sunday Herald, October 2, 2016, (Accessed July 1, 2017).

[7] Robin Jones and James Riordan, Sport and Physical Education in China (London: E & FN Spon, 1999), 34-42.

[8] David C. Young, “Women and Greek Athletics,” in A Brief History of the Olympic Games (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004), 113-21.

[9] Jennifer Hargreaves, Sporting Females: Critical Issues in the History and Sociology of Women’s Sport (London: Routledge, 1994), pp.

[10] Hargreaves, Sporting Females, pp.

[11] Lincoln Allison, “The ideals of the founding father,” in Watching the Olympics: Politics, Power and Representation, ed. John Sugden and Alan Tomlinson (London and New York: Routledge, 2012), 18-35.

[12] Hargreaves, Sporting Females, pp.

[13] “U.S. Swimmers Set New Olympic Mark: Women Also Break Record,” New York Times, August 30, 1920. Accessed July 13, 2017

[14] “Women Athletes Ready for Pistol,” New York Times, August 20, 1922, 24. Accessed July 13, 2017

[15] “Allow Women in Olympics: International Body Votes to Admit Them as Contestants in 1928,” New York Times, August 7, 1926, 8. Accessed July 15, 2017

[16] “Would Bar Women from the Olympics,” New York Times, January 4, 1929, 24. Accessed July 13, 2017

[17] “Non-Olympic Rule Adopted by Women,” New York Times, January 6, 1929, 191. Accessed July 15, 2017

[18] Jayne Caudwell, “Sex watch: surveying women’s sexed and gendered bodies at the Olympics,” in Watching the Olympics: Politics, Power and Representation, ed. John Sugden and Alan Tomlinson (London and New York: Routledge, 2012), 151-64.

[19] Hargreaves, Sporting Females, pp.

[20] Hargreaves, Sporting Females, pp.

[21] Deborah L. Brake, Getting in the Game: Title IX and the Women’s Sport Revolution (New York: NYU Press, 2010), pp.

[22] Hargreaves, Sporting Females, pp.

[23] Brake, Getting in the Game, pp.

Search terms: (women OR female) AND equal* AND (sport* OR olympic* OR athlet*)

Bombs for Peace: United States Arms Sales in the Middle East.

Download PDF

The United States is the largest arms dealer in the world totaling $40 Billion in weapons in 2015. The biggest buyers are those in the developing nations in and around the Persian Gulf such as Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iraq. The country that leads in both military assertiveness and arms buying has been Saudi Arabia. According to the article in The Guardian, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni States have been on a buying spree seeing a surge from this year of $18 billion in purchases up from $12 billion last year. The article describes the types of weapons that include defensive and offensive systems such as jet fighters, missiles, armored vehicles, drones and helicopters [1]. These record weapons sales come at a time when Gulf States are locked in primarily religious wars against neighboring countries such as Saudi Arabia and Yemen and even more destabilizing is the Syrian conflict that has set Iran and Gulf states against each other. In previous years, the arms were purchased with an intent toward defense and deterrence. It is obvious that Middle Eastern countries are now more than ever willing to use their weapons as a show of force. The article goes on to note that these “interventions” are generally airstrikes whose intended purpose is showing military force over its political rivals and paying no attention to averting humanitarian disaster or considering non-violent conflict-resolution [2]. What lead to the fragility of Gulf States in a post WWII power vacuum? Can a study of historical arms injections into countries locked in regional conflict tell us anything about the harmful effects of further destabilization in the Middle East? What political standard did Cold War era politics play in arms distributions from both the US and Russia in the region? Does US history with Iran and Iraq shed light on a bigger problem in terms of who America backs militarily? Has the sovereignty of Gulf States been so disrupted by Western powers that fundamentalists are the only ones capable of taking power in the region?

Paragraph 2: Analysis of how WWII defined power in the Arab states [3].

Paragraph 3: It may be the Suez Crisis of 1956 that begins to warm Saudi-US relations again but it is the Egyptian UAR attack on Saudi Arabian backed Yemen forces in 1962 that creates the alliance that stands as it is today. The United States interest in the Middle East is based on an economic access to oil in turn keeping oil prices low and deterring Soviet expansion in the region. In a letter written to Egyptian leader Gamal Nasser, John F. Kennedy expresses his support for the Egyptians in the hope that spreading nationalists states, the region would be immune to Soviet communism. He goes on to expect that the Yemen conflict will end with a United Nation resolution and that he is counting on the Egyptians to assure this [4]. Soon, the Saudis begin building up on their border in anticipation of UAR expansion. UAF planes then bomb Saudi bases causing King Saud to appeal for US support. President Kennedy immediately sent war planes to the region as a deterrent. Kennedy is walking a tightrope of foreign policy in assuring allegiances to Israeli security but also seeing a potential in other Arab states as a deterrent of Soviet meddling. It is this era that advanced US weaponry is delivered to Israel and there is a trend towards momentous arms deals to several Arab states.

Paragraph 5: Analysis of Cold War era arms sales[5].

Paragraph 6: On July 25th, 1969 Nixon would deliver the Nixon doctrine, a declaration that, according to Gregg Brazinsk [6], “the United States would assist in the defense and developments of allies and friends”, but would not “undertake all the defense of the free nations of the world.” In summary, each ally nation was in charge of its own security and the United States would act as a nuclear umbrella when requested. Nixon basically meant that we would supply the arms and training to allies that would police the region themselves. The immediate effects of a “supplies not troops” policy is seen in arms sales to Saudi Arabia and Iran. In 1970, the total arms sales  to Saudi Arabia was $30 million and Iran was $160 million  and by 1974 exports to the Saudis had jumped to $340 million and arms exported to Iran was $1 billion dollars[7]. With this doctrine the US takes a less troop heavy roll in conflict and its actions become more diplomatic. The problem is that the localized disputes within the Gulf States see US supply as military backed support. It is the complete US support of Israel and Israeli provocation towards Arab states like Iran that causes such unrest and instability in the region.

Paragraph 7: Details of events that lead to the spread of terrorism after the Iranian revolution and the roles that US backed gulf Allies played [8].

Paragraph 8 / Conclusion. :  Analysis of Gulf Arab arms sales after the Iraqi invasion [9]

[1] P. Beaumont. The $18bn Arms Race Helping to Fuel Middle East Conflict. The Guardian. (2015, Apr 24). (accessed 2017, June 30)

[2] The $18bn Arms Race Helping to Fuel Middle East Conflict. The Guardian. (2015, Apr 24).

[3] Post-Colonial States and Struggle for Identity in Middle East Since World War II. Foreign Policy Institute. (2015, October 23). Retrieved from (accessed July 5th, 2017)

[4] Dan Elasky. The John F. Kennedy National Security Files, 1961-1963. The John F. Kennedy Library. Boston: 1979. (accessed July 14, 2017).

[5] Rashid Khalidi. Sowing Crisis: The Cold War and American Dominance in the Middle East. Chicago: Beacon Press. (2009). (accessed July 5th 2017)

[6] Gregg Brazinsky, Nation Building in South Korea: Koreans, Americans, and the Making of a Democracy. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill: 2009.

[7] Defense Program and Analysis Division. US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers 1970-1979. Washington, D.C.: ACDA Publication 112, March 1982. (accessed July 14th, 2017).

[8] Noam Chomsky. Cold War II. ZNet. (2007, August 27). (accessed July 5th, 2017)

[9] Robin Wright. US Plans New Arms Sales to Gulf Allies. Washington Post. (2007, July 28). (accessed July 5th, 2017)


RA #1/2

Download PDF

Racism towards Afro-Latinos in Latin America

Physical looks play a large roll in today’s society. The author of this article is talking about how her physical looks seem to discredit her ethnicity to others. She is an Afro-Latino. The country of panama has a large population of Afro-Latinos. In the United States however, when people think of Latino, they think of slightly tan people from Mexico. However, Latino identity isn’t defined by skin color says Breana Reeves who is half Panamanian and half black. According to a Pew Research Center survey, “One quarter of the Latinos in the United States identify as Afro-Latino, Afro-Caribbean or of African descent with roots in Latin America”. Reeves goes on to tell us how when she was younger she would tell people that she was Latina and they would laugh and tell her to prove it. She didn’t have much to prove it though and felt out of touch with her Panamanian side because she did not speak the language or know much about her heritage. While in high school she met a fellow afro-latina and learned that she did not need to defend her ethnicity against other Latinas. What events in the past helped develop racism against afro-Latinos among the Spanish speaking countries? How did slavery impact Afro-latino racism and how have they been attempting to fix racial inequality?

In countries like Columbia, the Afro Colombian population is more often a victim of political violence. In other countries of Latin America, access to land is more difficult for descendants of African people. In many of central American countries, judicial and law-enforcement systems provide less protection to blacks, and at the same time, punish them more severely. The black population has a harder time gaining access to education, more likely to fall behind in their studies, fail to make progress, and as a result drop out of school and must attend schools of inferior quality.

Many have seen and would say that the rise of fall of slavery are central and key points of the history of the United States. According to George Reid Andrews, African slaves had a far greater impact in central and south America. More than ten times the number of slaves went to these places than in the united states. Because of this, there are very diverse records about Afro-Latinos and how they became free. Originally colonial society had intended to put “The African Negro” in only one level of society, the slave. However, due to the variety of jobs that needed slaves, this gave the Afro-Latino population a lot of opportunities to rise up in different positions in society. It didn’t start easy, but the Afro-Latino slaves were not silent bystanders who were muted by the oppression they faced. They took every chance they could to be activists for their cause. They began negotiating with their masters and this revealed to us not only the strategies they used but also the issues most important to them such as control over their own bodies, their time, their families, and access to material and spiritual goods.

Racial inequality is among the most serious world problems still to this day. Latin America is certainly not an exception. To outsiders, Latin America seems to overlook racial differences and are more fluid with their racial boundaries, however this is hardly the case and only recently have Latin American countries begun to confront their racial inequalities. Carla Guerrón-Montero says in her article that the most probable reason for this belief of harmonious and fluid relationship between the different races in Latin America is due to Latin American and North American scholars and intellectuals making statements like these and the scholars representing the country more than the common and discriminated people. Another reason people believe that Latin America is more racial fluid is because the authors pointed out their diversity caused by miscegenation, in other words, interbreeding between people of different racial types. What they fail to acknowledge though, is that back when the Spanish and Portuguese had colonies in Latin America, is that a lot of this miscegenation occurred by means of rape, concubinage, and cohabitation. This was common among the colonies.

Despite the constitutional measures against racial discrimination in Latin American countries, there is a large amount of racial inequality in Latin America countries. In addition to that, there were multicultural citizenship reforms that were created to give indigenous people more rights. Although some Afro-Latinos may be indigenous to Latin America, their descendants were not. More than half of the countries in central and southern America employ these reforms. These reforms are considered attempts to fix racial inequality by including racial and ethnic minorities that were previously excluded. Yet despite this, indigenous people still have more success gaining collective rights than Afro-Latinos. Only in countries such as Guatemala, Ecuador, Brazil, and Columbia and a few more are the rights extended to groups such as Afro-Latinos and even so, they were almost never given the same rights as Indians. The only three countries where Afro-Latinos have the exactly the same rights as the rest of the people are Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua.

In 1978 “Folklore of the Black Struggle in Latin America” was published and was written by Paulo de Carvalho Neto. This book is written to all audiences and it sheds light to how the black people in Latin America were disrespected and had no value compared to the white folk but were not afraid to tell them how they felt. The Historical context of this article is during the time period that it is written long after slavery times but tensions were still high and black people wanted their voice to be heard. White people still saw black people as slaves but without a master. The author Paulo de Carvalho Neto was born in September of 1923 and died in 2003. He was a white male born in Brazil. He did not come from a rich family but he was not poor either. He witnessed the everyday struggles of the Afro-Latinos in Brazil. In his writing he references that the oppression and distaste for blacks in his country is a common occurrence in Brazilian culture but it is to be assumed that this is a result of a deeply rooted culture of treating the slaves as animals.

“Research on Black Themes In Spanish American Literature” was published in 1977 and was written by Richard L. Jackson. The Intended audience is all audiences. In this book, Richard shows examples of Afro-Latino Literature and how people in literature responded to it. The historical context is Spanish literature in the 70s by Afro-Latinos. Richard L. Jackson is African American and was born in 1955 and studied Spanish American literature. He can Identify with the people he talks about because he too also experienced discrimination in the field of literature because he was black. Some assumptions to be made about this book are that even though blacks were discriminated in the field of literature, they were still very influential in their writings.


[1] Breanna Reeves, “Latino identity isn’t defined by skin color” ProQuest Newsstand, October 5, 2016, (Accessed June 30, 2017).

[2] Oboler, S. Neither enemies nor friends: latinos, blacks, afro-latinos. S.l.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. (p.40-43)

[3] Andrews, George Reid. Afro-Latin America: Black Lives, 1800-2000. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016. (p.10-14)

[4] Guerrón-Montero, Carla. “Racial Democracy and Nationalism in Panama.” Ethnology45, no. 3 (2006): 209. doi:10.2307/20456595.

[5] Hooker, Juliet. “Indigenous Inclusion/Black Exclusion: Race, Ethnicity and Multicultural Citizenship in Latin America.” Journal of Latin American Studies 37, no. 2 (2005): 285-310. doi:10.1017/s0022216x05009016.

[6] Carvalho-Neto, Paulo De. “Folklore of the Black Struggle in Latin America.” Latin American Perspectives 5, no. 2 (1978): 53-88. doi:10.1177/0094582×7800500205.

[7] Jackson, Richard L. Research reports and notes: research on black themes in Spanish American literature: a bibliographical guide to recent trends. Chapel Hill, North Carolina., 1977.



Search terms: “Racism” AND “Panama” AND “Latinos” AND “Histor*” AND “Central America”